Too many phalanx units?

[bones58]

over 9 factions have at least one phalanx unit too much i think.

[Wishazu]

yeah but ost of em are former possesions of alexander the great. most of the eastern ones anyway, didnt he start reforms in their armies to train em like a macedonian army???? any historical experts?? i will say that spearwarband phalanx unit probs shouldnt be there

[Kraxis]

At best (or most negatively if you want) the Germans and the Carthies shoul perhaps not have the phalanx, but that is up to the individual. Personallly I prefer both of them having it.
The Carthies seems to have used it a number of times and the Germans (the Helvetii) used it too. The Germans in genereal might no have used it, but we simply don't know.

[lars573]

Let's do a little review here.

Number of purely greek factions in the game
Greek cities
Macedon
Seleucids
total 3

Number of might as well be greek factions
Thrace
Pontus
Egypt
total 3

Number of factions that are not greek but have a phalanx unit
Armenia
Germans
Carthage
total 3

Viewed like this the only factions that it might be pushing it for them to have a unit with phalanx ability are the bottom three on my list. Also you should not that CA only put in one blanket form of phalanx. There were at least 2 greek styles. The traditional southern greek phalanx and the Macedonian phalanx that Philip developed for his sarisafors to use with their long spears and small shields. Plus you have the shiled wall which is probably what the Helvetii were using anyway.

[Red Harvest]

The Carthaginians used phalanx at least when Xanthippus (Spartan merc) trained and lead their army to victory at the Battle of Tunis in the 1st Punic War in 255 BC. They had Greek style equipment, even before he arrived, so it is believed they were in phalanx for the defeats before that. As best I can tell, it is believed that the Carthagian african raised heavy infantry were fighting in phalanx early in the 2nd Punic War. After Lake Trasimene in 217 BC (and Trebia before it), Hannibal had captured enough gear to reequip his infantry and supposedly did so. Just thinking out loud: I have to admit that this latter part seems a bit odd. One would expect his Spanish troops and his own Africans to have better swords since the Spanish steel was better than what the Romans had. The armour, shields, and helmets of the Romans would probably have been good and of uniform style. His losses of African vets. at Cannae were fairly light, but they were the flankers and didn't bear the brunt of the fight.

The Germans as phalanx is probably a bit of a stretch, although Caesar I think described something like this. It is probably a bit too resisilient in the game being such a large unit, a base level unit, and fairly long "spear" style. If you want to mod it, you might try reducing the base unit size somewhat (and cost/upkeep), and changing the attribute below stat_pri to "short_pike" instead of "spear." This will shorten the spear length a bit and take a bit of their punch away.

There seem to be 3 styles of phalanx possible in the game:
1. Macedonian style = "long_pike" This is the sarissa based unit with smaller shield. It is deadly in the game.
2. Iphicratid hoplite style = "spear" This is an intermediate length spear that all the other phalanx types other than pike phalangites use in RTW.
3. Classical hoplite style = "short_pike" This is not used by any units at the moment, although it can be modded in. It is shorter, about the length of a traditional hoplite spear. I've only experimented with it a little.

[Ziu]

Though for playability leaving the Germans with their phalanges is best. They make up for the horrible financial position.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

From what I have heard Caesar was astonished at the discipline and incredibly long spear of the german units.
What would be really cool would be if CA or someone took the trouble to make the phalanx units fight as they would: Spartans and greeks using overhand stab with shorter pike, larger shield. Macedon and all possessions: Mainly using a long spear, underhand with both hands, buckler style shield, plus a shield slung from the neck. Germans: Long spear tight formation, not much is known about them though...

[MoROmeTe]

Yes, the phalanx should be diferenciated. But more important, it should be probably implemented a little different. the Greeks used their phalanx, from what i gather, as shock troops that slamed into the enemy formation, breaking it on the offensive. Only the Macedonians used their phalanx formations purely on the defensive. So, it should be nice to see the Greek phalanx xharge into the enemy formations, shield to shield, in good discipline, aiming to pull the eyes of the enemy out with their short spear before putting their shield up and going into the ranks of the enemy, shattering morale, distrupting formation, making them flee, killing all that turned their backs. Oh yea, this would be cool...

[bones58]

yeah that would be cool

[doc_bean]

But didn't the greeks abandon their normal phalanx in favour of the Macedonian one ?

[MoROmeTe]

Yes, they seem to have began using the macedonian phalanx, or pike formation, really. But that does not matter we must never see some phalanx bashing into unsuspecting, lets say, Gauls. Really, it would take all the fun out of the greeks to have them be some sort of macedonians without cavalry. They would also be unplayable, or almost...

[derF]

I think that the ability to "Phalanx" is given away too easily. It needs hard training and discipline to make a spear group confidently form a phalanx.

Ideally speaking, the Germans phalanx should be much messier and less effective than the Greek one.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Going back to the list someone produced of phalanxey nations - weren't Pontus, Armenia and Egypt (Ptolemad) also ex-greek factions, and so, if anything should have MORE of a greek basis? (excuse me if i'm wrong - i'm taking this off my shaky recollection of something i read...).

[Kraxis]

Going back to the list someone produced of phalanxey nations - weren't Pontus, Armenia and Egypt (Ptolemad) also ex-greek factions, and so, if anything should have MORE of a greek basis? (excuse me if i'm wrong - i'm taking this off my shaky recollection of something i read...).

Pontus and Egypt are in the 'Might as well be Greek' group.
Armenia was not Greek, but they adopted a few things from the passing Greek armies, like levy pikemen. I think it is even mentioned that they had sometyhing that is similar to the Heavy Spearmen unit. But Armenia was not Greek.

[The_Emperor]

Of course we are going to have many Phalanx units. This was the era of the Phalanx, the "Military standard" of the time. Thanks to Alexander's legacy the eastern factions certainly all had it (with the exception of Parthia of course) and everyone else was impressed by it.

As has already been said Carthage also adopted Greek-Style training and tactics during the first Punic War. It certainly points to the formation being very effective and growing in popularity at the time.

The Germans are the only Phalanx that is unconnected to the advancement of Greek culture and tactics... I suspect the use of the word was more of a general one on the part of Caesar because most Romans would have been well aware of what a Phalanx was, and if Caesar was trying to create the impression of a "Phalanx-like formation" for readers back home he would have succeeded.

[Watchman]

Military techniques proven effective tend to spread pretty quickly, especially if they fit into the socioeconomic setups of their recipients. Before the Macedonian phalanx the Greco-Mesopotamian hoplite phalanx had been "the thing" and was used by just about every group that fancied itself as "civilised" around the Med (and more to the point had the sort of agricultural society it was suited for).

Well, the Macedonian pike phalanx trounced it soundly, and duly became the norm. The Romans went straight from hoplites to maniples and didn't bother with pikes along the way, but they were pretty much the lone exception - and their javelin-toting swordsmen did have some issues with the pike-hedges.

The German "phalanx" in the game is probably stretching it a bit. I'm quite willing to accept the Teutonic spearmen could have fought in the sort of close, spear-armed shieldwall that would remain the norm well until Middle Ages, but if that one rates as phalanx then the Triarii should too... Well, write it down to artistic license and some creative interpretation of Caesar.

Compare the popularity of the phalanx - of either form - in the Antiquity to the way pikes became all the rage during Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance following the Swiss example, or the spread of firearms anywhere once introduced. Imitation, as they say, is the most honest form of praise.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Yeah, but the romans did trounce the phalanxes, because of flexibility and the ability of "officers" (centurions) to make decisions to change the disposition of their tyroops during battle. Plus the Legionarry was better able to deal with missile fire and flanking attacks, and due to thew short range of the gladius there was no fighting past the 3-5th row and slaughtering the pikemen.

[Red Harvest]

Yeah, but the romans did trounce the phalanxes, because of flexibility and the ability of "officers" (centurions) to make decisions to change the disposition of their tyroops during battle. Plus the Legionarry was better able to deal with missile fire and flanking attacks, and due to thew short range of the gladius there was no fighting past the 3-5th row and slaughtering the pikemen.

Actually, the Romans didn't trounce the phalanxes in many instances early on. People seem to only remember the last few showdowns in battles like Pydna and Cynocephalae. While the battles were pivotal, it was more due to the geopolitical situation of the time than to an absolute failure of phalanx warfare.

I do agree with the assessment of the flexibility being the eventual key (certainly at Cynocephalae), but that was not enough in many early confrontations.

Look at earlier battles:
1. Pyrrhus fights three major battles with his elephant and phalanx army vs. the Romans on Italian soil, defeating them twice and losing a 3rd (night attack.)

2. The Romans beat poorly prepared or led Carthaginian troops several times in the 1st Punic war. Then they faced a drilled Carthaginian phalanx under Xanthippus in the Battle of Tunis, and the Romans were routed from the field
Hamilcar Barca is successful at maintianing the fight in Sicily, but Carthage loses the war at sea

3. Hannibal used his phalangites in novel fashion to crush the Romans repeatedly...until they refused to give him battle anymore. The war see-sawed in Spain with Romans finally losing their commanders until Scipio arrives, reorganizes and defeats the Carthaginians. In the final decisive battle of Zama, the veterean Carthaginian infantry fare well, but Scipio's Numidian cavalry allies turn the tide.

4. At Cynocephalae the phalangites on the right were beating the Romans. However the left wing was unable to deploy so the phalanx was disordered/not yet formed.

5. Pydna also relied on disordering the phalanx on one wing (with elephants) and then working into it in the center as the phalanx there was pushing the legions back. The legion equipped Pelignians on the other wing were beaten.

Conclusion: An ordered phalanx would beat the the Roman legions and did so numerous times. A disordered phalanx could not. The Roman system could afford to be pushed back and disordered on one wing. The phalanx system could not.

[MoROmeTe]

It's all about where the battle is fought and about the way the armies are arrayed and organized. And there's also leadership to consider...
If a well lead phalanx army with auxiliaries and some cavalry support faced a similar roman legionary army with similar cavalry support and auxiliaries I'd put my money on the phalanx army. the thing was that you needed much better commanders for a phalanx army than for a roman legionary force. The phalanx is much more harder to control and direct effectively. Also the phalanx really needs to have good support troops, while legionary armies aren't that dependent on them, except for having some cavalry back up.
It's clear than in history well lead, well balanced phalanx armies were succesfull at defeating the Romans. The problem was that geopolitically the Greeks and other phalanx using cultures could not fare.
But how I love a phalanc in battle...

[Spongly]

I think the main confusion with the Germans comes from a misunderstanding of what a "phalanx" is. A phalanx does not necessarily imply the use of pikes - it is simply a closely packed formation of men. There is, to my knowledge no reference to the Germans or the Helvetii using pikes or very long spears. Indeed, Tacitus says that the typical German weapon is a small, light spear suitable both for throwing and fighting hand to hand.

I would suggest that in both of these cases, the use of the word phalanx by classical authors does not imply a pike formation, but simply a closely packed formation of men using their shields to defend themselves, somewhat like the "scildweall" of later Germanic warfare.

One formation that is well attested among the early Germans is a wedge of infantry with the bravest and best armoured at the front.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Julius Caesar mentions Germans of some sort using tight formations with very long spears. Well disciplined troops, very different from the usual "barbarian" troops and much more similar to Greek phalanxes than anything else.

[conon394]

Uesugi Kenshin

I think your overstating it a bit J.C. does use the word phalanx, but there really are not many other words he could have used to quickly describe men armed with spears and shields and fighting in close order. However the context is important. I don't think the text supports Caesar as being surprised or impressed.
Rather in one case he has little trouble finding men to rush in and break the enemy formation (1.54), or (1.24) the legions are describes as easily breaking the 'phalanx'. There is no place in Caesar’s description for the distress or awe inspired by the Macedonian phalanx. No lifelong dread of A. Paullus, or desperation like that of Flaminus, thinking one whole wing of his army was being swept away by the advancing Macedonians.

Also not similar to the greeks in that, having been forced to loose their shield, the German and Gauls are described as effectively unarmored. A Hoplite, loosing his shield would hardly be noted as unarmored.

[Kraxis]

Uesugi Kenshin

I think your overstating it a bit J.C. does use the word phalanx, but there really are not many other words he could have used to quickly describe men armed with spears and shields and fighting in close order. However the context is important. I don't think the text supports Caesar as being surprised or impressed.
Rather in one case he has little trouble finding men to rush in and break the enemy formation (1.54), or (1.24) the legions are describes as easily breaking the 'phalanx'. There is no place in Caesar’s description for the distress or awe inspired by the Macedonian phalanx. No lifelong dread of A. Paullus, or desperation like that of Flaminus, thinking one whole wing of his army was being swept away by the advancing Macedonians.

Also not similar to the greeks in that, having been forced to loose their shield, the German and Gauls are described as effectively unarmored. A Hoplite, loosing his shield would hardly be noted as unarmored.

The hoplites phalanx could most certainly be broken by less formed troops. Remember Marathon? The Persians broke through in the center but that caused their downfall in that the flanks swung in. Thus I see no problem in the Romans being able to punch through a solid line of spearmen.
And using the Macedonain phalanx as a comparison is not fair as the Germans had no real similarity to that.
And the hoplites... Well have you read about the Polopponesian Wars? Or the wars between Sparta and Thebes? We are talking about naked hoplites or very lightly armorued ones. Indeed quite unarmoured.

[conon394]

Kraxis

I at work now, but if you will check back I will post my thoughts and evidence on the 'naked hoplite phenomenon'.

But in general, I don't buy it. I know some books and authors (cough, the osprey series in particular) love naked hoplites, but I really see no evidence for the ideal that hoplites were running around the 5th and 4th centuries without armor.

Marathon is rather unique though in that the Athenian center was very thin and considering the extended advance at a run, I rather doubt the center was in phalanx formation’ as such when it hit the Persian line. I can’t think of another example during the next 2 centuries of battles between Greek and Persian troops were Persian soldier broke a Greek line. My point was that in context Caesar is describing rather easy victories, and does not appear to have been overly impressed with either the drill or quality of the enemy formations.

[Ptah]

I go with Red Harvest on this one.

Polybius was a military commander himself, and distinctly mentions that the phalanx was "invincible" when it was laid upon the conditions which made it so. However, he continues to mention that those conditions which make the phalanx have a "tendency to dissipate", while the conditions that disrupt the phalanx never cease to pop up. And then he goes on stating the various conditions which the phalanx require to be effective - open field engagements, flat terrains, enough room and space to lay the formation out, etc etc.. and then compares it with the Roman system of Legions.

As a matter of fact he goes as far as stating, "what's the use of the phalanx, even if it is invincible, when the Romans could avoid combat and burn and pillage the cities and towns the phalanx were trying to defend?" - ie. "the flexibility of the Legions" was not necessarily on a small-scale tactical term, but more of a strategical one. On a purely tactical scale, the Greek phalanxes were more than a match for any Roman army. However the Legions marched faster and could fight at any given condition. Their commanders were also keen in disrupting tactical advantages of the Greeks on a political/diplomatical scale so often Rome would win wars without even single combat.

A certain "Greek" faction would gather its phalanx armies and start hostile activities, and then Rome would send in the Legions which already march past them into the heart of that certain faction's key strategical locations, lay up seige equipments, threaten individual cities to open gates, and then start diplomatic negotiations and end the war there. A nice little threat something like, "stop hostilities or we burn every one of your precious cities in sight" and bam! The war is over, without a single fight. Things went that way everytime.

[Baiae]

I really see no evidence for the ideal that hoplites were running around the 5th and 4th centuries without armor.

I might be wrong but I'm certain VDH mentions that as time went on the so called 'hoplite panoply' became more and more slimmed down. A classical era hoplite would have had a spear, shield, helmet, greaves, arm guard and some sort of armoured cuirass. By the post-Alexandrian era they were probably down to just the shield and helmet.

[Kraxis]

I'm not a total 'naked hoplite' fan, I agree on that. But the light hoplite certainly made sense to the Greeks.

The light infantry had proven itself in battle against slower hoplites enough times for the Greeks to understand that they needed to do something.
The Spartans devised sending out their young hoplites.

A young Thermopylae-period Spartan Hoplite would have at least, the aspis (9kg), a heavy linnen cuirass (7kg), greaves (3-4 kg? But feeling much heavier as they were on the legs) and of course the Corinthian helmet (2kg). I will not count the weapons.
A peltast would have the pelte (2kg?) and his heavy Thracian cloak (3kg).

Now who will run the fastest? Not the young hoplite, that is for sure.
Since the running hoplites apparently could catch the peltasts now and then. Iphicrates troops (in this case they were javelineers) were reluctant to engage the Spartans outside Corinth since some of them had been caught earlier by Spartans, that they eventually did ngage is less important. And at Pylos the Spartan contingent of 300 hoplites did send out their young hoplites to catch the much more numerous Athenian light troops. We think of it as a deathrun, but apparently the Spartans believed it could be done. And it does seem as if the hoplites were close to catching the light troops now and then as they were only sent back to the phalanx because they were hit in the sides by other light troops, not because they couldn't run the first down.

So we have established that the young hoplites at least could, if the battle was right, catch light troops. We have to assume that the Spartans were in general better runners than most others (I'm willing to grant them an edge in pretty much everything physical, barring size), and young men run faster in general too. Light troops were generally young men, so at least that point is lost.
The better Spartan physique doesn't add up to being able to run faster with heavy gear on. But if he has only the aspis and Pilos helm to think of I'm willing to believe that he could possibly run down some of the light troops. The light troops were after all very used to being able to outrun hoplites so possibly they had a small superiority complex when it came to running and thus quite possibly didn't go on long runs together or train all that much really.
So we have the young Spartans as being only equipped with the aspis, but why would the older ones have armour then? The young hoplites were at the front anyway and would take the brunt of the fighting.

That is basically the argument I have seen. Personally I'm willing to grant them a light linnen cuirass, such as the one Iphicrates used for his hoplites later on.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The older troops would probably be wealthier and less nimble, so they would have more use for armor and would be more able to afford it.

[Kraxis]

The older troops would probably be wealthier and less nimble, so they would have more use for armor and would be more able to afford it.

Ahhh... But the Spartans were state-equipped.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH I forgot about that. Well maybe the state took into account their lack of dexterity and gave them more armor?
I really should have remembered that.....