Spears are very unbalanced

[Charge]

Well why not give Evocata, Principes, other experienced units EXP from EDB and more than 1 turn to build???

[Watchman]

Uh... the Principes were part of the Republican reservist militia, like everybody else. Required to own a certain minimum level of war gear and be reasonably trained with it, and come to the standards when Rome called for her children to make war.

They weren't normally even more experienced than the Hastati and the other lighter-equipped reservists, simply wealthier and hence better equipped. Ditto for the Triarii and Equites.

[Little Legioner]

Stop complaining about the stats people. Just do something if you still think about Romani are underpowered.

I'll revisit Romani stats tonight and replace 8.1 stats instead of 1.0. Ok?

[Sakkura]

I wouldn't say barely. He beat a Roman army twice. Both victories would have been considered great victories, but for the fact that Rome could reinforce, Pyrrhus could not. The third battle is considered a draw by some, a Roman victory by others, but after that Pyrrhus saw no reason to continue his campaign. Thus, it's arguable whether Rome ever defeated Pyrrhus.

Hm, I guess that also depends on the sources. Like, the casualties at the battle of Heraclea are stated as 7,000 for Rome and 3,000 for Pyrrhus by Hieronymus of Cardia (a contemporary Greek) or 15,000 for Rome and 13,000 for Pyrrhus by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (a Greek living under Roman rule in the last years of the republic, ie. not contemporary). Who to trust, who to trust...
So anyway, the Romans lost two battles to a great Greek general, who happened to have cavalry superiority and elephants as well. Let's call it one clear defeat, one narrow defeat and one draw; and those were the first three battles the Romans ever faced a strong Greek army in (as well as elephants), and they didn't exactly get mauled (compare it to the battles of the second Punic war, where Rome indeed got creamed on several occasions).

I think this shows that in a head-on battle, camillan Roman legions were definitely the equal of a solid Macedonian phalanx, with a small contingent of elites (maybe slightly better overall due to versatility; this is debatable though, since any proper Greek general would compensate for this by greater use of combined arms). RTW is scaled down compared to RL numbers, and some things concerning formation just can't be simulated correctly; so the problems the phalanx sometimes faced when their formation got disordered should be included in the unit stats IMHO. With the exception of forests, since they do indeed mess with phalanxes in RTW and EB.

In any event, I think I will stop debating this, since if any imbalance exists it is quite minor, and I don't want to contribute to the brewing flame-war. The only thing I will repeat is that I hope the EB crew take another look at the stats of the cohors evocata, since they compare quite poorly to the regular cohors reformata.

[The Wizard]

The problem is, "luck" is an important, but not exactly the only factor to be considered. The Romans painted not only Greece in red, they painted the whole area around the Mediterranean plus a lot more to the North. They only did not paint Germania and Parthia in red because their Empire was already too extensive.

"Luck", certainly, isn't the only factor here. People don't get enslaved and conquered due to diplomatic intrigue, bribes, or economical influence. Surely these help, but the absolute conquest and subjugation only come through military strenght. And seeing how the Romani were able to defeat militarily most of the Civilized world of the time + a lot of "less civilized" ones, shows their strenght in arms. It wasn't just throwing a lot of people on your enemy 'till he gets sick and surrenders.

You'll notice I was talking about thousands of variables. I never, in fact, even mentioned luck. That the Romans won out was far -- very far -- from a foregone conclusion. Arguing from that point of view (the Romans conquered lotsa land so they have to be l33t!) is a flawed, and, frankly, ignorant way of looking at the real history.

I'll reiterate, however, my previous statement that I haven't actually played the latest version of EB. All I am now commenting on is the most oft-repeated argument in favor of Roman strength of arms, an argument which is logically flawed.

Besides that, I can safely say, as a former member of the EB team, that I strongly doubt that the team has weakened Roman units in favor of those wielding spears without well-researched, argumented, and downright good reasons, let alone wrongfully so.

In fact, I've seen depressingly little real hard numbers and battle tests to support any of the arguments of those complaining at all. Doing so would seriously strengthen your case, guys. Beats using flawed logic.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Hm, I guess that also depends on the sources. Like, the casualties at the battle of Heraclea are stated as 7,000 for Rome and 3,000 for Pyrrhus by Hieronymus of Cardia (a contemporary Greek) or 15,000 for Rome and 13,000 for Pyrrhus by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (a Greek living under Roman rule in the last years of the republic, ie. not contemporary). Who to trust, who to trust...
So anyway, the Romans lost two battles to a great Greek general, who happened to have cavalry superiority and elephants as well. Let's call it one clear defeat, one narrow defeat and one draw; and those were the first three battles the Romans ever faced a strong Greek army in (as well as elephants), and they didn't exactly get mauled (compare it to the battles of the second Punic war, where Rome indeed got creamed on several occasions).

I think this shows that in a head-on battle, camillan Roman legions were definitely the equal of a solid Macedonian phalanx, with a small contingent of elites (maybe slightly better overall due to versatility; this is debatable though, since any proper Greek general would compensate for this by greater use of combined arms). RTW is scaled down compared to RL numbers, and some things concerning formation just can't be simulated correctly; so the problems the phalanx sometimes faced when their formation got disordered should be included in the unit stats IMHO. With the exception of forests, since they do indeed mess with phalanxes in RTW and EB.

In any event, I think I will stop debating this, since if any imbalance exists it is quite minor, and I don't want to contribute to the brewing flame-war. The only thing I will repeat is that I hope the EB crew take another look at the stats of the cohors evocata, since they compare quite poorly to the regular cohors reformata.

As for the in-balance between Greeks and Romans, I find it highly questionable the new stats. Phalanxes were already strong in 0.81, but now they got their stats boosted. I mean, even if they had Attack 5, simply having these very long spears would make anything non-phalanx run. Otherwise they're very vulnerable, and I can hardly see how an unit of Militia Phalangites can ever match Post-Marian infantry cohorts.

I'm simply not convinced to believe that Greeks had the same amount of training as a Post-Marian Roman unit. And I'm not convinced the Post-Marian Romans were a "militia" either. Get any serious history book and you'll know the Roman drill was one of the toughest, and it was uniform for all Post-Marian recruits. So saying the Greeks could get as strong as them in the Gymnasium is a highly debatable statement, especially because most of them didn't have a lifetime uniform training and discipline as the Roman Post-Marian cohorts. And also consider that Alexander was dead, and the quality of Hellenic Phalanxes is ina steady decline, with many recruits being levy phalangites who were too busy harvesting their crops to train on any significant level, and with even the Pezhetairoi training quality in decline; their only mission was to keep thrusting their pikes forward, and pray that they don't get attacked from the flank or the rear. But now, it seems that a well-trained Roman soldier, with a reinforced heavy Scutum, a good coat of Lorica Hamata with over 30.000 rings and a bronze helmet has difficulty in defeating even a Levy Phangite in Linothrax. I'm not saying that they have problems from the front, but I had problems charging them from the rear because of the reinforced stats of the Greek Phalangites. And it is impressing that a Hoplite with a round argive shield and only leather and linen has the same amount of defense as a professional Roman soldier with a Scutum and mail armour.

I'm frankly disappointed with the stats in EB 1. I was waiting for more, but the spears are now too powerful. I think the team has been focuing too heavily on making uber-greeks and haven't even bothered to tweak the stats for the Romani, except to give them a little more inferiority. Regardless of what you may say upon the quality of legionaries, history is very different, with the Legions often winning the day in heroic situations. They were defeated badly, too, but they have won so many countless times, even when outnumbered, that I can't frankly accept a mediocre quality infantry as true Roman infantry. As much as there were good and mediocre soldiers in the Roman ranks, so there were in the Greek ranks, and I feel the new uber-spearmen, the majority of Greek spearmen (but also a lot of barbarian militia spearmen too) don't represent that as good as they wanted the Romani to represent it.

So, ok, EB is a superb mod. I liked the balance in EB 0.81, and frankly the Romani were even with many foes; they keep complaining about the Cohors Imperatoria but truly the Augustan Reforms came so late that most other factions already could have stacks of elite armies to beat them. And Spearmen were already powerful enough back then to be a threat, but not an uber-threat like now. Spearmen aren't super-heroes just because of their spears: they need to fight, and even then swords had a clear advantage. In a tight formation, the Romani could very well leave little room for enemy spearmen to maneuver, thus slaughtering them in droves; that's what has made the gladius one of the most successful armies of the time.

Well, I think I'll go back to 0.81 and to RTR.

[the_handsome_viking]

I personally like the fact that spears are more powerful now, but what people need to remember is that you should look at these weapons in the sense that you would look at various tools for different kinds of jobs. The sword, at least the long sword typically is a very fast, versitile weapon that actually does require a high degree of skill to effectivly use which is probably why its such a famous weapon, the spear on the other hand by its very design is fairly straight forwards that said there is many many many ways to use a spear or polearm, but it is understandable why the spear is typically seen as the weapon of the lower classes but this is probably more of a material thing rather than a reflection of the skill level of most people.

To jump out of the time frame for a second, many Frankish infantry, though heavily armored, often are depicted as fighting with spears instead of swords, the spear type they often had has a very long protected shaft and something that looks like double headed hammer just under the neck of the blade which implies that they used the spears in the pole arm sense for parrying and thrusting and whacking at their oponents, arguably they could also pull cavalry down with the mor melee orientated parts of the spear. So clearly the spear can be a weapon of the elite and was undoubtably one of the more successful weapons in history.

That said, it's a long range weapon, that is its strength and its weakness in many ways, the sword on the other hand is a chaotic, fast and versitile shorter ranged weapon that, if used up close, usually will get the upper hand over a spear user, its that simple, so it really depends on the formation used by the spear warriors to stop swordsmen from getting too close.

I've argued before that what made the Romans very good on the battlefield was that they basically learned to take a lot of damage from the enemy and keep standing, they also would get in darned close and rotate their troops to keep fresh soldiers up at the front lines during combat, this technique right here was basically one of the major factors for their success on the battlefield, their short swords on the other hand obviously were an ideal weapon for up close and personal combat, and the best way to represent this would really be to give the Legionaries high defencive skill and also high armor ability, this should at least be able to counter the arguably more realistic spear stats.

I would also say that swords should be generally faster weapons, as in the attack animations should quite simply be faster than that of the spear users due to the simple fact that its much easier to swing a sword around wildly and quickly than it is to repeatedly thrust a spear at an enemy, this should level out and represent the differences in capacity of the two weapons types effectivly.

[Sakkura]

I don't think you're necessarily correct that phalanxes got weaker after Alexander. It is my understanding that the AS and Ptolemies tended to add more and more armor, sacrificing mobility for staying power.

Regarding the armor of classic hoplites... Well, they do have greaves, unlike the Romans.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I don't think you're necessarily correct that phalanxes got weaker after Alexander. It is my understanding that the AS and Ptolemies tended to add more and more armor, sacrificing mobility for staying power.

Regarding the armor of classic hoplites... Well, they do have greaves, unlike the Romans.

Regarding the Elites, they say the Cohors Praetoria was filled with people who are there only due to political loyalties. I frankly disagree. How can we prove that the Argiraspidai and the Elite Vascone infantry wasn't filled with people of political loyalty and high material wealth, too? No such systems are 100% meritocratic, and many good warriors would never enter these Elites even if they deserved it. As political loyalty doesn't count as skill on the battlefield, that should count on the unit performance, but overall that's how it should have worked, as it was better to have someone with a mediocre performance and strong loyalty rather than a super warrior with doubtful reputation.

Regarding the Hoplites, their only good defence is their shield. Greaves work well against spears, but the leather and linen body armour is not by far capable of having the same strenght of a Lorica Hamata used by the later Romans.

[Charge]

I don't think you're necessarily correct that phalanxes got weaker after Alexander. It is my understanding that the AS and Ptolemies tended to add more and more armor, sacrificing mobility for staying power.

Regarding the armor of classic hoplites... Well, they do have greaves, unlike the Romans.

This is the reason of their constantly defeats against non-phalanx armies (romans).

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

To jump out of the time frame for a second, many Frankish infantry, though heavily armored, often are depicted as fighting with spears instead of swords, the spear type they often had has a very long protected shaft and something that looks like double headed hammer just under the neck of the blade which implies that they used the spears in the pole arm sense for parrying and thrusting and whacking at their oponents, arguably they could also pull cavalry down with the mor melee orientated parts of the spear. So clearly the spear can be a weapon of the elite and was undoubtably one of the more successful weapons in history.

Spears are very effective weapons, however, IMO EB portrays them in an uber manner. I feel that we could only solve this by providing reliable test data, and that includes training both sides, then giving one side fake spears and shields and the another fake shortswords and shields, then throwing one against another . That's how we can get good data about it :P.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This is the reason of their constantly defeats against non-phalanx armies (romans).

I'd not say "constant" -- and I'd not say "This is the reason". The phalanx army is one of the best formations of all time - requiring limitted man power to win a great odds. What it does require however is the support of powerful cavalry or the advantage of the terrain.

By the time the Romans faced some serious phalanx based armies who could rely on reinforcements to replenish the losses as well; the phalanx armies did no longer have that powerful cavalry support.

To say that the phalanx is an inflexible formation isn't exactly true either. It's a back-bone and as such cannot be sacrificed too much; but you can perform some pretty amazing tactics with them. Gaugamela is a classic for a reason...

Also I'd like you to consider that phalanx does not simply mean "Pezhetairoi and the like" -- in fact it is pretty much the Greek name for shieldwall/ heavy infantry. It's a minor note at best; but something which should be the key to how you use a phalanx on the battle field.

[dezzerx]

Spears are very effective weapons, however, IMO EB portrays them in an uber manner. I feel that we could only solve this by providing reliable test data, and that includes training both sides, then giving one side fake spears and shields and the another fake shortswords and shields, then throwing one against another . That's how we can get good data about it :P.

Or you ask some reenactors ;)

[Davidian]

Dont want to be the obnoxious noob here but isnt it an idea to give some sword troops an "Bonus versus spearman" trait? Like the spearmen have agains cavalry and axeman have against armoured troops.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I'd not say "constant" -- and I'd not say "This is the reason". The phalanx army is one of the best formations of all time - requiring limitted man power to win a great odds. What it does require however is the support of powerful cavalry or the advantage of the terrain.

By the time the Romans faced some serious phalanx based armies who could rely on reinforcements to replenish the losses as well; the phalanx armies did no longer have that powerful cavalry support.

To say that the phalanx is an inflexible formation isn't exactly true either. It's a back-bone and as such cannot be sacrificed too much; but you can perform some pretty amazing tactics with them. Gaugamela is a classic for a reason...

Also I'd like you to consider that phalanx does not simply mean "Pezhetairoi and the like" -- in fact it is pretty much the Greek name for shieldwall/ heavy infantry. It's a minor note at best; but something which should be the key to how you use a phalanx on the battle field.

It's interesting to notice that the Phalanx performed very badly against the Legions in several occasions, and Magnesia is a classic example of a superior Phalanx army being routed by a Legion army in inferior numbers. The cavalry excuse can't be used, either, because the Seleucids had about the double of Elephants the Romans had and their cavalry was as strong as the Roman one, if not quite superior. So the Phalanx is only war-winning when you get large piece of flat land to deploy your line of spears, otherwise their tactical rigidity will make them vulnerable in less favourable terrain.

I would say that the Phalanx was a formidable formation, indeed, but the high cost in flexibility and maneuverability meant that you really need to be smart when maneuvering it, otherwise it was much easy for enemy infantry to explore the gaps in the line and send the whole phalangites running for the hills. The Legion wasn't able to defeat them from the front but the much larger flexibility meant that legionaries could quickly maneuver to explore the gaps at an enemy line and strike at their weakest point, thus getting decisive victories repeatedly.

Overall, later on the Phalanx was abandoned and either replaced by heavy infantry or by more flexible Spearmen with shorter spears. It came back to action later on the Middle Ages, but not by any means similar to the Greek Phalanx of the Ancient Age.

[Intranetusa]

See the bold part?

Right, lets try this again: The Romans were not super soldiers, even under Marius and after they remained militia, even under Nero the legions were not particually impressive.

Did Phillipvs seriously just call the post-Marian Roman legionaries "militia"?
That's totally wrong...the Roman millitary was the prime example of what a militia was not, and was one of the first fully professional armies in the western world.


and I totally agree with what Basileos ton Ellenon said:

1. Decrease their numbers to 160 (I play on huge, their size is 200), increase their stats, keep their current price and upkeep costs (or just make slight changes).

2. Keep their current numbers, increase their stats and their costs (so that nobody claims they are "overpowered").

3. Keep them more or less as they were in 0.81: powerful, numerous and cheap. Many people complain they were too powerful, but it took so long to get the Cohors Imperatoria that this would be not significant except in Custom Battles. The Cohors Reformata was powerful but certainly not capable of standing enemy Elite and even ordinary heavy infantry the way the Cohors Imperatoria did.

As for Pre-Marian units, stats for (Camillan) Principes should be decreased, or at least stats for Camillan Hastati should be a bit increased. Either they decrease the attack of spear units in general, or they increase the attack of all sword units (not just Roman units) to keep a better balance. I need to further elaborate, but discuss...

And finally, maybe the stats for the Evocati should be slightly increased, or they should be erased from the game. It's not worth to have, currently (except for storytelling and role-playing purposes).

[Charge]

Take for example battle of Magnesia. Phalanx did have a support of heavy cavalry, chariots, cataphracts. Roman cavalry was as always was inferior, but what happen? Seleucids' cavalry was broken (lol) ; phalangite without support= dead phalangite...
In this battle despite cavalry support phalanx did nothing, and in 2 other battles during macedonian wars cavalry wasn't used because of general's stupidity or something.
So post Alexander phalanxes have had less mobility (which means they'are useless against romans without support or due to terrain), and lower quality soldiers (almost levies)...

Basileos already explained...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Overall, later on the Phalanx was abandoned and either replaced by heavy infantry or by more flexible Spearmen with shorter spears. It came back to action later on the Middle Ages, but not by any means similar to the Greek Phalanx of the Ancient Age.

I beg to differ. The word "pikemen" which were still very much in use by 1600 should ring a bell there.

[EdwardL]

I beg to differ. The word "pikemen" which were still very much in use by 1600 should ring a bell there.

Making several areas / countries famous for them, such as the Swiss, or Flemish.

[The Wizard]

The flexibility and raw power of a phalanx properly trained and used was duly proven by the sheer effectiveness of Swiss and German pike formations from the 15th century onwards.

I'd also like to note that Seleucid cavalry at Magnesia was of far inferior quality to that of Alexander or Philip in any of their battles; indeed, the Companions have oft been called the single best formation of cavalry, ever. Meanwhile, as we all know, elephants are not a replacement for good cavalry.

[blacksnail]

Dont want to be the obnoxious noob here but isnt it an idea to give some sword troops an "Bonus versus spearman" trait? Like the spearmen have agains cavalry and axeman have against armoured troops.

We debated this bonus but decided against it because it caused more problems than it solved. I'm not a stats guy so I can't tell you why, but the short of it is that it screwed up the balance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did Phillipvs seriously just call the post-Marian Roman legionaries "militia"?
That's totally wrong...the Roman millitary was the prime example of what a militia was not, and was one of the first fully professional armies in the western world.


and I totally agree with what Basileos ton Ellenon said:

Okay, one last time, because then I'm going to lose my temper. Until the time of Augustus a Legion would be formed, trained, deployed and then either return after victory or be destroyed. At that point, if the formation survived, it was dispanded. Training up to battlefield standard was roughly 4 months, usually in Autumn/Winter.

Not until Augustus were permenant named and numbered formations created and wiki even gets the term of service wrong, Legionaries served 22 years, Auxillaries 25, Praetorians 16.

[mcantu]

Dont want to be the obnoxious noob here but isnt it an idea to give some sword troops an "Bonus versus spearman" trait? Like the spearmen have agains cavalry and axeman have against armoured troops.

The engine already applies a -4 penalty to spear units when fighting sword infantry. Why can anyone remember this when looking at the stats? (not necessarily you Davidian)

[Patriote]

Just as many things in life, you cannot determine the quality of an army by looking at results on battlefields. Also let not forget that an army is much than the sum of its parts and the military genius of the Romans was a combination of military, political and sociological elements and RTW cannot replicate them all.

It can be say that armies that win wars are those that manage to adapt to the changing warfare situation. Sure no army were perfect and none were undefeated. But yet, it is ridiculous to pretend that "good" armies won only because of their enemies' weaknesses and not of their own strengths (after they were "good" for something else just being "better" than their opponents)

For those knowing a little bit about war, weaknesses of the enemy do not provide you with an automatic victory. They are mostly opportunities that have to be seized. Just like every military formations, romans' ones had advantages and disadvantages but Romans found a way to minimize their weaknesses while capitalizing on their strength. The greatest strength of the Roman armies was its tactical flexibility which, in turn allowed the Roman subordinates(Centurion I believe but correct if I'm wrong) to take initiatives when those opportunities appeared. Nowadays they call this Boyd's cycle of decision for those interested in this subject.

Also, the Romans have always been good at adopting and evolving, military speaking, to be able, as a people, to survive. During their first confrontations with Gallic armies, Roman armies were often defeated and Rome even sacked. Facing their Samnite enemies, they learned a new way to do battle and after that, they kept on improving their tactics and equipment whenever they faced nations with "qualities" for war. So the argument of "luck" to explain the Roman Empire is rather juvenile otherwise any empire could be consider a result of luck

Concerning the debate, IMHO I think some people overestimate the strength of the spear compare to the sword. Sure having a longer reach is an advantage but, especially if held with one hand, a spear, with a single motion to attack, thrusting, is at great disadvantages when compare with all the attacking and parrying motions a well trained men can do with a sword (although I admit a well-trained and equipment spearman could give a swordsman a run for its money) Roman formations(with the exception of spear-armed romans) were more loose than most others formations giving the sword-armed Romans the freedom required to take advantage of their weapon.

So, any of you took a few minutes to read the website link I posted, you will understand why I think spearmen are "overpowered" when compare to swordsmen (although I'm sounding as if I was the one who wrote the original post )

[NeoSpartan]

It's interesting to notice that the Phalanx performed very badly against the Legions in several occasions, and Magnesia is a classic example of a superior Phalanx army being routed by a Legion army in inferior numbers. The cavalry excuse can't be used, either, because the Seleucids had about the double of Elephants the Romans had and their cavalry was as strong as the Roman one, if not quite superior. So the Phalanx is only war-winning when you get large piece of flat land to deploy your line of spears, otherwise their tactical rigidity will make them vulnerable in less favourable terrain.

....

Dude.... seriously...wtf are u talkng about???

-In Magnesia Antiachos had LESS cavarly so in order to make up for that he brought elephants which were put in intervals on the phanax, and the charriots, camels and some cataphracts were deployed on his right flank. He was hoping these "exotic" units would do the trick in destryoing the Romani left cavarly flank but guess what happened???

Romani skermishers (slinger namely) shot at the charriots, those went wild and started to cut the slow moving cataphacts and scare away the camels. Soon the Romani cavarly followed and routed the remaining cavarly and assorted skerimshers.

On the right flank of the Seleucid army Antiachos was leading the strong cavarly portion of his army. He ROUTED the romani left flank and persued it to the Roman camp. LEAVING his phalangites, galatian merceneries and elephants alone!!!!

SO, then the phanlangites formed a squeare of pike with the elephants and galatians and other infantry in the center. The Romani knew better so they DID NOT attack. Instead they threw missiles, rocks and javelings. Eventually the Elephants became roudy and wild INSIDE the square. Then formation was then broken and and everyone had to RUN!!!!!!!!!!!! The Romani proceeded to cut them down.

In the meantime Antiachos was pushed back once he got to the Romani camp. There the routing romans decided to stand thier ground along with the defenders of the camp (thats where they keep all their loot! can't loose that).

Thats how that battle went down!

I still don't know what ur deal with the spear units. They get a -4 penalty against infantry, thats why the "high" stats.

Ready to go Phalangites are nearly unbreakable in a frontal assult. Of them, Pezetaroi (sp) are profesional, drilled infantry, so they fight good with thier swords too.

Hoplites are a heavy armored infantry, so don't expect to see them get mowed down. Hell thier shield, the Aspis, is harder and heavier than the Roman Scutum.

[Charge]

agree with rest of your post, but ...

LESS CAVALRY???
12000 cavalry (hetairos, cataphracts, chariots, archers, others, +54 elephants)

against
3200 roman cavalry!

And romans were best in hand-to-hand combat! How you can't understood this?

[dezzerx]

And romans were best in hand-to-hand combat! How you can't understood this?

Yes how you not can stand under this? This well explained statement backed up by so much evidence!

Anyways this thread is starting to look like some of the threads on a military forum: WHACH ONE IS TEH BETTER?! DELTA OR SAS??!

[Watchman]

As a random observation, the quality of debate in this thread frankly blows.

Anyway. As things go, most swordsmen the world over regardless of period had this funny habit of more often than not having a spear as their primary initial weapon (not counting those who had a spear primarily for throwing, so as to damage and disorder the foe before contact, natch), which they would use until it either broke or the fighting moved into close enough quarters its reach became a hindrance and the sword served better. This was the case whether you're talking about Classical hoplites, Hellenistic phalangites, most of the sword-carrying heavy infantry of the Celts and Germans, Migration Period warbands, Vikings, Arab, Byzantine, Chinese or Japanese heavy infantry, just about any mounted soldier, Medieval and Early Modern pikemen and knights...

Heck, one reason gunpowder-era armies eventually stopped issuing swords to the infantry (the pike went extinct quite a bit earlier) was simply that the bayonet, which basically turned the musket or rifle into a spear, was simply more effective - and the equal failure of Ottoman Janissaries, Scottish Highland noblemen with sword and targe, and any number of sword-toting colonial-war native enemies to breach a steady wall of bayonets in hand-to-hand combat speaks volumes as to why.

Quite simply, a close-order wall of spearpoints is a nightmare to try to get through. God forbid should the spearmen have decent shields to boot, for then should you get to within sword-reach in the first place you still have to try to get around that blasted wall of wood, metal and leather... plus some of the buggers will sooner or later drop their spears (or throw them at you - you wouldn't believe some of the things people have used as short-range missile weapons...) and go for their sidearms anyway.

And then there's the offensive applications of the principle. If I've understood correctly the Greek aspis shield was pretty much designed for being used as a battering ram when the whole phalanx of hoplites crashed into the enemy formation as a solid avalanche of bronze and spear-points...

Anyway, in comparision the Roman big-shield-javelin-and-small-sword combination developed as a kind of "jeep" of a tactical system - it might kinda lose to specialist approaches in their strong field, but it had very few real shortcomings either and could be used almost anywhere to more or less equal effect (something quite not possible with the hoplite shieldwall or the pike phalanx). The big shield gave good protection, when used properly the cheap shortsword was quite lethal especially in combination with the shield once you got to grips with the foe, and the heavy shield- and armour-piercing javelin helped create the kinds of breaches in the enemy ranks you needed to bring the deadly little metal pricker into play.

The Celtic longswordmen clearly understood the principle as well, what now employed it with a bit different equipement kit. As did the so-called "copy legionaires" with their javelins, fighting-spears and short swords.


As for Roman soldierly professionalism, everything I've read about it says that the early citizen militia was of somewhat indifferent military calibre. No wonder, as these men spent easily the better part of their time tending their farms and other businesses instead of training for war. There were apparently small cadres of essentially full-time officers who then drilled the mobilized reservists in the actual manipular tactics and whose job it was to turn the hodge-podge groups of militiamen into lean mean cohesive fighting units, but the general rule of thumb seems to have been that the Roman armies tended to take it to the chin in the early part of any new war when the troops were still newly raised and not yet "knit" into effective fighting formations.

Another minor problem was of course that the maniple wasn't quite as "keep it simple stupid" easily effective as, say, the hoplite phalanx or similar close-order shieldwall formation. The looser order and emphasis on swordplay in close combat simply demanded more skill and practice of the soldiers to be really effective, and that was likely one major reason the Romans always tended to have some problems while the mobilized militia armies were still "learning the ropes". Conversely the classical citizen-militia hoplites were highly effective en masse despite not having much more opportunity for extensive practice (for the exact same reason as any part-time citizen-soldier), simply because of the way they fought in.

And the pike phalangite originally grew out of the need to turn psiloi skirmisher-class levies into heavy infantry that could take on the hoplite on at least equal terms; it succeeded quite well by its well-drilled formation of long spears.

Now the early Philippo-Alexandrian pikemen were already full-time professionals, and AFAIK the Greek hoplites had largely converted into full-time mercenary professionals during the Peloponnesian Wars; and professionals of course tended to be a notch more skilled and confident than part-time "Sunday soldiers". AFAIK this didn't really change much by the time the Successors started having turf wars with the Romans; they certainly had their own brands of part-time reservists of somewhat dodgy calibre (although the formidable nature of the pike-hedge in frontal encounters rather compensated), but their backbone infantry was essentially made up of full-time professionals or as close as makes no difference - nevermind now the elite "guard" units.

The Roman citizen-reservist system sort of became unsustainable by the middle 2nd century BC, not in the elast because the sheer size of the Republic's overseas territories meant the soldiers had to spend very long times abroad which duly tended to hurt them financially. In essence, the militia system was impoverished and starved by the results of its own success, and assorted great magnates and aristocrats cheerfully bought out the rural middle class that formed the backbone of the infantry from its estates and turned those into big latifundias. Hence, Rome increasingly lacked the manpower pool capable of furnishing itself with the required war gear for military service. It still needed troops however, so the wealthy and powerful took to recruiting the poor and dispossessed flocking to the suburbs of the cities into the ranks and providing their equipement from their own pockets, naturally enough not exactly altruistically. Hence the birth of the professional legions, a developement which Marius AFAIK really just formalized and streamlined. These were more or less full-time standing formations, at least as long as their de facto owners found it worth the expense to keep them around, with all that entails; regardless, as for example Spartacus' revolt points out, they were anything but unbeatable and particularly freshly formed units could be awfully brittle.


The Macedonians in particular did have problems with getting enough of cavalry support though, not in the least thanks to constant drain of emigrants to other Diadochi and constant battle attrition (and the Galatian rampage through their heartlands cannot have helped). This sort of tended to make them try and rely a little too heavily on the pike-phalanx "anvil" for victory, and since the Romans had learned its weaknesses already with Pyrrhus...

The Seleukids, in possession of the longtime "horse country" of the old Persian Empire, were obviously by far better off in this regard (until they lost some of their primary Iranian cavalry-recruiting grounds to the Parthians anyway), and by what I've read of it at Magnesia their massed cataphracts on the wing that wasn't decimated by their own scythed chariots and elephants and seen off by Roman and Pergamene cavalry pretty much rolled over everything the Romans had deployed against them. Alas the Seleukids apparently didn't quite understand the strenghts and limitations of this type of cavalry, as they then tried to pursue the routing Roman wing with them. This naturally had little more effect than hopelessly disorganizing their squadrons and blowing their horses, which along with the attentions of Roman reserves and rallied units forced them to largely quite the field or get massacred - at which point then the pike phalanx in the center was left hanging high and dry with its flanks bare, and was duly enveloped and cut down.

Had the Seleukids had the tactical savvy (and, perhaps, unit discipline) of reining in their superheavy cavalry, delegating the pursuit to lighter units far better suited for the job, and instead used them to turn the flank Roman center Magnesia might well have ended quite differently.

[Charge]

Good post Watchman, though I can add that romans hadn't deploy all their soldiers in this battle (~70000 men).

[Watchman]

*shrug* Armies on campaign can't always be gathered in one spot already for logistical reasons. "March divided fight united" as it were - and a canny commander will of course try to fight united when the other guy is still divided...

'S ain't called the Art of War for nuttin'.