Phalanxes in version 1.1

[antisocialmunky]

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

[Watchman]

Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

[Novellus]

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.

Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

[NeoSpartan]

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.



Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

Fellas... I feel you but I was answering the following question by:
desert

Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?

So... from what you and I have posted so far I can safely conclude:

Iphikrateans/pikemen DID NOT slaugher Hoplites (or anyone else with a big enough shield, and decent armor) in their phalanx/shield wall. When both sides faced eachother in neat formation, ready to fight the approaching enemy line and no way to outflank/manouver.

[antisocialmunky]

You know, I can't dig it up right now but the wikipedia entry on the Achaean League cites Plutarch as saying that the Thureos's narrowness was a disadvantage in close combat. Granted if this paraphrase is accurate, Plutarch was a little late to the scene.

However it might just end up being a wash because Iphikratean hoplites had longer spears.

[Watchman]

OTOH the thureos would have been a fair bit lighter and more versatile than the somehwat cumbersome and specialised aspis...

Anyway, NS, I'm pretty sure you're overlooking the little issue that Iphikrates' originals proved to be quite capable of taking on old-style hoplites in a straight-up frontal engagement, no ?