German pikemen Speutagardaz - a phalanx unit?

[Intranetusa]

I've been looking at the Speutagardaz, a Germanic pikemen unit. They are suppose to have long pikes, but they don't have the "long pike" attribute
or the phalanx attribute. Would it be bad/inaccurate if I made them the same as a sarissa phalanx?

If not, then perhaps make their formation closer or add a .25 or .3 value to their soldier stats to make them cluster together in combat?

[Frtigern]

I thin you mean Speudogordoz (Germanic Pike Infantry). But yeah making them a true phalanx would seem inaccurate as they don't carry sarissas. That and they can hide in the forest and since a sarissa is ~15 feet long I don't understand how that fits to hide as easily if your gave them a statistical sarissa. But who said modding has to be historically accurate? Your the new master of the armies, so your wish is their command. They seem to have the tightest side spacing of any spearmen, which must have some benefit.

[Ca Putt]

It's not exactly accurate, however they are one of those hard to use units which 9 out of 10 people who have used them call broken and UP. So nobody here will look down on you when you give them the phalanx trait, infact I'm quite interested what happens with their spacing + phalanx, could balance out the worse lethality and armor.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Ahhhhh! Don't give them phalanx attribute. We tried this for EB Online and it turned them into monsters capable of taking on 2 Pezhetairoi head on, even with shorter pikes. The lack of a secondary weapon means they perform this strange shield bash attack which kills everything, even cavalry charging into their unprotected rears. I still have nightmares of my Prodromoi instantly disappearing...

[Nachtmeister]

In the dark german wilderness, something menacing is lurking, waiting for those unfortunate enough to find themselves venturing beyond the Alps, to prey upon them.......

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

I would say pack them tighter, and give them a point in def skills. They're not as pushy as a sarrisae phalanx, but they're still as killy as one.

[PetiteWolf]

It's not exactly accurate, however they are one of those hard to use units which 9 out of 10 people who have used them call broken and UP. So nobody here will look down on you when you give them the phalanx trait, infact I'm quite interested what happens with their spacing + phalanx, could balance out the worse lethality and armor.

I'm guessing a lot of people try to use them as a core, hold-the-line unit? I'm considering starting a Sweboz campaign after my Casse one - well, I'm considering quite a few, such as Getai, Sweboz, a HA faction, the Sab'yn - so what exactly is the proper way to use them? I'm sure I'll find a use for them - I usually do :) - but an opinion on the correct way to use them would be helpful.

Ahhhhh! Don't give them phalanx attribute. We tried this for EB Online and it turned them into monsters capable of taking on 2 Pezhetairoi head on, even with shorter pikes. The lack of a secondary weapon means they perform this strange shield bash attack which kills everything, even cavalry charging into their unprotected rears. I still have nightmares of my Prodromoi instantly disappearing...

So basically they went "THIS. IS. MULTIPLAYER!"?

[FinnishedBarbarian]

I have used them almost exclusively as cavalry killers/holders so their use has been somewhat limited in my sweboz campaigns, but they do have good charge and mass (1.2 which is best for sweboz) so they should be able perform good also as flankers although they are quite expensive for that role.

One thing that really bugs me when using them is that they never move directly where I have ordered them to go they always stop about 5 m before ordered spot.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

As is they are flexible units, you can use them in the line, but I would probably recommend Dugundiz instead as the javelins are helpful. Try them as anti-cavalry reserves on the wings and impromptu flankers.

[PetiteWolf]

Thanks for the tips! I'm sure, once I better see the Sweboz unit composition after I give them a try, that I'll find a good use for them.

[Phalanx300]

They aren't accurate as there is no proof to support such a unit. I suspect they wont be in EBII. They are apparantly based on a text saying they formed a Phalanx, yet its more likely its referring to the Hoplite Phalanx, rather then the Macedonian type of Phalanx.

[konny]

IIRC Caesar mentioned a "phalanx" of Suebi in his accounts. But of course 'phalanx' could mean any kind of close order formation. In this sense a shieldwall sounds more reasonable for those people than something like a "pseudo-Makedonian" long pike formation.

[Phalanx300]

Exactly. And seeing that the Germanic peoples of this time were known for their use of the shieldwall I think its referring to exactly that.

[Intranetusa]

Exactly. And seeing that the Germanic peoples of this time were known for their use of the shieldwall I think its referring to exactly that.

But isn't a shield wall with long pikes basically a sarissa phalanx?

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

A sarissa is a hellenic pike. Phillipos adopted it after learning about it during his time as a hostage in Thebes. What you're talking about is the macedonian phalanx, which uses sarissae in conjunction with the bronze-faced Illyrian pelte (a smaller shield compared to the aspis, to allow the use of the left hand as grip). Unlike the traditional hoplite phalanx which uses overlapping shields to push and deter the foe, the macedonian phalanx relies on the bristling lines of sarrisa to force hold the enemy at bay.

[Intranetusa]

A sarissa is a hellenic pike. Phillipos adopted it after learning about it during his time as a hostage in Thebes. What you're talking about is the macedonian phalanx, which uses sarissae in conjunction with the bronze-faced Illyrian pelte (a smaller shield compared to the aspis, to allow the use of the left hand as grip). Unlike the traditional hoplite phalanx which uses overlapping shields to push and deter the foe, the macedonian phalanx relies on the bristling lines of sarrisa to force hold the enemy at bay.

Yes, I meant the sarissa phalanx. A shield wall of pikes is basically a sarissa phalanx.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

Not exactly. The scots and the swiss (as well as their german copycats) also used pikes in a dense-packed formation, occasionally with targes and bucklers, too. Those were not sarrisa phalanxes, however.

To be fair, a phalanx is actually a very broad term for an organized block of men in a close formation. For much of history of course, there's only so many variations in arms 'an organized block of men' could rely on- namely the shield, a pointy stikk and/or a blade. Fancy things like gatling guns and rifles didn't come until much much later.

[Intranetusa]

Not exactly. The scots and the swiss (as well as their german copycats) also used pikes in a dense-packed formation, occasionally with targes and bucklers, too. Those were not sarrisa phalanxes, however.

To be fair, a phalanx is actually a very broad term for an organized block of men in a close formation. For much of history of course, there's only so many variations in arms 'an organized block of men' could rely on- namely the shield, a pointy stikk and/or a blade. Fancy things like gatling guns and rifles didn't come until much much later.

I know they're not exactly the same since one is German and the other Macedonian with different armors, etc...but what is the difference between their walls of pikes and the Macedonian wall of pikes in terms of actual usage and gameplay mechanics wise?

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

The macedonian phalanx was an evolution of the hoplite phalanx, with the emphasis (at least early on) of tying down and deterring the foe. Basically, the anvil. It is designed to draw and hold the bulk of the enemy's force, allowing more flexible troops, preferably cavalry, to wrap around the enemy's flanks and rout them. It is very efficient in holding because of the 5 ranks of overlapping spear points, meaning it can technically hold off superior number of foes 'indefinitely'. They fight in a defensive fashion, in lieu of hellenic tradition. The ethos.

Pike armies of the Scots were a solution to the English cavalry, as well as keeping the men-at-arms at bay. Their aim was to use the longer reach of a pike to counter the lances as well as countering charges. They're best use at the flanks, where they'll most likely encounter cavalry. Push-of-pike isn't their real aim, so targe (sort of like a pelte, except it has a big spiky bit for poking people) and sword remain their melee weapon of choice.

Swiss-pikemen and Landsknechts were designed to be meat grinders. They serve as walls and screens for the (Still woefully inaccurate) squishy arquebusiers (bayonets were not invented yet). In battle they use both pike, halbard, sword and buckler to literally wear down the foe. Their formation was of a strictly offensive nature, mean to draw the attention away from the vulnerable arquebusiers. Soon, of course, armies began clashing these troops together, in a push-of-pike. Literally, two of these formations would grind together, and try to kill the other off. The side that runs/dies loses; the side with some people left standing wins. Gruesome matter. The Italians call this "bad war". It is interesting, though, that late hellenistic (around EB timeframe, mid game-ish) armies tend to over-rely on this meat grinder tactic, too.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I know they're not exactly the same since one is German and the other Macedonian with different armors, etc...but what is the difference between their walls of pikes and the Macedonian wall of pikes in terms of actual usage and gameplay mechanics wise?

A shield wall would rely on the shields to stop the enemy while you poke away over or through the gaps in the wall. Very similar to a hoplite phalanx which is what Caesar might be referring to.

A pike phalanx would rely on the pikes (or fear of the pikes) to stop your foes. The shield is there mostly in case you have to drop your pike and is rather smallish to form a wall with.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

The pelte was actually there to compensate for the lighter (or none, if you're a pantodapoi) armour that the phalangite wears. Bronze cuirasses were too expensive, linothorax was far more economical. With the sarissa lowered, the pelte would basically be covering the torso: slightly below the neck, just above the groin. It's not much compared to a proper aspis, being a small shield. It is cheaper to make, though, as well as being far more wieldy.

[konny]

Swiss-pikemen and Landsknechts were designed to be meat grinders. They serve as walls and screens for the (Still woefully inaccurate) squishy arquebusiers (bayonets were not invented yet). In battle they use both pike, halbard, sword and buckler to literally wear down the foe. Their formation was of a strictly offensive nature, mean to draw the attention away from the vulnerable arquebusiers.

The Swiss pike formation resulted out of the same needs than the Scottish ones, that is the need to hold off otherwise invincable cavalry (in case of the Swiss those of Austria and Burgundy).

It started as a helbard formation (you don't need very long pikes to fend off cavalry), and then evolved into a long pike formation, last but not least to fight other infantry armed in the same way (here a very long pike becomes important). Saying the Swiss pike blocks (and the copies from other lands, namely Germany) were of offensive nature, and that way tatically different to the pike blocks deployed before and thereafter, is absolutly correct.

There are no similar formations attested for the German lands before the Late Medievale/Early Modern times (at least none I have heard of). So assuming the Germans fought that way in pre-Roman times is somewhat stretchy when that is based basically on a single word in DBG and a note of "long spears" here and there. It would have required a rather uniform equipement, one that is useless to the single fighter BTW, and also a high degree of training in large formations. This does fit a Hellenic kingdom or a Swiss city-state, but not so much the common image of the early German society.

[moonburn]

remember that the oychos was the main attack of the hoplites so a formation of hoplites even as a shield wall was an offenssive one (oychos meaning the push so the shield was on itself an offenssive weapon capable of breaking trough formations by sheer momentum power)

[ziegenpeter]

Well I guess you could ask wether or not there is any information to support long spears which needed the use of both hands. As mentioned before a phalanx can refere to any kind of denser formation, however if there have been two handed spears/pikes that would necessite imho much more emphasis on a "macedonian-style" phalanx-formation since the individual soldier is almost useless.

[antisocialmunky]

The Swiss pike formation resulted out of the same needs than the Scottish ones, that is the need to hold off otherwise invincable cavalry (in case of the Swiss those of Austria and Burgundy).

It started as a helbard formation (you don't need very long pikes to fend off cavalry), and then evolved into a long pike formation, last but not least to fight other infantry armed in the same way (here a very long pike becomes important). Saying the Swiss pike blocks (and the copies from other lands, namely Germany) were of offensive nature, and that way tatically different to the pike blocks deployed before and thereafter, is absolutly correct.

There are no similar formations attested for the German lands before the Late Medievale/Early Modern times (at least none I have heard of). So assuming the Germans fought that way in pre-Roman times is somewhat stretchy when that is based basically on a single word in DBG and a note of "long spears" here and there. It would have required a rather uniform equipement, one that is useless to the single fighter BTW, and also a high degree of training in large formations. This does fit a Hellenic kingdom or a Swiss city-state, but not so much the common image of the early German society.

I believe one of the reasons why the swiss developed such a dense single direction formation was that it was useful fighting in narrow Swiss valleys. Maybe that's just one of those cute stories though.

[konny]

I believe one of the reasons why the swiss developed such a dense single direction formation was that it was useful fighting in narrow Swiss valleys. Maybe that's just one of those cute stories though.

Yes, Swiss vallies are narrow.....

.....but not that narrow.


Starting with the late 11th Century, German military was dominated by cavalry warfare. This not only included the famous heavy knights but also other troops often were mounted. Indeed during the High Middle Ages a German army appearing on the field completly mounted was very common a sight.

The role of citizens forces in feudal German armies, meaning troops raised by cities that not were mercenary cavalry too, was reduced to missles (i.e. crossbowmen). Any form of peasant levy was completly abandoned in the 12th Century, in fact the last German armies that included larger levy units were those raised during the Saxon Wars in the 1070s and the Invesiture Wars of the 1080s. Those had proven rather pathetical in conduct against the modern heavy lancers (a tactically different unit to the spear-throwing knights you can see on the Bayeaux Tapestry).

Under these circumstances indeed raising a force of pikemen was a good idea when having to face German feudal armies. The Swiss were not the first to do so in Germany, for example the Brabancon foot or the citizens of Cologne in the Battle of Worringen most likely fought in a similar way. But the Swiss were the first who had bee able to raise considerable numbers of pikemen and to keep them in the field long enough for a proper campaign.

[moonburn]

herm konny double post :| thats rude

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yes, Swiss vallies are narrow.....

.....but not that narrow.


Starting with the late 11th Century, German military was dominated by cavalry warfare. This not only included the famous heavy knights but also other troops often were mounted. Indeed during the High Middle Ages a German army appearing on the field completly mounted was very common a sight.

The role of citizens forces in feudal German armies, meaning troops raised by cities that not were mercenary cavalry too, was reduced to missles (i.e. crossbowmen). Any form of peasant levy was completly abandoned in the 12th Century, in fact the last German armies that included larger levy units were those raised during the Saxon Wars in the 1070s and the Invesiture Wars of the 1080s. Those had proven rather pathetical in conduct against the modern heavy lancers (a tactically different unit to the spear-throwing knights you can see on the Bayeaux Tapestry).

Under these circumstances indeed raising a force of pikemen was a good idea when having to face German feudal armies. The Swiss were not the first to do so in Germany, for example the Brabancon foot or the citizens of Cologne in the Battle of Worringen most likely fought in a similar way. But the Swiss were the first who had bee able to raise considerable numbers of pikemen and to keep them in the field long enough for a proper campaign.

Did the Flemish also use pikes earlier or am I misremembering?

[konny]

Did the Flemish also use pikes earlier or am I misremembering?

Most likely. Of course "pikes" in this sense would have included a couple of pole arms: IIRC typical long pikes did not came into use before some times in the early 15th Century in southern Germany, ie where the enemy often were Swiss.

In general it often is somewhat stretchy to say "those people used this and that weapon" for the Middle Ages. Of course, knights since the 12th Century always used lances and swords, but later also other side-arms. Missles in Germany were crossbowmen by some 90%, even though they were called sagittarii (archers) in the sources. There also was a number of eastern mercenary horse-archers around.

The crossbow also would have been the weapon of choice for the inhabitants of one the growing number of towns; "shooters' guilds" are attested since the early 11th Century. The shooters from the cities also were the only levied part of a German feudal army. As such the shooters (often paid volounteers, some kind of half-mercenaries) would have had a considerable ammount of combat experience.

Richer citizens, usually merchants, are known to have owned swords (there are rules that forbade them to tie them to their belts, but only allowed them to be tied to their saddles). Patricians even would have appeared in a complete knightly kit. When the existance or liberty of the city as a whole was at stake those towns indeed were able to spit out a considerable ammount of armed men, at least for short periodes. These then, indeed rather militia rabble, would have carried all kind of weapons.

The same laws regulating the usage of swords for citizens also forbade peasants to own spears - what means in return that the spear was the most common weapon for the landfolk before. The pole arms in fact were, and developed out of, remodelled tools. A result of the common people not owning any (war-)weapons.

Also mercenary forces were in no way uniform in their equippement. For example, the famous Brabancones were a mixed force of all arms including a number of knights commanded by nobles.

[Nachtmeister]

I fought a single unit of Speutagardaz today. .

Inarticulate dread. If they should ever stand in a well organized army...