Phalanxes in version 1.1

**NeoSpartan** · 01-13-2009, 20:40

Originally Posted by Aper

What?

.... or similar obsolete myths about ancient warfare... from Thermopylae to the wars against the Maks the reach of the weapons made an HUGE difference in the wars of the Greeks... as common sense suggest.
...

I am no expert on ancient history, but from the very FEW things I've read.... the long pikes were not THE desisive element in winning battles in ancient Greece.

**Watchman** · 01-13-2009, 21:18

They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.

**NeoSpartan** · 01-13-2009, 21:39

Originally Posted by Watchman

They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.

exactly!

**Novellus** · 01-14-2009, 01:18

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

I am no expert on ancient history, but from the very FEW things I've read.... the long pikes were not THE desisive element in winning battles in ancient Greece.

The lengthy sarissae did make a difference as it was able to keep the enemy at a longer distance in a close combat situation. When it comes to weapons, there are different levels when it comes to manuverability and range. Swords are highly manuverable weapons, able to be wielded in different fashions and can change direction during a swing. They do however lack the range that spears do. Spears keep an enemy at a further distance, sacrificing manuverability (it is difficult to parry and block other attacks with a spear, let alone a lengthy sarissa). When the phalanx formation was used, it presented more spears to protect the wielders from close range attacks by swordsmen. One person with a sarissa can easily be killed by a skilled swordsman by dodging the spearpoint and charging past to the attacker. But when there are several ranks to pass through, success in engaging the spearman in close combat without injury becomes decreased.

The sarissa was useful because it gave survivability to soldiers of the line. Enemies would be very preoccupied when encountering a phalanx because the spears would be a very tough defense to break through. And when the phalanx advanced, the opposing force would be put on a defensive, which in battle is a terrible thing to have happen. It is not as much the decisive element that you think of, but half of the "hammer and anvil" equation. The survivability allows the cavalry much more time to advance around the flanks and attack from the rear in comparison to other units. If you don't believe that the spear length was THAT important though, try the Makedonian campaign, but replace your Phalangatai Deuteroi with Hoplitai Haploi or Classical Greek Hoplitai. You'll notice the difference in the amount of time the lines last before breaking.

**antisocialmunky** · 01-14-2009, 04:18

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

**Watchman** · 01-14-2009, 04:28

Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

**Novellus** · 01-14-2009, 04:42

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.

Originally Posted by Watchman

Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

**NeoSpartan** · 01-14-2009, 18:56

Originally Posted by Novellus

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.

Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

Fellas... I feel you but I was answering the following question by:
desert

Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?

So... from what you and I have posted so far I can safely conclude:

Iphikrateans/pikemen DID NOT slaugher Hoplites (or anyone else with a big enough shield, and decent armor) in their phalanx/shield wall. When both sides faced eachother in neat formation, ready to fight the approaching enemy line and no way to outflank/manouver.

**antisocialmunky** · 01-14-2009, 19:24

You know, I can't dig it up right now but the wikipedia entry on the Achaean League cites Plutarch as saying that the Thureos's narrowness was a disadvantage in close combat. Granted if this paraphrase is accurate, Plutarch was a little late to the scene.

However it might just end up being a wash because Iphikratean hoplites had longer spears.