Phalanx V-formation...exploit?

The one I'm talking about is a tactic I've seen on youtube and later fully optimized it for my own usage (optimal physical position of the phalanxes, optimal angle to keep them, etc.)


If you're not familiar with it, it kind of remembles this :
iiiii
\i/
Where "i" represents walkable areas, and the slashes represents where the phalanxes are places - basically you use them at chokepoints like bridges and gateways/wall breaches.

The enemy that walks in gets almost instantly killed because they are getting stabbed from 2 directions at the same time, and the "vertex" of the formation is virtually unbreakable because the pikes are crossed and there is virtually nothing but pike points in that area.

It's been really effective, you can use it with any units that are able to phalanx. It does get broken however...due to a couple of reasons
1) enemy missle units that fire up on your now exposed flanks
2) medium amounts of bodyguard cav/cataphract level cavs are able to push past the pike points and can stay significantly longer than any infantry.
3) the enemy sometimes DOES flank you by crossing at another location (it even happened to me once in a bridge battle, I was so impressed i gave them the victory)

I was undecided whether this was actually an exploit or just a good formation to use in bridge/city battles, because I have a hard time believing that V-formations werent used in history by significantly outnumbered defenders of narrow chokepoints like thermopylae, city walls, or other areas - with proper flank and missle fire, it is unbreakable.

Thats the thing that annoys me about cav in this mod, they seem to be able to push right through spearmen and units in a phalanx and stand their ground for ages instead of being run through like kebabs.

And 1000 lbs of horse and rider moving at 20+ mph is simply going to stop dead when a few men put some flimsy spears in front it? I don't think so.

Horses stop dead most of the time when they're storming towards a wall-like object. After all the animals don't have any intention of breaking their bones when running into walls. A phalanx or schildtromformation resembles such a wall, so I doubt that many horses actually charged right into such formations.

Unless specifically trained?

Yeah, I wish the game would make it where the horses just wouldn't charge in on spears from the front - they'd shy and turn or halt just before they hit or veer off. That would be pretty awesome if it would do that, but it'll never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Unless specifically trained?

---

if you charge at a wall of spear points with your horse then your horse is going to go down awfully fast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Unless specifically trained?

---

As blank said even if you could train a horse not to brick it when it saw a wall of spears, it would still just be turning itself into a kebab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overweightninja

As blank said even if you could train a horse not to brick it when it saw a wall of spears, it would still just be turning itself into a kebab.

---

hah, you all seem to forget that it would take hell of a lot of power to hold those spears pointed, especially against an armored horse. no one seem to think about broken human arms and twisted shoulders.
and yes, horse were trained. they were trained to the point when the obstacle would not scare them but irritate and desire to tear it apart.

I noticed on Midieval II spearmen actually dropped cavalry REALLY fast...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tapanojum

I noticed on Midieval II spearmen actually dropped cavalry REALLY fast...

---

Spearmen, or pikemen? It's been a while since I was playing Medieval 2, but I seem to remember heavy cavalry being entirely capable of obliterating a unit of spearmen with a well-formed, straight-on charge. Pikemen, on the other hand, were a different story completely--they were so effective they even skewered your own cavalry.:wall:

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarkiss

hah, you all seem to forget that it would take hell of a lot of power to hold those spears pointed, especially against an armored horse. no one seem to think about broken human arms and twisted shoulders.
and yes, horse were trained. they were trained to the point when the obstacle would not scare them but irritate and desire to tear it apart.

---

Exactly....a ton of horse and metal isn't going to just stop because it's dead....the sheer momentum of the dead beasts would probably kill quite a few of the phalanx men in and of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

Exactly....a ton of horse and metal isn't going to just stop because it's dead....the sheer momentum of the dead beasts would probably kill quite a few of the phalanx men in and of itself.

---

if you stick the other end of your pike into the ground, the problem's solved

but then you have to have the pike pointing into the sky, or crouch down on the ground which is useless for two reasons:

1. The angle means that you won't be able to effeictivley dig the pike butt in, it would just scrape throught the earth like a plough.

2. You are now crouching on the ground, which is hardly an ideal way to defend yourself against any cavalry which does somehow make it thorugh the pikes, or against any enemy infanry which was sent in suppport of the cavalry.

Those must have been some strong pikes, or lil' ponies with aluminum armor....otherwise, I don't see how it would just stop dead in it's tracks....

Admittedly, I've never taken a full frontal cavalry charge while holding a pike for fun, so I have little first hand knowledge.

I do know that a ton of horse going at even 5 mph would create 'quite' a collision...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poulp'

if you stick the other end of your pike into the ground, the problem's solved

---

In addition to the obvious angle problem with this, there are others. First of all, only the front line or, at best, two lines could manage this, and everybody behind them would have to hold their pikes above the ground (e.g. overhead, as you see in M2TW). You will never convince me that even the strongest human could hold that position without giving ground to the impact of a huge warhorse in metal barding, carrying a big knight with metal armor. As for the poor mucks in the front two lines, in addition to crouching down (because we don't want to get any roadkill marks on the upper barding, you know), it would have been expensive and impractical to mass produce pikes that were entirely metal. You get a long wooden stick, maybe with a metal point. And when that knight hits you at that angle, your pointy stick is going to snap like a twig, so even if you do manage to kill anything, you now have no pointy stick, and you're still in the front line, so you're either going to get crushed by that dead horse, or mashed to a pulp by the one behind him, which in addition to not being dead no longer has to contend with your pointy stick (and could probably knock away the pointy stick of the guy behind you like a twig, since, as mentioned above, there's no way the guy could maintain that unbraced position with enough force to puncture metal barding).

Cheers.

hum... charge in with heavy cavarly to a massed formation of disiplined spearmen with armor, shields, & brancing for impact.....:book: Sound to me like a good way to WASTE you cavarly.

I never said I thought it was the smartest tactic....I just think people fail to realize how much force 2000 lbs has at even a few mph. People die in car accidents every year going at speeds under 20 mph. :shrug:

Just by the by, but nobody has actualy answered the OP's question, personaly I don't regard it as an exploit, though I don't use it myself, what do other people think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

In addition to the obvious angle problem with this, there are others. First of all, only the front line or, at best, two lines could manage this, and everybody behind them would have to hold their pikes above the ground (e.g. overhead, as you see in M2TW). You will never convince me that even the strongest human could hold that position without giving ground to the impact of a huge warhorse in metal barding, carrying a big knight with metal armor. As for the poor mucks in the front two lines, in addition to crouching down (because we don't want to get any roadkill marks on the upper barding, you know), it would have been expensive and impractical to mass produce pikes that were entirely metal. You get a long wooden stick, maybe with a metal point. And when that knight hits you at that angle, your pointy stick is going to snap like a twig, so even if you do manage to kill anything, you now have no pointy stick, and you're still in the front line, so you're either going to get crushed by that dead horse, or mashed to a pulp by the one behind him, which in addition to not being dead no longer has to contend with your pointy stick (and could probably knock away the pointy stick of the guy behind you like a twig, since, as mentioned above, there's no way the guy could maintain that unbraced position with enough force to puncture metal barding).

Cheers.

---

Entirely metal pikes would probably break faster anyway. I'm not even sure if the wooden shaft of the pike would snap like a twig. Also this second horse you mention doesn't seem to be affected by the dead horse infront of him at all?

If pikemen where so bad at defending against cavalry charges then why were they used at all. Or why where they able to win battles against strong cavalry forces (the Scots against the English or the Flemish against the French for instance?).

They're the best option for defending against a cavalry charge, that's certain, until the advent of gunpowder anyways.

That doesn't mean it's ever easy for a human to stop a horse. They can weigh upwards of 10+ times what the human weighs, and the human is standing still, while the horse has the momentum on its side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dezzerx

Entirely metal pikes would probably break faster anyway. I'm not even sure if the wooden shaft of the pike would snap like a twig. Also this second horse you mention doesn't seem to be affected by the dead horse infront of him at all?

If pikemen where so bad at defending against cavalry charges then why were they used at all. Or why where they able to win battles against strong cavalry forces (the Scots against the English or the Flemish against the French for instance?).

---

IIRC Makedonian pikes were made of very high quality and very well seasoned birch, which where incerdibly tough and resistant to shattering, snaping.

Afterall, a poor piece of wood would likely "shatter" when very dry, leaving you holding a handful of sharp splinters..

Regardless, it was a foolish commander indeed who wasted his valuable well trained cavalry on a frontal charge of a pike line....my original point is that people seem to think spears and pikes made cavalry null and void for a frontal charge....I think it would considerably messier than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

That doesn't mean it's ever easy for a human to stop a horse. They can weigh upwards of 10+ times what the human weighs, and the human is standing still, while the horse has the momentum on its side.

---

I would indeed definatly be a horryfing experience.

I've actually heard of reports of middle age battles where knights would canter (note canter, as full charges were almost impossible to keep in rank, thus they were rarely used by professional forces) up to a line in hopes of breaking the enemy moral....they would then feign retreat, and repeat the process....probably VERY unnerving for those poor levies waiting to be trampled....

Maybe, but you have to consider the fact that even if the horses could be trained, the men of the elite cav would be:

1. Fairly indespensible, so no one but an idiot is going to throw them away attacking pike head on.

2. Influnetial nobles/minor royalty, in other words, the rest of the nobility is not going to be pleased with a general who threw away their fathers?
/sons/brothers by attacking a pike line from the front.

Therefore, pike would be effeictivley immune to cav for the simple reason that very few generals would be prepared to try throwing elite cav head on at pikemen, maybe if somebody was actualy crazy eniugh to try such a tactic it would work, indeed, I rahter suspect it would, albeit with appaling causlaties on both sides, but it would at least disrupt/demorilize the enemy pike sufficently for your own inf to try and break the line. The disadvantage is of coures that you now have no cav, and if the enemy pike can just hold together whilst the enemy cav reacts, then your pretty screwed without your own cav to hold the flanks.

The idea of even a ton of horse moving a phalanx is a bit far fetched. The man on front didnt need to take the full force of the impact from the horse. He was braced and held by 2 men behind him, and those 2 had 2 others holding them. By the end of the phalanx the horses impact has been split and absorbed by dozens of men.

Not to mention a 1,000lb horse, who's then been armored, and has a fully armed and armored rider on top. Is not going to be able to charge at 20mph. 10 mph maybe, but even then it's unlikely to hold that speed for long.

Even with that momentum at 10mphs with a around 1600 lbs of wieght behind it. Your forgetting the basically laws of physics, if you hit that 1 micron thick pointed stick it will not snap immediately. It's going to impale the horse, go many inches deep then snap and remain inside of the horse. If you think that wont stop a horse dead in its tracks your mistaken. Once that first horse is stopped the rest behind it are going to stop, and quickly.

Charging spear points has never been a good idea. Which is why it generally never happened.

As for the OT, it's kind of a cheap way to win. But an exploit, no since it can be broken quickly with high mass troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

The idea of even a ton of horse moving a phalanx is a bit far fetched. The man on front didnt need to take the full force of the impact from the horse. He was braced and held by 2 men behind him, and those 2 had 2 others holding them. By the end of the phalanx the horses impact has been split and absorbed by dozens of men.

---

No, we are (I assume) talking Alexandrian phlanx here, which, IIRC was quite a losse formation, manily to give them men sufficent room to weild the sarrisas without stabing the guy behind them in the guts...

Which brings me to another point, I realy would not like to be directly behind someone when cav charges a phalanx, there is no way that the pike is not going to move back at least a bit, and lets face it its is probaly going to shoot backwards, stabing you in the gut if not careful.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Even with that momentum at 10mphs with a around 1600 lbs of wieght behind it. Your forgetting the basically laws of physics, if you hit that 1 micron thick pointed stick it will not snap immediately. It's going to impale the horse, go many inches deep then snap and remain inside of the horse. If you think that wont stop a horse dead in its tracks your mistaken. Once that first horse is stopped the rest behind it are going to stop, and quickly.

---

No way....even 2000 lbs going 5 mph will hurt the front line. Using your logic, the front men would be smashed in between the cavalry and his own men, a fate hardly more comforting IMO.

I also fail to understand the logic behind a spear point stopping a horse dead in it's tracks....they're is just too much weight behind it.

This is assuming heavy cavalry of course, which would be the only cavalry equipped enough to even consider a suicidal tactic like that.

As to why commanders didn't do it....do you have any idea how expensive it is to train and maintain a good warhorse? It wasn't worth the loss of valuable cavalry when the same thing could be accomplished with infantry.

Like I said, it was a foolhardy commander who employed such tactics, but that doesn't mean a phalanx would just blow off frontal heavy cavalry charges.

Nothing short of seeing it actually done will convince me otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

As for the OT, it's kind of a cheap way to win. But an exploit, no since it can be broken quickly with high mass troops.

---

You sure? In other campaigns I've beat 3/4 full to full stacks of enemies with just 3 phalanx units at the bridge. Maybe a real life Thermopylae? The Persians didnt win until they snuck around the other side anyway, which is the only way I lose too (and sometimes even then no....phalanxing the river crossing can hold them off too sometimes...)

just to react to some replies

I am wrong picturing a 9-12m long pike as not being a straight pole ?
I mean, it's got to be thick enough to resist a trust, but also thin enough to be held in hands, so it's got to bend, at least a little.

BTW, I didn't mean to hijack this thread....the conversation just sort of moved in this direction.

Sorry, gurakshun. :sad:

I didn't just mean spearmen/pikemen got pushed out of the way in a charge, which i can understand to an extent but i also meant after the charge, when they have slowed to a crawl and are simply slogging it out. Now everyone knows that once cavalry stops after a charge, it becomes very vulnerable and ineffective when facing well ordered infantry since they lose all the advantages cavalry bring to a battle.


I'd also like to make a point that pole arms aren't especially thin and were very effective for centuries for a good reason, no one charges head long into a wall of pikes (which come in many shapes and sizes btw, not just sharp points) and this is especially true for horses, trained or not. Now since we're talking about the EB time period and not medieval period we don't really have to worry about knights wearing heavy plate armor on top of horses (except kataphracts but they still weren't invisible) so we can worry more about cavalry used mostly for attacking/harassing flanks and chasing down fleeing troops and not proto-tanks from medieval France.


Now back to my original point, there may be a lot of force behind a cavalry charge and it is damned scary to face down, of this i have no doubt BUT even the heaviest of cavalry charging into a prepared infantry line will not last long, they will inflict casualties on the infantry (that is a no brainer) but as soon as they stop they are gonna be killed, either by having their horse killed first and then mobbed when they fall or by getting a 9ft spear in the gut.



ANYWAY.... i don't believe i've ever heard of a phalanx being used in that way, mainly (as the OP pointed out) the flanks are overly exposed and generally would work better facing forward in a straight line. IRL it was a lot harder to cross a bridge that is so closely guarded by an army for a lot of reasons that can't be represented in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

No, we are (I assume) talking Alexandrian phlanx here, which, IIRC was quite a losse formation, manily to give them men sufficent room to weild the sarrisas without stabing the guy behind them in the guts...

Which brings me to another point, I realy would not like to be directly behind someone when cav charges a phalanx, there is no way that the pike is not going to move back at least a bit, and lets face it its is probaly going to shoot backwards, stabing you in the gut if not careful.:no:

---

If it's a sarissa phalanx, then the first row usually put the but into the ground to brace for a charge. Not to mention the horse is not going to go through the 5+ spear points poking at it.

There's reasons pike formations werent charge by even the heaviest of cavalry in any period from the front. A horse, a man, an anything will not willingly skewer itself on 5 pikes just so the person behind can get through. Keep in mind "push of pike" was called that, not becuase the spear could push. But becuase people would move back to avoid those spears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

I also fail to understand the logic behind a spear point stopping a horse dead in it's tracks....they're is just too much weight behind it.

---

A horse hit in the chest or in the shank, is not going to push forward. It's most likely going to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

No way....even 2000 lbs going 5 mph will hurt the front line. Using your logic, the front men would be smashed in between the cavalry and his own men, a fate hardly more comforting IMO.

---

The front rank of a phalanx is usually smashed in any charge. It might sound like a horrible way to die, but most confrontations between hoplite armies have men dieing standing up. Good reasons why the veterans were located in the back of the phalanx to push the others forward...

There's even acounts of shieldwall clashes having results like that. In the battle of hastings, Williams the Conquers cavalry charged the shield wall, again and again. Didnt dent it, yes the front rank were smashed, and a lot of mend died. But the cavalry were holy in capable of breaking the braced position until they finally broke rank and counter charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

If it's a sarissa phalanx, then the first row usually put the but into the ground to brace for a charge. Not to mention the horse is not going to go through the 5+ spear points poking at it.

There's reasons pike formations werent charge by even the heaviest of cavalry in any period from the front. A horse, a man, an anything will not willingly skewer itself on 5 pikes just so the person behind can get through. Keep in mind "push of pike" was called that, not becuase the spear could push. But becuase people would move back to avoid those spears.



A horse hit in the chest or in the shank, is not going to push forward. It's most likely going to stop.



The front rank of a phalanx is usually smashed in any charge. It might sound like a horrible way to die, but most confrontations between hoplite armies have men dieing standing up. Good reasons why the veterans were located in the back of the phalanx to push the others forward...

There's even acounts of shieldwall clashes having results like that. In the battle of hastings, Williams the Conquers cavalry charged the shield wall, again and again. Didnt dent it, yes the front rank were smashed, and a lot of mend died. But the cavalry were holy in capable of breaking the braced position until they finally broke rank and counter charged.

---

I like you and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

What?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

What?!

---

Could you expand that question please? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

I like you and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

---

Could you eplain this please?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

Could you eplain this please?:laugh4:

---

:laugh4: It's a saying, it means i like his way of thinking. Subscribing to a newsletter means you want to hear more about what you've just heard/seen.


Basically, i agree with him and like his way of thinking. :beam:

Out of my head, and not an extensive research.

-Gaugamela
-Courtrai
-Bannockburn
-Pharsalus
-Falkirk
They all feature cavalry charge against pikes. And defeats.

Now, some were succesfull:
-Mons-en-Pévèle
-Cassel

But the best:
-Morgarten
-Morat

Feature pike charge AGAINST cavalry. And victories! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

A horse hit in the chest or in the shank, is not going to push forward. It's most likely going to stop.

---

ever have someone run at you, trip and then fall on you? ever had a fat guy pass out on top of you?


the horse sure isn't going to "push" anymore, but there is still a hell of a lot of momentum coming at you. and in this case, the momentum isn't square against the ground, it's about 6 feet high.


2 horses colliding.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VuaSRbRqV78

horse falls. you're saying it wouldn't take 3 people down with it?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5-8z5U-o4O4

here's a showjump horse, and yea, it's just a plastic collapsable wall, but now you've got a half ton animal with flailing hooves on you.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zfVS6nmZWho


remember, this is 1000+ lbs at 10-20 mph. it doesn't matter if he is killed on the first microsecond of impact. there's still 1000+lbs of dead weight moving forward (and down) at 10-20mph.






the other thing discussed is just the mass at the front.

you've got a dozen dead guys, and a dozen dead horses and riders.

that's quite the pile of bodies. that would make it pretty hard to move forward/continuous charge,and i've often wondered how this works. moving over this must be pretty tough.

and what about guys that are still alive but buried/dying? does someone follow around behind the phalanx wall slitting all their throats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominique

Out of my head, and not an extensive research.

-Gaugamela
-Courtrai
-Bannockburn
-Pharsalus
-Falkirk
They all feature cavalry charge against pikes. And defeats.

Now, some were succesfull:
-Mons-en-Pévèle
-Cassel

But the best:
-Morgarten
-Morat

Feature pike charge AGAINST cavalry. And victories! :dizzy2:

---

Indeed, but there are a couple of battles off hand i wouldn't include in those lists and also probably not the medieval ones because not only are they out of our time period but also a lot more heavily armed than those you'd find in EB.


Your point is still valid though and i enjoyed reading up on some of the battles i was not familiar or well versed in. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

ever have someone run at you, trip and then fall on you? ever had a fat guy pass out on top of you?


the horse sure isn't going to "push" anymore, but there is still a hell of a lot of momentum coming at you. and in this case, the momentum isn't square against the ground, it's about 6 feet high.


2 horses colliding.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VuaSRbRqV78

horse falls. you're saying it wouldn't take 3 people down with it?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5-8z5U-o4O4

here's a showjump horse, and yea, it's just a plastic collapsable wall, but now you've got a half ton animal with flailing hooves on you.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zfVS6nmZWho


remember, this is 1000+ lbs at 10-20 mph. it doesn't matter if he is killed on the first microsecond of impact. there's still 1000+lbs of dead weight moving forward (and down) at 10-20mph.






the other thing discussed is just the mass at the front.

you've got a dozen dead guys, and a dozen dead horses and riders.

that's quite the pile of bodies. that would make it pretty hard to move forward/continuous charge,and i've often wondered how this works. moving over this must be pretty tough.

and what about guys that are still alive but buried/dying? does someone follow around behind the phalanx wall slitting all their throats?

---

There is no doubt that it won't make a mess but it is highly doubtful that the horses would do it in the first place and that they would be going full gallop into the pikes too. The role of cavalry is to attack/harrass the flanks and doesn't do when they stop to slug it out, as shown at Pharsalus, although my example is admittedly, slightly extreme. There are many accounts of battles becomign tougher as the phalanx had to move over the bodies of dead/dying enemies and even their own men and behind the phalanx there generally was other units (skirmishers who have retired or any reserve forces kept back) who would be more than happy to keep their rear secure by killing any survivors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

ever have someone run at you, trip and then fall on you? ever had a fat guy pass out on top of you?


the horse sure isn't going to "push" anymore, but there is still a hell of a lot of momentum coming at you. and in this case, the momentum isn't square against the ground, it's about 6 feet high.


2 horses colliding.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VuaSRbRqV78

horse falls. you're saying it wouldn't take 3 people down with it?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5-8z5U-o4O4

here's a showjump horse, and yea, it's just a plastic collapsable wall, but now you've got a half ton animal with flailing hooves on you.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zfVS6nmZWho


remember, this is 1000+ lbs at 10-20 mph. it doesn't matter if he is killed on the first microsecond of impact. there's still 1000+lbs of dead weight moving forward (and down) at 10-20mph.






the other thing discussed is just the mass at the front.

you've got a dozen dead guys, and a dozen dead horses and riders.

that's quite the pile of bodies. that would make it pretty hard to move forward/continuous charge,and i've often wondered how this works. moving over this must be pretty tough.

and what about guys that are still alive but buried/dying? does someone follow around behind the phalanx wall slitting all their throats?

---

Then there goes the soldier in the front rank. Horrible way to die, crushed between horse and the man behind. But it is a melee and thats what happens. Still doesnt break the phalanx. Also most warhourses were tuaght to stop within one body length. Depending on ground conditions a wounded horse wouldnt hit like a train.

As for your second point. Your onto something there. After the first charge, and repulse. The second and succesive charges become harder and harder. The battle of waterloo is a good example of what happens to cavalry who try to charge and recharge without allowing bodies to be cleared. In a clash against infantry, the bodies would be walked over, and killed with the back spike if still alive. Or just walked over and left to slowly bleed out screaming, and moaning.

Anyways, cavalry in this era werent used like this in the first place. The cavalry's primary goal was to kill the other cavalry, protect the lines flanks. Then to charge the enemies flanks, chase routers or perform a hammer into anvil full envelope.

i don't think there's any sense in arguing if it did happen, because the information can easily be gathered from existing data.

we're arguing what happens if it does.

especially for TW where the hypothetical is allowed to exist.

some people apparently don't feel that TW properly reflects that actual phsyics present in a head on cav-phalanx charge- which is what this thread is about.

some here say that cavalry is too effective in making head on charges against phalanx.

i don't personally see that in the game (i don't generally use phalanx infantry) so i don't know if the game reflects what we have discussed (i.e. even the heaviest cav being repulsed)

i HAVE noticed that most of my cavalry charges really suck. even charges straight to the rear. good quality cavalry at the back of a line, say skirmishers. sometimes it will break them quickly, but other times, the attack does little damage at all and i have definitely lost a few good generals by charging into skirmishers or other non-cavalry-busting units....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Anyways, cavalry in this era werent used like this in the first place. The cavalry's primary goal was to kill the other cavalry, protect the lines flanks. Then to charge the enemies flanks, chase routers or perform a hammer into anvil full envelope.

---

A very good point actually, save Kataphraktoi, which weren't exactly prevalent in any great numbers as far as I know.

I guess it sort of renders the entire argument moot, but I still think a frontal cataphract charge would disrupt a phalanx, if not break it up completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

I guess it sort of renders the entire argument moot, but I still think a frontal cataphract charge would disrupt a phalanx, if not break it up completely.

---

which is what, i think, we should be discussing, because TW allows us to do this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Yeah, I wish the game would make it where the horses just wouldn't charge in on spears from the front - they'd shy and turn or halt just before they hit or veer off. That would be pretty awesome if it would do that, but it'll never happen.

---

they may have that in Empire: Total War :study:

I personally feel a frontal cavalry charge on any prepared heavy infatry would be suicidal, hence the reason it was never the "proper" or "normal" (read: sane) thing to do, especially in the Eb time frame.


As for the game, my point was that cavarly seem to be able to go toe to toe with the infantry units for a lot longer (and with a lot more success) than they should do. Not to compare mods here but as an example, in RTR if you just charged your guys in and left them there any longer than 10 seconds, they'd be butchered and that goes for kataphracts too, the heaviest of the heavy. In my opinion the case should always be that the cavalry is only useful when it remains mobile, if it stops to do battle with the infantry it is going to be quickly cut down because they'll be swamped and cut down. There are several times in EB's time frame hat i can remember off the top of my head where infantry have gotten the best of cavalry because they have been caught standing idle, swamped after their charge or lost because their mobility has been lost and even more occassions where a skirmish has been lost because the men they were attacking had formed up and were able to repel their charges.


IMO cavalry should only be used as a supporting role and in the case of the hammer and anvil only used to finish off wavering troops from the rear/flanks. They should never be able to push through a prepared formation of infantry.


Time for bed now i think. :yes:

Never tried this before, I find it dificult to really put CA's Pahalanxes into such formations, especially if it comes necessary to move them in the battle field

Wow a lot of replies since I last checked, nice thread....

@ Sarkiss & Bootsiuv, you're right I didn't factor in the force put on the chaps behind the pikes, I'm sure most of them had bloody sore arms after a few hours fighting! :laugh4:

I'm not sure what the actually density of Phalanx units IRL is, but something to remember is that horses are usually quite big, and the pikes tend to be relatively close together, therefore, you need to consider that its not going to be horse vs one pike a lot of the time, with a dense enough formation and the correct angles I imagine a horse would be getting poked at from more than one place. If you know you're physics you'll know that a greater total contact point means the force is distributed over a wider area, hence less pressure on individual pikes and their users.
I have no idea whether or not this would make a significant difference, half a ton or so (sorry I can't do lbs! :laugh4:) of horse going high speed is still going to be a massive force even if it is divided up amongst a few seperate points, just thought I'd point it out as everyone seems to be looking at the individidual aspects of a pike vs a horse

And to (sorta) get back on topic, no I don't think its an exploit, any commander of the time in the right circumstances, and with the correct knowledge/skill would probably do something simmilar imho (although whether they actually did use "V" formations as opposed to just holding a chokepoint with a wall of spears, I dont know).

Cheers!

A wall of spears at a choke point means that the flanks aren't exposed and that there is no one weak area but with the V formation the flanks are more exposed and there are weak areas IRL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

As for the game, my point was that cavarly seem to be able to go toe to toe with the infantry units for a lot longer (and with a lot more success) than they should do. Not to compare mods here but as an example, in RTR if you just charged your guys in and left them there any longer than 10 seconds, they'd be butchered and that goes for kataphracts too, the heaviest of the heavy. In my opinion the case should always be that the cavalry is only useful when it remains mobile, if it stops to do battle with the infantry it is going to be quickly cut down because they'll be swamped and cut down. There are several times in EB's time frame hat i can remember off the top of my head where infantry have gotten the best of cavalry because they have been caught standing idle, swamped after their charge or lost because their mobility has been lost and even more occassions where a skirmish has been lost because the men they were attacking had formed up and were able to repel their charges.

---

So, this is what seems to be the "best" group consensus.

1) Cavalry needs to be extremely vulnerable once engaged.
2) Cavalry needs to have little, if any penetration versus phalanx/heavy spear on frontal assaults

^ these all seem to add up to nerfing cavalry

so, remembering where/how cavalry was good/effective, we must also maintain that

3) cavalry needs to keep (or improve? i've never done much testing) their charge bonus (i find the hit to morale quite noticeable and can rout even before engaging, unlike in vanilla)

however, here's the part i am still a bit unsure about:

if a charge to the front is innefective (momentum distributed along front line with many dense points, supported by back rows (question, does unit mass increase/decreas with depth?)

then should it be considerably more effective when charging infantry at the back? i would assume so. the units at the back would (likely i assume) turn around to face the charge- this would detract from unit cohesion/density (is this modeled?)

i don't care if you're the finest pike in all the land, if you get hit from behind with cavalry (without turning and mounting a proper defensive front) you are going to get obliterated...




next:


cavalry vs front assaults of less than elite spear/non spear units.

again, since i haven't done much testing, i don't know that status of this in game.

let's return to the frontal assault:

cavalry make a charge head on towards some (basic or conscript) spearmen, or regular line infantry (swordsmen)

how does the charge fare?

As horse vs heavy inf goes, at around cataphract level at the latest the cavalry could usually be used to simply push into and grind down an infantry formation by the virtue of superior mass and armour; the Byzantine "blunt wedge" tactic was apparently designed specifically for this approach.

'Course, they never had to deal with pikes and AFAIK usually walked or at most trotted into the attack - the point was to roll over the infantry, not shatter them with the shock of the charge.

Even far lighter horse could also be very lethal in a frontal charge against even heavy spearmen if they could gain enough of a psychological superiority that the infantry line dithered and therefore created an opening for the cavalry to plunge into - if horse could break into the ranks of infantry in this fashion they were usually able to push deeper (laying about them with their wepaons of course) with their mates piling into the breach after them, which tended to be a Very Bad Thing for the infantry concerned as AFAIK it usually led to psychological collapse right fast.

Pikemen, however, were frontally AFAIK pretty much a no-go for anything short of plate-clad Late Medieval gendarmes, where both he man and the horse were all but invulnerably armoured in solid steel. I understand French gendarmes were in fact able to penetrate and downright ride through Swiss pike squares in some battles - it just didn't have much effect, as the infantry didn't lose heart and simply closed the ranks over the casualties.

Anything else just doesn't have the survivability to hit the wall of braced pikes and get through alive. The "international standard" for pike set to receive horse in the "pike and shot" period at least was the front ranks crouching, with pike-butts firmly planted in the ground and one foot on top of it for good measure, and the pike-tipe at the level of the horses' chest. The successive ranks held theirs level at different heights, IIRC mainly shoulder- and waist-height. Unless distrupted by missile fire or failure of morale, this "hedge" of pikes was practically inviolable to any cavalry short of the very heaviest plate-clad type.

As working simple solutions tend to be ones pretty much everyone who uses the same techniques and tools develops through empirical experience and basic hit-and-miss experimentation, I would be very surprised if the same basic "pike-hedge" system for seeing off cavalry did not develop among Hellenistic pikemen quite early on - and period cataphracts and their horses frankly didn't have enough armour to survive a head-on clash with set pikes, that much I'm certain of. Scale and lamellar, good armour as they generally are otherwise, just don't cut it for that purpose.

nice reply man.

so then for anyone who has done any testing (i'm playing rome right now nad don't use a ton of cav)

how does cavalry fare against non phalanx/heavy spear units in a frontal charge?

is it fair to say they SHOULD be able to penetrate fairly deeply into a line of een well trained swordsmen?

By my somewhat limited experience on the topic they do. Then again, the heavy types tend to push lighter spearmen around a lot too. Anyway, as non-spear infantry lacks the anti-cavalry bonus from the "light_spear" attribute and its limited "charge reflection" effect they by rights should have a comparatively harder time taking a cavalry charge. 'Course many "sword" infantry are pretty tough customers, and often enough have nasty AP weapons to boot, so what happens after the charge really depends more on the specific units involved.

so it seems everything is wrapped up in a neat little package then.

most of this thread is nonsense, because horses will NOT charge into a wall of spears!

but, that's the thing about tw.

you can.

it's all well and good what can/did happen.

a unit of conscript skirmishers would probably never charge headlong into elite cohors.

the TW engine allows this to happen. if everything were binded by "what actually happened" then we wouldn't have a game or simulation. we'd just have a bunch of computer generated models fighting each other according, explicity, to historical accounts.

Normally, they flatly refuse to charge a wall of men anyway spear or no. Them's the breaks with using what are basically giant rabbits as war mounts. But you don't apparently need much of a gap or disturbance in that (for the animal) solid obstacle for it to be willing to try entering.

we are graced with the ability to "right click, right click, right click GODDAMMIT RIGHT CLICK"

it would be interesting if in the future we were given less control of the units and were left simply to delegating orders. the problem with this of course is i don't think AI technology is quite good enough to support this without alot of bizarre outcomes and "inaccuracies"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overweightninja

And to (sorta) get back on topic, no I don't think its an exploit, any commander of the time in the right circumstances, and with the correct knowledge/skill would probably do something simmilar imho (although whether they actually did use "V" formations as opposed to just holding a chokepoint with a wall of spears, I dont know).

Cheers!

---

So far playing as Pontos all I've had to do to defend my eastern territories (which are only accessible by sea or by a bridge, as there is a river forming a natural barrier). So thats 2 bridges total for 2 settlements that form my border with AS/Ptol - the only way to get to my empire from the east. So far, using the v-formation, the only units i need to defend those 2 bridges are 3 phalanxe units - 2 to make the v, 1 as a reserve (because the phalanxes get buggy in extended fighting). Thats 6 phalanx units total that have massacred thousands and thousands of hapless AS soldiers and killed many tens of stupid AS family members who have foolishly tried to cross the bridge. it has failed only once and thankfully my army was nearby to kick the AS out yet again.

But thats all thats required. just 3 phalanxes that get "heroic victories" nonstop killing over 1000+ enemies AND a usual family member or 2 or even 3 and losing roughly 30 (thats par for course, depends on how many bodyguard/cataphract cavs and archer/slinger units there are). And thats the lowest rung of phalanx too, the pantadapoi phalangitai.

You can try what it is like already. Creat groups, and place them under AI control.

Then switch back to DIY - that yields better results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

we are graced with the ability to "right click, right click, right click GODDAMMIT RIGHT CLICK"

---

Aye. Back in the day commanders didn't have the luxury of button-mashing for effect. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gurakshun

The one I'm talking about is a tactic I've seen on youtube and later fully optimized it for my own usage (optimal physical position of the phalanxes, optimal angle to keep them, etc.)


If you're not familiar with it, it kind of remembles this :
iiiii
\i/
Where "i" represents walkable areas, and the slashes represents where the phalanxes are places - basically you use them at chokepoints like bridges and gateways/wall breaches.

The enemy that walks in gets almost instantly killed because they are getting stabbed from 2 directions at the same time, and the "vertex" of the formation is virtually unbreakable because the pikes are crossed and there is virtually nothing but pike points in that area.

It's been really effective, you can use it with any units that are able to phalanx. It does get broken however...due to a couple of reasons
1) enemy missle units that fire up on your now exposed flanks
2) medium amounts of bodyguard cav/cataphract level cavs are able to push past the pike points and can stay significantly longer than any infantry.
3) the enemy sometimes DOES flank you by crossing at another location (it even happened to me once in a bridge battle, I was so impressed i gave them the victory)

I was undecided whether this was actually an exploit or just a good formation to use in bridge/city battles, because I have a hard time believing that V-formations werent used in history by significantly outnumbered defenders of narrow chokepoints like thermopylae, city walls, or other areas - with proper flank and missle fire, it is unbreakable.

---

As long as it doesn't specifically exploit limitations of the RTW engine, then as far as I'm concerned nothing is gamey. And yes, it is an effective formation. When I play MP with my friends set of rules [border skirmish that escalates into a full out war - very fun] until I can afford a full out phalanx, I'll take a couple, march them to the enemy like usual, then swing them into a concentrated triangle. I make sure to pick the best armored ones and then missle fire is essentially worthless, so all they can do, if they brought calvary is charge, but otherwise run himself on my pikes. If he tries to imitate I'll force a unit to use it's secondary weapon while his phalanx tries to penetrate my triangle/kite.

Yeah V for Gate defence, and Square for Field engagements.

Both "kinda" exploits, but when facing an enemy with missiles of ANY sort, you'll be killed.


BTW, in the case of non phalanx spears, what are the horses afraid of?

Or is just the ease of someone PUSHING you off the horse that causes the "bonus" in that case?


EDIT: Did Greeks or other tight pike formations ever actually "use" the V shape?
Like when defending gates or chokepoints?

Considering that the pikes would be overlapping, its basically a wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

BTW, in the case of non phalanx spears, what are the horses afraid of?

Or is just the ease of someone PUSHING you off the horse that causes the "bonus" in that case?

---

AFAIK horses regard about anything that appears as a solid, unmoving obstacle as something to avoid; being animals evolved to survive danger by running away from it, they're understandably wary about footing and colliding with things.

That aside, long pointy things are generally useful against cavalry simply because they largely negate the height advantage the horsemen have, and potentially allow you to kill the mount before you're even within the striking range of the rider. It of course doesn't particularly hurt that spears also take rather little "elbow room" to employ, allowing the spearmen to form into quite dense blocks horses try to avoid and will have a very hard time breaking in the off chance they can be goaded into even trying. And then there's the possibility of "bracing" the spear on the ground (as explained earlier in the context of pikes - the basic idea works with any decently long spear) to receive a charging horse, in essence turning the same principles of momentum that make lances so effective right against the cavalry.

Quote:

---

...and Square for Field engagements.

---

...which would actually be perfectly legit realistically and historically. The classic "hollow square" formation to avoid cavalry flanking was well known already in Classical Greek times, and phalangites were no worse at employing it when necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...which would actually be perfectly legit realistically and historically. The classic "hollow square" formation to avoid cavalry flanking was well known already in Classical Greek times, and phalangites were no worse at employing it when necessary.

---

and it the times of the Napoleonic wars too :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gurakshun

I was undecided whether this was actually an exploit or just a good formation to use in bridge/city battles, because I have a hard time believing that V-formations werent used in history by significantly outnumbered defenders of narrow chokepoints like thermopylae, city walls, or other areas - with proper flank and missle fire, it is unbreakable.

---

In my opinion, it's no exploit, since it's breakable.

It wouldn't be an exploit to put 2 MG nests with overlapping fields of fire in a modern game in a defile for the same reason.

Was it done that way back then?

I don't know if they precisely used Phalanxes in that way, but I do know that several generals were fans of echelon formations (see the battles of Leuctra, Cannae, Ilipa) and of exploiting angular attacks to confuse the ennemy lines.

However, if two blank Pantodapoi Phalangitai with no chevrons and no blacksmith upgrades are able to destroy an entire Post-Marian reform army, I would feel there's an exploit there! :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominique

However, if two blank Pantodapoi Phalangitai with no chevrons and no blacksmith upgrades are able to destroy an entire Post-Marian reform army, I would feel there's an exploit there! :inquisitive:

---

It is certainly possible in the game (IF it is a bridge battle, anything else is guaranteed loss) if you position the 2 units right and micromanage very carefully because the phalanxes tend to "slip" while fighting.....

...I have destroyed worse AS armies using just 3 Pantodapoi Phalangitai...among the dead were
-a full unit of hellenic cataphracts
-the general and his bodyguard
-2 or 3 units of hellenic medium phalanx
-1 unit of levy phalanx
-1 or 2 units of peltasts, and some other regional skirmisher type.
- a full unit of tindanotae mercs.

SOoooooo.......

I tried this V-formation today in my Makedonia campaign in a bridge battle near Antiocheia.

My army had taken Sidon by storm and taken very heavy casualties in the process, about 50% of my army was killed. The next turn, as by some sign of the gods, a horrible plague spreads to the city, killing half of the remaining troops. During the quarantaine the city was also besieged for a year, killing some more soldiers. Finally after the disasters were over I moved what was left of my army north of Antocheia to guard a bridge. Not less than a year later my 500 troops were under attack by a 2000+ men strong army from the Ptolemaioi. Fortunately 4 of my army's formations consisted of the elite Argyraspides, each formation having about 80 men left (out of the 240 men who left from Pella several years earlier). The enemy army consisted mainly of Galatian heavy swordsmen, but also had phalanx troops and a General's bodyguard.

The thing is, when you put your phalanx in a V-formation the sarrisas do not point straight at the enemy. When your spears do point straight at the enemy, some troops will manage to clear the initial line of sarissas by passing trough the small space between them and they will engange your soldiers in hand to hand combat. When you have your sarrisas pointing sideways the enemy soldiers cannot get closer, because the poles of the sarrisas are blocking them. This way no enemy soldiers can pass the first sarrisas to get within range of your soldiers. See illustration:
https://img475.imageshack.us/img475/...phalanxqz8.png

After the battle was over my Argyraspides had not lost more than 40 men in total (mostly caused by enemy arrows), while they killed over 1600 enemy soldiers. It wasn't until noon the next day that the bridge had been cleared of bodies and traffic could resume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gurakshun

It is certainly possible in the game (IF it is a bridge battle, anything else is guaranteed loss) if you position the 2 units right and micromanage very carefully because the phalanxes tend to "slip" while fighting.....

...I have destroyed worse AS armies using just 3 Pantodapoi Phalangitai...among the dead were
-a full unit of hellenic cataphracts
-the general and his bodyguard
-2 or 3 units of hellenic medium phalanx
-1 unit of levy phalanx
-1 or 2 units of peltasts, and some other regional skirmisher type.
- a full unit of tindanotae mercs.

SOoooooo.......

---

Well, I didn't account for personal skill in my post. Being sharp and skilled in a game isn't an exploit! It's an achievement.

:yes:

(I bow before you! And I will reap you off in my games, if you don't mind!)

I will reformulate a bit. If a AI army attacks 2 AI Phalanxes in that formation and always lose, there's a problem!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Folgore

The thing is, when you put your phalanx in a V-formation the sarrisas do not point straight at the enemy. When your spears do point straight at the enemy, some troops will manage to clear the initial line of sarissas by passing trough the small space between them and they will engange your soldiers in hand to hand combat. When you have your sarrisas pointing sideways the enemy soldiers cannot get closer, because the poles of the sarrisas are blocking them. This way no enemy soldiers can pass the first sarrisas to get within range of your soldiers. See illustration:

---

Nice explanation!

(I think though that if we play with the BI version of the game, this tactic is less usefull since the battle maps have less bottlenecks.)


In my games however, AI seems reluctant to engage my armies if they are at a bridge... Anybody had that too?

The V-phalanx seems really unwieldy. The intercrossing spears would make it very hard to use the spear, there would be 5-6 others blocking movement in any direction but thrust and recoil.

I like the standard semi-circle of death more.

Always use the Phalanx in line, do not use semi circles since the Vanillas wars...can you post pictures of your approaches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gurakshun

The one I'm talking about is a tactic I've seen on youtube and later fully optimized it for my own usage (optimal physical position of the phalanxes, optimal angle to keep them, etc.)


If you're not familiar with it, it kind of remembles this :
iiiii
\i/
Where "i" represents walkable areas, and the slashes represents where the phalanxes are places - basically you use them at chokepoints like bridges and gateways/wall breaches.

The enemy that walks in gets almost instantly killed because they are getting stabbed from 2 directions at the same time, and the "vertex" of the formation is virtually unbreakable because the pikes are crossed and there is virtually nothing but pike points in that area.

It's been really effective, you can use it with any units that are able to phalanx. It does get broken however...due to a couple of reasons
1) enemy missle units that fire up on your now exposed flanks
2) medium amounts of bodyguard cav/cataphract level cavs are able to push past the pike points and can stay significantly longer than any infantry.
3) the enemy sometimes DOES flank you by crossing at another location (it even happened to me once in a bridge battle, I was so impressed i gave them the victory)

I was undecided whether this was actually an exploit or just a good formation to use in bridge/city battles, because I have a hard time believing that V-formations werent used in history by significantly outnumbered defenders of narrow chokepoints like thermopylae, city walls, or other areas - with proper flank and missle fire, it is unbreakable.

---

The strategy to form up your men in such a manner past a river crossing, a bridge or a ford, has been used historically at several occasions. Hannibal probably used it at Trebia, and the battle of Stirling bridge in the Medieval period used it. However, in both those cases, the defender would let the attacker cross the bridge with a large portion of the army before closing such a half circle around the attacker. No attacker in his right mind would even think of crossing the river if that formation was visible from the beginning, but a lot of overly eager and undisciplined commanders have made the mistake of crossing a river when the enemy has been a little distance a way (even if visible), or partly hidden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarkiss

hah, you all seem to forget that it would take hell of a lot of power to hold those spears pointed, especially against an armored horse. no one seem to think about broken human arms and twisted shoulders.
and yes, horse were trained. they were trained to the point when the obstacle would not scare them but irritate and desire to tear it apart.

---

Indeed! If the horse can't be penetrated by the pike, such as when it's heavily armored, the entire momentum comes against the pike, and is transferred to the holder of it. Basically he may have something like 1 second to halt the fast-moving horse/horse corpse, and to turn a momentum of 900*8 into 0 in that time would require an average force of 7200 Newtons over that entire period, which is the same as the force needed to lift 720 kg. Ideally, at least 3-4 spear/pike points would be needed to share this weight between the pikemen, which is why long pikes would be very much desirable. This can be achieved by:
- thinning out the enemy formation before it arrives (by uneven ground, caltrops, and missile weapons), so many pikemen can aim at the same horse simultaneously
- the enemy horse being unarmored, so the horse flesh can be penetrated, which means the entire momentum doesn't have to be stopped in such a short period of time.
- bracing the pike in the ground
- positioning your men on ground that is either difficult for the horse to move fast in (forcing the cavalry to charge at a much slower speed, and thus with much less momentum), or preparing the ground to achieve such an effect
- making sure the horse dies almost at the time of penetration by the pike, so that it falls downwards and ground friction helps slowing down its momentum, before it reaches the first rank of pikemen

However, I also think mounts of the ancient period weighed a lot less than modern horses. The riders must also have weighed a lot less, as they were often shorter in those days. Maybe 900 kg for a horse with rider is too much? Maybe the horse weighed 600, the rider 70, and the armor 30, which gives around 700 kg. And the speed of the horse may in practise also have been reduced a lot by not only the weight of the armor, but also the way it would hit the horse's legs, or move against its skin with friction, in a painful way. Then the force required may have been as low as 3850 Newtons under ideal circumstances (terrain and such), which would require only two pikemen per horse to halt the charge. This is still enough force to break a pike, and indeed, enough to break or crush human bones. Even in this case, the ideal circumstances for a horse would cause a big, damn mess among a pike formation. So, I'm not sure pikeman formations before the era when pikes were supported in the ground could feel that safe against a cavalry charge - short spear formations should probably bulge to a cavalry charge. So if someone would have succeeded in training the horses enough to charge a pike/spear formation, he would probably have been able to use it to quite devastating effect after all. Remember that a lot of early Medieval armies used mostly spears due to the cost of alternative weaponry, and still, in these battles, it's claimed that the cavalry were crucially superior to much of the opposing infantry. I don't think short spear formations should be considered that safe against cavalry. However, of course, horse formations would take huge casualties when charging such a formation, so it would not be practical to hit it except from a flank or rear, but real life formations would always be able to turn part of the formation backwards, so cavalry would most likely often have to face at least a few spear points turned their way. If such a row of spear points isn't dense enough, a well trained horse and rider can make a quick sideways manouver and move in between them, if the line of charging horses isn't overly dense either. In short, I think cavalry warfare is probably a very complex subject, which explains why a lot of historical charges didn't end up as planned, and others managed to surprisingly break an infantry formation in an army that believed it had taken all the necessary precautions.

The primary defense of an infantry formation against cavalry is, as stated before, psychological; a line that holds solid is nigh-impossible to charge with horse, spears or no (the pointy things just make it that more dangerous to try, and give the infantry confidence). Heck, Parthian and Sassanid catas had some severe problems with shortsword-toting Roman foot, and were heavily dependent on the archers "softening up" the cohorts to the point of being effectively chargeable...

Which is, although in reverse, why much Medieval foot folded so easily before charging knights; most infantry being kinda crap those days, they flat out lacked the confidence and cohesion to stand firm in the face of a massed lance charge. Infantry that could hold steady tended to stump the cavalry there and then, even if otherwise quite lightly equipped.

As for horse armour, given the sheer energy and momentum the charging horse puts against the braced spear-tip I strongly suspect nothing short of monolith steel plate (which is known to have easily enough withstood the forces involved in late-period knights clashing at full tilt) offers reliable defense for the animal (or rider, if he's hit instead). It's basically the whole theoretical impact energy of a couched-lance charge, without any of the factors that limited the amount the mount-saddle-rider complex could maintain behind the weapon (ie. the shaft slipping in the wielder's hands and similar "threshold exceeded" issues); bar the tip being deflected by striking hard armour at a shallow angle or the shaft suffering a catastrophical structural failure of course, but the latter for one is a bit unlikely with well-made spears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I like the standard semi-circle of death more.

---

the semicircle is actually less effective and less efficient than the v-formation. i have tried and tested both many times...and although it may seem that 3 units instead of 2 is better, it is not the case with the v-formation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

As for horse armour, given the sheer energy and momentum the charging horse puts against the braced spear-tip I strongly suspect nothing short of monolith steel plate (which is known to have easily enough withstood the forces involved in late-period knights clashing at full tilt) offers reliable defense for the animal (or rider, if he's hit instead). It's basically the whole theoretical impact energy of a couched-lance charge, without any of the factors that limited the amount the mount-saddle-rider complex could maintain behind the weapon (ie. the shaft slipping in the wielder's hands and similar "threshold exceeded" issues); bar the tip being deflected by striking hard armour at a shallow angle or the shaft suffering a catastrophical structural failure of course, but the latter for one is a bit unlikely with well-made spears.

---

It's not just that. Deflection as you mentioned is a major factor for well made armor, but even when there's no clear deflection with steep angles, a lot of armor will, if you try to penetrate it in one spot, create an effect where the parts around the penetration spot are drawn towards the penetration spot and into it, so for a very large part of the thrust you need to actually push not just a sharp, thin spearpoint into the victim, but a thick cylinder of a spearpoint with armor around it, into a hole in the wearer of the armor. In many cases this force could also cause deflection even at not too steep angles, or the victim could have enough time to turn away to limit the force of the thrust or cause it to deflect after only causing a short concussive blow, causing the wearer to fly backwards rather than be penetrated (in many battles in history it has been common for a lot of riders to be thrown out of their saddle rather than being impaled). Horse breastplates make a huge difference to how dangerout a charge is - which is probably why they've been used so much in historical cavalry forces. Bear in mind that the material that spearpoints were made of weren't always significantly harder than what the armor was made of. The deformation forces caused to the spearpoint are also the same as what the spearpoint causes to the armor. Unless the spearpoint is of much higher quality than the armor, the spear will have much greater difficulties penetrating than it might seem at first sight. It's no wonder why maces and other concussive and/or specially designed armor breaking weapons were used a lot in historical battles between heavily armored troops, and why it took so many hours of battle to actually chop your way through armor enough to kill a large enough number of soldiers to rout an army - in many cases it was probably more common to kill by making the opponent lose his breath and be unable to parry any further, exposing weak spots for a penetrative thrust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The primary defense of an infantry formation against cavalry is, as stated before, psychological; a line that holds solid is nigh-impossible to charge with horse, spears or no

---

I don't think the romans holding pila in a demoralizing way would have been the most effective weapon they had against well armored eastern cavalry. Rather, I believe the roman anti-cavalry tactics would have relied more on the following two things: tight packing, and careful preparation of the battlefields.

Tight packing and discipline among the infantry does not kill cavalry, nor does it prevent the first ranks from suffering high casualties, but it prevents the infantry formation from breaking, and as a result it's capable of making the cavalry lose momentum. This puts the cavalry in a situation where it must choose between:
- staying in a prolonged melee without momentum, where the cavalry is more vulnerable and very ineffective, and can be destroyed if supporting arms are able to relieve the infantry
- choose to retreat and recharge. The fact that the caths were armored all around would probably make them excellent at this strategy, compared to horses that are only armored at the front. Indeed, the Parthians seem to have been using this (capability of so easily disengaging infantry) to conduct fake charges followed by retreats in order to force infantry formations to switch from their anti-missile formations to melee formations, to be able to increase the effectiveness of the horse archers. These fake charges probably did make contact with the roman line at some times and caused a lot of mayhem and casualties in the front ranks before the cavalry pulled back.

Preparation of battlefields, as well as picking of good existing terrain, obviously decreases the speed of the cavalry too, causing the same effect as the packing, but without the high casualties for the first ranks. The combination of the two is effective, but not if the enemy has nearly unlimited supply of arrows for their horse archers, or the infantry has just a single weak spot in their formation, where the terrain allows the heavy cavalry to repeatedly use their charges to decimate the enemy.