Too many phalanx units?

[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.