Hoplitai too weak ?

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Hoplitais are in my opinion too weak. They dont have any chance to win against a phalanx, they dont have any chance to win against heavy infantery and normal hoplitais are way more expensiver. Especially the spartan and armored elite one. I know that spears should be weak against sword and shield units but i thougth that hoplitais are effectiv against such melee combat units because of their phalanx formation. :idea2:

[mountaingoat]

not sure , i do know that most if not any AP will eat them up ... not much stands in way of the falx though.


they just seem good for holding the line ...

[Mediteran]

i think they are fine as they are..

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Fine ^^ Is it really fine that the strongest warriors of the ancient era, the spartans, are loosing against a half naked barbarain sword unit.

[Celtic_Punk]

what the hell are you talking about? The hoplites are fine. In fact I find they destroy Phalanxes. :wall:

[Mediteran]

Fine ^^ Is it really fine that the strongest warriors of the ancient era, the spartans, are loosing against a half naked barbarain sword unit.

actually, they were not the strongest in that period. 200 years ago? maybe:yes:


and also, i find they are pretty good in game anyway

[Maion Maroneios]

Hoplitais are in my opinion too weak. They dont have any chance to win against a phalanx, they dont have any chance to win against heavy infantery and normal hoplitais are way more expensiver. Especially the spartan and armored elite one. I know that spears should be weak against sword and shield units but i thougth that hoplitais are effectiv against such melee combat units because of their phalanx formation. :idea2:
1) Phalangites are supposed to beat Hoplitai
2) Hoplitai are way more flexible than phalangites
3) Hoplitai in guard mode are tanks and can withstand a pike phalanx forever
4) Hoplitai are very cost effective
5) Hoplitai have excellent defense and morale
6) They are not made to withstand heavy/elite/AP infantry
7) Spartiatai and Epilektoi are expensive because they are elite hoplites
8) The phalanx formation has a very specific role: Break the enemy through attrition, not kill them fast

Maion

[Celtic_Punk]

You forgot to mention they aren't weak and don't suck.

I've won countless unwinnable battles by planting regular hoplitai in a road and won against countless stacks just because i had 2 units of hoplites. any other unit and I'd have perished. 2 units against a fullstack. that's not weak in my book.

the fact that you can dictate the shape of the frontline because they have so much pushing capability gives you the advantage to pound with cavalry. I've never lost a field battle as long as I'm not outrageously outnumbered (like 3-4 units vs like 10 phalanx and 5 makedonian cavalry) If you close the distance between pike and man you can destroy a phalanx, just make sure your men get to their shields. You need to flank them though. You must always flank! Kill squads are a favourite tactic of mine. Small experienced bands of mercs you bought ages ago make the best killsquads.

[Phalanx300]

2) Hoplitai are way more flexible than phalangites


I'm personally not so sure of that, when looking at how both Phalanxes work, 8 men applying pushing power against 5 holding them off by just holding onto their spears. It would just be a matter of time before pushing power prevails.

And it always took some special tactic or help to defeat Hoplites, alone I'm not sure they would be able to manage. And the Hoplites fighting under Persia managed to seriously treaten the Phalangites forcing Alexander to charge in.

In short, pushing power vs wooden shafts? I'd give it to the pushing power in the long run.








And I think that Hoplites are indeed to weak as well, not in defensive power but in offensive power, they weren't a static block, they were an offensive block. The Hoplite Phalanx just can't be good enough represented to show its offensive abilities, luckilly in EB2 we will have the Shield Wall automaticly for Hoplites.(Or so a team member once said)

[option]

Yeah, I don't know why you think hoplites should be able to beat phalangites. If that was possible, the Macedonians never would've won Charonea, let alone defeat the Persians.

[antisocialmunky]

Hoplites did stop the phalanx that Issus due to bad terrain.

The main issue in EB is that the hoplite phalanx has no ability to attack in formation, only defend(where its awesome unless AP shows up).

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Thanks for the numerous informations. So when i fight with Hoplitais i have to switch to guard mode and let them stay.

One of you mentioned that Hoplitais are was more flexible than phalangitais, but thats a bit crappy, phalangitais were way more flexible because hoplitais formation was only a long slow unflexible line. Phalangitais formation was divided in many smaller squares.


actually, they were not the strongest in that period. 200 years ago? maybe:yes:


and also, i find they are pretty good in game anyway

I know but this is Sparta.

[Apázlinemjó]

Thanks for the numerous informations. So when i fight with Hoplitais i have to switch to guard mode and let them stay.

One of you mentioned that Hoplitais are was more flexible than phalangitais, but thats a bit crappy, phalangitais were way more flexible because hoplitais formation was only a long slow unflexible line. Phalangitais formation was divided in many smaller squares.



I know but this is Sparta.

Spartan Hoplites weren't that special.

[Mediteran]

I know but this is Sparta.

ah, how i wish the movie 300 didnt come out:laugh4:

[Fluvius Camillus]

Theban Sacred band is stronger than those Spartan weaklings anyway....:laugh4:

I find hoplites excellent in killing generals, a few cheap hoplitai hapoloi are good enough to bring down Somatophylakes Strategou..

~Fluvius

[Watchman]

The hoplites make for good heavy spearmen with a decent cost-efficiency ratio. Which is as it should be. When you really get down to it they were nothing more and nothing less than a local version of the pretty much universal "shieldwall" principle, and TBH their track record against many other patterns of period "shock" infantry isn't actually even very good.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

ah, how i wish the movie 300 didnt come out:laugh4:

lol I dont like the movie 300 by the way. I know that Spartans werent that special but i think they are simply to expensive and i love the sentence "THIS IS SPARTA".

[Macilrille]

Now Flav B, understand please that this is no slight or insult to you. But...

How many times every month does some noob show up saying that this and that unit is too strong/too weak/unrealistic/whatever without knowing tha system and having much experience in it, and its balance?

When you have been here for a while, which I hope you will be, you will understand what I mean.

That said, welcome to the EB Forum, a wonderful world of historical and EB nerdness :-)

[Knight of Heaven]

1) Phalangites are supposed to beat Hoplitai
2) Hoplitai are way more flexible than phalangites
3) Hoplitai in guard mode are tanks and can withstand a pike phalanx forever
4) Hoplitai are very cost effective
5) Hoplitai have excellent defense and morale
6) They are not made to withstand heavy/elite/AP infantry
7) Spartiatai and Epilektoi are expensive because they are elite hoplites
8) The phalanx formation has a very specific role: Break the enemy through attrition, not kill them fast

Maion

They are just very good for what they supose to do, in my KH campaing i beat makedonia and èpirus , parcialy only with those haploi, they are very good against any cav, even bodyguard. of course they are levies, but i got some experienced units, mainly my army was composed by generals archers and slingers and hoplitai haploi, and i beat phalanx, is easy actualy just hold the line with the generals and flank then with haploi. Offcourse when i get the chance to recruit hoplitais, i did, and indeed they are tanks if you got at least 4, 5,6 of those you got your self a line who could hold everything. i love those guys actualy, cost efective an very reliable, even against archers.

Hoplitais are in my opinion too weak. They dont have any chance to win against a phalanx, they dont have any chance to win against heavy infantery and normal hoplitais are way more expensiver. Especially the spartan and armored elite one. I know that spears should be weak against sword and shield units but i thougth that hoplitais are effectiv against such melee combat units because of their phalanx formation.

Spartans where special indeed as well their society, very simillar and very diferent in manny ways,compared to other greek societies. And at this time(eb time frame) they were in decline, their empire and their power over the other city states was long gone, still i think Eb is very historical in that issue, spartans at that time were very kowned, and had a great reputation. And if you use spartans in EB after a while they get experience, then they will become exelent units.

If you want to have ivencible spartans then i sugest to play SPQR mod, you ill get spartans who never rout,and fight to the death they are a pain in the asse, in battle you have to kill then all to win.Offcourse the mod is made for a roman campaing not greek one.

[Apázlinemjó]

They are just very good for what they supose to do, in my KH campaing i beat makedonia and èpirus , parcialy only with those haploi, they are very good against any cav, even bodyguard. of course they are levies, but i got some experienced units, mainly my army was composed by generals archers and slingers and hoplitai haploi, and i beat phalanx, is easy actualy just hold the line with the generals and flank then with haploi. Offcourse when i get the chance to recruit hoplitais, i did, and indeed they are tanks if you got at least 4, 5,6 of those you got your self a line who could hold everything. i love those guys actualy, cost efective an very reliable, even against archers.

Spartans where special indeed as well their society, very simillar and very diferent in manny ways,compared to other greek societies. And at this time(eb time frame) they were in decline, their empire and their power over the other city states was long gone, still i think Eb is very historical in that issue, spartans at that time were very kowned, and had a great reputation. And if you use spartans in EB after a while they get experience, then they will become exelent units.

If you want to have ivencible spartans then i sugest to play SPQR mod, you ill get spartans who never rout,and fight to the death they are a pain in the asse, in battle you have to kill then all to win.Offcourse the mod is made for a roman campaing not greek one.

Except AP units. :yes:

[Xurr]

I'm personally not so sure of that, when looking at how both Phalanxes work, 8 men applying pushing power against 5 holding them off by just holding onto their spears. It would just be a matter of time before pushing power prevails.

And it always took some special tactic or help to defeat Hoplites, alone I'm not sure they would be able to manage. And the Hoplites fighting under Persia managed to seriously treaten the Phalangites forcing Alexander to charge in.

In short, pushing power vs wooden shafts? I'd give it to the pushing power in the long run.




And I think that Hoplites are indeed to weak as well, not in defensive power but in offensive power, they weren't a static block, they were an offensive block. The Hoplite Phalanx just can't be good enough represented to show its offensive abilities, luckilly in EB2 we will have the Shield Wall automaticly for Hoplites.(Or so a team member once said)



I play using bi.exe and shield wall is the bomb for breaking up Phalangites, they'll push right through a phalanx making it easy pickings for any other infantry.

[Watchman]

The mercs fighting for the Persians got around to mauling pike phalanxes the exact same way as everyone else - they went for the flanks. It was the exact same issue of sub-units becoming "disjointed" from each other in rough terrain or simply due to different rates of advance as the Romans exploited, leaving exposed gaps into which the hoplites (or legionaries, or whoever) could readily bite into.

[Maion Maroneios]

People who say Spartans were lame are plain dumb. Unless it was meant as a joke, of course.

And I meant more flexible as mobile units. In reality, the typical formation for a hoplite-based army would be a single row of 8 men deep pushing the enemy back.

Maion

[Mikhail Mengsk]

One of you mentioned that Hoplitais are was more flexible than phalangitais, but thats a bit crappy, phalangitais were way more flexible because hoplitais formation was only a long slow unflexible line. Phalangitais formation was divided in many smaller squares..

What?!? :book:

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Now Flav B, understand please that this is no slight or insult to you. But...

How many times every month does some noob show up saying that this and that unit is too strong/too weak/unrealistic/whatever without knowing tha system and having much experience in it, and its balance?

When you have been here for a while, which I hope you will be, you will understand what I mean.

That said, welcome to the EB Forum, a wonderful world of historical and EB nerdness :-)

I understand you but quite sure that im not a noob, even on Eb which i didnt play for a long time yet. But i already had several Mp battles, and there Hoplitais were completly useless. Hoplitais couldnt face Phalangits, or other infantery units with sword, axe etc. And even against cavalry they werent really effectiv. Yes in a longer melee but if you play against a human who charges and retreats and so on, then hoplitais were useless. In my opinion they should be at least cheaper, especially the spartan and the armored elite hoplitai.

But i dont know how it is in campaign, i hardly every played it yet but i will try it. ;)

Edit.:

@Mikhail Mengsk

My english isnt the best but what i wanted to say was that in real Phalangits were way more flexible than normal hoplitai, and anybody asserted the opposite of this which is totaly false. :)

Here a picture. The reason why the hoplitai formation was so inflexible is that the whole formation was a long line, if this line breaks on one part, the whole battle was almost lost. The macedonian phalanx was quite flexible because they phalangits where subdivided in many squares. But after the dead of alexander the phalangits got more armor and they formed back to more like a line like the classical hoplitais which made them almost as unflexible.

https://img229.imageshack.us/img229/344/showcasesyntagmaphalanx.jpg

[Maion Maroneios]

I think your problem is that you believe you should use your Hoplitai offensively, which is obviously wrong. I have played quite a few battles on-line, and many times it was my trustworthy Hoplitai that held out long enough for me to hammer the enemy line.

Maion

[A Very Super Market]

Besides, you're using examples form outside EB's timeframe.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Actually i simply tried to act like in the real. And in real hoplitais used brutal shoving match warfare. So they should be offensive warriors but i will try to use them defensivly. A problem is that KH doesnt have any other really good units than hoplitai.

[Watchman]

That was centuries ago when they were mainly fighting each other. Them newfangled pike phalanxes, as it happens, were a *lot* better at the "frontal pushing match" business...

Adapt or perish.

[Knight of Heaven]

Well in MP is a little diferent, still if you use them well they do very good. Against a human player who charges and retreats with cavalry, specialy the hetarioi even in some cases the phalangites has trouble..so is not the hoplitai fault.
The hoplitai is far more mobile then the phalangites didnt understand what you mean with square blocks. anyway any unit in eb is more mobile then phalangites including the hoplitai. hum im not counting balistas and siege off course :P

[ARCHIPPOS]

OK...
some interesting oppinions...
1)In a head-on phallangites-vs-hoplites collision phalangites prevailed piking hoplites at greater range bc of their longer spears ...
2)However if hoplites managed to hit the pike phallanx from the flanks, things turned more interesting...the reason being that once hoplites get really close with their spears and swords ,pikes became useless... also phallangites were not highly manouvareuble troops...in the time needed for them to redeploy facing the enemy,lower their pikes and form the pike wall they would be stabbed and cut in droves...

the idea of hoplites AND phallangites though is that they should be used as TIME-BUYERS... they hold the enemy pinned for a while ,so you can manouveur and outflank your opponent...

[Watchman]

AFAIK it was actually quite impossible for a block of phalangites to "change facing" to bring their pikes to bear against an enemy gnawing at the flank - ie. they had to drop pikes and pull sidearms to defend themselves, or get killed with impunity. And their backup gear and training wasn't quite the best around for regular hand-to-hand fighting...

[Satyros]

1) Phalangites are supposed to beat Hoplitai
2) Hoplitai are way more flexible than phalangites
3) Hoplitai in guard mode are tanks and can withstand a pike phalanx forever
4) Hoplitai are very cost effective
5) Hoplitai have excellent defense and morale
6) They are not made to withstand heavy/elite/AP infantry
7) Spartiatai and Epilektoi are expensive because they are elite hoplites
8) The phalanx formation has a very specific role: Break the enemy through attrition, not kill them fast

Maion

Friend ,

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ? i beleive that this is supposed to be their main offensive capability and we don't get to see much of it in EB . (Just a statement , *not* nagging about it as I understand that the team does its best within certain engine limitations )

This can't be achieved with the guard button .

They are quite good as an anvil tactics-wise , only I believe that this should be a part of their possible tactical role in a battle , the other being the push/break formations effect . I hate seeing my hoplites being pushed around .

Otherwise all above statements are true .

Satyros

[ARCHIPPOS]

AFAIK it was actually quite impossible for a block of phalangites to "change facing" to bring their pikes to bear against an enemy gnawing at the flank - ie. they had to drop pikes and pull sidearms to defend themselves, or get killed with impunity. And their backup gear and training wasn't quite the best around for regular hand-to-hand fighting...

good point... so once the hoplites made contact from the flanks Phallangites where done for... which i suppose made securing the flanks with some decent hoplites/thyreoforoi/thorakitai ever the more important...

[Watchman]

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ?Hoplite-type troops have an uncommonly high soldier mass score for their weight of arms to represent their pushing tactics.


good point... so once the hoplites made contact from the flanks Phallangites where done for... which i suppose made securing the flanks with some decent hoplites/thyreoforoi/thorakitai ever the more important... Well not really "done for", but certainly disadvantaged and in trouble. AFAIK it's been theorised Pyrrhus experimented with putting more mobile types of infantry (thureophoroi-types and assorted Italian allies such as Samnites) between the phalanx sub-units as a way of dealing with the "disjointing" issue; in effect, accepting the existence of the problem and trying to counter it from the get go.

[Maion Maroneios]

Friend ,

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ? i beleive that this is supposed to be their main offensive capability and we don't get to see much of it in EB . (Just a statement , *not* nagging about it as I understand that the team does its best within certain engine limitations )

This can't be achieved with the guard button .

They are quite good as an anvil tactics-wise , only I believe that this should be a part of their possible tactical role in a battle , the other being the push/break formations effect . I hate seeing my hoplites being pushed around .

Otherwise all above statements are true .

Satyros

Indeed, the "pushing" effect cannot be achieved with EB's "pseudoshieldwall". The real shieldwall now, that gives the desired effect but comes with other disadvatages and bonuses that were not taken in mind by the EB team, thus overpowering units with the shieldwall. At least that is what many members say, I personally make use of both shieldwall and guard mode depending on the situation (I play on BI executable).

Maion

[Mediteran]

Friend ,

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ? i beleive that this is supposed to be their main offensive capability and we don't get to see much of it in EB .

Satyros

i dont see how they could push a phalanx? except from the flanks or rear, but thats not the issue here

[Satyros]

No no not a phalanx .

Other formations I had in mind .

I have agreed that hoplites should lose to a phalanx .

Satyros

[Watchman]

From what I gather hoplite phalanxes didn't do all that well against the Celtic approach to offensive infantry combat, you know...
The Romans could probably tell you a bit about that.

[Satyros]

Well , my point isn't exactly that the hoplite phalanx should beat any and all infantry formations just that we don't get to see them push much as already mentioned earlier .

If enveloped , they would be cut down I suppose , since they would have to use shortswords against ferocious longsword wielding Celts .

Satyros

[Maion Maroneios]

Indeed, but not man-to-man. It was rather against the flexibility of offensive infantry combat that they lost to, I believe. When a hoplite formation with some serious amount of body armour gets surrounded, their armour becomes a deathtrap. Same happaned during the battle of Cannae, were the Romaioi were promptly surrounded and butchered by the thousands. Closely packed heavy infantry formations, especially disciplined ones, had the tendency to be very vulrenable when outflanked and surrounded.

Maion

[Watchman]

*shrug* As mentioned, their soldier-mass values are relatively high plus then there's the "push effect" of the light_spear weapon attribute. I'd also remind you that AFAIK back during the Persian Wars the hoplites in practice had to "push" into the Persian infantry arrays by the crude expedient of killing their way through...

The "pushing match" of hoplite clashes came really more from the same reason as in all shieldwall clashes - the relative difficulty of meaningfully hurting foemen protected by overlapping shields. Ergo it became rather important to try to distrupt their mutually supporting formation by physically forcing it apart, something easiest and safest accomplished by putting the weight of several ranks behind the front-rankers shields and pushing...

[Satyros]

Indeed, the "pushing" effect cannot be achieved with EB's "pseudoshieldwall". The real shieldwall now, that gives the desired effect but comes with other disadvatages and bonuses that were not taken in mind by the EB team, thus overpowering units with the shieldwall. At least that is what many members say, I personally make use of both shieldwall and guard mode depending on the situation (I play on BI executable).

Maion

Does the shieldwall ability enables them to charge as a solid unit , or are the disruptions in unit cohesion some kind of bug in the RTW engine ?

I would suppose that you use the shieldwall offensively and the guard button ( just stating the obvious here ) defensively . Am I right ?

Satyros

[Watchman]

ANY infantry - or for that matter cavalry - that get "crushed" too closely together (ie. to the point where they can no longer wield their weapons effectively) become little more than sitting ducks, irrespective of who exactly does the pressing and what against. Heavier equipement just makes them more troublesome and difficult to kill, whereas lightly armed men can be massacred with relative ease - no need to hack and stab through body armour, no ?

[Maion Maroneios]

Does the shieldwall ability enables them to charge as a solid unit , or are the disruptions in unit cohesion some kind of bug in the RTW engine ?

I would suppose that you use the shieldwall offensively and the guard button ( just stating the obvious here ) defensively . Am I right ?

Satyros
Yes, they charge as a solid unit as far as I remember. I don't use it very often, only during sieges to protect narrow passages, or when I want to attack an enemy formation. And even then, I prefer guard mode because your men tire much slower.


ANY infantry - or for that matter cavalry - that get "crushed" too closely together (ie. to the point where they can no longer wield their weapons effectively) become little more than sitting ducks, irrespective of who exactly does the pressing and what against. Heavier equipement just makes them more troublesome and difficult to kill, whereas lightly armed men can be massacred with relative ease - no need to hack and stab through body armour, no ?
Yes, I was just giving emphasis about Hoplites.

Maion

[Watchman]

Yes, they charge as a solid unit as far as I remember.My memory seems to speak of an annoying tendency for the first row to charge alone and the rest of the unit to snail-pace into the combat over the next half a minute or so using the careful "combat stalk" animation, though...

Although granted, that's a reasonably commonly occurring flaw in the engine AFAIK.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

@Mikhail Mengsk

My english isnt the best but what i wanted to say was that in real Phalangits were way more flexible than normal hoplitai, and anybody asserted the opposite of this which is totaly false. :)

Here a picture. The reason why the hoplitai formation was so inflexible is that the whole formation was a long line, if this line breaks on one part, the whole battle was almost lost. The macedonian phalanx was quite flexible because they phalangits where subdivided in many squares. But after the dead of alexander the phalangits got more armor and they formed back to more like a line like the classical hoplitais which made them almost as unflexible.

https://img229.imageshack.us/img229/344/showcasesyntagmaphalanx.jpg

Phalanxes could be placed in many squares, but each square is totally inflexible. A phalanx formation coudn't turn fast, because it have to highen the long pikes, turn around and lower the pikes again. And it has to do it in perfect formation.

Every movement in the phalanx has to be made in formation, elsewhere the whole "block" would collapse, and the phalanx ceased to be a wall of pikes, and become a pack of vulnerable soldiers who can't use their long pikes. Phalangites couldn't stand a melee because of poor equipment and poor training.

A hoplitai line could turn, or split into smaller formations if needed. Phalanxes risks to broke their formation even when marching, if the terrain is not plain.

[seienchin]

I think your problem is that you believe you should use your Hoplitai offensively, which is obviously wrong. I have played quite a few battles on-line, and many times it was my trustworthy Hoplitai that held out long enough for me to hammer the enemy line.

Maion

Hoplites were atack troops. They charged each other and pushed and clubbed till one side lost formation. In EB they are the best Defense troops there is against many types of armies, including the romans, but that isnt what they are supposed to be.
And there is one fact that bothers me: As strong as the Hoplites are against many enemies, they suck against light infantry with AP weapons.

[Watchman]

An axe to the head is rarely good news to anyone. Anyway, to repeat myself, the hoplites were the southern Greeks' main offensive arm *once upon a time* - but things change. As did Greek armies and their challengers. For straight linear offense on level ground the Macedonian-style pikemen were far more potent, whereas the more flexible "barbarian"-Italic-thureophoroi style "jeep" infantry was on the whole better for all-around offensive use especially in rough terrain.

It's as the unit description says; the classic hoplite pattern was getting a bit long on the tooth, but were still perfectly capable heavy spearmen.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Anyway, to repeat myself, the hoplites were the southern Greeks' main offensive arm *once upon a time* - but things change. As did Greek armies and their challengers. For straight linear offense on level ground the Macedonian-style pikemen were far more potent, whereas the more flexible "barbarian"-Italic-thureophoroi style "jeep" infantry was on the whole better for all-around offensive use especially in rough terrain.

It's as the unit description says; the classic hoplite pattern was getting a bit long on the tooth, but were still perfectly capable heavy spearmen.

Totally agree.



An axe to the head is rarely good news to anyone.

hahah sure! :laugh4:

:smash:
:dizzy2:

[vartan]

Pyrrhus experimented with putting more mobile types of infantry (thureophoroi-types and assorted Italian allies such as Samnites) between the phalanx sub-units as a way of dealing with the "disjointing" issue; in effect, accepting the existence of the problem and trying to counter it from the get go.

And how did that turn out? Did Pyrrhus' idea work or fail (on average)?

[Zarax]

It worked but he epically failed to understand the caliber of his enemy...

[vartan]

It worked but he epically failed to understand the caliber of his enemy...

What was the caliber of his enemy that he so failed to understand?

[Zarax]

He was successfull tactically but he fought a loosing struggle strategically.
In a prologue of the 2nd punic war, romans worse his forces out and ultimately defeated him.

Of course it didn't help that Phyrrus wasn't able to focus on a single plan.

[antisocialmunky]

He was successfull tactically but he fought a loosing struggle strategically.
In a prologue of the 2nd punic war, romans worse his forces out and ultimately defeated him.

Of course it didn't help that Phyrrus wasn't able to focus on a single plan.

You just made no sense right there.

[Dutchhoplite]

It worked but he epically failed to understand the character of his enemy...

That's better ;)

[vartan]

That's better ;)

The character that was his enemy.

[Celtic_Punk]

No, calibre does work.

[Zarax]

jeez, let me explain.
Phyrrus formation worked in battle pretty well, allowing him to win under conditions that would have resulted in defeat for more conventional successor armies.

Unfortunately for him roman tenacity and the unability to focus on one front resulted ultimately in utter defeat.
Also, let us remember that the same army, even after the heavy losses against the romans managed to mop the floor with the carthaginians in sicily, not exactly pushovers themselves.

[Watchman]

Eh, when you get down to it the Romans were just playing their usual We Have Reserves card. They had the manpower base to outlast Pyrrhus in a war of attrition, and he probably realised it too at some point.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

That was centuries ago when they were mainly fighting each other. Them newfangled pike phalanxes, as it happens, were a *lot* better at the "frontal pushing match" business...

Adapt or perish.

Uhm...Exactly that i wanted to say. The hoplitai was inflexible but still an offensive infantery man. If they hadnt got surrounded they would have been still a very though opponents, and for sure they would have beaten a barbarain horde with axe etc which only charges in the front of the phalanx. But new tactics like the macedonian syntagma rised and so the hoplitai phalanx had got outdated.

Maybe the example was out of the Eb timeframe but there is only one thing which changed if you compare the classcial hoplitais of the pre alexander time with the ones of the post alexander time. And that was the equpiment. The tactics of the classcial hoplitai were still the same and they were still effectiv in a direct combat.

And in MP they are still useless. They cant face against heavy cavalry charges if a human always retreats them and charges again. They cant face against any heavy infantery, it doesnt matter whether naked swordsmen of the gauls or heavy armored pretorian guards and moreover hoplitais are very expensive. Especially KH is very poor on mp. There only really advtanges are there hoplitais but these units cant stand against any other unit, excepted ligth cavalry and infantery.

But thats only in Mp, i didnt played Sp that much, probably in Sp they are quite reliable like you said.


Edit.:

@Mikhail Henkst

Its fact that the macedonian syntagma was way more flexible than a hoplitai phalanx. At least it was in the time of alexander and his father. In this times the phalanx was highly flexible. Phalangits where highly trained and only lightly armored. Each square could turn the directon of their spears tremendously fast in a other direction.

BUT after the dead of alexander the phalangits became unflexible. Mainly there are two reasons. The first is that the successors gave the phalagnits much more armor and the second is that they changed the squares of the phalangits back to more like a line. And such a line of heavy armored warriors is unflexible, they were slow and had been easily outmanvoured. This and the reason that macedonia couldnt rise such a numerous and strong cavalry like in alexander times were the reasons why the romans defeated the macedonians quite fast and easily.

[Watchman]

I, for one, don't give a damn about MP. And even less of how units perform there.

Anyways, straightforward frontall offense with sword or axe ought to have worked against the hoplites just as well or poorly as against any other shieldwall spearmen.
It rather irks me when people seem to assume that merely being Greek and called "hoplite" somehow magically made these guys anything meaningfully different from articulated close-order spearmen the world over.

[lionhard]

people have said that phalanax's in general were out dated but i belive and by simulatuion from EB they were very effective but when you had an enemy of legions or light effective infantry combined with the right cav they were easily wiped out.

[Watchman]

Its fact that the macedonian syntagma was way more flexible than a hoplitai phalanx. At least it was in the time of alexander and his father. In this times the phalanx was highly flexible. Phalangits where highly trained and only lightly armored. Each square could turn the directon of their spears tremendously fast in a other direction.And this is why the merc hoplites getting into their flanks at the Granicus put the pikemen into such dire straits, right ?

Bollocks.

The fact of the matter is, pikemen are rather cumbersome at the best of times; comes from having to maneuver in very tightly regimented formations with freakin' five-plus meter glagpoles. And quite vulnerable at their flanks; this is why the Medieval ones took to operating in big hollow squares which didn't HAVE vulnerable flanks. The less effective solution the pike phalanxes of Antiquity relied on was maintaining a continuous, unbroken front - with the sub-unit blocks right next to each other, the enemy couldn't get at their flanks. In practice rarely worked quite so well, as the line was wont to become disjointed on account of terrain, differing rates of progress against the enemy line, etc. leading to the sub-units becoming "uncoupled" from each other and vulnerable to becoming surrounded.

Also, you seem to be confusing the original Philippo-Alexandrian retrained skirmishers' ability to convert into light infantry with just a kit change with some kind of miraculous phalanx-fu maneuverability.

[Dutchhoplite]

And at Issus the Macedonian phalanx got in trouble too but here the Persian mercenary hoplites were aided by the difficult terrain.

By the way, i still believe Chaeronea was won by the Macedonians with better tactics and not with better infantry.

[Phalanx300]

For the people saying Chaeronea is proove that Phalangites would win agaisnt Hoplites if unsupported. If that were true then diffucult and risky maneuvers wouldn't be necesarry.

And I doubt that Phalangites are better at pushing, 8 ranks(generally speaking) of human pushing power, which has prooved in itself to be deadly, vs 5 ranks of individual wooden shafts? The front Hoplites obviously wouldn't want to go forward but point is that they had no choice as they were being pushed.

And at Issus, this prooved that in bad terrain Hoplites are also more maneuvarable which would give them an advantage in such a situation.

But what I think is that an unsupported Macedonian Phalanx vs an unsupported Hoplite Phalanx would in the end lose the fight.

And Phalangites could act in many ways, either in Phalanx or as light infantry, think of Tyre and the Peltastai Makedonikoi, some armour just now with javelins instead of Sarissa.

What is sure I think is that we can all agree that should the Hoplite line become face to face with the Phalangites that the Phalangites would be in deep trouble. Then whats left is the question whether a Hoplite Phalanx would be able to defeat those 5 line wooden shaft pikes.

[ARCHIPPOS]

but the thing is,you see, no sane general would leave his infantry to battle it out without support in an attrition duel especialy against hoplites/phalangites and the like... i personaly think that a pushing wall of skewering pikes 5-8 lines deep is more effective than our logic may imply... some people may argue that perhaps it would be possible for hoplites to frontaly push through between the pikes and deliver a smashing spear/hoplon blow ... however imagine the psychological effect this wall of pikes must have had... arguably in our time and era someone COULD aproach a tank and stick a mine or shoot a panzerfaust on it...

[glouch]

enough of this already. watchman and the others have more than answered the question.

the problem is that flavius belisarius seems to be using his own intuition to rebut your statements about an inflexible phalanx. soldiers arranged in a square of pike formation could in theory be easily ordered to turn their pikes in another direction, right?

the problem with this assumption, and i hope you're reading this flavius belisarius, is that it fails to take into account the fact that the pikes in question were about 20 feet long, that's two storeys for easy visualization. imagine trying to manipulate that and then turning in another direction, then lowering it down again; it would have been very difficult considering the weight of the pike itself coupled with it actually acting like a LEVER ARM, which would have applied tremendous magnitudes of MOMENT on the mens' arms. many would have not been able to get their pikes upright, let alone KEEP their pikes upright; many would inevitably have hit each others' pikes or other soldiers themselves, and as for the latter: it would have been incredibly difficult to balance a pike upright (try keeping a stick upright on your hand. difficult isn't it?), what more if someone hit it? all this, together with the mere thought that a company of enemy soldiers were rushing towards the flanks of the formation they were in, would have caused great confusion and panic.

now, as for the hoplites being 'too weak', it depends entirely on the situation ie. frame of reference. if you're charging a phalanx head on, then of course you'd think they're weak. you'd be blind and without any common sense to think that anyone would have had any remote chance of defeating an enemy 15-20 feet away, which is the case when you're fighting a man with a 20-foot pike. an attack from the flanks, or better, from behind, and things swing dramatically toward the aggressor's favor.

hoplites in my opinion are excellent troops to use defensively. offensively, they might lose out to javelin-hurling units just because of the, well, javelins. but with good maneuvering, positioning, and of course, tactics (and not with the tactic-less frontal assault you[flavius belisarius] seem to be doing), ANY good-quality infantry will defeat any other infantry force, or any other force for that matter. any good attack doesn't rely on JUST an assault; for it to succeed you need to create opportunities to take advantage of. defense on the other hand requires you to block any attempt by the enemy to create the aforementioned opportunities, which is precisely what you are NOT DOING by letting the enemy charge your hoplitai with heavy cavalry, for heaven's sake, REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY.

i don't know about you, but it seems flavius belisarius is using the alleged "underpowered-ness" of hoplitai as a scapegoat for bad generalship.

[ARCHIPPOS]

i don't know about you, but it seems flavius belisarius is using the alleged "underpowered-ness" of hoplitai as a scapegoat for bad generalship.

but then again he could be a 16 year old struggling to get a grip on ancient tactics ... all in all i agree with your points though...

even so such threads are highly instructive no??? just look how many interesting oppinions popped up :yes::yes::yes:

[Sdragon]

I don't think flavius belisarius is taking into account that ANY unit that stands there and takes repeated cavalry charges is going to lose. No infantry stands a chance against such unchecked agression.

[gja102]

Another thing you've got to remember about hoplites in EB is that a lot of them get quite generous morale and stamina bonuses. The stamina in particular gives them good staying power, and means that they'll usually only be 'winded' by the time the enemy are 'tired', so in the long run they will win a grinding attrition battle (like they're supposed to).

Regarding the Spartans, they don't have the best weapon stats but they do get a huge stamina bonus. I started a KH game and I was predisposed towards hating the Spartans (in my ill-informed mind they were arrogant, conservative, backwards, inefficient, hollywood-friendly, overhyped, irritating child-murderers, and yes I know my opinion isn't necessarily accurate so please don't pull me up on it, it was just my general feeling). After a few battles, though, even I had to concede that they were one of the best units in the game. If you have two units of Spartans you can take all but the best-defended city. Narrow streets means they can't be outflanked, and their world-class stamina means they'll never tire of killing (especially if you rest one unit while the other fights). They won't win a battle quickly, but in the long run the enemy will collapse from exhaustion and rout. To a lesser extent, this applies to all hoplites in EB. They're murderously stubborn.

[ARCHIPPOS]

in my ill-informed mind they were arrogant, conservative, backwards, inefficient, hollywood-friendly, overhyped, irritating child-murderers, and yes I know my opinion isn't necessarily accurate so please don't pull me up on it, it was just my general feeling).

hah in my ill-informed mind they stand as pretty much the same... sure they were tougher to crack than 98% of all hoplites around but still they fared very low in the quantity/quality ratio which in the end makes all the difference in strategic terms ...

[Maion Maroneios]

They're murderously stubborn.
This sums up the nature of hoplites in EB perfectly. Murderously stubborn. Sometimes my guys simply refuse to break, even when facing the toughest of situations. Lately, I fought a sandwitched bridge battle against 2 armies. The main one came head-on, while a smaller one had to cross a bridge to get to me. I had my hoplites in shieldwall formation facing the bridge, and they absorbed the oncoming Galatian troops (which included a unit of the fearsome Tindanotae and one of Kuarothoroi) pretty smoothly (meaning no guys flying around and no chaos amongst the lines). Even with guard mode on, they seemed to hold on forever while loosing minimal men themselves. Only when I took them off guard mode and they started pushing forwards did thet loose men at a higher rate than before (but that was also probably because they were already tiring by that time).

To cut a long story short, Hoplitai and generally hoplites are one of my favourite units in EB. They have good armour and shield values, good morale and discipline, and their closely-packed formation and spears make them an excellent counter-cavalry force as well. They just have to be used correctly. I personally use them on each end of my main phalanx line composed of phalangites, and they've never dissapointed me. On the contrary, their abilities as never cease to impress me on several occasions even after a long time of playing EB and using them in my armies.

Maion

[lionhard]

I just watched a thing on great commander (alexander the great) it goes thru the whole army and says that the pikes were 20 m long and rather than hoplites being a more of a defencive formation the phalanx was more like an offensive and was like a tank rolling over the enemy, most of the enemy were killed before even reaching the macedonians holding the phalanx's. Except in the battle of issus darius had his whole cavalry charge alexanders left flank and things got a bit hectic so thats why alexander had to turn back rather than persue darius.

Phalanx is deffo more effective but as i was getting at earlier hoplites had been the classical way in which greece fought as we all know, they were around for a very long time. where as the phalanx was introduced by philip father of alexander and died out when the romans took over 200 years later.

So in theory the hoplite formation was around for like over 1000 years they used it back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans.

Where as the phalanx was around for like 300 years. Sad really because i wuv phalanx's :(

[Maion Maroneios]

back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans
I'm sorry but this was wrong and very historically inaccurate. Greece was never a unified nation, I'm afraid. That would come much, much later.

Maion

[A Very Super Market]

Phalangites didn't really die out anyways. Pikemen essentially recreate the Macedonian phalanx.

[Satyros]

I should probably point out that at the time of the trojan war the hoplite phalanx tactics were not the norm I think . I don't know if they even existed , but I'm not a history buff so feel free to enlighten us all you history experts .

This is if we are talking about the Mycenean ( sp? ) kingdom and allied poleis .

I have read ( and by all means correct me if I am wrong ) that then the spear was held with both arms .

Also Homer ( who is said to have lived live centuries after the Trojan war ) indicates that chariots were being used , and there is a finding of that era , an bronze armor presumably of a chariot's passenger , the armor of Δενδρών ( sorry don't even know how to write this in English , help guys ) that indicates that a rather different way of fighting was used at that time , the armor being many overlaping bronze rings that covered most of the body , a sort of " full plate "armor of the time .

It is also presumed , that the soldiers were mixed regiments of archers and spearmen , again based on Homer's account of battles .

Of course Homer cannot be accepted as a verified historical source , but still the findings of the era can point to certain conclusions .

Any clarifications/corrections on the historical mess I presented welcome .

Satyros

[antisocialmunky]

Dendra Panapoly...

[Satyros]

Thanks mate .

Stupid me , I guess . heh .

Cheers .

Satyros

[Watchman]

Nobody really knows what the Dendra panoply was for though, or even how common such outfits were. Theories I've seen range from straight-up defensive gear for a chariot spearman, to a "mark of rank" of a senior leader too elderly to fight anymore but quite capable of standing off to the side as a kind of living standard, to a harness for use in duels on foot - the thing actually bears surprising amount of resemblance to Medieval plate harnesses designed for that purpose and apparently practical tests with a repro suggest it'd work, and it'd fit the "heroic" warrior aristocrat thing the Myceneans had going...
*shrug*

[Macilrille]

I just watched a thing on great commander (alexander the great) it goes thru the whole army and says that the pikes were 20 m long and rather than hoplites being a more of a defencive formation the phalanx was more like an offensive and was like a tank rolling over the enemy, most of the enemy were killed before even reaching the macedonians holding the phalanx's. Except in the battle of issus darius had his whole cavalry charge alexanders left flank and things got a bit hectic so thats why alexander had to turn back rather than persue darius.

Phalanx is deffo more effective but as i was getting at earlier hoplites had been the classical way in which greece fought as we all know, they were around for a very long time. where as the phalanx was introduced by philip father of alexander and died out when the romans took over 200 years later.

So in theory the hoplite formation was around for like over 1000 years they used it back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans.

Where as the phalanx was around for like 300 years. Sad really because i wuv phalanx's :(

A few comments ijn my drunken stupor.

TV as a source, NO GO!!!

20 m. long pikes???

The sarissae was 6- 7 m long, the later medeival pikes 5-6 and wielded differently.

[Watchman]

He seems to be getting his scales confused... I hear the Successors did experiment with sarissae a whopping 21'/7m long, but those proved nigh-unmanageable. Anyway, AFAIK under Philip and Alexander the things were still in their "growth phase" - starting out at something like about 4m early on and gradually growing ever longer as the troops got better at managing them and the limits of the "impenetrable spear-wall" concept were pushed further.

Anyway, the Medieval pikes were AFAIK more or less very much an independent developement, an outgrowth of the the ubiquitous infantry longspear, and in practice used nigh-identically to the ancient sarissas - there's only so many ways you can handle a six-meter flagpole with a knife on top. Though I understand the Medieval pikemen, besides obviously not carrying shields like the phalangites did, did employ a wider variety of "grips" - a "reverse grip" at shoulder height being apparently quite common and regarded as optimal for certain tasks (IIRC, for attacking infantry).
What the Medieval pikemen did differently was drill and tactics. The Macedonian pike phalanx more or less grew out of the classic hoplite linear tactics as the "anvil" that pinned down the enemy infantry centre for the heavy-cavalry "hammer" to destroy; the Swiss for most intents and purposes didn't have shock cavalry, and duly developed their pike tactics and drills with offensive in mind from the ground up. They also did away with the flank issue by the expedient of operating in large hollow squares, with integrated ranged and close-assault support.

[Macilrille]

WM, I am drunk and have a hellish headache, so no elaborate explanations from me for once, but you are right on point with your elaboration.

[Satyros]

...and apparently practical tests with a repro suggest it'd work, and it'd fit the "heroic" warrior aristocrat thing the Myceneans had going...
*shrug*

That I didn't know .

That's some intereresting theory there ... ( non-sarcastic comment )

Satyros

[Apázlinemjó]

This sums up the nature of hoplites in EB perfectly. Murderously stubborn. Sometimes my guys simply refuse to break, even when facing the toughest of situations. Lately, I fought a sandwitched bridge battle against 2 armies. The main one came head-on, while a smaller one had to cross a bridge to get to me. I had my hoplites in shieldwall formation facing the bridge, and they absorbed the oncoming Galatian troops (which included a unit of the fearsome Tindanotae and one of Kuarothoroi) pretty smoothly (meaning no guys flying around and no chaos amongst the lines). Even with guard mode on, they seemed to hold on forever while loosing minimal men themselves. Only when I took them off guard mode and they started pushing forwards did thet loose men at a higher rate than before (but that was also probably because they were already tiring by that time).

To cut a long story short, Hoplitai and generally hoplites are one of my favourite units in EB. They have good armour and shield values, good morale and discipline, and their closely-packed formation and spears make them an excellent counter-cavalry force as well. They just have to be used correctly. I personally use them on each end of my main phalanx line composed of phalangites, and they've never dissapointed me. On the contrary, their abilities as never cease to impress me on several occasions even after a long time of playing EB and using them in my armies.

Maion

And let's not forget they are quite invulnerable to arrows too.

[Cute Wolf]

From reading all the previous posts I diagnose that most of the "Hoplite complainers" are using "the -4 attack to spear units 'fix' that's not a fix anyway", since that 'fix' are greatly made hoplites suffer... just revert back to default EB 1.2 EDU values and i guarantee that you'll be statisfied with your hoplites...

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp, 5095 cost, 873 upkeep, and 2 turns training... no wonder, they become the strongest units in the game... but that's because I love my Spartans...:yes: not because historical corectness...

[Constantius III]

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp, 5095 cost, 873 upkeep, and 2 turns training... no wonder, they become the strongest units in the game... but that's because I love my Spartans...:yes: not because historical corectness...
I'm sure Akrotatos and his Spartan bodyguards could have used you when he died in a fruitless assault on Megalopolis in, you know, real history.

[Cute Wolf]

I'm sure Akrotatos and his Spartan bodyguards could have used you when he died in a fruitless assault on Megalopolis in, you know, real history.

If I was there, I'll gladlyy made Akrotatos a prototype cannons and gunpowders when they asked... (just mix saltpeter with coal dusts and some sulphur...) and I was sure that Spartan hoplite will be armed with personal gatling guns!

Heheheh... that's because I was used to play Vanilla that praise Spartans in really high place... actually, when playing as GCS in vanilla long - long time ago, I remove the and hidden resources sparta... and my wholesale armies are those 2 Hp spartans in reds...!!!! This is Sparta...

But even in my modded EB, I could defeat those Spartans monsters with Agrianai Pelekephoroi...

[option]

lol I dont like the movie 300 by the way. I know that Spartans werent that special but i think they are simply to expensive and i love the sentence "THIS IS SPARTA".

Plus, anyone who needs further proof of Spartan ownage should watch Deadliest Warrior: Spartan vs. Ninja. THAT is seriously awesome.

[ARCHIPPOS]

i hear they're preparing a Predator vs Spartans sequel... supposedly Predators kidnap a whole mora of spartans to use as prey :yes::yes::yes:

[Maion Maroneios]

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp,
OK, that's something I would personally never do for example. This is grand cheating at it's top.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

i hear they're preparing a Predator vs Spartans sequel... supposedly Predators kidnap a whole mora of spartans to use as prey :yes::yes::yes:

Poor Predators :laugh4:.

That would make for a nice movie though, mans best vs the predators. :2thumbsup: To be honest I thought of the idea before :sweatdrop:.

Predator vs T-Rex would also be great. :yes:

[Cute Wolf]

OK, that's something I would personally never do for example. This is grand cheating at it's top.

Maion

At least I also fight them when I play as Makedon... Naturally, my Hetairoi wouldn't kill those spartans in some charges from the back, or Argyraspidai skewer them with just taking minimal casualities... now they killed each other better and won by a close margin... that's the spirit...:laugh4:

That's cheating when you turn them to 1 hp when play against them

[Maion Maroneios]

I believe you fail to understand that 30+ armour, excellent morale, immense stamina and 2HP on top of that makes them virtually unstoppable. Also, your mind seems to still be floating in the times of the 5th century BC, then the Agoge was much harsher than it was 2 centuries later. Spartans were over their golden age, get over it.

Maion

[Cute Wolf]

I believe you fail to understand that 30+ armour, excellent morale, immense stamina and 2HP on top of that makes them virtually unstoppable. Also, your mind seems to still be floating in the times of the 5th century BC, then the Agoge was much harsher than it was 2 centuries later. Spartans were over their golden age, get over it.

Maion

They are not unstoppable, they just made as a really tough guys... and I roleplay, what if the agoge system has been beefed up again...:laugh4:

Just try to grind the 2 Hp spartans with 2 units Agrianai Axemen and you'll see that Agrianai still wins...
When u know the right timing... and sandwich them

[Maion Maroneios]

Still, it's something I'd personally never do.

Maion

[Flavius_Belisarius]

enough of this already. watchman and the others have more than answered the question.

the problem is that flavius belisarius seems to be using his own intuition to rebut your statements about an inflexible phalanx. soldiers arranged in a square of pike formation could in theory be easily ordered to turn their pikes in another direction, right?

the problem with this assumption, and i hope you're reading this flavius belisarius, is that it fails to take into account the fact that the pikes in question were about 20 feet long, that's two storeys for easy visualization. imagine trying to manipulate that and then turning in another direction, then lowering it down again; it would have been very difficult considering the weight of the pike itself coupled with it actually acting like a LEVER ARM, which would have applied tremendous magnitudes of MOMENT on the mens' arms. many would have not been able to get their pikes upright, let alone KEEP their pikes upright; many would inevitably have hit each others' pikes or other soldiers themselves, and as for the latter: it would have been incredibly difficult to balance a pike upright (try keeping a stick upright on your hand. difficult isn't it?), what more if someone hit it? all this, together with the mere thought that a company of enemy soldiers were rushing towards the flanks of the formation they were in, would have caused great confusion and panic.

now, as for the hoplites being 'too weak', it depends entirely on the situation ie. frame of reference. if you're charging a phalanx head on, then of course you'd think they're weak. you'd be blind and without any common sense to think that anyone would have had any remote chance of defeating an enemy 15-20 feet away, which is the case when you're fighting a man with a 20-foot pike. an attack from the flanks, or better, from behind, and things swing dramatically toward the aggressor's favor.

hoplites in my opinion are excellent troops to use defensively. offensively, they might lose out to javelin-hurling units just because of the, well, javelins. but with good maneuvering, positioning, and of course, tactics (and not with the tactic-less frontal assault you[flavius belisarius] seem to be doing), ANY good-quality infantry will defeat any other infantry force, or any other force for that matter. any good attack doesn't rely on JUST an assault; for it to succeed you need to create opportunities to take advantage of. defense on the other hand requires you to block any attempt by the enemy to create the aforementioned opportunities, which is precisely what you are NOT DOING by letting the enemy charge your hoplitai with heavy cavalry, for heaven's sake, REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY.

i don't know about you, but it seems flavius belisarius is using the alleged "underpowered-ness" of hoplitai as a scapegoat for bad generalship.

Thanks for this informativ explaination. Then my point of view of phalanx was totaly false. I was quite sure of that what i said. Im sorry but im glad now to know how it really is.

I have one question about the hoplitais. Had such a phalanx formation of hoplitais a chance against sword bearing warriors? So were Legionarys simply more flexible than hoplitais so that they could surround the phalanx or were swords simply more effectiv in close melee combat ?

Edidt.: The reason why i came to the statement are hoplitais too weak, was because i thougth that they are offensive units. I was in the believe that they were used in real only of assaults.

[Phalanx300]

Hoplites are offensive units, not in the way as other units but they certainly weren't units used for defense.

In frontal combat units like Romans didn't have much chance, from the front Hoplites were nigh-impossible to beat with loose order units. :whip:

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Hoplites are offensive units, not in the way as other units but they certainly weren't units used for defense.

In frontal combat units like Romans didn't have much chance, from the front Hoplites were nigh-impossible to beat with loose order units. :whip:

So hoplitais are still to weak in this game because they cant face any heavy infantery altough they could in real? Or is there something which Im missing.

[Phalanx300]

So hoplitais are still to weak in this game because they cant face any heavy infantery altough they could in real? Or is there something which Im missing.

That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point. :yes:

[Macilrille]

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous. In fact in all Pyrrhos' battles with the Romans the Legions met the Phalanx head on and fought it to a standstill with even numbers. It was, in all instances the Romans lost those battles, a question of Pyrrhos deploying his elephants in the right place and time.

The times I can think of where a Phalanx met a Legionary force head on and pushed it back it was the Makedons at Cynoscephalai and Pydna. However, the phalanx then lost order and was thus opened to the more mobile legionaires, effectively dooming the phalangites.

There was also a phalanx holding a breach in a wall against the odds sometimes during the 2nd Makedonian, but with its flanks covered by a wall the phalanx was close to invulnerable, so that is logical- and the ideal way to use it.

True Hoplitai I do not really know about, did they actually ever face the Legions? But I imagine the result would be much the same.

[Maion Maroneios]

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous. In fact in all Pyrrhos' battles with the Romans the Legions met the Phalanx head on and fought it to a standstill with even numbers. It was, in all instances the Romans lost those battles, a question of Pyrrhos deploying his elephants in the right place and time.
That's why phalanxes alone don't stand a chance against such an enemy. The reason Alexandros reached the ends of the world wasn't because he had such an unstoppable phalanx line that ripped the enemy to pieces, rather than pin the enemy for the cavalry to flank. It's called hammer and anvil tactic, you know.

Maion

[Watchman]

The main difference between a "spearman" and a "swordsman" is that the latter has the sword as his primary close-combat weapon, the former as a backup sidearm. Guess what the former does when the latter manages to get "past the point" ?
Geniuses. I'm getting tired of having to reiterate the obvious like this.

Anyway, closely spaced spearmen in general and pikemen in particular have the benefit of multiple "enaging ranks" - at least two for long-spearmen, something like four for pikemen. Anyone wanting to get to grips with the pikemen themselves somehow needs to negotiate himself through *several* successive walls of uncomfortable closely spaced spear-tips, all the while trying not to get tangled up in the shafts themselves... IIRC, the Romans for their part regarded the feat as near-unachievable and just did like everyone else, ie. traded ground for time until the pike line became disjointed, hit rough ground etc. which created openings to exploit.

In straight hand-to-hand fight I'd imagine hoplite-style shieldwall spearmen would do fairly well against Roman legionaries - more reach, overlapping shields, tighter formation giving at least 3-to-2 local advantage, at least two first ranks can engage. The stumbling block ? Pilum. All javelins do bad things to shields, major among which is getting stuck in them and weighing them down. Heavy high-penetration "shield-killers" like the Italic pilum take that to the next level - even if the shieldbearer is lucky enough not to get nailed by the meter-long iron shank when the thing punches a hole in the shield, he now has that thing projecting to his side of it which obviously rather inconveniences the effective use of the whole shield plus what, two or three kilos of spear dragging it down...
And even for shieldwall infantry the hoplites were *particularly* dependent on their shields.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I agree. It was when the successors underpowered their cavalry in numbers (broking Alexandros' "golden proportion") that the "anvil and hammer" tactic became way less effective.

[Phalanx300]

True Hoplitai I do not really know about, did they actually ever face the Legions? But I imagine the result would be much the same.

When the Romans attacked Corinth they faced them, Roman right flank was broken :2thumbsup:. Though those were the reformed Hoplites.

Hoplites fight face to face you know, not 6 metres apart from their enemy. As a hoplite your enemy would be like 10 cm away from you. :whip:


Watchmen, there's no way a Pilum would be able to penetrate a Hoplite shield, only ballistas were able to do such a thing.

[Watchman]

Dude. The hoplite aspis was single-ply wood with a millimeter-thin stressed bronze covering. For the sake of comparision the Italic scuta were three-ply wood with a hide covering on both sides, which is around as strong as wooden shields now realistically get - and weighed a ton.
Pila, far as I know, holed scuta readily enough - what do you *think* the Italians had mainly been throwing them at for centuries ?

[ARCHIPPOS]

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous.

The times I can think of where a Phalanx met a Legionary force head on and pushed it back it was the Makedons at Cynoscephalai and Pydna. However, the phalanx then lost order and was thus opened to the more mobile legionaires, effectively dooming the phalangites.

QUOTED FROM WIKI-THE BATTLE OF CYNOSCEPHALAE;
"Philip's right wing was now on higher ground than the Roman left, and was at first successful against them. His left wing and center, made up of another 8,000 phalangites, however were still disorganized and in marching position, so they had not even formed the phalanx yet, and as Flamininus sent his elephants charging into them, they routed. After breaking through, one of the Roman tribunes took twenty maniples (a smaller division of the legion) and attacked the Macedonian right wing from behind. The Macedonians were unable to reposition themselves as quickly as the Roman maniples. Now surrounded by both wings of the Roman legion, they suffered heavy casualties and fled."
QUOTED FROM WIKI-THE BATTLE OF PYDNA;
"Paulus claimed later that the sight of the phalanx filled him with alarm and amazement. The Romans tried to beat down the enemy pikes or hack off their points, but with little success. Unable to get under the thick bristle of spikes, the Romans were beaten back, and some of their allies abandoned the field.
But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion. Paulus now ordered the legions into the gaps, attacking the phalangites on their exposed flanks. At close quarters the longer Roman sword and heavier shield easily prevailed over the short sword (little more than a dagger) and lighter armor of the Macedonians. They were soon joined by the Roman right, which had succeeded in routing the Macedonian left."

So which were the turning points of both battles??? In Cynoscephalae the left phallanx was on the move when it got charged by elephants ...
In Pydna the phallangites pushed through only to lose some of their pike wall cohesion ...the Romans not short of sharp commanding immediately exploited this and flanked the phallanxes on their gaps (possibly the gaps between the different phallanx squares???)...

need i say it again??? Flanked!!! FLANKED!!! FLAAAAAAAAANKED!!!

HEAD-ON PHALANX COLISION=SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE:skull::skull::skull:

also abt the "hellene-lovers-angle"... some people are convinced that the phalanxes were certainly not at a tactical disadvantage over the Romans and that with a more charismatic and sharp leadership the hammer and anvil might have prevailed... that's all ...

[Phalanx300]

Dude. The hoplite aspis was single-ply wood with a millimeter-thin stressed bronze covering. For the sake of comparision the Italic scuta were three-ply wood with a hide covering on both sides, which is around as strong as wooden shields now realistically get - and weighed a ton.
Pila, far as I know, holed scuta readily enough - what do you *think* the Italians had mainly been throwing them at for centuries ?

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?

[antisocialmunky]

When the Romans attacked Corinth they faced them, Roman right flank was broken :2thumbsup:. Though those were the reformed Hoplites.

Hoplites fight face to face you know, not 6 metres apart from their enemy. As a hoplite your enemy would be like 10 cm away from you. :whip:


Watchmen, there's no way a Pilum would be able to penetrate a Hoplite shield, only ballistas were able to do such a thing.

You could always just refer to the accounts of the Samnite Wars and the Wars of Italian unification before the Punic War. Rome used to fight in a hoplite style but they transitioned to the looser manipular style after getting schooled by the Samnites they adopted that idea from.

A great deal of it had to do with some of the terrain that the Samnites fought on rather than outright fighting power though.

[Dutchhoplite]

When the Romans attacked Corinth they faced them, Roman right flank was broken :2thumbsup:. Though those were the reformed Hoplites.

Errrr...(historical) source please??

[Watchman]

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?Now you're just talking out of your arse, mate. Go read (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html).

TL;DR - the aspis averaged around 15 pounds weight (ca. 7 kg) and 0.2" (ca. 5 mm, calculating in my head) thick; the scutum, depending heavily on specific model and period, was 15-22 pounds (7-11 kg) and went from about 0.4" (1 cm) in the center to 0.2" in the edges thick.

"Lick my blinky diodes."
- Aaron Stack, Nextwave

[Maion Maroneios]

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?
I'm afraid Watchman is right. The aspis though heavy and thick, is not unpenetrable. The force delivered by a falling javelin has to do with the angle thrown (and thus falling), the weight of it and the surface area of the tip. The speed with which it is thrown plays an important role as well. Needless to say, even a well-aimed thick rock (like those fired by the Baelaric slingers) could shatter an aspis I think. That is according to a source from an EB insciption, saying 1,000 Baelaric slingers routed several thousand Greek hoplites. Could be wrong here.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

Now you're just talking out of your arse, mate. Go read (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html).

TL;DR - the aspis averaged around 15 pounds weight (ca. 7 kg) and 0.2" (ca. 5 mm, calculating in my head) thick; the scutum, depending heavily on specific model and period, was 15-22 pounds (7-11 kg) and went from about 0.4" (1 cm) in the center to 0.2" in the edges thick.

"Lick my blinky diodes."
- Aaron Stack, Nextwave

:wall:

Aspis was a thick layer of poplar wood with a layer of bronze on it, if anything it certainly is the thickest shield, scutum has one holder for your hand which would mean that it shouldn't be too heavy.

Also a Falx was able to penetrate deeply into a Scutum while against an Aspis it definately would have an harder time.

A Pilum penetrating a Aspis is just wishfull fantasy, Scutum wouldn't be able to survive the pushing in the Phalanx as well as an Aspis as well.

5 mm? Maybe that one from Deadliest Warrior or 300 but the real deal definately wasn't that thin.

[Maion Maroneios]

:wall:

Aspis was a thick layer of poplar wood with a layer of bronze on it, if anything it certainly is the thickest shield, scutum has one holder for your hand which would mean that it shouldn't be too heavy.

Also a Falx was able to penetrate deeply into a Scutum while against an Aspis it definately would have an harder time.

A Pilum penetrating a Aspis is just wishfull fantasy, Scutum wouldn't be able to survive the pushing in the Phalanx as well as an Aspis as well.

5 mm? Maybe that one from Deadliest Warrior or 300 but the real deal definately wasn't that thin.
As much as I'd like to believe either you or Watchman, I've learned to rely on proof. If someone can find some sources on how exactly a scutum and an aspis was made (as well as an average pilum), we could make some comparisons and hopefully derive some results.

And just for the sake of being reasonable, try to back your statements up Phalanx. At least Watchman presents something to back up his statements. I'm not taking enyone's side here, but I prefer someone who actually speculates based on something instead of pure personal unbased oppinion.

Maion

[Watchman]

*shrug* Teh Wiki isn't feeling helpful on the topic regarding specific references, and that's the extent of effort I'm willing to expend into humoring you. Go read books like I did.

[Phalanx300]

*shrug* Teh Wiki isn't feeling helpful on the topic regarding specific references, and that's the extent of effort I'm willing to expend into humoring you. Go read books like I did.

Very well, then you start reading some good books. :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

I'm not the one making historically inaccurate claims here you know.

[Phalanx300]

I'm not the one making historically inaccurate claims here you know.

Or so you think.

How about I'll get behind an Aspis and you'll start trowing pilums at me, if I survive I win the bet? :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

And if you don't survive I get to go to jail without passing Go ? :inquisitive:

'Sides, the point of the pilum wasn't so much to kill the other guy (though it was obviously good if it did) but rather deprive him of his shield.

[Phalanx300]

And if you don't survive I get to go to jail without passing Go ? :inquisitive:

'Sides, the point of the pilum wasn't so much to kill the other guy (though it was obviously good if it did) but rather deprive him of his shield.

If.

Exactly, and I'm sure thats what it did, yet against an Aspis I'm not sure it would be able to penetrate it, also looking at the curve in the shield.

[Maion Maroneios]

The curve just minimises the impact a little because the shaft doesn't hit the surface of the shield perpendicularly (meaning with maximal impact force). What makes a shield good, is the material that it is made of and the thickness of it. The thicker and better the material (meaning the molecules and atoms composing the material are more closely packed together), the more difficult it is to penetrate the shield. And penetration has to do with the energy given to the shield by the impact. The more the energy (meaning more force of impact) is delivered to the shield, the greater the chance the shield will break (meaning the molecules will be "freed" of the bonds that bind them together) upon impact.

Maion

[Watchman]

The cirvature of the aspis isn't anything terribly noteworthy, particularly compared to the later "half-barrel" iterations of the scutum, you know. Which the pilum holed right nicely too AFAIK.

Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.

[Phalanx300]

The cirvature of the aspis isn't anything terribly noteworthy, particularly compared to the later "half-barrel" iterations of the scutum, you know. Which the pilum holed right nicely too AFAIK.

Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.

Make me wonder why the Dacians had no trouble hacking pretty far into them. :sweatdrop:


And Maion, ever tried getting a round been? Its soft as who knows but the fact that its round makes it hard to get em.

[Atraphoenix]

Hoplitai can stand better than the other spearman they are my favourites for holing phalanxes but persian hoplitai sucks.
I still cannot understand why they are low in number in huge they are 160 while phalanx 240.
this is the main weakness they have.

[Zarax]

BI's shieldwall gives back much needed staying power to hoplites and does not overpower them.

[Macilrille]

I am with Maion on this one, back claims with sources or stuff it. Anyone can make a claim about anything. That does not necessarily make the claim true.

Archippos, what in "The Phalanx then lost order (cohesion) and was doomed" is in essence different from your Wiki copies?

Basically the short of the long of it is that on level ground from the front, Phalanx is very hard to beat, perhaps Pilae can even the odds. On rough ground, flanked or if otherwise forced to give up cohesion, phalangites are F-ed as the legionaires would be more effective with their Gladius Hispanensis than the phalangites with their puny sword once the legionaire gets past the spearpoints.

What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.

And I also like to point out that in even the best phalanx there can only be spearpoints protruding in the gaps between ranks and in close order and with long spears the possibility for what we vikings call "Crossstrikes" is low, you are basically stuck. In theory there is a small gap in front of every person to exploit for a guy with a sword and a shield. I dunno how it would work in practise though, despite my 16 years of experience with re-enactment fighting, for we do not fight phalanx or hoplite style. But I can say that if you are to penetrate an enemy line thus in our game you have to coordinate it with your friends next to you and get it just right- if you fail a little, the enemy gets you. But it can be done.

I dunno with Hoplitai, would be interesting to try in fact.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Also, Roman's very large and curved scutum was much more effective than phalangites' small shields in close combat.

[Macilrille]

Oh and even dead bodies constitute rough ground TBH, try walking in formation across a field littered with dead and wounded...

[A Very Super Market]

But I thought that dead bodies don't constitute as solid? Never learn from Total War....

[Macilrille]

Try go to youtube, search for "Moesgaard" and click the battle videos (not the Rave ones, they have nothing to do with us), and see.

[Watchman]

Make me wonder why the Dacians had no trouble hacking pretty far into them. :sweatdrop:That's because big nasty choppers like falxes, wielded with gusto by fairly fit burly fellows, do very bad things indeed to what is, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rather thin planks glued together. You do realize that by all accounts one-handed maces and battleaxes tended to make kindling out of most shields in rather short order...? Three guesses what the two-handers did...

[antisocialmunky]

Also, Roman's very large and curved scutum was much more effective than phalangites' small shields in close combat.

As far as I can surmised, it would seem to me that the biggest problem with the small shield was how it was strapped to their shoulder to keep it in position for the phalanx. So assuming you could get that strap off, you wouldn't be THAT bad off. I believe at one of hte battles of the Macedonian War, the phalanx hit rough ground after pushing the Romans back so it broke phlanx, reformed twice as thick and went swords vs the Romans. The big shield is most advantaged if the formation is intact so I supposed if you manage to disorder the Romans, you could probably go hth with the smaller(THE PHALANGITE SHIELD WAS NOT THAT SMALL) shield without that many problems.

Of course this was the elite guard and everything got routed so they were surrounded and slowly killed off.

[Phalanx300]

What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.

What a bias to think its a bias. I had this name long before that movie was even announced, in honour of the Spartans who died at Thermopylae. :yes:

And yeah it'd probably be around 10/20 cm. You must understand that Hoplites wont try to stay at a distance trying to poke eachother, they are shield to shield, being pushed by 7 guys in their back or even more, you have no choice whether you like to be that close. First two ranks could attack.


That's because big nasty choppers like falxes, wielded with gusto by fairly fit burly fellows, do very bad things indeed to what is, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rather thin planks glued together. You do realize that by all accounts one-handed maces and battleaxes tended to make kindling out of most shields in rather short order...? Three guesses what the two-handers did...

Can't say that about the aspis.:2thumbsup:




And yeah Anti, I also always had the idea that the Phalangite shield was small but 60cm in diameter isn't that small for a shield.

[Parallel Pain]

The core of a hoplon was constructed of a thin wood which was approximately 0.2 inches thick.
This is worse?

[Celtic_Punk]

I was under the impression that most of the hoplon was coated in bronze... I know for a fact the Spartans had bronze shields. Falx or not, you ain't gettin through a bronze shield, buddy. I'd piss myself and give ya 30 bucks if even an excellently well made katana could get through a bronze shield.

[ARCHIPPOS]

they had a lay of bronze but beneath they were made of wood me thinks ... how thick was that bronze overcoat i wouldn't know though...

[Zarax]

The bronze layer was something like 5mm thick.
Sure, it would bounce off arrows and slingshots most likely but heavier stuff is bound to at least get stuck into that.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

As far as I can surmised, it would seem to me that the biggest problem with the small shield was how it was strapped to their shoulder to keep it in position for the phalanx. So assuming you could get that strap off, you wouldn't be THAT bad off. I believe at one of hte battles of the Macedonian War, the phalanx hit rough ground after pushing the Romans back so it broke phlanx, reformed twice as thick and went swords vs the Romans. The big shield is most advantaged if the formation is intact so I supposed if you manage to disorder the Romans, you could probably go hth with the smaller(THE PHALANGITE SHIELD WAS NOT THAT SMALL) shield without that many problems.

Of course this was the elite guard and everything got routed so they were surrounded and slowly killed off.

Roman's scutum covered almost all the body, and it was curved. Phalangites' shields as you say it had to be strapped, and it was smaller and less curved. So it was worse.

Roman formation was ALWAYS intact, and can NEVER be disordered :whip:

Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point. :yes:

I started this topic because excatly this :) I always used the hoplitais offensive because they were it in real too.

[antisocialmunky]

Roman's scutum covered almost all the body, and it was curved. Phalangites' shields as you say it had to be strapped, and it was smaller and less curved. So it was worse.

Roman formation was ALWAYS intact, and can NEVER be disordered :whip:

Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.

That's true but all I was saying is that small shields aren't bad and gave an example followed by repeating my claim. For osme reason people think that "ZOMG SMALL SHIELD IS SO SMALL AND USELESS!" I mean, just look at the sword and bucklet men of the middle ages or alot of the other loose order units that don't fight in formation.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Oh no, sure isn't useless, some protection is always better than no protection! I only said that it was less useful than roman's scutum. Phalangites, anyway, could not wear big curved shields because they needed both hands to hold their long pikes.

[Maion Maroneios]

Yes, the pelte shield of the Phalangites had its uses. It wasn't of course as sophisticated as the aspis (not hoplon guys, that's incorrect), but the longer the spear the smaller the shield because for a 5-6m pike you have to be able to use both hands to grip it.

Returning to the aspis debate now, I must say that I too don't think a pilum would be able to easily penetrate a sturdy aspis. I just don't think it's impossible, as Phalanx so vigorously claims.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.

Well if we see that the Pezhetairoi were professional soldiers and that their elite assault infantry(Peltastai Makedonikoi) used the same shield as the Pezhetairoi I'm not really that sure of it.:sweatdrop:

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Peltastai Makedonikoi were trained to fight in melee, pezhetairoi were not.

Also i'm not sure they carry the same shield, peltastai's one seems bigger.

[antisocialmunky]

How much does anyone know about Macedonian Phalanx training. There was probably decent hth training especially for the guys up front and on the flanks. There were gaps in the phalangite line between each unit that were covered by support troops but it would have been unwise to go without a plan b like that.

Besides, your morale would get kicked in the nuts if the soldiers don't know what to do like fight with a sword and shield when the situation arose.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Phalanxes got slaughtered every time they lost their formation, so they were not so much trained to fight with sword+shied; that's why they were not supposed to do so. Surely not as trained as Roman Legions or other similar heavy melee infantry.

[Maion Maroneios]

What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?

Maion

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Another important point why the romans won against the successors was that the successors couldnt raise so much cav like alexander had. And the Pezhetairoi got more inflexible after the death of alexander because they got more armor and their formation was changed but im not sure how the formation was changed - i only know that this was one of reasons why the macedonian phalanx got inflexible.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?

Maion

So said I: Roman's melee training was more effective in combat against Pezheteri's, maybe not "exceptionally better", but simply better. Otherwise, they would not have won so clearly at Pidna and Magnesia and other battles. Every time phalanx' formation got broken, phalangites got slaughtered...

It's phalanx destiny: to be nearly unbreakable in formation, to be doomed if it lose it. Even if good trained, they won't hold against good melee infantry like Roman Legions when they lose formation.

About reserves, Makedonians at Pydna had more soldiers than romans, so we have to say WHY they have reserves despite being outnumbered. I call it "better tactics".

[Maion Maroneios]

It didn't get inflexible and the Makedonian Syntagma didn't change. Were did you hear/read something like that? Please get your facts right dude. The only thing that probably happened, is that the pikes were further lengthened about a meter. The formation remained the same: 256 (16x16) man blocks typically, with 5 rows in front having their pikes lowered parallel to the ground and the rest in an angle that rose the further back you went.

The only thing that changed, is that more and more pikemen were used and less and less cavalry. Alexandros used approsimately 9,000 Pezhetairoi IIRC, while later Basileis like Perseus fielded from 16,000 to even 22,000 I believe.

Maion

[Zarax]

To concentrate a wall of spears it requires that only so many men can be deployed in width, making the lines shorter than many equivalent formations.

Also it doesn't help the phalanx that the roman army started reforming around that period towards even more flexibility (what I like to call the "scipionic reforms"), meaning that the tactical usage differences between hastati, principes and triarii started to soften.

Another important factor is that we're talking about veteran legions, meaning more skilled and better equipped than your average roman force.

[Maion Maroneios]

Exactly. There are many factors one should take in mind except simply weapon technology and equipment. Rome emerged from a war victorious and learned many things from it, not to mention those "Reforms" which made the army even more flexible than it was. Also, everyone with at least a decent knowledge of what the landscape of Hellas looks like would know it's all mountainous and uneven terrain. Difficult to maneuver a phalanx there, hence the Hellenes usually chose an open plain to fight once decisive battle.

Maion

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I was only saying that in melee fights pezhetarioi (sp?) got beaten by the romans when they broke formation, and this is because legionnaires' melee training and equipment was better. Romans' "scipiones" reform made the entire Legion more flexible and more mobile, BUT also improves single legionnaires' melee skills (expecially after fighting iberian warriors in the Iberian Campaign).

That's why IMHO single Legionnaire was better in a melee "1vs1" than a Pez(ecc): focused training and equipment.

HOW the romans menaged to broke phalanx' formation doesn't really matter in this debate, also because there are many many ways to do it (using reserves and terrain as Maion said, for example).

[Phalanx300]

Also, in those battles where the Macedonians faced of the Romans the biggest part of their Phalangites weren't their profesional soldiers, the biggest part were the Phalangitai Deuteroi, levies(comparable with the ordinary Hoplite in training etc.).

Just look at the Historical Romani vs Makedonia battle. Makedonia in later times lacked the units to support their troops. And in one occasion their cavalry ran off before ever getting into an fight.

And those Peltastai Makedonikoi use the Phalangite shield, and they were the elite assault troops of the Macedonians so you shouldn't count of a Phalangite in an fight with a Roman, even though the Roman has the advantage in such a fight ofcourse with their large shield and stabbing attacks.

[Watchman]

I feel necessary to remind you here that Roman armies of the period were, for all intents and purposes, 100% levies. That's what "legion" means you know.

Also, the PMs (as well as the Hypaspistai) carry the aspis rather than the rather smaller, though similar, shield the phalangites use (so their hand is left clear to hold the pike).

[satalexton]

Oh joy Maion, it seems out little group's certain new classification, finally gets it's first members.......

[Dutchhoplite]

It didn't get inflexible and the Makedonian Syntagma didn't change. Were did you hear/read something like that? Please get your facts right dude. The only thing that probably happened, is that the pikes were further lengthened about a meter. The formation remained the same: 256 (16x16) man blocks typically, with 5 rows in front having their pikes lowered parallel to the ground and the rest in an angle that rose the further back you went.

The only thing that changed, is that more and more pikemen were used and less and less cavalry. Alexandros used approsimately 9,000 Pezhetairoi IIRC, while later Basileis like Perseus fielded from 16,000 to even 22,000 I believe.

Maion

So, they started to (a). rely on even more cumbersome pikes/ equipment and (b). the macedonian army as a whole started to rely on the phalanx as a battle winner because their supporting units were lacking.

If this doesn't call for inflexibility nothing does, dude.

[Phalanx300]

I feel necessary to remind you here that Roman armies of the period were, for all intents and purposes, 100% levies. That's what "legion" means you know.

Also, the PMs (as well as the Hypaspistai) carry the aspis rather than the rather smaller, though similar, shield the phalangites use (so their hand is left clear to hold the pike).


They were levies yes but their units were put into experience class, I doubt you could class Triarii as levies.

And they did use the Phalangite shield, in EBI they use the Aspis but look at their preview in EB2, they use the Phalangite shield.



So, they started to (a). rely on even more cumbersome pikes/ equipment and (b). the macedonian army as a whole started to rely on the phalanx as a battle winner because their supporting units were lacking.

If this doesn't call for inflexibility nothing does, dude.

As Maion said before, you can't compare the Legion and the Phalanx, the point is that just comparing the Phalanx alone is like comparing a Legion without its reserves. A Macedonian Phalanx without its support will fall eventually, as the Romans showed.

Oh and Dutch, I read somewhere you wanted to start a Greek Reenactment group? Is that right?

[Foot]

And they did use the Phalangite shield, in EBI they use the Aspis but look at their preview in EB2, they use the Phalangite shield.

Actually, in EBII, the Phalangitai hold the aspis, but this is a placeholder until correct skins can be created for the small shield of the phalangitai.

Foot

[Watchman]

They were levies yes but their units were put into experience class, I doubt you could class Triarii as levies.Income classes, AFAIK; the difference was by the "weight" of war gear, ie. armour, and a man's ability to furnish himself with the more complete harnesses was pretty darn obviously chiefly dependent on his finances.

Though, given, older fellows *would* have been more likely to have gotten themselves suitably financially established to graduate into the "senior" classes than youths, and of course richer people were better able to spare time for additional weapons practice if they were so inclined. (Doesn't mean they necessarily did of course. Lazy gits.)
Nobody said those older fellows' year had been called to war anyway, of course... the Romans *did* fight a lot, but they also had a LOT of staggering in the levy call-up.

[Dutchhoplite]

As Maion said before, you can't compare the Legion and the Phalanx, the point is that just comparing the Phalanx alone is like comparing a Legion without its reserves. A Macedonian Phalanx without its support will fall eventually, as the Romans showed.

Oh and Dutch, I read somewhere you wanted to start a Greek Reenactment group? Is that right?

I'm not comparing those two at all. I'm only replying to his rather contradictory statements :)

And no, i'm not starting an reenactment group. Where did you hear that? I've got barely time to squeeze in a couple of hours of EB ;)

[Maion Maroneios]

If this doesn't call for inflexibility nothing does, dude.
When did I say the Makedones were flexible? On the contrary, if you even bothered to read my posts you'd see I made my oppinions on this matter very clear.

Maion

[Cute Wolf]

Phalangitai in EB 1 = just group them, and order alt + walk.... and they'll slaughter everyone in contact with those spiky points, right? That was because "RTW phalanx" formation always lower the first rows of spears...

Phalangitai in reality... much harder to move without breakin their formation... that's why...

[Phalanx300]

Actually, in EBII, the Phalangitai hold the aspis, but this is a placeholder until correct skins can be created for the small shield of the phalangitai.

Foot

I wasn't talking ingame, the Peltastai Makedonikoi do use the correct shields right?


Income classes, AFAIK; the difference was by the "weight" of war gear, ie. armour, and a man's ability to furnish himself with the more complete harnesses was pretty darn obviously chiefly dependent on his finances.

I think that you can hardly cal the triarii levies, I see it more in the way of quality and not how much money they make. A lot of the Spartans could then be classed as levies as well if money is the isue (around EB time). :sweatdrop:


And no, i'm not starting an reenactment group. Where did you hear that? I've got barely time to squeeze in a couple of hours of EB ;)

I think in Roman army talk, not sure. :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

I think that you can hardly cal the triarii levies, I see it more in the way of quality and not how much money they make. A lot of the Spartans could then be classed as levies as well if money is the isue (around EB time). :sweatdrop:Your thinking and seeing is irrelevant, we're talking about what "levy" actually means in military terms. And actual Roman military history rather than opinions thereupon.

[Phalanx300]

Your thinking and seeing is irrelevant, we're talking about what "levy" actually means in military terms. And actual Roman military history rather than opinions thereupon.


Yet those military terms are in fact just the thinking and seeings if others, how retarded they may be which are generally accepted.

Every seeing counts.

Its just rediculous to call battle veterans mere levies, its just downgrading to the veterans. :sweatdrop:

[Watchman]

Says Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/levy):
Main Entry: 1levy
Pronunciation: \ˈle-vē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lev·ies
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French levé, literally, raising, from lever to raise — more at lever
Date: 13th century
1 a: the imposition or collection of an assessment b: an amount levied
2 a: the enlistment or conscription of men for military service b: troops raised by levyBite me and keep your misplaced value-additions away from technical terminology.

[Macilrille]

What a bias to think its a bias. I had this name long before that movie was even announced, in honour of the Spartans who died at Thermopylae. :yes:.

Who said anything about the film? Phalanx in itself in your name tells me as a professional historian with a firm base on source criticism that we Danes are almost obsessive about (it is the only thing distinguishing history science from fiction) that you are biased to like Greeks and Macedonians with spears. IE you are biased.

Edited to add, on what source do you build your 10- 20 cm statement? Unless you have sources, which you have continuously refrained from backing your claims with, I cannot take you seriously, sorry.

I have nowhere come across a historical source saying that. And my actual experience with re-enactment fighting tells me that to get your mobility hindered like that is suicide. Show me Thycidid saying it and I believe you, but not before.

[Dutchhoplite]

So i’m also a biased lover of Hellenes wielding pointy sticks http://i.fokzine.net/s/emo.gif

[Macilrille]

What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?

Maion

Ever tried fighting for hours with a sword? It is no less exhaustive in my experience and as you know I have experience with long spears as well as swords- in fact sword is if anything more exhausting.
There is probably little difference in the rigour of the phalangite or legionaire training. In fact I imagine it to be very similar as they were both elite levies. But the emphasis I would think is different, the legionaire would train mostly with Pilae and Gladius Hispanensis with some unarmed probably added whereas the Phalangite would train Sarrisae (sp?) mostly and some sword and pancration. However, the Phalangite sword was not as effective as the GH and the legionaire would be better at it cause his emphasis was on it, while Phalangite was on sarrisae. Just like an artellerist or tanker today has had basic infantry training, but are no match for a trained infantry soldier and the latter cannot really drive a tank. The comparison is not totally analogous, but I think you know what I mean.

Thus when the character of an engagement would change from the Phalangite's terms to the legionaire's, the latter would of course mostly prevail. So when the Phalanx lost cohesion and it went to sword distance instead, the Romans had an advantage.

[Macilrille]

So i’m also a biased lover of Hellenes wielding pointy sticks http://i.fokzine.net/s/emo.gif

If you wish to interpret it like that yes your opinions are suspected to be so biased. Just as ThePersianCataphract is with Persians and is indeed also an expert on it. In contrast to at least one other biased person here TPC tries for objectivity and backs up his claims with sources as well as has a lot of knowledge on the subject matter.

[Maion Maroneios]

Ever tried fighting for hours with a sword? It is no less exhaustive in my experience and as you know I have experience with long spears as well as swords- in fact sword is if anything more exhausting.
You're missing the point. The Romaioi had reserves. You cannot call upon reserves when you have an engaged phalanx line, you know.

Maion

[antisocialmunky]

Well phalanxes had gap plugging reserves, not relieving reserves.

[Macilrille]

You're missing the point. The Romaioi had reserves. You cannot call upon reserves when you have an engaged phalanx line, you know.

Maion

Who then had the superior concept? *Winks at maion*

[Maion Maroneios]

Who then had the superior concept? *Winks at maion*
Eh?

Maion

[Maion Maroneios]

Well phalanxes had gap plugging reserves, not relieving reserves.
Try doing that when you are engaged, especially with an enemy like the Romaioi. It's like begging them to use those gaps to take you down.

Maion

[Macilrille]

Eh?

Maion

A system that actively uses and allows you to deploy reserves is superior to one that does not IMO.

But mostly I am poking fun at you, for it is a question we will never agree on and that I do not actually want to discuss as it is moot.

[antisocialmunky]

What are you talking about? Phalanxes needs infantry reserve forces to plug gaps that form in the phalanx line since each unit is an independent man box.

[Macilrille]

I think Maion is rightly pointing out that against Romans you definately do not want such gaps in your phalanx formation for they will be at your throat like terriers.

[Maion Maroneios]

A system that actively uses and allows you to deploy reserves is superior to one that does not IMO.

But mostly I am poking fun at you, for it is a question we will never agree on and that I do not actually want to discuss as it is moot.
I never disagreed with that, you know.

Maion

[antisocialmunky]

Its not an issue of wanting, its just one of those things you should be prepared for.

Heck, remember that gap on the Macedonian Left that formed at Gaugamela or that Legate that took the 20 maniples behind the Macedonian Phalanx through a gap between the two phalanx groups?

[Macilrille]

To concentrate a wall of spears it requires that only so many men can be deployed in width, making the lines shorter than many equivalent formations.

Also it doesn't help the phalanx that the roman army started reforming around that period towards even more flexibility (what I like to call the "scipionic reforms"), meaning that the tactical usage differences between hastati, principes and triarii started to soften.

Another important factor is that we're talking about veteran legions, meaning more skilled and better equipped than your average roman force.

You are wrong, only one legion at Pydna was made up of Evocatii, the rest were new ensitees. I seem to recall it was about the same at Cynoscephelai.

[Watchman]

AFAIK phalanx lines did normally have reserve lines, true. But those weren't pikemen - *they* were all in the main pike-wall.

Also, the "fog of war" appears to often have made it extremely difficult for officers to know if and when they should move up to support the pikes or, indeed, what was actually happening at the front to begin with; didn't really help that the supreme commander was normally somewhere in the wings leading teh cavalry...

[Flavius_Belisarius]

It didn't get inflexible and the Makedonian Syntagma didn't change. Were did you hear/read something like that? Please get your facts right dude. The only thing that probably happened, is that the pikes were further lengthened about a meter. The formation remained the same: 256 (16x16) man blocks typically, with 5 rows in front having their pikes lowered parallel to the ground and the rest in an angle that rose the further back you went.

The only thing that changed, is that more and more pikemen were used and less and less cavalry. Alexandros used approsimately 9,000 Pezhetairoi IIRC, while later Basileis like Perseus fielded from 16,000 to even 22,000 I believe.

Maion

A mate told me this things but probably i understood something false, im not the best in english. Moreover i already said that im not sure about the formation thing, probably it was linked with the aspect that the successors raised more Pezhetairoi than Alexander once.

But one thing i can say for sure and this that in the 2nd century bc the Hellenistic Kingdoms forgot the tactics pioneered by Philip II and Alexander and neglected to effectively use cavalry to cover the flanks of the syntagma, allowing the Roman allied cavalry to flank the Pezhetairoi lines and attack from the rear, where they were extremely vulnerable. The development of the Roman maniple formation also allowed the Romans to effectively outmaneuver the Macedonian syntagma and bring the legionnaires in close enough to utilize their deadly swordsmanship. The defeat of the last of the Hellenistic Kingdoms spelled the end of not only the remnants of Philip and Alexander's empire, but also the end of the Pezhetairoi.

Moreover the sucessors armored the Pezhetairoi more than alexanders one to counter the legions of rome. This made the Pezhetairo more inflexible because of the weigth of the armor. I think even in Eb is there such a unit. But im not quite sure about this last aspect, only heard/read it one time, maybe i understood it also false. :/

[Watchman]

Somewhat debatable how much more inflexible adding armour made the pikemen. I'd say it just slowed their movement down a bit, and the pike phalanx had never been a very fast mover to begin with so the difference was likely minor.

Also, I've seen it argued that it's not really that the Successors neglected the cavalry arm - au contraire they took along as much horse as they could get their mitts on - but they just wore out their reserves of relevantly trained manpower in their incessant wars. A pikeman - or for that matter, most any other form of infantryman - is after all easy enough to train; the Philippo-Alexandrian originals were pretty much retrained psiloi skirmishers, and I understand for example the Ptolemies got decent enough results out of issuing Egyptian peasants with pikes and drilling them to operate in formation. Cavalrymen, especially quality heavy shock cavalry, OTOH took quite a while and a lot of money to train, and were duly that much harder to replace.

[Celtic_Punk]

hit the nail on the head with that post.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Somewhat debatable how much more inflexible adding armour made the pikemen. I'd say it just slowed their movement down a bit, and the pike phalanx had never been a very fast mover to begin with so the difference was likely minor.

Also, I've seen it argued that it's not really that the Successors neglected the cavalry arm - au contraire they took along as much horse as they could get their mitts on - but they just wore out their reserves of relevantly trained manpower in their incessant wars. A pikeman - or for that matter, most any other form of infantryman - is after all easy enough to train; the Philippo-Alexandrian originals were pretty much retrained psiloi skirmishers, and I understand for example the Ptolemies got decent enough results out of issuing Egyptian peasants with pikes and drilling them to operate in formation. Cavalrymen, especially quality heavy shock cavalry, OTOH took quite a while and a lot of money to train, and were duly that much harder to replace.

Respect ! You seem to be a pro in ancient history =)

[ARCHIPPOS]

anyway this is not a hellens VS romans discussion at all... i have just remembered that germans supposedly fielded pike units as well (described by Caesar and Tacitus???) ... so you see pike phallanxes were not an exclusive Greek feature :yes:

so a pike phallanx (sarisoforoi) standing ground and secured from the flanks proved almost impregnable... this however was avery defensive role... when the marching/pushing forward started things turned risky... the morphology could easily disrupt the phalanx cohesion and against a more mobile enemy (like the romans) who could exploit such gaps things could end in catastrophy...but what good is any formation in battle if it can only assume a purely static role???

all this talk is purely on tactics... i'm not so certain that even if the phalanxes managed to beat the legions repeatedly , Roman expansion to the east would be have been effectively contained... sooner or later those Latium SOB everybody loves to hate would have returned with some bigger armies :whip:

[Watchman]

anyway this is not a hellens VS romans discussion at all... i have just remembered that germans supposedly fielded pike units as well (described by Caesar and Tacitus???) ... so you see pike phallanxes were not an exclusive Greek feature :yes:What Caesar describes sounds more like Ye Goode Olde standard-issue shieldwall you know. Do recall that "phalanx" in the generic sense means nothing more than infantry fighting in close order, and old Julius was also using the closest relevant descriptor he knew (and could expect his audience to recognise). Ditto for the "phalanx" of the Helveti. The Germanics did apparently make some use of spears long above and beyond the usual size range of infantry longspears, possibly even two-handed in a manner not unlike the long spears the "Iphikratean" peltast-hoplites used, but even then the character and purpose of such formations was quite different from the Hellenistic pike block.

...but what good is any formation in battle if it can only assume a purely static role???Well given that the main role of the pikemen was to pin the enemy in place and hold the center steady, with the cavalry taking care of the main offensive activity...

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Would have been a hoplitai phalanx able to defeat a legion when the hoplitais would have got enough support by cavalry etc. to prevent that the legionarys surround and outmaneuver them ?

[Watchman]

Good luck at it with pilum-skewered shields. Probably not, but I figure it really depends on terrain - hoplites suck in rough ground, legionary maniples much less so (this being the whole reason why the Romans ditched the former for the latter after all) so at least on level the hoplites would have better odds.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

If the Hoplites could have more support, why the Legions couldn't have more support too? XD

If you consider only (example) 1000 hoplitai vs 1000 Legionnaires, i think the latter would win, thaks to their Pila and their gladius-and-scutum combo.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

All rigth, and who would probably win if for example 1000 hoplites would fight against 1000 Phalagnits on flat terrain without surrounding etc.

[ARCHIPPOS]

weeeeeell from all this talk who have YOU understood would win???

[Maion Maroneios]

If hoplites did nothing more than to just push forward in a straight line, I'd give my vote to the phalangites. And that, because as much as you push you still have 5 rows of pikes keeping you at bay. Plus, the pushing matches of hoplites only took place for some minutes, as it's bound to get you tired fast.

Not to mention a sarissa has good possibilities of shattering shields due to the pressure from the pushing itself or the clashes that would take place. Because do not forget, armies back those times did not lock for an unlimited period of time until another line broke. That tired them too much. I believe scholars theorize that armies locked for some time, then paused every now and then and resumed fighting.

And this is assuming we're talking about Classical hoplites. Even then I say it'd be difficult to easily determine a winner. If, however, we are talking about Iphikrateans, I'd easily give my vote to the phalangites.

Maion

[Watchman]

OTOH, phalangites fought 16 deep. Not going to take great genius for the hoplites to see where that goes, thin out their own formation, and envelop...

[Maion Maroneios]

Yeah right, try that with a Syntagma. And we're talking of even numbers here dude.

Maion

[ARCHIPPOS]

couldn't like sarisoforoi spread thin too??? instead of 16 lines deep go 8 or 10???

[Maion Maroneios]

Yes, but still it probably won't make much of a difference except if you thin it out less than 5 men deep.

Maion

[Watchman]

Yeah right, try that with a Syntagma. And we're talking of even numbers here dude.

MaionSyntagmas were the 16x16 man "building blocks" of the pike line, no ? Lessee, that makes about four of them in a round 1,000 man force, and assuming they don't suddenly throw their normal tactical organisation and deployement scheme out of the window, we'll be talking about a total frontage of... about 60-70m (assuming 1m/man) ?

Yeah. The hoplites aren't going to have to thin their ranks out very much to overlap that by a VERY comfortable margin and gobble up the phalangites from the sides.

Sorry, but the pikes lose here. Bring a combined-arms force next time.

[Maion Maroneios]

You do know hoplites have a considerably tighter formation, no? Not to mention the fact that the average phalangites was actually more versatile and considerably better in hand-to-hand combat.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

Says Merriam-Webster:

Bite me and keep your misplaced value-additions away from technical terminology.

As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right? So now its time to kick some Watchman ass. :dizzy2:


Who said anything about the film? Phalanx in itself in your name tells me as a professional historian with a firm base on source criticism that we Danes are almost obsessive about (it is the only thing distinguishing history science from fiction) that you are biased to like Greeks and Macedonians with spears. IE you are biased.

I said that since thats the usual reaction of people when seeing my name. And yeah everyone is baised, I gues you're baised for fish?:clown:


Edited to add, on what source do you build your 10- 20 cm statement? Unless you have sources, which you have continuously refrained from backing your claims with, I cannot take you seriously, sorry.

I have nowhere come across a historical source saying that. And my actual experience with re-enactment fighting tells me that to get your mobility hindered like that is suicide. Show me Thycidid saying it and I believe you, but not before.

There aren't any sources which explain precisely, I´ve read the reason somewhere, it being that at the time it was way to obvious to explain such an thing since it was a part of life. :yes:

This reenacted Hoplites Phalanx shows very well how such a density would be, and in an pushing match you´re opponent would surely be not a meter apart trying to poke at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XLKmWAXyk

[Watchman]

You do know hoplites have a considerably tighter formation, no?...which they can thin out, both in depth and width, quite easily without any meaningful loss of combat effectiveness in the circumstances. One need only look at the Athenian deployement at Marathon for an example - and THAT was long earlier, back when the hoplites were still nigh entirely enthusiastic amateurs ("Sunday soldiers," as the summary often goes) rather than drilled professionals...

Not to mention the fact that the average phalangites was actually more versatile and considerably better in hand-to-hand combat.And this claim is based on what exactly ? Nevermind that the track record seems to suggest something quite opposite, you know. Issus and the Greek mercs much ?


As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right?When they involve gross misuse of a technical term, and tacking prejudiced value judgements onto it, yes.

[Phalanx300]

When they involve gross misuse of a technical term, and tacking prejudiced value judgements onto it, yes.

Indeed Watchman. :2thumbsup:



More seriously though, every opinion counts, denying that just lead to nasty stuff as dictatorships...

[Maion Maroneios]

And this claim is based on what exactly ? Nevermind that the track record seems to suggest something quite opposite, you know. Issus and the Greek mercs much?
Issus was due to the terrain, and this is only one goddamn example. You want a counter-example? Chaeronia.

Maion

[ARCHIPPOS]

...which they can thin out, both in depth and width, quite easily without any meaningful loss of combat effectiveness in the circumstances. One need only look at the Athenian deployement at Marathon for an example - and THAT was long earlier, back when the hoplites were still nigh entirely enthusiastic amateurs ("Sunday soldiers," as the summary often goes) rather than drilled professionals...
?

wait... so why couldn't the phalangitai deploy thin too??? an 8 line depth would double the syntagma front length and project the same amount of lowered pikes no???

[Watchman]

You want a counter-example? Chaeronia....where the potent Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry was present in force on the wings shielding them from encirclement.
:dizzy2:
Appeal rejected. We're talking of a straight infantry-infantry fight here, remember ?

Issus was due to the terrain, and this is only one goddamn example.Which does nothing to change the fact the pikemen were promptly in trouble when their normally mutually supporting battleline became disjointed and ceased to be so, allowing dedicated close-combat troops to infiltrate into the flanks of individual syntagmas. A theme, we may note, which keeps repeating itself with a downright depressing regularity whenever phalangites advanced on more mobile infantry.


wait... so why couldn't the phalangitai deploy thin too??? an 8 line depth would double the syntagma front length and project the same amount of lowered pikes no???*shrug* 16 x 16 was their SOP, far as I know. Not entirely sure of the reasons behind it - I'd have to go read up and don't feel like it ATM - but I'm under the impression they normally didn't stray from the basic deployement pattern. They certainly *could*, in principle at least, but *would* they ?

[Maion Maroneios]

...where the potent Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry was present in force on the wings shielding them from encirclement.
:dizzy2:
Appeal rejected. We're talking of a straight infantry-infantry fight here, remember ?
Appeal rejected my arse. I'm talking about the ease with which phalangites could hold hoplites at bay. Also, you seem too over-confident with the hoplite's superiority in a same-number fight.

Maion

[Watchman]

Flanks.

Why do I need to keep repeating this ? In Chaeronea this wasn't a problem because of the Mac cavalry arm guarding the wings; but the second hoplites (or legionaries) could get into their "inner flanks", such as at Issus (and any number of battles involving Romans), they were in trouble. God forbid if they were subjected to a true double envelopement, which incidentally is AFAIK what the invading Celts did to the Macs in whatwasitnow, 279BC ?

Also, there's no particular need for the hoplites in our hypothetical "duel" to even maintain a continuous frontage. They only need to send a relatively small force to keep the much more formation-dependent and far less mobile pikemen frontally preoccupied, and then swing around the flanks with the rest.

[Maion Maroneios]

Yeah right. And that only if we hypothesise hoplites don't just form up in a single line as they used to. You're beeing WAY too certain of the truth of some things. I said phalangites would probably win, not certainly. You're taking too many things as given and talk way too hypothetically.

Maion

[ARCHIPPOS]

hmmmmm, the Celts can not be used as atypical example of superiority against the phallanx ...
from what i've read they attacked during winter , when the majority of the Makedonian army was on leave tending their farms...
Stupidly the Makedonian king Ptolemy Ceraunos thought this would be yet another nice bushwar and decided to attack them with only the core of his army the full time professional royal army of infantry and cavalry elites ... his smallish bodyguard against what??? a full blown barbarian horde numbering 30000??? he must have been ridiculously outnumbered.
when the Celts moved southern and faced some regular greek armies they got their ass kicked all around... sure the Celts destroyed afew towns... that's what a raiding horde can do to minor cities...but normal adequately numbered hoplite armies???:no::no::no:

[Watchman]

Yeah right. And that only if we hypothesise hoplites don't just form up in a single line as they used to. You're beeing WAY too certain of the truth of some things. I said phalangites would probably win, not certainly. You're taking too many things as given and talk way too hypothetically.
We're discussing a hypothetical situation, I'll remind you. And it's kind of a given that hoplites in any relevant time period would be at least passingly familiar with the working principles of the pike phalanx; moreover, even if they for one reason or another now were obstinate enough to insist on maintaining a continuous line (anything but a given, given the changes even hoplite warfare had gone through by any relevant stage) there's very little reason why they wouldn't intentionally thin out and lenghten their line to ensure a double envelopement of the cumbersome pike block. That pike phalanxes should not be fought frontally should be something even the slow on the uptake in Greece ought to have grasped by any relevant time period, and trained soldiers most certainly.

Again, compare Marathon - where a rather similar scheme (thinning out the center to ensure the frontage was sufficient and the wings strong enough) was managed by a far less professional and poorer drilled army with quite spectacular results.

[Maion Maroneios]

Again, compare Marathon - where a rather similar scheme (thinning out the center to ensure the frontage was sufficient and the wings strong enough) was managed by a far less professional and poorer drilled army with quite spectacular results.
What? Much poorer drilled? Would you care to present me some evidence that the Persians had (on overall) better training than the Athenians?

Maion

[Watchman]

What? Much poorer drilled? Would you care to present me some evidence that the Persians had (on overall) better training than the Athenians?The training of the Persians is actually pretty irrelevant, as I was referring to that of the Athenians.
Who, I hear, were not Persians.
And by all accounts THEIR approach to tactics and warfare around the time had all the sophistication and professionalism of "line up and charge the other guy for a six".

[Maion Maroneios]

See? You don't know so stop playing smartass and having a damn answer ready for everything. As you said, we're talking of possibilities here and you make the hoplite-win seem like something de facto based only upon hypotheses and personal oppinion.

Maion

[Macilrille]

As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right? So now its time to kick some Watchman ass. :dizzy2:



I said that since thats the usual reaction of people when seeing my name. And yeah everyone is baised, I gues you're baised for fish?:clown:



There aren't any sources which explain precisely, I´ve read the reason somewhere, it being that at the time it was way to obvious to explain such an thing since it was a part of life. :yes:

This reenacted Hoplites Phalanx shows very well how such a density would be, and in an pushing match you´re opponent would surely be not a meter apart trying to poke at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XLKmWAXyk

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

[Watchman]

See? You don't know so stop playing smartass and having a damn answer ready for everything. As you said, we're talking of possibilities here and you make the hoplite-win seem like something de facto based only upon hypotheses and personal oppinion.:dizzy2: It's a conclusion I reached after analysing the known strengths and weaknesses of the relevant fighting systems and formations. Above all, the over-specialisation to linear frontal combat and the due vulnerability of their formations' flanks that kept dogging pike phalangites as long as they were used, and the readiness with which this can be exploited in the scenario described by anyone who rubs two brain cells together. Doesn't really help that hoplites are known to have carried out similar double envelopements much earlier, when the level of tactical competence, sophistication and drill in Greek armies was on the whole on a rather lower level than by the Hellenistic period.

Put this way - what have you to offer up by the way of argument AGAINST the pikemen getting their flanks promtply turned, in the absence of mobile flank guards ? You keep insisting, but seem to offer very little in the way of actual argument and reasoning to justify your position.

Which kind of thing, incidentally, is Snark Bait in my books.

[Maion Maroneios]

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?
Just search for "othismos" (literaslly "shoving" in Greek) on the Internet. There are sources describing a hoplite clash, with the armies chanting paeans and shouting battlecries just before the clash. I believe there is even one guy who described the whole phase of the battle, deviding it in phase one [name], phase two [name], etc. with "othismos" being the phase when, after the initial clash, the two hoplite armies start pushing each other.

Maion

[Maion Maroneios]

It's a conclusion I reached after blah blah blah
Which doesn't mean its true. I believe phalangites would win due to more intensive training and the ability to thin out as much as the hoplites could. And that's my oppinion, I don't want to prove anything.

Maion

[Celtic_Punk]

makedonia won because they had longer spears. the phalangites were a revolution that outdated the classical form of a hoplite! Even numbers on flat terrain Phalangite vs Classical Hoplite = Phalagnite victory

[Maion Maroneios]

That's what I mean. Long pikes and peltasts were the banning of old-style hoplites, wether you like it or not. Heavy spearmen with 50kg worth equipment that are just drilled to go forward are less flexible than well-drilled pikemen than can move much faster if the situation asks for it and keep the enemy at bay with the pikes.

Maion

[Watchman]

Did you geniuses finally COMPLETELY forget the specific scenario we've been discussing this whole fscking time ? 1K pikemen vs 1K hoplites ?
Christ.

I believe phalangites would win due to more intensive training...And you believe the phalangites received "more intensive training" in the relevant disciplines - here meaning actual hand-to-hand combat, not pike use - and that this would be enough to offset the advantage the hoplites derived from their specialised fighting gear why exactly ?
Also, from what I recall from reading of the clashes between the Romans and Hellenistic pikemen, it would rather appear the phalangites on the whole were most definitely NOT the equals of close-combat heavy infantry at face-to-face distances.

...the ability to thin out as much as the hoplites could.Except they can't, you know. If they thin out the ranks too much, there's not enough successive ranks of spears to offer a reliably stopping barrier to the enemy. Plus given their *extreme* dependency on maintaining a rather specific drill and formation it may not be a good idea to alter the formation deployement on the fly to an unfamiliar one.
Also, due to the extreme vulnerability of their flanks the pike-line sub-units *must* stick together for mutual protection, which still leaves the outermost one partially exposed. The hoplites are under no such imperatives. There is no technical reason why they cannot split into as many separate sub-units as they now deem fit, and pretty much run rings around the lumbering pike blocks looking for openings to exploit.

makedonia won because they had longer spears. the phalangites were a revolution that outdated the classical form of a hoplite! Even numbers on flat terrain Phalangite vs Classical Hoplite = Phalagnite victory...because they had sufficient cavalry and other combined-arms support, numbnuts. The pike phalangites were a part of a holistic system, and did NOT do very well by themselves.
Which is exactly the hypothetical scenario we're dealing with.
Pay attention dammit.

Long pikes and peltasts were the banning of old-style hoplites, wether you like it or not.Only when used properly together alongside with cavalry, which was the Hellenistic armies' primary offensive arm.

Heavy spearmen with 50kg worth equipment that are just drilled to go forward are less flexible than well-drilled pikemen than can move much faster if the situation asks for it and keep the enemy at bay with the pikes.I've no idea how the fig you ended up with a 50 kg load on the hoplites (plate-clad Medieval knights lugged around under half that...), but clearly you are now wholly - and I rather suspect intentionally - acutely underestimating what shieldwall spearmen can and can't do. For one thing as far as formations go they are FAR less dependent on them than the pikemen, who are nearly useless if out of the ranks; for another, they can wheel and maneuver much more readily and if necessary abandon all semblance of ordered formation in a pinch and still remain reasonably effective combat units.
Pikemen of the Hellenistic pattern, conversely, are very cumbersome on account of the absolute need to maintain orderly rank and file in order to avoid the long pike-shafts getting tangled together in a hopeless log-jam mess. "Moving much faster" you can similarly forget outright; these weren't the Swiss pikemen who could deliver a charge at the run without compromising their formation, but a painfully slow-moving and cumbersome long and deep lines of notoriously poor tactical maneuverability and flexibility.

As for the pikes, they're of any value only to the front. The second foemen get into the side of the pike block, they're as good as dead weight and need to be ditched posthaste out of the way of sidearms and close combat.

[Maion Maroneios]

How about a nice cup, Watchman?

Maion

[Watchman]

I'm a teetotaler. And hate it when people start acting stupid and ignoring a little something known in agrarian societies as context.

[Maion Maroneios]

I'm a teetotaler. And hate it when people start acting stupid and ignoring a little something known in agrarian societies as context.
OK then,
https://img26.imageshack.us/img26/76/stfur.jpg (https://img26.imageshack.us/i/stfur.jpg/)

Your babbling is getting me on the nerves. You pretty much screwed the conversation when you started giving us epithets. Plus, I despise know-it-alls and guys who don't respect another man's oppinion. And yes, I'm becoming as arrogant as you've acted in a past thread. Shoo now.

Maion

[Watchman]

Given that your argumentation has for a while now followed the pattern of "because I say so", I don't really see where *you* get to act all high and mighty.

[Zarax]

That's just too bad, the thread had a nice argument going on until attitudes set in...
*engaging fire estuinguishing system*

[satalexton]

Cool down Megas Philos Basileus, there's not reason be of ire. Your half-assed act of moros out of frustration, will never defeat the true moros.

[antisocialmunky]

Given that your argumentation has for a while now followed the pattern of "because I say so", I don't really see where *you* get to act all high and mighty.

You sir, deserve the most epic balloon...

http://www.images.generallyawesome2.com/photos/funny/photos/darth-vader-balloon.jpg

[Phalanx300]

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?


Then show me any source which precisely shows how Hoplite combat went, from what we have we can derive it was a dense formation which went another dense formation with probably overhand spears.

As I said at the time it was obvious how combat went and wasn't precisily writen, the same happens today as you as the perfect allknowing historian most probably know.

Which is how it was shown in the video and how it is shown in EB which you are apparantly totally ignoring as well.

Amateurs? Members of them are Historians and a member of them is the leading researchers on Greek heraldy.

And are you now seriously blaiming them for not using plant material to paint their capes? Do you even know how expensive a full Hoplite gear is even today?

You post is full of insult and arrogance towards those who know their stuff far better then you.

http://www.spartasmores.gr/

[Dutchhoplite]

Hmmm, the point is that no one actually knows the nature of actual hoplite combat and the othismos. At best you can call this *a* interpretation. Besides that , i don’t think you can simulate hoplite combat with so few people.

Though from a different period I find these videos much more instructive, especially on crowd behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLeRDk4fJc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhollow%2Dlakedaimon%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Geticus]

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?


Ditto what Maion said, the word was "othismos" from Greek "othizein" meaning to shove, othismos essentially meaning "the shove" similar to the concept of push of pike. The characteristic movement of a Polybian era Roman army was a slow step back (i.e. Romans fought rather defensively) as observed by Polybius himself whereas the characteristic movement of a Classical Hellenic phalanx was forward motion. If you want to read about hoplite war as described by an authoritative Classical Hellenist military historian read "The Western Way of War" by Victor Hanson who is arguably the top modern authority on 5th and 4th century BCE Hellenic Warfare.

The key is that the Greek phalanx tried to conserve forward motion. After the opposed phalanxes collided many spears tended to shatter and others could be simply be discarded in favor of the kopis. If you want source, I think Maion was probably alluding to Xenophon's description of the second battle of Koroneia c. 394 BC between the Spartan allied forces and the Thebans/Athenians, as described by Xenophon in the Hellenica, I don't have the Greek with me offhand but I have read it, it said more or less "and so they charged, they collided, they pushed, they died" or something to that effect. This was classic othismos between the Theban and Spartan phalanx. Phalanx conflicts tended to devolve into press of shield on shield. Similarly at the Battle of Leuctra Epaminondas massed his Thebans on the left 50 men deep precisely to maximize the othismos impact of the Thebans and overwhelm with sheer pressure the small fraction of actual Spartiates in the opposing army. The strategy worked and the king of Sparta died in the press and subsequent rupture. According to Hanson in fact one of the leading causes of death in classical hoplite warfare is trampling.

Since you are biased for vikings et al. then perhaps you are aware that in north europe shield press was also used, as for example one account of the death of Ragnar Lothbrok holds that since none of the Anglo-Saxons could beat Ragnar in battle the Anglo-Saxon king commanded his men to bear Ragnar down with shields, he was then flattened to the ground by grouped shield pressure, imprisoned in a pit and subsequently executed. It might be in the Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok if you are curious to verify.

In short shields are weapons that can be used to inflict blunt trauma by shieldboss strikes (a tactic often used by the Romans as for example at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae consistent with Marius' instructions) as well as general pressure through massed press of shields, and that tactic was used all over Europe in some degree from ancient times up to and including the viking era.

[Exosus]

Not to leap in in the middle here, but I think I have located the problem this argument is having. The phalangite side (I'm bad with names) is going on the commonly-taught concept that the rise of Makedon under Phillipos II and Alexandros III signaled the death or decline of traditional hoplite combat. This is credited to the 16-foot sarissa, and rightly so. When taken at face value, history education at the college level would lead to the conclusion that the phalangite is superior to the hoplite and therefore would win a 1v1 (or 1kv1k) battle.

However, these two things do not necessarily equate. The phalangite is a superior unit in some sense, but only when properly supported. If the hoplitai are forced to (or choose to for whatever reason) move directly into the spear wall of the phalangitai and cannot or do not wrap around the edges, they will lose, and they will lose dependably, assuming similar numbers. This results from the fact that there will be heavy casualties in the process of even reaching a range at which they can be effective. This is the entire purpose and strength of the philangitai - the maintenance of a range longer than that at which their enemies can engage.

If they are able to wrap around, the phalangitai will be defeated for two main reasons. Firstly, they are not as well-trained in close-range combat as the hoplitai, for which such range is the only range. Secondly, they are not as heavily armed or armored and have vastly smaller and less maneuverable shields.

In short, a supported phalangite unit > a supported hoplite unit; an unsupported phalangite unit < an unsupported hoplite unit.

[ARCHIPPOS]

i totaly agree with the guy above me :2thumbsup:

a very thined out HOPLITE battleline would behave much better in battle against a thined out SARISOFOROI line... the sarisa phallanx needs at least 5-8 lines of depth to work its best ... why??? to create the pike wall effect spear density is essential ... bc of smaller shields sarisoforoi absolutely need to produce the maximum possible number of projected spears as an extra means of defense ...

inadequate spear density could lead to HOPLITES actually dealing with the sarisa spears relatively easy by hacking them ,breaking them or simply avoiding them or even passing in between (very matrix-like i know but perhaps it could be done???) ... the pike wall actually works by saturating the enemy with lowered spears...

pike phalanx -----> pike wall=defense

this is what watchman claims and i tend to be convinced by his explanations... i don't understand why people have to get all personal over this though :no::no::no:

some other aspects

1)the HOPLITES were certainly more mobile than the SARISOFOROI... for one they could perform a running charge and maintain some cohesion which i doubt the SARISOFOROI could do...
2)using their shields they could perform othismos (=the pushing effect)
points 1+2 = hoplites could use their mass better than sarisoforoi... this could be crucial in breaking a thined out line of opponents...

3)HOPLITES were also more manouverable... i think we can all agree that a 90 or 180 degree phallanx turn is more difficult to perform holding the sarisa than a spear...

4) THIS I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT TO BE MADE
the whole idea of a 1000 spears against a 1000 sarisae is missing the point ... the whole idea is that the MAKEDONES introduced a different revolutionary doctrine of warfare=combined weapons... to the effective yet monolithic hoplite battleline they answered with pinning and flanking manouveurs ... it's not the sarisae by itself that won the battles but the hammer and anvil... :smash::smash::smash:

[Phalanx300]

While a Phalangite formation is very good at the defensive I doubt that in a frontal fight they can push the Hoplites back. And as Dutchhoplite posted, the power of an crowd shouldn't be underestimated, the pure pushing power would, in an prolonged melee be enough to break the Phalangites. I think that the spears of the Phalangites wouldn't be able to take that much presure, unless the formation slowly walks backwards. Might be what happened at Chaoronea with the Thebans staying where they stood because they were the more disciplined troops, or with Phillip actually risking his left by having them stay put and his right slowly walk backward.

[Watchman]

Pushing against rows of pike-tips strikes me as singularly unhealthy-sounding activity, you know.

[antisocialmunky]

So is war in general, Watchman. Less healthy things have been done like WWI where men advanced into a hail of bullets as opposed to a forest of spear tips.

IIRC accounts of Chaoronea by Diodorus talked about relatively high casualties on both sides during the fighting. The only way I could see that happening would be from a flanking attack or the hoplites managed to engage the front few rows of the phalanx. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine that the front ranks of hoplites did things like get low to the ground and angle their shields upwards to get under the pikes. Points have a bad tendency to get redirected against oblique surfaces. The problem arises when you get to the first man and you're fighting him HTH except you can't move around since their are pikes everywhere and that other guy is getting support pokes from a guy in the back. There's also an issue of piles of bodies forming up in the front of the phalanx making it harder for the hoplites to push through.

[glouch]

Exosus, thanks for finally bringing some sense in this forum again. once i saw the big "cup of STFU" image above, i knew instantly that what's talking here is not REASON, but DAMAGED/THREATENED EGOs.

back to topic. i was going to say the exact thing Exosus was going to say earlier this morning, only my internet went dead. anyway, i'd also like to add that in an idealized situation of phalangite vs. hoplite formation, what they(Watchman and Maion) are saying are both fundamentally sound, with one major factor missing from what they've been been arguing so passionately, and that is the absence or presence of equally competent and knowledgeable commanders.

in the absence of commanding officers, the men in these two formation would just do what they would have been drilled to do, which would imply that the hoplites would, as what Maion had suggested, push against the wall of spear points presented by the phalangites, which would favor the pike phalanx.

in the presence of commanders who would be equally competent and knowledgeable of battlefield tactics, etc., things will be quite different. pike phalanxes are extremely vulnerable at the flanks, and the hoplite formation had the necessary mobility to exploit that weakness. and, honestly guys, do we really think that the etymology of the word used to describe hoplites and their tactics (which, as previously said, meant "to push" in greek) mean that that is the only thing they ever did, despite any situation that demonstrated that they could do something a little different to win in the said battlefield situation? i'd think the greeks, or any group of people would have had more sense than that, at least some of the time.

[Incompituss]

Whilst I am new to EB I have been been playing RTW(RTR) for many years with a group of friends. We get together every weekend and have multi-player battles.

Now I was rather well versed in the factions of RTR but am new to EB. This topic interests me as I am currently playing the Seleucid and find that the Hoplati are one of my favorite units(we tend to start tournaments with little money and build up during the course of battles making them a good early unit). Their moral has saved the day for me many times.

What I am wanting to understand better is where should I use the defend command and when to turn it off. I have never really understood the benifets of it, although it does keep my formation in tact.

Thx in advance.

[antisocialmunky]

That's neat that you guys have tournements. I like that money limit idea. Anyways, if you're curious @ online play, check out our tournement here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=118635

[Dutchhoplite]

s
IIRC accounts of Chaoronea by Diodorus talked about relatively high casualties on both sides during the fighting.

Another bloody and nasty fight was the battle of Megalopolis (331) where the Spartans were beaten by Antipater, also known as the battle of mice ;)

[Mindaros]

While a Phalangite formation is very good at the defensive I doubt that in a frontal fight they can push the Hoplites back. And as Dutchhoplite posted, the power of an crowd shouldn't be underestimated, the pure pushing power would, in an prolonged melee be enough to break the Phalangites. I think that the spears of the Phalangites wouldn't be able to take that much presure, unless the formation slowly walks backwards. Might be what happened at Chaoronea with the Thebans staying where they stood because they were the more disciplined troops, or with Phillip actually risking his left by having them stay put and his right slowly walk backward.
Quite a feat to make a pike phalanx move backwards in an orderly fashion with the enemy close by, recalling how clumsy it is even when moving forward.

[Macilrille]

Ditto what Maion said, the word was "othismos" from Greek "othizein" meaning to shove, othismos essentially meaning "the shove" similar to the concept of push of pike. The characteristic movement of a Polybian era Roman army was a slow step back (i.e. Romans fought rather defensively) as observed by Polybius himself whereas the characteristic movement of a Classical Hellenic phalanx was forward motion. If you want to read about hoplite war as described by an authoritative Classical Hellenist military historian read "The Western Way of War" by Victor Hanson who is arguably the top modern authority on 5th and 4th century BCE Hellenic Warfare.

The key is that the Greek phalanx tried to conserve forward motion. After the opposed phalanxes collided many spears tended to shatter and others could be simply be discarded in favor of the kopis. If you want source, I think Maion was probably alluding to Xenophon's description of the second battle of Koroneia c. 394 BC between the Spartan allied forces and the Thebans/Athenians, as described by Xenophon in the Hellenica, I don't have the Greek with me offhand but I have read it, it said more or less "and so they charged, they collided, they pushed, they died" or something to that effect. This was classic othismos between the Theban and Spartan phalanx. Phalanx conflicts tended to devolve into press of shield on shield. Similarly at the Battle of Leuctra Epaminondas massed his Thebans on the left 50 men deep precisely to maximize the othismos impact of the Thebans and overwhelm with sheer pressure the small fraction of actual Spartiates in the opposing army. The strategy worked and the king of Sparta died in the press and subsequent rupture. According to Hanson in fact one of the leading causes of death in classical hoplite warfare is trampling.

Since you are biased for vikings et al. then perhaps you are aware that in north europe shield press was also used, as for example one account of the death of Ragnar Lothbrok holds that since none of the Anglo-Saxons could beat Ragnar in battle the Anglo-Saxon king commanded his men to bear Ragnar down with shields, he was then flattened to the ground by grouped shield pressure, imprisoned in a pit and subsequently executed. It might be in the Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok if you are curious to verify.

In short shields are weapons that can be used to inflict blunt trauma by shieldboss strikes (a tactic often used by the Romans as for example at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae consistent with Marius' instructions) as well as general pressure through massed press of shields, and that tactic was used all over Europe in some degree from ancient times up to and including the viking era.


Now here we are making some sense, thanks for the sources, sense and case. I shall try and see what we may glean from it.

Regnar and other heroes were caught between shields, yes, it was apparently a common tactic when many faced a hero/champion that none could take individually and they wanted to preserve (nevermind that most of the stories attributed to Regnar is pure myth, the point was the shield-against-hero, which is valid). As such the Vikings are not in fact described anywhere to fight in such a press. But that matters little, we can agree that shields against champion was done and was a good and valid way of neutralising such a one.

Now for ancient armies doing it, I still fail to see any source validating Phalanx' claim that it was 10- 20 cm. But of course I also have no source for them not doing so. I also have no source saying that they did not fly...

Now I shall try and elaborate my reasoning and arrogant as I am, my source is me. yes me!!! With 16 years of experience as a fighter, commander, trainer, organiser and tactician of one of the two most famous and praised Viking Re-enactment group around I do believe I can claim to have some small knowledge of group fighting. And as TDH said we do not actually know, so we have to use some sense and interpretation. Actual fighting experience is not a bad basis to build this on I would say.

1. Hoplitai fought with spears, spears are most effective at the sharp end. Basically you want to keep your opponent at a distance where your spearpoint can reach him, your spear is your primary weapon, so no need to immediately ditch it and move in to dagger distance.

2. In a press of people, you cannot move. Seriously, consider the implication of this. All of us have been in a press of people where we have been penned in, arm and leg movement restricted, your long nice spear useless if you had one (why have it then?), as is your shield wielded offensively- you need room for that as well. Now imagine that while people are trying to kill you. And as you are not wearing full medieval plate you have vulnerable points where you can actually be killed or severely injured. I have tried such situations (try searching for "Wolin" on Youtube) and it is suicide (especially at Wolin where the battle pins Russians and Poles hating each other against each other- there are serious injuries every year).

3. Fighting like that is extremely exhausting, especially in the temperatures one can get around the Mediterenean. Unless relieved, no one can do that for much more than half an hour. The consensus today is that ancient and medieval armies would clash- seperate- clash- seperate, not fight continuosly. The ones doing the actual fighting would simply pass out from overheating, dehydration and exhaustion (the two first being in my experience the worst). Again, recall when you have been in a press of people, did you sweat and get overheated? Did you have to drink lots water to avoid dehydration?

These are my reasons for saying, "No Phalanx300, Hoplite/Phalanx combat did not, as a rule, take place at 10- 20 cm". However, I have no doubt that it sometimes happened, my point is that the smart commander would try to avoid it.

Instead I suggest that we interpret the push as happening at spear point length (which it can, I have seen it often) and only in rare cases getting close, and never at 10- 20 cm, which is what I originally opposed. I suggest Phalanx300 that you line up a few of your friends, equip them with broomsticks and move in so close to each other, I am fairly certain you will understand my point then. 10- 20 cm is very close, too close to do anything defensively and effectively too close for even a short sword like the kopis or the infamous and nasty Gladius Hispanensis to be very effective.

As for the nice parade soldiers marching about Phalanx, I have no doubt they are very good at what they do as a profession, but they are not fighters.
All of us here know a lot of history. That does not make us fighters, even I cannot say with certainty how Vikings did things, but I can make a hell of a lot better guess than some archelogist or historian who has never held a weapon, while my sword is well-worn by hundreds of hours of use.


Anyway, my general point is that though "Rugby Scrums" could happen, it was best to avoid them for the reasons above. Though of course hemming in the enemy and pressing them was desirable.
Will you guys buy this? Or perhaps Geticus can elaborate to a new interpretation from which we can actually build an understanding?

Now I will go and use my own pike and sword- shield ;-)

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Maybe the effective "push" was done to definitively break a line that was effectively willing to break.

FIrst, hoplite fought at spear-distance, THEN they push forward, trying to smash the enemy with shields. When pushing, they were at direct contact with the enemy, so 10cm as Phalanx300 said, and spear was useless in this phase as Macrille said. If the enemy broke, they can rout him.

So, maybe the huge tiring rate due to heavy pushing lasted only 30seconds or a minute: if the enemy resists, maybe the hoplite line step backwards and got back to spears. This avoided the Hoplite to get too tired in a continuate push against a still fresh enemy.

Just my tought, but it seems logical.

[Phalanx300]

Now for ancient armies doing it, I still fail to see any source validating Phalanx' claim that it was 10- 20 cm. But of course I also have no source for them not doing so. I also have no source saying that they did not fly...

Yes, and EB which also support my claim obviously has Hoplites flying to the sky right? And there are sources which indicate a shield wall formation, and from vase painting we can conclude that overhand was used in the shield wall.


Now I shall try and elaborate my reasoning and arrogant as I am, my source is me. yes me!!! With 16 years of experience as a fighter, commander, trainer, organiser and tactician of one of the two most famous and praised Viking Re-enactment group around I do believe I can claim to have some small knowledge of group fighting. And as TDH said we do not actually know, so we have to use some sense and interpretation. Actual fighting experience is not a bad basis to build this on I would say.

Indeed, and from Chinese martial arts we can decide what Western European martial arts were all about?


1. Hoplitai fought with spears, spears are most effective at the sharp end. Basically you want to keep your opponent at a distance where your spearpoint can reach him, your spear is your primary weapon, so no need to immediately ditch it and move in to dagger distance.

In one on one combat yes, but we're talking about a closely packed formation here.


2. In a press of people, you cannot move. Seriously, consider the implication of this. All of us have
been in a press of people where we have been penned in, arm and leg movement restricted, your long nice spear useless if you had one (why have it then?), as is your shield wielded offensively- you need room for that as well. Now imagine that while people are trying to kill you. And as you are not wearing full medieval plate you have vulnerable points where you can actually be killed or severely injured. I have tried such situations (try searching for "Wolin" on Youtube) and it is suicide (especially at Wolin where the battle pins Russians and Poles hating each other against each other- there are serious injuries every year).

Which is exactly why an overhand use with the spear is used, you retain control and use of an spear, even when closely packed together.


3. Fighting like that is extremely exhausting, especially in the temperatures one can get around the Mediterenean. Unless relieved, no one can do that for much more than half an hour. The consensus today is that ancient and medieval armies would clash- seperate- clash- seperate, not fight continuosly. The ones doing the actual fighting would simply pass out from overheating, dehydration and exhaustion (the two first being in my experience the worst). Again, recall when you have been in a press of people, did you sweat and get overheated? Did you have to drink lots water to avoid dehydration?

I doubt it, why would the pushig otherwise be deadly if the Hoplites stopped fighting all the time? How could Hoplite Phalanxes envelop other formation when they stopped fighting all the time? How come dead soldiers kept standing in an battle when they stopped fighting all the time.

All of this points at the direction that a Hoplite phalanx kept going till the enemy routed, which usually happened as one side's formation was broken by another Phalanx.


These are my reasons for saying, "No Phalanx300, Hoplite/Phalanx combat did not, as a rule, take place at 10- 20 cm". However, I have no doubt that it sometimes happened, my point is that the smart commander would try to avoid it.

The essence of Hoplite Phalanx combat is an dense formation, that way vs less dense formation your Phalanx has an definately advantage. Hoplites would thus get very closely together, probably around the 20 cm.


Instead I suggest that we interpret the push as happening at spear point length (which it can, I have seen it often) and only in rare cases getting close, and never at 10- 20 cm, which is what I originally opposed. I suggest Phalanx300 that you line up a few of your friends, equip them with broomsticks and move in so close to each other, I am fairly certain you will understand my point then. 10- 20 cm is very close, too close to do anything defensively and effectively too close for even a short sword like the kopis or the infamous and nasty Gladius Hispanensis to be very effective.

Perhaps its more 20-30 cm also counting shield thickness and armour. As I said, overhand effectively terminates any problems which underhand has in close formation. Why do you think Spartans got a small sword? Smaller then the rest of the Greeks? Spartans perfected the Hoplite Phalanx, this prooves that Hoplite combat was closely packed, in which short swords such as the Spartans used it excells. The 60cm sword of other Greeks was less usefull in such a closely packed formation.


As for the nice parade soldiers marching about Phalanx, I have no doubt they are very good at what they do as a profession, but they are not fighters.
All of us here know a lot of history. That does not make us fighters, even I cannot say with certainty how Vikings did things, but I can make a hell of a lot better guess than some archelogist or historian who has never held a weapon, while my sword is well-worn by hundreds of hours of use.

Neither are you yet you are talking they don't know shit and you do, while I can guarantee they know their stuff about Spartans and Hoplites far better then you, remember members of them are Historians and Researchers as well. Actually, an Hoplite reenactor died in an accident while filming a documentary, it has its risks obviously.


Anyway, my general point is that though "Rugby Scrums" could happen, it was best to avoid them for the reasons above. Though of course hemming in the enemy and pressing them was desirable.
Will you guys buy this? Or perhaps Geticus can elaborate to a new interpretation from which we can actually build an understanding?

Now I will go and use my own pike and sword- shield ;-)

Staying at a meter away and trying to hit your enemy is way to ineffective, lets see how that works out against an formation which holds it density:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4RFrcL4aaY&feature=related

Compare this "Phalanx" vs the other one I posted, you should be able to tell that the denser one would have been far more effective.


Maybe the effective "push" was done to definitively break a line that was effectively willing to break.


FIrst, hoplite fought at spear-distance, THEN they push forward, trying to smash the enemy with shields. When pushing, they were at direct contact with the enemy, so 10cm as Phalanx300 said, and spear was useless in this phase as Macrille said. If the enemy broke, they can rout him.

So, maybe the huge tiring rate due to heavy pushing lasted only 30seconds or a minute: if the enemy resists, maybe the hoplite line step backwards and got back to spears. This avoided the Hoplite to get too tired in a continuate push against a still fresh enemy.

Just my tought, but it seems logical.


First in loose formation fighting at a metres away and then quickly make a dense formation without the enemy attacking in a dense formation first and easilly breaking your line? I don't really see how this would work it.

[antisocialmunky]

Indeed, and from Chinese martial arts we can decide what Western European martial arts were all about?

Still doesn't change the principles that its built upon. You can deduce intent and context so you're better off than someone who comes in fresh.

No offense but I still don't see any reason to listen to your claims. You're not citing anything or explaining your reasoning. You're just repeating what you've heard. What I've heard other people say.

@Mac - What they are talking about isn't fighting, its the stereotypical pushing match when you see people do after some sort of crazy suicidal charge in the movies where people get impaled on spear points and then really compressed. You're talking about actually being able to move around and fight. The Wolin battle I found was a slow merge same with most of the other medieval reenactment groups. I've always felt this was the most realistic take on it since you have to maintain your shield wall, you don't want to die. Certainly it didn't happen always but it was probably the case with more disciplined units. Merge at a walking pace or a little faster so people don't get crushed as much and can kinda fight.

Wolin 2007 shows a slower merge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoshKASFGOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj8PxOxuoiI&feature=related

Vyborg 2007? shows chaos and a running charge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zGjex6qDtM

@Mikhail
Hoplite warfare as you described might have been at spear point with a slow merge or they get within spear point, then do a quick charge. You don't need a whole lot of room to get to your max speed so why waste it? Plus you can catch your opponent off guard if you do it at the last minute. Saw a Vyborg video that was taken down where a bunch of guys ran straight into the other formation at the last minute.

Somewhat like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr_IH5ffRo&feature=fvw

[Watchman]

Don't period chroniclers often describe shield buckling and splitting in the collision of hoplite phalanxes, though ? Or that's the impression I've gotten anyway. Would seem to suggest they at least at times charged right into contact (and naturally tried to spear someone while at it too)...


So is war in general, Watchman. Less healthy things have been done like WWI where men advanced into a hail of bullets as opposed to a forest of spear tips.Yeah, well. And we know how well it worked to advance troops into that hail of bulltets, don't we ? All of the participants learned right fast an assault had not a shred of hope to succeed unless the defenders were first thoroughly suppressed by artillery and whatnot...

Regarding Chaeronea, that was pretty early in the pike phalangites' evolutionary arc and at the time AFAIK their pikes were still relatively short (ie. 4m or so)... which probably rather contributed to the casualties, as enemies had fewer successive ranks of spear-points to navigate through to get into close-combat range. The Greeks may also have been able to at least partially wrap around the Macedonian infantry line - from what I gather, theirs was longer and Philip's cavalry and lighter infantry (presumably at times somewhat busy with their Greek opposite numbers) may not have been entirely able to prevent such attempts at turning the flanks.

[Phalanx300]

Still doesn't change the principles that its built upon. You can deduce intent and context so you're better off than someone who comes in fresh.

No offense but I still don't see any reason to listen to your claims. You're not citing anything or explaining your reasoning. You're just repeating what you've heard. What I've heard other people say.

Then please show me who in this tread posted sources? No one did, every one here has thus far just posted his opinion and records and experiences.

I personally compare the different posibilities of how thing could have went and choose the best one accordingly. In fact I thought that Hoplite fought overhand because the Hoplite helmet lost lower protection and in this article of ancient warfare turns out I was right on that. Same with shorter sword. Those two things I thought of myself and afterwards read it being said by some Historians. :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

Shorter sword ? What shorter sword ? The last I read up on that, only the Spartans used meaningfully shorter blades (and were occasionally explicitly mocked by other Greeks about that); the standard sidearms AFAIK were the xiphos and the machaira/kopis, all around 50-60cm lenght range...
That's not terribly short.

[Phalanx300]

Shorter sword ? What shorter sword ? The last I read up on that, only the Spartans used meaningfully shorter blades (and were occasionally explicitly mocked by other Greeks about that); the standard sidearms AFAIK were the xiphos and the machaira/kopis, all around 50-60cm lenght range...
That's not terribly short.

Standard Greek sword was about 50-60, Spartans initially used this version as well but over time settled for smaller and smaller swords, eventually getting at around 30-40cm.

Sorry, was talking about Spartans. Always tend to let for me obvious information gone since I never like to write whole essays about stuff but just like to keep it simple.