Hoplitai too weak ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionhard

I just watched a thing on great commander (alexander the great) it goes thru the whole army and says that the pikes were 20 m long and rather than hoplites being a more of a defencive formation the phalanx was more like an offensive and was like a tank rolling over the enemy, most of the enemy were killed before even reaching the macedonians holding the phalanx's. Except in the battle of issus darius had his whole cavalry charge alexanders left flank and things got a bit hectic so thats why alexander had to turn back rather than persue darius.

Phalanx is deffo more effective but as i was getting at earlier hoplites had been the classical way in which greece fought as we all know, they were around for a very long time. where as the phalanx was introduced by philip father of alexander and died out when the romans took over 200 years later.

So in theory the hoplite formation was around for like over 1000 years they used it back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans.

Where as the phalanx was around for like 300 years. Sad really because i wuv phalanx's :(

---

A few comments ijn my drunken stupor.

TV as a source, NO GO!!!

20 m. long pikes???

The sarissae was 6- 7 m long, the later medeival pikes 5-6 and wielded differently.

He seems to be getting his scales confused... I hear the Successors did experiment with sarissae a whopping 21'/7m long, but those proved nigh-unmanageable. Anyway, AFAIK under Philip and Alexander the things were still in their "growth phase" - starting out at something like about 4m early on and gradually growing ever longer as the troops got better at managing them and the limits of the "impenetrable spear-wall" concept were pushed further.

Anyway, the Medieval pikes were AFAIK more or less very much an independent developement, an outgrowth of the the ubiquitous infantry longspear, and in practice used nigh-identically to the ancient sarissas - there's only so many ways you can handle a six-meter flagpole with a knife on top. Though I understand the Medieval pikemen, besides obviously not carrying shields like the phalangites did, did employ a wider variety of "grips" - a "reverse grip" at shoulder height being apparently quite common and regarded as optimal for certain tasks (IIRC, for attacking infantry).
What the Medieval pikemen did differently was drill and tactics. The Macedonian pike phalanx more or less grew out of the classic hoplite linear tactics as the "anvil" that pinned down the enemy infantry centre for the heavy-cavalry "hammer" to destroy; the Swiss for most intents and purposes didn't have shock cavalry, and duly developed their pike tactics and drills with offensive in mind from the ground up. They also did away with the flank issue by the expedient of operating in large hollow squares, with integrated ranged and close-assault support.

WM, I am drunk and have a hellish headache, so no elaborate explanations from me for once, but you are right on point with your elaboration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...and apparently practical tests with a repro suggest it'd work, and it'd fit the "heroic" warrior aristocrat thing the Myceneans had going...
*shrug*

---

That I didn't know .

That's some intereresting theory there ... ( non-sarcastic comment )

Satyros

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

This sums up the nature of hoplites in EB perfectly. Murderously stubborn. Sometimes my guys simply refuse to break, even when facing the toughest of situations. Lately, I fought a sandwitched bridge battle against 2 armies. The main one came head-on, while a smaller one had to cross a bridge to get to me. I had my hoplites in shieldwall formation facing the bridge, and they absorbed the oncoming Galatian troops (which included a unit of the fearsome Tindanotae and one of Kuarothoroi) pretty smoothly (meaning no guys flying around and no chaos amongst the lines). Even with guard mode on, they seemed to hold on forever while loosing minimal men themselves. Only when I took them off guard mode and they started pushing forwards did thet loose men at a higher rate than before (but that was also probably because they were already tiring by that time).

To cut a long story short, Hoplitai and generally hoplites are one of my favourite units in EB. They have good armour and shield values, good morale and discipline, and their closely-packed formation and spears make them an excellent counter-cavalry force as well. They just have to be used correctly. I personally use them on each end of my main phalanx line composed of phalangites, and they've never dissapointed me. On the contrary, their abilities as never cease to impress me on several occasions even after a long time of playing EB and using them in my armies.

Maion

---

And let's not forget they are quite invulnerable to arrows too.

From reading all the previous posts I diagnose that most of the "Hoplite complainers" are using "the -4 attack to spear units 'fix' that's not a fix anyway", since that 'fix' are greatly made hoplites suffer... just revert back to default EB 1.2 EDU values and i guarantee that you'll be statisfied with your hoplites...

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp, 5095 cost, 873 upkeep, and 2 turns training... no wonder, they become the strongest units in the game... but that's because I love my Spartans...:yes: not because historical corectness...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp, 5095 cost, 873 upkeep, and 2 turns training... no wonder, they become the strongest units in the game... but that's because I love my Spartans...:yes: not because historical corectness...

---

I'm sure Akrotatos and his Spartan bodyguards could have used you when he died in a fruitless assault on Megalopolis in, you know, real history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constantius III

I'm sure Akrotatos and his Spartan bodyguards could have used you when he died in a fruitless assault on Megalopolis in, you know, real history.

---

If I was there, I'll gladlyy made Akrotatos a prototype cannons and gunpowders when they asked... (just mix saltpeter with coal dusts and some sulphur...) and I was sure that Spartan hoplite will be armed with personal gatling guns!

Heheheh... that's because I was used to play Vanilla that praise Spartans in really high place... actually, when playing as GCS in vanilla long - long time ago, I remove the and hidden resources sparta... and my wholesale armies are those 2 Hp spartans in reds...!!!! This is Sparta...

But even in my modded EB, I could defeat those Spartans monsters with Agrianai Pelekephoroi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius_Belisarius

lol I dont like the movie 300 by the way. I know that Spartans werent that special but i think they are simply to expensive and i love the sentence "THIS IS SPARTA".

---

Plus, anyone who needs further proof of Spartan ownage should watch Deadliest Warrior: Spartan vs. Ninja. THAT is seriously awesome.

i hear they're preparing a Predator vs Spartans sequel... supposedly Predators kidnap a whole mora of spartans to use as prey :yes::yes::yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp,

---

OK, that's something I would personally never do for example. This is grand cheating at it's top.

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

i hear they're preparing a Predator vs Spartans sequel... supposedly Predators kidnap a whole mora of spartans to use as prey :yes::yes::yes:

---

Poor Predators :laugh4:.

That would make for a nice movie though, mans best vs the predators. :2thumbsup: To be honest I thought of the idea before :sweatdrop:.

Predator vs T-Rex would also be great. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

OK, that's something I would personally never do for example. This is grand cheating at it's top.

Maion

---

At least I also fight them when I play as Makedon... Naturally, my Hetairoi wouldn't kill those spartans in some charges from the back, or Argyraspidai skewer them with just taking minimal casualities... now they killed each other better and won by a close margin... that's the spirit...:laugh4:

That's cheating when you turn them to 1 hp when play against them

I believe you fail to understand that 30+ armour, excellent morale, immense stamina and 2HP on top of that makes them virtually unstoppable. Also, your mind seems to still be floating in the times of the 5th century BC, then the Agoge was much harsher than it was 2 centuries later. Spartans were over their golden age, get over it.

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

I believe you fail to understand that 30+ armour, excellent morale, immense stamina and 2HP on top of that makes them virtually unstoppable. Also, your mind seems to still be floating in the times of the 5th century BC, then the Agoge was much harsher than it was 2 centuries later. Spartans were over their golden age, get over it.

Maion

---

They are not unstoppable, they just made as a really tough guys... and I roleplay, what if the agoge system has been beefed up again...:laugh4:

Just try to grind the 2 Hp spartans with 2 units Agrianai Axemen and you'll see that Agrianai still wins...
When u know the right timing... and sandwich them

Still, it's something I'd personally never do.

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glouch

enough of this already. watchman and the others have more than answered the question.

the problem is that flavius belisarius seems to be using his own intuition to rebut your statements about an inflexible phalanx. soldiers arranged in a square of pike formation could in theory be easily ordered to turn their pikes in another direction, right?

the problem with this assumption, and i hope you're reading this flavius belisarius, is that it fails to take into account the fact that the pikes in question were about 20 feet long, that's two storeys for easy visualization. imagine trying to manipulate that and then turning in another direction, then lowering it down again; it would have been very difficult considering the weight of the pike itself coupled with it actually acting like a LEVER ARM, which would have applied tremendous magnitudes of MOMENT on the mens' arms. many would have not been able to get their pikes upright, let alone KEEP their pikes upright; many would inevitably have hit each others' pikes or other soldiers themselves, and as for the latter: it would have been incredibly difficult to balance a pike upright (try keeping a stick upright on your hand. difficult isn't it?), what more if someone hit it? all this, together with the mere thought that a company of enemy soldiers were rushing towards the flanks of the formation they were in, would have caused great confusion and panic.

now, as for the hoplites being 'too weak', it depends entirely on the situation ie. frame of reference. if you're charging a phalanx head on, then of course you'd think they're weak. you'd be blind and without any common sense to think that anyone would have had any remote chance of defeating an enemy 15-20 feet away, which is the case when you're fighting a man with a 20-foot pike. an attack from the flanks, or better, from behind, and things swing dramatically toward the aggressor's favor.

hoplites in my opinion are excellent troops to use defensively. offensively, they might lose out to javelin-hurling units just because of the, well, javelins. but with good maneuvering, positioning, and of course, tactics (and not with the tactic-less frontal assault you[flavius belisarius] seem to be doing), ANY good-quality infantry will defeat any other infantry force, or any other force for that matter. any good attack doesn't rely on JUST an assault; for it to succeed you need to create opportunities to take advantage of. defense on the other hand requires you to block any attempt by the enemy to create the aforementioned opportunities, which is precisely what you are NOT DOING by letting the enemy charge your hoplitai with heavy cavalry, for heaven's sake, REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY.

i don't know about you, but it seems flavius belisarius is using the alleged "underpowered-ness" of hoplitai as a scapegoat for bad generalship.

---

Thanks for this informativ explaination. Then my point of view of phalanx was totaly false. I was quite sure of that what i said. Im sorry but im glad now to know how it really is.

I have one question about the hoplitais. Had such a phalanx formation of hoplitais a chance against sword bearing warriors? So were Legionarys simply more flexible than hoplitais so that they could surround the phalanx or were swords simply more effectiv in close melee combat ?

Edidt.: The reason why i came to the statement are hoplitais too weak, was because i thougth that they are offensive units. I was in the believe that they were used in real only of assaults.

Hoplites are offensive units, not in the way as other units but they certainly weren't units used for defense.

In frontal combat units like Romans didn't have much chance, from the front Hoplites were nigh-impossible to beat with loose order units. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Hoplites are offensive units, not in the way as other units but they certainly weren't units used for defense.

In frontal combat units like Romans didn't have much chance, from the front Hoplites were nigh-impossible to beat with loose order units. :whip:

---

So hoplitais are still to weak in this game because they cant face any heavy infantery altough they could in real? Or is there something which Im missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius_Belisarius

So hoplitais are still to weak in this game because they cant face any heavy infantery altough they could in real? Or is there something which Im missing.

---

That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point. :yes:

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous. In fact in all Pyrrhos' battles with the Romans the Legions met the Phalanx head on and fought it to a standstill with even numbers. It was, in all instances the Romans lost those battles, a question of Pyrrhos deploying his elephants in the right place and time.

The times I can think of where a Phalanx met a Legionary force head on and pushed it back it was the Makedons at Cynoscephalai and Pydna. However, the phalanx then lost order and was thus opened to the more mobile legionaires, effectively dooming the phalangites.

There was also a phalanx holding a breach in a wall against the odds sometimes during the 2nd Makedonian, but with its flanks covered by a wall the phalanx was close to invulnerable, so that is logical- and the ideal way to use it.

True Hoplitai I do not really know about, did they actually ever face the Legions? But I imagine the result would be much the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous. In fact in all Pyrrhos' battles with the Romans the Legions met the Phalanx head on and fought it to a standstill with even numbers. It was, in all instances the Romans lost those battles, a question of Pyrrhos deploying his elephants in the right place and time.

---

That's why phalanxes alone don't stand a chance against such an enemy. The reason Alexandros reached the ends of the world wasn't because he had such an unstoppable phalanx line that ripped the enemy to pieces, rather than pin the enemy for the cavalry to flank. It's called hammer and anvil tactic, you know.

Maion

The main difference between a "spearman" and a "swordsman" is that the latter has the sword as his primary close-combat weapon, the former as a backup sidearm. Guess what the former does when the latter manages to get "past the point" ?
Geniuses. I'm getting tired of having to reiterate the obvious like this.

Anyway, closely spaced spearmen in general and pikemen in particular have the benefit of multiple "enaging ranks" - at least two for long-spearmen, something like four for pikemen. Anyone wanting to get to grips with the pikemen themselves somehow needs to negotiate himself through *several* successive walls of uncomfortable closely spaced spear-tips, all the while trying not to get tangled up in the shafts themselves... IIRC, the Romans for their part regarded the feat as near-unachievable and just did like everyone else, ie. traded ground for time until the pike line became disjointed, hit rough ground etc. which created openings to exploit.

In straight hand-to-hand fight I'd imagine hoplite-style shieldwall spearmen would do fairly well against Roman legionaries - more reach, overlapping shields, tighter formation giving at least 3-to-2 local advantage, at least two first ranks can engage. The stumbling block ? Pilum. All javelins do bad things to shields, major among which is getting stuck in them and weighing them down. Heavy high-penetration "shield-killers" like the Italic pilum take that to the next level - even if the shieldbearer is lucky enough not to get nailed by the meter-long iron shank when the thing punches a hole in the shield, he now has that thing projecting to his side of it which obviously rather inconveniences the effective use of the whole shield plus what, two or three kilos of spear dragging it down...
And even for shieldwall infantry the hoplites were *particularly* dependent on their shields.

I agree. It was when the successors underpowered their cavalry in numbers (broking Alexandros' "golden proportion") that the "anvil and hammer" tactic became way less effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

True Hoplitai I do not really know about, did they actually ever face the Legions? But I imagine the result would be much the same.

---

When the Romans attacked Corinth they faced them, Roman right flank was broken :2thumbsup:. Though those were the reformed Hoplites.

Hoplites fight face to face you know, not 6 metres apart from their enemy. As a hoplite your enemy would be like 10 cm away from you. :whip:


Watchmen, there's no way a Pilum would be able to penetrate a Hoplite shield, only ballistas were able to do such a thing.

Dude. The hoplite aspis was single-ply wood with a millimeter-thin stressed bronze covering. For the sake of comparision the Italic scuta were three-ply wood with a hide covering on both sides, which is around as strong as wooden shields now realistically get - and weighed a ton.
Pila, far as I know, holed scuta readily enough - what do you *think* the Italians had mainly been throwing them at for centuries ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous.

The times I can think of where a Phalanx met a Legionary force head on and pushed it back it was the Makedons at Cynoscephalai and Pydna. However, the phalanx then lost order and was thus opened to the more mobile legionaires, effectively dooming the phalangites.

---

QUOTED FROM WIKI-THE BATTLE OF CYNOSCEPHALAE;
"Philip's right wing was now on higher ground than the Roman left, and was at first successful against them. His left wing and center, made up of another 8,000 phalangites, however were still disorganized and in marching position, so they had not even formed the phalanx yet, and as Flamininus sent his elephants charging into them, they routed. After breaking through, one of the Roman tribunes took twenty maniples (a smaller division of the legion) and attacked the Macedonian right wing from behind. The Macedonians were unable to reposition themselves as quickly as the Roman maniples. Now surrounded by both wings of the Roman legion, they suffered heavy casualties and fled."
QUOTED FROM WIKI-THE BATTLE OF PYDNA;
"Paulus claimed later that the sight of the phalanx filled him with alarm and amazement. The Romans tried to beat down the enemy pikes or hack off their points, but with little success. Unable to get under the thick bristle of spikes, the Romans were beaten back, and some of their allies abandoned the field.
But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion. Paulus now ordered the legions into the gaps, attacking the phalangites on their exposed flanks. At close quarters the longer Roman sword and heavier shield easily prevailed over the short sword (little more than a dagger) and lighter armor of the Macedonians. They were soon joined by the Roman right, which had succeeded in routing the Macedonian left."

So which were the turning points of both battles??? In Cynoscephalae the left phallanx was on the move when it got charged by elephants ...
In Pydna the phallangites pushed through only to lose some of their pike wall cohesion ...the Romans not short of sharp commanding immediately exploited this and flanked the phallanxes on their gaps (possibly the gaps between the different phallanx squares???)...

need i say it again??? Flanked!!! FLANKED!!! FLAAAAAAAAANKED!!!

HEAD-ON PHALANX COLISION=SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE:skull::skull::skull:

also abt the "hellene-lovers-angle"... some people are convinced that the phalanxes were certainly not at a tactical disadvantage over the Romans and that with a more charismatic and sharp leadership the hammer and anvil might have prevailed... that's all ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Dude. The hoplite aspis was single-ply wood with a millimeter-thin stressed bronze covering. For the sake of comparision the Italic scuta were three-ply wood with a hide covering on both sides, which is around as strong as wooden shields now realistically get - and weighed a ton.
Pila, far as I know, holed scuta readily enough - what do you *think* the Italians had mainly been throwing them at for centuries ?

---

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

When the Romans attacked Corinth they faced them, Roman right flank was broken :2thumbsup:. Though those were the reformed Hoplites.

Hoplites fight face to face you know, not 6 metres apart from their enemy. As a hoplite your enemy would be like 10 cm away from you. :whip:


Watchmen, there's no way a Pilum would be able to penetrate a Hoplite shield, only ballistas were able to do such a thing.

---

You could always just refer to the accounts of the Samnite Wars and the Wars of Italian unification before the Punic War. Rome used to fight in a hoplite style but they transitioned to the looser manipular style after getting schooled by the Samnites they adopted that idea from.

A great deal of it had to do with some of the terrain that the Samnites fought on rather than outright fighting power though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

When the Romans attacked Corinth they faced them, Roman right flank was broken :2thumbsup:. Though those were the reformed Hoplites.

---

Errrr...(historical) source please??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?

---

Now you're just talking out of your arse, mate. Go read.

TL;DR - the aspis averaged around 15 pounds weight (ca. 7 kg) and 0.2" (ca. 5 mm, calculating in my head) thick; the scutum, depending heavily on specific model and period, was 15-22 pounds (7-11 kg) and went from about 0.4" (1 cm) in the center to 0.2" in the edges thick.

"Lick my blinky diodes."
- Aaron Stack, Nextwave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?

---

I'm afraid Watchman is right. The aspis though heavy and thick, is not unpenetrable. The force delivered by a falling javelin has to do with the angle thrown (and thus falling), the weight of it and the surface area of the tip. The speed with which it is thrown plays an important role as well. Needless to say, even a well-aimed thick rock (like those fired by the Baelaric slingers) could shatter an aspis I think. That is according to a source from an EB insciption, saying 1,000 Baelaric slingers routed several thousand Greek hoplites. Could be wrong here.

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Now you're just talking out of your arse, mate. Go read.

TL;DR - the aspis averaged around 15 pounds weight (ca. 7 kg) and 0.2" (ca. 5 mm, calculating in my head) thick; the scutum, depending heavily on specific model and period, was 15-22 pounds (7-11 kg) and went from about 0.4" (1 cm) in the center to 0.2" in the edges thick.

"Lick my blinky diodes."
- Aaron Stack, Nextwave

---

:wall:

Aspis was a thick layer of poplar wood with a layer of bronze on it, if anything it certainly is the thickest shield, scutum has one holder for your hand which would mean that it shouldn't be too heavy.

Also a Falx was able to penetrate deeply into a Scutum while against an Aspis it definately would have an harder time.

A Pilum penetrating a Aspis is just wishfull fantasy, Scutum wouldn't be able to survive the pushing in the Phalanx as well as an Aspis as well.

5 mm? Maybe that one from Deadliest Warrior or 300 but the real deal definately wasn't that thin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

:wall:

Aspis was a thick layer of poplar wood with a layer of bronze on it, if anything it certainly is the thickest shield, scutum has one holder for your hand which would mean that it shouldn't be too heavy.

Also a Falx was able to penetrate deeply into a Scutum while against an Aspis it definately would have an harder time.

A Pilum penetrating a Aspis is just wishfull fantasy, Scutum wouldn't be able to survive the pushing in the Phalanx as well as an Aspis as well.

5 mm? Maybe that one from Deadliest Warrior or 300 but the real deal definately wasn't that thin.

---

As much as I'd like to believe either you or Watchman, I've learned to rely on proof. If someone can find some sources on how exactly a scutum and an aspis was made (as well as an average pilum), we could make some comparisons and hopefully derive some results.

And just for the sake of being reasonable, try to back your statements up Phalanx. At least Watchman presents something to back up his statements. I'm not taking enyone's side here, but I prefer someone who actually speculates based on something instead of pure personal unbased oppinion.

Maion

*shrug* Teh Wiki isn't feeling helpful on the topic regarding specific references, and that's the extent of effort I'm willing to expend into humoring you. Go read books like I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

*shrug* Teh Wiki isn't feeling helpful on the topic regarding specific references, and that's the extent of effort I'm willing to expend into humoring you. Go read books like I did.

---

Very well, then you start reading some good books. :dizzy2:

I'm not the one making historically inaccurate claims here you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'm not the one making historically inaccurate claims here you know.

---

Or so you think.

How about I'll get behind an Aspis and you'll start trowing pilums at me, if I survive I win the bet? :2thumbsup:

And if you don't survive I get to go to jail without passing Go ? :inquisitive:

'Sides, the point of the pilum wasn't so much to kill the other guy (though it was obviously good if it did) but rather deprive him of his shield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And if you don't survive I get to go to jail without passing Go ? :inquisitive:

'Sides, the point of the pilum wasn't so much to kill the other guy (though it was obviously good if it did) but rather deprive him of his shield.

---

If.

Exactly, and I'm sure thats what it did, yet against an Aspis I'm not sure it would be able to penetrate it, also looking at the curve in the shield.

The curve just minimises the impact a little because the shaft doesn't hit the surface of the shield perpendicularly (meaning with maximal impact force). What makes a shield good, is the material that it is made of and the thickness of it. The thicker and better the material (meaning the molecules and atoms composing the material are more closely packed together), the more difficult it is to penetrate the shield. And penetration has to do with the energy given to the shield by the impact. The more the energy (meaning more force of impact) is delivered to the shield, the greater the chance the shield will break (meaning the molecules will be "freed" of the bonds that bind them together) upon impact.

Maion

The cirvature of the aspis isn't anything terribly noteworthy, particularly compared to the later "half-barrel" iterations of the scutum, you know. Which the pilum holed right nicely too AFAIK.

Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The cirvature of the aspis isn't anything terribly noteworthy, particularly compared to the later "half-barrel" iterations of the scutum, you know. Which the pilum holed right nicely too AFAIK.

Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.

---

Make me wonder why the Dacians had no trouble hacking pretty far into them. :sweatdrop:


And Maion, ever tried getting a round been? Its soft as who knows but the fact that its round makes it hard to get em.

Hoplitai can stand better than the other spearman they are my favourites for holing phalanxes but persian hoplitai sucks.
I still cannot understand why they are low in number in huge they are 160 while phalanx 240.
this is the main weakness they have.

BI's shieldwall gives back much needed staying power to hoplites and does not overpower them.

I am with Maion on this one, back claims with sources or stuff it. Anyone can make a claim about anything. That does not necessarily make the claim true.

Archippos, what in "The Phalanx then lost order (cohesion) and was doomed" is in essence different from your Wiki copies?

Basically the short of the long of it is that on level ground from the front, Phalanx is very hard to beat, perhaps Pilae can even the odds. On rough ground, flanked or if otherwise forced to give up cohesion, phalangites are F-ed as the legionaires would be more effective with their Gladius Hispanensis than the phalangites with their puny sword once the legionaire gets past the spearpoints.

What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.

And I also like to point out that in even the best phalanx there can only be spearpoints protruding in the gaps between ranks and in close order and with long spears the possibility for what we vikings call "Crossstrikes" is low, you are basically stuck. In theory there is a small gap in front of every person to exploit for a guy with a sword and a shield. I dunno how it would work in practise though, despite my 16 years of experience with re-enactment fighting, for we do not fight phalanx or hoplite style. But I can say that if you are to penetrate an enemy line thus in our game you have to coordinate it with your friends next to you and get it just right- if you fail a little, the enemy gets you. But it can be done.

I dunno with Hoplitai, would be interesting to try in fact.

Also, Roman's very large and curved scutum was much more effective than phalangites' small shields in close combat.

Oh and even dead bodies constitute rough ground TBH, try walking in formation across a field littered with dead and wounded...

But I thought that dead bodies don't constitute as solid? Never learn from Total War....

Try go to youtube, search for "Moesgaard" and click the battle videos (not the Rave ones, they have nothing to do with us), and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Make me wonder why the Dacians had no trouble hacking pretty far into them. :sweatdrop:

---

That's because big nasty choppers like falxes, wielded with gusto by fairly fit burly fellows, do very bad things indeed to what is, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rather thin planks glued together. You do realize that by all accounts one-handed maces and battleaxes tended to make kindling out of most shields in rather short order...? Three guesses what the two-handers did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikhail Mengsk

Also, Roman's very large and curved scutum was much more effective than phalangites' small shields in close combat.

---

As far as I can surmised, it would seem to me that the biggest problem with the small shield was how it was strapped to their shoulder to keep it in position for the phalanx. So assuming you could get that strap off, you wouldn't be THAT bad off. I believe at one of hte battles of the Macedonian War, the phalanx hit rough ground after pushing the Romans back so it broke phlanx, reformed twice as thick and went swords vs the Romans. The big shield is most advantaged if the formation is intact so I supposed if you manage to disorder the Romans, you could probably go hth with the smaller(THE PHALANGITE SHIELD WAS NOT THAT SMALL) shield without that many problems.

Of course this was the elite guard and everything got routed so they were surrounded and slowly killed off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.

---

What a bias to think its a bias. I had this name long before that movie was even announced, in honour of the Spartans who died at Thermopylae. :yes:

And yeah it'd probably be around 10/20 cm. You must understand that Hoplites wont try to stay at a distance trying to poke eachother, they are shield to shield, being pushed by 7 guys in their back or even more, you have no choice whether you like to be that close. First two ranks could attack.

Quote:

---

That's because big nasty choppers like falxes, wielded with gusto by fairly fit burly fellows, do very bad things indeed to what is, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rather thin planks glued together. You do realize that by all accounts one-handed maces and battleaxes tended to make kindling out of most shields in rather short order...? Three guesses what the two-handers did...

---

Can't say that about the aspis.:2thumbsup:




And yeah Anti, I also always had the idea that the Phalangite shield was small but 60cm in diameter isn't that small for a shield.

Quote:

---

The core of a hoplon was constructed of a thin wood which was approximately 0.2 inches thick.

---

This is worse?

I was under the impression that most of the hoplon was coated in bronze... I know for a fact the Spartans had bronze shields. Falx or not, you ain't gettin through a bronze shield, buddy. I'd piss myself and give ya 30 bucks if even an excellently well made katana could get through a bronze shield.

they had a lay of bronze but beneath they were made of wood me thinks ... how thick was that bronze overcoat i wouldn't know though...

The bronze layer was something like 5mm thick.
Sure, it would bounce off arrows and slingshots most likely but heavier stuff is bound to at least get stuck into that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

As far as I can surmised, it would seem to me that the biggest problem with the small shield was how it was strapped to their shoulder to keep it in position for the phalanx. So assuming you could get that strap off, you wouldn't be THAT bad off. I believe at one of hte battles of the Macedonian War, the phalanx hit rough ground after pushing the Romans back so it broke phlanx, reformed twice as thick and went swords vs the Romans. The big shield is most advantaged if the formation is intact so I supposed if you manage to disorder the Romans, you could probably go hth with the smaller(THE PHALANGITE SHIELD WAS NOT THAT SMALL) shield without that many problems.

Of course this was the elite guard and everything got routed so they were surrounded and slowly killed off.

---

Roman's scutum covered almost all the body, and it was curved. Phalangites' shields as you say it had to be strapped, and it was smaller and less curved. So it was worse.

Roman formation was ALWAYS intact, and can NEVER be disordered :whip:

Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point. :yes:

---

I started this topic because excatly this :) I always used the hoplitais offensive because they were it in real too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikhail Mengsk

Roman's scutum covered almost all the body, and it was curved. Phalangites' shields as you say it had to be strapped, and it was smaller and less curved. So it was worse.

Roman formation was ALWAYS intact, and can NEVER be disordered :whip:

Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.

---

That's true but all I was saying is that small shields aren't bad and gave an example followed by repeating my claim. For osme reason people think that "ZOMG SMALL SHIELD IS SO SMALL AND USELESS!" I mean, just look at the sword and bucklet men of the middle ages or alot of the other loose order units that don't fight in formation.

Oh no, sure isn't useless, some protection is always better than no protection! I only said that it was less useful than roman's scutum. Phalangites, anyway, could not wear big curved shields because they needed both hands to hold their long pikes.

Yes, the pelte shield of the Phalangites had its uses. It wasn't of course as sophisticated as the aspis (not hoplon guys, that's incorrect), but the longer the spear the smaller the shield because for a 5-6m pike you have to be able to use both hands to grip it.

Returning to the aspis debate now, I must say that I too don't think a pilum would be able to easily penetrate a sturdy aspis. I just don't think it's impossible, as Phalanx so vigorously claims.

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikhail Mengsk

Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.

---

Well if we see that the Pezhetairoi were professional soldiers and that their elite assault infantry(Peltastai Makedonikoi) used the same shield as the Pezhetairoi I'm not really that sure of it.:sweatdrop:

Peltastai Makedonikoi were trained to fight in melee, pezhetairoi were not.

Also i'm not sure they carry the same shield, peltastai's one seems bigger.

How much does anyone know about Macedonian Phalanx training. There was probably decent hth training especially for the guys up front and on the flanks. There were gaps in the phalangite line between each unit that were covered by support troops but it would have been unwise to go without a plan b like that.

Besides, your morale would get kicked in the nuts if the soldiers don't know what to do like fight with a sword and shield when the situation arose.

Phalanxes got slaughtered every time they lost their formation, so they were not so much trained to fight with sword+shied; that's why they were not supposed to do so. Surely not as trained as Roman Legions or other similar heavy melee infantry.

What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?

Maion

Another important point why the romans won against the successors was that the successors couldnt raise so much cav like alexander had. And the Pezhetairoi got more inflexible after the death of alexander because they got more armor and their formation was changed but im not sure how the formation was changed - i only know that this was one of reasons why the macedonian phalanx got inflexible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?

Maion

---

So said I: Roman's melee training was more effective in combat against Pezheteri's, maybe not "exceptionally better", but simply better. Otherwise, they would not have won so clearly at Pidna and Magnesia and other battles. Every time phalanx' formation got broken, phalangites got slaughtered...

It's phalanx destiny: to be nearly unbreakable in formation, to be doomed if it lose it. Even if good trained, they won't hold against good melee infantry like Roman Legions when they lose formation.

About reserves, Makedonians at Pydna had more soldiers than romans, so we have to say WHY they have reserves despite being outnumbered. I call it "better tactics".

It didn't get inflexible and the Makedonian Syntagma didn't change. Were did you hear/read something like that? Please get your facts right dude. The only thing that probably happened, is that the pikes were further lengthened about a meter. The formation remained the same: 256 (16x16) man blocks typically, with 5 rows in front having their pikes lowered parallel to the ground and the rest in an angle that rose the further back you went.

The only thing that changed, is that more and more pikemen were used and less and less cavalry. Alexandros used approsimately 9,000 Pezhetairoi IIRC, while later Basileis like Perseus fielded from 16,000 to even 22,000 I believe.

Maion

To concentrate a wall of spears it requires that only so many men can be deployed in width, making the lines shorter than many equivalent formations.

Also it doesn't help the phalanx that the roman army started reforming around that period towards even more flexibility (what I like to call the "scipionic reforms"), meaning that the tactical usage differences between hastati, principes and triarii started to soften.

Another important factor is that we're talking about veteran legions, meaning more skilled and better equipped than your average roman force.

Exactly. There are many factors one should take in mind except simply weapon technology and equipment. Rome emerged from a war victorious and learned many things from it, not to mention those "Reforms" which made the army even more flexible than it was. Also, everyone with at least a decent knowledge of what the landscape of Hellas looks like would know it's all mountainous and uneven terrain. Difficult to maneuver a phalanx there, hence the Hellenes usually chose an open plain to fight once decisive battle.

Maion

I was only saying that in melee fights pezhetarioi (sp?) got beaten by the romans when they broke formation, and this is because legionnaires' melee training and equipment was better. Romans' "scipiones" reform made the entire Legion more flexible and more mobile, BUT also improves single legionnaires' melee skills (expecially after fighting iberian warriors in the Iberian Campaign).

That's why IMHO single Legionnaire was better in a melee "1vs1" than a Pez(ecc): focused training and equipment.

HOW the romans menaged to broke phalanx' formation doesn't really matter in this debate, also because there are many many ways to do it (using reserves and terrain as Maion said, for example).

Also, in those battles where the Macedonians faced of the Romans the biggest part of their Phalangites weren't their profesional soldiers, the biggest part were the Phalangitai Deuteroi, levies(comparable with the ordinary Hoplite in training etc.).

Just look at the Historical Romani vs Makedonia battle. Makedonia in later times lacked the units to support their troops. And in one occasion their cavalry ran off before ever getting into an fight.

And those Peltastai Makedonikoi use the Phalangite shield, and they were the elite assault troops of the Macedonians so you shouldn't count of a Phalangite in an fight with a Roman, even though the Roman has the advantage in such a fight ofcourse with their large shield and stabbing attacks.

I feel necessary to remind you here that Roman armies of the period were, for all intents and purposes, 100% levies. That's what "legion" means you know.

Also, the PMs (as well as the Hypaspistai) carry the aspis rather than the rather smaller, though similar, shield the phalangites use (so their hand is left clear to hold the pike).

Oh joy Maion, it seems out little group's certain new classification, finally gets it's first members.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

It didn't get inflexible and the Makedonian Syntagma didn't change. Were did you hear/read something like that? Please get your facts right dude. The only thing that probably happened, is that the pikes were further lengthened about a meter. The formation remained the same: 256 (16x16) man blocks typically, with 5 rows in front having their pikes lowered parallel to the ground and the rest in an angle that rose the further back you went.

The only thing that changed, is that more and more pikemen were used and less and less cavalry. Alexandros used approsimately 9,000 Pezhetairoi IIRC, while later Basileis like Perseus fielded from 16,000 to even 22,000 I believe.

Maion

---

So, they started to (a). rely on even more cumbersome pikes/ equipment and (b). the macedonian army as a whole started to rely on the phalanx as a battle winner because their supporting units were lacking.

If this doesn't call for inflexibility nothing does, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I feel necessary to remind you here that Roman armies of the period were, for all intents and purposes, 100% levies. That's what "legion" means you know.

Also, the PMs (as well as the Hypaspistai) carry the aspis rather than the rather smaller, though similar, shield the phalangites use (so their hand is left clear to hold the pike).

---

They were levies yes but their units were put into experience class, I doubt you could class Triarii as levies.

And they did use the Phalangite shield, in EBI they use the Aspis but look at their preview in EB2, they use the Phalangite shield.

Quote:

---

So, they started to (a). rely on even more cumbersome pikes/ equipment and (b). the macedonian army as a whole started to rely on the phalanx as a battle winner because their supporting units were lacking.

If this doesn't call for inflexibility nothing does, dude.

---

As Maion said before, you can't compare the Legion and the Phalanx, the point is that just comparing the Phalanx alone is like comparing a Legion without its reserves. A Macedonian Phalanx without its support will fall eventually, as the Romans showed.

Oh and Dutch, I read somewhere you wanted to start a Greek Reenactment group? Is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

And they did use the Phalangite shield, in EBI they use the Aspis but look at their preview in EB2, they use the Phalangite shield.

---

Actually, in EBII, the Phalangitai hold the aspis, but this is a placeholder until correct skins can be created for the small shield of the phalangitai.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

They were levies yes but their units were put into experience class, I doubt you could class Triarii as levies.

---

Income classes, AFAIK; the difference was by the "weight" of war gear, ie. armour, and a man's ability to furnish himself with the more complete harnesses was pretty darn obviously chiefly dependent on his finances.

Though, given, older fellows *would* have been more likely to have gotten themselves suitably financially established to graduate into the "senior" classes than youths, and of course richer people were better able to spare time for additional weapons practice if they were so inclined. (Doesn't mean they necessarily did of course. Lazy gits.)
Nobody said those older fellows' year had been called to war anyway, of course... the Romans *did* fight a lot, but they also had a LOT of staggering in the levy call-up.