Hoplitai too weak ?

[antisocialmunky]

Its not an issue of wanting, its just one of those things you should be prepared for.

Heck, remember that gap on the Macedonian Left that formed at Gaugamela or that Legate that took the 20 maniples behind the Macedonian Phalanx through a gap between the two phalanx groups?

[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...

[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.

[Celtic_Punk]

hit the nail on the head with that post.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

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.

Respect ! You seem to be a pro in ancient history =)

[ARCHIPPOS]

anyway this is not a hellens VS romans discussion at all... i have just remembered that germans supposedly fielded pike units as well (described by Caesar and Tacitus???) ... so you see pike phallanxes were not an exclusive Greek feature

so a pike phallanx (sarisoforoi) standing ground and secured from the flanks proved almost impregnable... this however was avery defensive role... when the marching/pushing forward started things turned risky... the morphology could easily disrupt the phalanx cohesion and against a more mobile enemy (like the romans) who could exploit such gaps things could end in catastrophy...but what good is any formation in battle if it can only assume a purely static role???

all this talk is purely on tactics... i'm not so certain that even if the phalanxes managed to beat the legions repeatedly , Roman expansion to the east would be have been effectively contained... sooner or later those Latium SOB everybody loves to hate would have returned with some bigger armies

[Watchman]

anyway this is not a hellens VS romans discussion at all... i have just remembered that germans supposedly fielded pike units as well (described by Caesar and Tacitus???) ... so you see pike phallanxes were not an exclusive Greek feature

What Caesar describes sounds more like Ye Goode Olde standard-issue shieldwall you know. Do recall that "phalanx" in the generic sense means nothing more than infantry fighting in close order, and old Julius was also using the closest relevant descriptor he knew (and could expect his audience to recognise). Ditto for the "phalanx" of the Helveti. The Germanics did apparently make some use of spears long above and beyond the usual size range of infantry longspears, possibly even two-handed in a manner not unlike the long spears the "Iphikratean" peltast-hoplites used, but even then the character and purpose of such formations was quite different from the Hellenistic pike block.

...but what good is any formation in battle if it can only assume a purely static role???

Well given that the main role of the pikemen was to pin the enemy in place and hold the center steady, with the cavalry taking care of the main offensive activity...

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Would have been a hoplitai phalanx able to defeat a legion when the hoplitais would have got enough support by cavalry etc. to prevent that the legionarys surround and outmaneuver them ?

[Watchman]

Good luck at it with pilum-skewered shields. Probably not, but I figure it really depends on terrain - hoplites suck in rough ground, legionary maniples much less so (this being the whole reason why the Romans ditched the former for the latter after all) so at least on level the hoplites would have better odds.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

If the Hoplites could have more support, why the Legions couldn't have more support too? XD

If you consider only (example) 1000 hoplitai vs 1000 Legionnaires, i think the latter would win, thaks to their Pila and their gladius-and-scutum combo.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

All rigth, and who would probably win if for example 1000 hoplites would fight against 1000 Phalagnits on flat terrain without surrounding etc.

[ARCHIPPOS]

weeeeeell from all this talk who have YOU understood would win???

[Maion Maroneios]

If hoplites did nothing more than to just push forward in a straight line, I'd give my vote to the phalangites. And that, because as much as you push you still have 5 rows of pikes keeping you at bay. Plus, the pushing matches of hoplites only took place for some minutes, as it's bound to get you tired fast.

Not to mention a sarissa has good possibilities of shattering shields due to the pressure from the pushing itself or the clashes that would take place. Because do not forget, armies back those times did not lock for an unlimited period of time until another line broke. That tired them too much. I believe scholars theorize that armies locked for some time, then paused every now and then and resumed fighting.

And this is assuming we're talking about Classical hoplites. Even then I say it'd be difficult to easily determine a winner. If, however, we are talking about Iphikrateans, I'd easily give my vote to the phalangites.

Maion

[Watchman]

OTOH, phalangites fought 16 deep. Not going to take great genius for the hoplites to see where that goes, thin out their own formation, and envelop...

[Maion Maroneios]

Yeah right, try that with a Syntagma. And we're talking of even numbers here dude.

Maion

[ARCHIPPOS]

couldn't like sarisoforoi spread thin too??? instead of 16 lines deep go 8 or 10???

[Maion Maroneios]

Yes, but still it probably won't make much of a difference except if you thin it out less than 5 men deep.

Maion

[Watchman]

Yeah right, try that with a Syntagma. And we're talking of even numbers here dude.

Maion

Syntagmas were the 16x16 man "building blocks" of the pike line, no ? Lessee, that makes about four of them in a round 1,000 man force, and assuming they don't suddenly throw their normal tactical organisation and deployement scheme out of the window, we'll be talking about a total frontage of... about 60-70m (assuming 1m/man) ?

Yeah. The hoplites aren't going to have to thin their ranks out very much to overlap that by a VERY comfortable margin and gobble up the phalangites from the sides.

Sorry, but the pikes lose here. Bring a combined-arms force next time.

[Maion Maroneios]

You do know hoplites have a considerably tighter formation, no? Not to mention the fact that the average phalangites was actually more versatile and considerably better in hand-to-hand combat.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

Says Merriam-Webster:

Bite me and keep your misplaced value-additions away from technical terminology.

As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right? So now its time to kick some Watchman ass.

Who said anything about the film? Phalanx in itself in your name tells me as a professional historian with a firm base on source criticism that we Danes are almost obsessive about (it is the only thing distinguishing history science from fiction) that you are biased to like Greeks and Macedonians with spears. IE you are biased.

I said that since thats the usual reaction of people when seeing my name. And yeah everyone is baised, I gues you're baised for fish?

Edited to add, on what source do you build your 10- 20 cm statement? Unless you have sources, which you have continuously refrained from backing your claims with, I cannot take you seriously, sorry.

I have nowhere come across a historical source saying that. And my actual experience with re-enactment fighting tells me that to get your mobility hindered like that is suicide. Show me Thycidid saying it and I believe you, but not before.

There aren't any sources which explain precisely, I´ve read the reason somewhere, it being that at the time it was way to obvious to explain such an thing since it was a part of life.

This reenacted Hoplites Phalanx shows very well how such a density would be, and in an pushing match you´re opponent would surely be not a meter apart trying to poke at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XLKmWAXyk

[Watchman]

You do know hoplites have a considerably tighter formation, no?

...which they can thin out, both in depth and width, quite easily without any meaningful loss of combat effectiveness in the circumstances. One need only look at the Athenian deployement at Marathon for an example - and THAT was long earlier, back when the hoplites were still nigh entirely enthusiastic amateurs ("Sunday soldiers," as the summary often goes) rather than drilled professionals...

Not to mention the fact that the average phalangites was actually more versatile and considerably better in hand-to-hand combat.

And this claim is based on what exactly ? Nevermind that the track record seems to suggest something quite opposite, you know. Issus and the Greek mercs much ?

As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right?

When they involve gross misuse of a technical term, and tacking prejudiced value judgements onto it, yes.

[Phalanx300]

When they involve gross misuse of a technical term, and tacking prejudiced value judgements onto it, yes.

Indeed Watchman.



More seriously though, every opinion counts, denying that just lead to nasty stuff as dictatorships...

[Maion Maroneios]

And this claim is based on what exactly ? Nevermind that the track record seems to suggest something quite opposite, you know. Issus and the Greek mercs much?

Issus was due to the terrain, and this is only one goddamn example. You want a counter-example? Chaeronia.

Maion

[ARCHIPPOS]

...which they can thin out, both in depth and width, quite easily without any meaningful loss of combat effectiveness in the circumstances. One need only look at the Athenian deployement at Marathon for an example - and THAT was long earlier, back when the hoplites were still nigh entirely enthusiastic amateurs ("Sunday soldiers," as the summary often goes) rather than drilled professionals...
?

wait... so why couldn't the phalangitai deploy thin too??? an 8 line depth would double the syntagma front length and project the same amount of lowered pikes no???

[Watchman]

You want a counter-example? Chaeronia.

...where the potent Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry was present in force on the wings shielding them from encirclement.

Appeal rejected. We're talking of a straight infantry-infantry fight here, remember ?

Issus was due to the terrain, and this is only one goddamn example.

Which does nothing to change the fact the pikemen were promptly in trouble when their normally mutually supporting battleline became disjointed and ceased to be so, allowing dedicated close-combat troops to infiltrate into the flanks of individual syntagmas. A theme, we may note, which keeps repeating itself with a downright depressing regularity whenever phalangites advanced on more mobile infantry.

wait... so why couldn't the phalangitai deploy thin too??? an 8 line depth would double the syntagma front length and project the same amount of lowered pikes no???

*shrug* 16 x 16 was their SOP, far as I know. Not entirely sure of the reasons behind it - I'd have to go read up and don't feel like it ATM - but I'm under the impression they normally didn't stray from the basic deployement pattern. They certainly *could*, in principle at least, but *would* they ?

[Maion Maroneios]

...where the potent Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry was present in force on the wings shielding them from encirclement.

Appeal rejected. We're talking of a straight infantry-infantry fight here, remember ?

Appeal rejected my arse. I'm talking about the ease with which phalangites could hold hoplites at bay. Also, you seem too over-confident with the hoplite's superiority in a same-number fight.

Maion

[Watchman]

Flanks.

Why do I need to keep repeating this ? In Chaeronea this wasn't a problem because of the Mac cavalry arm guarding the wings; but the second hoplites (or legionaries) could get into their "inner flanks", such as at Issus (and any number of battles involving Romans), they were in trouble. God forbid if they were subjected to a true double envelopement, which incidentally is AFAIK what the invading Celts did to the Macs in whatwasitnow, 279BC ?

Also, there's no particular need for the hoplites in our hypothetical "duel" to even maintain a continuous frontage. They only need to send a relatively small force to keep the much more formation-dependent and far less mobile pikemen frontally preoccupied, and then swing around the flanks with the rest.

[Maion Maroneios]

Yeah right. And that only if we hypothesise hoplites don't just form up in a single line as they used to. You're beeing WAY too certain of the truth of some things. I said phalangites would probably win, not certainly. You're taking too many things as given and talk way too hypothetically.

Maion