Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx

**Cybvep** · 03-31-2008, 20:20

The thing that sucks is the fact that in RTW phalanx formation is very poorly represented. It can be very easy to control and has much better maneuvering capabilities than in real life - it's possible to turn 180 degrees in 2 seconds! Also, on RTW engine it's much easier to defend than to attack. You can just sit with phalanx and wait for the enemy - nothing will destroy you. In sieges it's even worse - just block the streets and you are good. If it weren't for terrible pathfinding in RTW cities, nothing would ever have a chance to penetrate it. Of course, there are also other quirks with RTW engine (some of them were nonexistent in MTW1) that contribute to overpowered phalanx, e.g. no severe terrain penalties or oddities of the morale system, but these are engine's limitations in general, so let's say that we can ignore them. Unfortunately, the situation isn't much better in MTW2, but what really sucks is that RTW and MTW2 are our best choices when it comes to battlefield... uch... "simulators"

. Damn, why things like "hitpoints" and plain "damage" are so popular in all those other-than-TW RTS games

.

**Vorian** · 03-31-2008, 20:33

Originally Posted by abou

So then how would you explain the performance of the phalanx at Kynoskephalai, Thermopylai, Magnesia, and Pydna?

Kynoskephalai:

a)Philip is stupid enough to march in a fog
b)The left part of his army had not been organised and when attacked routed immediately. After that the right wing was encircled. Many also ignore the Aetolian allies of the Romans

Thermopylai

a)Surrounded as the Spartans
b)Unsure troops routed when they heard Romans had their flanks
c)Twice as many men for the Romans?

Magnesia

a)Not a strictly phalanxvs Maniple fight since they had elephants and chariots. Antiochus misused the chariots and elephants disorganising his flanks. Grave mistake

Pydna

a)Perseus instead of using the phalanx in Philip's doctrine, he used to attack and repulse the Romans until the ground was to uneven to retain cohesion. If he used cavalry to flank it would be devastating for the already wavering morale of the Romans.
Stupid Perseus didn't even engage with his strong cavalry and fled when the phalanx broke.

Not lucky events. Bad leadership and misuse of the phalanx's military doctrine

**Woreczko** · 03-31-2008, 21:13

And the degradation is use of the legion was more because external changes (social ones as well as other changes in general warfare) then the inherent bad quality of the legion as a fighting force.

Same is very much true for the succesor armies.

**Parallel Pain** · 03-31-2008, 21:13

At Pydna didn't the Romans place elephants as an anti-cavalry screen on one of the flanks?

And for those who did not bother reading the previous posts, pike squares and pike phalanx are different.

And the late legion became a nearly completely different fighting force (smaller groups of lighter troops), but the successor armies kept the phalanx.

**O'ETAIPOS** · 03-31-2008, 23:21

Originally Posted by Vorian

Kynoskephalai:

a)Philip is stupid enough to march in a fog
b)The left part of his army had not been organised and when attacked routed immediately. After that the right wing was encircled. Many also ignore the Aetolian allies of the Romans

ad a) Absolutely not. Seeing that the fog is too dense for marching, he ordered setting camp and sent a lot of men to gather supplies, as he thought it will not clear enough to allow battle.
In the meantime violent clashes erupted between light armed and while macedonians were more or less victorious each time, Philip was forced to deploy for battle with about 1/2 of the army in battle ready condition. Then the weather started clearing, and Flaminus counterattacked Philip's light armed with hastati.

In this campaign luck was swiching sides: at first Flaminus skillfully outmaneouvred Philip near Pharsalos and light armed and cav fought in rough ground unsuitable for both armies. Seeing this Philip marched west to force Romans to break from their ships with supplies. This time he was succesful, and gained from few hours to one day advance. But then fog held him in place in one day distance from perfect battlefield.

One can imagine Zeus sitting on Olympus and and playing with his balance

**Jolt** · 04-01-2008, 17:24

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

Precisely, your argument was very good, I was only building on it. In other words, this debate is not about phalanx against maniple; it's about commander vs commander. And THAT is one whole lot more variable and flexible than the two systems can ever be.

Sorry for the double post... I was replying in two windows. (And don't ask why I had two windows open with the same thread) :\

Ok, then I'll pose a question on an imaginary battle:

Imagine a conflict between Caesar and Alexander. Caesar had the legions plus auxiliaries used in his Gallic Wars (est. roughly 120,000 troops) against the army Alexander had when he began leaving India. (est. roughly 100,000 troops). Imagine that we divide the armies in two and put each halves on two different battles. One is the Battle of Ipsus and the other is Gaugamela. Who do you think that would win each one? Don't forget to take into account besides terrain and the genius of both commanders, the basic thing we debate in this thread: "Type of Warfare"

**cmacq** · 04-01-2008, 17:52

Originally Posted by Jolt

Ok, then I'll pose a question on an imaginary battle: Imagine a conflict between Caesar and Alexander. Don't forget to take into account besides terrain and the genius of both commanders, the basic thing we debate in this thread: "Type of Warfare"

Expect the unexpected; please see Massilia, Dyrrachium, and Pharsalus.