What's the hardcounter to phalanx?

[Lockpick]

As the title says...

What's the hardcounter for phalanx?
I know they are vulnurable to flanking, but that's the case for every unit, so not a special hardcounter to them. (The same goes for arty.)

So they are strong vs. melee and cav. What else can someone use against them?
Maybe ranged skirmishers running constantly away, but that may only be usefull vs the weaker variants (not much armor).
How do you beat a line of well armored phalanx?
Before you talk about cav and flanking please think beforehand that the enemy may also have cav. I mean that if each other unit is canceled out by the enemy that has the same type of unit.
In case of cav I need more cav than my enemy to use it effective which means I may have less melee or ranged.
To make it short. I and my enemy have 20 unit-armies. He has 2 cav and I have to 2 cav, he has 8 archers and I have 8 archers, he has 10 phalanx and I have 10 X...
If I have to flank or outsmart the enemy in any other way it's not balanced.

So basicly I'm asking what unit can beat a armored phalanxe 1on1 if you don't have the option to flank?
Or is a phalanx a "I-win" unit, forcing the enemy to outsmart me or he will lose...

[Dan113112]

Pin the phalanx from the front and hit them in the rear with cavalry and/or light infantry. Pretty much the same way you defeat a Roman army with a phalanx.

[baldrick13]

buttsecks

[Snizel]

buttsecks

The phalanx formation invites buttsecks. Good thing the Greeks liked it anyway.

[Duncan III]

I don't see why there needs to be a 'hardcounter' to phalanx- it's what you said, missiles and flanking, you can pin them in place with a phalanx of your own. If they are too armoured for archers to be effective then use javelins or pila to soften them up.

[Aruberikku]

If you really don't have the option to flank them, I'd go for horse archers if available. You can keep outrunning the phalanx, heck you probably don't even need horses for that. Combined with fire arrows for more damage and to lower their moral.

Normally though, I would send a unit like hastiti in to engage them head on, and then send in a flanking force of cavalry in the back. Maybe add a unit throwing javelins from the side as well.

[Aymer de Valence]

How did the English defeat the Scottish schiltroms at the Battle of Falkirk? Archers, and so it is with the phalanx. If you can't flank then just throw stuff at them. Angry cats work particularly well

[Cold_Mac]

How did the English defeat the Scottish schiltroms at the Battle of Falkirk? Archers, and so it is with the phalanx. If you can't flank then just throw stuff at them

You need the Phalanx to stand still like Wallace let the shiltroms do.

[Dan113112]

How did the English defeat the Scottish schiltroms at the Battle of Falkirk? Archers, and so it is with the phalanx. If you can't flank then just throw stuff at them

But the schiltroms were stationary most of the time where the phalanx an offensive and defensive weapon. Good against cavalry and infantry. I'm starting to wonder if Philip actually designed the Macedonian phalanx to not only outreach Greek Hoplites but also to defend against Persian cavalry on the open plain.

A few pila to the face, and some hard-case legionaries to hold it in place while you work round to their rear. Historically, they were also drawn onto rough terrain.

Actually this raises a question: will terrain actually disrupt a phalanx, and will we as players be able to take advantage of this??

Another question is will veteran pike units be effected as much by rough terrain compared to levy pike units.

[Mimoxx]

But the schiltroms were stationary most of the time where the phalanx an offensive and defensive weapon. Good against cavalry and infantry. I'm starting to wonder if Philip actually designed the Macedonian phalanx to not only outreach Greek Hoplites but also to defend against Persian cavalry on the open plain.

Another question is will veteran pike units be effected as much by rough terrain compared to levy pike units.

Macedonian phalanx was create to be very strong in front , even agaisnt other phalanx . But this unit need a lot more suport , protect in sides and range fire . This unit moves , manoveur slowly comparing to other phalanx!!! so regular phalanx are more protect v range fire and can adpat easely to rough terrain and change facing!!!

[davieholgate]

How did the English defeat the Scottish schiltroms at the Battle of Falkirk? Archers, and so it is with the phalanx. If you can't flank then just throw stuff at them. Angry cats work particularly well

precisely, and flaming pigs should do some of the work for ya!

[Lavrentivs]

A few pila to the face, and some hard-case legionaries to hold it in place while you work round to their rear. Historically, they were also drawn onto rough terrain.

Actually this raises a question: will terrain actually disrupt a phalanx, and will we as players be able to take advantage of this??

[Larkin]

A healthy dose of cavalry, inserted anally.

A cavalry epidural, if you will.

[Maklodes]

Essentially, your issue is that with armies with similar compositions, you can't bring a superior weapon system to bear against an inferior one, unless you are somehow better at tactics than your opponent.

You have 10 phalanx, 8 archers, and 2 cavalry. Your enemy also has 10 phalanx, 8 archers, and 2 cavalry. You want to have your phalanxes kill his cavalry, have your cavalry run down his archers, have your archers shoot his slow-moving phalanxes while staying out of range, and maybe have your cavalry finish off the phalanx once it becomes disorganized trying to move fast to run after the archers.

Your opponent wants to do the same thing to you, though.

So, in practice, the battle starts with the phalanxes in the middle, the cavalry on the flanks, and the skirmishers out in front. The skirmishers end up fighting each other, then the phalanxes end up fighting each other, and the cavalry ends up fighting each other too.

This is how many battles among the diadochi happened. When armies had similar composition, they can't just "counter" each other. A battle among similar armies in not going to be like Carrhae, where Roman heavy infantry was pretty much incapable of doing anything against Parthian horse archers.

I think it's just the case that if you and your opponent have similarly constituted armies, there's no obvious, easy way to win unless your opponent really messes up.

[alstl]

Essentially, your issue is that with armies with similar compositions, you can't bring a superior weapon system to bear against an inferior one, unless you are somehow better at tactics than your opponent.

You have 10 phalanx, 8 archers, and 2 cavalry. Your enemy also has 10 phalanx, 8 archers, and 2 cavalry. You want to have your phalanxes kill his cavalry, have your cavalry run down his archers, have your archers shoot his slow-moving phalanxes while staying out of range, and maybe have your cavalry finish off the phalanx once it becomes disorganized trying to move fast to run after the archers.

Your opponent wants to do the same thing to you, though.

So, in practice, the battle starts with the phalanxes in the middle, the cavalry on the flanks, and the skirmishers out in front. The skirmishers end up fighting each other, then the phalanxes end up fighting each other, and the cavalry ends up fighting each other too.

This is how many battles among the diadochi happened. When armies had similar composition, they can't just "counter" each other. A battle among similar armies in not going to be like Carrhae, where Roman heavy infantry was pretty much incapable of doing anything against Parthian horse archers.

I think it's just the case that if you and your opponent have similarly constituted armies, there's no obvious, easy way to win unless your opponent really messes up.

I just finished reading about the battle of Pharsalus where Caesar had a similar, but outnumbered, army. He hid some infantry armed with pila or spears behind his cavalry, anticipating the enemy cavalry would attack there. The enemy attacked as anticipated, his cavalry retreated to where his hidden infantry was located, the enemy cavalry routed, his infantry flanked the enemy...game, set, match.

[Maklodes]

I just finished reading about the battle of Pharsalus where Caesar had a similar, but outnumbered, army. He hid some infantry armed with pila or spears behind his cavalry, anticipating the enemy cavalry would attack there. The enemy attacked as anticipated, his cavalry retreated to where his hidden infantry was located, the enemy cavalry routed, his infantry flanked the enemy...game, set, match.

Yes. In that case, Caesar was (at least for that one battle) better at tactics than Pompey.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Harass the phalanx until your skirmishers have spent all of their ammo, then engage the weakened phalanxes with your infantry. Start flanking them with whatever you've got.

[Kinjo]

Mounted skirmisher and mounted archers could do some damage over time especially if they target them from the rear or right flank so they don't get their shield bonus.

[Lockpick]

Thx for the input, but there is still a problem. If I have to pin the phalanxe and than attack it with a second unit the enemy has 1 unit free to do other things.
So If I use my cav to get behind him I can't counter his cav so he can go behind me.
If I use a ranged unit he can use a ranged unit vs my melee troops.
If I use more cav and/or ranged than my enemy his has obviously more melee and I can't pin them all or have to fight multiple units with one of my own melee units.

My problem is, you usually have a stone-paper-scissors-principle. Spear beats horse, horse beats sword, sword beats spear. Ranged can attack everyone at range and is weak in melee.
But phalanx seems to be out of that. Phalanx is strong vs spear, sword and horse. And to ranged it's as vulnurable as any other unit.

Yes, horse archers may be a hard counter, but will they have enough ammo? Since arrows are very weak vs armored the higher tiers may be able to simply sit and wait until ammo runs out.
Not every faction may be able to field phalanx and therfore they need a counter to that kind of unit.

[Maklodes]

Thx for the input, but there is still a problem. If I have to pin the phalanxe and than attack it with a second unit the enemy has 1 unit free to do other things.
So If I use my cav to get behind him I can't counter his cav so he can go behind me.
If I use a ranged unit he can use a ranged unit vs my melee troops.
If I use more cav and/or ranged than my enemy his has obviously more melee and I can't pin them all or have to fight multiple units with one of my own melee units.

My problem is, you usually have a stone-paper-scissors-principle. Spear beats horse, horse beats sword, sword beats spear. Ranged can attack everyone at range and is weak in melee.
But phalanx seems to be out of that. Phalanx is strong vs spear, sword and horse. And to ranged it's as vulnurable as any other unit.

It sort of seems like your question is "how do I beat phalanxes in the sort of battle to which phalanxes are best suited without using any units that are particularly strong against a phalanx's weaknesses?"

If you go with Archer Jones' analysis, heavy infantry (phalanxes, legionaries) are basically strong against heavy cavalry (companions, cataphracts, etc), but weak against light infantry (archers, slingers) and light cavalry (horse archers, javelin cavalry).

You're ruling out anything other than other heavy infantry as a counter to phalanxes. Okay. Let's look at other heavy infantry, and its strengths and weaknesses against the phalanx.

Phalanxes are the most formation-dependent, forward-oriented of the heavy infantry types. Basically, they're extremely strong against anything that's in front of them, while they're on relatively level terrain. They're weak in the woods, when flanked, etc.

Suebi Berserkers are probably at the opposite end -- they don't gain much from formation, other than a continuous line preventing individual soldiers from being flanked, but they excel in one-on-one combat.

Roman Legionaries are probably somewhere in the middle -- not as good individually as Suebi Berserkers, but better one-on-one than Macedonian phalangites. More capable in an orderly formation than Suebi berserkers, but without the concentrated frontal strength of a well-ordered pike phalanx. In the woods, berserkers beat legionaries, and legionaries beat foot companions. On level ground with continuous lines, it's the reverse.

Individualistic <-------Suebi Berserkers-------Roman Legionaries------Macedonian Phalangites-------> Formation-oriented

So, fight phalanxes in the woods? Flank them, and trust that flanking won't be as devastating to your heavy infantry as it is to a phalanx? You've ruled out flanking. I don't know whether you've ruled out exploiting terrain, but I get the feeling you don't like the idea.

To put it another way, if phalanxes aren't strong when they're in frontal melee combat, with an unbroken formation, what are they for?