What about the Germans?

I tried posting about this in an unrelated topic and didnt get any responses so I figured I could start a small discussion about it.

I am having trouble with the germans. I know that they arent one of the big powerfull factions but their spearband is killer. I lose a lot of troops to it. To me it seems a little weird that barbarians can fight in phalanxe(sp?) formation.. i didnt think they had the disipline...

I know to flank them and charge the rear, but the germans pump those things out like crazy, then line em up in one long line... I feel like im fighting the greek city states.

They get a phalanx because for some odd reason, normal spearmen can't fight in ranks in Rome.

a phalanx is one of the oldest types of warfar cavemen even used it to kill preditors(they would surownd pry with long sarpened sticks and stabit to death). i would think even the barbareans would follow in there ansasters foot steaps.

Unfortunately, "phalanx" in Rome means the macedonian phalanx. Normal spear formations do not work exactly like that, are more manoeverable and look different.

Yeah I can see the logic in that.. But why do these guys eat my triarii spearmen up? They seem powerfull. Are they high on the germans unit list? It could be because I simply suck at battles... I think i need to practice.

Any unit attacking phalanxes head on tends to be crushed. Also, Triarii and other spear units use their spears as swords, so the natural advantage of the spear is wasted.

Interesting discussion here... I would think that any type of swordsmen (Hastati or Principes) would whip up on spearmen even if they are in a phalanx formation. However, I have not tried this myself so I would not know (I am currently playing as Scipii and don't face the Germans yet).
From what you all are saying, this is not the case.
How about using velites against them first? After this, distract them with a hastati or town watch with a frontal assault while coming around back with horses/principes/triarii. Or, even better, get many Cavalry Auxilia to just harass them to no end. Then use other units to finish them off.
Just some suggestions.

The big edge is, that while it's suicide to attack a spear-wall from the front they are SLOW and vulnerable to missiles and rear attacks.

You can skirmish with these guys, and finally get some use out of those velites and your pilas. Archers are great too. After that initial weakening wheel some equites around their flanks and kill-kill.

I find that the German Spearband is somewhat broken. Head on they destroy all, That's an okay dokey. However Attack them from behind and they turn the spears around in a sweeping circle that flattens your front line...

Also I have to surround the spear warbands with 3 units to gain a good victory, The guys at the back are being engaged by the spear mean, but they're still holding the spears, backwards, never knew the but of a spear was that effective :P

Bottom line is Horsies eat phalanxes for breakfast, so use them, as your infantry will have to grind it out, and that's costly, even for Cohorts.

I just started a German campaign. Those spear warband units are available right away to Germania. They are quite good, but pricey for a base level unit.

The phalanx is strong in frontal, but it is very vulnerable on the flanks. Plus cav can break the formation too easily. I had three units abreast in phalanx with no extra gap, and watched as the enemy general's heavy cav unit shot right between two of them (other units hit the wall at about the same time and started melee.) ~:confused: The "suicide daimyo" was killed by my general backing the line, but one of the phalanx units routed because it had been "flanked" by this frontal attack... :dizzy2:

I've been buying any cav I can get and will start building some soon. Combining cav support on the wings with these phalanx units looks like the key for Germania.

Phalanx should defeat Hastati and Principes in head on. Head on the swordsmen will be facing 3 or 4 spear points per man, that is not a fun proposition. Phalanx formations present a formidable obstacle frontally. They should not take many casualties that way--until they get disordered or rout. The main advantage of the Roman system was its flexibility. One unit could "hold" a phalanx in place while another could work onto its flank. Any breaks in the line could be rapidly exploited by the legions, while the phalanx units could not do the same (too slow to turn and march). Plus the phalanx was stuck in formation, could not be relieved easily, and would tire while the Principes replaced the tired Hastati--and the Triarii were there in case they were needed if the Principes wore down.

That's my take on it anyway.

Red H your post makes a lot of sense to me, and the Romans would have an advantage up real close with short swords (if they could get that close in first place), rushing in when phalanx disordered by ground/missiles.
I really like the way the formations can be fluid in this game, not just rigid boxes.

And as an afterthought can the Germans form wedges on foot? Are there any German axe throwers?
(At work-can't check!)

Julius Caesar has mentioned the Germans fighting in a phalanx formation. So obviously that is correct even theough they were "barbarians"

A 'phalanx' is a tactical formation that's been around since the days of Sumer and Assyria. While the Germanic tribes' version of the 'phalanx' has no relation with the universalized phalange of the Orient/Hellenistic worlds, frankly it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that a lot of people with long spears are going to be powerful if they are banded together in such form.

Like someone mentioned, the basic posture of one holding the spear in a position of defense can be tracked back to the days of the cavemen. Hunting poweful animals meant many people would have to hold the spears firm, and they would need to fight one's instincts to 'break the line' and run away in terror in face of a huge bear. Hold the spear, and stay the ground even the animal lunges forward at you. It is not hard to imagine that this basic principle would be also more or less very well known even to the tribes of the north during the days of Rome and Greece.

The problem with the 'phalanx' in the Germanic tribes, was an socio-economical one.

Warriors would need regular amount of training needed to maintain such discipline in face of a battle. The potential of the spear-armed warrior multiplies with numbers, but in turn, a 'warband' armed with a spear would need very many people trained in a regular manner to maintain a combat-efficiency of a certain level. The culture surrounding the battle in the Gaulish/Germanic tribes was totally different from the 'civilized' countries.

Whereas the 'civilized' armies operated within standard procedures as a tactical force, designed to maximize efficiency in obliterating the enemy, the Germans or the Gauls, had no such concept of a 'regular army'. Many texts portray Germans or Gauls as savage, violent people - however, despite all the savagery and violence, fighting and war-making was a way of life, rather than a true military/political means to end the enemy. A young warrior growing up in such tribes would be considered a man by showing his valour in combat. All the 'characteristic portrayal' of sword-loving people who prefer individual levels of combat, rather than organized warfare, revolves around that fact.

Contrary to such concept of 'war', to the Romans, a war was a 'total war'. It wasn't a way of life, nor a cultural heritage that had any meaning in the society. There were no rules, no holds barred, and whatever actions necessary to win was taken. To us living in the modern times the Roman concept of war is more familiar to us, but in the Medieval times(which inherited a significant proportion of mental concepts which became the foundation of the Western world after Rome) the 'tribal concept' of war was no doubt more familiar.

The Roman concept of war is to be known as 'bellum romanum' - a ruthless, massively efficient method of war-making focused on total destruction of the enemy. Opposed to this concept, the tribal Gauls or Germans upheld the traditions of 'bellum hostile'. The difference in efficiency in war-making between the two concepts was roughly the equivalent of professionals and amateuers.

Apparently, not having such 'professional' concept of battle, the Germanic 'spear warband' would have had not much more effect than present a rude surprise for the conquerors such as Caesar.

Yep, sure surprised Varus.

I posted this in another thread, here's the actual account from Gaius Julius...

"Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above. Although the army of the enemy was routed on the left wing and put to flight, they [still] pressed heavily on our men from the right wing, by the great number of their troops."

from Commentaries on the Gallic War

If you collect all the data at our disposal, all the quotes from Ceasar to Tacitus, the equipment used by some Germanic tribes/warriors, it surly looks rather impressive, so that it seems that some Tribes/warriorgroups did use a "Phalanx"...

@Ptah: Your a right that the socio-economic enviroment doesn't seem it likely that the standard warriors, mostly free farmers with a contained interest of war fielded a "professional" phalanx. However the socio-enviroment is not equal for all members of the comunity and also not for all warriors. Professional warriorgroups did exist in the free Germania as Tribal leaders and influent men collected around them devoted warriors. The size and their grade of discipline or quality was determined mostly of the influence; Marbod the Marcomanni for example could field a strong army, trained "almost up to Roman discipline" according to Tacitus.

But the socio-economic enviroment can change due to interior or exterior evolution, for the example migration. The Cimbri and Teutoni for example became terrible enemies, as they became men basing their wealth on their strengh alone; They became richer, getting better gear, and more experienced due to the many fights they had to sustain.

This resulted in three crushing victories over Rome, triggering the reform of Marius. This men were surly capable of a higher degree of military organization, having had time and ressources to refine their military strenght, which was absolutly vital for them. With all the men, women and children in the big treck every battle could mean the end, making warfare a matter of live or death, a matter of existence...

OA

this realy suprised me, i thought the germans where a totally barbaric faction in RTW, il try them when i unlock them. :charge:

Marbod, or Marobodus should be treated as an exception - as his concept of a standardized army was way ahead of the usual "warring" most Germans had in mind. Particularly since Marobodus himself had spent time in Rome and witnessed how Romans organized armies to the concept of "total war".

The problem with the Germans was that they could manage to rally professional warriors in service of the warlord, and often in significant numbers. Their tactical prowess might perhaps even surpass that of the Romans in some occasions. But facing the Romans required something more than just trained soldiers. A standard element of armed forces in constant movement that stretched along all the tribes of Germania that would act under a unified strategic objective, was something the Germans just could not do.

There are debates about the Marian reforms, but evidently as the surrounding social/political struggles from the times of the Gracchus brothers to the end of the Civil war by Augustus would suggest, the German victories should be accounted to the decline of the quaility of the Roman military as much as strengthening of the Germans themselves. The economical destruction of the farming classes of everyday Romans had resulted in the conscription of the "proletari" - a class which was formerly exempt from military duties due to their low social status and poor morale. Marius' judgement is crucial and telling, as he imediately concluded that the standard soldiers currently in service could not be trusted when he was given the duty of driving off the Germans.

In a sense, one might be able to say the tribes fought as a means to live - a concept akin to the mercenary mentality. However, the Romans fought for the Republic - an abstract cause. And abstract causes have a way of making actions radical, swift, ruthless and efficient. When the social status of the people who are conscripted as soldiers were so poor that they could not find any 'cause' in the identity of Rome, they failed. And bam! Marius came up with a solution.

Well I cited Marbod as a extreme consequence of the "comitatus" idea - he is obviously some spans over the simple Warlord.. ~;)

The lack of a common strategy, goal and a logistic was always a hinderance for the Germans. Sometimes great leaders like Arminius could rally a great numbers of good warriors under a precise goal and with a common strategy, but the logistic was never tackled by them. This is also a important factor why the Goths were easy to contain, this is way the Cimbri and Teutons were defeated..

I agree with the rest of your analyze...

OA

wow, you know your history!
you could write a history book of bare memory better then those we have at school! (chosen subjects of course)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aw89

wow, you know your history!
you could write a history book of bare memory better then those we have at school! (chosen subjects of course)

---

ewww....lets not even go there. In history textbooks you can see where they have to politically correct, and its rather painful reading.

I really enjoyed playing as the Germans. They were a real economic challenge. The spear warband does kick ass, but the Germans already have a popluation growth problem and are rather poor, so a unit of 122 men costing 500 denari and 200 upkeep, keeps them as a scarce unit in the start. I'd highly recommned playing as the Germans they have some cool units and pose a good challenge.

Thanks for all the good historical info guys. This is really informative. Its nice to know that the "barbarian" tribes really werent as barbarian as we think they were. I guess movies portray them as such because it appeals to the greater public.

Many textbooks are frankly much too "professional" for casual readers, but still during the last few decades many historians came up with great ideas in viewing the history of the 'barbarians'. Rather than the classic(and biased) equation of "civilization vs barabarism", historians are now looking at the 'barbarians' as just another form - a radically different form - of social formation that act under different rules and mentalities than the 'civilized' ones.

I think its a good thing. After all, the 'barbaroi' outlasted the Romans :)

An interesting view, is the argument that the modern concept of "freedom" came from the Germans or Gauls, rather than Greece or Rome. "The free people of the lands" is an inspiring expression, which you can also see some authors requoting them in their material, for instance, the "Lord of the Rings" by Tolkein, as in ie.) "the free people of Middle Earth". The nuance this expression holds is that while bound by common fate,(or plagued by poverty or wars), all of the people belonging to a certain land are essentially free in their existance.

While the German or Gaulish society had a strict hiearchy, the difference in social status was more akin to a classification depending on the social duties one holds in that community. A warrior and a peasant are two very different class of people, but they were equally important in German societies. The concept that the warrior is "higher" than the peasant, was a very weak one in Germania, if such a thing ever existed.

Compared to that, the Roman/Greek hierarchies were also based upon the differences in economical status. A "citizen" was a person with a certain econimical basis, who could serve in the military. Since they were rich enough to arm themselves, and served in the military, in the Roman/Greek society it was very natural way of thinking that the "citizen" was a much higher being than the mere "peasant". The citizen has more money, so he can do more duties, so he has more rights. A peasant has no money, so he can't do any duties, so he doesn't have as much rights. In German or Gaulish societies it was very different. A warrior class would usually have political leadership, but the social rights a peasant bears, was suprisingly higher than the peasants in Rome or Greece.

In the end, the 4th and 5th centuries, its not surprising it was the populace that gave up on Rome - a country which could no more protect them. "Barbaric", poverty stricken, and "strange" as they may be, but still, under German or Frank rule, the peasants were treated better!

It's interesting stuff to think about.

People are only 'barbarians' depending on who's telling you about them, in this case Rome talking about the Germans kicking their ass. They dont want to amit they are better, so they just call them blood crazy barbaric peoples.

Like the English did with the Vikings, even though the Vikings were probably a ton more civilized than the English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisruptorX

ewww....lets not even go there. In history textbooks you can see where they have to politically correct, and its rather painful reading.

---

i know, specially when it comes to ww1 and ww2, they even blame ww1 on the germans, which is crazy! and ww2, they don't even say that they had so big money problems (caused by the french, british and the us) and just say that "all germans where nazi's" not saying it was forced to join the army or work for it in some way! it ticks me off!