The Phalanx and Moral

[abou]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

[antisocialmunky]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

That doesn't justify the fear trait rather that people don't run straight into pikes and pikes can push units by their wall of spear points. They can do this quite well as it is.

[abou]

That doesn't justify the fear trait rather that people don't run straight into pikes and pikes can push units by their wall of spear points. They can do this quite well as it is.

That wasn't what I was justifying. I was attempting to put things into perspective. We aren't going to be adding an intimidation trait to the pike phalanxes in EB.

[Stycks]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

My point exactly!
When facing a phalanx army, most enemy armies would try to outmaneuver them and not attack head on lest they risk facing substantial casualties...
what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....
and this seems very a historical (i tend to use loopholes in the game if it seems taht im loosing)
now, i dont know about the whole programing and in depth stuff, but if theres a way to limit the scare factor then sure i'll stick it on (prob we can add that in EB II)

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked ) should be (and i think historically were) the only ones who can attack a phalanx head on and expect results, not some 99 cent skirmisher unit who wouldnt even charge into one head on (remember most skirmishers were levied and therefore not proffesional disciplined fighters)

[DaciaJC]

what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....

The phalanx is also able to turn around rather more quickly than was possible in reality. It is difficult to flank a phalanx in EB without having another unit "get pinned" and occupy the phalanx.

[ARCHIPPOS]

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked buggers) should be (and i think historically were) the only ones who can attack a phalanx head on and expect results, not some 99 cent skirmisher unit who wouldnt even charge into one head on (remember most skirmishers were levied and therefore not proffesional disciplined fighters)

You forgot to say that another way to counter a phallanx would be with another phallanx ...

[Mikhail Mengsk]

My point exactly!
When facing a phalanx army, most enemy armies would try to outmaneuver them and not attack head on lest they risk facing substantial casualties...
what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....
and this seems very a historical (i tend to use loopholes in the game if it seems taht im loosing)
now, i dont know about the whole programing and in depth stuff, but if theres a way to limit the scare factor then sure i'll stick it on (prob we can add that in EB II)

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked ) should be (and i think historically were) the only ones who can attack a phalanx head on and expect results, not some 99 cent skirmisher unit who wouldnt even charge into one head on (remember most skirmishers were levied and therefore not proffesional disciplined fighters)

And the phalanx should not reform so quickly, or to run so quickly (with formation disabled), and they should break in seconds when charged from flanks or rear...

[Apázlinemjó]

And the phalanx should not reform so quickly, or to run so quickly (with formation disabled), and they should break in seconds when charged from flanks or rear...

Well I doubt that the veterans would rout in seconds, but the levies would, I agree.

[GenosseGeneral]

i think all kind of army would be scary, especially for us from today who are not used to it. i mean how many fought at raphia? 70000? just think about thesse sheer masses! a cavalry charge is in EB already impressive, with maybe 400 men charging but think about the charge in real! the thunder, i think you dont just see it but you feel it, you that there are coming hundreds of horses to you... WHO WOULDNT BE SCARED???

[Apázlinemjó]

i think all kind of army would be scary, especially for us from today who are not used to it. i mean how many fought at raphia? 70000? just think about thesse sheer masses! a cavalry charge is in EB already impressive, with maybe 400 men charging but think about the charge in real! the thunder, i think you dont just see it but you feel it, you that there are coming hundreds of horses to you... WHO WOULDNT BE SCARED???

And Cannae? Around 120-130 thousand men... it's hard to imagine.

[antisocialmunky]

I have to say that 7000 Seleukid Cataphracts at Magnesia getting run over by their scythed chariots would have been hilarious. I bet the veterans there got a good chuckle out of that and then some.