Why exactly did this idea of strong pike walls get abandoned for hundreds and hundreds of years?
The Phalangite phalanx was an incredible formation, especially when it was in it's prime in Alexanders day, with lighter men which meant better mobility, helping nullify the phalanx's great weakness
They were also resistant to missile fire, forming a tight wall of pikes that would make missiles get tangled and fall harmlessly
Combined arms of heavy Phalangites to hold and more mobile Phalanx's to support backed by god tier cavalry was truly a great tactic
So why did everyone just stop using it?
It caused massive issues for Romans, and they only countered it with terrain and poor Macedon leadership
Didn't they see the use in it?
>>943790
Because Roman legions were superior and after the dumb germanic barbarians destroyed the roman military they just never really reinvented it
>>943790
Phalanx working only in perfectly flat terrain would be my guess.
>phalanxes
>resistant to missile fire
>>943790
Because once the Roman legions began dividing into manipular ranks, it defeated the phalanx at every turn and gave commanders an infinitely greater amount of flexibility in terms of formations and battle lines.
The phalanx was iron, hard and inflexible but ultimately brittle, whereas maniples are more akin to steel.
>>943803
Roman legions weren't inherently superior though, they won because the Macedonians decided to fight in poor terrain
Also, the part i'm more interested in is the lack of Roman incorperation
Rome had always adapted tactics they'd met and had been effective
But they left the phalanx
Maybe had they met Alexanders lighter phalanxs in the field...
>>943810
Yes
Your slingers rock isn't going to do shit besides bounce around off hundreds of upwards facing pikes and fall down harmlessly
I don't think it is anything fundamentally wrong with the formation itself, I believe there was a more general trend to lighter armed and more flexible troops. There already had been one in the 5th century what with skirmishers supplanting hoplites tactically in many ways during the Peloponnesian War, pikes came to the fore in the 4th under the Argeads but as Greece and the east generally became more impoverished during the 2nd and 1st centuries it became too expensive for most people to afford. Presumably since there were no independent armies under the Romans and a move towards standardisation happened the sarissa pike just fell by the wayside. I believe it was resurrected somewhat by some of the Germanic tribes that attacked Rome in the 3th-5th centuries.
>>943807
Kind of true, it's more that Hellenic warfare was always slightly ritualised, even as it became less so during the 5th and 4th centuries.
>>943816
>what is flanking, ambushes or constantly bombarding them with missiles until they get exhausted รก la Cannae
Trees.
the greek successor states decided to give up their aux and calv for all out plalanx to settle their battles
when they had to fight foreigners they were in very bad position when they could not pick the terrain
tactics destroyed the phalanx
>>943823
Missiles only really work with javlins, which actually did fuck them up
Bows and slings were much less effective
And a phalanx by itself is weak, it's easy to just say flank it then
But when it's supported by lighter Phalanx, infantry and cavalry it's hella strong
Actually, that's another question, why did Macedon move away from Alexanders strong army composition and tactics
>>943790
The pike Phalanx had poor tactical mobility and was generally very inflexible. They worked tremendously well if you could keep a solid line and force the enemy to attack your front. Problem was that you couldn't always guarantee that. Plus, the best way to make it work was by having a strong cavalry corps to protect your flanks, but that's difficult and expensive to maintain.
>>943816
>Maybe had they met Alexanders lighter phalanxs in the field...
They did, multiple times. Phyrrus met them multiple times and defeated them, and he's arguably the greatest military commander of the time. Phyrrus didn't abandon cavalry like most of the other Diadochi did, and yet he still ran into the problem that he wasn't getting decisive enough victories for his campaigns to succeed.
The manipular system was far more tactically flexible, and, combined with Rome's ability to raise endless numbers of men, it meant that even against the best Macedonian-style army they could maintain loss ratios low enough to win a campaign in the long-run.
>>943834
Holy shit how did I forget about Phyrrus
Yeah that's a good point, Rome did have a habit of churning out massive amount of troops no matter what too
Just seems odd that they never decided to use pike phalanx's in their own combined arms
Did the ERE ever think about bringing back the phalanx?
>>943832
>Bows and slings were much less effective
Just depends on their use. The only reason javelins are considered more effective is because the Greeks used them more and the Romans famously had their pila and plumbata darts. Composite bows were lethal against an army even in testudo, let alone wielding tiny as fuck circular shields and gripping giant heavy pikes.
>when it's supported by lighter Phalanx, infantry and cavalry it's hella strong
Well so is any army.
>why did Macedon move away from Alexanders strong army composition and tactics
I expect it was just conditions in the wider world, you have to remember that there were no military academies or armchair generals writing about what the best strategies and troop composition were, that mostly happened in the 2nd century AD, many centuries later. Lighter armaments were typically cheaper.
>>943834
Pyrrhus (spell it right, you dicks) was a badass certainly and his victory of Rome could've been complete if he had received more support from his fellow Greeks. Unfortunately, the Romans did not kowtow easily to defeats in the field.
Roman and Italian pride is what defeated Pyrrhus more than military tactics or even his lack of resources.
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.asp
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0149%3Abook%3D44%3Achapter%3D40
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0149%3Abook%3D44%3Achapter%3D41
>>943832
>why did Macedon move away from Alexanders strong army composition and tactics
The Diadochi moved away from Alexander's combined-arms tactics because it was harder to do than just levy masses of pikemen and skirmishers.
>>943846
>Did the ERE ever think about bringing back the phalanx?
Nope. The late Roman army had a bunch of demographic issues to deal with. The crisis of the third century had really fucked up the Romans, and as they were recovering from all that the barbarian invasions started to happen. They ended up having to massively expand the army and barbarize it, taking in tons of non-romans. With the biggest threat being smaller, highly mobile enemy raiding parties, a phalanx wasn't really a feasible tactic, even if we ignore all the issues associated with training a much larger army for phalanx tactics.
>>943853
True about composite bows, but they hadn't encountered that sort of thing yet had they?
And the pikes would still provide some cover either way
So if it was better why go change it to just heavy phalanx?
They started using longer pikes and heavier armour for the bulk of phalanx, which made them even less mobile
Seems like the Greeks just wanted to go "muh heavy infantry" rather than use what was actually lighter and in many ways better
>>943854
Shame he didn't go and fuck around in Lybia and didn't get kicked outta Syracuse
Also fuck roof tiles
>>943875
Good points
>>943860
I'll take a read after
Isn't that third one about after the Macedonians had already fucked themselves by advancing on rough terrain after a Roman feigned retreat?
Because the Roman maniple formation proved to be superior.
Flexible and movable legions that can be used on any terrain and throw javelins before engaging.
Phalanx was way too slow and immobile, and very vulnerable in the flanks and rear.
>>943908
Later heavy phalanx were too slow and immobile
>>943894
>True about composite bows, but they hadn't encountered that sort of thing yet had they?
They've been around thousands of years I think.
>So if it was better why go change it to just heavy phalanx?
They didn't. They developed thuerophoroi alongside it and it ultimately proved more useful since they were better for day to day fighting like raid and border control instead of just open battles.
>Also fuck roof tiles
The hell is it with Greeks and roof tiles? Even Thucydides talks about a bunch of women on Corcyra/Corfu lobbing roof tiles at an oncoming army. They're in the Aeneid too.
>>943908
>play Pike and Shot
>large pike formations are immune to flank attacks
>Spanish Tercios are also immune to rear attacks
>this is supposed to make the game more historically accurate
>>943917
Thuerophoroi were useful, but they couldn't fill the role left by the lighter more mobile phalanx
Just seems to me like they left a superior combined arms tactics for another combined arms tactic, maybe i'm just not well learned enough about ancient greek armies though
Also, if the romans weren't gonna incorperate the phalanx into their army, they should at least have brought along scared mothers and building equipment along to their battles, shit's deadly
>>943790
The Successor idiots abandoned the support units that went along with
Also fun fact: Hellenics abandoned the Mack Phalanx themselves. By the 100's BC, Most Greek soldiers resembled their Roman counterparts as they too copied Celtic Gear. With a shorter spear, some Javelins, and a short sword with the Oval "Thureos" shield based of Celtic design.
Look up Thureophoroi or the Thorakitai.
>>943790
The nature of warfare changed to requiring lighter troops, also everyone kind of learned about the phalanx's weaknesses so it wasn't so great anymore. It did re-emerge in the late medieval and enlightenment era though, but it wasn't the sole form of warfare.
>>943834
>The pike Phalanx had poor tactical mobility and was generally very inflexible. They worked tremendously well if you could keep a solid line and force the enemy to attack your front. Problem was that you couldn't always guarantee that. Plus, the best way to make it work was by having a strong cavalry corps to protect your flanks, but that's difficult and expensive to maintain.
To add to this I'd say the Pike phalanx is better suited to extremely large battles where your center can be a line of pikes. In smaller scale warfare, though still battles, it is much less useful.
The Romans would have never used it because they needed to be so flexible and adaptable.
>>943920
During that period they actually developed systems of sticking pikes out in every direction, a square. They probably read about how the Greeks got fucked in the rear.
>>943969
The lighter phalanx, such as peltasts, is still a pike phalanx which requires a lot of coordination and is thus slow.
Remember the longest pikes were about 22 foot long while the short ones were 16 foot, which is the same length as 16th century pikemen.
Also just to add to the posts about the heavier phalanx, the romans still had difficulty fighting these, it was rough terrain (and in one battle I believe the romans feigned a retreat and the greeks started to advance, which broke up their lines)
>>943974
Weren't peltasts more about skirmishing? Honestly I don't know much about them
And even then, your entire army isn't going to be as mobile as eachother, some parts will be slower, it's how you use a combined army, and I just thought that the romans might have considered the idea of pikes a valuable addition to their forces
>>943985
Its confusing. Peltasts were skirmishers in the classical period and often came from Thracia, but during the hellenistic period they were the name of elite pikemen units who were lighter than other pikemen. Even later they drop the pikes and just become an elite melee unit.
Armies that used the phalanx tended to be centered around the phalanx. The phalanx was the core of the army, everything else was supplementary to it. Again during the hellenistic period, if you were an infantryman, that heavily implied you were a pikemen. If you joined the army as a citizen, you went into the phalanx. Generally only mercenaries were thureophoroi or thorakitai.
>>944009
Ah interesting, I never knew about that
If it's no bother, mind informing me about Thureophoroi a bit too? Did they supplement the old Peltast role when they became something different?
Also why the decline in cavalry?
Greeks had p damn good cavalry iirc
>>944025
Thureophoroi are basically a middle ground between a hoplite and a classical peltast, though they use an oval shield called a thureos, based off the Celtic oval shields but usually lighter and a bit smaller. They were able to skirmish with javelins and move over rough terrain but were also able to form up and fight with closed ranks. They didn't wear body armour. That was the Thorakitai, who were basically just thureophoroi in a cuirass or chainmail.
Pic is how Thureophoroi would typically look.
I think cavalry declined just because of a loss of general wealth among the greek peoples.
>>944048
Thanks anon
And that's a shame about the cavalry
Did the romans ever utilize hellenic cavalry as auxiliary?
How much did the romans utilize hellenics into their armies overall? Just stick 'em with the same hamata and gladius? Or did they play on their historical strengths?
Did they even use the greeks?
>>944078
They didn't use Greeks as auxiliaries, i don't think out of any real reason other than they already had enough auxiliaries. So the Greeks sat idle in warfare, Greece was a place Romans would go on holiday or to learn. Though during Late Roman with manpower shortages and when everyone was a citizen, Greeks would be recruited though not as distinct units.
>>944112
Thanks again anon
One last thing, i've been saying about the Romans utilizing Greeks, but did any Hellenic power (Pyrrhus maybe?) try and incorporate the Roman manipular style of warfare into their tactics?
>>944114
Didn't they use the Slingers of Rodos too? I kind of remember that being the case.
>>943790
>everyone wants to talk about Macedonian phalanxes
>No one wants to talk about the Pontic military's use of phalanxes under Mithridates the Great
>or how after his phalanxes got their shit pushed in by roman legions, Mithridates responded with "oh so you like manipular formations huh" and wrecked Murena's legions with his own Pontic legions and about 5,000-strong harassing cavalry force.
>>943790
It's only useful when protected by strong cavalry on both flanks and if supported by archers in the back. Otherwise it's shit
>>944209
Depends on the situation at hand
And combined arms is sorta the point, you don't wanna build a temple with only one column for support
>>944189
Got any more details?
I'm interested
>>944287
Second Mithridatic War
https://books.google.com/books?id=M3kEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA371&lpg=PA371&dq=second+Mithridatic+War&source=bl&ots=q1ApK_p57K&sig=4VT3gxi6AVWhPbJjyenZc3l8q-M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqx-m-v_rLAhXC6SYKHTZhAyA4ChDoAQhBMAk#v=onepage&q=second%20Mithridatic%20War&f=false
>The Pontic monarch knowing the contest in which he was now to engage to be for his very existence made all the preparations calculated to ensure its success He sent to Spain and formed an alliance with Sertorius he also made alliances with all the peoples round the Euxine during eighteen months he had timber felled in the forests of Pontus and ships of war built he hired able seamen in Phoenicia and laid up magazines of corn in the towns of the coast he armed and disciplined his troops in the Roman manner and his army we are told amounted to 1 20,000 foot 16,000 horse with 100 sithed chariots Still these troops were Asiatics and little able to cope with the legions of Rome
Mithridates VI entire chapter in history is pretty fucking awesome. He allegedly built up resistance to poison by taking it in small doses, and before his death he was attempting to raise an army in the Crimea and march on Rome a a Hannibal, through the Carpathian mountains. If he had made it, Rome was still wrecked at home by political strife following the end of the Social Wars in 88.
>>944401
Wow that block quote is a mess, sorry anon.
Let's talk about horse-archers.
How do you deal with them?
>>944460
>i'll do some more reading into Mithridates VI
Check out "The Last King" by Michael Curtis Ford.
The pike phalanx is simply too specialised. It's brilliant in big, combined arms battles. The only reason it lost those battles against Roman forces was that Macedonian kings neglected the combined arms aspect.
However, you can't form the basis of a standing army around it. A pike syntagma can't act as a self-contained fighting unit in the way that a legionary century can.
>>944112
They did use them as allies though, think about Rhodos and Pergamon.
>>943790
You need to convince your army to drag along pikes on the march and fight with them and fight aggressively with it. It also relies on good flank support such as cavalry.
>>944144
Some people argue that Thureophoroi are a copy of Romans but its unlikely, though there may be some inspiration from them. I think its more that most states were switching from slow heavy infantry to more flexible formations and infantry
>>944750
>However, you can't form the basis of a standing army around it
Alexander did, Seleucids did, Ptolemies did.
>>945223
>Alexander did, Seleucids did, Ptolemies did.
I'll expand on my point. You can't operate effectively as a unit when you all have great long pikes. The pike phalanx works when you are operating at a battlespace-wide level with numerous supporting elements. On a small-unit level you're in a shit state. A sword and javelin armed force can go on a patrol in the woods. You can't do that with a twenty foot pike.
>>943790
>Lighter phalanx
What the fuck are you talking about? Alexander had lighter troops supporting the phalanx. That's why it was effective. Not because his phalanx was "lighter".
>>945278
This does not have to be that much of an issue though. Even Alexander had large groups of normal hoplite soldiers and light infantry. Medieval and Renaissance Europe had halberd guys and of course cavalry. Frankly a 12-18 feet pike can still be used in single combat.
>>943920
Tercios were also too fuck huge to maneuver at all. Swedes going all mobility and firepower with both infantry formations and artillery trashed everyone's shit.
>>945278
>You can't operate effectively as a unit when you all have great long pikes. The pike phalanx works when you are operating at a battlespace-wide level with numerous supporting elements. On a small-unit level you're in a shit state
Actually a well trained phalanx could move quite easily in a coordinated manner. They were the first troops to practice military drill as we know it today, which was he only way to move so many men with long pikes. So you can operate effectively as a unit of pikemen. But you are right that its useless on rough ground, even the best drilled men will simply break apart. But most troops avoided forests because it was hard for any unit to keep coordination there.
>>945364
*Maurice van Nassau
>Macedonian Phalanxes getting reked by Romans
I just don't get it. Did they learn nothing from Alexander? Did they not understand the concept of hammer and anvil? Did they not understand the concept of protecting vulnerable flanks? Did they basically go back to archaic hoplite-style warfare but with phalangites?
>>945396
Yes, 150 years of relative peace will do that.
>>945396
Greek cities were still doing hoplite style fighting during the hellenistic period.
>>943790
You didn't really have military science before the modern era. Instead you had military philosophy and culture. Attempts to engineer tactics from scratch didn't really happen, and when they did they didn't often work out very well. the Phalanx was a thing because it was a smart innovation of elements of Macedonian warfare influenced by its society.
>>943790
because it was a bitch move that no one liked it
also, it's hard as fuck to protect your flanks with spears since it takes way to long to move with proper coordernation
>>945396
See >>945003
Not sure if it was a deliberate action of the Romans to retreat to rocky ground but if it wasn't they would've lost that battle if it wasn't for luck.
That said, simply rushing in with a pike phalanx had a reasonable succes rate.
>>945471
Yah, Hellenes had trouble with Romans pushing into the gaps between their phalanxes with their more maneuverable units. Think Pyrrhos put swordsmen and javelin units between his phalanxes after the initial fight or two against Romans to eliminate the inherent fault.
>>945483
You can see how such a formation is basically undefeatable to shitty barbarians though.
As obvious as it seems, most cultures didn't realise you could go around your enemies sides, that concept had to develop.
>>945483
>Tactical and operational flexibility is the same thing as luck!
How to spot an idiot talking about military history in three easy steps.
1) They attribute things to chance or indeterminable factors.
2) They make no allowances for imperfect data, timing, or control issues. Flexibility is useless because you can easily make things go the way they're supposed to.
3)They fail to take larger strategic factors into play. There's a reason that Rome could bounce back after defeat after defeat, whereas one bad loss for a Diodochi state pretty much crippled them for decades. Part of the price you pay for that phalanx, assuming you don't want an absolute shit-tier 6th century B.C. style one, is the profound militarization of your most important segment of society politically, and if they're gone, the state goes with it. The Romans, on the other hand, were able to get military effectiveness out of a broader base, which means that a loss is survivable as long as you have spare manpower to raise troops, money to arm them, and will to fight.
>>945682
>1) They attribute things to chance or indeterminable factors.
Hunger, thirst, dysentery, weather, morale.
Von Clausswitz would call some of these friction but he obviously is an idiot who is completely ignorant of warfare.
>2) They make no allowances for imperfect data, timing, or control issues. Flexibility is useless because you can easily make things go the way they're supposed to.
Indeed flexibility to perform combat under a large variety of circumstances completely rules out chance or chance encounters.
We can argue causality all day long and it won't establish anything but the fact that the manipular legion is more flexible. Flexibility increases odds of a good outcome in a large percentage of "cases" but it does not eliminate odds altogether.
> reminder that the Romans only beat the Macedonian Phalanx due to OBVIOUS MISTAKES made on the Greek side.
If it was lead by a competent leader my money would still be on the Macedonians
>>946118
>Reminder that the Macedonian state crumpled after one loss, whereas the Romans were almost infinitely resilient.
Even with a "competent" leader, they'd still lose, eventually. The Romans could wear them out, and the tactical limitations of the phalanx meant that you have to be enormously careful about every bit of marching and deployment, as well as limiting pursuit capabilities.
>>946118
My money would still be on Rome to win the war though, even if they lost the battle.
Romans never give up and always figure something out.
Despite all the logical reasons, i believe Rome fell because they lost the Roman spirit.
>>943803
If the Roman military was so superior how come that the 'dumb barbarians' rekt them into pieces?
>>946118
I think people underestimate the importance of a good leader making good calls and troop morale and overestimate the importance of small things like the length of a sword or the amount of armor one is or is not wearing.
>>946140
>the 'dumb barbarians' rekt them into pieces?
Besides a century or civil war and societal upheaval you have to remind yourself that the barbarians that finally overthrew the last vestiges of the Western Roman empire were their equals in most martial aspects.
These weren't your barechested snow niggers of the first century AD but well equipped and trained soldiers under generals who at times fought with and for the Romans.
>>945298
Alexanders phalanx had lighter armour and shorter pikes, so yes, they were lighter and more mobile, and over time they gave them longer pikes and started wearing more armour
I appreciate any insight, but please, at least be knowledgeable
>>945278
No ones saying you make an army solely out of pikes
This topic is about pikes though
>>945449
And this is about why they changed an already working tactic back to a less flexible one, and also was about why rome didn't adapt pike phalanx into their combined arms
>>945471
Which is why they'd use other parts of their army to cover their flanks, including lighter infantry, and cavalry, and lighter pike phalanx are more mobile
>>946163
I did say about poor Macedonian leadership, but lighter troops undeniable makes a difference in battle
> post yfw if the roman's had decided to bring back the phalanx vs attila
>>946189
They'd have got whooped.
>>946189
Funny thing is that the Byzatines brought back pikes.
Didn't one guy write something on pike useage vs the Alans?
>>945990
The flexibility of the legion had nothing to do with its weapons and fighting style, but in its command structure and independent action allowed to its officers.
>>946177
>And this is about why they changed an already working tactic back to a less flexible one, and also was about why rome didn't adapt pike phalanx into their combined arms
Working tactics aren't changed, the culture of the military changes, which then necessarily changes the tactics to better suit the new culture.
>>946251
They decided to started strapping more metal to themselves and holding longer poles, while using less cavalry
Which seems to me like they just changed their tactics
>>946244
>The flexibility of the legion had nothing to do with its weapons and fighting style, but in its command structure and independent action allowed to its officers.
I agree. Where did you read something else?
>>943970
>They probably read about how the Greeks got fucked in the rear.
What does greek hedonism and their need for boipucci have to do with tactics?
>>946277
Well most people over emphasize the scutum, gladius and armour of the Romans. Those things were good and helped but honestly the Romans would have been successful even if they were using spears, thureos shields and greek armour.
>>943790
Honestly it all came down to the highly motivated Macedonian cavalry. If I recall, the Macedonian nobles boycotted several battles against the Romans, while the infantry fought heroically.
>>943790
This is probably a stupid question, but how come no one thought of torching a formation of tightly packed men with wooden pikes? I mean load up some oil in pots and sling them somehow into the formation and light with fire arrows. Either they stay together and burn to a crisp (obviously won't happen) or split apart and become useless.
>>948626
Its not exactly easy to fire pots of oil, also they have shields.
>>948633
Small shelds that are now on fire. The pots may be flung by slingers? Or some kind of artillery?
>>948642
The shields are fronted with bronze or iron. The slings would need to be huge to fire something like that which would be fragile and probably break in their own ranks sending burning oil onto themselves. I mean you're basically wondering why they didnt use slings to fire molotov cocktails. Artillery was expensive and not widely used by anyone other than the Romans.
>>948650
I see now, kinda weird how artillery wasn't widely used when it could be used to smash/pepper formations (guess everyone was poor). I see the oil thing could be dangerous due fragility. But it was more of oil pots being flung into the phalanx/hoplite formation them lit with arrows. But hey, if it wasn't used, it probably wasn't good.
>>948663
The Romans went mad with Artillery, sometimes they'd have 60 scorpions on a hill firing. But in battles with 50,000 men on each side its still not going to make a huge impact.
>>948663
It's wildly inaccurate.
>>948729
Which? Explain please. The "everyone" was poor assumption I made or the phrase "if it wasn't used then, it probably wasn't good"(meant to be about the oil pots)?
>>946244
>s weapons and figh
Actually it had. THe command structure would have been of little walue had they fielded pike phalanxes or archer and of less value with spears. You can't fully separate techonology and fighting style from the command structure.
They had a command structure lended its flexibility to the inherent flexibility of heavy infantry.
>>948633
>what is naptha
>what is greek fire
>>950870
greek fire is a spook
>>948729
When you are mass firing into enemy lines numbering in the 10's of thousands and several ranks deep, you don't need to be that accurate
Also much of ancient warfare was based on morale, having your buddy impaled by a GIANT FUCKING SPEAR SHOT ON A HILL FAR AWAY, is not the most motivating thing in the world. Rome was very successful in part because the man in the front rank was replaced every 45 seconds or so by a relatively fresh soldier from the rank behind him while more static formations meant that the men in the front rank either had to hope for a quick victory or face certain death
>>943790
The Greeks had a very different concept of war than the Romans. Battle wasn't about killing the other guy, it was about showing that you were braver and stronger than him. Basically you just slammed your shields into each other and pushed as hard as you could and the guy with bigger balls won. If you did that then he was forced to declare you his hegemon and become a sort of semi-vassal state.
One of the things Alexander (and to a greater extent his father) did was fight to win. His combined arms tactics were about defeating the other army in detail. But after Alexander died Greece went back to thinking in the old way, just with phalanx instead of hoplites. So most of them stopped using combined arms.
Another thing to consider is that a phalanx is not only tactically inflexible it's also strategically inflexible. A phalanx has to be both wide and deep, if you fail in one of those then the formation loses a lot of its advantages. So dividing up a phalanx weakens it geometrically. On the other hand a legion can easy be divided and sub-divided and it will lose strength linearly. So a Roman general could easily divide up his force to attack multiple objective, garrison key positions, etc, while a great general had a single huge force that he couldn't divide up.
>>951448
I'm only replying to you because it occurred to me while reading your post, but:
Should I be saying hop-lights or hop-lit-ees?
>>952071
hop lee tie
>>951448
everyone fought to win, it is just after decades of fighting the same way over and over it becomes ceremonial, you don't want to take too many losses fighting your neighbor because there are about a dozen other city states you have to watch out for as well that might swoop in and cuck both of you, so you demonstrate that you are stronger and negotiate
the reason alexander and his father could fight to win was because they developed the phalanx and new cavalry as opposed to the older hoplites, he could change the game completely so he had to go further
>>952164
There's more to it than that. The Greeks would go to a field in enemy territory and offer battle. If it wasn't given then they would ravage the land a negligible amount and then leave. If a battle was fought the victor would set up a trophy and then sign a treaty. They rarely tried to inflict more casualties than were needed to win.
>>943917
Mongol composite bows were significantly better than those 1500 years earlier. They also had stirrups and better command and control than anybody other than Romans.
Mongol bows were easily out ranged by developing emphasis on archery (bigger bows and not being looked down on) and technology (crossbows). What passed for heavy cavalry rode light, unarmored horses and wore thin metal plates sewn to leather. They were used only after the horse archers had broken the eney's cohesion. The Mamelukes fought the same way and caught Mongol heavies in a counter charge to break the army. Both armies were vulnerable to a heavier cavalry counter charge, the Lionheart broke several Arab armies that way.
>>945411
The successor kingdoms were at war with each other a whole lot of the time. Especially at the beginning of the period (right after Alexander died).
The thing is, they were very much caught up in the idea of being the rightful successor of Alexander, which meant they had to use the troops and tactics of Alexander.
So, military advancement didn't manifest in terms of different troops or tactics, but simply larger and larger blocks of men to outlast/terrify the enemy.
So when they faced an enemy that wasn't a phalanx based system, they had little idea what to do.
>>952355
that is very ceremonial
>>953407
Not quite. Their wars with the Celts led to some significant military reforms.
>>954269
Those aren't state troops though.
>>953407
I was mainly referring to Macedon, when they fought Rome they were full "muh Phalanx". Also you could argue the Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars were a kind of 1984 situation of perpetual war without any significant changes or results.
>>953407
You're a fucking idiot that should kill himself. The successors used many new troop types such as Thureo armed troops and cataphracts. Kill yourself shitstain for ruining /his/.
>>952164
It wasn't ceremonial you fucking idiot. At the battle of Panium the Seleukids wiped out the Ptolemaic Greek settler phalanx, crippling Egypt for the rest of their history.
>>952164
sounds like BS, greeks ran down and butchered their fleeing opponents plenty of times, just like everyone else did
>>943943
The Successors never abandoned any troops you fucking mewling infant who thinks he's Alexander reborn. The Successors had massive amounts of cavalry and skirmishers.
>>954353
I've had it with the ignorance and idiocy of /his/. They're nothing but a bunch of neets who think they knew better then real generals and kings.
>>943790
NAH
>>954357
Irony...
>>954357
wew chill out mayne
I do agree though, people need to stop saying shit as facts if they don't actually know if it's true or not
Spreading misinformation is fucking gay
>>954366
No, it's not irony. If I don't know anything about a subject I tend to not post. I have however read a fair number of books about the Seleukid kingdom. And even then I tend to be careful with what I write. But here on /his/ any idiot that played Rome 1 believes himself to be the next Edward Gibbon.
>>954375
You summed up the biggest issue with /his/
You are all just a bunch of fucking idiots who have played Rome 2 Total War and think they know fucking everything about ancient tactics, armies, strategies, military organizations, kingdoms, politics and cultures.
Just go and fucking die in a lake of fire you dirty barbarians.
>>954405
Care to share the rush then?
>>954418
*truth
somehow became rush
>>954405
Please, your blood pressure is rising sir.
>>954269
I'd like to know more, why did the celts cause military reforms?
>>946201
Pikes came back in the middle ages because of the prevalence of cavalry
I don't think they'd work against cavalry archers, though
>>954459
It depends i'd say, if you got adequate missile support you're set.
>>954459
At the battle of Ipsus the Seleukid horse archers spent all their ammunition firing into the rear of the Antigonid rear without causing major casualties.
>>954459
As said pike do help block missiles
And as long as they bring enough archers to counter the mounted archers they should be okay
>>954457
Different types of fighting and equipment clashing drives reforms. Romans adopted shit from barbarians (especially Celts) all the time.
>>954457
They kicked the Macedonians' teeth in when they invaded the Balkans and Greece, the Antigonid dynasty fixed their shit, reformed a bit and then kicked the Celts into Asia, where they conquered a small kingdom for themselves in the middle of Asia Minor called Galatia and founded a city called Ankyra. After this, they were popular mercenaries in the eastern mediterranean, including in Ptolemaic Egypt.
>>953056
>better command and control than anybody other than Romans.
Mongol C&C was unmatched until Wermacht. Some argue the US can't match them.
>>954550
There are actual Celtic graffiti in Egyptian monuments that are basically: Troubadourix was here.
>>954629
US babbies have to have 24/7 satellite connection with everyone. They couldn't coordinate campaigns days apart like the Mongols.
>>954405
>not playing the original Europa Barbarorum
Massive history boner: the mod
>>954682
>Troubadourix
top kek
>>954690
>tfw trying to play as Celtic tribes
It went like this OP
Spearmen > heavy hoplites > medium phalangites/heavy cavalry > heavy manipular quincunx > heavy cohors quincunxs > medium/light comitatus > heavy cavalry/medium infantry > professional armies with pikes and guns > professional armies with guns
I just re-read OP's post and realized I wrote this for nothing. Fuck it I'm still posting.
>>953440
Didn't say it wasn't ceremonial. I said that they had a different approach to war that was less focused on conquest and more focused on a dick measuring contest. The guy with the biggest dick got to be big man on campus until someone came along with a bigger dick. The Romans won and then cut your dick off.
>>954816
>tfw your falxmen flank a phalanx
>>943807
this desu senpai
>>955123
>tfw you use falxman on any charge
>>955034
That's a bunch of shit. The Hellenes war history stretches over a long period of time. The Successor states were all about conquering new territory.
>>943790
>what is an army of mounted archers
>>955437
The Successor outside of Greece inherited the martial tradition of Alexander mixed with the local (mostly Persian) martial culture. The Greek mainland mostly went back to it prior culture with a few exceptions like the Epurites.
>>955016
Still enjoyed reading man. More?
>>950870
Neither of which is "oil", and both of which were developed centuries later.
>>950986
>replaced every 45 seconds
It was more like 8 minutes. They figured out overtime the maximum length a soldier could fight like that before tiring. Switching every 45 seconds would be pure chaos because of the constant movement in the lines.
>>952158
hop lee teys for plural
>>954377
>biggest issue with /his/
Most posters on 4chan are barely out of high school, it's not their fault that EB is more informative than the entirety of their public schooling (shit I rode off that mod until late Sophomore year as an undergrad going into classical studies)
>>954690
>not playing EB2 with supplemental essays on twcenter
Development may be slow as shit but its coming along.
>>958673
EB isn't the ultimate historical source, a hell of a lot of what they write is severely embellished.
