08-26-2015, 10:55 AM
My opinion on the matter is that the hellenistic pike phalanx was indeed a superb tool for field battles. The examples of its use against the Roman Republican system are not really few and in most, if not all, it proved superior as far as the head on collision of the two phalanxes in a formed condition is concerned. It required an even terrain to operate, but that must be judged by Greek standards and not by the English term itself. What Greeks mean(t) by "even terrain" has nothing to do with what most Europeans understand with the term. The battlegrounds where it operated in Greece, Anatolia, even in Italy were very rugged by the standards of most people here and these were the exact terrain it was invented and utilized for, so it makes absolutely no sense to form an army for a type terrain that practically does not exist in the area it was used in... To me, this is important to know when judging the words of Polybius in his comparison between the two systems. Cynoscephalae, Pydna, Sellasia and Chaeronea are all very good examples of what "even terrain" meant to Greeks.
Now to your points :
1.The pike phalanx was not unmaneuverable. It was able to do all maneuvers required by line infantry, it could turn, slowly like all infantry line phalanxes, it could open, it could face about and everything. But it was still infantry trying to keep their positions and no skirmishers to run around. The Romans are described to have used a more fluid system that was more maneuverable in a different sense. They were supposedly trained in fighting retreat, which was not a normal option for other systems that required head on attack to push the enemy back (as a line, not necessarily physically) and break them. The Romans could diffuse that pressure, but NOT without heavy losses anyways. They were also used as ekdromoi hoplites. This means that the Romans would more easily fight outside the lines, in a more skirmish fashion, which was less important on the battlefield, but very important to win a war, as Polybius also stresses, since wars are not only fought on battlefields, but in many forms and occasions. Winning battles and losing because the enemy can take or hold all heights, attack your supply lines and generally skirmish better than you was not at all strange.
So, the pike phalanx was not unmaneuverable for a line phalanx, it was less maneuverable, though, than the multi-purpose Roman army.
And getting around it was as difficult as getting around any other phalanx. Once done, the odds would shift, morale would drop and things would not look good for any such force, Romans included.
2. The pike was a fierce weapon that had very good penetrating capablilities. It was very difficult for any Roman to get passed them and for others to exploit such gaps. One or two Romans being able to somehow exploit a small opportunity and go among the pikes would be not that rare, but defensive measures would have been taken for this situation and attacked from all sides would place them at a disadvantage anyways. For a sizable gap to form, more pressure would have been necessary and that would be as difficult to attain as a similar gap in any other type of phalanx, if not even more difficult. If it were easy to just push the sarisae aside and advance towards the Greek first rankers, the Romans would have easily defeated them in their head on assaults, which never happened. Instead, it was the Romans who were easily pushed back (partly because their own system was based on the ability to retreat in order) with many casualties.
Also, keep in mind, that the Romans, when fighting in line, would also be required to hold their positions. What happened in Pydna, that is the Romans actively trying to exploit all gaps and weak spots of the enemy phalanx was done only after the general rode along the lines ordering them to do so. This clearly shows, that the Roman system was also not one to seek a violent, unorderly melee but one based on its soldiers keeping their relative places. However, exactly like the Greeks did with their ekdromoi, like in the examples provided by Xenophon, the Romans did have the ability to exit the line and return as a tactic, something that was not done by the phalangites, who were not as well equipped for fighting outside the line.
3-4. Again, this has to do with the definition of difficult terrain and gaps. No, it would not be a problem for a good phalanx (untrained levies would be weak for any type of troop and fighting) to fight in such terrain and measures were taken accordingly (read the description of the battle of Sellasia for exactly how this could be done). However, this does not mean that there would never be a fatal failure because of the terrain, but again, this was nothing particularly seen as a weakness of this type of phalanx, but as a weakness of line infantry battle formations in general. However, if the terrain would become particularly rugged, then the phalanx (any phalanx) would start to shatter and a more skirmishing mode of fighting would be adopted, which would make the phalanx very vulnerable to the superior individual armament of the Romans. All generals would try to avoid unfavorable terrain, but still, sometimes, this was not possible or achieved,
So, here the phalangite was at a disadvantage because of his equipment and training, but this was not a "flaw" of the phalanx, rather than the ability of the Romans to perform better in less orderly situations, a great advantage as long as your line can hold itself against the enemy.
5. No, this is just not the case. First of all the shields of the phalangites were enough to shield them from missiles and I really doubt the theory (found in the sources) that the raised pikes of the front ranks would also sufficiently serve as a wall against missiles. However, there is no evidence that the pike phalanx had real problems against any type of field missiles, arrows, javelins or pila. Casualties from such weapons were low as usual in cases of armored infantry phalanxes.
As for horsearchers, well... the problem with them was the fact that they could not be pinned. All infantry would have problems against them or any type of ancient cavalry as they would be skirmished against. To counter such attacks, an army needed its own skirmishers and cavalry. If stripped from such support, all line formations had problems against a skirmishing enemy (countless examples here).
In all, the pike phalanx was, IMHO, superior to the Roman system in head on collisions in an average terrain but it was inferior in other roles. For those roles, the Greeks would employ different types of troops, better suited for such fighting and also important to win a battle and a war, which you might want to compare to the Roman legionaries to get a fuller picture. Eventually, the pike phalanx was a highly specialized troop type suited for a specific role, whereas the Romans made their infantry more role-flexible.
Now to your points :
1.The pike phalanx was not unmaneuverable. It was able to do all maneuvers required by line infantry, it could turn, slowly like all infantry line phalanxes, it could open, it could face about and everything. But it was still infantry trying to keep their positions and no skirmishers to run around. The Romans are described to have used a more fluid system that was more maneuverable in a different sense. They were supposedly trained in fighting retreat, which was not a normal option for other systems that required head on attack to push the enemy back (as a line, not necessarily physically) and break them. The Romans could diffuse that pressure, but NOT without heavy losses anyways. They were also used as ekdromoi hoplites. This means that the Romans would more easily fight outside the lines, in a more skirmish fashion, which was less important on the battlefield, but very important to win a war, as Polybius also stresses, since wars are not only fought on battlefields, but in many forms and occasions. Winning battles and losing because the enemy can take or hold all heights, attack your supply lines and generally skirmish better than you was not at all strange.
So, the pike phalanx was not unmaneuverable for a line phalanx, it was less maneuverable, though, than the multi-purpose Roman army.
And getting around it was as difficult as getting around any other phalanx. Once done, the odds would shift, morale would drop and things would not look good for any such force, Romans included.
2. The pike was a fierce weapon that had very good penetrating capablilities. It was very difficult for any Roman to get passed them and for others to exploit such gaps. One or two Romans being able to somehow exploit a small opportunity and go among the pikes would be not that rare, but defensive measures would have been taken for this situation and attacked from all sides would place them at a disadvantage anyways. For a sizable gap to form, more pressure would have been necessary and that would be as difficult to attain as a similar gap in any other type of phalanx, if not even more difficult. If it were easy to just push the sarisae aside and advance towards the Greek first rankers, the Romans would have easily defeated them in their head on assaults, which never happened. Instead, it was the Romans who were easily pushed back (partly because their own system was based on the ability to retreat in order) with many casualties.
Also, keep in mind, that the Romans, when fighting in line, would also be required to hold their positions. What happened in Pydna, that is the Romans actively trying to exploit all gaps and weak spots of the enemy phalanx was done only after the general rode along the lines ordering them to do so. This clearly shows, that the Roman system was also not one to seek a violent, unorderly melee but one based on its soldiers keeping their relative places. However, exactly like the Greeks did with their ekdromoi, like in the examples provided by Xenophon, the Romans did have the ability to exit the line and return as a tactic, something that was not done by the phalangites, who were not as well equipped for fighting outside the line.
3-4. Again, this has to do with the definition of difficult terrain and gaps. No, it would not be a problem for a good phalanx (untrained levies would be weak for any type of troop and fighting) to fight in such terrain and measures were taken accordingly (read the description of the battle of Sellasia for exactly how this could be done). However, this does not mean that there would never be a fatal failure because of the terrain, but again, this was nothing particularly seen as a weakness of this type of phalanx, but as a weakness of line infantry battle formations in general. However, if the terrain would become particularly rugged, then the phalanx (any phalanx) would start to shatter and a more skirmishing mode of fighting would be adopted, which would make the phalanx very vulnerable to the superior individual armament of the Romans. All generals would try to avoid unfavorable terrain, but still, sometimes, this was not possible or achieved,
So, here the phalangite was at a disadvantage because of his equipment and training, but this was not a "flaw" of the phalanx, rather than the ability of the Romans to perform better in less orderly situations, a great advantage as long as your line can hold itself against the enemy.
5. No, this is just not the case. First of all the shields of the phalangites were enough to shield them from missiles and I really doubt the theory (found in the sources) that the raised pikes of the front ranks would also sufficiently serve as a wall against missiles. However, there is no evidence that the pike phalanx had real problems against any type of field missiles, arrows, javelins or pila. Casualties from such weapons were low as usual in cases of armored infantry phalanxes.
As for horsearchers, well... the problem with them was the fact that they could not be pinned. All infantry would have problems against them or any type of ancient cavalry as they would be skirmished against. To counter such attacks, an army needed its own skirmishers and cavalry. If stripped from such support, all line formations had problems against a skirmishing enemy (countless examples here).
In all, the pike phalanx was, IMHO, superior to the Roman system in head on collisions in an average terrain but it was inferior in other roles. For those roles, the Greeks would employ different types of troops, better suited for such fighting and also important to win a battle and a war, which you might want to compare to the Roman legionaries to get a fuller picture. Eventually, the pike phalanx was a highly specialized troop type suited for a specific role, whereas the Romans made their infantry more role-flexible.
