Org Mobile Site
Thread: Hoplitai too weak ?
The curve just minimises the impact a little because the shaft doesn't hit the surface of the shield perpendicularly (meaning with maximal impact force). What makes a shield good, is the material that it is made of and the thickness of it. The thicker and better the material (meaning the molecules and atoms composing the material are more closely packed together), the more difficult it is to penetrate the shield. And penetration has to do with the energy given to the shield by the impact. The more the energy (meaning more force of impact) is delivered to the shield, the greater the chance the shield will break (meaning the molecules will be "freed" of the bonds that bind them together) upon impact.
Maion
Maion
The cirvature of the aspis isn't anything terribly noteworthy, particularly compared to the later "half-barrel" iterations of the scutum, you know. Which the pilum holed right nicely too AFAIK.
Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.
Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.
Originally Posted by Watchman:
The cirvature of the aspis isn't anything terribly noteworthy, particularly compared to the later "half-barrel" iterations of the scutum, you know. Which the pilum holed right nicely too AFAIK.
Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.
Make me wonder why the Dacians had no trouble hacking pretty far into them. The cirvature of the aspis isn't anything terribly noteworthy, particularly compared to the later "half-barrel" iterations of the scutum, you know. Which the pilum holed right nicely too AFAIK.
Also, you now why the scutum was made three-layer plywood in spite of the extra labour and weight this added ? Because wood splits along the grain.
And Maion, ever tried getting a round been? Its soft as who knows but the fact that its round makes it hard to get em.
Hoplitai can stand better than the other spearman they are my favourites for holing phalanxes but persian hoplitai sucks.
I still cannot understand why they are low in number in huge they are 160 while phalanx 240.
this is the main weakness they have.
I still cannot understand why they are low in number in huge they are 160 while phalanx 240.
this is the main weakness they have.
BI's shieldwall gives back much needed staying power to hoplites and does not overpower them.
I am with Maion on this one, back claims with sources or stuff it. Anyone can make a claim about anything. That does not necessarily make the claim true.
Archippos, what in "The Phalanx then lost order (cohesion) and was doomed" is in essence different from your Wiki copies?
Basically the short of the long of it is that on level ground from the front, Phalanx is very hard to beat, perhaps Pilae can even the odds. On rough ground, flanked or if otherwise forced to give up cohesion, phalangites are F-ed as the legionaires would be more effective with their Gladius Hispanensis than the phalangites with their puny sword once the legionaire gets past the spearpoints.
What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.
And I also like to point out that in even the best phalanx there can only be spearpoints protruding in the gaps between ranks and in close order and with long spears the possibility for what we vikings call "Crossstrikes" is low, you are basically stuck. In theory there is a small gap in front of every person to exploit for a guy with a sword and a shield. I dunno how it would work in practise though, despite my 16 years of experience with re-enactment fighting, for we do not fight phalanx or hoplite style. But I can say that if you are to penetrate an enemy line thus in our game you have to coordinate it with your friends next to you and get it just right- if you fail a little, the enemy gets you. But it can be done.
I dunno with Hoplitai, would be interesting to try in fact.
Archippos, what in "The Phalanx then lost order (cohesion) and was doomed" is in essence different from your Wiki copies?
Basically the short of the long of it is that on level ground from the front, Phalanx is very hard to beat, perhaps Pilae can even the odds. On rough ground, flanked or if otherwise forced to give up cohesion, phalangites are F-ed as the legionaires would be more effective with their Gladius Hispanensis than the phalangites with their puny sword once the legionaire gets past the spearpoints.
What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.
And I also like to point out that in even the best phalanx there can only be spearpoints protruding in the gaps between ranks and in close order and with long spears the possibility for what we vikings call "Crossstrikes" is low, you are basically stuck. In theory there is a small gap in front of every person to exploit for a guy with a sword and a shield. I dunno how it would work in practise though, despite my 16 years of experience with re-enactment fighting, for we do not fight phalanx or hoplite style. But I can say that if you are to penetrate an enemy line thus in our game you have to coordinate it with your friends next to you and get it just right- if you fail a little, the enemy gets you. But it can be done.
I dunno with Hoplitai, would be interesting to try in fact.
Also, Roman's very large and curved scutum was much more effective than phalangites' small shields in close combat.
Oh and even dead bodies constitute rough ground TBH, try walking in formation across a field littered with dead and wounded...
But I thought that dead bodies don't constitute as solid? Never learn from Total War....
Try go to youtube, search for "Moesgaard" and click the battle videos (not the Rave ones, they have nothing to do with us), and see.
Originally Posted by Phalanx300:
Make me wonder why the Dacians had no trouble hacking pretty far into them.
That's because big nasty choppers like falxes, wielded with gusto by fairly fit burly fellows, do very bad things indeed to what is, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rather thin planks glued together. You do realize that by all accounts one-handed maces and battleaxes tended to make kindling out of most shields in rather short order...? Three guesses what the two-handers did...Make me wonder why the Dacians had no trouble hacking pretty far into them.
Originally Posted by Mikhail Mengsk:
Also, Roman's very large and curved scutum was much more effective than phalangites' small shields in close combat.
As far as I can surmised, it would seem to me that the biggest problem with the small shield was how it was strapped to their shoulder to keep it in position for the phalanx. So assuming you could get that strap off, you wouldn't be THAT bad off. I believe at one of hte battles of the Macedonian War, the phalanx hit rough ground after pushing the Romans back so it broke phlanx, reformed twice as thick and went swords vs the Romans. The big shield is most advantaged if the formation is intact so I supposed if you manage to disorder the Romans, you could probably go hth with the smaller(THE PHALANGITE SHIELD WAS NOT THAT SMALL) shield without that many problems.Also, Roman's very large and curved scutum was much more effective than phalangites' small shields in close combat.
Of course this was the elite guard and everything got routed so they were surrounded and slowly killed off.
Originally Posted by Macilrille:
What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.
What a bias to think its a bias. I had this name long before that movie was even announced, in honour of the Spartans who died at Thermopylae. What, BTW makes you think Phalanx300 (does the name not hint a certain fascination and bias?) that Hoplite warfare would include facing the enemy 10 cm from you? Nothing in my studies as well as those 16 years of fighting has given me that impression. Especially if you wield a long spear you do not want to be 10 cm from your enemy. 10 cm... that is actually embracing your enemy- utter idiocy if you want to survive a battle.
And yeah it'd probably be around 10/20 cm. You must understand that Hoplites wont try to stay at a distance trying to poke eachother, they are shield to shield, being pushed by 7 guys in their back or even more, you have no choice whether you like to be that close. First two ranks could attack.
Originally Posted by :
That's because big nasty choppers like falxes, wielded with gusto by fairly fit burly fellows, do very bad things indeed to what is, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rather thin planks glued together. You do realize that by all accounts one-handed maces and battleaxes tended to make kindling out of most shields in rather short order...? Three guesses what the two-handers did...
Can't say that about the aspis.That's because big nasty choppers like falxes, wielded with gusto by fairly fit burly fellows, do very bad things indeed to what is, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rather thin planks glued together. You do realize that by all accounts one-handed maces and battleaxes tended to make kindling out of most shields in rather short order...? Three guesses what the two-handers did...
And yeah Anti, I also always had the idea that the Phalangite shield was small but 60cm in diameter isn't that small for a shield.
Originally Posted by :
The core of a hoplon was constructed of a thin wood which was approximately 0.2 inches thick.
This is worse?The core of a hoplon was constructed of a thin wood which was approximately 0.2 inches thick.
I was under the impression that most of the hoplon was coated in bronze... I know for a fact the Spartans had bronze shields. Falx or not, you ain't gettin through a bronze shield, buddy. I'd piss myself and give ya 30 bucks if even an excellently well made katana could get through a bronze shield.
they had a lay of bronze but beneath they were made of wood me thinks ... how thick was that bronze overcoat i wouldn't know though...
The bronze layer was something like 5mm thick.
Sure, it would bounce off arrows and slingshots most likely but heavier stuff is bound to at least get stuck into that.
Sure, it would bounce off arrows and slingshots most likely but heavier stuff is bound to at least get stuck into that.
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
As far as I can surmised, it would seem to me that the biggest problem with the small shield was how it was strapped to their shoulder to keep it in position for the phalanx. So assuming you could get that strap off, you wouldn't be THAT bad off. I believe at one of hte battles of the Macedonian War, the phalanx hit rough ground after pushing the Romans back so it broke phlanx, reformed twice as thick and went swords vs the Romans. The big shield is most advantaged if the formation is intact so I supposed if you manage to disorder the Romans, you could probably go hth with the smaller(THE PHALANGITE SHIELD WAS NOT THAT SMALL) shield without that many problems.
Of course this was the elite guard and everything got routed so they were surrounded and slowly killed off.
Roman's scutum covered almost all the body, and it was curved. Phalangites' shields as you say it had to be strapped, and it was smaller and less curved. So it was worse.As far as I can surmised, it would seem to me that the biggest problem with the small shield was how it was strapped to their shoulder to keep it in position for the phalanx. So assuming you could get that strap off, you wouldn't be THAT bad off. I believe at one of hte battles of the Macedonian War, the phalanx hit rough ground after pushing the Romans back so it broke phlanx, reformed twice as thick and went swords vs the Romans. The big shield is most advantaged if the formation is intact so I supposed if you manage to disorder the Romans, you could probably go hth with the smaller(THE PHALANGITE SHIELD WAS NOT THAT SMALL) shield without that many problems.
Of course this was the elite guard and everything got routed so they were surrounded and slowly killed off.
Roman formation was ALWAYS intact, and can NEVER be disordered
Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.
Originally Posted by Phalanx300:
That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point.
I started this topic because excatly this :) I always used the hoplitais offensive because they were it in real too.That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point.
Originally Posted by Mikhail Mengsk:
Roman's scutum covered almost all the body, and it was curved. Phalangites' shields as you say it had to be strapped, and it was smaller and less curved. So it was worse.
Roman formation was ALWAYS intact, and can NEVER be disordered
Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.
That's true but all I was saying is that small shields aren't bad and gave an example followed by repeating my claim. For osme reason people think that "ZOMG SMALL SHIELD IS SO SMALL AND USELESS!" I mean, just look at the sword and bucklet men of the middle ages or alot of the other loose order units that don't fight in formation.Roman's scutum covered almost all the body, and it was curved. Phalangites' shields as you say it had to be strapped, and it was smaller and less curved. So it was worse.
Roman formation was ALWAYS intact, and can NEVER be disordered
Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.
Oh no, sure isn't useless, some protection is always better than no protection! I only said that it was less useful than roman's scutum. Phalangites, anyway, could not wear big curved shields because they needed both hands to hold their long pikes.
Yes, the pelte shield of the Phalangites had its uses. It wasn't of course as sophisticated as the aspis (not hoplon guys, that's incorrect), but the longer the spear the smaller the shield because for a 5-6m pike you have to be able to use both hands to grip it.
Returning to the aspis debate now, I must say that I too don't think a pilum would be able to easily penetrate a sturdy aspis. I just don't think it's impossible, as Phalanx so vigorously claims.
Maion
Returning to the aspis debate now, I must say that I too don't think a pilum would be able to easily penetrate a sturdy aspis. I just don't think it's impossible, as Phalanx so vigorously claims.
Maion
Originally Posted by Mikhail Mengsk:
Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.
Well if we see that the Pezhetairoi were professional soldiers and that their elite assault infantry(Peltastai Makedonikoi) used the same shield as the Pezhetairoi I'm not really that sure of it.Seriously, a bigger shield is very useful on formation, but also useful in 1vs1. Romans' training was MUCH harder than phalangites' one, when phalanx (not elite ones, maybe) loose their formation, they were usually doomed, because they were trained to fight in a certain style.
Peltastai Makedonikoi were trained to fight in melee, pezhetairoi were not.
Also i'm not sure they carry the same shield, peltastai's one seems bigger.
Also i'm not sure they carry the same shield, peltastai's one seems bigger.
How much does anyone know about Macedonian Phalanx training. There was probably decent hth training especially for the guys up front and on the flanks. There were gaps in the phalangite line between each unit that were covered by support troops but it would have been unwise to go without a plan b like that.
Besides, your morale would get kicked in the nuts if the soldiers don't know what to do like fight with a sword and shield when the situation arose.
Besides, your morale would get kicked in the nuts if the soldiers don't know what to do like fight with a sword and shield when the situation arose.
Phalanxes got slaughtered every time they lost their formation, so they were not so much trained to fight with sword+shied; that's why they were not supposed to do so. Surely not as trained as Roman Legions or other similar heavy melee infantry.
What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?
Maion
Maion
Another important point why the romans won against the successors was that the successors couldnt raise so much cav like alexander had. And the Pezhetairoi got more inflexible after the death of alexander because they got more armor and their formation was changed but im not sure how the formation was changed - i only know that this was one of reasons why the macedonian phalanx got inflexible.
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios:
What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?
Maion
So said I: Roman's melee training was more effective in combat against Pezheteri's, maybe not "exceptionally better", but simply better. Otherwise, they would not have won so clearly at Pidna and Magnesia and other battles. Every time phalanx' formation got broken, phalangites got slaughtered... What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?
Maion
It's phalanx destiny: to be nearly unbreakable in formation, to be doomed if it lose it. Even if good trained, they won't hold against good melee infantry like Roman Legions when they lose formation.
About reserves, Makedonians at Pydna had more soldiers than romans, so we have to say WHY they have reserves despite being outnumbered. I call it "better tactics".
It didn't get inflexible and the Makedonian Syntagma didn't change. Were did you hear/read something like that? Please get your facts right dude. The only thing that probably happened, is that the pikes were further lengthened about a meter. The formation remained the same: 256 (16x16) man blocks typically, with 5 rows in front having their pikes lowered parallel to the ground and the rest in an angle that rose the further back you went.
The only thing that changed, is that more and more pikemen were used and less and less cavalry. Alexandros used approsimately 9,000 Pezhetairoi IIRC, while later Basileis like Perseus fielded from 16,000 to even 22,000 I believe.
Maion
The only thing that changed, is that more and more pikemen were used and less and less cavalry. Alexandros used approsimately 9,000 Pezhetairoi IIRC, while later Basileis like Perseus fielded from 16,000 to even 22,000 I believe.
Maion
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO