In need of a fresh start

[Ardri]

So I have traditionally always played my sustained campaigns with the Romani, however, I have gotten bogged down in my latest campaign because it is just too much of the same old same old. I don't really like playing as the 'lesser' factions that were not historically vast expansionist, but the idea of Makedonia or KH seems intriguing to me. The one issue I have with taking up one of those factions is I do not know how I feel about their reliance on the phalanx. Basically, the inadequacy of the computer's use of the phalanx has left a bad taste in my mouth (I am in no way trying to say anything negative about the mod here, just stating what we all know about the hardcoded AI) so I would like to know if it is a bit more rewarding to fight with the phalanx as a player before I jump into a new campaign. Any input on any of the factions and why you guys enjoy them is more than welcome.

[Antinous]

Using a phalanx is a great way to distract your enemy and then flank them when they aren't paying attention.

[A Very Super Market]

Phalanxes have the same morale as the Romans, even the levies will most often fight to the death (Or close to it). They're easily flanked though, so expect to take heavy casualties in screening units, like light cav.

[Antinous]

That is true, so always have lots of soldiers guarding the phalanx's flank,

[Macilrille]

Historically that was how it was done. When the Epirotes under Pyrrhos faced the Romans it was an even fight Phalanx vs Legion because Pyrrhos was a talented general who knew how to shield his flanks. And in each case it was the deployment of the Elephants that broke the Romans stubborn will to fight. When as at Pydna and Cynoscephalai (sp) the Phalanx did not shield its flank it got crushed by the more mobile Romans flowing around its flanks.

So in EB as in history, ware your flanks.

[antisocialmunky]

Which one was it where Perseus put elephants behind each block of phalangites and then ran off after that plan totally failed?

[HunGeneral]

Well like others sad - watch for those flanks.

And now something which the Phalangites can do better then thoose Legioneres - in thight street fighting they are almost as a wall of stone. Put them so that both flanks reach to the buildings on the side of the street so they can't be flanked and in Phalanx formation (with guard mod turned on! - they don't tire too quickly) you can hold back enemies several times of you number.

If you really want of a wall of doom you can put a second unit of Phalangites mixed "with another" just drag the cursor so the line of the second phalanx will be behind the second line of the first. - because since you have to "stretch" the unit so they reach the buildings on the end of the street one unit hardly makes two rowes of men but two phalanxes will make the min 5.

You should also try this when assaulting a city with wooden wall - just remember to send in a more mobile unit first to cover the Phalangites while they form up - otherwise they might be overrun

[Macilrille]

AS, you are thinking of Pydna, but though Perseus ran away (possibly wounded by a missile, possible just never engaged with his cavalry), it was the Romans under Paulus that had 22 elephants, but while there were 21000 phalangites, only 2 legions (8-10000 men) were there.

It was a straight-up Legion vs Phalanx battle though and on even ground the Romans could not penetrate the phalanx from the front and had to retreat. However they retreated slowly over more rough ground and the resulting gaps in the phalanx front allowed them to get in close and personal with their Gladius. The phalangites wore hardened linen armour and a sword more akin to a dagger while legionaires as we know wore chainmail and wielded the Gladius Hispanensis. The result of a close up fight was given, the phalangites were doomed in close combat with Legionaires. I would like to add that it seems that Romans were aggressive, warlike and brutal even for their times, it became a slaughter. Perseus never engaged as I mentioned, nor did his cavalry apparently.

HG, neat, but eh... how often is that useful?

Anyway, I have done a bit of Suebi and Macedonian, but keep coming back to Res Publica Romana, when I eventually try my hand at something else it will likely be something very different, Baktria, AS or Saka, something that will force me to rethink my tactics and learn something new. I think that is the best advice I can give for your fresh start, try something completely different and learn new tactics...

[HunGeneral]

HG, neat, but eh... how often is that useful?

You mean the tactic for street fighting witg Phalangites?

try something completely different and learn new tactics...

I agree on that. And don't worry if you make mistakes - thats what you learn from.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

The best tactics that I learned for myself when playing (and winning) the Epirote campaign was to have 15 units of "Phalangitai Deuteroi", 4 units of Toxotai, and my General - in a full stack army, of course. You set the phalanxes in phalanx mode and "defend" and simply march a ridiculously long line of troops around and place them in front of the enemy. Let them come to your wall of death. Stretch out your Toxotai the entire length of your infantry and make sure that fire arrows are on. Keep your general in the rear so he can run up and down the line blowing his horn as needed.

As far as flanks go.......you don't need to worry if your infantry line is longer than that of the enemy. If it isn't, or they're going to be buggers and use cavalry, then just face 1 unit on each end to the flanks. They can run and chase the cavalry if they have to, and your Toxotai can pummel them from their unprotected flanks/rear if they really become a problem.

Basically, if you have enough phalanxes, you should never lose.

[Ardri]

try something completely different and learn new tactics...

That is exactly what I am thinking I am going to do.

[artaxerxes]

When as at Pydna and Cynoscephalai (sp) the Phalanx did not shield its flank it got crushed by the more mobile Romans flowing around its flanks.

Some of you history geniuses plz explain to me how someone in REAL LIFE could be so stupid as to not guard their flanks? Not being disrespectful or questioning your sources, I just mean, EVEN the stupid AI is USUALLY CLEVER enough to figure out that I mustn't get my people around its flanks... Whenever I've read about Pydna and the other one, I've always wondered, cos' it's always sounded as if even a complete moron would have been able to at least put up a little bit better a fight than the actual Macedonians did. I love Macedonia and I dislike Rome, so don't get me wrong. If anybody has anything nice to say about Perseus and his father, Antigonus (was it the 5th?), PLEASE DO, cos I WANNA LIKE THEM, but from what Ive heard of fx Pydna, it just sounds extremely HARD to get to like them...

[A Very Super Market]

Perseus wasn't even there at Pydna, nor did his cavalry help out. The phalangites were busy fighting the Romans, they didn't notice them creeping around the side. Or couldn't do anything about it.

[Macilrille]

Yes HG I meant the street fighting, although I can see a use for it, abandon the walls and block all roads to central square with Plangites (that in itself tells me that something is wrong with the city victory system).

I stole the following from Wikipedia as I am in fact not an axpert on these two battles.

Battle of Cynoscephalae
Flamininus, with his allies from the Aetolian League, was stationed at Thebes, and marched out towards Pherae in search of Philip, who was at Larisa. When Flamininus began his march to Larisa he had under his command about 32,500 to 33,400 soldiers. Besides the usual Roman troops and auxiliary units that would appear in any Roman army Flamininus's forces also included soldiers from the allied Aetolian League, light infantry from Athamania, mercenary archers from Crete, and elephants and Numidian cavalry from King Masinissa of Numidia. Philip had about 16,000 heavy infantry in phalanx formation, 2,000 peltasts, 5,500 light infantry from Illyria, Thrace, and Crete, and 2,000 cavalry for 25,500 troops overall. The two armies met near Pherae, and Philip's troops were defeated in a cavalry skirmish on the hills outside the city. Both sides then marched toward Scotusa in search of food, but out of sight of each other because of the hills.

During the march there was a heavy rainstorm, and the morning after there was a fog over the hills and fields separating both camps. Despite this, Philip resumed his march, and his troops became confused and disoriented, ending up on the Cynoscephalae hills. Flamininus sent out his cavalry, which engaged Philip's troops when they unexpectedly came upon the Macedonian camp. Flamininus sent 500 cavalry and 2,000 infantry as reinforcements, forcing Philip to withdraw further up the hill. The commander of Philip's mercenaries, Athenagoras, chased the Romans off the hill, and, having been told that they were fleeing in disorder, Philip reluctantly decided to move his troops, some 8,000 phalangites, into the field below the hill.
Flamininus positioned his troops on the field as well. He left his right wing in reserve, with his elephants in front, and personally led the left wing of light infantry against Philip. Flamininus joined with the reinforcements he had sent ahead earlier, and came up against the phalanx making up Philip's right wing. After the phalanx had repulsed the legions the first time, and forced them to withraw to rougher terrain, where it was hard for the phalanx to operate with their long spears, Philip had his pezhetairoi throw away their spears and fight with their swords. He repositioned his troops so that the line was twice as deep, and placed the cavalry and light infantry on the right wing.

Philip's right wing was now on higher ground than the Roman left, and was at first successful against them. His left wing and center, made up of another 8,000 phalangites, however were still disorganized and in marching position, so they had not even formed the phalanx yet, and Flamininus sent his elephants charging into them, routing them completely. After breaking through, one of the Roman tribunes took twenty maniples (a smaller division of the legion) and attacked the Macedonian right wing from behind. The Macedonians, although without their long spears, were still in phalanx formation and were unable to reposition themselves as quickly as the Roman maniples. Now surrounded by both wings of the Roman legion, they suffered heavy casualties and soon fled.



Battle of Pydna
The Third Macedonian War started in 171 BC, after a number of acts on the part of King Perseus of Macedon incited Rome to declare war. At first, the Romans won a number of small victories, largely due to Perseus' refusal to consolidate his armies. By the end of the year, the tide changed dramatically and Perseus had regained most of his losses, including the important religious city of Dion. Perseus then established himself in an unassailable position on the river Elpeus, in northeastern Greece.

The next year, command of the Roman expeditionary force passed to Lucius Aemilius Paulus, an experienced soldier who was one of the consuls for the year. In order to force Perseus out of his position, Paulus sent a small force (8,200 foot and 120 horse) under the command of Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum to the coast, a feint to convince Perseus that he was attempting a riverborne flanking maneuver. Instead, that night Scipio took his force south and over the mountains to the west of the Roman and Macedonian armies. They moved as far as Pithium, then swung northeast to attack the Macedonians from the rear.

A Roman deserter, however, made his way to the Macedonian camp and Perseus sent Milo with a force of 12,000 to block the approach road. The encounter that followed sent Milo and his men back in disarray towards the main Macedonian army. After this, Perseus moved his army northwards and took up a position near Katerini, a village south of Pydna. It was a fairly level plain and was very well suited to the phalanx.

Paulus then had Scipio rejoin the main force, while Perseus deployed his forces for what appeared to be an attack from the south by Scipio. The Roman armies were actually to the west, and when they advanced, they found Perseus fully deployed. Instead of joining battle with troops tired from the march, they encamped to the west in the foothills of Mount Olocrus. At the night before the battle there was an eclipse of the moon, which was perceived by the Macedonians as an ill omen, bringing fear and terror into their hearts. According to Plutarch, they interpreted it as a sign of their king's demise.

The fighting began the afternoon of the next day, June 22. The exact cause of the start of the battle differs; one story is that Paulus waited until late enough in the day for the sun not to be in the eyes of his troops, and then sent an unbridled horse forward to bring about alarm. More likely it was the result of some Roman foragers getting a little too close and being attacked by some Thracians in Perseus' army.
The two armies appear quite evenly matched in numbers. The Romans had 35,000 men, of which 30,500 were infantry, including two legions (approximate strength 20.000 foot and horse). The Macedonians had 44,000 soldiers, of which 21,000 were phalangites. The cavalry forces were roughly equal, about 4,000 each. The two armies were drawn up in their usual fashion. The Romans had placed the two legions in the middle, with the allied Latin, Italian and Greek infantry on their flanks. The cavalry was placed on the wings, with the Roman right being supplemented by 22 elephants. The phalanx took up the center of the Macedonian line, with the elite 3,000-strong Guard formed to the left of the phalanx. Lighter peltasts, mercenaries and Thracian infantry guarded the two flanks of the phalanx, while the Macedonian cavalry was also most possibly arrayed on both flanks. The stronger contingent was on the Macedonian right, where Perseus commanded the heavy cavalry (including his elite Sacred Squadron), and the Thracian Odrysian cavalry were deployed.

The two centers engaged at about 3pm, with the Macedonians advancing on the Romans a short distance from the Roman camp. Paulus claimed later that the sight of the phalanx filled him with alarm and amazement. The Romans tried to beat down the enemy pikes or hack off their points, but with little success. Unable to get under the thick bristle of spikes, the Romans were beaten back, and some of their allies abandoned the field.

But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion. Paulus now ordered the legions into the gaps, attacking the phalangites on their exposed flanks. At close quarters the longer Roman sword and heavier shield easily prevailed over the short sword (little more than a dagger) and lighter armor of the Macedonians. They were soon joined by the Roman right, which had succeeded in routing the Macedonian left.

Seeing the tide of battle turn, Perseus fled with the cavalry on the Macedonian right. According to Plutarch, Perseus' cavalry had yet to engage, and both the king and his cavalry were accused of cowardice by the surviving infantry. Poseidonius claimed that the king was injured by enemy missiles and was brought to the city of Pydna at the start of the battle. However, the 3,000 strong Guard fought to the death, and the Macedonians suffered more than 25,000 dead or captured out of 40,000. The battle lasted about an hour but the bloody pursuit lasted until nightfall.

Perseus later surrendered to Paulus, and was paraded in triumph in Rome in chains. He was then imprisoned. The Macedonian kingdom was dissolved, inhabitants enslaved and sent to Rome, settled with roman colonists (ex-legionaries) and roman allies and replaced with four republics. In time, these were also dissolved, and Macedonia became a Roman province.

The battle is often considered to be a victory of the Roman legion's flexibility over the phalanx's inflexibility. Nevertheless, some argue that the loss was actually due to a failure of command on the part of Perseus and the peculiar stance of the Companions, who did not engage the enemy. In effect, the battle of Pydna might be the only battle attested, where the Roman maniples succeeded in breaking the Macedonian phalanx by engaging it frontally.

Hope this helps.

[antisocialmunky]

Well they were relying on the Phalanx to totally annihilate everything infront of it. The other parts of the Alexandrian system suffered from neglect due to emphasis on phalangites and constant warfare. And by 'flanking,' people mean getting in between the blocks of phalangites (16x16 square of men), not the whole round trip of around the sides and rolling up the line.

I believe in the case of Cynoscephalae, the Romans literally ran into the Macedonian Camp in the fog and end up fighting up a mountain. The ensuing confusion caused part of the Macedonian Left to be disorganized. The Macedonian right formed up well and managed to push the Romans back. Infact, the right ended up throwing away their long pikes and going to their swords because the Romans were pushed onto some broken ground. The left however were in marching formation and the Roman elephants routed part of it. Then that Roman Tribune took those 20maniples behind the right and encircled them.

At Pydna, the phalanx hit broken terrain after initially driving the Romans off the field and gaps opened up. At that point the Romans just poured through the gaps and hit the phalanx from the side and behind.

Really it was a lack of cavalry to decisively win battles and reserve of more flexible infantry to plug gaps and defend the flanks of each phalangite block that caused the system to break down.

[Ardri]

cos' it's always sounded as if even a complete moron would have been able to at least put up a little bit better a fight than the actual Macedonians did

I am not going to pretend to be an expert or knowledgeable on the battle being discussed, because frankly I am not; however, I will say that commanding a battle in the period with no real time intelligence, slow communication, and a myriad of other problems could easily lead to an army being beaten on its flanks. A prime example of this is the battle of Chancellorsville in the American Civil War (a period I am much more familiar with) which was probably one of the greatest flanking maneuvers pulled off in the history of warfare. Obviously the period is off by about 2000 years, but in principle it seems the same. Tactical and strategic genius can be easily foiled by outside circumstance and factors that are simply outside the control of the leaders in charge. Granted, the generals will bear the ultimate weight of these failures when judged by history.

[HunGeneral]

Yes HG I meant the street fighting, although I can see a use for it, abandon the walls and block all roads to central square with Plangites (that in itself tells me that something is wrong with the city victory system).

Yes that is one way. However i use it (very often) when besieging a city. Till now it hasn't failed my generals - best score till now was about 10 -15 Phalangites + about 10 more soldiers lost altogether on my side while 80% of the other side was "put to rest" in the first 10 minutes of the battle. I could explain the tactic more detailed but I would do it later (short on time) and I woulnd't want to hijack the thread

Really it was a lack of cavalry to decisively win battles and reserve of more flexible infantry to plug gaps and defend the flanks of each phalangite block that caused the system to break down.

Thats just a I see it. The post Alexander Successor armies failed mostly because of the lack of support troops (and lack of generals capabilities).

[Indomenos]

Which one was it where Perseus put elephants behind each block of phalangites and then ran off after that plan totally failed?

you may be confusing something with the deployment of Antiochos III at Magnesia. the phalanx was deployed 32-ranks deep, and in the gaps he deployed pairs of war elephants. i suppose it was one way to prevent the more mobile Roman infantry from exploiting the gaps. in the end, however, the elephants inevitably panicked, and that, in combination with the return of the Roman cavalry upon the flanks, broke the line.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, that was the one. That just seems like a really bad idea to put something so unrealiable between each of your phalangites to GUARD THEIR FLANKS. Such a weird deployment.