Hoplitai too weak ?

[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

[Watchman]

The main difference between a "spearman" and a "swordsman" is that the latter has the sword as his primary close-combat weapon, the former as a backup sidearm. Guess what the former does when the latter manages to get "past the point" ?
Geniuses. I'm getting tired of having to reiterate the obvious like this.

Anyway, closely spaced spearmen in general and pikemen in particular have the benefit of multiple "enaging ranks" - at least two for long-spearmen, something like four for pikemen. Anyone wanting to get to grips with the pikemen themselves somehow needs to negotiate himself through *several* successive walls of uncomfortable closely spaced spear-tips, all the while trying not to get tangled up in the shafts themselves... IIRC, the Romans for their part regarded the feat as near-unachievable and just did like everyone else, ie. traded ground for time until the pike line became disjointed, hit rough ground etc. which created openings to exploit.

In straight hand-to-hand fight I'd imagine hoplite-style shieldwall spearmen would do fairly well against Roman legionaries - more reach, overlapping shields, tighter formation giving at least 3-to-2 local advantage, at least two first ranks can engage. The stumbling block ? Pilum. All javelins do bad things to shields, major among which is getting stuck in them and weighing them down. Heavy high-penetration "shield-killers" like the Italic pilum take that to the next level - even if the shieldbearer is lucky enough not to get nailed by the meter-long iron shank when the thing punches a hole in the shield, he now has that thing projecting to his side of it which obviously rather inconveniences the effective use of the whole shield plus what, two or three kilos of spear dragging it down...
And even for shieldwall infantry the hoplites were *particularly* dependent on their shields.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I agree. It was when the successors underpowered their cavalry in numbers (broking Alexandros' "golden proportion") that the "anvil and hammer" tactic became way less effective.

[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.

[Watchman]

Dude. The hoplite aspis was single-ply wood with a millimeter-thin stressed bronze covering. For the sake of comparision the Italic scuta were three-ply wood with a hide covering on both sides, which is around as strong as wooden shields now realistically get - and weighed a ton.
Pila, far as I know, holed scuta readily enough - what do you *think* the Italians had mainly been throwing them at for centuries ?

[Phalanx300]

Dude. The hoplite aspis was single-ply wood with a millimeter-thin stressed bronze covering. For the sake of comparision the Italic scuta were three-ply wood with a hide covering on both sides, which is around as strong as wooden shields now realistically get - and weighed a ton.
Pila, far as I know, holed scuta readily enough - what do you *think* the Italians had mainly been throwing them at for centuries ?

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?

[Watchman]

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?

Now you're just talking out of your arse, mate. Go read.

TL;DR - the aspis averaged around 15 pounds weight (ca. 7 kg) and 0.2" (ca. 5 mm, calculating in my head) thick; the scutum, depending heavily on specific model and period, was 15-22 pounds (7-11 kg) and went from about 0.4" (1 cm) in the center to 0.2" in the edges thick.

"Lick my blinky diodes."
- Aaron Stack, Nextwave

[Maion Maroneios]

Are you now saying that the Scutum was thicker then the Aspis? The Hoplite shield is probably the thickest shield ever, why do you think it weighted around 10kg?

I'm afraid Watchman is right. The aspis though heavy and thick, is not unpenetrable. The force delivered by a falling javelin has to do with the angle thrown (and thus falling), the weight of it and the surface area of the tip. The speed with which it is thrown plays an important role as well. Needless to say, even a well-aimed thick rock (like those fired by the Baelaric slingers) could shatter an aspis I think. That is according to a source from an EB insciption, saying 1,000 Baelaric slingers routed several thousand Greek hoplites. Could be wrong here.

Maion

[antisocialmunky]

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.

You could always just refer to the accounts of the Samnite Wars and the Wars of Italian unification before the Punic War. Rome used to fight in a hoplite style but they transitioned to the looser manipular style after getting schooled by the Samnites they adopted that idea from.

A great deal of it had to do with some of the terrain that the Samnites fought on rather than outright fighting power though.

[Dutchhoplite]

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

Errrr...(historical) source please??

[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.