A thin line of spears

[jimmyM]

just a few notes...in the total realism mod there was an ability to form units into an unbroken "phalanx" line - i've since had to uninstall the modded install and i'm really missing that ability possibly contacting mods involved would yield a standalone "phalanx ability" mod
as for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields (the impact of the charge could also cause you to maim the guy behind you with the butt spike of the spear), though to take cavalry charges they braced their spears into the ground underarm (sorry, nitpicking...)

[CBR]

as for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields

Hoplites used spears of around 2-2.5 meters length and large shields. The phalangites used the long pikes (Sarissa) of about 6-7 meters length and smaller shields so they could use the pike in two hands.

Hoplites would use the spear overarm when in close order phalanx but underarm was also used as charging hoplites would become disordered and they had more room to fight.


CBR

[KyodaiSteeleye]

One thing in MTW - lots of peeps advocated the 'swordsmen in 2 ranks' theory. However, what i found was that there were two drawbacks to this:-

1) as troops get killed, and your second rank starts to empty, holes appear in the unit formation, and this did seem to lead to routs (either because formation was disrupted, or they were getting doubled more, not sure)
2) if you have all of your infantry in double rank formations, try manouvering them around the battlelines successfully! - thinner formations can exploit holes in the line much easier, and are far less likely to 'hit' enemy units by mistake, and so get embroiled in combats you don't want, or losing charge bonuses.

I agree however, that wider formations for phalanxes seem to make sense (in the game)- but what is their holding power in this formation? - does it give less time for your flanking forces to get engaged? Also - thin formations should theoretically be much more susceptable to heavy cavalry charges, as they should smash right through the 2 line formation and out the other side > rout.

[Doug-Thompson]

Red Harvest;

Yes, the archers and the phalanx are two results from the same cause: The complete disappearance of rank as a factor of its own. The only question now is, do you want a compact formation able to manuever (especially change facing quickly) or a thin one that can cover a lot of front?

I've been far less critical of R:TW than others, but this just isn't right.

=========

Simon Appleton;

I'll charge a bunch of cataphracts into some hoplites tonight.

[Doug-Thompson]

But then, the historical Ancient phalanxes tended to be huge affairs of thousands of men in a single rectangular block hundreds of meter wide and up to sixteen ranks deep. The ones in Rome don't exactly compare...

And

The real problem we have with the Phalanx is the inability to create a solid unbroken line. The natural gaps between the units always makes things worse.

The only way to get the proportions close to correct would be to link multiple units in an unbroken front, in my opinion.

The Macedonian Phalanx of Roman times was deeper and, frankly, less maneuverable than Alexander's

Say --quite arbitrarily -- that the typical hoplite formation of 80 (large unit size) is supposed to be part of the "classic," somewhat flexible phalanx a la Alexander, and that the 120-man unit is supposed to be part of the newer, more dense Macedonian model with longer pikes.

Alexander's phalanx was 16 ranks deep and 256 files wide. This gives a depth-to-front ratio of 1 to 16. This contained (at full strength) 4,096 troops.

Take five large unit-size hoplite formations at their default depth of five ranks. Put them end to end. This results in:

A group five ranks deep and 80 files wide, a perfect 1 to 16 depth-to-front ratio. It contains 400 men -- a 97.7 percent-pure little 1/10th scale model of the classic Alexandrian phalanx.

In my opinion, phalanx should not be a special ability for one group of 80 or so spear types but a special group formation, a "hard" grouping that only phalanx-type units can employ that eliminates the gaps between units. The hoplites can "ungroup" if they need to change facing rapidly, moving the individual units, and "regroup" when facing the desired direction. There should also be a rank bonus maximized for a depth-to-front ratio of about 1-to-16, or deeper in the case of longer pikes.

[CBR]

Alexander's phalanx was 16 ranks deep and 256 files wide. This gives a depth-to-front ratio of 1 to 16. This contained (at full strength) 4,096 troops

Where do you get that from? Some think his taxis were 1500 men and others believe they were 2000 men.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...icusNotes.html argues for 2000 men taxis and seems very reasonable.


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

CBR

That comes from Dupuy and Dupuy's "Encyclopedia of Military History," which includes an extensive section on Alexander's army. It has a unit breakdown within the phalanx too, which I'll post.

[Nelson]

The relative smallness of phalanx formations seems to be a problem.

In addition, something should be done about the way charging mounted troops can leap directly into the front of a phalanx and cause everyone nearby to draw their swords thus wrecking the entire formation.

[CBR]

I remove the space between each phalanx unit by using a double line. I draw out half my units in 3-4 ranks and then draw the other half directly over the first line just a few files off to one side. The result is a very compact formation that is hard to maneuver with but it does the job


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

Also - thin formations should theoretically be much more susceptable to heavy cavalry charges, as they should smash right through the 2 line formation and out the other side > rout.

and

In addition, something should be done about the way charging mounted troops can leap directly into the front of a phalanx and cause everyone nearby to draw their swords thus wrecking the entire formation.

Now that's the whole problem in a nutshell regarding cavalry.

As per Simon Appleton's request, I charged a unit of cataphracts at a unit of hoplites in phalanx -- over and over again.

It didn't matter if the hoplites were two ranks deep, five ranks deep or NINE ranks deep. Every time -- even in the instance of nine ranks -- at least one cataphract leapt all the way to the back of the line, formation was blown and the hoplites drew their swords. This instantly converted the phalanx from a wall of spears to a mediocre melee unit. Also, formations became more prone to getting wrapped the deeper they were.

============

After some more frustrating experiments, I got myself two 80-man vanilla Greek hoplite units (which cost the same as the one Parthian cataphract) and used Sin Qua Non's trick, slightly modified.

I put one hoplite phalanx two ranks deep. I left a space -- sorry, I can't say how wide. I was going by feel. Then I strung out another phalanx two ranks deep behind the first and the open space.

Medium difficulty. Grassy flatlands. Phalanx on. Guard mode off.

I stayed put until the cataphracts started charging, then hit one-click attack for both units. The cataphracts hit the first thin line of spears. The ones that leapt either landed on the first phalanx or in the space in between the two phalanxes. Either way, the flying cataphracts were back on the ground with no room to charge and facing a second fully formed, advancing unit of bristling spears.

The first try was a complete success. The 55-man cataphracts routed with 23 of their number left. There were 31 survivors left from my first phalanx and a negligible four losses from the second. Notably, some of the routing survivors of the first phalanx had gotten away by fleeing through the thin ranks of the second.

The next try put the two phalanxs a little closer together, but that did not work so well. The flying cataphacts were able to cause some disruption of the second phalanx, though not much. That battle eventually turned into a melee. I turned phalanx formation off after there were no spears left. I won but wound up with only 59 survivors out of 161 hoplites, but there were only 9 cataphracts left.

[Doug-Thompson]

As promised to CBR, here's what Dupuy has to say:

The organization of the phalanx was remarkably like that of a modern army: a platoon (tetrarchia) of 64 hoplites; company (taxiarchia) of 128; battalion (syntagma) of 256; regiment (chiliarchia) of 1,024; division (simple phalanx) of 4,096 hoplites. Like the modern division, the simple phalanx was a self-contained fighting unit of combined arms; in addition to the heavy infantry, it included (at theoretical full strength) 2,048 peltasts, 1,024 psiloi, and a cavalry regiment of 1,024 for a total of 8,192 men. The grand phalanx, composed of four simple phlanxes, could be likened to a small modern field army and had a strength of 32,000 men.

All statements in parentheses are in the original -- D.Th.

There's more, but the most important point is that Dupuy agrees that the Macedonian phalanx of Alexander's time was 16 ranks deep.

Now, it's perfectly possible that Dupuy's "simple phalanx" was composed of two units of 2,048 men, each 16 ranks deep. There's not necessarily a big difference here.

[CBR]

Ok thanks thats what I thought it was.

Check out the link I gave as that mentions the sources that provides that organisation. I'll quote:

Hellenistic tactical manuals exist by Ailian, Arrian and Asklepiodotos that give us some insight into the organisation of Macedonian-style infantry phalanxes. Each is similar to the other, and they all probably derive from a lost manual of Polybios'. It has been greatly debated to what extent these manuals reflect Hellenistic military reality, and to what extent they are the workings of armchair philosophers; it is also debated to what extent they reflect later Hellenistic organisation, rather than that under Philip or Alexander. Ailian for instance claims (0.6) his work represents Macedonian formations under Alexander, but all the sources he cites are post-Alexandrian (1.2).

Its an interesting essay and worth the read IMO.


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

Ok thanks thats what I thought it was.

Check out the link I gave as that mentions the sources that provides that organisation. I'll quote:



Its an interesting essay and worth the read IMO.


CBR

I neglected to mention that I did check out the link earlier, and was suitably impressed. In fact, that's why I refered to the agreement with Dupuy over being 16 ranks deep. To wit:

From Polybios (12.9) it is obvious that the Alexandrian file depth was either 8,16, or 32 men. We can probably discount 32, since this was the depth of the Seleucid phalanx at Magnesia, where it was said to be abnormally deep. A depth of 8 is possible, but this would mean it would have been shallower than most hoplite phalanxes: according to Xenophon (Hellenica, 4.2.18), the allies were 16 deep at Nemea (with the Thebans characteristically formed up much deeper still), the Spartans 12 deep at Leuctra (Hellenica, 4.4.12); the depth at Issus would perhaps be influenced by the river crossing. A depth of 16 men seems most likely, and this accords with the most basic unit formation given above; Ailian says that while files of 8 or 12 were recorded (4.2), he himself sticks to 16 (e.g. 8.3) just as Asklepiodotos and Arrian do.emphasis added