hastati's pila won't kill a single hoplitai haploi in frontal phalanx attack

Yeah, but for any phalanx unit engaged with their sarissas forward, being hit by a charging enemy in their back, their end would come very quicky!:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HumphreysCraig00

Ive always noticed my flag bearers and officers dieing about as quick as all the other units myself.

---

In my experience, the officers only start to go down if the unit has been engaged in close combat for quite some time. I have never seen them die in the first few seconds of combat, even though a heavy cavalry charges knocks them of their feet as often (if not more) than other soldiers. This suggests to me that a single succesful hit is not sufficient to kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Tigranakert is the battle Paullus is talking about, I suppose. Appian and Plutarch are the ones that mention the campaing, though I don't feel like going after the exact quotes.

EDIT: Livy might have something on it too.

---

M. Chahin reports that Tigranakert most probably didn't happen, raising some good arguments against plutarch and appian, including a speech given by cicero on the subject, within which he fails to name the city (which is odd), and instead refers to the looting of a "much venerated temple", which Chahin concludes was most likely the Temple of Anahit at Acilisene, which housed, amongst other treasures, a massive gold statue of the goddess. Obviously his critical approach is far more extensive than what I've given here, but if you can get a hold of it I would recommend reading "The Kingdom of Armenia".

Sorry, a bit off topic.

Foot

Quote:

---

-While fighting at the same time with an enemy at the front or the sides ? Don't really think so... Besides, why do you think protecting the flanks of the phalanx ( or whatever battleline you want, any age) was / is so important ?

In part I can understand this, as a way to lessen the AI shortcomings which can't hold a line together or protect its flanks adequately, but in some cases this gets a bit exxagerated with higher end phalanx units blocks fighting for minutes against enemies on all sides.

---

Ive never seen a phalanx in rome total war turn to face another direction while engaged, does this happen?

And I was talking about while unengaged, and finally when do high end phalanxes carry on fighting for ages? A quick charge to the rear when engaged against infantry and they rout (except for the spartans in vanilla) for me.

And in EB everything routs when charged in the rear by cavalry or heavy infantry for me.

Quote:

---

-Besides, the basically square Medieval pike formations were designed for omnidirectional combat to begin with.

---

Yes but the actions involved are the same (from the drills ive seen its lift pike, pivot in place to face new direction and ready pike and thats it), so I dont see why a sarissa phalanx couldnt quickly turn to face another direction, when unengaged.

Quote:

---

-Yeah, but for any phalanx unit engaged with their sarissas forward, being hit by a charging enemy in their back, their end would come very quicky!

---

Why? the men at the back arent actually engaged themselves and turning with the sarissa isnt hard, Ive tested with a barbel with 20 kg on the far end and no wieght on the close end, which means it will be much harder then turning with a sarissa, and I could do it quickly (5-7 seconds from facing front with barbel down to facing back with barbel down with going into set positions, if I just swing it over my shoulder its quicker), so a well drilled professional, or even just well drilled part time, force should find it a piece of p*ss.

So the only real limiter would be are they brave enough to not attempt to run away when theyre being attacked from 2 or more directions.

Quote:

---

-In my experience, the officers only start to go down if the unit has been engaged in close combat for quite some time. I have never seen them die in the first few seconds of combat, even though a heavy cavalry charges knocks them of their feet as often (if not more) than other soldiers. This suggests to me that a single succesful hit is not sufficient to kill them.

---

My officers generally get stuck well in and die quickly, they may take more hits before dieing but theyre being attacked by alot of people at once so the high number of hits happens quickly I suppose.

But officers and captains in my experience are always killed by flank charges, both when I do them to the enemy and when the enemy does them to me. So I dont know how your guys can survive it :)

There is so much based on the use of the personal pronoun here its rediculous.

Can I suggest from an objectivity point of view you seek out the sealed knot and watch them, or talk to them in a pub about use of pikes. Thats the closest you will get to men handling long weapons. They are generally found in pubs ...from my experience :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

There is so much based on the use of the personal pronoun here its rediculous.

Can I suggest from an objectivity point of view you seek out the sealed knot and watch them, or talk to them in a pub about use of pikes. Thats the closest you will get to men handling long weapons. They are generally found in pubs ...from my experience :).

---

Why is it ridiculous?

Surely even a quick experiment is better than just saying it without basis?

And I have already stated that I have seen recreationists do it (and it backed up my change facing is easy and quick argument) so I dont see the point of your second bit...

Quote:

---

Ive never seen a phalanx in rome total war turn to face another direction while engaged, does this happen?

---

Well we must have different experiences, I've seen them turning their pikes backwards a lot. When they were engaged from the front.

Quote:

---

es but the actions involved are the same (from the drills ive seen its lift pike, pivot in place to face new direction and ready pike and thats it), so I dont see why a sarissa phalanx couldnt quickly turn to face another direction, when unengaged.
Why? the men at the back arent actually engaged themselves and turning with the sarissa isnt hard, Ive tested with a barbel with 20 kg on the far end and no wieght on the close end, which means it will be much harder then turning with a sarissa, and I could do it quickly (5-7 seconds from facing front with barbel down to facing back with barbel down with going into set positions, if I just swing it over my shoulder its quicker), so a well drilled professional, or even just well drilled part time, force should find it a piece of p*ss.

---

Have you done it in the middle of hundreds of guys trying to do the same, after possibly hours of wearing armour, in the midst of a battle, surrounded by people who want to kill you, maybe even with projectiles raining on you ? Target shooting in a competition is also very different from marksmanship in a battlefield...


But again if in reality if phalanxes were so easily maneauvrable in the battlefield, why so much emphasis on protecting their flanks with lighter, more nimble troops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectral

Well we must have different experiences, I've seen them turning their pikes backwards a lot. When they were engaged from the front.

---

As I said, never happened for me, they dont change facing for me unless they are attacked and then they do it with thier swords.

Quote:

---

Have you done it in the middle of hundreds of guys trying to do the same,

---

That is where the factor, they were welll drilled, comes into play, they will have practiced alot at this, form evidence I have seen (although only a couple of tv documentaries admittedly ontop of a couple of little tries myself) changing facing in a dense formation is quick to learn.

Myself though, I did it in a small space where I had to get the movements just right or I would smash my lights, my tv or my fridge, and I could do it with a less wieldy thing than a sarissa so...

Quote:

---

after possibly hours of wearing armour, in the midst of a battle,

---

If you really want I'll tire myse;f out and then try again, though it wasnt very hard so I dont think it will effect me that much.

Quote:

---

surrounded by people who want to kill you, maybe even with projectiles raining on you ?

---

Again this is where the drill and discipline comes into it, both of these will cause most people and formations to run (or attempt to) but if it is a phalanx well drilled enough not to peg it then I think they will do fairly well.

Quote:

---

Target shooting in a competition is also very different from marksmanship in a battlefield...

---

It depends on what type of target shooting you are talking about.thoygh battle will always be more complicated due to it being more dangerous.


By the way niether of us have experienced this sort of thing so we cant say how it would effect us, ive read from alot of modern soldiers that being in action you actually stick to your drills and such without either thinking about it or realising you are, I dont know if this is true (one of the ex military guys who posts here will correct me) but its what ive read

Quote:

---

But again if in reality if phalanxes were so easily maneauvrable in the battlefield, why so much emphasis on protecting their flanks with lighter, more nimble troops?

---

Because the majority of men will try to flee when they are being surrounded, and those that dont try to flee will inevitably be killed quicker when being atacked from all sides.

You seem to think that phalanxes are the only formation that needs its flanks secured... Which is a fallacy

By what I've read of it the phalangites could do a full about-face (although this had the side effect of leaving the file-leaders in the rear rank), but didn't handle smaller turns well. Apparently the formation had to wheel properly to do any finer facing changes.

Anyway, if I've understood correctly the phalangite pike-blocks were basically rectangular - ie. wider than they were deep - and therefore by default far weaker at the sides. Less frontage, easier to overlap etc. (Their Medieval colleagues fought in unflankable squares by default.)

And that it was quite difficult to perceive surrounding event too well within the somewhat claustrophobic confines of a pike formation, nevermind one already engaged; if it got flanked or taken in the rear most of the soldiers probably first realized the matter when someone poked a sword in their side... at which point the enemy was already within the ranks anyway and the pikes were useless.

Imagine a hundred blokes with 12 foot poles all trying to bring them up from horizontal to vertical at the same time, through the same bit of space, and probably with people tangled in the front end. Then lowering them all in the opposite direction, to end up with them all facing the same way, at the same height, with no gaps. I can imagine it being bloody hard, if not impossible. It only takes one person to screw up and get his pole going sideways to stop everyone withing 12 feet being able to do anything at all. And even if the majority manage to flip theirs round and get them pointed in vaguely the right direction, if there are any gaps in the line of spears, you might as well not have bothered - the enemy will simply go between. Far more logical would be that the back ranks simply drop their spears, draw their swords and hope that they can outfight the enemy in melee. At that point though, the formation is in big trouble. It would take superhuman discipline for the front ranks to hold onto their spears and hold the line while they can hear a big swordfight going on behind them...

Quote:

---

-By what I've read of it the phalangites could do a full about-face (although this had the side effect of leaving the file-leaders in the rear rank), but didn't handle smaller turns well. Apparently the formation had to wheel properly to do any finer facing changes.
Anyway, if I've understood correctly the phalangite pike-blocks were basically rectangular - ie. wider than they were deep - and therefore by default far weaker at the sides. Less frontage, easier to overlap etc. (Their Medieval colleagues fought in unflankable squares by default.)

---

The same as what ive read, though medievil pike phalanxes werent always unflankable squares, from what ive read there were some who at first operated much the same way as the macedonians

Quote:

---

-And that it was quite difficult to perceive surrounding event too well within the somewhat claustrophobic confines of a pike formation, nevermind one already engaged; if it got flanked or taken in the rear most of the soldiers probably first realized the matter when someone poked a sword in their side... at which point the enemy was already within the ranks anyway and the pikes were useless.

---

Not neccesarily useless, as the guys in the centre could likely turn to face before they were engaged, it was after all around 10 - 16 ranks deep, its not like the entire thing is going to vapourise as soon as its rear is contacted unless they attempt to run away.

But its likely not the best thing to do, plus I never said theyd do it while engaged.

Quote:

---

-Imagine a hundred blokes with 12 foot poles all trying to bring them up from horizontal to vertical at the same time, through the same bit of space, and probably with people tangled in the front end. Then lowering them all in the opposite direction, to end up with them all facing the same way, at the same height, with no gaps. I can imagine it being bloody hard, if not impossible. It only takes one person to screw up and get his pole going sideways to stop everyone withing 12 feet being able to do anything at all. And even if the majority manage to flip theirs round and get them pointed in vaguely the right direction, if there are any gaps in the line of spears, you might as well not have bothered - the enemy will simply go between.

---

True yes, although this thread may be thinking im saying something im not, I have been saying that the back rows if they were ordered to and not engaged, would be able to turn to face the enemy,, which is true, I never said if someone was incontact with both the front and rear. (Until the paragraph above I just realised :)) But even then I say those who arent currently in the middle of trading blows (though not in those words)

Now to raise some counter points.

1 Its not the same bit of space, the macedonian phalanx wasnt like the greek phalanxe where everyone was squeezed together, there was a fair bit of space (not a huge amount though) for each man to maneuver noth himself and his pike.

2 There is always a chance of someone messing up, but it wont effect the phalanx as badly as you seem to think, it will hamper them somewhat but they arent that heavy that you cant maneuver them well, and if he drops it onto other people he will be able to pick it up off them quick, and if he drops it and it falls to the ground not impeding anyone then he can just leave it.

3 There are 5 layers of spears, I would be surprised if the gap was the exact same in each layer.

4 Turning near enough to 180* isnt hard

5 The spears dont stay in exactly the same position once youve lowered them, they can be moved you know.

Quote:

---

-Far more logical would be that the back ranks simply drop their spears, draw their swords and hope that they can outfight the enemy in melee. At that point though, the formation is in big trouble. It would take superhuman discipline for the front ranks to hold onto their spears and hold the line while they can hear a big swordfight going on behind them...

---

If they had time to turn to face the threat then no, but if they were already engaged then yes, but ive never disputed that.

And I have said all along the drill and discipline not to run away in that situation is important

The pikes were type 6+ meters long and weighed a figurative ton. And pike units were always closely packed - they had to, as they relied on the depth and density of the pike-hedge to keep enemies from getting up close and personal. So far as I know quite a lot of their training was concerned solely with instilling the drill required to keep the huge clumsy pikes from getting hopelessly tangled up in each other, and the phalangites from accidentally gutting their mates with the butt ferrule.

Quote:

---

The pikes were type 6+ meters long and weighed a figurative ton.

---

The sarissa never wieghed more than 10 kg, usually around 5-7kg

That is simply not heavy. The thing I did it with for a test wieghted 30 kg in total (10 for bar, and 20 on far end) and I found it easy.

Quote:

---

And pike units were always closely packed - they had to, as they relied on the depth and density of the pike-hedge to keep enemies from getting up close and personal.

---

I honestly cant remember where but 1 remember reading 1 metre to either side of the soldier and 2 meters behind was the spacing of a macedonian phalanx, I dont know if thats true but it seems good as there is enough space for reasonable movements and it will be easy to cover it entirely with sarissa points.

Quote:

---

So far as I know quite a lot of their training was concerned solely with instilling the drill required to keep the huge clumsy pikes from getting hopelessly tangled up in each other, and the phalangites from accidentally gutting their mates with the butt ferrule.

---

I doubt that a group of people doing it as a hobby will be better trained than a group of profesionals (alexanders army) or people who know that thier lives depend on the skills they are being taught.

And the skill of avoiding pike tangles in the lifted pikes will aid in turning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HumphreysCraig00

The sarissa never wieghed more than 10 kg, usually around 5-7kg

That is simply not heavy. The thing I did it with for a test wieghted 30 kg in total (10 for bar, and 20 on far end) and I found it easy.

---

Humphreys, I largely agree with you on this matter, but you are skirting into dangerous territory here- what evidence is that figure based on? The Andronikos "sarissa" from the Tomb of Philipp II?

Quote:

---

I honestly cant remember where but 1 remember reading 1 metre to either side of the soldier and 2 meters behind was the spacing of a macedonian phalanx, I dont know if thats true but it seems good as there is enough space for reasonable movements and it will be easy to cover it entirely with sarissa points.

---

Polybius lays it out exactly... though I don't have a copy with me. From memory, he states that there should be 3 feet between men, and 3 feet from the back of the man in front to the front of the man behind him; it works out to each man occupying an area of 6 ft squared.

Asclepiodotus, writing in the 1st C. BC and without major military expertise to his name, writes at length about the tactics of the phalanx. His prescription is that the phalanx should be able to operate in an open order, in which men are spaced 6 feet apart (all values here are for front, back, and sides), a compact order, in which the men "lock shields" and they are 1.5 feet from one another, and also a median formation in whnich they are 3 feet from one another.

He says:

Quote:

---

As occasion demands a change is made form one of these intervals to one of the others, and this, either in length only, which, as we have noted before, is called forming by rank, or in depth, i.e. forming by file, or in both rank and file, which last is called 'by comrade-in-rank' and 'by rear-in-rank-man.'

The interval of four cubits (6 feet) seems to be the natural one and has, therefore, no special name; the one of two cubits (3 feet) and especially that of one cubit (1.5 feet) are forced formations. I have stated that of these two spacings the one of two cubits is called 'compact spacing' and the one of a single cuit 'with locked shields.' The former is used when we are marching the phalanx upon the enemy, the latter when the enemy is marching upon us.

---

The translator in the LLC edition has a footnote that states "It must be borne in mind that one soldier is included in the interval, i.e., the distance is from right shoulder to right shoulder or from breast to breast." It's true that Asclepiodotus reckons inclusively, but I think he may have mistakenly picked that up from Poseidonius and included it rather philosophically. If one views his interval value of 3 feet, then it would fit (3 feet shoulder to shoulder) with Polybius' description (in which he states the distance between men and the total area occupied by each phalangite). Either way, your values of 1 meter on each side and 2 from front to back are way too large.

Double post, sorry.

Quote:

---

Humphreys, I largely agree with you on this matter, but you are skirting into dangerous territory here- what evidence is that figure based on? The Andronikos "sarissa" from the Tomb of Philipp II?

---

Nah Im just going by 3rd hand info from a few sites lol, cant get access freely (that im aware of) to any of the actual texts to give 1st or 2nd hand evidence and im not going to pay to read them as I have much better things to waste my money on :).

Quote:

---

Polybius lays it out exactly... though I don't have a copy with me. From memory, he states that there should be 3 feet between men, and 3 feet from the back of the man in front to the front of the man behind him; it works out to each man occupying an area of 6 ft squared.

---

I thought id put 2 meters space lengthwise (a meter infront and a meter back), but I am a bit stupid and put just 2 meters :/

1 meter is as close to 3 feet as makes pretty much no difference.

Thats enough roomto freely move the pike unless your all absolutely perfectly inline, which would dissallow anyone other than the 1st row to use thier pikes.

Quote:

---

Asclepiodotus, writing in the 1st C. BC and without major military expertise to his name, writes at length about the tactics of the phalanx. His prescription is that the phalanx should be able to operate in an open order, in which men are spaced 6 feet apart (all values here are for front, back, and sides), a compact order, in which the men "lock shields" and they are 1.5 feet from one another, and also a median formation in whnich they are 3 feet from one another.

---

How can they lock shields when using the spear 2 handed? As the constant pushing and pulling of each mans shield would mess around with the people near him and dissallow proper use of the sarissa.

Thats if the shield is strapped to thier arm of course, if it was hung from the neck/shoulders then it would still get in the way allitle but not much.

I hope we can get back on topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kull

I never accused you of lying, but I still feel the assertion (i.e no kills) is "bogus", simply because it wasn't tested multiple times to ensure that you weren't looking at a statistical anomaly. I ran 7 different games and suffered hoplite casualties in every pila attack except the one with the gold shield guys (which was mostly a joke, but also I was so mad at continually losing to hastati I just wanted to find a way to beat them into the earth! :laugh4:).

And even that silly test pointed out that other factors are at play here. Armor and Experience, certainly. But also things like type of battlefield. Was it level or hilly? My point is that before you make an all-encompassing assertion, you really need to test it out. If the statement had been, "really low kill rates", then I'm CERTAIN the tone would have been different. But you said "zero", and then others jumped on board, and when the Team tested and found it was "not zero", well, there you have it.

---

Have you watched the video I captured of the custom battle? I gave a link to it in my previous post.

- I have tested it multiple times, using the exact method seen in my video. I think I've tried it 10 times by now. But the result is the same, 0 kills every 10 times.
- As seen in the video, the battlefield is nearly level, both the hastati and the hoplitai haploi have no armor/weapon upgrades, and no experience.
- Isn't it strange that others do get kills, and I don't? Did those who test this, try it in the exact same method as I showed in the video?

Quote:

---

Have you watched the video I captured of the custom battle? I gave a link to it in my previous post.

- I have tested it multiple times, using the exact method seen in my video. I think I've tried it 10 times by now. But the result is the same, 0 kills every 10 times.
- As seen in the video, the battlefield is nearly level, both the hastati and the hoplitai haploi have no armor/weapon upgrades, and no experience.
- Isn't it strange that others do get kills, and I don't? Did those who test this, try it in the exact same method as I showed in the video?

---

Since you didn't notice it the first time i posted it Hoplitai Haploi are in Phalanx mode which gives a hardcoded Bonus against all missile weapons.

Hi,

Read most of the 1st page so I may be 'going where somebody has gone before'.

My first impression was 'oh no, no kills from volleys of Pila.....surely that must be something to fix'!

My second impression was 'how the hell are these guys being so completely cut to pieces by the Hastati'?

And that is my lasting impression. These 'Hoplites/Phalanx', whether levies or not, are seriously underpowered! Or were most of the casualties caused after they broke?

I find this very disturbing!

Quilts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F for Fragging

I hope we can get back on topic.



Have you watched the video I captured of the custom battle? I gave a link to it in my previous post.

- I have tested it multiple times, using the exact method seen in my video. I think I've tried it 10 times by now. But the result is the same, 0 kills every 10 times.
- As seen in the video, the battlefield is nearly level, both the hastati and the hoplitai haploi have no armor/weapon upgrades, and no experience.
- Isn't it strange that others do get kills, and I don't? Did those who test this, try it in the exact same method as I showed in the video?

---

The team have said that the hoplitai haploi have been changed for the 0.81 build.