Printable View
Well duelling weapons aren't even military swords to begin with, but I think he's also referring to heavy cavalry sabres and the like which emphasize the poking part.
My point was merely that spears are better for formations where their reach is utilized, while swords are better for personal combat. I'm not sure how that got translated into spears pwn swords.
For those who perhaps don't know it, the English billmen developed from peasant weapons. This is also how the ax and hammer became weapons of war. The hammer (war hammer) was particularly effective as a medieval weapon.
I have a few issues with how some of the units are classed and who has what special abilities though.
I just had a wonderful battle that used all or almost all professional troops. And one I lost using almost all militia troops. In fairness though the militia were a bit out numbered and out classed. I so bled the enemy that I could easily overpower them if I had another strong force in the area though...too bad I don't.
I must say that archers are much more effective in this game than in MTW...about on a par with RTW though, I would suppose. I fought a full stack of English with almost all dismounted knights and swords men with a few knights thrown in, with the Scots.
(sorry no pics) but I had 4 highland archers, 2 merc crossbowmen, 1 merc spear, 2 highland pikes, 2 highlanders, 3 swordsmen, 4 assorted knights and a general. The AI kept feinting a charge to try and get me to commit troops. He had no archers so mine had free range to thin his ranks...all his men were heavy armored and the cross bows did most of the damage but there were a few lucky shots by the archers as well. When his knights tried to get at the archers they found the pikes waiting for them. I circled a couple of my weaker knights to his flank...hidden in the woods. When his infantry did charge they hit the pikes and spear first and the highlanders and swordsmen went into their flanks..then in the general jumble that fallowed I hit them in the flank and rear with the knights... I lost about 300 while he lost more than 1200. Not bad considering the blue/red bar said I was hamburger to start out.
Actually whenever the legions faced pikeformations they were in trouble... THe only reason they didn't lose, was because of the lack of support from cavalry, or the pikes having too little flankprotection.
The Romans lost two heavy duty battles against Pyrrhus, and a third that has recently been disputed as a victory, more likely to be a draw (in which the pikes were engaged in woods, hardly the home for them). They then faced pikes at Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna, where they won. At Cynoscephalae they were lucky, it was a chance encounter that saw half the pikes not deplyed before they were engaged by the more mobile legionaries. The other half was successful and nearly routed their opposing legions, until some of the centurions and tribunes among the victorious right wheeled about and attacked their flank/rear. I think that any force would have blucked under that.
At Pydna the Romans were forced back and back and back across the entire level battlefield. And the Roman commander was scared shitless (he later commented on that). But because the Romans refused to just be rolled over, they were eventually pushed back into broken terrain. Meanwhile the Macedonian cavalry refused to assist their phalangites. So on the borken terrian the pikeformations began to disintegrate, leaving individuals, squads and even entire centuries to take advantage of the gaps. Gaps that should have been closed by Thureophoroi or other infantry like that. Not surprisingly the Macedonian pikes fell apart soon after.
So the victories were never gladius > pike, but sensible army > not sensible army.
Btw, the gladius went through many changes. There is no one gladius. And gladius means sword, and 'gladiator' has taken the name from the armament rather than the other way around. Just like one gladiator was a trirarius, a man with a net and a trident. Trident = trirarius... well about so. And there are other examples.
Also the hoplomachus gladiator proved to be so seriously overpowered initially that his shield was shrunk and his spear made heavier (and longer) so as to give the others a chance. That is the first case of playbalance I have heard of, and it is was in the real world.
Also in this discussion, we should be careful not to bring late infantry into this. Twei-Händers and the like... With platearmour the spear began to lack hittingpower, and was not really dangerous anymore, bludgeoning and power was needed more.
But when both sides were at best protected by mail, then the spear was plenty good. The difference was that good infantry had a sword/mace/axe/whatever to back them up should the spear break (which they do tend to). Imagine your situation then if you have no backup... 'Crap' would be my first thought.
And there are of course situation where spears aren't the best weapons. Imagine them on walls or in cramped hallways. The spearman would be in serious trouble there, unless he had plenty of other spearmen to back him up. It would be like being in formation with a lot of non-combatants, worst of both worlds.
But when I look at various units with swords in the game, they tend to be rich or noble. So I mentally give them a spear as well. Then it fits. DFKs would have spears, but their swordanimation is just a representation of them actually also having proper swords (though it could be argued that Armoured Sergeants would also have swords).
I am currently in a campaign as Milan, and I find this to be true. The militia is very simular to the castle troops, with only a few minor units (i would not use anyway) missing. The two drawbacks of building in cities, The stats are simular for the units, with the militia city troops a little weaker than their castle equivilents, and I cannot build any of the guilds that increase weapon strength in the cities. I decided to go all cities at the momement and my economy is booming, as well the costs for maintaining my army are low due to the free upkeep in the cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by katank
Haha, I didn't know that. Brilliant trivia :laugh4:. I can imagine the talk on the forums "No you idiot, Sauromatae are not modelled accurately in the colliseum, I don't care what you say !" :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Thanks for all your explanations in any case, everyone ! Things are a lot clearer to me now. :bow:
~:cheers:
Well, to be honest you shouldn't take it that literal. I wrote it like that to make a point.
But I doubt the Roman watching the hoplomachus devastate other gladiators felt he was particularly overpowered. He was a man, and as a man he was attributed the victory.
"Ahhh... Yes Decimus pwns every time, he is simply teh roxxors!!!!11111!!!" Rather than any comment on the hoplomachus as a kit.
However over time the Romans refined the gladiator system, made it more streamlined, longer fights (armour not protecting your life, merely protracting the fight) ect ect. Obviously a man with a small shield and longer spear would be more fun to watch than a man who looked much like a hoplite.
It would be more mobile and a lot more gory (lots of small wounds ect, rather than single thrust and that was it).
So it was never a contious effort to balance the gladiators as the strength were believed to lie with the fighters themselves. But in the end the results were the same. The spearmen had been nerfed.
Fair enough, all I was stating was what the Documentary said, which identified the Swords used by Spartacus’s men specifically as Gladius, and as being specifically different (and superior), to the sword used by the Legions, which was given a totally different name (although I can't remember what it was).Quote:
Btw, the gladius went through many changes. There is no one gladius. And gladius means sword, and 'gladiator' has taken the name from the armament rather than the other way around. Just like one gladiator was a trirarius, a man with a net and a trident. Trident = trirarius... well about so. And there are other examples.
Obviously the documentary was either wrong, or was using an unusual naming system of some kind.
That Pike Info is actually quite surprising TBH, as I noted I can't see many ways for a pike to actually hurt a Legionnaire due to the size and type of use employed by the Legions. Of course, a Pike wall might well have been able to prevent them closing if it was well trained, and then wear them down over a long period. Just seems a littlie odd that the Romans didn’t do better.
Well the phalanx was hardly invincible anyway. Alexander had to bail his phalangites out at Issus and Gaugamela. The latter in particular saw Persian cavalry break through gaps in the Macedonian line and sack Alexander's baggage train, forcing Alexander to break off pursuit and allowing Darius to escape. It was easily for even elite units to lose formation in the heat of battle, hence the need for good cavalry support. The Athenians (or was it Thebans?) managed to defeat a Spartan phalanx with skirmishers.
Attacking a phalanx was hardly instant death unless you rushed at them and went out of your way to get spitted (like that lunatic Elf in LOTR). It's just a bunch of guys with sharp sticks going poke-poke-poke and using their mass to force you to break formation, not some mighty Hedgehog of Doom that kills all it touches. With good armor and a discipline (like the legions possessed) you could engage them head-on and hold them in place until the cavalry outflanked them. If the pila volley did its work you might even be able to break their formation on the charge. The least would be a draw with few losses on either side (you can't hurt them and vice versa), since most casualties are inflicted only when one side routs. I think a penknives vs spears comparison is unnecessary to explain why the Romans defeated the phalanx.
The Macedonian Pike Phalanx is not the same as the Hoplite Phalanx of the Peloponessian wars. The Spartans only ran when they saw the Athenian Hoplites forming up; the peltasts mainly decimated their morale. Only 250 of the 600 were killed in total, including those killed during the rout, so the peltasts initial volleys probably weren't that damaging, especially since the peltasts were able to engage all around the Spartans, avoiding their shields.
At Issus and Gaugamela the phalanx was under tremendous strain, if you follow tradition numbers given for that battle. It is obvious to see why they needed to be bailed out. The fact that they did held on for so long proves something. Anyway, the phalanx was designed to be part of a military system which incorporates infantry, cavalry, and archers, and it required all systems to work in order to fight properly, which is in the hammer and anvil system. If the hammer was not functioning, as Kraxis has said earlier, then obviously the system will fail. The Legion was designed to require no other support, therefore in a pure Legion vs Phalanx match the Legion will win of course, but thats like saying that a man without arms will lose to another with arms in a boxing match.
The phalanx could have been 'just a bunch of guys with sharp sticks going poke-poke-poke', and it wouldn't have mattered; since they only supposed to hold down the enemy, while minimalising casualties. The kills will come from the cavalry and the light and medium infantry.
Yes, and that's why arguing whether spears are always better weapons than swords or vice versa and using the legion vs phalanx example is a problem. Lots of other things going on there, making it much more complicated than "legion beats phalanx therefore swords always beat spears". Morale, terrain, tactics, other arms and plain luck (the Romans charging and routing the phalanx before it could form up properly) could all play a factor.
Having said that, I do believe the phalanx did more than just poke people and pin the enemy down. It was a concentrated mass designed to bludgeon its way through the enemy line and prove once and for all who the REAL MEN were, heavy infantry fighting in its toughest and most unrelenting form. However, this did not make it invincible or even irresistible, hence the need for cooperation with other arms. This cooperation was missing against the Romans for a variety of reasons, hence the loss. I wasn't trying to downplay the effectiveness of the phalanx, I was just attempting to explain how the Romans could have fought it face-to-face and not died instantly as some people seem to think. It is a strong formation and, some historians think, quite a bit more mobile than it appeared.
As for Issus and Gaugamela... inflated force figures aside, the vast majority of the Persian armies were camp followers and irregulars, which would only have served to impede the serious fighting men (ie the Greek mercenary phalangites and elite Persian cavalry), which were roughly equal to Alexander's 40,000 or so. All of Alexander's men, moreover, were hardened veterans of relatively high social standing, used to working together and in high spirits after previous victories and plenty of phat lewt. Alexander was quite adamant about maintaining as few camp followers as possible to increase the marching speed and logistical efficiency of his army. Most of the Persian army was routed without even crossing swords with their opponents (having your king run away almost immediately will do that to you). Fear and defeatism is really infectious. Yet the phalanx did run into trouble in both battles when it faced elite troops that stood their ground. That's not to say that they got beaten up badly, just that they needed help from time to time.
Btw, I think castle troops should be termed 'feudal' or 'mercenary' rather than 'professional'. The true professional troops are the state troops you get from high-level militia barracks and military academies ie gendarmes, demi-lancers, pikemen and musketeers. Professional armies require centralised taxation rather than feudal dues to maintain. There were no real professional troops in the West from the demise of the Roman legions until the rise of the dynastic state armies in the early 16th century.
Well spear vs. sword huh. Today the sword is a ceremonial weapon of most armies of the world. However, the spear, while absent other than as a flag staff is still in use, have you though of the last ditch effort of a bonnet charge? Every solider is issued that knife that fits on the end of his rifle, making it into a spear if I am not mistaken. It sure isn't used like a sword and it is a lot more effective than just the knife alone held in the hand.
The pike phalanx was actually pretty active in battle.
Imagine a man with a pike (and lets assume he is protected so he can use the pike effectively), such a pike would be pretty heavy (hence two hands), and it would taper into a relatively small head. Combine the strength of two hands thrusting, with the relatively heavy weight and small point... You effectively end up with something that is armour piercing. In fact the Romans found that their shields were penetrated in the battles with Pyrrhus. The shields were penetrated? That is pretty bad for the frontline troops. And the way it is presented makes it clear that the Romans suffered a lot of casualties through their otherwise excellent shield (the heavy republican shield, not the lighter imperial shield). That says soemthing of the killingpower of the pikes when in formation.
I have heard that the main problem for the phalangites when in combat with non-pikeformation was getting the bodies off the pikes again. That implies that the pikes were considerably more deadly than just static points.
Also, as teh pikes advanced they would compress the enemy formation. Trust me, it is not easy for a formation of men to walk backwards without falling over, it is however much easier to advance, but in this case only the pikes could advance. See the problem the Romans faced? It is impressive that they manged to stay together at all.
Btw, Magnesia was lost because the Romans won the cavalry fights and the pikes were spread out too much, not forming a single line that could soak up the Roman infantry. Bad planning really.
Thanks for that Kraxis, TBH I’d always assumed that Pikes weren’t that penetrating, (I figured most of the effort would actually go into holding them up, so you wouldn't be able to push them forward too fast). I also followed the movies a bit in assuming the shield was virtually un-penetrate-able under normal circumstances.
Shields were/are generally very good protectors, but even the aspis/hoplon is mentioned time and again to be penetrated in the battles of the hoplites.
And thrown javelins often penetrated shields. Perhaps not fatally so very often, but it clearly indicates that shields were not portable force fields.
Imagine the pikeman again, in conjunction with the warsong the unit is singing he knows when to take a step forward and push at the same time. That would be a powerful thrust, simlar to a ram at a gate. penetrating an enemy shield? Definately not all the time, maybe not even once in 20 thrusts. But 1:20 is deadly enough for an entire frontline. That would mean hundreds of shields penetrated with each thrust. The man would have to drop the shield if he wasn't already skewered... Terribly thing in front of so many points.
The pike wasn't a wonderweapon, but it wa dangerous to those who faced it, and the Romans certainly disliked it for it was one of the few things that could overpower them where they were normally strongest, in the center. And of course seeing friends getting killed while you can do nothing to avenge them is not fun. Even knowing that right now your own forces are closing in on the flanks of the enemy is little help, as such will still take long to reach the center.
Some accounts say the Romans found their shields being penetrated by Parthian arrow fire too... they really needed to find a better armor supplier. Army-issue will do you in every time...
Not really surprised if it was a heavy, (as in weight), Javelin TBH. But the stuff with Romans having things going through their shields is informative. Shields are often described as being hard to get through, Roman Shields doubly so. Indeed it was the Size and quality of that shield which is so distinctive for many people.Quote:
And thrown javelins often penetrated shields. Perhaps not fatally so very often, but it clearly indicates that shields were not portable force fields.
Interesting Information, and many thanks for it.
This thread is deviating significantly from the original spear vs. sword debate.
Anyhow, the pike phalanx can be seen as perhaps the first example of a truly successful massed formation. Later iterations include Spain's tercio pike and shot and then Napoleon's famous attacking column. These formations are extremely powerful against enemies by sheer power of being able to punch through enemy lines. Also, the devastating effect on enemy morale is often enough to get undisciplined enemies to flee in panic upon an advance. However, these formations need backup and can be shredded through outmaneuvering and artillery.
In any case, in M2TW, the biggest strategy to learn is probably flanking and maneuvering. Pinning almost invariably works and few forces survive flanking/back charges by heavy cav. I've very rarely had enemies break through the middle (totally outmatched that time with numerically inferior number of spear militia vs. dismounted Norman knights).
Shields are not easy to penetrate, of course not, that is why they were used (and still are by the police). I hope I didn't give the impression that they were. Shields worked! Period.
But that doesn't mean that they were able to withstand everything or even a whole lot. Shields were broken, penetrated and generally lost in battles often enough, and they were then replace afterwards. If they protected a man for a single battle, then it did it's job as it should. Afterwards the man could get a new one.
The shields used against the Parthians seems to have been the lighter imperial version, or a step in that direction. They were a bit smaller (cut-off ends) and two layers of wood rather than three.
If subjected to continual archery it seems to me that at some point an arrow would hit a junction of the strips (the shields were made of little strips glued together) on both layers. That would make a penetrative hit possible if not likely. And of course there were always weakspots and little flaws and weaknesses in the wood ect ect... I'm not surprised that the Romans would experience arrows going through their shields in cases where arrows rained on them for hours. But interestingly it isn't a feature the Romans seem to fear much later on, and I haev to personally assume it wasn't anything that happened regularly, or when it did, it wasn't dangerous to the man behind the shield.
No you didn't I just had an overly high opinion of Roman Shields. I was under the impression they where a lot stronger than that. In effect I thought only things like Muskets and Lances, (i.e. the medieval stuff that would have gone through plate like it was cheesecake), would be able to penetrate it on a regular basis.Quote:
Shields are not easy to penetrate, of course not, that is why they were used (and still are by the police). I hope I didn't give the impression that they were. Shields worked! Period.
True enough.Quote:
But that doesn't mean that they were able to withstand everything or even a whole lot. Shields were broken, penetrated and generally lost in battles often enough, and they were then replace afterwards. If they protected a man for a single battle, then it did it's job as it should. Afterwards the man could get a new one.
That explains my overestimation of roman shields, I thought they where wood backing with a metal front, rather than pure wood. I would expect such a shield to be proof against most things since it would likely be Plate Armour or better in terms of protection. Hence my overestimation~:0 .Quote:
The shields used against the Parthians seems to have been the lighter imperial version, or a step in that direction. They were a bit smaller (cut-off ends) and two layers of wood rather than three.
If subjected to continual archery it seems to me that at some point an arrow would hit a junction of the strips (the shields were made of little strips glued together) on both layers. That would make a penetrative hit possible if not likely. And of course there were always weakspots and little flaws and weaknesses in the wood ect ect... I'm not surprised that the Romans would experience arrows going through their shields in cases where arrows rained on them for hours. But interestingly it isn't a feature the Romans seem to fear much later on, and I haev to personally assume it wasn't anything that happened regularly, or when it did, it wasn't dangerous to the man behind the shield.
You should take a look at another John Keegan work on Waterloo, where he suggests the real reason why Napoleon used the column was simply because he was usually on the offensive and the column is the best suited for manuevering at speed across broken ground. That the revolutionary fervor of the French armies often overwhelmed less resolute opponents cannot be denied, but the column is hardly an ideal attacking formation in and of itself. More determined opposition like the British could simply shoot the head off the attacking columns.Quote:
Originally Posted by katank
There, now this thread is completely off topic.
All free men had the duty of picking up arms and fight when required. They were expected to do so until the age of 60, so I believe, in those days, the average peasant was not a mere weekend warrior.
Even if without the advanced training and equipment of professional soldiers, their mindset was probably not all that of the reluctant, frightened, peasant that wants nothing to do with war.
Ah good...
There were metal and strengthenings (not always metal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
For instance the edge could have iron or bronze (though not regularly), and the shield could have fairly big 'L's on the corners (about 3/4th out towards the corner) made of metal. They would be really good at protecting the user against cleaving cuts that might destroy the shield entirely. But a facing of metal would be too heavy. The scutum was already fairly heavy due to it's size. And the only other shield that had a similar size with a metal facing was the aspis/hoplon in Greece. But to keep weight down it was decidedly thin, and not worth much as protection, it is generally assumed it was put on to give the shield a sheen and to protect it against the elements.
A shield wasn't really that tough, but what it could do that armour couldn't do as well, was absorb and deflect attacks. The shield could bend with the enemy weapon, or the user could deflect the attack so it would glance off the shield, rather than let the shield soak up the power of the weapon. In the case of te pikes that wasn't really an option. If you tried to absorb the pike just kept going and eventually impaled you, and deflecting would be hard (but possible), but then there was an entire new rank of points to contend with. And the guys behind them would have been 'bored' until then and would converge their points on you very fast. Hence you would have trouble staying in one piece.
So you can say that te pikes just defeated the shields rather than bullied their way through them. But if you happened to put power against power, the shield would buckle before the pike would... Ouch for the legionary.
And the militia of towns were particularly less included in similar rolls? No, what peasants did, the townsfolk did, and often more.Quote:
All free men had the duty of picking up arms and fight when required. They were expected to do so until the age of 60, so I believe, in those days, the average peasant was not a mere weekend warrior.
Even if without the advanced training and equipment of professional soldiers, their mindset was probably not all that of the reluctant, frightened, peasant that wants nothing to do with war.
But actually peasants were free of military service, you think of the free Greeks and other citizen soldiers. Peasants were far from citizens, they were nearly serfs.
The feudal system in it's most basic form is that Peasants provide the work and money, and the nobility provide the protection. I think it is something like 'The nobility has a right to work (as a good), while peasants have a right to protection.'
Were you a free peasant (landowner rather than one who 'rented' the land from a lord) you would have to serve, but they declined rapidly in numbers, and were all but non-existant in several countries, such as France.
So the unit Peasants, are in fact men that are the poorest and most unwilling men to serve. They have in fact been denied their part of the treaty they signed with their lord. They would likely never have served in any army before and their lords did their best to keep weapons away from them (unlawful for them to have certain weapons if any). If and when peasants served with no equipment to speak of, they were there to provide mass and somebody the enemy could tire themselves on. They were not there to kill trained and professional Sergeants.
Cities being the king's own domain (he litterally owned the cities), provided the king directly with troops, militia. So whenever the king went to war, so did militia. Cities were required to have arms and armour for a certain amount of troops, and each citizen was supposed to train for some time each year. So whileve not really great most of the time, militia forces were not to be scoffed at.
And the pointwasn't to kill, but to win. Nobles realised that going around with scars and having inflicted them was a lot better than one dying each time. You can get the gals with a heroic scar, but not if you're dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi
~:smoking:
Thanks for the info Kraxis. Just done some sums because of what you said. A shield 5 feet high and 3 feet across (what where typical roman shield dimensions anyway as that’s my best guess on them), that was 2mm of steel thick would weight 50 pounds (OUCH). Fairly good reason to not use metal right their ~:p.
Random question, (possibly belongs in the history section), considering that leather was, as I understand it, fairly hard to cut or pierce, (compared to Metal), would a wooden shield with a thick leather covering have done any better?
Indeed would it have been possible (in terms of construction, rather than size), to have produced a better shield than the heavy duty roman one?
Most shields actually had a leather covering, but it was soft.
Properly tanned leather was expensive, and is actually pretty heavy too (skin is heavy, thick condensed skin, which tanned leather is, is very heavy). I don't know if tanned leather shields would have been good or bad, but I believe there is a reason such shields were not used. Perhaps they stood up badly for wear and tear, perhaps they were not flexible enough... It could be many things, but if tanned leather had the weight and protection right (and not considering money as there are always people willing to pay), then I'm sure such shields would have been mentioned somewhere. I haven't heard of such shields, but perhaps there are such mentions? In any case I'm not a walking library so I don't know really. I just don't think it was practical.
::the Roman reenactor walks in::
Actually, the Roman scutum is remarkably tough and isn't as obnoxiously heavy as you might guess.
The scutum was basically made from two layers of plywood, one with vertical segments and the other layer with horizontal segments. This is deceptively simple; that sort of "cross-hatching" does not let the shield buckle easily without weighing too much. The shield was rimmed with bronze or occassionally brass, and had an iron boss in the center to protect the hand.
Roman legionnaire tactics actually called for the shield to be used in a sort of punching motion after receiving a blow; this would force the barbarian backwards, exposing his stomach for a quick thrust with the gladius (and often the metal edging would smack the barbarian quite nastily in their nose). This requires a reasonably tough shield; Romans were not stupid, and would have either changed the tactic or the shield rather quickly. They did neither.
That Roman shields could be penetrated by Parthian archer fire does not demonstrate that the Roman scutum was weak but rather testament to the fact that Parthian bows were extremely powerful. Roman shields generally did a superb job of deflecting arrows; there was a reason for adopting the testudo, after all.
And as for fighting phalangites; these were probably the toughest infantry foes that Rome had to cope with, but cope with it Rome nevertheless did. They did this because, of course, they were vastly more flexible than the phalangites were. Terrain and the use of the pilum and their effects on a phalanx's coherency should not be underestimated; the Roman legionnaries could easily hack their way through the jumbled mess of pikes. But what is important to note is that even when phalanxes were orderly, the Romans were still able to exploit this, effectively "pulling a Legolas"; that is to say, they would simply push their way through the forest of spears. There is a critical gap between the tip of the spears of a phalanx and the phalangites themselves, a point where not even the pikes of the further-back ranks reached. Once a legionnaire got past this point, using his relatively greater tactical mobility (later phalanxes were often overweighted with too much armor) and his shield, it was only a matter of time before he began carving up a phalangite, which would leave a gap which could be further exploited, and so on.
The initial coming to grips with the phalanx was the most dangerous part, but once combat had commenced the legionnaires almost inevitably were able to get through the pike wall.
Actually the sources are pretty clear in that the legionaries did not get in among the phalangites when the phalanx was ordered. Nor was the pilum of any apparent effective use. It is mentioned specifially to have been remarkably ineffective.
A lot of speculation is around as to why that was so, but generally it is believed thatte forest of pikes broke up the pilums so that only a percentage actually fell head first and thus posed a danger.
If a legionary had gotten in among the phalangites while the formation was ordered the formation would come to halt as they nearby men would have to drop their pikes to deal with him. That in turn would leave more openings, and rather fast, even if they managed to kill said legionary before he could kill anyone (best case scenario). It would be a quickly falling house of cards, yet whenever the Romans faced the pikes head on (ordered), it took hours to finish the battle.
The smallest attested units to have 'infiltrated' the phalanx was actually maniples, led by entrepeneuring centurions who reformed their troops to something more sensible and then edged into the gaps between tactical units. But only after the phalanx had begun to get disordered.
Had individual legionaries been able to infiltrate, the push of the phalanx would have staggered to a halt within half an hour as units tried to form up again, while others didn't want to advance alone. It would be a horrible mess terribly fast.
In any case the legionaries that faced proper pikeformations were not imperial legionaries with the 'lighter' twolayer shield that was actively used in melee. They were the legionaries of the 'Polybian' legion, with a larger curved oval shield, far too heavy to use in punching (I don't know about you but 22 pounds gets heavy pretty fast if you punch with it). The shield was a protable wall for them, and little more, of course it was better than the smaller shield the phalangites carried, but directly using the shield as you said would be near impossible as a doctrine (I suppose individuals now and then used such a move when in dire straits or something).
Hmm, we seem to be at odds here, unfortunately.
First, I'll start with your point about the pilum. I never said the pilum was particularly effective against the phalangites, just that it was yet another tool of the legionnaires to help disrupt the phalanx (if I overemphasized their importance earlier, I apologize, that was not my intent). The pilum would have been less effective against the phalanx against most of the barbarian tribes that Rome would have faced; this comes not only from the pikes projecting above but also simply because phalangites were considerably better-armored (indeed, as stated before, often over-armored). In any case the pilum was not yet in its final form. What is most important about the pilum is, again, that the phalangites would have had no equivalent for it.
You argue that legionnaires could not have penetrated the pike wall very often because they would have quickly gained the upper hand - so quickly as to end the battle itself quickly. I would in turn argue that if the Romans didn't ever penetrate the wall, then they would have automatically been forced into "shoving matches" which the phalangites would have easily won - and rather quickly as well. The length of the battles therefore suggests that the situation was more complicated.
Consider Cynoscephalae, the "classic" battle of phalangite vs. legionnaire. Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Philip's left wing was disorganized and the legionnaires could then outflank the rest!" This is true, but that's not what should be looked at here. I want to look at those "rest".
Philip's right-wing was able to form up well, and was on higher ground than the Romans they were facing. Even given strong Roman discipline, the Macedonians should still have rather quickly dispatched with the Romans - but they didn't. Instead, the pezhetairoi abandoned their spears for swords. This they were forced to do this because the phalanx began to break up, for two reasons; one of which was because the terrain began to break up, although, again, the phalangites still had the advantage of terrain (as they were marching downhill), and Philip was not stupid enough to throw away such an advantage. The other reason was that the Romans, by sheer will or skill or luck or whatever you want to call it, were beginning to push their way back into the phalanx. This would be, of course, prove disastrous, and so Philip made the decision to drop pikes in favor of swords. This would seem to have almost handed victory to the Romans, except Philip also made sure to make his line deeper to compensate. Thus Philip might have gotten his victory, except that the legionnaires still held, and suddenly twenty maniples crashed into his rear (after having beaten the left wing).
The lesson here is quite clear: the legionnaire was able to capitalize on opportunities that the phalangite, even without his pike, was able to. The ability of the Romans to not only hold their ground, but also disrupt the phalanx by, even if gradually, penetrate it, had the effect of bogging down the forward momentum of the phalanx and stagnating it to the point where it was inevitable that the Roman military system, which was grand-tactically as flexible as on the tactical/personal levels, would be able to triumph.
This effect also happened at the Battle of Pydna. There, once again, the phalangites were indeed able to push the Romans back - but, due to a combination of terrain and intrepid Romans units penetrating the pike wall, the phalanx lost momentum, and the Romans once again carried the day.
So, in a sense, you're right - in a perfect situation, a phalanx would push back legionnaires, no problem. The problem is that this is simply not realistic; it was inevitable that the phalanx would begin to break up. Terrain is one reason. Roman discipline and fitness is another; maintaining a phalanx is hard and exhausting work, and little mistakes would begin to happen - little mistakes that soon turned into big mistakes because the Romans were quick to capitalize on it. The instant that the momentum of the phalanx was lost was also exactly when the initiative was handed to the Romans. The scale of the battles was such that it took time for the Romans to do this - but do it they did. Winning a battle slowly is better than losing a battle fast.
And as for the shield - I thought you were talking about the "typical" (i.e., the Imperial) Roman scutum. That the Polybian scutum was bigger and heavier doesn't matter: first, the "punch" of the shield was not necessary against a phalangite, the gladius did the job just fine; and secondly, a bigger shield would only have let a Roman legionnaire penetrate a pike wall easier anyway.
Please note that I mean no disrepect here - it is obvious to me that you know what you are talking about, and you certainly didn't get those historian badges just because you look good :beam:. I simply disagree with your interpretations.
Polybius and Livy disagrees with you on the pikes being dropped. Both mentions shields being dropped in flight, but when the phalangites at Cynoscephalae tried to surrender, both agrees that they raised their pikes upwards. If they had already thrown them down, that would be a pretty tough thing to do.
And Livy in particular mentions that any army is troubled when struck in the rear/flank, but the Macedonian phalanx even more so since it is cumbersome. Without the pikes the men would have no trouble at turning to face the Romans individually, yet both authors claim they were rather defenseless. Clearly they were at odds as to what to do, and as such there was no concerted effort to hold the Romans, and after a while they either fled or tried to surrender (pikes up).
At Pydna the Macedonians actually didn't have much armour (expensive), but they advanced and pushed the Romans back across the plain, only when they began to push them up against the foothills did the battle turn. Clearly it was the ground that gave the Romans the openings they needed. For the advance had been steady and pretty fast (since it was a quick battle), so if the Romans had been able to regularly infiltrate the phalanx the breakup would have happened before the broken ground in the foothills. Or at the very least the Macedonians would have halted their advance to check the lines.
At this point the machaira sword of Alexander's phalangites had been decreased to the enchiridion large dagger (or very short sword), so in a sword melee the phalangites were lesser armoured, had a smaller shield and a much less capable weapon. A legionary should have little trouble holding his position inside the phalanx if he was cautious. His mere presence would be enough to disrupt the formation.
I do not agree that the Romans would have broken fast against the phalanx had it never been disrupted. Both Heraclea and Asculum saw the legions hold firm for a long while before they were beaten by Pyrrhus' cavalry. Take note there... his cavalry. The phalanx itself could not finish the battles. It could kill and push but not crush the enemy.
Also when the celts invaded Greece, they too faced a phalanx of pikes. Here they had to swarm around it as their forces that tried to infiltrate head on got chopped up. And you have to agree that as swordsmen the celts were generally better than the Romans on an individual basis, yet they had to forego the front for the flanks as well.
From all this debate it sounds like the phalanx and the legion could go head-to-head without much decision until either events elsewhere on the battlefield intervened or the phalanx began to lose cohesion due to unfavorable ground or a too-rapid advance (a similar thing happened at Gaugamela when the phalanx rushed to keep up with Alexander's headlong pursuit of Darius, allowing the Persian cavalry to penetrate the line). The inferior quality and training of the troops that faced the Romans may also have played a factor.
I notice that most of these discussions focus on the weapons, armor etc. Surely other things matter as much if not more than that. Unless the palanx was really the uber hedgehog of death that killed everything it touched, which we can say with some certainty it was not, confused and dispirited phalangites will lose against disciplined and determined opponents. The European empire-builders beat various other armies not because their guns were leet (many other peoples were using guns too by that time, or could afford to hire European mercenaries to help out; the Indians often had more heavy artillery than their British opponents) but because of superior generalship, logistics, training, discipline and morale.
I'm not bashing you or anything (especially since you can ban me...), since you are obviously trying to explain exactly how it happened. But perhaps you might consider that weapons are only a small part of the whole until you hit the Industrial Revolution. Nowadays it's different, of course, but importing today's ideas of firepower and killing efficiency into what was as much a moral as physical contest with relatively feeble weapons (compared to high-explosive and machineguns) is a dangerous tendency.