Will the Phalanx ever be fixed?

[Tr0tskY]

so one author = typical?

AR Burn
NGL Hammond
W Kendrick Pitchett
M Korfmann
E Kunze
H Henken
FW Walbank

And so many more agree. You must remember that a lot of modern revisionism is heavily heavily cited with multiple sources.

[Sir Pignans]

And so many more agree. You must remember that a lot of modern revisionism is heavily heavily cited with multiple sources.

And lots disagree.

[karamazovmm]

AR Burn
NGL Hammond
W Kendrick Pitchett
M Korfmann
E Kunze
H Henken
FW Walbank

And so many more agree. You must remember that a lot of modern revisionism is heavily heavily cited with multiple sources.

Its not about revisionism its about something at least resembling methodology a lot of studies are useless

So you agree with those guys I with agree with the others, we are quite numerous

[jamreal18]

Look at the phalanx spacing at patch 9...

[Lionheart11]

Look at the phalanx spacing at patch 9...

Is it better?, i have not had the patience to load up Rome 2 again since the patch.

[Lionheartx10]

Is it better?, i have not had the patience to load up Rome 2 again since the patch.

If you are looking for a way to make Pike Phalanx spacing tighter and thus making pikes more effective not allowing troops to wonder through their formation then have a look at this mod:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=195738666

I use this as I wanted a tighter Phalanx formation for my Pike troops.

[jo the greek]

his post is one hoplite phalnax not on pike phalnax

[sobchack]

If you are looking for a way to make Pike Phalanx spacing tighter and thus making pikes more effective not allowing troops to wonder through their formation then have a look at this mod:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=195738666

I use this as I wanted a tighter Phalanx formation for my Pike troops.

Aye, that is the mod I've been using, much more historically authentic. I love your channel by the way

[kujirakira]

Source?

[Sir Pignans]

Source?

Hans Vans Wees proposes a gap between hoplites, as does I believe Christopher Matthew.

[sobchack]

Hans Vans Wees proposes a gap between hoplites, as does I believe Christopher Matthew.

would you mind giving a brief summary of his argument? (ie, what the puropose of the gap is, how large is the gap, and how historical sources are reconciled.)

[Sir Pignans]

would you mind giving a brief summary of his argument?

Books are at university. But from what I can remember:

I believe Hans Van Wees's argument is that due to the way the hoplite had to be positioned (in his opinion), they needed far more room than a closely packed formation would have provided.

Christopher Matthew, from what I remember, offers a more simple reason, hoplites didn't have the level of training to maintain a very closely packed formation.

[sobchack]

Books are at university. But from what I can remember:

I believe Hans Van Wees's argument is that due to the way the hoplite had to be positioned (in his opinion), they needed far more room than a closely packed formation would have provided.

Christopher Matthew, from what I remember, offers a more simple reason, hoplites didn't have the level of training to maintain a very closely packed formation.

do you remember what space they suggested?

[sobchack]

I cant speak to hoplite phalanx during this time but there are many historical inconsistencies with the pike formation in this game imo.

[SX3]

I'll only respond to a few points, because there's been a lot of (expected from mob level posters) non-intellectual garbage in the past few pages.

On the hoplite phalanx, the topic of the main post (not the pike phalanx which for some reason the "me too, i am mad too" crowd decided to bring up), lets remember the complaint of the rabble represented by the OP: the in-game hoplite phalanx is wrong because a "correct" representation should look like :archetypal google image:

1. Friar Chris, as fun as entymology is, it is irrelevant for the discussion. Whether you think something called hoplite must look like 5th century classical hoplite is your opinion, but it is certainly not a standard you can impose without a reasoned argument, just like a lightly armed skirmishing peltast in the 5th century is clearly not a good representation of the Antigonid peltasts in the 3rd century. I happen to believe the generally accepted 5th century hoplite did exist, in the 5th century, but that is outside the scope of the game and doesn't mean it should exist in the 3rd century. See my reasoning for a mobile 3rd century Greek infantryman, and if you can point to any references to hoplites in the period I would appreciate it. Also you spend a lot of words attacking me, and precious little arguing against the substance. So for "standing up to the bully" you sure do try to evade the topic and hilariously claim the OP is not about "correct" representation.

2. Durnaug, yes the Thucydides passage you cited does support a very tight formation in the 5th century. However as I pointed out, this conclusion is not universally accepted in academia. Why you might ask when the passage seems very clear? Thucydides suggests a crowding effect due to cowardice. If the soldiers are very close together (a natural fear response), it is inevitable that shields must overlap. However, to maintain the width of the line and allow individual freedom of motion, crowding should not be assumed to be a desirable outcome or the standard. The aspis shield can offer sufficient protection without the need for the next man to cover the right side. See more recent interpretations I cited. Hans Van Wees gives a good alternative theory for hoplite spacing from artistic representations and modern analogs. What might this "completely wrong and unhistorical" hoplite phalanx look like? http://thehouseofvines.files.wordpre...8/hoplites.jpg

3. OP, it is a bit embarrassing that you insult the age and appearance of one of the foremost historians of Greek History, not the substance of his lecture, and yet you claim to want a correct historical representation. Oh, and the aspis at least generally did not have a notch for the next man's spear and saying so just discredits you further.

4. Sir Pignans, Hans Van Wees indeed makes a very interesting argument. If we are talking about the 5th century I do not actually believe an orthodox formation or stance existed. Remember, with the exception of the Spartans in that period, these are citizen levys with little to no training and self equipped. The commanders may line up his men and tell them not to allow gaps in the line, but much of the behavior seems to have been instinctive (rightward drift of the phalanx for example) and the fighting relied significantly on elan. If you brought a smaller than average shield, you might stand a bit closer to the man next to you. We do know of many instances in which one side or another charged their opposition which, if you believe in a strict orthodoxy where a hoplite is defenseless outside a shield-locking formation, makes no sense. By the 3rd century we see the heavy infantry role of the hoplites being filled by the Macedonian pike phalanx, and the men armed with shorter spears took on a much more flexible role guarding the flanks, supporting cavalry, and fighting in uneven terrain, and it would be reasonable to believe their tactics evolved to allow that.

I do not frankly mind an anachronistic representation for the sake of wanting to recreate 300, that is reasonable for a game, but the OP and his lot never begin their complaints with such a reasonable stance. It always begins: "THE HOPLITE PHALANX IS WRONG" or "THE HOPLITE PHALANX IS UNHISTORICAL" or "WHY CAN'T THEY DO IT RIGHT" until finally when the weight of evidence falls against them, they finally admit "I don't care about the facts, it just isn't how I want it". This same thread has seen 1000 iterations since the original RTW, and it never invites a debate for the merits of allowing anachronistic elements.

For those who attack me and for the forcefulness of my posts, I ask you to look at your own posting and see how many times you celebrate someone like the OP attacking CA or developers for being historically inaccurate (that's why you're in this thread isn't it?) and yet when your ideas of what is "historically accurate" and "correct" are destroyed by facts and reasoned argument you cry about bullying and mean posting. No one is going to show mercy or spare your feelings if you get caught off balance trying to get an extra hit in, in front of a home crowd, without doing the research to back it up. Get use to it. I won't apologize for "knowing more than you", call me a nerd, and i'll call you an idiot.

[Durnaug]

I
2. Durnaug, yes the Thucydides passage you cited does support a very tight formation in the 5th century. However as I pointed out, this conclusion is not universally accepted in academia. Why you might ask when the passage seems very clear? Thucydides suggests a crowding effect due to cowardice. If the soldiers are very close together (a natural fear response), it is inevitable that shields must overlap. However, to maintain the width of the line and allow individual freedom of motion, crowding should not be assumed to be a desirable outcome or the standard. The aspis shield can offer sufficient protection without the need for the next man to cover the right side. See more recent interpretations I cited. Hans Van Wees gives a good alternative theory for hoplite spacing from artistic representations and modern analogs. What might this "completely wrong and unhistorical" hoplite phalanx look like? http://thehouseofvines.files.wordpre...8/hoplites.jpg

That's a great image! I need to read Van Wees. Until then I remain a tad sceptical about that particular interpretation of Thucydides - the translations I've read refer to locked shields at "Mantinea 1" and the great historian seems rather clear that in his day that is the way. On the otherhand, from a gaming or fictional viewpoint at least, it is not implausible that several formations are in use in the classical period. I'm just speculating, of course, but Shepherd adopts this fence sitting posture (ouch) in his Plataea book.

I have heard about the different schools of thought regarding the classical phalanx, e.g. Van Wees vs Schartz. I've skirted around the issue, not really wanting to take one side or the other until I'm ready to dive into all those lovely sources (Hanson, Krentz, Van Wees, Schwartz, Matthews, Kagan's new volume, Bardunias) and the controversy. Saying that I just had to nitpick your assumption that there is no direct evidence for the 5th Century. There is and, honestly, your presentation of Van Wees' seems to suggest he is being slightly ambiguous. But I need to read his works.

I'm still flabbergasted at your robust and intellectual posts. At times too abrasive but you definitely exploded my neural pathways! Lol. Good to be challenged with new ideas.

[Sir Pignans]

SX3, are you arguing for a more open formation phalanx, or are you simply pointing out that there is no historical consensus on the issue?

[SX3]

SX3, are you arguing for a more open formation phalanx, or are you simply pointing out that there is no historical consensus on the issue?

I am satisfied with the formation in game, although that is irrelevant. I don't think the classical hoplite saw much use beyond the 4th century, so any representation for someone armed thus is conjecture, and I would not necessary have a problem with the formation being removed entirely. We don't know much at all about hellenic medium infantry, which is a shame, but I believe the bits we do have can inform us somewhat. For example, the game's light hoplites may have existed since there was a role for it in that particular ecosystem. Vanilla spacing for all troops is a bit wide right now for my taste, but this was the result of unceasing complaints about "blobbing". The original unit_spacing numbers were quite good, 0.9m spacing for infantry, so I use my own mod and share it with friends for multiplayer.

I wish to add that I believe the classic hoplite phalanx is really a socio-economic product of a well off middle class who can afford to arm themselves, not of brilliant innovations like Philip's pike phalanx. We can expect and do see similar heavily armed infantry among the Italian and Phoenician city states. Their tactics, I'd like to assume, were for the most part just the natural evolution of heavily armed infantry, spacing close enough to reduce casualties but wide enough to allow full range of motion, and I disagree with those who claim the hoplite phalanx should be substantively different from other heavy infantry shield walls.

If I can summarize my position it would be opposing to an unnuaced orthodoxy, especially one based on uneducated beliefs and false assumptions for the purpose of obnoxious rabble rousing. You might call them rabid flat-earthers. My bringing up the lack of consensus in the "classic hoplite phalanx formation" is really to show the OP and the similar minded that even if we ignore the anachronistic problem of their historicity argument, their beloved archetype is not even universally accepted for the correct time period by people who actually bothered to do the work.

[Tr0tskY]

I am satisfied with the formation in game, although that is irrelevant. I don't think the classical hoplite saw much use beyond the 4th century, so any representation for someone armed thus is conjecture. We don't know much at all about hellenic medium infantry, which is a shame, but I believe the bits we do have can inform us somewhat. For example, the game's light hoplites may have existed since there was a role for it in that particular ecosystem.

I wish to add that I believe the classic hoplite phalanx is really a socio-economic product of a well off middle class who can afford to arm themselves, not of brilliant innovations like Philip's pike phalanx. We can expect and do see similar soldiers among the Italian and Phoenician city states. Their tactics, I'd like to assume, were for the most part just the natural evolution of heavily armed infantry, and I disagree with those who claim "the hoplite phalanx should not be like every other shield wall".

If I can summarize my position it would be opposing to an unnuaced orthodoxy, especially one based on uneducated beliefs and false assumptions for the purpose of obnoxious rabble rousing. You might call them rabid flat-earthers. My bringing up the lack of consensus in the "classic hoplite phalanx formation" is really to show the OP and the similar minded that even if we ignore the anachronistic problem of their historicity argument, their beloved archetype is not even universally accepted for the correct time period by people who actually bothered to do the work.

Here's my thought process on this.

Firstly, this is a game.
Secondly, we do not have an absolute full picture on what the hoplite phalanx looked like. One can however, safely assume that the discipline, order and formation of the hoplite phalanx varies from state to state. The criticism of Aristodemus as Plataea clearly indicates that charging out of the phalanx, even though incredibly brave, that staying in formation and discipline was of the upmost important to properly trained and disciplined hoplites.

What would this result in? Well, whether this leads to the hoplites taking up specific shield wall or not is conjecture. What we can say is that they would most likely use the tactic most suited to their current needs in surviving combat.
That's all there is to it really. I imagine if marching towards an enemy and under missile fire, some kind of mobile forward marching close-knitted shield wall would be ideal. In combat? Well that is much more difficult because it depends on the discipline of the soldiers, the weapons and capability of the enemy and a multitude of other reasons.
That's all there is to it

I still totally reject the side on fencer-like idea. A metre wide round shield strapped across the forearm and any kind of over-handed stabbing motion is actually quite difficult to do in any kind of tight formation. The body is actually not designed to move in this compact way, try yourself. You will find you have to hold your forearm right out in front of you to get a decent thrust that you also have to twist and step into. Hoplite shields are heavy so holding the shield out ahead of you causes fatigue very rapidly.
Secondly, shield bashing from the fencing position is VERY difficult unless you again step into the movement and right out of the line. It's just less adaptable and more limiting. In fact I can't think of any reason you would EVER go 90 degrees side on when equipped with a shield simply because it limits your safe attack and reach distance hugely unless you step into the attack. It leaves the person far more exposed. The only reason to ever go side on in melee combat is if you have a single weapon and have to use the weapon rather than the shield to keep your enemy at distance.

I imagine the hoplite would have stood fairly head on, with the left leg slight ahead of the right. This allows you to get the shield in tight on the body, supporting most of the weight of the shield, whilst still being able to swivel nicely on the hip to give the overhanded stabbing action.

Ok now to come full circle on this. This is a game. We need variety in units and their capabilities. That keeps the options fresh and gameplay benefits as a result. If there was a type of shield wall formation that differentiated them from other shield wall formations, then we would see a greater variety in tatical options on the battlefield, making the game more fun.

That is why I think we should have hoplite shield walls in Rome 2.

Lastly, I disagree on the hoplite phalanx being an absolute product of the socio-economic classes. Armies before the modern area were practically always made up of the levies making up the rank and file and light skirmisher types and the richer soldiers taking the higher up positions, more important roles, having better equipment and more responsibility in battle.
That's just the way the world has always worked. The hoplite formation itself is interesting in that the richer, more experience soldiers would make the rank of ouragos and enomotarch in battle, leading 3 files of enomotia. The more experienced hoplites in the army resided on the right side of the the phalanx flank. This was purposefully done to make sure the phalanx would not shift right. This is most likely because shifting right got you closer to the man on your right, who was offering you theoretical protection in a hoplite shield wall.

To me the evidence adds up nicely and when you try and go through the physical motions yourself to imagine it working it becomes much more plausible.

[Mangalore]

...

Not sure about your arguments there. An aspis was the average weight of any heavy shield out there. A quick check shows various examples of the Roman scutum assumed to clock in at 20+ pounds used single handedly on a central grip while you see the aspis at only 16 pounds with a forearm contraption and a concave shape that could easily be rested on ones' shoulder. I don't see where or why the aspis would be held forward for longer periods than a scutum though (scutum would be better balanced for the one handed central grip but it was definitely held forward and used very actively in combat). The forearm strap suggests a more defensive usage of the shield so it makes more sense to me it was lead closer to your body. If we consider why the scutum is curved essentially to wrap around the individual soldier it is interesting that in contrast to dark age and auxillary shields (or the thureos) the aspis has a strong curve. It apparently must have been a better shape to protect a larger area of the soldier to do that so some part of the soldier must have fit well into this hollow space the aspis protects. And there a sideways stance becomes better to use that shape than a frontal stance.

The interesting bit would be how much a hoplite would expose himself on the attack, however a forward leap with an underhand thrust would give him a very big range and he was armored essentially from head to the torso so that move wouldn't expose many unarmored parts (that angle would also tuck his throat in very well). I don't propose that's what they only did like idiots, just that given the equipment a hoplite wasn't precisely helpless when found exposed in such an attack. It's essentially the same way how a Roman soldier would open his guard for a thrust with his gladius, the hoplite just did it with a long spear. Heavy infantry wore armor to be able to do that.

That shape is also the main reason a shield locking seems unlikely to me, later shield walls have flat shields that'd interlock easily, the aspis is actually worse than most of the other types of the time to do something like that. The shape lends itself more to an individual soldier protecting himself only.

Maybe I read your idea of a fencing position different than you do. I do not see how it would expose a hoplite when the shield would essentially wall off his entire torso and with an underhand thrust he would gain more than two times the range of someone holding his spear overhand. At closer range the overhand would maybe become more natural but why would the Greeks carry among the longest single handed spears you could find if they didn't use that range?