Difference between styles

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Oh, and, whilst you could use the term 'hoplon' in a variety of ways, its much more common to talk of a holites equipment as a 'panoply', reserving the term 'hoplon' for the shield itself.

NOW, back to the OP...

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I have to laugh reading this thread, trying to model how many attacks occur and how difficult it is to reach the front rank.

[Blah, blah, blah Pete waffles on about how when he tried to fight in a phalanx, blah, blah, blah (cut due to extreme tedium), and that in conclusion its not about hitting the enemy (you can't effectively) but holding your pike tight & level, and just keep marching on]

How would I model such an engagement in RQ? Since most of the skill is being able to stay in formation, I'd probably create a Weapon Style of 'Macedonian Phalanx Fighting' and use that as a straight abstracted roll against the enemy's formation style. Gaining a levels of success inflicts more casualties/wounds on the unit/soldier. Maybe a list of battlefield CM for commanders?

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

I'd use aspis myself, it's the name that is used in the Greek I've read (OK it's ΑΣΠΙΔΑ really using the case and declension... but aspis is what's normally used in English).

I seriously don't remember "pelte" being used—what source was that in?

 

[kurgan84]

I seriously don't remember "pelte" being used—what source was that in?

Perhaps one of them:

Osprey Warrior N°103 - Macedonian Warrior Alexander's Elite Infantryman
Osprey N° 148 - The Army of Alexander the Great
Osprey - Campaign 007 - Alexander 334-323BC Conquest of the Persian Empire

But i reread my notes and i wrote: "Aspis or Pelte??", so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me !!

I think I will use:
Aspis koilé: the huge concave argive shield
Aspis: the shorter less concave macedonian shield

thank for the help :wink:

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

IDHMBWM

But I recall a description of a Macedonian pikeman, a primary source using the term 'pelta' or pelte' to describe the shield. This seems to be incorrect, but perhaps the term was used to differentiate it from the traditional heavy infantry shield. What is known, is that it was a slightly convex round shield, smaller than the hoplite shield, and was used in a different way, slung, so that the infantryman could use both hands to hold onto his pike.

The pike blocks of the period were the 'anvil' onto which the 'hammer' of the cavalry crushed the enemy, though Successor kings placed less emphasis on cavalry, the pikeman didnt usually have to maneouver too much once deployed.

 

[kintire]

The pike blocks of the period were the 'anvil' onto which the 'hammer' of the cavalry crushed the enemy, though Successor kings placed less emphasis on cavalry, the pikeman didnt usually have to maneouver too much once deployed.

that's not the case for a competent unit: They charged into the enemy at the run and broke them apart.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

that's not the case for a competent unit: They charged into the enemy at the run and broke them apart.

It would be crazy for a pike block to charge any unit that was still in good order. The pike is unsuited to this kind of tactic, no matter how elite the unit.

Alexanders Hypastpists were the link between his cavalry, the Agrianian skirmishers, and his heay units, the hypastpists being, (sometimes), spear units, and were probably deployed in open order. The pike were arrayed in echelon, precisely because the enemy was driven onto the pike units piecemeal by the cavalry, where they were broken upon the points of these long heavy weapons.

Later, Alexanders Successors forgot Alexanders genius, and laid more emphasis upon their ranks of impressive pike and exotic elephants. A serious mistake for Phillip V, when he confronted the Republics maniples.

 

[kintire]

It would be crazy for a pike block to charge any unit that was still in good order. The pike is unsuited to this kind of tactic, no matter how elite the unit.

Those who actually fought it seem to disagree...

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge.

With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting ... These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html

The role of the pike in offence was to shatter enemy formations. They formed a deep tight packed formation, stuck their pikes out the front and steamrollered the opposition. When the Swiss resurrected the phalanx they took this to extremes, with some formations 30 men wide and 150 deep. Once the pikes had smashed the enemy to bits, other troops would mop up the disorganised rabble. The Hypaspists probably served this role for the Macedonians, the Swiss had halberdiers. Or cavalry could do it of course in either case, although Macedonian cavalry was perfectly capable of smashing enemy infantry on its own account.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Polybius was no expert on military matters, not by a long way.

When Polybius talks of a 'phalanx' he could also mean a hoplite phalanx, which was a different thing entirely to a pike block. And Hannibals troops never, ever, used the pike, this fact has been contested to death over the years, though it now seems clear that they were a phalanx in the hoplite tradition.

If it was such a good tactic for pikemen to rush at other infantry units, it doesnt seem to have done Phillip V any good at all. He was defeated soundly by the more versatile manipular formations of the Republic. Alexanders troops were pretty well trained, and Im sure he would have thought it madness for his core troops to go running after fleet footed Persian archers. If he allowed this, then the world would be a very different place these days.

As for the Swiss, they were experts at holding passes in their mountainous homelands.

It is tactical suicide for a pike unit to go running at an enemy, and expect to stay in reasonable order and be at all effective, especially over rough ground. Only when sure of an enemies defeat would it be wise to advance in such a manner.

We have to be careful about the term 'phalanx' here, used, as it was, for both pike AND spear armed troops.

 

[kintire]

When Polybius talks of a 'phalanx' he could also mean a hoplite phalanx

That's why he specifically talks about a Macedonian Phalanx.

If it was such a good tactic for pikemen to rush at other infantry units, it doesnt seem to have done Phillip V any good at all.

Losing to the Romans does not constitute not doing any good at all.

Alexanders troops were pretty well trained, and Im sure he would have thought it madness for his core troops to go running after fleet footed Persian archers. If he allowed this, then the world would be a very different place these days

He launched the phalanx attacks against formed infantry, not skirmishers.

As for the Swiss, they were experts at holding passes in their mountainous homelands

As the most feared and valuable mercenaries in Europe they, and their imitators the Landsknechts, dominated the battlefields of western europe for a century!

 

[Mongoose Pete]

When you are packed so tightly you cannot do anything more than a gentle trot. Any faster you begin to tangle in the other pike/spear men around you and the formation begins to break up. Also even at a trot it is exceptionally difficult keeping your weapon level.

Yet a gentle trot, with enough ranks behind, is good enough to overrun the unit facing you. As I said before, you never get a chance to do anything with your weapon save hold it steady and push at the enemy.

Kintire put it aptly when he said its a steamroller manoeuvre. It works because the formation is so tight and deep you seriously outweigh the enemy unit. But that same insanely tight packing prevents you from doing anything but move, and not quickly either.

Something else to keep in mind is that 'charge' does not necessarily mean running flat out. It merely indicates that you move at faster than walking pace. :wink:

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Pete

Yes, I agree. I did not say that they 'never moved', but I maintain that pike blocks, in the hands of competent generals, acted as the anchor in ancient warfare. To say that they constantly charged enemy formations in good order is fundamentaly wrong. Or that such was their primary function.

As you say, any maneouver in such packed tight formations (up to three times as tight as other heavy formations), is extremely difficult, and will often end in a complete collapse of the formation with untrained troops. And all of this is difficult on the, essentially, featureless, flat terrain of a parade ground, much more tricky in combat conditions on rough terrain, if not impossible.

I repeat, no one has said that ancient pikemen never moved at all, but their primary function, (even as elite troops), was to act as an anchor. The hammer and anvil, essentially.

 

[kintire]

To say that they constantly charged enemy formations in good order is fundamentaly wrong. Or that such was their primary function.

Its not. I would be wary about remarks like "Primary Function", it depended who and where you were, but the Macedonians and Swiss both used the charge extensively, as did most of Europe once the Swiss started kicking butt up until 1660 or so... with, it must be said, varying success.

If you want a good overview of the various things that can happen to a pike charge, you can't do better than Flodden. The Scots formed three, one of which smashed its opponents to bits in the true Swiss style, one of which had some trouble crossing a stream and hammered its opponents, but not hard enough and they rallied, and one broke up on rough terrain and was slaughtered (thus opening the flanks of the other two, who then joined it as Tragic Ballad material).

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

kintire

I guess we could quote and argue ad infinitum! In the end, what we are talking about is a question of frequency. I dont doubt that many units throughout history, armed with a pike, or long spear, have advanced upon the enemy.

The initial phrase which you picked up on was 'hammer and anvil', however, and I would argue that ancient armies, when commanded competently, would employ this strategy, as detailed by Epaminondas the Theban. He advocated a dense formation equpping the phalanx with longer spears than were normal. Phillip, (Alexanders father), was actually a hostage of the Thebans at one point, where he would have witnessed this tactic at first hand, and equipped his men, who were ill-trained rural levy in a similar fashion. He saw the benefit of packing his levy troops in dense formation so that they would not break at first sign of trouble. This was the genesis of the pike unit. Not elite infantry able to command the battlefield, but a tightly packed formation of static levy, who, individually, had no place to run. In Macedon, during Phillips reign, infantry was not considered highly.

Then, when Alexander marched into Asia Minor, he saw that the Persian levy preferred to keep their distance and shoot arrows. What was he to do? Command his pike to charge? No. He used his guard infantry, put them into loose order, and equipped them lightly as a fast moving force to plug the gap between his pike and his cavalry. Thereby, with the pike in echelon, and the cavalry never overextending, he could pick the point at a critical moment in the battle where he needed extra force of depth. At this point, when there was a gap in the enemy line, he ordered his infantry to exploit this gap. The infantry would charge an already wavering enemy. The pike would never initiate the puncturing of the enemy line by charging first.

The Scots, ah well, they were hastily trained and always had a tradition of the individual warrior culture. And the Swiss became ascendant primarily because of the geography, and the fact that they never had too much cavalry. In fact, their deployment was revolutionary because it took advantage of the mountainous terrain, deploying deep and narrow. Theres not much chance of being outflanked in a mountain valley. On flat ground, the tercio was more successful, by having ranks of shot and billmen deployed to the side, these troops protecting the brittle pike centre.

 

[kintire]

If you read some accounts of ancient battles, and expecially renaissance ones, you will at once see pikes used aggressively... routinely. Yes, the Macedonian phalanx started out as a mass of low grade levies, but it did not finish that way. Alexander deployed his unit in echelon and launched them against the enemy. They hit in succession, and broke the enemy. They were a shock element, not a static defence.

The Swiss did the same. You need to read up on them... you seem to be under the impression that they did most of their fighting in Switzerland. they didn't at all: they did a lot of their early fighting in Burgundy, and later as mercenaries anywhere their paymasters were: often Italy. You might start here:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/showalter.htm

Some highlights:

Through the fourteenth century, Swiss cantons and Swiss captains developed patterns of discipline and training enabling their infantry to attack as well as counterattack. The men of a Swiss pike column knew that life as well as victory depended on an ability to move quickly and in good order

a reputation for unbridled ferocity was no mean asset to a system depending on aggressive assault tactics

The Swiss responded by improving their specialized skills. They adopted an early version of Schwerpunkt tactics, striking what seemed the most vulnerable point in an enemy position twice, sometimes three times in succession.

Perhaps the best evidence of the Landsknechts'growing internal solidity is their commanders' relative emphasis on finesse and timing in their attacks, as opposed to the head-down, battering charges favored by the Swiss

Swiss pike columns were battering rams, not anvils. Macedonian ones could be either.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

If you read some accounts of ancient battles, and expecially renaissance ones, you will at once see...

You need to read up on them...

you seem to be under the impression...

You might start here...

Rather than disagreeing, you are becoming disagreeable, sir.

You seem also, to have a fondness for quote mining, (and deliberately misunderstanding), which is the tactic of the man who continues with his argument, though he knows he may be in error.

If you wish to understand the tactics of ancient warfare, (which is where we started, not with the Swiss, I will remind you), you could do worse than Google 'hammer and anvil' tactics, as well as consulting sources other than Osprey books, say, Hans Delbrück, for instance.

The subtlety of the issue is not that these formations never moved, but their function under competent generalship on the battlefield

Ok?

It is irrelevant that this or that pike unit took the offensive at Grandson in 1476. The initial point concerned the use of the heavy infantry unit as an anchor whilst utilising a famous tactic subsequently named 'hammer and anvil'. See?

I know that it may be quite appealing for some to think of heroic individuals striding across the battlefield armed only with a long stick, but actual warfare is a bloody mess of human agony and chaos. The ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL ISSUE in ancient warfare was for the main battle line (i.e., the heavy infantry), to stay in good order. That is, no gaps, and no outflanking. Some units, especially poorly trained ones, will attempt to press the battle too early and over extend themselves, making gaps in their own lines. It was ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE for the heavy infantry to hold their decisive charge until the optimum moment.

Generals, officers had a huge task in KEEPING BACK premature charges, because the infantry would wish to see an end to the battle as soon as possible. At Chaeronea, the Greek City States battle line was weakened by premature charging of poorly trained citizen levy. History is riddled with instances of this. In fact the Spartans perfected the technique of pretending to run away in the hope of encouraging their enemy to foolishly charge.

So, please do not give me instances of pike units charging and acting on the offensive. That is not the issue. (And useless anyway, as I have read these accounts previously, Im even familiar with accounts of the Burgundian Wars, surprisingly). I was talking about ancient warfare in general, and hammer and anvil tactics in particular. Talking about Swiss and Scots pike units is irrelevant, in fact.

 

[kintire]

You seem also, to have a fondness for quote mining, (and deliberately misunderstanding), which is the tactic of the man who continues with his argument, though he knows he may be in error.

Nonsense. Quote mining involves distorting your sources and hiding them. I have linked to them, and quoted the relevant bits for your convenience. Excuse me for not copy pasting them into the board in theri entirety, but they are fairly long!

If you wish to understand the tactics of ancient warfare, (which is where we started, not with the Swiss, I will remind you),

Pike block tactics didn't change much. And the Swiss are better documented than the Macedonians, although Polybius describes the same tactics.

you could do worse than Google 'hammer and anvil' tactics, as well as consulting sources other than Osprey books, say, Hans Delbrück, for instance

Hah! I know what Hammer and Anvil tactics are. I'M not the one claiming that pikes only ever used one tactic.

The subtlety of the issue is not that these formations never moved, but their function under competent generalship on the battlefield

Ok?

It is irrelevant that this or that pike unit took the offensive at Grandson in 1476. The initial point concerned the use of the heavy infantry unit as an anchor whilst utilising a famous tactic subsequently named 'hammer and anvil'. See?

Ah yes. You do understand military tactics I see. If in unfavourable terrain, shift your ground! The issue I was discussing was your comment:

It would be crazy for a pike block to charge any unit that was still in good order. The pike is unsuited to this kind of tactic, no matter how elite the unit.

Which is not the case.

I know that it may be quite appealing for some to think of heroic individuals striding across the battlefield armed only with a long stick

Really? Who thinks this?

So, please do not give me instances of pike units charging and acting on the offensive. That is not the issue

But it is...

It is tactical suicide for a pike unit to go running at an enemy, and expect to stay in reasonable order and be at all effective, especially over rough ground. Only when sure of an enemies defeat would it be wise to advance in such a manner.

I was talking about ancient warfare in general, and hammer and anvil tactics in particular. Talking about Swiss and Scots pike units is irrelevant, in fact.

Pike units have had a similar set of constraints throughout history, and tactics were similar, even leaving aside the degree of outright imitation of Alexander's tactics down through history. And you were talking about more than hammer and anvil tactics, you were saying that pike units ONLY did hammer and anvil tactics, and were always the anvil. The Macedonians were both: Alexander's classic tactic was to advance in echelon with his best cavalry to the right of the lead unit and more to left of the rear one. The cavalry would smash through the enemy left while the pikes hammered the enmy line in succession. If they broke through, fine. If they were brought to a halt, the cavalry would now be to the rear of the enemy line and would act as hammer to the halted phalanx's anvil. But the whole tactic was aggressive. He didn't win battles against vastly superior numbers by sitting round waiting for the enemy to attack, his phalanxes would haave been flanked and massacred. The Swiss were even more aggressive: they had little or no cavalry and could not engage in such tactics. They had to break through, or lose.

You know? I'm losing interest. I've given you a bit of information you didn't seem to know and I thought you'd be interested in, as well as enough references so that its clear that I'm not making it up. Take it or leave it.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Quote mining again...

Look, this is a ridiculous argument.

You have an idea about ancient warfare that is incorrect. You keep banging on about the Swiss, when the conversation was SPECIFICALLY about ancient warfare. (Reread, if in doubt). My point has not changed. It is you who persist in attempting to qualify your 'ideas' with quotes from Polybius, of all people. A man who knew less about ancient warfare than even you seem to.

For you to state that Swiss heavy infantry operated in the same fashion as Macedonian troops operating over fifteen hundred years earlier, merely because they used a similar primary weapon, is amazingly and almost wilfully incorrect.

Your lack of understanding astounds me, though Im sure you'll keep on posting. I would advise you, however, to carefully read the posts which you argue against.

 

[kintire]

You have an idea about ancient warfare that is incorrect. You keep banging on about the Swiss, when the conversation was SPECIFICALLY about ancient warfare.

Against my better judgement I will go over the situation again:

1) You made some comments about ancient warfare which were mostly correct, but on one point needed calrification: You talked about pike formations as if they were entirely defensive, which IS NOT THE CASE. Macedonian pike phalanxes had an important offensive role. They ATTACKED PEOPLE. Alexander's methods against the Persians and elsewhere were aggressive. The Pike Phalanxes steamrollered people, they did not just stand there as an anvil for the cavalry hammer... although they did that as well.

2) You then replied that it was madness for any pike unit to attack infantry unless it was already disordered. I pointed out that the Swiss pikes did exactly that. Do I have to spell this out for you? The Swiss can do it, THEREFORE it is not impossible, THEREFORE your suggestion that the Macedonians could not have done it because it is impossible doesn't hold water. It still refers back to ancient warfare.

3) I quoted Polybius as an example of Macedonian tactics. Apparently this is a man who knows less about ancient warfare than me. Right. A Greek politician and military officer (albeit a staff officer) who lived during the period when the Macedonian Phalanx was still in use knows less about it than you or me. Right. So noted.

For you to state that Swiss heavy infantry operated in the same fashion as Macedonian troops operating over fifteen hundred years earlier, merely because they used a similar primary weapon, is amazingly and almost wilfully incorrect.

MERELY because they used a similar primary weapon (and formation)? Weapon and formation place constraints on your options, harsh constraints in the case of so unwieldy a formation as a pike column. Thats even leaving aside the factor of actual copying of Alexander's techniques by his successors. In any case, no one's claiming they were exactly the same (Swiss formations were narrower and deeper for a start) but they were close enough.

One other thing. I realise you are sensitive about the fact that I am supporting my position by quoting people, whereas you're not, but will you stop burbling on about "quote mining". There is little point in reposting an entire essay when I can link to it, and I doubt I would be popular with the mods if I tried it! There is even less point in reposting a post in this very thread. I am using the quotes to reference the parts of your post I am referring to. Anyone can read the rest of your post, if they havent already it being HIGHER UP IN THE SAME DAMN THREAD. That is NOT quote mining.

Sheesh! :roll:

 

[Loz]

I'm not this forum's moderator or anything, but it strikes me that this argument has run its course. Continue it, by all means, privately, but I don't see much point in it being conducted here...