08-25-2015, 01:02 AM
I'm making this thread for the express purpose of having a source to draw upon for knowledge of the phalanx's flexibility. I don't know about other people, but I deal with many people - online and in real life - who talk about the ancient world's battles under the guise that the phalanx was an unmanageable sledgehammer that would shatter the instant it was flanked. I think the phalanx is very misunderstood - partly due to people who have enough knowledge to sound like an authority, but have not actually examined the evidence or original sources, and partly due to dumbed-down ideas of the phalanx, such as how it is depicted in the Total War games.
We know that both the hoplite and sarissa phalanxes have good to great records for success. The Greeks won the majority of their battles in the Persian Wars, and it seemed that, with exceptions like Sphacteria, the only way to beat a phalanx conventionally is with a better phalanx. During and after Alexander's time, the sarissa phalanx proved itself as being flexible, nigh-unbreakable in the worst of circumstances, and capable of operating in jungles, mountainous terrain, and during badly inclement weather.
Many people compare the hoplite/sarissa phalanx against Rome's legions, and point to a few key differences. My personal belief is, in a nutshell, that while Rome very often was unable to break the phalanx in battle, they were ultimately able to out-strategize their phalanx-equipped enemies through better generalship, greater resources, and better ability to sustain losses. However, a few points keep coming up, which I will paraphrase below, and am asking those of us here to rebut.
1. The phalanx is unmaneuverable! Get around it and the pikemen are mincemeat. And getting around it should be a piece of cake, as it takes a level of coordination that the average Hellenic pikeman doesn't have to be able to turn a phalanx without breaking up.
2. The pike is an unwieldy weapon. Roman shields protected more or less all of the legionary, and he could reasonably get past a pikeman, maybe even a few. Once he's past the pike's head, it's a done deal.
3. The phalanx only works on even, cleared terrain. If a pike block makes its way through terrain that would necessitate splitting into multiple smaller groups, then enemies wielding more easy-to-use weapons should have an easy time winning.
4: On the contrary, the Roman legionary is able to operate effectively in far more diverse terrain, and can support himself without the need for other legionaries to constantly be at his side. Pikemen are good only in one scenario, when they are shoulder-to-shoulder.
5. Sarissa pikemen carried very small shields, and thus are vulnerable to missile weapons. The heavy Roman pilum would go right through their shield and whatever cuirass the pikeman might be wearing, if any. Horse archers or other skirmishers could pick apart the slow phalanx with easy.
Anyone care to lay out exactly why these points are wrong, or what truth their might be to them? I have ideas, but I want to hear it from RAT first.
And one final note from myself, I have read that the phalanx of the Diadokhi's time, and most hoplites through the era, never received any training and most Greeks subscribed to the idea that a man could fight if only you gave him his panoplia. How true is this, and if it is true, what difference does it make?
We know that both the hoplite and sarissa phalanxes have good to great records for success. The Greeks won the majority of their battles in the Persian Wars, and it seemed that, with exceptions like Sphacteria, the only way to beat a phalanx conventionally is with a better phalanx. During and after Alexander's time, the sarissa phalanx proved itself as being flexible, nigh-unbreakable in the worst of circumstances, and capable of operating in jungles, mountainous terrain, and during badly inclement weather.
Many people compare the hoplite/sarissa phalanx against Rome's legions, and point to a few key differences. My personal belief is, in a nutshell, that while Rome very often was unable to break the phalanx in battle, they were ultimately able to out-strategize their phalanx-equipped enemies through better generalship, greater resources, and better ability to sustain losses. However, a few points keep coming up, which I will paraphrase below, and am asking those of us here to rebut.
1. The phalanx is unmaneuverable! Get around it and the pikemen are mincemeat. And getting around it should be a piece of cake, as it takes a level of coordination that the average Hellenic pikeman doesn't have to be able to turn a phalanx without breaking up.
2. The pike is an unwieldy weapon. Roman shields protected more or less all of the legionary, and he could reasonably get past a pikeman, maybe even a few. Once he's past the pike's head, it's a done deal.
3. The phalanx only works on even, cleared terrain. If a pike block makes its way through terrain that would necessitate splitting into multiple smaller groups, then enemies wielding more easy-to-use weapons should have an easy time winning.
4: On the contrary, the Roman legionary is able to operate effectively in far more diverse terrain, and can support himself without the need for other legionaries to constantly be at his side. Pikemen are good only in one scenario, when they are shoulder-to-shoulder.
5. Sarissa pikemen carried very small shields, and thus are vulnerable to missile weapons. The heavy Roman pilum would go right through their shield and whatever cuirass the pikeman might be wearing, if any. Horse archers or other skirmishers could pick apart the slow phalanx with easy.
Anyone care to lay out exactly why these points are wrong, or what truth their might be to them? I have ideas, but I want to hear it from RAT first.
And one final note from myself, I have read that the phalanx of the Diadokhi's time, and most hoplites through the era, never received any training and most Greeks subscribed to the idea that a man could fight if only you gave him his panoplia. How true is this, and if it is true, what difference does it make?
