Romal Phalanx

[Wrangel]

So is this dropping of phalanxes considered one of the reasons the Romans actually could conquer Carthage, Macedonia and the Greek Cities who still used them?

[MoROmeTe]

Practically the Romans never quite developed the phalanx and I think it didn't suit their needs and their way of being. They went for a new way of fighting and, of course, they were thinking out of the box, trying to be better than their neighbours. And their neighbours were pretty much influenced by Greeeks so naturaly the Romans had to invent a way of fighting phalanx style armies. The Roman formations, beggining with the Hastati, Principes, Triarii and ending with the Legions, were designed to beat the phalanxes and to be pretty good against whatever they should come up against.
Yes, the fact that the Romans didn't go into the whole phalanx based warfare thinking sysatem, hugely helped them to beat the Greeeks. On them beating the Carthaginians, that's a whole different issue.

[Wrangel]

On them beating the Carthaginians, that's a whole different issue.

Well it certainly is... even though the Carthaginians used the phalanx they didn't ultimately depend on it. But phalanx or no phalanx, the punic wars really are something of their own don't you think?

[Byzantine Prince]

Romans just didn't use long spears, ever. The triarii are a different story. Only the greeks should have phalanx because only they used that formation. I don't know how much Carthaginians had phalanx. I think that is just a myth the game decided to put in.

Also No the Romans didn't beat the greeks in that idealized way you might think they did. I can tell you how if you want.

[aw89]

We want..

[Red Harvest]

I'm not sure what BP is going on about. Macedonian pike phalanx? Of course not. Hoplite phalanx, certainly--but probably not the triarii. Early Roman armies did use hoplite style phalanx warfare. Livy and Dinoysius detail the army composition of that time referred to as the Servian system. Some time around the Samnite wars the Romans ran into serious trouble (and earlier Rome had been sacked by the Gauls.) The Samnites fought a bit differently apparently with more skirmishers, maniples and a dual line system referred to as duplex acies (or acies duplex...) The terrain of the Samnite wars was mountainous and ill suited for hoplite warfare. Apparently the Romans adapted their armies as a result of their experience with the Samnites. They didn't seem to adapt the cavalry though to the same degree...and this would come back to haunt them later.

Many of the city states in the Italian peninsula opposing rome were Greek colonies, fighting hoplite style.

Carthage used the phalanx to some degree. They certainly did during the 1st Punic War when the Spartan trained mercenary Xanthippus criticized the way the Carthaginians had used their troops previously, so the Carthaginians ended up placing him in charge of their army! The Carthaginians were drilled and formed up in phalanx. The phalanx held against Regulus legion's attack at the "Battle of Tunis." They probably started the 2nd war in hoplite phalanx form as well, although there is some suggestion that they might have re-armed in non-hoplite manner after Hannibal had destroyed several Roman armies in Italy early in the 2nd Punic War.

Now the game's depiction of the hoplite phalanx is probably wrong (the spears are overly long and probably not used in the right manner.) That's another matter altogether.

[Spino]

I realize Rome had abandoned the phalanx as the de facto standard formation for all its troops in the 3rd century BC but I fail to see why Triarii shouldn't be depicted as fighting in a phalanx formation. They may have not used the same exact style and formation as the hoplite phalanx employed by the Greeks but it must been close.

I simply don't believe well trained, disciplined veterans fighting with large shields and 3 meter long spears would fight in a more open formation that caters to individualistic, one on one fighting. Perhaps if they relied exclusively on their swords instead of their spears then I could understand the logic but the Triarii were known for fighting primarily with their spears. I see them closing ranks, forming a shield wall and fighting in a similar style to the Greeks.

[Kraxis]

I simply don't believe well trained, disciplined veterans fighting with large shields and 3 meter long spears

3 meters long? I have always gotten the feeling that they were in fact no more than 2 meters (Romans being around 1.60 meters it would seem much longer).
Also everything I have seen of hte Triarii, depicts them as wielding the spears in a semi-underhand fashion (lets call it couched), which by its nature excludes a phalanx, as the shields can't get all that close without locking the spears in place.
Now that might very well be wrong.

But we do not consider the Persian Applebearers as formed up in a phalanx, despite the fact that they carried large shields and long spears... And these guys for certainty fought with the overhand style like the hoplites (lets be classical here for a moment).
Also the Roman formation wasn't as rigid, each man was allowed a certain amount of freedom, such as helping his friends over there if they get attacked by cavalry, in the hoplite phalanx that was frowned upon, and could even be hard to do (locking of shields would make it hard to disentangle).