View Full Version : Classic Hoplites and the Phalanx
oudysseos
01-10-2007, 17:56
Just wondering what the teams rationale was for the classic hoplite units and spartans not to have the phalanx ability. Clearly it was exactly these kind of military units that originally used the phalanx in the first place. Did you wish to draw a greater distinction between the modern sarissa phalanx and the older style hoplites like the spartans?
I'm not giving out to ye, just want to know why.
Oh, also, could anyone tell me how mod the units so they can do phalanx? Or even shield wall? I would find them more useful if I could. Why don't we say, 'Usefuller'? It has a nice ring to it. Off topic.
I thought in the "old style" phalanx spears were wielded overhand (reminds me of
a nice debate at the Hegemonia forums).
Oh, also, could anyone tell me how mod the units so they can do phalanx? Or even shield wall?
Go to the export_description_unit.txt file, search the unit you want to change and add "phalanx" (or shield_wall) in the formation line.
-Praetor-
01-10-2007, 18:29
Hopites fought in a densely packed formation, with their hoplons locked together as the scales of a giant fish, and their spears wielded overhand (still debated, but most historians go for the overhand, even though there are some that say that the hoplites wielded their lances underhand, that is, at waist level and with the palm facing downwards). It`s like a giant shieldwall, though the shieldwall obvious usage is as a defensive formation, and the hoplite phalanx, the classical one, was used as a ofensive formation, since the whole batallion would push forward in hope to break the enemy`s line.
The classic hoplite is a unit that represents the citizen-soldiers of old, not affected by Iphycrates`s reform, and that fight for the defense of their fatherland in a fashion that their ancestors used for hundred of years before them.
Phillip`s phalanx, the macedonian one, was introduced in hellas much later, by all accounts after the spartan hegemony in greece, and after the pelloponesian war. Some say that it was created in Thebes and that Phillip learned it in times of his youth (he spended some time in that polis), in hope to apply it in the future, which he did to great effect.
Go to the export_description_unit.txt file, search the unit you want to change and add "phalanx" (or shield_wall) in the formation line.
But you can add shieldwall only if you run EB from the BI.exe.
Cheers!!!
oudysseos
01-10-2007, 18:43
That's exactly my point- the classic hoplites in EB do not have the phalanx ability (at least not the ones that I can recruit in Megale Hellas in my Qarthadastim campaign), even thought they are exactly the units that originated the phalanx. I'm reasonable familiar with the history, just don't understand why in EB context the 'classic hoplite' units and the Spartans don't phalanx. I assume that the EB team has a good reason for this, just can't figure out what it might be. Is there evidence that the Spartan soldiers of 272 BC did not line up in a phalanx?
Teleklos Archelaou
01-10-2007, 18:57
Well, "phalanx" when you refer to the RTW engine means "sarissa phalanx" really. I'm not aware that anyone has gotten the phalanx attribute to create a proper over-shield type of phalanx - they usually have the spears held up at an angle even if you do have them over the shield, and having the second and third and fourth rows of soldiers holding their spears up at angles (when you are talking about a classical phalanx) is just wrong. So we use the RTW "phalanx" attribute for the macedonian type sarissa-phalanx, and just make a closely packed formation for our classical hoplites.
oudysseos
01-10-2007, 19:20
Is there a significant difference in terms of stats? -I'm not really up on the esoteria of it all- does the phalanx confer a bonus in defending/attacking?
I think it would be pretty cool to have shieldwall formation.. would be good substitute for classical phalanx. I'll wait for 8.1 to try to mod it in!
Kralizec
01-10-2007, 19:37
THe classical hoplites are tightly packed, wich is hugely beneficial against troops using a more relaxed formation provided you use the guard mode - a benefit that can't be deduced by looking at the stats.
QwertyMIDX
01-10-2007, 20:11
We also give both formations stats tweaks to make them perform in a way that makes using them in their proper role more advantageous.
oudysseos
01-10-2007, 20:24
Thanks. As I suspected, EB had it all figured out.
Tellos Athenaios
01-10-2007, 23:59
Well, "phalanx" when you refer to the RTW engine means "sarissa phalanx" really. I'm not aware that anyone has gotten the phalanx attribute to create a proper over-shield type of phalanx - they usually have the spears held up at an angle even if you do have them over the shield, and having the second and third and fourth rows of soldiers holding their spears up at angles (when you are talking about a classical phalanx) is just wrong. So we use the RTW "phalanx" attribute for the macedonian type sarissa-phalanx, and just make a closely packed formation for our classical hoplites.
To get yourself an overhand phalanx, (not perfect, but enough to get the feel...), you could change the unit skeleton to that of an javelinman... Also: XGM used a different, custom made overhand skeleton (for it's thureophoroi & such), and if, you have permission of course, you could try that one too... ~;)
Kralizec
01-11-2007, 00:24
XGM uses SignifierOne's animations.
To get yourself an overhand phalanx, (not perfect, but enough to get the feel...), you could change the unit skeleton to that of an javelinman... Also: XGM used a different, custom made overhand skeleton (for it's thureophoroi & such), and if, you have permission of course, you could try that one too... ~;)
The problem with a phalanx to represent the hoplite formation is that the phalanx formation is far to defensive, whereas the hoplite formation could be held in a charge. 0.81 will see a huge leap forward in regards the hoplite formation. Aymar has taken the sword away from the hoplite units so that they hold the spear as their primary weapon instead of their secondary weapon. I think what we've currently got works really well, once we've ironed out all the kinks.
Foot
Generally speaking in terms of game play, the super dense formation the hoplite has makes it more powerful then most other infantry unit. As long as they do not face a true sarrisa phalanx they will destroy other infantry even those of higher quality. Their dense formation forces in most situations a 2 on 1 fight between most other infantrymen. It also means that they are closer together and destroying their morale will be difficult. In terms of recieving a charge they are also more effective, a charge will be unable to crack them. They will also be able to move through a unit using the push method easier then other infantry units. I used to use the testudo for this express purpose as the romans, was nearly impossible to crack a legionary unit when they were so tightly packed.
Nice to see hoplite's not using sarrisa's though. Adds alot more flavor.
I think it would be pretty cool to have shieldwall formation.. would be good substitute for classical phalanx. I'll wait for 8.1 to try to mod it in!
If you are playing through RTW-BI.exe, you can just give them the ability and then all you need to do is change the icon for the special ability, which is screwed up:
https://img120.imageshack.us/img120/17/scrshot6wk7.th.jpg (https://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot6wk7.jpg)
left: normal
right: shield wall
Will they properly stab down overhand? :idea2: maybe I should just try
Will they properly stab down overhand? :idea2: maybe I should just try
In shield wall formation they do use their spear's in the overhand position and stab down. They'll even interlock their shield's in almost a fish scale pattern. Only problem is they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them. But if their hit in the rear they will be utterly decimated, if they also fight any form of a sarrissa phalanx the results will be a massacre of the hoplites.
Only problem is they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them. But if their hit in the rear they will be utterly decimated, if they also fight any form of a sarrissa phalanx the results will be a massacre of the hoplites.
Is this not correct?
... they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them...
This sounds exactly what hoplites should be like. They should also be able to carry the attack to the enemy and rout them. Classical hoplites were pretty hard to kill (at Cunaxa 2 were killed out of 10 000, one by being run over by a chariot and another by an arrow). Having said that, most casualties seem to have been inflicted after the battle, when the enemy were routed. The cavalry and peltasts then ran them down and slaughtered them. Melees seem to have rarely happened, as one side tended to break before the lines clashed. This is hoplite tactics long before EB though, and with more modern, professional opponents they may not have had the same effect.
This sounds exactly what hoplites should be like. They should also be able to carry the attack to the enemy and rout them. Classical hoplites were pretty hard to kill (at Cunaxa 2 were killed out of 10 000, one by being run over by a chariot and another by an arrow). Having said that, most casualties seem to have been inflicted after the battle, when the enemy were routed. The cavalry and peltasts then ran them down and slaughtered them. Melees seem to have rarely happened, as one side tended to break before the lines clashed. This is hoplite tactics long before EB though, and with more modern, professional opponents they may not have had the same effect.
Aye this is completely how a hoplite should work. But for those who like to see their roman and other adversary's do more damage to them it's a downside. Using shield wall makes them a pretty good replica to them, and it also increases their weakness to more modern phalanxes. Against a alexandrian phalanx a hoplite with shield wall will be massacred and the sarrisa phalanx will more then likely recieve little to no casualties.
More so in this formation the unit seem's more prone to use the push while attacking. I've seen one of them push through a the center of a unit while being attacked. Very interesting, would be the perfect solution for hypaspatai.
I need someone to tell me an instance in a battle when the macedonian phalanx was so superior to the hoplite phalanx...please. Really.
Tellos Athenaios
01-12-2007, 00:46
I need someone to tell me an instance in a battle when the macedonian phalanx was so superior to the hoplite phalanx...please. Really.
IMO the reverse may have been altogether more true: hoplites were soldiers who could afford anything from decent to top notch equipment, whereas the Macedonians who could afford such high quality equipment may have been drawn into the cavalry rather than the infantry...
Two things for sure: the hoplites gave better account of themselves in hand to hand combat, but the Macedonians had the advantage of a 'simpeler' task (they didn't have to break their opponents, simply holding them in place was enough).
But, to me it seems most likely that both types were just about equal in strength.
Since me are speaking pf phalanxes I might as well ask..
Is the germen unit "heavy spears"(you know does dudes with big spears) supposed to be phalanxs? It is not.
That's my assessment as well, they were just designed to do different things. Dunno why there's this idea that the Macedonic phalanx was so overwhelmingly superior to the classical hoplites.
Makedonia's phalanx did have some decisive advantages over heavy hoplites, namely a lighter, less expensive kit, less emphasis on individual training and armies that could stay in field for extended campaigns resulting in large numbers of veteran troops.
Since me are speaking pf phalanxes I might as well ask..
Is the germen unit "heavy spears"(you know does dudes with big spears) supposed to be phalanxs? It is not.
I don't think it is. They're just armed with a pike and form a loose kind of shieldwall.
Watchman
01-12-2007, 01:06
The hoplites don't appear to have done too well when having to face the Macedonian phalanx head on though. Can't blame them.
The hoplites don't appear to have done too well when having to face the Macedonian phalanx head on though. Can't blame them.
Support that with some sources, please. I'm genuinly curious on how are people comming to that same conclusion.
well, first off a hoplite carries a considerably shorter spear then the macedonian phalangite, which carried the Sarissa, 7 meter long, Lol i mean thats an incredibly long spear, which required two hands to hold and use correctly. the hoplite on the other hand was a MUCH more mobile infantry, using a shorter spear, larger shield, and better armor. the macedonian Phalanx was mainly used for the hammer and anvil tactic, made famous by Alexander the Great (my hero). So, i mean, honestly. Do you think a wall of 7 meter long spears in your face vs your tiny spear around 2.7 meters in length would stand a chance? its not a hard question to answer.
Watchman
01-12-2007, 02:36
What he said. By every single account, description and analysis of it I've ever seen pikemen are a nightmare to confront as long as their lines are good and cohesion holds. You need to get past something like three or four pike-tips just to reach the first guy, and that's assuming the files on the both sides are too busy to start making your life difficult as well...
Merry fun, no doubt.
I've seen it mentioned the phalangites were quickly in trouble if terrain, disjointed line or whatever allowed the hoplites (or any other close-combat infantry for that matter) to get around the pikes and start taking tearing at the soft sides and underbelly of the formation though.
yeah, rough terrain was extremely bad for phalangite formations, but they had mobile infantry to fill in the gaps during maneuverings to help prevent exploitation of their vaunerability.
well, first off a hoplite carries a considerably shorter spear then the macedonian phalangite, which carried the Sarissa, 7 meter long, Lol i mean thats an incredibly long spear, which required two hands to hold and use correctly. the hoplite on the other hand was a MUCH more mobile infantry, using a shorter spear, larger shield, and better armor. the macedonian Phalanx was mainly used for the hammer and anvil tactic, made famous by Alexander the Great (my hero). So, i mean, honestly. Do you think a wall of 7 meter long spears in your face vs your tiny spear around 2.7 meters in length would stand a chance? its not a hard question to answer.
Hmmm...that was increadibly condescending. Not a hard question to answer? I don't agree.
How about if I said Spanish Rondoleros with a 60cm blade and a buckler picked apart the premier pike force of the age, the Swiss block? Or how the gauls destroyed the Makedonian army on a plain, just prior to the mod's start?
How about if I said the Athenians held their own against the Makedonian Phalanx at Chaeronea [and maybe even pushed them back, but that's contested] until they were flanked and routed?
Fact is, you gave me no sources to back your statement, only your own opinion.
look, im not saying that the macedonian phalangite isnt defeatable, its as simple as flanking the formation, im just saying, head to head, no flanking involved, it would be extremely hard for a hoplite to even attempt to attack a macedonian phalangite formation with sarissa's, i mean, just take it into consideration, lets say u were a hoplite, vs a wall of phalangites, i would be so scared that i would prly run before we even came in contact with their pikes, because you would know that you wouldnt even come close without your chances of being impaled by a sarissa being extremely high.
I'm not saying that either. I'm saying properly armed and motivated hoplites could stand up to phalangites face-to-face. The fact is that a pike formation is increadibly intimidating hasn't kept it from being defeated from the front or at the very least, checked by other formations.
im sure they could, but would they actually survive? thats the million dollar question.
Ehhrrr....what is that even supposed to mean? Surely you don't think I was saying they would impale themselves on the sarissas so they'd tie up the phalanx?
Look, even the fact that the Pergamene phalanx started to kneel down the first rank of the phalanx to fight the Galatians is indicative of how phalangites were not invencible from the front.
lol im not a history buff, (allthough i do know more then my fair share of history compared to the rest of my town.....) and im still in highschool, so im going to end my arguement here, and let a greek historian come in and say what his opinion is on the matter, but i would honestly say that a phalanx formation of
phalangites would kill hoplites, which is why the old ways of fighting died out.... its sorta like when they used the line formation in the civil war, which was really pointless because they had the weaponry to reduce the rediculas ammount of casualties that occured due to that tactic. therfore after relizing that it was no longer "effective" it died out, just like the hoplite close formation did, along with some of their weaponry, and evolved into a modern macedonian phalangite, or an attempt to copy one at least.
Was the legion superior to the pike block formation? Why did it resurface again at various points in history? Why did the shieldwall for that matter? Things aren't so linear as you are cutting it out to be.
Zaknafien
01-12-2007, 03:49
Was the legion superior to the pike block formation?matter?
heh. I dont really want to enter this dogfight but....
...yes. :smash:
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
01-12-2007, 05:17
heh. I dont really want to enter this dogfight but....
...yes. :smash:
:sweatdrop:
Second.
https://img55.imageshack.us/img55/3481/scruffy2ze1.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
:sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop:
heh. I dont really want to enter this dogfight but....
...yes. :smash:
Ok...was the legion superior to a Gothic army? :beam:
Ok...was the legion superior to a Gothic army? :beam:
The legions of Augustus or the legions the gothic's faced at the time?...
Sword and buckler armed men could destroy a swiss pikemen formation. But they could not do that reliably. Even when they did they took horendous casualties. Gelatians for all intents and purposes were an early form of a sword and buckler infantry and even they couldnt roll up into a sarrisa phalanx formation reliably.
I also wasnt stating a historic fact that the hoplites couldnt touch an Alexandrian phalanx. Merely a game fact that in shield wall formation they wont touch the phalanx and more then likely will only inflict a couple casualties.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
01-12-2007, 07:41
Ok...was the legion superior to a Gothic army? :beam:
With equal numbers and a compitant leader?
oudysseos
01-12-2007, 11:17
Any question such as 'Which is superior, the hoplite, sarissa, or pilum legion' is the wrong question to ask. This isn't a game of 'rocks, scissors, paper'.
As someone has already pointed out, the development of military tactics is not linear, with both shield wall and pike tactics resurfacing long after the Roman Legion had gone the way of the dodo. No-one would have conceived, for example, of putting together a 'legion' to fight against the Swedish pikes in 1720. And in my own country, desperate and untrained peasants armed only with pikes defeated British regulars armed with Brown Bess in 1798, well into the early modern period. This did not presage a return of the phalanx.
SO it's not just the weapon. There are many factors that determine how a people fight. I strongly suggest for anyone to read John Keegan and J.E. Lendon for examples of good conceptual frameworks for thinking about pre-industrial warfare. Briefly, ancient military tactics are not so much a choice of the best technology available but a reflection of the way that a particular society functions. In neither the Hellenistic, The Roman, nor the "Barbarian" models of military development is the history one of linear and consciously chosen progress from worse to better technology and method. Cultural, economic and social forces were more important in changing the Roman maniples (for example) into cohorts than the sudden availability of lorica segmentata. And remember, or learn if you didn't know it, that Julian the Apostate, in the 4th century AD, used a pike/phalanx formation more than six hundred years after the "Reforms" that evolved the Triarii into the "Superior" legion. Not only did he revert to the "Inferior" phalanx, he won his battle with it, at Strasbourg.
It is a mistake as well to apply 'common sense' or 'it seems to me' as a guide to some of these questions. An earlier poster wrote (I paraphrase) that he would run away from a pike phalanx. Well, of course he would. But the question is not what he would do, but what other men did actually do, and as someone else has pointed out many men at one time or another found enough courage to stand up against the sarissas. Hell, in the end they beat them.
Another problem is that although RTW is a very good game, it is not a complete or even very good model of reality, so it is a massive mistake to think that you can use your experiences in fighting RTW battles as a basis for drawing conclusions about the real world. Fighting RTW battles does not make you an expert, or even make you a soldier, or give you much right to an opinion about the way things really were. Let me be absolutely crystal clear: this is not a criticism of EB or RTW, which is the best strategy game ever made (IMHO): but it is only a game, not a model for reality, and not a substitute for experience. My advice is, enjoy it, just don't think that it's the real thing.
A final word about historical examples. You can, generally speaking, always find a relevant historical example to support the position that you have already decided to take. If you think that the Roman Legion is cooler than the Makedonian Phalanx, you can point out the Roman defeat of the Makedonians and the many weaknesses of the phalanx, quoting Polybius as you go. On the other side you can, quite correctly, point out the many economic and cultural factors that allowed the Romans to defeat the Maks, and look at Pyrrhus- he beat the Romans with a phalanx (I know, I know, it's a bit complicated). Have a look at any of the threads about Spatans on these fora or in the Hegemonia fora. Everybody has an opinion, usually regardless of the evidence.
My point is, you can always find what you're looking for in history, if advocating a logical argument is your goal. But there are always more than two sides to every historical question, so perhaps the 'win/lose two sides to an issue' model is not the best for examining these questions.
Which brings us back to sarissas, hoplites and legions. Ultimately, it aint what you got, it's what you do with it. I learned a very important lesson in the Marines (USMC). We were armed with the very latest M16A2 rifles (it was 1987), firing a 5.56 mm round at more than 3000 feet per second at a rate of more than 700 rounds per minute. With an effective range of 600 yards, give me two more of uncle sam's misguided children and I'll stand up to any phalanx or legion you want.
So I was standing there, on guard duty, with my loaded gun, a helmet, body armour, night vision and some things that they light-heartedly hope are secret, when Master Gunny Fraser snuck up behind me and hit me on the head with a big stick. When I woke up, he gave me the stick to remind me: the gun doesn't make me a killer. It's the other way round.
Pike, pilum, pointed stick: it's the men holding them that count.
Watchman
01-12-2007, 13:09
How about if I said Spanish Rondoleros with a 60cm blade and a buckler picked apart the premier pike force of the age, the Swiss block?For the record, I'm pretty sure their swords were a whole bit longer. Around a meter was the norm for cut-and-thrust sword those days. Anyway, the Iberian "sword and buckler" men didn't operate alone; they were isntead the equivalent of Doppelsoldners in the pike units, and indeed more often than not carried comparable armour and some sort of polearm as their initial "shock" weapon. When the pike blocks clashed the shock troops would try to work their way through the tangle and hack a hole in the enemy ranks, hopefully severe enough to lead to the collapse of the formation. 'Course, they had to deal with their opposite numbers on the side.
For what its worth the Spanish swordsmen were originally developed for combat in the rugged geography and strong fortresses of the last Moorish strongholds in the south of the peninsula. That they proved to be a very capable pike support arm was a bonus.
Or how the gauls destroyed the Makedonian army on a plain, just prior to the mod's start?I've been told they had the considerable benefit of outnumbering the Macs by a comfortable margin - a very obvious advantage when one considers that getting enveloped was pretty much the death of the Hellenic phalanx...
How about if I said the Athenians held their own against the Makedonian Phalanx at Chaeronea [and maybe even pushed them back, but that's contested] until they were flanked and routed?The usual argument I've seen is that Philip intentionally refused his right wing to expose the Athenians' flank you know. And the early phalanx of those days (likely still under developement) was in any case even more of a "holding force" than later on - its duty was to act as an unmovable obstacle on which the enemy became pinned until the heavy cavalry came to settle the matters. If it actually put the enemy to flight by itself, capital, but that was not its main purpose nor did it by what I know of the matter happen too often.
Look, even the fact that the Pergamene phalanx started to kneel down the first rank of the phalanx to fight the Galatians is indicative of how phalangites were not invencible from the front.Among the better ways to get past the pikes from the front (aside from shooting a hole in the ranks and flatly chopping up the shafts with suitable weaponry) was apparently always going under them. Presumably not a terribly safe or reliable technique, and one suspects it placed considerable limitations on the war gear the troops attempting it could carry, but nobody said it was easy to take on pikemen head on anyway.
Kneeling the front pike rank sounds like a counter specifically against this tactic, and doubtless gave the Galatians a new tactical nut to crack.
Was the legion superior to the pike block formation? Why did it resurface again at various points in history? Why did the shieldwall for that matter?The possibly greatest virtue of pikemen is their near invulnerability to cavalry. And given how scarily powerful good shock cavalry could be it is easy to see why commoner infantry would find the weapon desirable. Ditto for the shieldwall. Both have the useful quality that they are relatively fast and simple to teach even to part-time troops or conscripts, and if handled properly handsomely compensate for possible lackluster individual combat skills by the virtue of cohesion and teamwork.
Plus they offer a "cheap and cheerful" way for even pretty cruddy infantry to face down expensive elite cavalry and win.
Pike phalanxes and shieldwalls alike have unfortunate issues with agility and rough terrain. They're fairly "linear" formations for frontal clashes and the very close order and drill they requie is dismally easily distrupted by uncooperative geography and similar issues. By themselves they're also notoriously vulnerable at the flanks and rear - even moreso than is the norm for all formations, as the very close order makes it difficult to form up a news "face" quickly enough. This was a problem neither the Greek hoplites nor the Hellenic pikemen ever got around (although both were aware of and also used the un-flankable hollow square), and thus guarding their flanks was up to more open order infantry and the cavalry. The problem with this being of course that all other things being equal such troops per definition lack the relative inviolability of the close phalanx, and as such can be taken on more on equal terms by the enemy.
The Medieval reinvention of the pikeman solved the issue by fighting in the hollow square by default (his Hellenic colleagues only adopted the formation as a defensive measure in dire straits). This had its own issues - although the massive pike square was not abandoned until halfway into the Thirty Years' War, so those were for a long time clearly not regarded as very serious - but handily removed the vulnerable flanks and rear from the equation.
Zaknafien
01-12-2007, 15:11
Any question such as 'Which is superior, the hoplite, sarissa, or pilum legion' is the wrong question to ask. This isn't a game of 'rocks, scissors, paper'.
Uh, actually it is. :laugh4:
oudysseos
01-12-2007, 15:40
I meant in real life, not in the RTW engine.
Mujalumbo
01-12-2007, 20:47
well, first off a hoplite carries a considerably shorter spear then the macedonian phalangite, which carried the Sarissa, 7 meter long, Lol i mean thats an incredibly long spear, which required two hands to hold and use correctly. the hoplite on the other hand was a MUCH more mobile infantry, using a shorter spear, larger shield, and better armor. the macedonian Phalanx was mainly used for the hammer and anvil tactic, made famous by Alexander the Great (my hero). So, i mean, honestly. Do you think a wall of 7 meter long spears in your face vs your tiny spear around 2.7 meters in length would stand a chance? its not a hard question to answer.
Are you saying you're re-enactor who's taken part in a classic hoplite versus Macedonian phalanx demonstration? 'Cause in real life, there's what ought to be, and what is.
From all the accounts, the classical hoplite formation did fine against the Macedonian phalanx. It was the combined arms tactics that decided the battle, not the exaggerated supreriority of the phalanx.
Tellos Athenaios
01-12-2007, 21:45
Uh, actually it is. :laugh4:
:grin: LOL
Great responses Watchman and oudysseos...
For the record, I'm pretty sure their swords were a whole bit longer. Around a meter was the norm for cut-and-thrust sword those days. Anyway, the Iberian "sword and buckler" men didn't operate alone; they were isntead the equivalent of Doppelsoldners in the pike units, and indeed more often than not carried comparable armour and some sort of polearm as their initial "shock" weapon. When the pike blocks clashed the shock troops would try to work their way through the tangle and hack a hole in the enemy ranks, hopefully severe enough to lead to the collapse of the formation. 'Course, they had to deal with their opposite numbers on the side.
For what its worth the Spanish swordsmen were originally developed for combat in the rugged geography and strong fortresses of the last Moorish strongholds in the south of the peninsula. That they proved to be a very capable pike support arm was a bonus.
I have different opinions on these matters...
1) I was refering only to the blade [not including the ricasso] which could vary between 60 to 80 cm, depending on the country, timeframe or simply the length the armoury produced. The entire sword would most of the times be just shy of a meter.
The type of sword would be a direct descendent of the arming swords of the medieval age, who was about 90 cm in length. If you are interested try to find some info on late 15th century cut and thrust swords developed in the Peninsula and Italy with a "crab" handguard. Interesting stuff.
2) Soldiers that carried the biddenhander were usually wealthy enough to buy some body armour for themselves, and carried as a sidearm a cut and thrust sword along with a left-hand dagger. They were specialized soldiers who did not carry an aditional polearm.
3) As for the rodeleros, they were never very numerous - haven't heard of contingents larger than 2000-2500 men, and almost always in the ballpark of about a 1000. They were not developed in Iberia, they were developed in Italy and brought here through the contacts Aragon had in Southern Italy. Even at the height of its use, they were mainly recruited from the East and Southeast of Spain. The type of warfare was never really imported to the West of the Peninsula, who prefered to fight with a dagger instead of a buckler [the nobles] or just polearms [the regular soldiers].
I've been told they had the considerable benefit of outnumbering the Macs by a comfortable margin - a very obvious advantage when one considers that getting enveloped was pretty much the death of the Hellenic phalanx...
He was outnumbered? Where is that stated? Remember he wasn't facing all of the Celtic leaders, just one.
The usual argument I've seen is that Philip intentionally refused his right wing to expose the Athenians' flank you know. And the early phalanx of those days (likely still under developement) was in any case even more of a "holding force" than later on - its duty was to act as an unmovable obstacle on which the enemy became pinned until the heavy cavalry came to settle the matters. If it actually put the enemy to flight by itself, capital, but that was not its main purpose nor did it by what I know of the matter happen too often.
The argument is that he told his left flank to fall-back, making the pursuing Athenians expose their left flank and break their line with the Thebans who were isolated once the Athenians routed. I, and others question not only a biased historian but also if it's possible having a close-order formation fall-back downhill in good order with enemy right pressuring you from the front [remember the battle had been going on for a good while]. Anyone who's played rugby knows what the result of a melee is when you start falling back. Either you stand your ground or you're rolled over.
Among the better ways to get past the pikes from the front (aside from shooting a hole in the ranks and flatly chopping up the shafts with suitable weaponry) was apparently always going [I]under them. Presumably not a terribly safe or reliable technique, and one suspects it placed considerable limitations on the war gear the troops attempting it could carry, but nobody said it was easy to take on pikemen head on anyway.
Kneeling the front pike rank sounds like a counter specifically against this tactic, and doubtless gave the Galatians a new tactical nut to crack.
Surely one of the more common ways, but it was possible to break it from the front, just that it was very difficult. As for the kneeling the front row, it does give you some security but you immediately loose most of your mobility, like the english squares in the napoleonic wars.
and remember that while flank attacks helped the romans to defeat the makedonians, polybios attributes roman success to incoherence in the phalanx in uneven terrain. moving across ditches and hills at pydna, the phalanx blocks eventually allowed small pockets of romans in through the front. this is rather easily understood: it would be very difficult to maintain the cohesion of the pike rows 1) over extended periods of combat, 2) on the move while in lowered formation (the pikes were held up for movement in most cases in the histories, implying that moving with the pikes lowered could be difficult), 3) across varying terrain, where your leveled pike might be facing a different angle from the leveled pike of the man two rows behind you.
You could also attribute Roman success to their ability to rotate men (thanks to shallow ranks, loose order, and multiple lines), getting fresh soldiers to the front, an ability which the phalanxes sorely lacked and which surely had its effect over several hours of combat.
And thanks for talking about Spanish combat vs. Swiss pikemen, that is something that, until today, I knew practically nothing about!
Geoffrey S
01-13-2007, 07:10
And that is the key. Phalanx lines are vulnerable to flank attacks, but if the line becomes disjointed such attacks are possible in the middle of army, often with devastating reults. The Roman manipel system was especially able to exploit such weaknesses.
Watchman
01-13-2007, 09:02
I've read the Greek mercenaries under Persian standards were nearly able to start seriously exploiting that kind of dislocation at Issus, but Alex brought the Companions to their rear before they did too much damage to the phalangites.
He was outnumbered? Where is that stated? Remember he wasn't facing all of the Celtic leaders, just one.*shrug* That's what someone told me in a discussion where the Celtic invasion of Macedonia came up. I mentioned the phalanx getting cut to ribbons, and he pointed out it was outnumbered and outflanked. Sounds credible enough as such, although I can't say I know much details about that incident.
The argument is that he told his left flank to fall-back, making the pursuing Athenians expose their left flank and break their line with the Thebans who were isolated once the Athenians routed. I, and others [including proper scholars, not just an armchair strategist like me] question not only a biased historian but also if it's possible having a close-order formation fall-back downhill in good order with enemy right pressuring you from the front [remember the battle had been going on for a good while]. Anyone who's played rugby knows what the result of a melee is when you start falling back. Either you stand your ground or you're rolled over.Refusing a flank is usually done before melee contact though. That aside I'd be kind of interested in knowing how exactly the hoplites are supposed to have "pressed" the phalanx anywhere - even if the sarissae weren't yet anywhere near their final lenght, I've been given to understand Philip had been tweaking his infantry's gear with the specific aim of enabling them to take on and hold their Greek colleagues. An edge in spear lenght, already demonstrated as an useful advantage for both infantry and cavalry in his earlier wars, would have been among the easier solutions.
I'd just like to know how exactly the hoplites are supposed to have "pushed" enough against the wall of longer Mac spears to get the phalangites move anywhere. The phlangite order was at least as close as the hoplite one, and thus at least as resistant to pressure - and several ranks of long spears now happen to be a very good obstacle to exterting overmuch pressure against them. If nothing else your shield ought to get stuck on them.
Surely one of the more common ways, but it was possible to break it from the front, just that it was very difficult. As for the kneeling the front row, it does give you some security but you immediately loose most of your mobility, like the english squares in the napoleonic wars.I'm under the impression the Galatians were Celts enough to tend to courteously come at you without too much waiting around. I understand that in dealing with Celtic close-combat infantry stopping them by far had the priority over moving yourself - and they beat the phalanx in maneuverability anyway. The phalangites' chief concern would obviously have been to keep the wild-eyed sword-swingers at a pike-lenght, and kneeling the front rank would presumably have helped. I understand that if they were checked and could make no headway Celtic infantry had a bad habit of getting confused and disorganized and eventually dispirited.
fallen851
01-13-2007, 09:43
Hoplites were inferior according John Warey, simply because they were citizen soldiers, while the Macedonian army was professional.
At least during Phillip's invasion.
Conqueror
01-13-2007, 21:38
Does comparing a legion (especially the manipular legion) to the phalanx really make all that much sense? The phalanx is just a particular type of infantry (like the Roman Principes are). The legion consists of different types of soldiers, including a cavalry arm, and is probably accompanied by other troops provided by Rome's allies. The phalanx is meant to be a part of a larger system, where there is place for light and heavy infantry, cavalry, archers, slingers etc.
Instead of asking how effective a Roman legion is against a line of phalangites, the question should be that of a Roman legion with a given set of allies against a Hellenic army with a specific set of soldiers.
Watchman
01-13-2007, 22:43
Hoplites were inferior according John Warey, simply because they were citizen soldiers, while the Macedonian army was professional.
At least during Phillip's invasion.The Macedonian infantry arm was essentially a feudal/commoner levy AFAIK. Philip just managed to figure a way to turn it into something actually useful, and secure enough income to keep the army on the field for long enough times that it "professionalized" by default.
'Sides, what's the assumption citizen militias are automatically inferior to professionals anyway...?
'Sides, what's the assumption citizen militias are automatically inferior to professionals anyway...?
Since the militiaman wants to get home to his wife and child, and most likly wanna get home and get that roof at the stable done before winter he is more prone to run away. A pro, well he get a lot better payed, and gets payed just to train and doing something he probably loves. Weapon and uniforms has always attracted people, even when the uniform consisted of chainmail and iron helmets.
(this was the short answer based on experince from my years in the army)
Watchman
01-14-2007, 01:12
On the other hand, as far as motivation goes it doesn't come much better than for someone fighting for his home and family now does it...? The mean-spirited could argue that professional soldiers are really just mercenaries, in it for the money and loot and pillage and (reasonably) reliable meals, and possibly willing to change sides or go renegade if that looks like the better bet (since you know, the pay's no good for you when you're dead) - which indeed has happened quite often over the millenia. Didn't one Seleucid king for example get turned over to the Ptolemies by his very own elite soldiers (the Argyraspidai) in return for their baggage, which a Ptolie light cavalry unit had managed to nick the previous day...?
Modern armies have a thing called nationalism going on. Its modern, potent incarnation is only around two hundred years old, and it works equally well for reservist and professional militaries. Earlier on similar loyalties were nigh invariably either by far more diffuse to the point of near inexistence, or focused on local community, religion or some kind of symbolic figurehead such as a monarch or respected commander. Very different, although communal pride and loyalty to one's own "home and hearth" (and tribe, clan or whatever) could furnish militia soldiery with startling levels of courage.
'Sides, it took a long long time before professional standing forces gained truly reliable and meaningful advantages over other, more part-time, types. The ones they mainly had were often more adminstrative and political, typically at the price of economy.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2007, 02:03
I think that to rubbish classical Hoplites is to miss an important point, the phalangites never fought classic hoplites. The Athenian and Theban Hoplites of the day were far lighter than those of the Persian Wars. A Corinthian Hoplite of that era would be well enough armoured that he would have a significant chance of getting past the pikes by pushing them out of the way. It would be far easier for him to move the pikes aside than for the Macedonian to keep in on line because the Hoplites has better leverage.
Where are the pikes going to go when presented with a shieldwall? Only over or under, you just have to make sure they go over and duck, tehn get in close and make with the happy hacking.
as to a Roman Legion, on a level plain a classical phalanx and a Legion are probably about equel, a Macedonian phalanx has too little armour to soak up the pila but if they managed to close in good order the Romans might well have problems.
-Praetor-
01-14-2007, 02:26
On the other hand, as far as motivation goes it doesn't come much better than for someone fighting for his home and family now does it...?
Only if you`re fighting in your homeland. For instance, one can only imagine the feelings that the pre-marian roman soldiers would have had, fighting in such far away locations such as Iberia, Gallia Transalpina, or Asia.
You cannot say to them that you`re fighting for the "defense" of the homeland, thus demanding their lives in the sake of the republic, 500 miles away from your borders. You wouldn`t be seen as a very popular leader...
Truth to be told, and this may sound a little too clichè, but both sistems had (have) advantages and disadvantages depending on the circumstances.
as to a Roman Legion, on a level plain a classical phalanx and a Legion are probably about equel, a Macedonian phalanx has too little armour to soak up the pila but if they managed to close in good order the Romans might well have problems.
As in Pydna, perhaps? :book2:
O'ETAIPOS
01-14-2007, 11:38
Few points: Gauls vs pikes - gaus used drugs before battle. There are info about them running forward with sarissa across stomach.
About sarrissa. There are multiple accounts of them being able to pierce shields and armour. Plutarch about Pydna "nothing could withstand the sarissa trust"
Pikes vs legion: At both Pydna and Kynoskefale Romans were pushed back quite far, losing men.
At Kynoskefale they were fighting 1/2 of mak army (left wing was still in march formation) so romans were able to send 1/3 of theyre right wing to the back of mak's army.
At Pydna gaps opened between units and those romans used - maks were probably not trained enough in full army fighting so more succesful units were pressing faster - it is noted that agema was the most separated ater too fast advance.
mentioning that I have to say, that the morale is most important part of solider's "equipment". The people fight, not arms or formations.
lets say u were a hoplite, vs a wall of phalangites, i would be so scared that i would prly run before we even came in contact with their pikes, because you would know that you wouldnt even come close without your chances of being impaled by a sarissa being extremely high.
Showing bravery, standing shoulder to shoulder with your fellow citizen was at the heart of the hoplite style of fighting.
Even if you wanted to run away, you just couldn't; the veteran were at the back of the formation, pushing the younger forward and preventing any escape.
(at least until the whole formation crumbled)
Peer pressure was extremely important, it was a family's disgrace to have a son killed in the back.
That's part of the 'motivation'.
Watchman
01-14-2007, 11:57
I fail to see where the sarissa is supposed to be any better at going through stuff than any other two-handed spear (medieval pikes had noticeably narrow tips, as spearheads go, which per definition are pretty good penetrators, but I dunno if the same approach was used with sarissae). It's not exactly a kontos with the momentum of the horse added to the thrust after all.
That aside, even if a soldier's shield and/or armour holds against the thrust that just leaves him alive but held; no matter how well defended he is, the pike pressing against him is quite simply a physical obstacle that prevents him from moving forwards before something in the equation breaks.
And bodily pushing against a spear-point does not sound like a terribly clever prospect to my ears...
Only if you`re fighting in your homeland. For instance, one can only imagine the feelings that the pre-marian roman soldiers would have had, fighting in such far away locations such as Iberia, Gallia Transalpina, or Asia.
You cannot say to them that you`re fighting for the "defense" of the homeland, thus demanding their lives in the sake of the republic, 500 miles away from your borders. You wouldn`t be seen as a very popular leader...
Truth to be told, and this may sound a little too clichè, but both sistems had (have) advantages and disadvantages depending on the circumstances.Fair enough, although I'm under the impression the main issues with sending the Republican citizen-soldiers overseas for extended periods were socioeconomical. After all, the ime they spent under arms was directly off the time they spent tending their farms and whatnot; the central problem of reservist militia systems. One undeniable advantage of the full-time soldiers is just that they can be kept mobilized in principle indefinitely without impacting the normal workings of the society and economy, although in practice they tend to be expensive enough to keep on the field that the war chest starts running empty fairly soon.
The Romans seem to have been pretty succesful at taking their dogged stubbornness in combat with them outside Italy. The draconian discipline and the way the overseas armies tended to spend a lot of time mobilized together on each stint (which allowed them to develop proper drill and espirit de corps) probably helped, but one would guess the prospect of adventure and loot was also by itself attractive enough particularly to the younger and poorer men.
O'ETAIPOS
01-14-2007, 12:30
Showing bravery, standing shoulder to shoulder with your fellow citizen was at the heart of the hoplite style of fighting.
Even if you wanted to run away, you just couldn't; the veteran were at the back of the formation, pushing the younger forward and preventing any escape.
(at least until the whole formation crumbled)
Peer pressure was extremely important, it was a family's disgrace to have a son killed in the back.
That's part of the 'motivation'.
This is theory. In reality, in most battles between greek city states at least part of each army fled even before contact. Sometimes all army fled before contact. There are only few accounts of hoplites fighting long in melee, usually people from larger states, while allies almost always fled. That's why Epaminondas put them a litte backward, leaving fighting for thebans.
Watchman
01-14-2007, 13:09
By all accounts hoplite fights were long almost ritualistic in nature though. The armies marched out, confronted each other, one ran away sooner or later with fairly light casualties, and whatever was being fought over was in principle settled with that.
Unsurprisingly, this was insufficient for about anything beyond petty squabbles between neighbours, and things got both a tad more... bloody-minded later on. The addition of more cavalry and light infantry to the tactical equation likely helped.
Zaknafien
01-14-2007, 16:05
The draconian discipline and the way the overseas armies tended to spend a lot of time mobilized together on each stint (which allowed them to develop proper drill and espirit de corps) probably helped, but one would guess the prospect of adventure and loot was also by itself attractive enough particularly to the younger and poorer men.
Thats not exactly true as such, the 'draconian' measures in Roman armies were largely legislated away in the decades before the time of Marius. Army training and discipline was in a horrible state, especially in Ibera. For example, scourging was abolished. The Senate made many other concessions as well, such as providing clothing for the legionaries, etc. The Latins were not protected by these laws however, which is one of the things that led to the increasing consternation of the socii during this time.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2007, 17:26
Prior to that though decimation was probably a very good motivator. As to Hoplite battles, casualties were light, usually, but one only has to look at the Persian Wars to appreciate the fact that hoplites would stand when more than a petty border was at stake.
To the Hoplite Phalanx versus Macedonian Phalanx question, it is unlikely that there was a clear victor in a one on one situation. The power of the Macedonian system lay in its combined arms flexibility. What most of the greek states lacked was a decent cavalry arm and even if they had an established cavalry, like the Thebans, it hardly fought in accordance with the infantry. Contrarily the Macedonians had a well established cavalry arm that worked effectively in coordination with the infantry, enabling them to crush the Greeks easily (in general).
-Praetor-
01-16-2007, 06:32
By all accounts hoplite fights were long almost ritualistic in nature though. The armies marched out, confronted each other, one ran away sooner or later with fairly light casualties, and whatever was being fought over was in principle settled with that.
Yeah, it was funny/sad to read how horrified was the greek world after the slaughter of thousands of reclutes in Cysnoscéfale and Pydna after the rout...
They had time, but didn`t prepared to confront such war machine as the roman army was, and the fundamental changes in warfare that were ocurring since... ever, but more closely, since roman fights against the carthies.
Nno other people in history used war in such a marvellous way to make politics...
The addition of more cavalry and light infantry to the tactical equation likely helped.
And the subsequent evolution into new concepts, as Ekdromoi, peltastai, and after thureophoroi, thorakitai, etc,. demonstrated the continuous advance on warfare experimented by hellas... but it was just not enough.
Unsurprisingly, this was insufficient for about anything beyond petty squabbles between neighbours,
...and a couple of persian and carthaginean wars.
Sorry, couldn`t help it!!!!! :grin:
Cheers!!!!!!!11
Here's summary of a couple of confrontations (Chaeronea and Sellasia) between the Macedonian and Hoplite phalanxes. I've copied the text below from a post of mine in this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=68757) Monastery thread.
...Aside from this, the hoplite phalanx certainly survived in the armies of the Achaean League and Sparta. At the battle of Sellasia in 222 BC, Polybius distinguishes 3000 "picked infantry" of the League from 1000 Megalopolitans by the fact that the latter were armed by Antigonus "in the Macedonian manner". (The Megalopolitans had been surprised by a night attack on their city and forced to flee without their own hoplite arms.) Of the 15,000 Spartan heavy infantry, about 11,000 were armed hoplite-style; Plutarch's Life of Cleomenes mentions that 4,000 perioikoi were trained to use the sarissa in about 227 BC.
There also doesn't seem to be much evidence that the Macedonian phalanx was markedly superior to the hoplite phalanx.
At Chaeronea, Diodorus says:
The battle was hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides, so that for a while the struggle permitted hopes of victory to both.
According to Polyaenus, the battle was decided when Philip feigned retreat with the Macedonian right wing: the Athenians surged forward in pursuit, opening a gap between themselves and the Thebans. Alexander's cavalry surged through the gap and took the Thebans from behind. Up to that point, the hoplite phalanx had fought the Macedonian to a draw. Had the Athenians been better disciplined or led, the result may very well have been different.
In the contest between phalanxes at Sellasia, the Macedonians were able to form in double depth (32 ranks) without endangering their flanks in the constricted terrain. Even so, the outnumbered Spartans (without the perioikoi) charged the sarissa-wielding Macedonians and initially forced them back before the depth of the Macedonians reversed the situation. Here the victory is more due to greater numbers and the advantage the terrain gave to the Macedonian phalanx than any intrinsic quality of the formation.
Here here Atilius! Great post. You've got the 'facts' as I understand them pretty much right in my opinion.....something I'd been wanting to say for some time but didn't have the inclination :embarassed: to find the texts to quote.
If the Hoplite method of war was completely outmatched then I'm sure Alexander would have re-trained the 'Allied' Greek Hoplites he took to Persia with him. But he didn't!
When crossing the Granicus the Phalanx was not only held, but was being beaten by the opposing Hoplites fighting for the Persians, until the Persian cavalry were defeated, at which time those same Hoplites marched from the field in good order . Yes, the Phalanx was crossing a stream/river but the point is they were being defeated, not just held in place.
The Phalanx was a way for Phillip to turn his unruly, and lightly armoured if not a file leader, peasants into an effective battle force that could hold the Hoplites while the real work was done by the cavalry. The loss of focus on Cavalry lost many a Macedonian/Successor general battles over the next few centuries.
Polybius distinguishes 3000 "picked infantry" of the League from 1000 Megalopolitans by the fact that the latter were armed by Antigonus "in the Macedonian manner".
Just as an aside. You'll may be surprised to know that those 3000 picked infantry were probably what I would call Thureophoroi. The Achaean League pretty much used Thureophoroi exclusively from the moment it was formed. In EB I believe this type of 'Thureophoroi' are represented by that reformed Hoplite with the long Spear, Thureos and Javelins.....pretty much Hoplites with a new shield and javelins who emphasised mobility over aggression.....unlike the old style Hoplite.
My assumptions on this may be wrong, but it makes sense to me :2thumbsup:
Cheers,
Quilts
The Celtic Viking
01-16-2007, 15:18
Taking up the talk about shield_wall in RTW again, would anyone please tell me exactly which units I should give that ability? Or perhaps just putting up an already 'fixed' file for download? It would be appreciated.
O'ETAIPOS
01-16-2007, 17:59
If the Hoplite method of war was completely outmatched then I'm sure Alexander would have re-trained the 'Allied' Greek Hoplites he took to Persia with him. But he didn't!
Do you want to train not exactly loyal people to best arm available?
If hoplites were so good, Alexander would used them in main line in battles, but he hasnt.
When crossing the Granicus the Phalanx was not only held, but was being beaten by the opposing Hoplites fighting for the Persians, until the Persian cavalry were defeated, at which time those same Hoplites marched from the field in good order . Yes, the Phalanx was crossing a stream/river but the point is they were being defeated, not just held in place.
It was at Issos. And not exactly like you portray it. Persian line was formed on the top of steep riverbank, and places were access was easier were fortified. So they were effectively fighting from a wall. During crossing a break occured in Mak line, as part of the army facing persians was moving faster. Greek mercenaries, trained, well equipped and veteran troops used this gap, but still they were able only to produce draw.
The Phalanx was a way for Phillip to turn his unruly, and lightly armoured if not a file leader, peasants into an effective battle force that could hold the Hoplites while the real work was done by the cavalry. The loss of focus on Cavalry lost many a Macedonian/Successor general battles over the next few centuries.
You are wrong. Cav was by no means neglected. Percent ratio was similar in hellenistic and Philip II times (even higher in some battles). Probably there was decrease in quality, but it is different thing.
Just as an aside. You'll may be surprised to know that those 3000 picked infantry were probably what I would call Thureophoroi. The Achaean League pretty much used Thureophoroi exclusively from the moment it was formed. In EB I believe this type of 'Thureophoroi' are represented by that reformed Hoplite with the long Spear, Thureos and Javelins.....pretty much Hoplites with a new shield and javelins who emphasised mobility over aggression.....unlike the old style Hoplite.
My assumptions on this may be wrong, but it makes sense to me :2thumbsup:
Mobile warfare was typical for Achaean cities from dark ages. In fact they were seen as backward becaouse of this in classical Greece. So "picked men" almost certainly something different from typical soliders - either standard, trained and well equiped hoplites or "makedonian" pikemen.
We know from a "life of Philponenon" by Plutarch that pike units were formed to serve as elite units of Achaean army.
In the contest between phalanxes at Sellasia, the Macedonians were able to form in double depth (32 ranks) without endangering their flanks in the constricted terrain. Even so, the outnumbered Spartans (without the perioikoi) charged the sarissa-wielding Macedonians and initially forced them back before the depth of the Macedonians reversed the situation. Here the victory is more due to greater numbers and the advantage the terrain gave to the Macedonian phalanx than any intrinsic quality of the formation.
According to Polybius Spartan army was on fortified position - two hills with ditch and wall plus fortified camp on Olympus. Such well were they prepared, that at first Antigonos tried to lure Spartans from position. Unsuccesful in this plan, he attacked. On Euas hill Makedonian won rather easily (hold for a while by side attack, but this was pushed back by megalopolitans, and main attack continued).
On Olympos hill fight was draw for a while, but makedonians finally pushed spartans and routed them. On both hills Maks were moving UP a hill and so advantage of position was on Spartan side (some scientists believe the fight was rater on the slope of a hill, not top, so neither side had advantage).
According to Polybius Spartan army was on fortified position - two hills with ditch and wall plus fortified camp on Olympus. Such well were they prepared, that at first Antigonos tried to lure Spartans from position... On both hills Maks were moving UP a hill and so advantage of position was on Spartan side (some scientists believe the fight was rater on the slope of a hill, not top, so neither side had advantage).
The main reason Antigonus won at Sellasia was the disparity in numbers (about 29,000 to 20,000) which is why I mentioned numbers before terrain. But I think the terrain actually wound up favoring Antigonus.
Of course you are entirely correct about the strength of the Spartan position. Euas is quite steep and Cleomenes posted mostly light troops and the perioikoi there, commanded by his brother Eucleidas. But Polybius says (2.68) that
Eucleidas' troops threw away the advantages of their strong position when they saw the enemy advancing on them.
The main phalanx battle took place on Olympus, which is reported to have a fairly gentle slope. Also, Polybius indicates (2.66) that the narrowness of the front there forced Antigonus to double the depth his phalanx. In my opinion this trumped any Spartan height advantage on the gentle slope.
silverster
01-17-2007, 05:42
I see this discussion is becoming like a Legion VS. Phalanx thread.:inquisitive:
anyhow, if i am correct, the initial stage of the clash between a block of hoplites and phalanx will be done by the spear clashing right? So the hoplites had to take hits through the wall of sarissas even before their spears can even touch their opponents, by the time the Mac's are in range of the hoplites' spear, the Macs will be on sword anyway. So i dont see there being a discussion comparing the spear, the hoplites dont have the chance use them anyway.
as to the discussion about the Spainish sword and buckler man vs. swiss pikeman...
Once the Spainish gone through the wall of spears (which should be easy because they have a shield, and the swiss dont, unlike the hoplites/phalanxes. Then the Spainish will be fighting, at best, light infantry, swiss don't stand a chance, it's like two legions fighting each other only one side does not have the scutum...
Do you want to train not exactly loyal people to best arm available?
If hoplites were so good, Alexander would used them in main line in battles, but he hasnt.
Exactly how difficult do you think it would be to train guys to fight with a longer spear and smaller shield? It's not magic you know, nor a skill that only Macedonians, and the many many Eastern troops that were later trained in it's use, could possess.
The Greek solution to the Phalanx was better armour and a little more maneouverability in the field. Had the Greeks been able to co-operate, just for once, it may very well have been enough.
Until the later Leagues were formed they were pretty much City States pitted against the might of a united Kingdom.
It was at Issos. And not exactly like you portray it. Persian line was formed on the top of steep riverbank, and places were access was easier were fortified. So they were effectively fighting from a wall. During crossing a break occured in Mak line, as part of the army facing persians was moving faster. Greek mercenaries, trained, well equipped and veteran troops used this gap, but still they were able only to produce draw.
I'll take your word for the battlefield, but a draw my bum :oops: . The huge loss in file leaders alone is an indication that the Phalanx was failing on this occasion. The mere fact that the Hoplites were able to make an orderly withdrawal from the field despite not having any cavalry support left is a clear indication that the Phalanx's were in disarray or there would have been some kind of pursuit.
Does it strike you as curious that Alexander committed his Phalanx to engage troops behind these 'fortifications'? Sounds pretty silly, unless perhaps their job was to engage, and thereby, hold the enemy.....whilst the cavalry did the real work, aka Hammer and Anvil.
You are wrong. Cav was by no means neglected. Percent ratio was similar in hellenistic and Philip II times (even higher in some battles). Probably there was decrease in quality, but it is different thing.
Settle down now. I think the word 'focus' could imply many things, including quality. But I'll go for the lot :laugh4: . I'm sure those 'extra' Galatian cavalry didn't really make up for a good Companion.
Mobile warfare was typical for Achaean cities from dark ages. In fact they were seen as backward becaouse of this in classical Greece. So "picked men" almost certainly something different from typical soliders - either standard, trained and well equiped hoplites or "makedonian" pikemen.
We know from a "life of Philponenon" by Plutarch that pike units were formed to serve as elite units of Achaean army.
Hadn't heard that before. Are you sure your not thinking of the Aitolians? Your description certainly matches them, particulalrly the backwards bit. Achaea was part of the Peloponnesus and I'm pretty sure that Athens formed part of the League as did the Megalopolitans.
Cheers,
Quilts
O'ETAIPOS
01-17-2007, 19:17
Exactly how difficult do you think it would be to train guys to fight with a longer spear and smaller shield? It's not magic you know, nor a skill that only Macedonians, and the many many Eastern troops that were later trained in it's use, could possess.
training pikemen wasn't that easy. It was not only "to hold a pike and stab" but all set of complicated drills and battle manevrouers that have to be learned and perfected.
It's difference like between shooting from a gun and being after US Navy Seals training ~;)
Have you seen "Alexander"? Those guys (Morocan soliders under former US officer if I recall corectly) trained for about a month - still they were not able to keep formation in march with leveled pikes.
The Greek solution to the Phalanx was better armour and a little more maneouverability in the field. Had the Greeks been able to co-operate, just for once, it may very well have been enough.
Until the later Leagues were formed they were pretty much City States pitted against the might of a united Kingdom.
Almost all greece, including Thessaly took part in Lamian war yet they were not able to defeat Makedonians. Greeks had full sea superiority, so no reiforcements could be sent from asia in first year, still Greeks were not able to enter Makedonia, and all fighting took place in Thessaly. When asian army finally came, Greeks were crushed in one battle.
I'll take your word for the battlefield, but a draw my bum :oops: . The huge loss in file leaders alone is an indication that the Phalanx was failing on this occasion. The mere fact that the Hoplites were able to make an orderly withdrawal from the field despite not having any cavalry support left is a clear indication that the Phalanx's were in disarray or there would have been some kind of pursuit.
According to Arrian only about 10000 from 30000 greek mercenaries survived the battle, some of which Darius gathered (2000?), while 8000 fled to the ships and sailed to Cyprus.
If loosing 2/3 of men is a success, then yes Greeks were succesful.
Arrian mentions only one Makedonian by name (which means he was important) and 120 other ("distigushed") that died in clash against greeks. Not a great success compared to 20 000 greeks died or taken.
Does it strike you as curious that Alexander committed his Phalanx to engage troops behind these 'fortifications'? Sounds pretty silly, unless perhaps their job was to engage, and thereby, hold the enemy.....whilst the cavalry did the real work, aka Hammer and Anvil.
Obviously. But greeks were surrounded by makedonian infantry from "right wing" that according to Arrian pushed persian left (with Alex cavalry) and then moved diagonally against greeks.
Cataphract_Of_The_City
01-17-2007, 20:02
The fact that the hoplite force in Issus retreated in good order proves that there were no heavy casualties. A force losing 2/3 of its force and withdrawing in good order is a force of supermen. When a phalanx received more than 6-7% losses it usually routed whether it was citizen or mercenary routed. Only elites stod and fought to death but even that was very rare. These observations lead us to the conclusion that there weren't more than 15000 Greek mercenaries in Issos.
O'ETAIPOS
01-17-2007, 20:47
Only that Arrian never mentions they retreated in good order
Edit: Sorry, the other translation, and original, greek text mentions order, but uses also word "pheugontes" which indicate flee rather than retreat. Greeks fled straight into mountains, and so avoided pursuit.
Mind you also that there were not only mercenaries in those 8000 but also exiled from many greek cities. claiming that altogether it was 15000 is strange if you recall Xenophon - if rebelious prince mustered over 10000 then why on earth would Persian king have only 15000 including exiled?
Edit2: It seems to me that it was a group of some few thousand soliders, probably exiled and some merc from right wing that retreated while Mak's were busy with "cutting down the mercenaries" (Arrian Anabasis... II. 11) from the left wing and centre. During retreat probably more routers joined this isolated group giving finally the number around 8000. Keeping coherence, they probably were avoided by pursuers, who didnt want to risk life in already won battle. Also prusue from inf was probably quite short, as the battle took place quite late in the afternoon, and cav was targeting persian horsemen (much more to loot)
Didn't they get shafted in the rear by the Companions or something ?
There is no indication that makedonian or Thessalian cavalry attacked greek mercenaries, while there is clear info about infantry attack.
Watchman
01-17-2007, 21:03
Didn't they get shafted in the rear by the Companions or something ?
training pikemen wasn't that easy. It was not only "to hold a pike and stab" but all set of complicated drills and battle manevrouers that have to be learned and perfected.
It's difference like between shooting from a gun and being after US Navy Seals training
Have you seen "Alexander"? Those guys (Morocan soliders under former US officer if I recall corectly) trained for about a month - still they were not able to keep formation in march with leveled pikes.On the other hand Early Modern armies seem to have been able to virtually pull pikemen off the ground. Now they were more expensive and complicated to train and equip than arquebusieurs of course, but there's still obviously pretty good reasons why pikemen were so prevalent in "mass" armies.
The invention of the bayonett pretty much made the pike useless, still a few nations kept using it, and most noticibly Sweden. Why? Not because it was a cheap easy to use weapon. At least Sweden kept using it because the king at the time (Charles XI and later his son Charles XII) belived in the chock value of the "steel". In practice a bayonett did just as much damage and you could carry two weapons in to battle (a firearm and a thrusting arm) but just as in old times the enemy often routed before the Swedes could close in...
So, the reasons pikes was used for such a long time was more of a "romantic" ideal and old habit. If you would have started to use breachloaded rifles in the 1700 and put them in the hand of well trained skirmishers, the map of Europe would look very different now.
Only that Arrian never mentions they retreated in good order
Edit: Sorry, the other translation, and original, greek text mentions order, but uses also word "pheugontes" which indicate flee rather than retreat. Greeks fled straight into mountains, and so avoided pursuit.
Mind you also that there were not only mercenaries in those 8000 but also exiled from many greek cities. claiming that altogether it was 15000 is strange if you recall Xenophon - if rebelious prince mustered over 10000 then why on earth would Persian king have only 15000 including exiled?
Edit2: It seems to me that it was a group of some few thousand soliders, probably exiled and some merc from right wing that retreated while Mak's were busy with "cutting down the mercenaries" (Arrian Anabasis... II. 11) from the left wing and centre. During retreat probably more routers joined this isolated group giving finally the number around 8000. Keeping coherence, they probably were avoided by pursuers, who didnt want to risk life in already won battle. Also prusue from inf was probably quite short, as the battle took place quite late in the afternoon, and cav was targeting persian horsemen (much more to loot)
There is no indication that makedonian or Thessalian cavalry attacked greek mercenaries, while there is clear info about infantry attack.
You should be mindfull of having double-standards. You constantly refer to literal passages when they suit your claims and offer your interpretation when they do not.
And btw, on training times, you could train an average fighting force [as in second-line troops] in under 2 months and have them perform reasonably well in battle. The fact is, there are no professional pike drillers alive today, so what they did was get some, probably not very enthusiastic, modern soldiers and gave them some very basic marching and formation drill on what they thought was the correct way to do so.
Watchman
01-18-2007, 01:14
The invention of the bayonett pretty much made the pike useless, still a few nations kept using it, and most noticibly Sweden. Why? Not because it was a cheap easy to use weapon. At least Sweden kept using it because the king at the time (Charles XI and later his son Charles XII) belived in the chock value of the "steel". In practice a bayonett did just as much damage and you could carry two weapons in to battle (a firearm and a thrusting arm) but just as in old times the enemy often routed before the Swedes could close in...
So, the reasons pikes was used for such a long time was more of a "romantic" ideal and old habit. If you would have started to use breachloaded rifles in the 1700 and put them in the hand of well trained skirmishers, the map of Europe would look very different now.I don't really see where this has much bearing on the topic anymore. Before the bayonet the pike was an abslute necessity for the pretty simple reason arquebusieurs not protected by pikemen were pretty much dead against cavalry in the open. Pike also kept enemy pike away from the guys with guns while they reloaded, which had its uses.
Musketeers with bayonets weren't quite as good at standing up to a cavalry charge, but better than without and more importantly they were rather more useful all-around troops as no sacrifice of firepower was involved.
The Swedes kept the pike in service in limited numbers until around the end of the Great Northern War in the early 1700s (the bayonet having otherwise phased out the pike by the close of the 1600s) because their infantry were essentially close shock specialists and the lenght and sheer intimidation factor of the pike was useful in that regard. Their Russian neighbours kept it because it helped their infantry stand up to the nasty and very aggressive Swedish cavalry. Both dumped it by the middle of the century altogether.
Now the point I was originally making is that motivated militiamen, scruffy freebooters and reluctant conscripts alike could be and regularly were drilled into effective enough pike units in rather short time. Drill is ultimately easy enough to teach; in any case easier and faster than the amount of sheer weapon skill it can be used to replace at unit level.
hellenes
01-18-2007, 01:18
IMO what made the Makedonian Hellenes superior to their southern brethren was the cost/quality ratio.
Its quite hard to imagine that any Southern Hellenic state could field thousands of fully armored infantrymen with a bronze "bell" cuirass and bronze helmet and an aspis....(the true word for "shield")
What Phillipos B' did was to introduce a combined armes tactic with a revolutionary reqruitment and equipment system (that might be the first standing army in Europe) that allowed a quite mobile it terms of logistics and realtively cheap force that worked wonders as Alexander proved.
I agree on the notion that it was the cavalry that won the day for the pike phalanx not itself....
silverster
01-18-2007, 03:13
IMO, If it is true the hoplites hold their spear overarm, then i would say a cavalry charge at the front of the formation would do more damage to the hoplites compared to, say the phalanx wit their long sarissa. not like it matters, becasue no sane man woudl charge cavalry to the front of any orgainsed formation.
O'ETAIPOS
01-18-2007, 10:31
You should be mindfull of having double-standards. You constantly refer to literal passages when they suit your claims and offer your interpretation when they do not.
This is exactly what history scholars do:beam:
Interpreting to ones favor not exactly fitting passages is one of the major ways to support your claims.
If we discuss Cheronea battle, you will try to find every word that helps to defend theory that Athenians were winning at first, while I will look for ones supporting that everything was going according to Philip's plans.
It is not double-standards, it is creating hypothesis.
The Celtic Viking
01-18-2007, 13:00
This is exactly what history scholars do:beam:
Interpreting to ones favor not exactly fitting passages is one of the major ways to support your claims.
If we discuss Cheronea battle, you will try to find every word that helps to defend theory that Athenians were winning at first, while I will look for ones supporting that everything was going according to Philip's plans.
It is not double-standards, it is creating hypothesis.
It is not trying to find the truth, it is trying to get your opinion look like the truth no matter if it is or not. Then it is no longer a discussion, but merely a pointless argument.
"Let the evidence form your guess, and not your guess form the evidence". (Or something like that.) ~;)
O'ETAIPOS
01-18-2007, 18:27
It is not trying to find the truth, it is trying to get your opinion look like the truth no matter if it is or not. Then it is no longer a discussion, but merely a pointless argument.
"Let the evidence form your guess, and not your guess form the evidence". (Or something like that.) ~;)
Do you mean to throw away all texts that aren't purely strightforward?
Every work with text (even translation) is form of interpretation. In fact interpretation IS history.
That what you say is true for situation when you try to put hipothesis without any support other than "creative interpretation".
for example if I tried to put argument like: "Makedon cavalry definately had stirrups - they were so good that they have to have it" and then "creative interpret" texts to show this. Obviously argument like this is nonsense.
The Celtic Viking
01-18-2007, 18:45
Let's take the example you gave:
If we discuss Cheronea battle, you will try to find every word that helps to defend theory that Athenians were winning at first, while I will look for ones supporting that everything was going according to Philip's plans.
This is exactly what I said you should not do. In this example, you specifically say you should take your guess, or opinion (that everything was going according to Philip's plans), and then look for things that support it. What I say you should do is to look up every bit of information there could be about the battle and then form your guess, or opinion, based on that.
Interpretation does indeed make up a big part of what we see as history, but that is interpretation based on facts and not on opinions you might have. Now, I don't know anything about this battle, and for all I know they could've just had a huge rave there with a few overdoses, so I won't even speak about that, or your arguments in that matter. It is in the above quoted text that I reacted on.
Markus_Aurelius
01-18-2007, 22:41
Let's take the example you gave:
This is exactly what I said you should not do. In this example, you specifically say you should take your guess, or opinion (that everything was going according to Philip's plans), and then look for things that support it. What I say you should do is to look up every bit of information there could be about the battle and then form your guess, or opinion, based on that.
Interpretation does indeed make up a big part of what we see as history, but that is interpretation based on facts and not on opinions you might have. Now, I don't know anything about this battle, and for all I know they could've just had a huge rave there with a few overdoses, so I won't even speak about that, or your arguments in that matter. It is in the above quoted text that I reacted on.
You would get a failing grade on a high school science experiment my friend, everyone knows you form your hypothesis first and than try to prove it, if the evidence shows otherwise than so be it.
Watchman
01-18-2007, 23:20
There is no indication that makedonian or Thessalian cavalry attacked greek mercenaries, while there is clear info about infantry attack.Weren't the Thessalians kinda busy with the massed Persian cavalry on the seaward flank ? Anyway, while I haven't read the texts themselves I've seen references to Arrian ("Anabasis Alexandri, ii, c. 11" is the specific note) suggesting the Mac heavy cavalry rudely intervened on the "internal outflanking" the Greek mercs were pulling on the disjointed phalangites. Would seem pretty credible for the casualty rates Arrian gives too, as well as in tune with Alex's standard method of employing the Hetairoi.
Mind you, the Hypaspists should also have been at large on the landward flank (since Alex kept them close to his person) and, unless some Persians there hadn't noticed the Great King had taken a hike on top of the Hetairoi blowing a hole straight through their battleline and duly excused themselves, probably didn't have too much to do besides turning on the Greeks in the center.
The Celtic Viking
01-18-2007, 23:54
You would get a failing grade on a high school science experiment my friend, everyone knows you form your hypothesis first and than try to prove it, if the evidence shows otherwise than so be it.
Then everyone is wrong. You make your hypothesis and then you try to disprove it. If you can't, you let others try. If no one can, it's a fact.
Then everyone is wrong. You make your hypothesis and then you try to disprove it. If you can't, you let others try. If no one can, it's a fact.
so your saying god is a fact?
The Celtic Viking
01-19-2007, 00:36
so your saying god is a fact?
Well, you cannot prove that there is no god, but you can't prove that there is no spaghetti monster flying around either. And for that matter, evolution proves that there is no need for a good - everything can have come to be without one. So it's up to you to decide if you want to believe whether there is a god or not.
One thing you might want to remember, though, is that facts aren't necessarily correct. We might not have been able to prove something wrong because we don't have the required technology or knowledge for that, so always question the facts you are given.
But this is pretty off topic anyway, so no more of this. :shame:
Markus_Aurelius
01-19-2007, 01:28
but regardless the fact of the matter still stands, the guess still comes first...:2thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.