Printable View
I find it a bit weired since the romans adopted the phalanx from the greeks... i think ~:dizzy: anyways why can't the triarii form a phalanx?
And btw i check barkhorns unit list and found the romans lacking in the spear department, i wonder what spear unit will they get after the marian reforms...
None ~D
Have to use mercs for that.
CBR
Darn.. the game would be a bit awkward, since romans also have weak cavalry and no good spear unit to compensate for this.
That's why I'll slaugther them! ~;)
I think the Romans used the Pilum for anti cav duties as well. I'll have to go search and see.
I do remember seeing a picture in a book of them using it. It was sort of a modified phalanx with the first row on their knees with their shields upright and them holding the pilum.
Was disappointed that the Triarii cannot form the Phalanx formation, but then again wasn't it said that either the Hastati or Principes can form a square formation, yet they cannot in the Demo? So maybe it'll still be in the full version or maybe they've changed their minds and gotten rid of it.
Yes Romans would use the Pilum if going into defensive formation to recieve a cavalry charge. Not the best weapon for that but all they had ~:)
CBR
Perhaps the testudo and phalanx are only available for the romans after the marian reforms, and afaik the units in the demo are before the marian reforms.
Phalanx wasn't used by Romans once they switched to the Legionary style army. Whilst still fighting with the inner tribes of Italy they adopted the phalanx but they eventually dropped it for the Legionaries. And on the note of anti-cav, it was basically cav vs cav, inf vs inf, to my knowledge they really didn't use anti-cav other than allied rock slingers etc.
I expected that the triarii might be able to form phalanxes too. After thinking about it though, they probably shouldn't. The hasta is not a pike like the sarissa and that is what a phalanx in this period uses.
Note the size difference between the spears of the triarii and those of the Carthginian phalanxes. The Carthaginians used sarissas which varied between 14 and 24 feet long! The Romans went in for the Greek style spears (6-8 feet long).
They could and did use phalankai against the Etruscans and other tribes of north Italy. But forming a Greek style phalanx against a sarissa phalanx is a sure way to lose a unit.
Still, the original point still stands... triarii should be able to.
Tamur, what are your sources? I'm pretty sure they never used the phalanx formation during the time of the game. The basic battle plan for the Roman army is first line goes in, discharges their pilum, then pull out swords and thrust into enemy. When they are spent the next line comes in etc.
No, during the time range of the game they didn't. I was thinking about between Tarquinius Superbus and the Samnite Wars (ca 500 - 290 BC). So, errr, I guess during the time of the game, they rightly shouldn't be able to, eh?
:tomato:
Tomato's for Tamur are on me :tomato: :tomato: :tomato:
~:p J/k yeah I think that would explain the disclusion of the phalanx formation in RTW ~:)
Yes, that was their normal battle tactic, but in a pinch their Triarii did form a phalanx, like when they had to fight heavy cavalry or in other defensive positions. Their pilum/gladius tactic was the standard way, but the Romans were not so inflexible that they couldn't use other ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scipio
One of the reasons they dominated Europe for so long was because of their flexability.
Discipline is very important to form Phalanxes and the Romans never had any problems using other civilization's ideas/equipment
Hmmm... They might have formed up in a disciplined way, spears pointing towards the cavalry and presented a formidable front but I wouldn't call that a phalanx. And in the game they will no doubt get rank bonuses in that situation, but not as many as a phalanx.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudkill
A phalanx needs long spears, as Tamur has noted. The spears of the Triarii just aren't up to it.
I agree with LOI, I wasn't saying that they always went into combat that same way but as LOI states they didn't have long enough spears to form a propper phalanx.
A proper phalanx?
A phalanx is basically a tight formation...another word for it would be shieldwall. The greeks used the term for their Hoplite formation that used same spears as the Triarii. IIRC german tribes used such formations too.
Armed with pikes like the Sarissa just gave such a formation even more strength as several ranks could use their weapon.
I dont know precisely what bonuses a unit gets from using the Phalanx mode, but I dont see a problem with giving nearly all spear units the option of a slowmoving shieldwall/phalanx. It just shouldnt give same type of advantage as when pike armed units use it.
Sword armed units could do it too but the Guard mode can be considered to represent that.
CBR
Couple of thoughts on the subject:
1. Since it is a demo that wasn't meant to feature Romans, we might not be able to see all eventual formations. (For instance I did not seen any proper Roman manipular line extension or traditional legion formation tool for the commander.) From what I've read Triarii were the last vestige of the phalanx in Roman armies of the period. That doesn't mean they actually were able to form a true phalanx anymore. They might not even have trained to do so.
2. Forming a phalanx as Triarii probably wouldn't work, because of the spears they had. That does not mean they wouldn't work well as a spear formation--they should have good mobility, just not phalanx capabilities.
3. From what I've seen so far the Triarii are just a bit weaker than the Carthaginian Phalanx man-for-man (same unit size), so they should not be crippled by this (and remember they have better flexibility.)
4. Triarii don't have pila.
5. Triarii should still have decent effect against cav because they are spear armed. (Rock paper scissors.)
6. Historically in this period the Triarii were not used unless things were going very badly--usually a fiasco of the 1st order. So it makes sense that they would be spear armed. The spear is good for defense, and for stopping cavalry. When things go badly, the enemy cav is likely to be unleashed (or already has.) Triarii were the emergency reserve.
7. Rome had a real weakness historically dealing with cavalry.
Also, the Triarii don't draw their swords once they get into thick of close combat.
thanks for the info guys really informative posts ~:thumb:
I also have another gripe about the game, it may be for balance, but the triarii should be a bit tougher than the carthaginian poeni infantry, i mean historically carthaginian citizenry were very unreliable and Carthage had to rely on mercenaries for their military, yet in the game they seem to be tougher than roman units (ie triarii who are the most experienced in the legion prior to the marian reforms).
I disagree on both counts. If you test the demo units one on one, the 60 man Poeni are crushed by 100 man Triarii. The problem is the size of the units. A 60 man phalanx does not make much historical sense to begin with since it needs to have deep ranks. Comparing 100 man to 100 man the Triarii are narrowly beaten. The phalanx arms are probably more appropriate for this kind of match up so the Triarii have an inherent disadvantage. With maneuver allowed, the phalanx will lose to the Triarii.Quote:
Originally Posted by faisal
Hastati and Principes go down more easily in head to head with 100 man units on each side, but they should since they are not properly armed for the *front* of a spear wall. However, when you start using multiple units, the Hastati and Principes can force openings in a phalanx wall allowing other units into the rear. Or they can hit the flanks. In those cases the phalanx rolls up. It comes down to the way you use them.
From what I've read, phalanx usually failed for reasons such as terrain or maneuver, rather than because the troops/equipment were inferior in a head on match up. The advantage or the Roman units and system was flexibility. They had fewer major inherent weaknesses. Hannibal's phalanx were usually greatly out numbered, yet they held for the most part. If they were instead inferior, they should have crumpled rapidly under the masses of the legions they faced. Hannibal used them to crush the legions at Cannae (again on the flanks as the enveloping force.) One of the things that could be different in the game engine is that a phalanx should probably take very few casualties--until it becomes disordered, is flanked, or breaks due to morale. Once something like that happens it would be taken out rapidly and offer little resistance. Unless a phalanx broke it lost relatively few men facing other infantry. However, the nature of the game engine is for a head to head match to slowly grind down each side.
A sort of phalanx was even used by William Wallace and other Scots much later. It was highly effective in a fixed battle, but it was very vulnerable to archers and being outflanked.
If someone has a better grasp of all this, please step in and give us more detail. I've been trying to get myself up to speed on all this. So I've been re-reading info about phalanx use.
CBR & others: I too have been doing some reading and it appears you are right. From my Ancient wargaming days (too long ago to want to remember), I'd always thought of the phalanx as a Macedonian invention but I see that the term was first used by the Greeks to describe closely packed arrays of hoplites. Philip of Macedon merely extended the spears to make it even more formidable.
On the other hand, some way of distinguishing the longer speared version from the 8ft or so hoplite/triarii version seems to make sense. I guess CA have done that with the "can form phalanx" button.