I hope Rome:TW has macedonian units

[Acronym]

I heard Greece is a playable faction. Can't wait to send a phalanx with 20ft long spears into the roman legions. Its 3d so they better have collision and physics so the armies have the push effect. If they model the units like real life, each roman will have 5 spears pushing on his shield. Maybe now we'll almost feel the shock of shock troops clashing

Hopefully they'll have the Alexander vs Persia/India campaign.

[Stormer]

well if they were here in history books and did fight them why wouldnt they be in the game.

[Rosacrux]

Acronym, I guess you'll give it a try, so you can prove that the phalanx wasn't so much worse than the legions, huh? Same here. But I shall apply Alexander's combined arms tactics for maximum efficiency http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[CBR]

Oh they should be there. The question is more about if CA figures out how to model combat. In this case swords will not defeat long spears(pikes) head on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The 3D is nice ofc but making a good combat system is the most important. We wont have the same good missile units as we have seen in STW and MTW and skirmisher units will be a lot more important on the battlefield. And ofc cavalry will generally be weaker than we see in MTW.

CBR

[kataphraktoi]

by the way the macedonian phalanx was butchered by the romans in real life..I don't know if that will have a bearing on rome tw if it they don feature greece as a faction. think about it a long spear against a solid shield where the penetration of the spear is broken by a asolid wall...oh well games like these aren't history lessons they are there for butchering people you don't like historical. I for one hate the muslim factions.

[CBR]

Yes the Romans defeated the phalanx in several battles but it was not head-on. IIRC most of the times because the Romans won the cavalry battle on the flanks.

The phalanx needed dense formations to work. That meant slow to advance/turn and problems in bad terrain which created holes in their line.


CBR

[Stormer]

do you think they will be untoucable, i mean like do you think outher units wont be able to get near them as there tactics were meant for this and the spears were very long so the enermy couldnt get near them.

[CBR]

Hmm well if facing Romans I would say its not very likely that a roman soldier would be able to hit anything but spear heads with his gladius.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/enemies-of-rome.html

Here is a couple of links.

CBR

[King David]

The Roman Army adapted in their battle tactics and employed heavy use of artillery Ballistae and Scorpions against their foes as well as Auxiliary Cav. Depending on their generals taste. The Greeks always stuck to the same tactics and dint like to change their system of warfare due to their traditions and that is what killed them in the battle field. The Gaul kicked Roman Ars for a while with their pilum so the Romans adapted it to their use. The Samnites kicked Roman Ars on the mountains so the Romans learned Mountain warfare They did use the phalanx douring the early Republican era but Various army reforms changed that. Just thank God that you never had to face them in battle.

[Gregoshi]

Welcome to the Org Acronym. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

You seem to have touched on a good subject. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Acronym]

by the way the macedonian phalanx was butchered by the romans in real life..

True, but this is because Macedonian/Greek generals after Alexander relied on longer spears and a smashing frontal assault, while Philip and Alexander used cavalry coordinated with their attack for the hammer and anvil effect. But in a head on fight, romans would toss their spears and exploit the gaps that were so fatal to the phalanx. But there were also accounts where a roman legion was literally pushed away by a macedonian phalanx.

This will be very tough to model in a game though, since the roman soldiers would have to fight their way through a wall of spears.

[Surak-nar]

Well, actually,

Politics is what defeated the Greeks.

By the time the Romans started their advance towards the East, Alexander was long Gone, and his Empire had been devided in to several Kingdoms that were first headed by Alexander's Generals, one of the most famous is probably Ptolemy, who's Dynasty lasted on to the last very Well Known Pharaoh of Egypt Cleopatra, (yes she was Greek), and as you know under the Ptolemy Dynasty Egypt stood tall in front of the Roman Empire (so in a way Greece was not defeated in one Glorious blow)

Back to the Greece proper thought, the Romans used the lesser Kingdoms against the More Powerfull mainland Kingdoms and insited Civil War, helping the lesser Kingdoms at First, then once their armies were weakened enough, turned around and sided with the more powerfull ones, destroying the lesser ones. By that time, both sides were so badly used up, that the only way to remain alive would be to accept the Protection and Ruling of Rome. (Who said that Wars are won solely by warfare?)

In any case, what eventually destroyed the Phalanx was the same weapon that the romans themselves fought, lost and adopted as theirs, the Pilum.

Whish was thin enough to transperse the Shields of the Time, then because it was thin it would bend and would act as a Hook remaining attached to that shield and effectivelly rendering it unusable.

Now, A phalanx without shields is not that tough to defeat.

And I do hope that this achile's heel of the Phalanx against the Pilum would be represented in the new Game, other than that there is not much else that could stand to the Phalanx, not even Indian Elephants http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[CBR]

Yes you are right that politics was important too.

But for the sarissa armed phalanx the shield was more to protect against missiles than to be used in hand to hand(ofc a a shield will help if fighting a similar armed foe) as the whole purpose of a dense formation and very long spears was to keep the enemy at a distance.

If an enemy could reach the first rank with swords the phalanx would have failed its mission and be slaughtered quickly with or without shields.

That is the strenght and weakness of the sarissa: used in a unbroken formation its great but its not a very good weapon for close individual fighting.

CBR

[Surak-nar]

Yes CBR, true enough,

However, it is almost impossible to do a frontal assault against a Phalanx.

And the Reason is simple, the key to the success of a Phalanx was exactly the very Long Spear, which could go as deep as the 5th Row Fighting at the same time as the first.

When the first man would go down the 2nd would replace him and the one after them etc...up to the 6th row which would become now the 5th row and be able to fight with their long spear against the men in front of the Phalanx. You can immagine that back in those times, the phalanx was like a Tank, unstopable...

Of cource the only way to destroy is to Flank, or to Break/Disturb the formation.

And the Pilum did just That, by harassing the Phalanx from a safe distance the Squirmishers, (Greeks had Peltasts), were disturbing the phalanxes enough and rendered them vulnerable to Missiles, which broke the formations and the enemy could ONLY then approach head to head with it and engage in hand to hand.

Alternatives to that it would be Cavalry outflanking and attacking from the sides or from the rear. Then again, Hoplites part of a Phalanx formation wee also armed with short swords as a secondary weapon.

Once more, sword without shield back in those times, did not go very far.

Conclusion, Pilum was the Catalyst and only effective weapon that contributed to the decline of the Phalanx.

[CBR]

Well most of it is correct but as I see it your conclusion is based on the idea that the Romans actually could defeat sarissa phalanx frontally because they used the pilum to disrupt the formation.

No doubt that the pilum would cause casualties and help them fighting the phalanx, but from the description of several of the famous legion versus phalanx battles we actually see the romans having big problems when fighting the phalanx frontally.

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/cynocephalae-197bc.htm

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/magnesia-190bc.htm

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/pydna.htm

The pilum was an important weapon in the roman war machine but I dont see how it was the catalyst that brought down the Phalanx.

CBR

[Acronym]

I think the romans would have had a much harder time against a macedonian commander that used the phalanx correctly. After alexander it was primarily used as an offensive battering ram, not what it was designed for.

Very powerful weapon but rarely used correctly.

[rasoforos]

i as well do not believe that the pilum would be so effective against the sarissa , if the pilum was effective the short greek spears during the era of Phillip would have been able to provide adequate resistance to the fallanx. we all know they did not. I , as many others here , believe that it was politics that were the demise of greece. Think of a united greece , the macedonian leadership not weakened by a century of dispute , and a very good leader and strategist to lead. i do not believe that this would be an opponent rome would easilly defeat.

[CBR]

Yes the sarissa phalanx was really meant for a combined arms tactic with cavalry being the main attacking force on the flank while the infantry was meant to stop the enemy infantry attack and pin them.

When they didnt have the high quality cavalry and in fewer numbers the phalanx became the main attack force and it was never meant for that role.

CBR

[Rosacrux]

Good conversation here.

Sarissa weilding phalangites were pretty much unstoppable in flat ground whith their flanks covered. If the ground was not even or the flanks poorly defended... well, we've seen the Romans take the phalanx more than once due to those factors.

But, truly, it was indeed politics that brought the submission of the Greek world to the Romans. They (Romans) played really effectively the divide and conquer game on the Greeks.

[Surak-nar]

Well, happy new year

We seem to have sprung 2 discusions here, and we all agree to the Politics as the main reason for the Greek downfall.

The Discussion of the Pilum is another matter, and no, the Pilum was not the reson of Greek Downfall, it did contribute to the downfall of the Phalanx. One Historical fact to account for that is that the phalanx as Designed by Philipus II and used by Alexander, seased to exist.

Back in those times, there was a trend that a Victorius army would adopt many ways of doing things as well as discoveries and inventions from the people they conquered.

And as we saw, the Romans, adopted from Fashion to Architecture to Religion from the Greeks. In some cases they used it streight through and in some others they improved upon the Ideas and established their own Legacies.

One thing they did not adopt however is the Phalanx, and the reason is that their Legion system equiped with a very large rectangular shield, sword in the waist, and last but not least...the Pilum A brilliant invention that in combination with the Leggion system was used most effectivelly. And that fellow generals and rulers, can't be dismissed, as merelly a detail. It would be like dismissing the use of satelite intelligence in modern warfare as not being an advantage.

The Pilum constiuted such an innovative advancement against all the peoples that were still using equipement which in its own right was an innovation in its time but had become outdated.

Thank you, best of wishes, and a very Happy new Year http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[kataphraktoi]

Acronym.

i understand what you are saying but with or without Alexander the Great military strategy always moves forward and is flexible to change, the phalanx was a very powerful formation but it is one dimensional in its offensive and defensive qualities - terrain especially effects the effectiveness of the phalanx. Perhaps the Romans managed to adapt to the phalanx and devised a counter-balance to the phalanx, that is of course a natural response in military thought. Their large rectangle shields would be no problem against a wall of spears, a gladius could hack of a long spear and deem it useless and leave the phalanx to close quarter fighting.

I wouldn't mind seeing the macedonian Phalanx in Rome Total War, after all they were spearmen that changed the world - well maybe the Middle East anyway.

[Rebel]

Hi guy's, it's my first post on hear. I would just like
to add my comment's, about legionary,s vs phalangite's.
The trick was to lure the phalanx over broken ground,
dissorder it, then press home the attack. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[CBR]

The romans developed their manipular system when fighting in the Samnite Wars. Their standard phalanx was not suited in rough and hilly terran against an opponent who used small unit tactics. The roman army was also primarily an infantry army.

The system ended up being a very flexible one. Using multiple lines, small units that could act independently if needed, javelins used either just before the charge or used in a more skirmish like way when 2 opposing units/lines just looked at each other after the first undecided rush. It could work both in flat and rough terrain.

The Macedonian system was more a development of the old hoplite phalanx but where light infantry and cavalry played a much bigger role. The sarissa armed infantry were really a very specialized unit, designed to as good as possible at the front using the very long spears to keep the enemy at a distance while the cavalry and light infantry won on the flanks.

The system worked great against the greek states using their normal hoplite phalanx and Alexander the Great used it with great success against the Persians too.

For numerous reasons, after his death, the system changed. Less good cavalry and light infantry turned the Sarissa into the main arm and tactics became simpler and less effective.

Bad leadership was ofc one big reason for the defeats but we can still easily see the problems with the Sarissa Phalanx. At Pydna they could push the Romans back but the Roman system with multiple lines meant the even if its first line was under pressure the army as a whole would keep on fighting even when big holes were created. The phalanx had no reserves and difficult to move so when holes where created by terrain and/or flanks threatened the army would fall apart.


The Romans had no reason to adopt anything from the Macedonian system as their own system was more flexible and had given them countless victories. But that doesnt mean it was perfect. They never bothered to focus on more cavalry even when Hannibal defeated them several times and showed them how important good cavalry in big numbers were. They still relied on allied cavalry(not always good or reliable) and their trusty and flexible infantry army.

You said it yourself However, it is almost impossible to do a frontal assault against a Phalanx The links I provided tell the same story and they did use the Pilum..

CBR

[Shahed]

Thx for all this info and links http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Very interesting stuff

[Sjakihata]

if there are elephants, there will be macedonians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[CBR]

I can already see it: AMP charging your balanced army with 16 elephants in loose order http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR