Thoughts and questions...

**konny** · 02-01-2008, 11:09

Originally Posted by Bactron

One thing that I dont understand is why were archers on the wing? (assuming that they were placed there) I personally keep them rather in safety behind my phlanax line.

Fighting phalanx archers don't do any damage when shooting on the front of the enemy. The best angle would be (appart from behind) shooting into the right flank of the enemy (no shields!). And for that they are best placed on your left wing. In EB Syrian and Cretian archers are also of some use in melee, so they can fall on the enemy's wing after spending all their missles.

**Bactron** · 02-01-2008, 12:18

Thanks for explanation guys, It makes sense. And I will change my formation when fighting against other phalanx armies by placing my archers on the left wing.

**zooeyglass** · 02-01-2008, 12:49

Originally Posted by konny

Fighting phalanx archers don't do any damage when shooting on the front of the enemy. The best angle would be (appart from behind) shooting into the right flank of the enemy (no shields!). And for that they are best placed on your left wing. In EB Syrian and Cretian archers are also of some use in melee, so they can fall on the enemy's wing after spending all their missles.

and of course that's why cavalry was often used on the wings also - to chase down skirmishers, and generally secure the flanks more quickly.

**konny** · 02-01-2008, 13:37

Originally Posted by zooeyglass

and of course that's why cavalry was often used on the wings also - to chase down skirmishers, and generally secure the flanks more quickly.

When talking of a phalanx army there is basically no other room for non-phalanx units than on the wings. The phalanx itself should be a wall of pikes and do not permitt units (either friend or foe) to pass through it. In fact, the only army that was able to let units pass thorugh the main line on a larger scale was the Roman army - thanks to the open order it was deployed in before actually attacking.

In EB, on the other hand, it is no problem to move say 200 archers and 400 skirmisher right thorugh the middle of your 1,000 men phalanx several times without throwing the entire formation into disorder.

**I of the Storm** · 02-01-2008, 14:07

In relation to this, I remember (i think from reading Polybius), that successor armies often weren't so much one straight line of phalangites, but more a line with joints. IIRC it was in the Magnesia description (could be wrong here though, it's been some time...), that e.g. some elephants were placed in between sections of the phalanx as well as on the flanks. Same with missile troops and mobile inf.
Now, was this common for successor armies or was it a rather innovative (and failing) approach, possibly developed on macedonians vs. romans experiences?

**Pezlu** · 02-01-2008, 14:17

Originally Posted by I of the Storm

In relation to this, I remember (i think from reading Polybius), that successor armies often weren't so much one straight line of phalangites, but more a line with joints. IIRC it was in the Magnesia description (could be wrong here though, it's been some time...), that e.g. some elephants were placed in between sections of the phalanx as well as on the flanks. Same with missile troops and mobile inf.
Now, was this common for successor armies or was it a rather innovative (and failing) approach, possibly developed on macedonians vs. romans experiences?

Elephants right between the phalanxes? I hope they don't run amok!

However, that formation with melee infantry to protect the flanks of the various "phalanx sections" seems intersting... but I guess the next "evolution2 would be to divide the line in the various sections, making them independent; you wuold obtain a few short phalanx lines with protected flanks that can act indipentently or be placed in a single line with "joints", as you said.

Thoughts?

**anubis88** · 02-01-2008, 14:37

No, i don't believe that was common for the Diadochi armys.
This experiment of Antiochos failed, this army arrangement was one of the main reasons for losing the battle. The elephants fled, and the phalanx suddenly had giant holes in it.
The Romans did great damage to the phalanx just with their pillas, but after the elephants broke the battle was lost

**I of the Storm** · 02-01-2008, 14:50

That was my suspicion too, thanks. Technically, with the creation of these joints between phalanx you also create possibilities for gaps, thus additional flanks. It was probably worth a try though.

Although the following peace treaty was rather devastating...

**konny** · 02-01-2008, 14:51

Pyrrhos is said to have used a "light phalanx", that is phalanx mixed with Thureophoroi and the like. In another post I had compared that to the Spanish Tercios of the 15th - 17th Century, even thought the Tercios (or better their pike formations) did not act as a single line but more as moving fortresses on the battlefield. In consequence the musqueteers attached to it were called "garrisons".