The Phalanx: A collection of retards with long sticks.

[Colovion]

So I just started my Greek Cities campaign and was assaulting Corinth. I sap the wall and move two units of Hoplites in, their General is waiting for me on the other side. As I get through the walls the General charges at my Phalanx units - 'no problem' I think, cause you know - you have these huge spears and a horse is the easiest thing to hit. I guess not as half of both of those units gets decimated by the General's charge before he runs back to the town square. I thought it was a little strange but since I had killed all but two of his Cav it wasn't that bad. I run my Hoplites up to the town square and set them up, ready to take the Light Lancer charge. I move them forward to attack the Lancers and they charge right into my front - destroying all 70 or so Hoplites I had setup perfectly - they just jumped over my spears and slaughtered my guys. It makes sense if I was 2 deep - but being 4 rows deep this is stupitidy at it's finest. Since I had another unit of Hoplites plus some Spartans I wasn't losing hope altogether. I send in another unit of Hoplites to mop up the lancers who lost 10 Cav in the carge. Long story short 70 more Hoplites from one unit gets destroyed by the leftover lancers. I needed to send in my Spartans to finish the job. ~:rolleyes:

So there went my big army and I don't really see my chances as becoming a great Faction when my key units can't even do one of their main functions: KILL CHARGING HORSES. I quit in disgust and is the first time I've been frusterated enough to quit the game. :furious:

PS - I forgot to say that those 70 Hoplites I sent in second were setup and I told them to attack but they seemed to like pivoting and turning so that their side was facing the enemy, not their spears. I hope this is a bug or I really don't see myself playing my potentially favourite faction at all. :no:

[Thoros of Myr]

*I think now the problem is your were attacking with the pahalanx rather then defending*

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Another hint at the OP cavalry... :rolleyes:

[Thoros of Myr]

Nah, I think it's the phalanx is too weak and/or thier bonuses are not working.

[cegman]

No I don't think it is that I think it is activision weakening stuff like fatuige and probably bonuses vrs. units.

[Thon]

their General is waiting for me on the other side. As I get through the walls the General charges at my Phalanx units - 'no problem' I think, cause you know - you have these huge spears and a horse is the easiest thing to hit. I guess not as half of both of those units gets decimated by the General's charge before he runs back to the town square.

did the hoplites get charged as they went through the hole in the wall, or when they were formed as a phalanx and ready?

[Morindin]

Im currently fighting the Macedonians and I have charged their hoplites accidently front on, on numerous occasions, and the end result was plenty of dead horses. These are Urban Hoplites and Phalanax Hoplites.

I dont know what game you're playing, but hoplites vs anything front on = hoplites win.

[Thon]

i tried light lancers vs regular hoplites, hoplites destroyed them while taking 14 casulties

[Doug-Thompson]

Do phalanx's have a "special ability," or whatever?

[discovery1]

The phalanx is the hoplite/pikemans special formation. Did you order the units that were actaully digging the tunnel into the breach? If so, you may have sent them into battle not in phalax formation.

[Morindin]

Do phalanx's have a "special ability," or whatever?

Most spear units can form a "phalanx" which is just that. It also moves extreeemeeely slowly.

[Thon]

i think having them on guard mode along with phalanx helps

[Thoros of Myr]

Huge unit size
Very Hard diff
basic Hoplite (161) vs Basic Gen's guard (49)

Hoplite took about 32 losses Gen's Guard took 39 losses and routed after charging in 2 times. The cav are scripted to always have the horses jump over the line of spears and that does cuase some damage and loss of formation to the phalanx but the second row of horses is sluaghtered.

They were set on guard mode aswell and kept perfectly still while recieving the charge, I noticed on another test if your hoplites are moving AT ALL the bonus goes out the window.

[DisruptorX]

Phalanx are god, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't play the stupid game. You just need to fight defensively. I am currently owning as the greeks.

here are some Romans who are about to be pwned. I lost less than 30 hoplites in the battles, and killed over 200 enemies in combat, 500 being cut down whilst fleeing.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/DisruptorX/phalanx.jpg

Notice the mercs behind my middle unit, I knew the general cavalry would leap over my unit with that retarded "school of fish" junk, so I put that unit there. It worked, the general did exactly that and my mercs slaughtered him. I killed 3 generals bodyguard units in that battle.


Btw, I have quit to desktop twice in anger in RTW. In MTW, I have never done that, ever.

[Colovion]

I just did a couple custom battles.

Equites vs Hoplites went almost how I thought it would with me winning with only losing 11 units. However, this was three different charges that they were able to perform - charging, jumping my spears, and then withdrawing with minor casualties only to do it again. In fact, at one time their whole front line actually jumped clear over my formation, through the diagonally positioned spears and landed on the other side... :inquisitive:


I fought a few more and even though the Custom Battle AI seems a little sketchy (half the time they just walked straight into the front of the phalanx, not even charging) they did retreat to reform and charge again. They would try to walk around my flank and did flank me a few times on other kinds of matchups.

WInning vs Katatanks with Armoured Hoplites was difficult, but I eventually won.

Maybe it was that Phalanx units dont' like fighting in cities because prettymuch all of my custom battles went my way with the phalanx....

[Colovion]

I think I know what went wrong. I turned off "Gaurd Mode" on teh phalanx for some reason (it's on automatically) and that's probably why I lost.

DistruptorX What do you mean "fight defensively" ? You need to attack sometimes.

[DisruptorX]

However, this was three different charges that they were able to perform - charging, jumping my spears, and then withdrawing with minor casualties only to do it again. In fact, at one time their whole front line actually jumped clear over my formation, through the diagonally positioned spears and landed on the other side... :inquisitive:



Yes, that's why my mercenaries are posisitioned right behind my middle unit. I knew that would happen and I was ready for it. ~:) It worked, too. The guys who jumped my middle unit were slaughtered by the one behind it.


DistruptorX What do you mean "fight defensively" ? You need to attack sometimes.

Nope, I never attack. Even when beseiging, unless I am auto-calc ing. I let the enemy come to me. I call it a "defensive campaign of conquest". ~;) I form semi-circles with my pikes and put cavalry in the back.

[Morindin]

I just did a couple custom battles.

Equites vs Hoplites went almost how I thought it would with me winning with only losing 11 units. However, this was three different charges that they were able to perform - charging, jumping my spears, and then withdrawing with minor casualties only to do it again. In fact, at one time their whole front line actually jumped clear over my formation, through the diagonally positioned spears and landed on the other side... :inquisitive:


I fought a few more and even though the Custom Battle AI seems a little sketchy (half the time they just walked straight into the front of the phalanx, not even charging) they did retreat to reform and charge again. They would try to walk around my flank and did flank me a few times on other kinds of matchups.

WInning vs Katatanks with Armoured Hoplites was difficult, but I eventually won.

Maybe it was that Phalanx units dont' like fighting in cities because prettymuch all of my custom battles went my way with the phalanx....

Phalanx love cities.
I just had a massive huge battle against the AI where he assaulted my town with Phalanx's. Hard to flank them in city streets and they mow down everything infront of them.

[Thoros of Myr]

In that city battle was your pahalanx moving at all when you recieved the charge? If they are the bonus is gone. You gave to be on guard mode too I think or they wont hold formation as well.

*haha DisrupterX, jumped the whole unit only to land on another, that'll put some fear in the cav units :knight: *

[Colovion]

Huge unit size
Very Hard diff
basic Hoplite (161) vs Basic Gen's guard (49)

Hoplite took about 32 losses Gen's Guard took 39 losses and routed after charging in 2 times. The cav are scripted to always have the horses jump over the line of spears and that does cuase some damage and loss of formation to the phalanx but the second row of horses is sluaghtered.

They were set on guard mode aswell and kept perfectly still while recieving the charge, I noticed on another test if your hoplites are moving AT ALL the bonus goes out the window.

Well... yea I was attacking because they always sit in the middle of the square so I had to attack.... ~:rolleyes: I guess the phalanx being the offensive meatgrinder isn't true?

[Thoros of Myr]

phalanx vs phalanx you might be able to act offensive but against any decent cav it's suicide.

[Colovion]

phalanx vs phalanx you might be able to act offensive but against any decent cav it's suicide.

That sounds like a load of crock to me (realistically) - how hard is it to advance towards an enemy and stab them with the huge spear in your hand while raising your sheild?

Then again on teh flipside I guess this is one more thing I'll have the pleasure of micromanaging on an ultra fast paced battlefield. ~:rolleyes:

[Thoros of Myr]

That sounds like a load of crock to me (realistically) - how hard is it to advance towards an enemy and stab them with the huge spear in your hand while raising your sheild?


It appears the battle system doesent allow for that distinction, atleast not against cav.
~:mecry:

[hoof]

Phalanxes definitely require special handling. They are awesome when set, and someone attacks from straight ahead (although I have vivid memorys of a cataphract unit marching straight through my set phalanx like they were butter ~:) ).

The problems are:

1) they turn *very* slowly, thus require considerable advance warning (this is their main weakness, as lone phalanxes are very easy to outflank and kill)

2) Ordering them to do anything other than stand and fight will disrupt their formation and make them ineffective. And the AI always seem to attack when my guys are milling around after a misunderstood order or ill-timed formation change

3) They move to one side during combat. I'm guessing this is a historical tactic (maybe so that 2 phalanxes can try to "flank" the other, but this requires a formation rotation when you reach the end of the enemy formation, which the RTW phalanxes don't do).

4) The AI doesn't seem to like turning off Phalanx mode. This could have something to do with issue #1, making it simpler to leave Phalanx mode on for the AI. I, personally, prefer to turn Phalanx mode off until I need it, this allows them much more maneuverability.

#3 is the most annoying, especially in tight streets. Does anyone know how to keep them from sliding sideways? Most situations I do not want them to do this. Now I deliberately position them off-center so that their sideways movement will keep the most points on target for the longest period of time. Nothing is more annoying than a crucial Phalanx sliding out of position when defending a gate or street.

However, when set, and when the enemy comes towards you, they are awesome to watch. Cavalry units melt when charging the points (other than the really powerful cavalry), and very little can take a Phalanx head on.

[Morindin]

Phalanxes definitely require special handling. They are awesome when set, and someone attacks from straight ahead (although I have vivid memorys of a cataphract unit marching straight through my set phalanx like they were butter ~:) ).

The problems are:

1) they turn *very* slowly, thus require considerable advance warning (this is their main weakness, as lone phalanxes are very easy to outflank and kill)

2) Ordering them to do anything other than stand and fight will disrupt their formation and make them ineffective. And the AI always seem to attack when my guys are milling around after a misunderstood order or ill-timed formation change

3) They move to one side during combat. I'm guessing this is a historical tactic (maybe so that 2 phalanxes can try to "flank" the other, but this requires a formation rotation when you reach the end of the enemy formation, which the RTW phalanxes don't do).

4) The AI doesn't seem to like turning off Phalanx mode. This could have something to do with issue #1, making it simpler to leave Phalanx mode on for the AI. I, personally, prefer to turn Phalanx mode off until I need it, this allows them much more maneuverability.

#3 is the most annoying, especially in tight streets. Does anyone know how to keep them from sliding sideways? Most situations I do not want them to do this. Now I deliberately position them off-center so that their sideways movement will keep the most points on target for the longest period of time. Nothing is more annoying than a crucial Phalanx sliding out of position when defending a gate or street.

However, when set, and when the enemy comes towards you, they are awesome to watch. Cavalry units melt when charging the points (other than the really powerful cavalry), and very little can take a Phalanx head on.

I've found they're great for attacking (yes) breaches in walls when you're seiging, because naturally they cant be flanked and with their long spears push the defenders back. Also when I have used them setting them to "guard" mode stops them moving around, or at least I've never had that issue.

[Red Harvest]

Phalanx units naturally do pull to one side, the right. It has to do with the shield placement. The natural inclination is to move your uncovered spear side toward the cover of the shield next to you (on your right.)

This page has an interesting description of hoplites.

http://www.siue.edu/ROTC/phalanx.doc

[Jeanne d'arc]

So using these guys defensivly makes them pretty much unbeatable in the front?

[Underhand]

Realistically, cavalry should not be able to charge a formed phalanx head on. The reason is that a horse will not charge what to it appears to be a solid object if it can possibly avoid it. Since in a, for argument's sake, Macedonian style phalanx each man had two feet of frontage the result is a very tightly packed mass of men giving the appearance of an insurmountable obstacle, the horse will take any other route over charging straight into the formation. An example is that at the battle of Gaugamela or Arbela (depending on what you like to call it), Alexander's phalanx opened lanes down which the Persian scythed chariots (pulled by horses, of course of course) trotted until their momentum ran out, despite the protests of the drivers, leaving them to be overwhelmed by supporting light infantry behind the phalanx. Another example is that during the Napoleonic wars, they had to train special suicidal horses to charge square formations, thus disrupting them so the rest of the cavalry could charge in and destroy the infantry unit.

I don't know what's going on with cavalry leaping over phalanx units that people are observing, since I doubt a horse would really try to leap eight or sixteen ranks of men and their pikes unless it really had no other option.

Also, pikes were really not good in urban warfare. The reason is of course that it's very rare that you can find sufficient space in a city to form up as a phalanx properly. Indeed Alexander the Great's phalangites were trained to use swords and javelins instead of pikes in such situations. Although admittedly the later successors generally didn't have such professional armies.

Well-trained pikemen should be practically unbeatable frontally when slowly advancing on level terrain as well as when on the defense, but should be at a disadvantage when on broken terrain, and at a severe disadvantage when flanked, since formation is everything for pikemen.

[Thon]

i don't think i've ever seen cavalry jump over an entire unit yet, but i'm usually not zoomed in during a battle. during custom trials i saw most cavalry try and leap over a phalanx, only to get killed mid-air by the spears. do people have their infantry spread out 2-men deep or something that have this happen?

[Kraxis]

Phalanx units naturally do pull to one side, the right. It has to do with the shield placement. The natural inclination is to move your uncovered spear side toward the cover of the shield next to you (on your right.)

Indeed... But only during the advance. When contact was made the hoplite had enough to do just pushing back at the enemy to actually worry about getting on the inside of his buddy. And in any case the hoplite would at that point have turned his body to create a better push (how do you push when you can't really use your hands? You use your shoulder while leaning a bit forwards), thus he would be within his own shield.

Further, the pikeformations did not shift to the side as they had too small shields to cover each other (thus creating no reason to lean to the right). So while the hoplite formation can be argued to shift, the pikes can't.

And my last point. While it is historically correct to a degree is does subtract from the experience (yes I know about it from the demo). Phalanxes are slow, hard to turn, bad without their pikes and easy to flank, we simply don't need any more problems with them. The only way to make this 'go away' is to have a long line of many pike/hoplite units, having a few can disrupt the whole line if they are not next to each other.

[Underhand]

Further, the pikeformations did not shift to the side as they had too small shields to cover each other (thus creating no reason to lean to the right). So while the hoplite formation can be argued to shift, the pikes can't.
I disagree with this. The frontage per man was approximately two feet, and the diameter of the shield two feet. The edge of the shield rests on your left hand, which holds the pike. The right hand also holds the pike, but further back, so the left shoulder is forward somewhat and inside the shield. Thus the right shoulder is uncovered, and there is excess shield sticking out beyond the left shoulder, so each man's right shoulder is covered by the shield of the man to his right.

[Kraxis]

I disagree with this. The frontage per man was approximately two feet, and the diameter of the shield two feet. The edge of the shield rests on your left hand, which holds the pike. The right hand also holds the pike, but further back, so the left shoulder is forward somewhat and inside the shield. Thus the right shoulder is uncovered, and there is excess shield sticking out beyond the left shoulder, so each man's right shoulder is covered by the shield of the man to his right.

You do know you are contradicting yourself here, right?
The left shoulder is forwards, that means the right is backwards, and given that the phalangite can't possibly walk around with his left shoulder pushed forwards all that long (you can push your own shoulder forwards a bit), we have to assume he has turned his body. This fits very very well with how it would be easiest to carry the pike, bend down a bit on the left knee, right leg straight, turn upper body a bit so that left anf right hands can grip the pike in a line protuding right in front of you. To do it the body is turned enough for the right shoulder to be so far back that the cover of the other guy's shield is too far in front to actually cover you.

[Underhand]

I don't think that is the case, Kraxis, because all that matters is that your right shoulder is behind the other guy's shield, since the attacks are going to come from directly in front in most cases. Indeed, the angling of the bodies of the men would mean that they could fit closer together without banging shoulders, further increasing mutual protection.

[Kraxis]

Indeed, the angling of the bodies of the men would mean that they could fit closer together without banging shoulders, further increasing mutual protection.

Good... you agree on the stance. The phalangite wouldn't need to lean towards the guy next to him, he would already recieve enough protection from his own shield (his right shoulder would be within the shield and the bodyarmour (if he had any) and the very presence of the guy next to him (shield or no shield).
Also don't forget that the other ranks needed to have their pikes out as well, this demanded some space, going from around the elbow to about the ear in the vertical line for the front guy, and some 20 cm in the horizontal line. Couldn't have the pike being locked between the shoulders of the two frontliners disrupting the formation as the men would be forcing each other forwards and backwards as well as it would be anoying like hell to both parties, add up with more pikes.
So in all you say each man had about 40 cm? That is not enough...

[Underhand]

Good... you agree on the stance. The phalangite wouldn't need to lean towards the guy next to him, he would already recieve enough protection from his own shield (his right shoulder would be within the shield and the bodyarmour (if he had any) and the very presence of the guy next to him (shield or no shield).
Also don't forget that the other ranks needed to have their pikes out as well, this demanded some space, going from around the elbow to about the ear in the vertical line for the front guy, and some 20 cm in the horizontal line. Couldn't have the pike being locked between the shoulders of the two frontliners disrupting the formation as the men would be forcing each other forwards and backwards as well as it would be anoying like hell to both parties, add up with more pikes.
So in all you say each man had about 40 cm? That is not enough...
It had not occurred to me (for some reason) to factor in the rear-rankers' pikes. However, I still do not agree that your right shoulder would be covered by your shield, that would require a square shield as from a frontal view your left hand would be level with your shoulder in the vertical plane, so the curvature of the shield would expose your right shoulder while protecting your left hand. Thinking about it, I do think that two feet, which is 60cm, not 40cm, of frontage is enough, since my shoulders are maybe two feet three or four inches broad (I have no accurate way of measuring to hand, this is an estimate) so when I angle my shoulders it comes to less than two feet (again, not sure exactly how much less). I think that would leave sufficient space for four other pike shafts without them locking, factoring in the vertical plane, as it is generally held that the pike heads of the first five ranks protruded beyond the first man. This all is of course just one model of how the phalanx was formed, there are others at odds with the one I accept.

I do agree on the stance, perhaps I did not articulate it sufficiently well. When you say the man would not need to seek protection from the man to his right, you must remember that on anything but the smoothest terrain, the formation will be upset to varying degrees and men move slightly from side to side but with to maintain the integrity of the formation as far as it applies to keeping number one alive, thus causing the formation to shift to the right slightly when marching. I don't think that this movement would occur much at all during actual hand to hand combat, nor with extremely highly-trained phalangites such as those of Alexander.

[Kraxis]

It had not occurred to me (for some reason) to factor in the rear-rankers' pikes. However, I still do not agree that your right shoulder would be covered by your shield, that would require a square shield as from a frontal view your left hand would be level with your shoulder in the vertical plane, so the curvature of the shield would expose your right shoulder while protecting your left hand. Thinking about it, I do think that two feet, which is 60cm, not 40cm, of frontage is enough, since my shoulders are maybe two feet three or four inches broad (I have no accurate way of measuring to hand, this is an estimate) so when I angle my shoulders it comes to less than two feet (again, not sure exactly how much less). I think that would leave sufficient space for four other pike shafts without them locking, factoring in the vertical plane, as it is generally held that the pike heads of the first five ranks protruded beyond the first man. This all is of course just one model of how the phalanx was formed, there are others at odds with the one I accept.

I guess it is better if I answer in detail.
The right shoulder would not physically be covered by the shield, but it would rather impossible to get at, and very unlikely to get hit. The feeling of the phalangite would be one of a covered frontage and one of a covered shoulder (soldiers tend to think in terms of harm in the most direct way).
Two feet is indeed about 60cm, but I took out 20cm remember. 20cm is not much at all if you want to keep the pikes from banging about like whips (obviously not as hard or fast), but just about possible to keep it bearable for the troops, anything less and the shafts would be confined in a far too small area. Enemy troops would 'only' need to dodge the first pikehead after that it would merely be a matter of running down the pikelanes. Spacing the troops slightly more would give the next ranks a chance to maneuver the pike enough to cover the gaps as well as spread the pikeheads should that be needed.
There are of course plenty of theories on the formation, from staggered lengths of pikes to staggered ranks where the pikeheads would form a sawline more or less alongthe entire frontage of the unit.


I do agree on the stance, perhaps I did not articulate it sufficiently well. When you say the man would not need to seek protection from the man to his right, you must remember that on anything but the smoothest terrain, the formation will be upset to varying degrees and men move slightly from side to side but with to maintain the integrity of the formation as far as it applies to keeping number one alive, thus causing the formation to shift to the right slightly when marching. I don't think that this movement would occur much at all during actual hand to hand combat, nor with extremely highly-trained phalangites such as those of Alexander.

I did understand that you agreed on the stance, so no worry. ~:wave:
The only reason I can see for the men to slowly seek to the right would be from the mere fact that they are physically turned to the right and are not moving in a natural line forwards, and would thus move towards the right subcontiously. He would try to move forwards but the body would drag him a little bit off the straight line, not because he would try to lean into the protective envelope of his buddy's shield.
I do agree that those on he left would be the ones to seek to reform the formation when it is disrupted slightly, but for the reason I just stated (it is vastly more natural to go towards safety rather than half-back towards it) as well as those on the right have a much harder time to see what is going on (turning their heads even more is not pleasant, while looking forwards from the turned stance is natural).

I'm glad that we agree that the unit would not drift in combat (as it happens now in RTW)... The men simply doesn't have the time or the ability to drift to one side, unless the unit is breaking up (but then I guess the enemy would be among them).

[Red Harvest]

Kraxis,

Everything I have read on the subject says you are wrong about the drift in combat (at least for hoplites.) Whatever the reason, it was a known issue at the time and was exploited. It didn't happen just on the march, but also when engaged. I've seen it in print on several occasions.

[Steppe Merc]

Yes, well when I was playing as the Parthians, I was at first quite scared to take on the Selcuids. I had a Cathpract, a whole bunch of horse archers, and a hilmen, slinger and a spearmen or two. I thought I wouldn't be able to break the phanlax, but it broke very quickly. Of course it didn't help that their stupid chariots were riding through the ranks of the phanlax, destroying any cohesiveness they might have had...

[Kraxis]

Kraxis,

Everything I have read on the subject says you are wrong about the drift in combat (at least for hoplites.) Whatever the reason, it was a known issue at the time and was exploited. It didn't happen just on the march, but also when engaged. I've seen it in print on several occasions.

I never said I couldn't be wrong. ~;p

But I have read quite a lot on this subject myself. And my conclusion is that this impression comes from that fact that hoplites most certainly tended to drift to the right on the march, when engaged in the early days the guys on the right just stood there, but later they flanked causing a fast rout if the enemy was unprepared. At times the opposing forces routed each others flanks and the lines more or less turned completely (after the flanks routed) and stood poised for another bout.
The logical conclusion to this is to say the hoplites drifted all the time, as a static situation would sort of ruin it. But as far as I know there is no statement from the times that the hoplites did drift in battle (find it and I will back down forever), but there are very clear indicators that they did on the march. Why neglect to mention the drift in battle? Because it was common knowledge? Possibly, but then the same applies for the march the opposite way.

What I have found in my studies at the uni (history), is that many historians are great with books and sources, better than I can ever be or even hope to be, but they are horrible with common sense. I ahve studied mechanical engineering before history and thus claim to know a little about physics (and the everyday application of it). When I have finished some day I hope I can be a sort of middleway...

No, I believe that the drift is only happening on the march for a number of reasons, some I have already mentioned, but also consider that the phalanxes meet and the edges wrap around, if the drift continues, then wrappers will be bunched up as they have to follow their targets as well as make space for the new drifters. Clutter...
If the wrappers ended the battle too fast for this, then how do we know the hoplites drifted (battle ends before drift is noticed)? The older battles without the wraps are far too vague to include something like the drift.

And to use a historical account directly.
If the hoplites drifted in battle, why didn't the defenders of Thermopylae end in the water? They would have to redress their forces all the time, and a mixed bag like they were it would be a very dangerous move. Not to say that they supposedly fought long and hard against the Immortals in which they wouldn't have had much tuime to redress their lines.

[Red Harvest]

Well, I'm an engineer as well. I also have done a bit of boxing. And I know that I have a tendency to move in the direction of my lead foot. It is harder to pivot the other way moving forward because it exposes my left side, so I work to compensate for the deficiency. (And I know the simple secret of boxing vs. a lefty: keep your left (lead) foot outside of their right (lead) foot. This gives you control of the action because you have "flanked" them.)

That doc that I posted last night talked about the Spartans exploiting the flank problems. A case of better training to counter a problem? I have not read translations of the battle accounts. Lacking primary sources, I could be wrong.

I agree that historians often get things a bit wrong at times and their interpretations are sometimes suspect. I've recreated a few battles and read through AAR's to come up with different conclusions as to what pivotal things really happened. I often come up with different numbers for combat strengths using the same resources that they supposedly used.

I thought at Thermopylae it was Spartans guarding a pass only 25 feet wide? They trained to avoid the dreaded drift. Plus they were confined, so I don't see that they would be as inclined to drift.

[Kraxis]

Well, I'm an engineer as well. I also have done a bit of boxing. And I know that I have a tendency to move in the direction of my lead foot. It is harder to pivot the other way moving forward because it exposes my left side, so I work to compensate for the deficiency. (And I know the simple secret of boxing vs. a lefty: keep your left (lead) foot outside of their right (lead) foot. This gives you control of the action because you have "flanked" them.)

That doc that I posted last night talked about the Spartans exploiting the flank problems. A case of better training to counter a problem? I have not read translations of the battle accounts. Lacking primary sources, I could be wrong.

I agree that historians often get things a bit wrong at times and their interpretations are sometimes suspect. I've recreated a few battles and read through AAR's to come up with different conclusions as to what pivotal things really happened. I often come up with different numbers for combat strengths using the same resources that they supposedly used.

I thought at Thermopylae it was Spartans guarding a pass only 25 feet wide? They trained to avoid the dreaded drift. Plus they were confined, so I don't see that they would be as inclined to drift.

I'm not an engineer, I only studied it for a while until I realized history was my call.

Anyway, I can't say much about boxing besides the fact that it is significantly more open than a hoplitefight. You can backpedal, sidestep and advance. In the vast majority of hoplitebattles none of these options were open, they could more or less only push or get pushed over.
I'm willing to accept that the hoplites tended to overcompensate for their push so that they now and then would tilt into the guy to their right rather than risk getting pushed over, but this would result in very small changes.

I'm quite confident in most historians numbers (meaning I tend to accept them first and then see if they are wrong), but I often notice a lack of common sense as to how the men acted or what would be a suitable action. Such as how the legionary pulled his sword. When I thought it over the first time it was clear to me that he pulled it backwards first, but historians have come up with a wide range of puzzled faces as to how this was done... It genuinely is hard for them to see. The same goes for all kinds of other things.

The Spartans were the best at hoplite warfare, simple fact. They exploited every facet of traditional hoplite combat to their benefit. For instance in a battle I can't name right now the king took his two morae on the left and sent them behind his formation to the right side when both armies were already marching to meet each other. The Spartan allies broke like twigs but the Spartans held firm and the two morae along with the natural drift added an enormous weight to their flank. They more or less twisted their entire army so it became perpendicular to the enemy army, then then proceeded to roll it up in its entire length... Perfect application of traditional hoplite tactics, and a tactic that could possibly have saved them at Leuctra. But as it was the battle was nearly a failure becasue of this complicated and timeconsuming order.
But the Spartans were far from the only ones to use the drift (of the march) in their favour, the others caught on to this as well.
But they did not attempt to combat the marchdrift, they encouraged it (to flank).

At Thermopylae the Spartans were only 300, but there were 7000 hoplites at the beginning, it was only the last day they were 'alone' (with the Thespians and Thebans). While Thermopylae wasn't wide it was a bit more than 25 feet, more like 100 yards or a bit more. This is the fastest I could find... check modern picture (http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/battles/thermopylae.html)

Anyway, if the hoplites drifted in battle the width shouldn't be an inhibiting factor, they would naturally and uncontiously drift out there. Why would they do it in an open battle but not at Thermopylae, it is not like they sought to drift. The normal explaination for the drift is that they sought the protection of the shield to the right. That would mean they would even drift at Thermopylae.
So even if the Spartans were uniquely good at stopping the drift in battle it is highly unlikely that the other hoplites could do it, and they were the great majority.

[Strategy]

Also, pikes were really not good in urban warfare. The reason is of course that it's very rare that you can find sufficient space in a city to form up as a phalanx properly. Indeed Alexander the Great's phalangites were trained to use swords and javelins instead of pikes in such situations. Although admittedly the later successors generally didn't have such professional armies.

The topic is discussed in some detail by Luke Ueda-Sarsson in part 2 of his article on the evolution of Hellenistic infantry.

Iphikrates Article Part 1 (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html)
Iphikrates Article Part 2 (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates2.html)

He makes a very good case for the continued dual-role abilities of Macedonian pikemen in the Successor armies.

Regards,

Michael A.

[Kraxis]

I read that article some time ago and found it very good and quite reasonable. Anyone who is interested in this sort of warfare should at least take a short look at it.

Also, I was really enjoying this discussion, there must be something to be pointed out I made wrong or something... Ah well, I feel as if I have been spent (don't really have many more arguments) anyway.

[SpencerH]

Another example is that during the Napoleonic wars, they had to train special suicidal horses to charge square formations, thus disrupting them so the rest of the cavalry could charge in and destroy the infantry unit.

I dont think there is an example of a successful cav charge against a square without the prior disruption of the formation with cannon fire (unfortunately I cant remember where I heard that). After some googling I found that the Kings German Legion (under Wellington) managed to break a French square at Garcia Hernandez when a dying horse crashed into the corner of the square and allowed cav to pass through the breach in the line. This is recognized as one of the few times a square was broken by cav alone.

In any case your points about horses and lines of men are absolutely true. They may not be the smartest creatures on the planet but they generally dont run headlong into (what they percieve to be) solid objects. A few might jump, but not many. As with show jumpers, most will 'refuse', often catapulting the rider.

[econ21]

Going off topic here, but one thing I am not sure about with Napoleonics is what happens if the muskets don't work (e.g. bad weather, no ammo). The comparison between a phalanx and a Napoleonic square is imperfect, not least because the Napoleonic square could dish out some fearful firepower to horse at close range. Some folk have cited cases where squares have failed to stop cavalry when the infantry could not shoot. However, I am not yet convinced and would like to read some proper historical account of this.

[Kraxis]

The mechanics of the Napoleonic battles I have little knowledge on, I do know the battles and the tactics used in general (the Campaign series is great for that).
But I seem to remember some french cavalry breaking a couple of squares against the Austrians. But that is a pretty wide area. :rolleyes:
Opposed to that is the fact that the roman legionary tactic for halting cavalry was a wall of shields as high as a man. A seemingly solid object.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

That sounds like a load of crock to me (realistically) - how hard is it to advance towards an enemy and stab them with the huge spear in your hand while raising your sheild?
Quite hard, actually. Very long spears are unwieldy, especially with one hand if you have a shield in the other, & best when used in a uniform mass. The mass is kept most uniform by planting the feet & staying still.