Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Thoughts and questions...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Whatever Member konny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Germania Inferior
    Posts
    1,787

    Default AW: Re: Thoughts and questions...

    Quote 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.

    Disclaimer: my posts are to be considered my private opinion and not offical statements by the EB Team

  2. #2
    Member Member Bactron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Prague, Czech rep.
    Posts
    129

    Default Re: Thoughts and questions...

    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.

  3. #3
    Member Member zooeyglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    245

    Default Re: AW: Re: Thoughts and questions...

    Quote 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.
    inde consilivm mihi pavca de Avgvsto et extrema tradere, mox Tiberii principatum et cetera, sine ira et stvdio, qvorvm cavsas procvl habeo.

  4. #4
    Whatever Member konny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Germania Inferior
    Posts
    1,787

    Default AW: Re: AW: Re: Thoughts and questions...

    Quote 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.

    Disclaimer: my posts are to be considered my private opinion and not offical statements by the EB Team

  5. #5
    Misanthropos Member I of the Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In a calm spot
    Posts
    733

    Default Re: Thoughts and questions...

    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?

  6. #6
    Member Member Pezlu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Gallia Cisalpina
    Posts
    170

    Default Re: Thoughts and questions...

    Quote 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?
    (from keravnos, for correctly recognizing the shield design of the Indohellenikoi Eugeneis Hoplitai as a hippocampus)

  7. #7
    Member Member anubis88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    3,400

    Default Re: Thoughts and questions...

    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
    Europa Barbarorum Secretary

  8. #8
    Misanthropos Member I of the Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In a calm spot
    Posts
    733

    Default Re: Thoughts and questions...

    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...

  9. #9
    Whatever Member konny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Germania Inferior
    Posts
    1,787

    Default AW: Thoughts and questions...

    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".
    Last edited by konny; 02-01-2008 at 14:53.

    Disclaimer: my posts are to be considered my private opinion and not offical statements by the EB Team

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO