Hoplitai too weak ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That was centuries ago when they were mainly fighting each other. Them newfangled pike phalanxes, as it happens, were a *lot* better at the "frontal pushing match" business...

Adapt or perish.

---

Uhm...Exactly that i wanted to say. The hoplitai was inflexible but still an offensive infantery man. If they hadnt got surrounded they would have been still a very though opponents, and for sure they would have beaten a barbarain horde with axe etc which only charges in the front of the phalanx. But new tactics like the macedonian syntagma rised and so the hoplitai phalanx had got outdated.

Maybe the example was out of the Eb timeframe but there is only one thing which changed if you compare the classcial hoplitais of the pre alexander time with the ones of the post alexander time. And that was the equpiment. The tactics of the classcial hoplitai were still the same and they were still effectiv in a direct combat.

And in MP they are still useless. They cant face against heavy cavalry charges if a human always retreats them and charges again. They cant face against any heavy infantery, it doesnt matter whether naked swordsmen of the gauls or heavy armored pretorian guards and moreover hoplitais are very expensive. Especially KH is very poor on mp. There only really advtanges are there hoplitais but these units cant stand against any other unit, excepted ligth cavalry and infantery.

But thats only in Mp, i didnt played Sp that much, probably in Sp they are quite reliable like you said.


Edit.:

@Mikhail Henkst

Its fact that the macedonian syntagma was way more flexible than a hoplitai phalanx. At least it was in the time of alexander and his father. In this times the phalanx was highly flexible. Phalangits where highly trained and only lightly armored. Each square could turn the directon of their spears tremendously fast in a other direction.

BUT after the dead of alexander the phalangits became unflexible. Mainly there are two reasons. The first is that the successors gave the phalagnits much more armor and the second is that they changed the squares of the phalangits back to more like a line. And such a line of heavy armored warriors is unflexible, they were slow and had been easily outmanvoured. This and the reason that macedonia couldnt rise such a numerous and strong cavalry like in alexander times were the reasons why the romans defeated the macedonians quite fast and easily.

I, for one, don't give a damn about MP. And even less of how units perform there.

Anyways, straightforward frontall offense with sword or axe ought to have worked against the hoplites just as well or poorly as against any other shieldwall spearmen.
It rather irks me when people seem to assume that merely being Greek and called "hoplite" somehow magically made these guys anything meaningfully different from articulated close-order spearmen the world over.

people have said that phalanax's in general were out dated but i belive and by simulatuion from EB they were very effective but when you had an enemy of legions or light effective infantry combined with the right cav they were easily wiped out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius_Belisarius

Its fact that the macedonian syntagma was way more flexible than a hoplitai phalanx. At least it was in the time of alexander and his father. In this times the phalanx was highly flexible. Phalangits where highly trained and only lightly armored. Each square could turn the directon of their spears tremendously fast in a other direction.

---

And this is why the merc hoplites getting into their flanks at the Granicus put the pikemen into such dire straits, right ?

Bollocks.

The fact of the matter is, pikemen are rather cumbersome at the best of times; comes from having to maneuver in very tightly regimented formations with freakin' five-plus meter glagpoles. And quite vulnerable at their flanks; this is why the Medieval ones took to operating in big hollow squares which didn't HAVE vulnerable flanks. The less effective solution the pike phalanxes of Antiquity relied on was maintaining a continuous, unbroken front - with the sub-unit blocks right next to each other, the enemy couldn't get at their flanks. In practice rarely worked quite so well, as the line was wont to become disjointed on account of terrain, differing rates of progress against the enemy line, etc. leading to the sub-units becoming "uncoupled" from each other and vulnerable to becoming surrounded.

Also, you seem to be confusing the original Philippo-Alexandrian retrained skirmishers' ability to convert into light infantry with just a kit change with some kind of miraculous phalanx-fu maneuverability.

And at Issus the Macedonian phalanx got in trouble too but here the Persian mercenary hoplites were aided by the difficult terrain.

By the way, i still believe Chaeronea was won by the Macedonians with better tactics and not with better infantry.

For the people saying Chaeronea is proove that Phalangites would win agaisnt Hoplites if unsupported. If that were true then diffucult and risky maneuvers wouldn't be necesarry.

And I doubt that Phalangites are better at pushing, 8 ranks(generally speaking) of human pushing power, which has prooved in itself to be deadly, vs 5 ranks of individual wooden shafts? The front Hoplites obviously wouldn't want to go forward but point is that they had no choice as they were being pushed.

And at Issus, this prooved that in bad terrain Hoplites are also more maneuvarable which would give them an advantage in such a situation.

But what I think is that an unsupported Macedonian Phalanx vs an unsupported Hoplite Phalanx would in the end lose the fight.

And Phalangites could act in many ways, either in Phalanx or as light infantry, think of Tyre and the Peltastai Makedonikoi, some armour just now with javelins instead of Sarissa.

What is sure I think is that we can all agree that should the Hoplite line become face to face with the Phalangites that the Phalangites would be in deep trouble. Then whats left is the question whether a Hoplite Phalanx would be able to defeat those 5 line wooden shaft pikes.

but the thing is,you see, no sane general would leave his infantry to battle it out without support in an attrition duel especialy against hoplites/phalangites and the like... i personaly think that a pushing wall of skewering pikes 5-8 lines deep is more effective than our logic may imply... some people may argue that perhaps it would be possible for hoplites to frontaly push through between the pikes and deliver a smashing spear/hoplon blow ... however imagine the psychological effect this wall of pikes must have had... arguably in our time and era someone COULD aproach a tank and stick a mine or shoot a panzerfaust on it...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glouch

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.

---

but then again he could be a 16 year old struggling to get a grip on ancient tactics ... all in all i agree with your points though...

even so such threads are highly instructive no??? just look how many interesting oppinions popped up :yes::yes::yes:

I don't think flavius belisarius is taking into account that ANY unit that stands there and takes repeated cavalry charges is going to lose. No infantry stands a chance against such unchecked agression.

Another thing you've got to remember about hoplites in EB is that a lot of them get quite generous morale and stamina bonuses. The stamina in particular gives them good staying power, and means that they'll usually only be 'winded' by the time the enemy are 'tired', so in the long run they will win a grinding attrition battle (like they're supposed to).

Regarding the Spartans, they don't have the best weapon stats but they do get a huge stamina bonus. I started a KH game and I was predisposed towards hating the Spartans (in my ill-informed mind they were arrogant, conservative, backwards, inefficient, hollywood-friendly, overhyped, irritating child-murderers, and yes I know my opinion isn't necessarily accurate so please don't pull me up on it, it was just my general feeling). After a few battles, though, even I had to concede that they were one of the best units in the game. If you have two units of Spartans you can take all but the best-defended city. Narrow streets means they can't be outflanked, and their world-class stamina means they'll never tire of killing (especially if you rest one unit while the other fights). They won't win a battle quickly, but in the long run the enemy will collapse from exhaustion and rout. To a lesser extent, this applies to all hoplites in EB. They're murderously stubborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gja102

in my ill-informed mind they were arrogant, conservative, backwards, inefficient, hollywood-friendly, overhyped, irritating child-murderers, and yes I know my opinion isn't necessarily accurate so please don't pull me up on it, it was just my general feeling).

---

hah in my ill-informed mind they stand as pretty much the same... sure they were tougher to crack than 98% of all hoplites around but still they fared very low in the quantity/quality ratio which in the end makes all the difference in strategic terms ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gja102

They're murderously stubborn.

---

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

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 :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionhard

back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans

---

I'm sorry but this was wrong and very historically inaccurate. Greece was never a unified nation, I'm afraid. That would come much, much later.

Maion

Phalangites didn't really die out anyways. Pikemen essentially recreate the Macedonian phalanx.

I should probably point out that at the time of the trojan war the hoplite phalanx tactics were not the norm I think . I don't know if they even existed , but I'm not a history buff so feel free to enlighten us all you history experts .

This is if we are talking about the Mycenean ( sp? ) kingdom and allied poleis .

I have read ( and by all means correct me if I am wrong ) that then the spear was held with both arms .

Also Homer ( who is said to have lived live centuries after the Trojan war ) indicates that chariots were being used , and there is a finding of that era , an bronze armor presumably of a chariot's passenger , the armor of Δενδρών ( sorry don't even know how to write this in English , help guys ) that indicates that a rather different way of fighting was used at that time , the armor being many overlaping bronze rings that covered most of the body , a sort of " full plate "armor of the time .

It is also presumed , that the soldiers were mixed regiments of archers and spearmen , again based on Homer's account of battles .

Of course Homer cannot be accepted as a verified historical source , but still the findings of the era can point to certain conclusions .

Any clarifications/corrections on the historical mess I presented welcome .

Satyros

Dendra Panapoly...

Thanks mate .

Stupid me , I guess . heh .

Cheers .

Satyros

Nobody really knows what the Dendra panoply was for though, or even how common such outfits were. Theories I've seen range from straight-up defensive gear for a chariot spearman, to a "mark of rank" of a senior leader too elderly to fight anymore but quite capable of standing off to the side as a kind of living standard, to a harness for use in duels on foot - the thing actually bears surprising amount of resemblance to Medieval plate harnesses designed for that purpose 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*

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: