Hoplitai too weak ?

[glouch]

enough of this already. watchman and the others have more than answered the question.

the problem is that flavius belisarius seems to be using his own intuition to rebut your statements about an inflexible phalanx. soldiers arranged in a square of pike formation could in theory be easily ordered to turn their pikes in another direction, right?

the problem with this assumption, and i hope you're reading this flavius belisarius, is that it fails to take into account the fact that the pikes in question were about 20 feet long, that's two storeys for easy visualization. imagine trying to manipulate that and then turning in another direction, then lowering it down again; it would have been very difficult considering the weight of the pike itself coupled with it actually acting like a LEVER ARM, which would have applied tremendous magnitudes of MOMENT on the mens' arms. many would have not been able to get their pikes upright, let alone KEEP their pikes upright; many would inevitably have hit each others' pikes or other soldiers themselves, and as for the latter: it would have been incredibly difficult to balance a pike upright (try keeping a stick upright on your hand. difficult isn't it?), what more if someone hit it? all this, together with the mere thought that a company of enemy soldiers were rushing towards the flanks of the formation they were in, would have caused great confusion and panic.

now, as for the hoplites being 'too weak', it depends entirely on the situation ie. frame of reference. if you're charging a phalanx head on, then of course you'd think they're weak. you'd be blind and without any common sense to think that anyone would have had any remote chance of defeating an enemy 15-20 feet away, which is the case when you're fighting a man with a 20-foot pike. an attack from the flanks, or better, from behind, and things swing dramatically toward the aggressor's favor.

hoplites in my opinion are excellent troops to use defensively. offensively, they might lose out to javelin-hurling units just because of the, well, javelins. but with good maneuvering, positioning, and of course, tactics (and not with the tactic-less frontal assault you[flavius belisarius] seem to be doing), ANY good-quality infantry will defeat any other infantry force, or any other force for that matter. any good attack doesn't rely on JUST an assault; for it to succeed you need to create opportunities to take advantage of. defense on the other hand requires you to block any attempt by the enemy to create the aforementioned opportunities, which is precisely what you are NOT DOING by letting the enemy charge your hoplitai with heavy cavalry, for heaven's sake, REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY.

i don't know about you, but it seems flavius belisarius is using the alleged "underpowered-ness" of hoplitai as a scapegoat for bad generalship.

[ARCHIPPOS]

i don't know about you, but it seems flavius belisarius is using the alleged "underpowered-ness" of hoplitai as a scapegoat for bad generalship.

but then again he could be a 16 year old struggling to get a grip on ancient tactics ... all in all i agree with your points though...

even so such threads are highly instructive no??? just look how many interesting oppinions popped up

[Sdragon]

I don't think flavius belisarius is taking into account that ANY unit that stands there and takes repeated cavalry charges is going to lose. No infantry stands a chance against such unchecked agression.

[gja102]

Another thing you've got to remember about hoplites in EB is that a lot of them get quite generous morale and stamina bonuses. The stamina in particular gives them good staying power, and means that they'll usually only be 'winded' by the time the enemy are 'tired', so in the long run they will win a grinding attrition battle (like they're supposed to).

Regarding the Spartans, they don't have the best weapon stats but they do get a huge stamina bonus. I started a KH game and I was predisposed towards hating the Spartans (in my ill-informed mind they were arrogant, conservative, backwards, inefficient, hollywood-friendly, overhyped, irritating child-murderers, and yes I know my opinion isn't necessarily accurate so please don't pull me up on it, it was just my general feeling). After a few battles, though, even I had to concede that they were one of the best units in the game. If you have two units of Spartans you can take all but the best-defended city. Narrow streets means they can't be outflanked, and their world-class stamina means they'll never tire of killing (especially if you rest one unit while the other fights). They won't win a battle quickly, but in the long run the enemy will collapse from exhaustion and rout. To a lesser extent, this applies to all hoplites in EB. They're murderously stubborn.

[ARCHIPPOS]

in my ill-informed mind they were arrogant, conservative, backwards, inefficient, hollywood-friendly, overhyped, irritating child-murderers, and yes I know my opinion isn't necessarily accurate so please don't pull me up on it, it was just my general feeling).

hah in my ill-informed mind they stand as pretty much the same... sure they were tougher to crack than 98% of all hoplites around but still they fared very low in the quantity/quality ratio which in the end makes all the difference in strategic terms ...

[Maion Maroneios]

They're murderously stubborn.

This sums up the nature of hoplites in EB perfectly. Murderously stubborn. Sometimes my guys simply refuse to break, even when facing the toughest of situations. Lately, I fought a sandwitched bridge battle against 2 armies. The main one came head-on, while a smaller one had to cross a bridge to get to me. I had my hoplites in shieldwall formation facing the bridge, and they absorbed the oncoming Galatian troops (which included a unit of the fearsome Tindanotae and one of Kuarothoroi) pretty smoothly (meaning no guys flying around and no chaos amongst the lines). Even with guard mode on, they seemed to hold on forever while loosing minimal men themselves. Only when I took them off guard mode and they started pushing forwards did thet loose men at a higher rate than before (but that was also probably because they were already tiring by that time).

To cut a long story short, Hoplitai and generally hoplites are one of my favourite units in EB. They have good armour and shield values, good morale and discipline, and their closely-packed formation and spears make them an excellent counter-cavalry force as well. They just have to be used correctly. I personally use them on each end of my main phalanx line composed of phalangites, and they've never dissapointed me. On the contrary, their abilities as never cease to impress me on several occasions even after a long time of playing EB and using them in my armies.

Maion

[lionhard]

I just watched a thing on great commander (alexander the great) it goes thru the whole army and says that the pikes were 20 m long and rather than hoplites being a more of a defencive formation the phalanx was more like an offensive and was like a tank rolling over the enemy, most of the enemy were killed before even reaching the macedonians holding the phalanx's. Except in the battle of issus darius had his whole cavalry charge alexanders left flank and things got a bit hectic so thats why alexander had to turn back rather than persue darius.

Phalanx is deffo more effective but as i was getting at earlier hoplites had been the classical way in which greece fought as we all know, they were around for a very long time. where as the phalanx was introduced by philip father of alexander and died out when the romans took over 200 years later.

So in theory the hoplite formation was around for like over 1000 years they used it back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans.

Where as the phalanx was around for like 300 years. Sad really because i wuv phalanx's :(

[Maion Maroneios]

back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans

I'm sorry but this was wrong and very historically inaccurate. Greece was never a unified nation, I'm afraid. That would come much, much later.

Maion

[A Very Super Market]

Phalangites didn't really die out anyways. Pikemen essentially recreate the Macedonian phalanx.

[Satyros]

I should probably point out that at the time of the trojan war the hoplite phalanx tactics were not the norm I think . I don't know if they even existed , but I'm not a history buff so feel free to enlighten us all you history experts .

This is if we are talking about the Mycenean ( sp? ) kingdom and allied poleis .

I have read ( and by all means correct me if I am wrong ) that then the spear was held with both arms .

Also Homer ( who is said to have lived live centuries after the Trojan war ) indicates that chariots were being used , and there is a finding of that era , an bronze armor presumably of a chariot's passenger , the armor of Δενδρών ( sorry don't even know how to write this in English , help guys ) that indicates that a rather different way of fighting was used at that time , the armor being many overlaping bronze rings that covered most of the body , a sort of " full plate "armor of the time .

It is also presumed , that the soldiers were mixed regiments of archers and spearmen , again based on Homer's account of battles .

Of course Homer cannot be accepted as a verified historical source , but still the findings of the era can point to certain conclusions .

Any clarifications/corrections on the historical mess I presented welcome .

Satyros

[Macilrille]

I just watched a thing on great commander (alexander the great) it goes thru the whole army and says that the pikes were 20 m long and rather than hoplites being a more of a defencive formation the phalanx was more like an offensive and was like a tank rolling over the enemy, most of the enemy were killed before even reaching the macedonians holding the phalanx's. Except in the battle of issus darius had his whole cavalry charge alexanders left flank and things got a bit hectic so thats why alexander had to turn back rather than persue darius.

Phalanx is deffo more effective but as i was getting at earlier hoplites had been the classical way in which greece fought as we all know, they were around for a very long time. where as the phalanx was introduced by philip father of alexander and died out when the romans took over 200 years later.

So in theory the hoplite formation was around for like over 1000 years they used it back when greece was 1 big nation when they defeated the trojans.

Where as the phalanx was around for like 300 years. Sad really because i wuv phalanx's :(

A few comments ijn my drunken stupor.

TV as a source, NO GO!!!

20 m. long pikes???

The sarissae was 6- 7 m long, the later medeival pikes 5-6 and wielded differently.

[Watchman]

He seems to be getting his scales confused... I hear the Successors did experiment with sarissae a whopping 21'/7m long, but those proved nigh-unmanageable. Anyway, AFAIK under Philip and Alexander the things were still in their "growth phase" - starting out at something like about 4m early on and gradually growing ever longer as the troops got better at managing them and the limits of the "impenetrable spear-wall" concept were pushed further.

Anyway, the Medieval pikes were AFAIK more or less very much an independent developement, an outgrowth of the the ubiquitous infantry longspear, and in practice used nigh-identically to the ancient sarissas - there's only so many ways you can handle a six-meter flagpole with a knife on top. Though I understand the Medieval pikemen, besides obviously not carrying shields like the phalangites did, did employ a wider variety of "grips" - a "reverse grip" at shoulder height being apparently quite common and regarded as optimal for certain tasks (IIRC, for attacking infantry).
What the Medieval pikemen did differently was drill and tactics. The Macedonian pike phalanx more or less grew out of the classic hoplite linear tactics as the "anvil" that pinned down the enemy infantry centre for the heavy-cavalry "hammer" to destroy; the Swiss for most intents and purposes didn't have shock cavalry, and duly developed their pike tactics and drills with offensive in mind from the ground up. They also did away with the flank issue by the expedient of operating in large hollow squares, with integrated ranged and close-assault support.

[Apázlinemjó]

This sums up the nature of hoplites in EB perfectly. Murderously stubborn. Sometimes my guys simply refuse to break, even when facing the toughest of situations. Lately, I fought a sandwitched bridge battle against 2 armies. The main one came head-on, while a smaller one had to cross a bridge to get to me. I had my hoplites in shieldwall formation facing the bridge, and they absorbed the oncoming Galatian troops (which included a unit of the fearsome Tindanotae and one of Kuarothoroi) pretty smoothly (meaning no guys flying around and no chaos amongst the lines). Even with guard mode on, they seemed to hold on forever while loosing minimal men themselves. Only when I took them off guard mode and they started pushing forwards did thet loose men at a higher rate than before (but that was also probably because they were already tiring by that time).

To cut a long story short, Hoplitai and generally hoplites are one of my favourite units in EB. They have good armour and shield values, good morale and discipline, and their closely-packed formation and spears make them an excellent counter-cavalry force as well. They just have to be used correctly. I personally use them on each end of my main phalanx line composed of phalangites, and they've never dissapointed me. On the contrary, their abilities as never cease to impress me on several occasions even after a long time of playing EB and using them in my armies.

Maion

And let's not forget they are quite invulnerable to arrows too.

[Cute Wolf]

From reading all the previous posts I diagnose that most of the "Hoplite complainers" are using "the -4 attack to spear units 'fix' that's not a fix anyway", since that 'fix' are greatly made hoplites suffer... just revert back to default EB 1.2 EDU values and i guarantee that you'll be statisfied with your hoplites...

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp, 5095 cost, 873 upkeep, and 2 turns training... no wonder, they become the strongest units in the game... but that's because I love my Spartans... not because historical corectness...

[Constantius III]

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp, 5095 cost, 873 upkeep, and 2 turns training... no wonder, they become the strongest units in the game... but that's because I love my Spartans... not because historical corectness...

I'm sure Akrotatos and his Spartan bodyguards could have used you when he died in a fruitless assault on Megalopolis in, you know, real history.

[Maion Maroneios]

And about Spartans, I personally mod them in my game to have 2 Hp,

OK, that's something I would personally never do for example. This is grand cheating at it's top.

Maion

[Flavius_Belisarius]

enough of this already. watchman and the others have more than answered the question.

the problem is that flavius belisarius seems to be using his own intuition to rebut your statements about an inflexible phalanx. soldiers arranged in a square of pike formation could in theory be easily ordered to turn their pikes in another direction, right?

the problem with this assumption, and i hope you're reading this flavius belisarius, is that it fails to take into account the fact that the pikes in question were about 20 feet long, that's two storeys for easy visualization. imagine trying to manipulate that and then turning in another direction, then lowering it down again; it would have been very difficult considering the weight of the pike itself coupled with it actually acting like a LEVER ARM, which would have applied tremendous magnitudes of MOMENT on the mens' arms. many would have not been able to get their pikes upright, let alone KEEP their pikes upright; many would inevitably have hit each others' pikes or other soldiers themselves, and as for the latter: it would have been incredibly difficult to balance a pike upright (try keeping a stick upright on your hand. difficult isn't it?), what more if someone hit it? all this, together with the mere thought that a company of enemy soldiers were rushing towards the flanks of the formation they were in, would have caused great confusion and panic.

now, as for the hoplites being 'too weak', it depends entirely on the situation ie. frame of reference. if you're charging a phalanx head on, then of course you'd think they're weak. you'd be blind and without any common sense to think that anyone would have had any remote chance of defeating an enemy 15-20 feet away, which is the case when you're fighting a man with a 20-foot pike. an attack from the flanks, or better, from behind, and things swing dramatically toward the aggressor's favor.

hoplites in my opinion are excellent troops to use defensively. offensively, they might lose out to javelin-hurling units just because of the, well, javelins. but with good maneuvering, positioning, and of course, tactics (and not with the tactic-less frontal assault you[flavius belisarius] seem to be doing), ANY good-quality infantry will defeat any other infantry force, or any other force for that matter. any good attack doesn't rely on JUST an assault; for it to succeed you need to create opportunities to take advantage of. defense on the other hand requires you to block any attempt by the enemy to create the aforementioned opportunities, which is precisely what you are NOT DOING by letting the enemy charge your hoplitai with heavy cavalry, for heaven's sake, REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY.

i don't know about you, but it seems flavius belisarius is using the alleged "underpowered-ness" of hoplitai as a scapegoat for bad generalship.

Thanks for this informativ explaination. Then my point of view of phalanx was totaly false. I was quite sure of that what i said. Im sorry but im glad now to know how it really is.

I have one question about the hoplitais. Had such a phalanx formation of hoplitais a chance against sword bearing warriors? So were Legionarys simply more flexible than hoplitais so that they could surround the phalanx or were swords simply more effectiv in close melee combat ?

Edidt.: The reason why i came to the statement are hoplitais too weak, was because i thougth that they are offensive units. I was in the believe that they were used in real only of assaults.

[Phalanx300]

Hoplites are offensive units, not in the way as other units but they certainly weren't units used for defense.

In frontal combat units like Romans didn't have much chance, from the front Hoplites were nigh-impossible to beat with loose order units.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Hoplites are offensive units, not in the way as other units but they certainly weren't units used for defense.

In frontal combat units like Romans didn't have much chance, from the front Hoplites were nigh-impossible to beat with loose order units.

So hoplitais are still to weak in this game because they cant face any heavy infantery altough they could in real? Or is there something which Im missing.

[Phalanx300]

So hoplitais are still to weak in this game because they cant face any heavy infantery altough they could in real? Or is there something which Im missing.

That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point.

[Macilrille]

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous. In fact in all Pyrrhos' battles with the Romans the Legions met the Phalanx head on and fought it to a standstill with even numbers. It was, in all instances the Romans lost those battles, a question of Pyrrhos deploying his elephants in the right place and time.

The times I can think of where a Phalanx met a Legionary force head on and pushed it back it was the Makedons at Cynoscephalai and Pydna. However, the phalanx then lost order and was thus opened to the more mobile legionaires, effectively dooming the phalangites.

There was also a phalanx holding a breach in a wall against the odds sometimes during the 2nd Makedonian, but with its flanks covered by a wall the phalanx was close to invulnerable, so that is logical- and the ideal way to use it.

True Hoplitai I do not really know about, did they actually ever face the Legions? But I imagine the result would be much the same.

[Maion Maroneios]

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous. In fact in all Pyrrhos' battles with the Romans the Legions met the Phalanx head on and fought it to a standstill with even numbers. It was, in all instances the Romans lost those battles, a question of Pyrrhos deploying his elephants in the right place and time.

That's why phalanxes alone don't stand a chance against such an enemy. The reason Alexandros reached the ends of the world wasn't because he had such an unstoppable phalanx line that ripped the enemy to pieces, rather than pin the enemy for the cavalry to flank. It's called hammer and anvil tactic, you know.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

True Hoplitai I do not really know about, did they actually ever face the Legions? But I imagine the result would be much the same.

When the Romans attacked Corinth they faced them, Roman right flank was broken . Though those were the reformed Hoplites.

Hoplites fight face to face you know, not 6 metres apart from their enemy. As a hoplite your enemy would be like 10 cm away from you.


Watchmen, there's no way a Pilum would be able to penetrate a Hoplite shield, only ballistas were able to do such a thing.

[ARCHIPPOS]

Also, the Hellene-lovers are exaggerating the effectiveness of long spears, as soon as you get past the point a spear is no longer dangerous.

The times I can think of where a Phalanx met a Legionary force head on and pushed it back it was the Makedons at Cynoscephalai and Pydna. However, the phalanx then lost order and was thus opened to the more mobile legionaires, effectively dooming the phalangites.

QUOTED FROM WIKI-THE BATTLE OF CYNOSCEPHALAE;
"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 as Flamininus sent his elephants charging into them, they routed. 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 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 fled."
QUOTED FROM WIKI-THE BATTLE OF PYDNA;
"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."

So which were the turning points of both battles??? In Cynoscephalae the left phallanx was on the move when it got charged by elephants ...
In Pydna the phallangites pushed through only to lose some of their pike wall cohesion ...the Romans not short of sharp commanding immediately exploited this and flanked the phallanxes on their gaps (possibly the gaps between the different phallanx squares???)...

need i say it again??? Flanked!!! FLANKED!!! FLAAAAAAAAANKED!!!

HEAD-ON PHALANX COLISION=SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE

also abt the "hellene-lovers-angle"... some people are convinced that the phalanxes were certainly not at a tactical disadvantage over the Romans and that with a more charismatic and sharp leadership the hammer and anvil might have prevailed... that's all ...

[Flavius_Belisarius]

That the Hoplite Phalanx can't be accurately depicted using Rome Total War, thats the point.

I started this topic because excatly this :) I always used the hoplitais offensive because they were it in real too.