phalangite vs hoplite, phalanx vs maniple

[spqr_arcani]

How's a phalangite different from a hoplite?
This question has been in my mind for the longest time.
Somehow I haven't come across a satisfactory answer in google or wikipedia.

This forum is probably my best shot.

While at it, I'd like to ask a bonus question.
How's a phalanx different from a maniple?
I only know that phalanx is of Greek origin and made up of spear infantry,
while maniple seems to be more of a Roman thing (even though Romans
had the spear-carrying triarii?).

How are the organization/formations different?

[Ibrahim]

phalangite=has a sarissa
hoplite=has a doru
either way there in a phalanx, and the nomenclature is arbitrary.
maniple=that's a bit obvious..
sorry It's 2:13 in the morning-I'm cranky

[Vorian]

Hoplite phalanx: tight formation with big round shields, heavy armour, 2-meter long spear and sword. Fights with interlocked shields.
Macedonian phalanx: tight formation with enormous spears (sarissa), small shiels and short swords. Pretty much useless if broken
Roman maniple: tight formation (less than phalanxes), with big square shields, throws javellins before engaging in close quarters with sword. More flexible.

For more play the damn EB!

[I of the Storm]

For more play the damn EB!

that should do the trick indeed...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[spqr_arcani]

But I have been paying my due diligence to EB! :)

I've been reading different things about maniples and don't
believe everything I read.

In one site it sounded like a maniple is made up of a combination
of Polybian units (hastati + principe + triarii), and is more of a top-level
organization that you as the player have to arrange to have.

But based on what people say here in the forum, it is really based on a
single unit in EB. For example, a hastati unit by itself is in
a maniple formation. It is also described by its tightness and
the weapons/shields it uses. If someone can confirm this, I have no
more further questions. (My problem's that I've read enough things
out there to give me doubts).

[lobf]

Maniple means "handful" IIRC. It was simply an organizational term for the Romans. So you would have a maniple of Hastati, a maniple of Principes, and a maniple of Triarii.

They don't fight in such close order as the Hoplites, carry javelins, and are generally more maneuverable and dynamic.

[Maion Maroneios]

Maniple means "handful" IIRC. It was simply an organizational term for the Romans. So you would have a maniple of Hastati, a maniple of Principes, and a maniple of Triarii.

They don't fight in such close order as the Hoplites, carry javelins, and are generally more maneuverable and dynamic.
Right, like in greek you have a taxis of spearmen, a taxis of archers and so on. As for the differences between hoplites and phalangites, I think they are quite obvious. Phalangitai have a sarissa and small shield to wiled the enormous pike and fight in a tight formation, hoplites have shorter spears but larger shields and fight with interlocked shield in an even tighter formation. Also, phalangites tended to be better trained than hoplites, who where usually just citizen soldiers with minimal military training. As for differneces beteen phalanx and maniple, ok I personally don't think you should have asked...

[Unstableiser]

Hoplites were also more effecive swordsman or at least more flexible in this manner. Their large shield would be used as a battering weapon and the sword could be hidden behind where the opponant would not see the direction of the attack. When the opponant lost footing the hoplite would simply strike them down. it was effective to use the phalanx as the main battle line and scatter hoplite units between and on the flanks where they could act as hinges in the line.

[Maion Maroneios]

Hoplites were also more effecive swordsman or at least more flexible in this manner. Their large shield would be used as a battering weapon and the sword could be hidden behind where the opponant would not see the direction of the attack. When the opponant lost footing the hoplite would simply strike them down. it was effective to use the phalanx as the main battle line and scatter hoplite units between and on the flanks where they could act as hinges in the line.
Actually, hoplites where trained to fight as spearmen and not as swordsmen. Swords where basically only used when the dory (spear) was broken, or when they gave chase to routing units. A phalangite, on the other hand, because of his more extensive training and drills than an average Hellenic hoplite, was better in the usage of his sword.

Also, hoplites tended to wear heavier equipement than phalangites. This made them quite clumsy in battle when fighting as an individual fighter in one-on-one combat. Hoplites where much more effective as a single unit, and that was exactly why the hoplites where created first hand. So having scattered hoplites would not be quite a good idea, just use Thureophoroi/Peltastai or mercenaries for that role.

[satalexton]

or wait till the Vanilla reform for the pikes and poke them to death with your very long sticks =D

[Maion Maroneios]

or wait till the Vanilla reform for the pikes and poke them to death with your very long sticks =D
Good suggestion, but I find that with the KH you can experiment with various army compositions. For example, you can have classical hoplite phalanxes, reformed ''Iphikratean'' armies, pikemen-based armies or imitation legions. The latter is very effective, as I had once created a Thorakitai-based imitation legion with Xystophoroi, Kretikoi, Thureophoroi and some other troops, thus creating an extremely versatile and powerful army.:yes:

[Nachtmeister]

How's a phalanx different from a maniple?
I only know that phalanx is of Greek origin and made up of spear infantry,
while maniple seems to be more of a Roman thing (even though Romans
had the spear-carrying triarii?).

How are the organization/formations different?


In the game, it is not really different.
"Maniple" does not refer to equipment, training or anything of the sort - it is an organizational term,
something like "platoon" if I have the american army organization terms correctly - in german terms, it would be about equivalent to a "Zug", ~50-150 soldiers with some very small tactical sub-units but acting almost "as one" on the battlefield (one full rank officer (lieutenant or higher) in command). The sub-unit below a modern company.
A "phalanx" would probably have usually been made up out of quite many "taxeis" (sp? but anyway, the grammatically correct form of "tax*" should be the greek word for "maniple")...

[ludwag]

hoplites are very flexible, but cant how of a cavalry charge or any other charge as well as the macedonian. The macedonian survive longer if in formation, but the hoplite phalanx can change the formation much easyer and fight from different sidens multiple enemyes. If the macedonian is broken. the short swords they have are made for fighting in very tight battles and only one enemy at the time, becouse they have spears prodtecting them from the back.

If you need to hold a lot of enemyes at the same time you will need the macedonian phalangite. if you need infantry with good defence and more flexible you need the hoplite, and they can also hold a lot of enemyes but they break much easier from the front.

[hoom]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more: Most actual writing from the time period calls both phalangite (sarrissa phalanx) & hoplite (spear + big shield phalanx) formations 'phalanx' and the soldiers 'hoplite' (meaning 'heavy infantry') :dizzy2:

[Maion Maroneios]

Well, the 'phalanx' formation can be used for about any (spear) infantry unit where the soldiers keep a tight, shoulder-to-shoulder formation. As for 'hoplite', it means 'armed soldier' in Greek, the 'hoplon' meaning weapon. It doesn't mean heavy infantry, for that term 'thorakites' would be, I guess, more appropriate. Don't forget that there where lightly equiped hoplites as well.

Maion

[oudysseos]

Lots of misconceptions. Read Lendon and van Wees on this. Also Keegan.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698

'Shoulder to shoulder' and 'interlocked shields' is a bit exaggerated, nor was every man in a formation necessarily engaged at the same time. Individual combats still took place- Aristodemus was remarked for his courageous individual fighting at the battle of Plataea- for which he did not win the prize- but the point is that he could not have been marked out for his manly fighting if he stood shoulder to shoulder with an interlocked shield- you have to get out in front and open up a can of whup ass on them Persians to get noticed.

In fact, the 'interlocking shields' thing seem to be mostly a misinterpretation of Thucydides, who said that soldiers like to stand 'as near as possible' to their mates. This does not necessarily mean that your shields are actually touching, eh? van Wees reckons that a 'classic' hoplite phalanx stood six feet apart, as there is contemporary references to people swinging their shields and spears around, and also to individual fighting styles, something that the 'shoulder to shoulder' business would hinder.

Xenophon mentions that training with the sword and shield was a wise investment of time, which implies that hand to hand combats were common, as you wouldn't need to know fencing if all you did was stand in a very tight formation and push with your shield. He also refers to a 'Thessalian feint' which seem to have been a fake retreat and counter attack, something that you have to have some room around you to do. If there's a man's shoulder touching both of yours, and someone's shield pressed into the small of your back, you can't very well suddenly hop backwards and chop down at your over-extended enemy. There are also references to men falling and getting up again, and wounded or dead men being carried to the rear by others, which implies room between the files of men to do so.

Things are a bit different for the Macedonians, as the pike by its very nature requires more drill, with less scope for individuality. van Wees reckons that they could stand only three feet apart, by far the densest formation at the time. Romans, according to Polybius, stood up to six feet apart and waved their weapons around energetically.

I think that given the (severe) limitations of the game engine, the EB team did a damn good job on the classic hoplites, Iphikratidoi and the Macedonians, each of which show marked differences in spear troops that reflect the historical evidence.

[Nachtmeister]

I think they did a damn good job with just about everything...:2thumbsup:
You seem to know quite something about the warfare of those days, oudysseos.
What has always interested me is this:
How did especially the phalangites avoid getting their sarissa "stuck" in a pronged opponent?
Because, if that would have happened, the phalanx would have hardly been capable of hamstringing
the overwhelming numbers of "immortals" at Gaugamela...
(I am aware that there was more complexity to that battle, but still every phalangite must have killed several Persian infantrymen.)
With such a big pike and in the thick of battle it surely must have been rather difficult to open an enemy's belly but not inserting the whole sarissa head? Or did the heads have a shape favorable for extraction after action + no rib-shots? Were they skilled enough to actually mostly do slashing attacks do the throat, arms or legs with the blades on the tip inspite of the pike being so huge and cumbersome? How did this work?

[Grriffon]

If you play the game and use the 3 different styles of troops in battle, I don't see how that wouldn't give you a great idea of the strengths, weaknesses, and differences in each type.

Phalangites fight in what i personally think of as a "real" phalanx. They use huge spears, and form a wall of sharp pointy things that you don't want to approach from the front no matter what* (unless you are a rhompharoi wielding thracian :laugh4:) they rely on the wall of spear more for defense than they do their small shields-- by far the most "defensive" of the 3 in my opinion at least, these guys can hold a gap in a wall or a gate till the end of time --- that being said, they are also the most inflexible of the 3. you need to remove them from their phalanx formation before they can even run, and while in phalanx they are SUPREMELY vulnerable from the sides and rear. -- great for their role, very inflexible.


hopelites also fight in a phalanx, in the sense that they are a tightly packed spear wielding troop, but they use MUCH smaller spears. they have larger shields which protect them in place of the longer phalangites spears, and are generally much more flexible than phalangites, and while not quite as amazing a gateholder as the phalalangites, they are still primarily a defensive unit. they are not quite as vulnerable to side or rear attacks as phalangites, and can run without changing formation.


maniple, in the sense you mean, i think, is just a tightly packed unit of large rectangular shield carrying and sword wielding troops. by far the most flexible of the 3. they will be less defensive, and more offensive than either of the other 2. they will use javelins prior to charging. they wield swords as their primary weapons. they are less vulnerable to side or rear attacks. the roman legionaire could probably be called the posterboy of classic heavy infantry. i know they are what i think of first when heavy infantry is mentioned.


each one has very specific strengths and weaknesses, and all 3 are great formations for military combat.