Hoplitai too weak ?

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

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.

[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

[Flavius_Belisarius]

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.

[Maion Maroneios]

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

[Dutchhoplite]

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

So, they started to (a). rely on even more cumbersome pikes/ equipment and (b). the macedonian army as a whole started to rely on the phalanx as a battle winner because their supporting units were lacking.

If this doesn't call for inflexibility nothing does, dude.

[Maion Maroneios]

If this doesn't call for inflexibility nothing does, dude.

When did I say the Makedones were flexible? On the contrary, if you even bothered to read my posts you'd see I made my oppinions on this matter very clear.

Maion

[Flavius_Belisarius]

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

A mate told me this things but probably i understood something false, im not the best in english. Moreover i already said that im not sure about the formation thing, probably it was linked with the aspect that the successors raised more Pezhetairoi than Alexander once.

But one thing i can say for sure and this that in the 2nd century bc the Hellenistic Kingdoms forgot the tactics pioneered by Philip II and Alexander and neglected to effectively use cavalry to cover the flanks of the syntagma, allowing the Roman allied cavalry to flank the Pezhetairoi lines and attack from the rear, where they were extremely vulnerable. The development of the Roman maniple formation also allowed the Romans to effectively outmaneuver the Macedonian syntagma and bring the legionnaires in close enough to utilize their deadly swordsmanship. The defeat of the last of the Hellenistic Kingdoms spelled the end of not only the remnants of Philip and Alexander's empire, but also the end of the Pezhetairoi.

Moreover the sucessors armored the Pezhetairoi more than alexanders one to counter the legions of rome. This made the Pezhetairo more inflexible because of the weigth of the armor. I think even in Eb is there such a unit. But im not quite sure about this last aspect, only heard/read it one time, maybe i understood it also false. :/

[Watchman]

Somewhat debatable how much more inflexible adding armour made the pikemen. I'd say it just slowed their movement down a bit, and the pike phalanx had never been a very fast mover to begin with so the difference was likely minor.

Also, I've seen it argued that it's not really that the Successors neglected the cavalry arm - au contraire they took along as much horse as they could get their mitts on - but they just wore out their reserves of relevantly trained manpower in their incessant wars. A pikeman - or for that matter, most any other form of infantryman - is after all easy enough to train; the Philippo-Alexandrian originals were pretty much retrained psiloi skirmishers, and I understand for example the Ptolemies got decent enough results out of issuing Egyptian peasants with pikes and drilling them to operate in formation. Cavalrymen, especially quality heavy shock cavalry, OTOH took quite a while and a lot of money to train, and were duly that much harder to replace.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

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...

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".

[Zarax]

To concentrate a wall of spears it requires that only so many men can be deployed in width, making the lines shorter than many equivalent formations.

Also it doesn't help the phalanx that the roman army started reforming around that period towards even more flexibility (what I like to call the "scipionic reforms"), meaning that the tactical usage differences between hastati, principes and triarii started to soften.

Another important factor is that we're talking about veteran legions, meaning more skilled and better equipped than your average roman force.

[Maion Maroneios]

Exactly. There are many factors one should take in mind except simply weapon technology and equipment. Rome emerged from a war victorious and learned many things from it, not to mention those "Reforms" which made the army even more flexible than it was. Also, everyone with at least a decent knowledge of what the landscape of Hellas looks like would know it's all mountainous and uneven terrain. Difficult to maneuver a phalanx there, hence the Hellenes usually chose an open plain to fight once decisive battle.

Maion

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I was only saying that in melee fights pezhetarioi (sp?) got beaten by the romans when they broke formation, and this is because legionnaires' melee training and equipment was better. Romans' "scipiones" reform made the entire Legion more flexible and more mobile, BUT also improves single legionnaires' melee skills (expecially after fighting iberian warriors in the Iberian Campaign).

That's why IMHO single Legionnaire was better in a melee "1vs1" than a Pez(ecc): focused training and equipment.

HOW the romans menaged to broke phalanx' formation doesn't really matter in this debate, also because there are many many ways to do it (using reserves and terrain as Maion said, for example).

[Macilrille]

To concentrate a wall of spears it requires that only so many men can be deployed in width, making the lines shorter than many equivalent formations.

Also it doesn't help the phalanx that the roman army started reforming around that period towards even more flexibility (what I like to call the "scipionic reforms"), meaning that the tactical usage differences between hastati, principes and triarii started to soften.

Another important factor is that we're talking about veteran legions, meaning more skilled and better equipped than your average roman force.

You are wrong, only one legion at Pydna was made up of Evocatii, the rest were new ensitees. I seem to recall it was about the same at Cynoscephelai.

[Watchman]

AFAIK phalanx lines did normally have reserve lines, true. But those weren't pikemen - *they* were all in the main pike-wall.

Also, the "fog of war" appears to often have made it extremely difficult for officers to know if and when they should move up to support the pikes or, indeed, what was actually happening at the front to begin with; didn't really help that the supreme commander was normally somewhere in the wings leading teh cavalry...

[Macilrille]

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

Ever tried fighting for hours with a sword? It is no less exhaustive in my experience and as you know I have experience with long spears as well as swords- in fact sword is if anything more exhausting.
There is probably little difference in the rigour of the phalangite or legionaire training. In fact I imagine it to be very similar as they were both elite levies. But the emphasis I would think is different, the legionaire would train mostly with Pilae and Gladius Hispanensis with some unarmed probably added whereas the Phalangite would train Sarrisae (sp?) mostly and some sword and pancration. However, the Phalangite sword was not as effective as the GH and the legionaire would be better at it cause his emphasis was on it, while Phalangite was on sarrisae. Just like an artellerist or tanker today has had basic infantry training, but are no match for a trained infantry soldier and the latter cannot really drive a tank. The comparison is not totally analogous, but I think you know what I mean.

Thus when the character of an engagement would change from the Phalangite's terms to the legionaire's, the latter would of course mostly prevail. So when the Phalanx lost cohesion and it went to sword distance instead, the Romans had an advantage.

[Maion Maroneios]

Ever tried fighting for hours with a sword? It is no less exhaustive in my experience and as you know I have experience with long spears as well as swords- in fact sword is if anything more exhausting.

You're missing the point. The Romaioi had reserves. You cannot call upon reserves when you have an engaged phalanx line, you know.

Maion

[antisocialmunky]

Well phalanxes had gap plugging reserves, not relieving reserves.

[Maion Maroneios]

Well phalanxes had gap plugging reserves, not relieving reserves.

Try doing that when you are engaged, especially with an enemy like the Romaioi. It's like begging them to use those gaps to take you down.

Maion

[Macilrille]

You're missing the point. The Romaioi had reserves. You cannot call upon reserves when you have an engaged phalanx line, you know.

Maion

Who then had the superior concept? *Winks at maion*

[Maion Maroneios]

Who then had the superior concept? *Winks at maion*

Eh?

Maion