Phalanx vs. Medieval army.

Got something to talk about? Be it video games, other tabletop or card games, even random stuff - this is the place to post!

Moderator: The Dread Knights

Phalanx or Medieval?

Phalanx
8
33%
Medieval
16
67%
 
Total votes: 24

Rankrath
Executioner
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:32 pm
Location: in my basement, pretending to be an elf.

Phalanx vs. Medieval army.

Post by Rankrath »

In a battle, who do you think would win, The Greek Phalanx or Medieval army? I'm assuming that both forces are well rested, have no advantage in terrain, are the same size, and using standard tactics.
in this life time, people get hurt. just be glad is wasn't your turn

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Cadian_Fortress/index.php? Come and join the ranks of the Imperial Guard.
User avatar
Tarbo
Morathi's Best Friend
Morathi's Best Friend
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: Flanders, Belgium

Post by Tarbo »

The phalanx. There is no such thing as "medieval tactics". It's a wording much like "gouvernment intelligence". :D But don't quote on me on that.

Seriously now, it kind of depends what you define as a medieval. If cannons and/or crossbows aren't popular yet, then I believe the phalanx would make it. If, however, such concepts as Spanish steel and zweihanders come into the equation, I'd not be so sure.

Then again, I'm no expert.
User avatar
Tege
Executioner
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:24 pm
Location: The way north (norway)

Post by Tege »

If you translate medieval tactics as farmers is the dark ages or japan at the time(this is before samurais and stuff), the phalanx wouldn't even have casualities.
But if you take medieval tactics as a renessance army made mostly up from gunners, again: no question.

you need to make the wording better, but as a general rule: the newest(in this case medieval) tactics win the day, at least slightly.
User avatar
Eldacar
Loremaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Eldacar »

It depends. The Macedonian Phalanx was fairly lightly armoured, but had the advantage of the sarissa, which meant that they could strike at their opponents long before there was any risk to them (and that would be a good thing in most cases). However, the longbowmen of the medieval times would pose a fairly major threat to the Phalanx, since they only wore light armour that an arrow would most likely punch through fairly effectively.
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors
User avatar
Langmann
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Putting needles into people.

Post by Langmann »

Eldacar wrote:However, the longbowmen of the medieval times would pose a fairly major threat to the Phalanx, since they only wore light armour that an arrow would most likely punch through fairly effectively.


Exactly.

It is a mistake to underestimate medieval (if such a time can be nailed down) iintelligence. Remember people were just as intelligent back then as they are now - they may not have known how to do quantum physics but for many of these men war was a way of life. A phalanx typically was just a collection of men from a city who were conscripted to fight in a formation that generally worked and was easy to understand. There are many cases of phalanxs being destroyed by archery and even cavalry charges, baiting etc.

The knights Templar for example were extraordinarily adept soldiers who also had an exceptional ability to keep an army on the move by implementing a military and financial infrastructure, parts of which are still used today.
While running a million dollar company, singing at weddings, and his frequent jetting to Spain Elton Jon style, Dark Alliance found the time to stand on the doorstep of Games Workshop like Moses and the Pharoah and calmly state, "Let my people go."
User avatar
Wolfheart
Corsair
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:34 pm
Location: Finland, The Land of Chill

Post by Wolfheart »

Medieval. The Middle-Age guys would just stand still and shoot at the phalanx, then flank it with cavalry. The Phalanx must get close to be effective. If both sides had only melee troops, then the Phalanx.
"Remember, a Dark Elf player always wins. If not in the game, then in the style"
- Black Scars from the Sotavasara Forums

"Porn for the Porn God!"
- Nicodemus Von Traube from the Sotavasara Forums
User avatar
Tege
Executioner
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:24 pm
Location: The way north (norway)

Post by Tege »

Even in close combat the middle age guys win. you got men woth pike(as long as a phalanx) running up front, then some heavy duty combat movvafocka shait(knights in heavy plate, lance, barding, cavalry shield...) charging the phalanx in the side.

on a side note: in sparta/athens they did not have very good quality metal in their armor. there's a huge difference of using damascus-steel and not too high quality iron
User avatar
Eldacar
Loremaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Eldacar »

you got men woth pike(as long as a phalanx) running up front, then some heavy duty combat movvafocka shait(knights in heavy plate, lance, barding, cavalry shield...) charging the phalanx in the side.

And if Alexander was leading his Macedonian Phalanx with the Companion Cavalry backing him up, then the result would most certainly be different again, because the support units that the Phalanx would then possess should be capable of stopping, slowing or at least diverting the cavalry charge from the medieval army.

Basically, we could theorise about this all day.

on a side note: in sparta/athens they did not have very good quality metal in their armor. there's a huge difference of using damascus-steel and not too high quality iron

I was talking about the Macedonian Phalanx, as I indicated in a previous post - not the heavily armoured Hoplite regiments employed by city-states such as Sparta.
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors
User avatar
Waerik
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:50 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by Waerik »

As others have said, it all goes down to our basic assumption...

I would say the medieval army, the phalanx got outdated afterall (that was due to the romans, wasn't it?)
[CENTER]Image[/CENTER]
User avatar
Ilokir lúinwë
Asur Bane
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: Questing through the nine plains of Hell

Post by Ilokir lúinwë »

Waerik wrote:the phalanx got outdated afterall (that was due to the romans, wasn't it?)
that was due to Epaminondas of Thebe. The battle of Leuctra meant the end of the classical phalanx and was the end of Spantan's dominance. Philippus of Macedonia reorganised the phalanx (not one solid line anymore, but different parts who formed together a line. When facing chariots and elephants, they could 'open' the line to let them through). The Romans indeed copied the Phalanx and eventually it was Marius who invented a wholly new kind of army. Where the phalanx is a linear composition (when it breaks, everything is lost), the new army of Marius was a composition in depth. (easier to hold a charge, and far more effective to launch an attack at a small area.)

the evolution of medieval warfare would lead us to far. 1stly, you have the integration of archers by Richard Coeurdelion, next to the cavalry (chainmail). The cavalry had distinct orders and communicated by flag. They worked well togheter with the archers.
And secondly, the 100 years-war is very important: the english noblemen (armoured) fought by feet, supported by archers, while the french attacked by cavalry in waves. When the crossbow was invented, their platearmour was thicker and thicker, but to no avail. They became slower and clumsier.
In the end we see that the french also dismounted and that there was a clash of armoured knights by feet.
The french won the war, because of the Cannons (snake) at the end of the war
Class: Warrior
Ws: 6 dex: 4 str: 4 T: 3 Int: 4
Skills: Awareness, Defensive fighting, Parry
Equipment: Medium armor, Longsword, 2 Throwing daggers, 50 gold coins

Don't forgive, don't forget
User avatar
Legion noir
Executioner
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Off-shore!

Post by Legion noir »

Tarbo wrote:The phalanx. There is no such thing as "medieval tactics". It's a wording much like "gouvernment intelligence".


I will quote you on that.ha ha ha.

Medieval tactics were a development from "classical" tactics of greek & Roman origin. Charles the bold studied Alexander & Caeser(not that it did him much good!)

So study in the ancient art were available to medieval generals.

I would say each have their strengths & weaknesses and either could win depending on the players,deployment,morale and stratagy,etc.
The phalanx could pull off a Lectura style victory or the medieval an Agincourt.

Try reading up on the Swiss/Burgundian wars & the battles of Platea & Lectura to see both styles have potential.
I must be naughty......its the law!
User avatar
Daemonic aura
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:48 am
Location: Somewhere in Scotland...

Post by Daemonic aura »

I would say medieval. It was a later period of history, and the armour that was worn by the knights was far superior. The archers (especially the English with their long bows) would have mauled the phalanx as it came in, and i don't think armour would have had much of an effect. French cavalry wore plate and it still didn't save them. Plus the english archers liked to employ the earliest method of biological warfare which would certainly have had an effect: they smeared fecal matter over their arrows. Nasty but effective.
And then the knights would hit. Lances are devastating on the charge, and would have splintered into the phalanx decimating it.

And if the phalanx would have won, why was it not employed in medieval times?
to be the man, you've got to beat the man.
User avatar
Ilokir lúinwë
Asur Bane
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: Questing through the nine plains of Hell

Post by Ilokir lúinwë »

Daemonic Aura
wrote:
And if the phalanx would have won, why was it not employed in medieval times?
Because it was obsolete and abandonned by then. The romans forsook the concept of the phalanx under the reform of Marius in favour of the army-composition in depth. Those armies (legions) were totally based on infantry..

The battle of the Catalaunian Fields (451ac. Romans and Goth heavy cavalry against the huns) and the battle at Adrianopel (378ac. East-Romans under Valens against East-Goths) proved to be the nemesis of infantry-based armies. It seemed by then that infantry stood no chance against heavy cavalry...
The battles at Kortrijk (1302) and at Morgarten (1305) where the first times the heavy cavalry-based armies met their doom again against infantry..
Class: Warrior
Ws: 6 dex: 4 str: 4 T: 3 Int: 4
Skills: Awareness, Defensive fighting, Parry
Equipment: Medium armor, Longsword, 2 Throwing daggers, 50 gold coins

Don't forgive, don't forget
User avatar
Kreoss
Noble
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:23 pm

Post by Kreoss »

Well it looks like this got mostly covered here, but I'm voting for the medieval army. Like said, the Phalanx wasn't really that strategic of an army, it was simple and effective, but if something went wrong it was all over. The different styles of medieval armies did not neccessarily have this problem.
User avatar
Legion noir
Executioner
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Off-shore!

Post by Legion noir »

Daemonic Aura wrote:I would say medieval. It was a later period of history, and the armour that was worn by the knights was far superior. The archers (especially the English with their long bows) would have mauled the phalanx as it came in, and i don't think armour would have had much of an effect. French cavalry wore plate and it still didn't save them. Plus the english archers liked to employ the earliest method of biological warfare which would certainly have had an effect: they smeared fecal matter over their arrows. Nasty but effective.


The superiority of the English archer is a fable.,the science of warfare was in full effect then! the plate armour improved throughout the middle ages along with the piercing capeabilty of the arrows. much like the Germans developing the Panther & Tiger Tanks to cope with the T-34.
Enlglish arrows could not penetrate the Milanese knights' armour at the battle of Rocroy during the Hundred years war.
I must be naughty......its the law!
User avatar
Ilokir lúinwë
Asur Bane
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: Questing through the nine plains of Hell

Post by Ilokir lúinwë »

the battle of Rocroy during the Hundred years war.
You are very mistaken here... The battle of Rocroy is during the thirty year's war in 1643.. It was actually the last battle the Spanish lost against the French, and thus lost control of Europe to the French. By that time, armies fought already with muskets...
Class: Warrior
Ws: 6 dex: 4 str: 4 T: 3 Int: 4
Skills: Awareness, Defensive fighting, Parry
Equipment: Medium armor, Longsword, 2 Throwing daggers, 50 gold coins

Don't forgive, don't forget
User avatar
Arquinsiel
Shadowdancer
Posts: 4987
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
Contact:

Post by Arquinsiel »

Eldacar wrote:And if Alexander was leading his Macedonian Phalanx with the Companion Cavalry backing him up, then the result would most certainly be different again, because the support units that the Phalanx would then possess should be capable of stopping, slowing or at least diverting the cavalry charge from the medieval army.

Basically, we could theorise about this all day.
Yeah, especialyl if we point out that Alexander's strategies were successful only because his opponant at his most famous victories used large numebrs of slave infantry who broke and ran at the first chance they got allowing the companion cavelry to get a clear run at Darius and his command staff. That's the problem with slaves, they're not all that motivated to stick around and get in the way of the enemy for you.

Daemonic Aura wrote:French cavalry wore plate and it still didn't save them. Plus the english archers liked to employ the earliest method of biological warfare which would certainly have had an effect: they smeared fecal matter over their arrows. Nasty but effective.
And then the knights would hit. Lances are devastating on the charge, and would have splintered into the phalanx decimating it.
Firstly the french cavelry didn't have so many problems with their plate being pierced as they did with their horses beign shot out from under them. A falling plate-armoured man moving at full tilt is a pretty good recipie for broken limbs. A horse going down in a poinard is also pretty much guarenteed to foul the rest of the charge up. It was effective simply because the knights were easy to disrupt not because the longbow could break armour. Secondly, the English didn't need to smear their arrows, as I mentioned in another thread currently active, the greatest risk of infection from a wound is that caused by rotting micro-fibres of the wounded person's clothing being left in the wound. As nasty and all ass both of these are though, they're not really fast-acting enough to have any meaningful effect on a battle. Thirdly, phalanxes are equipped with pikes, which have larger reach than lances, are more densely packed than lances and also have the advantage of being groundable. Sure the knight has a big heavy horse and armour moving at high speed behind the point of his weapon but a pike has an entire planet. This is why I really hated the end of the Battle of Helm's Deep. Pikes are very much a no-no to charge from the front with cavelry.

Personally I'm going with Midieval for the following reasons:
1: Midieval skirmishers out-range Classical ones for the vast part. Javelins, slings and shortbows are not any competition for longbows and crosswobs in terms of range.
2: Iron and steel weapons beat bronze armour. Same is said of iron and steel armour vs bronze weapons. Midieval tech wins pretty much hands down.
3: Heavy cavelry in the Midieval age used stirrups and carried lances. That's a signifigant advantage over classical heavy cavelry. They may not be much faster but if they can get around the sides of the pikes then bad things will happen to the phalanx.

On a similar note, a friend of mine debated the merits of a Marian Roman army against a Tuetonic Cavelry army in a similar style. We concluded that in that case ic comes down to simple strength of numbers to see who carries the day as both sides are very evenly matched.
ImageImageImageImage
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
User avatar
Eldacar
Loremaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Eldacar »

Yeah, especialyl if we point out that Alexander's strategies were successful only because his opponant at his most famous victories used large numebrs of slave infantry who broke and ran at the first chance they got allowing the companion cavelry to get a clear run at Darius and his command staff. That's the problem with slaves, they're not all that motivated to stick around and get in the way of the enemy for you.

He did defeat people other than Darius, however - Porus (an Indian chieftain) and the Scythian tribes come to mind as prime examples, and the latter had never been defeated before they met Alexander in battle.
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors
User avatar
Legion noir
Executioner
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Off-shore!

Post by Legion noir »

Ilokir wrote:
the battle of Rocroy during the Hundred years war.
You are very mistaken here... The battle of Rocroy is during the thirty year's war in 1643..


Many pardons, I was tired when i typed that reply. :badh:

I meant the Battle of Verneuil 1424, in which the English archers found they could not penetrate the armour of the French Knights nor their mounts due to their use of new plate armour.It didn't matter as the English won anyway.

If your refering to Pike phalanxes rather than the Hoplite phalanx then the tactics used by the Swiss were simular.
I must be naughty......its the law!
User avatar
Arquinsiel
Shadowdancer
Posts: 4987
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
Contact:

Post by Arquinsiel »

Eldacar wrote:He did defeat people other than Darius, however - Porus (an Indian chieftain) and the Scythian tribes come to mind as prime examples, and the latter had never been defeated before they met Alexander in battle.
True, but Gaugamela is mostly touted as the supreme example of his military "genius" and I personally maintain that he was lucky that the huge risk he took paid off. He did manage to cover a few thing that no-one prreviously bothered with although currently they're considered basic precautions.

legion noir wrote:If your refering to Pike phalanxes rather than the Hoplite phalanx then the tactics used by the Swiss were simular.
Same thing, Hoplite Phalanxes were the only ones that really existed. I've never come across any references to a phalanx beign armed with anythign other than pikes and hoplons although the details of the armour and the size and minor details of the shape of the hoplon did vary.
ImageImageImageImage
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
User avatar
Eldacar
Loremaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Eldacar »

True, but Gaugamela is mostly touted as the supreme example of his military "genius" and I personally maintain that he was lucky that the huge risk he took paid off. He did manage to cover a few thing that no-one prreviously bothered with although currently they're considered basic precautions.

Indeed, though with the number of battles that he managed to win, I'd say that he would have had to be an exceptional strategist at the least. Gaugamela is merely the most prominent example, although there was a much greater element of risk present in that particular fight (Alexander always led from the front line where possible, really).

I've never come across any references to a phalanx beign armed with anythign other than pikes and hoplons

The Macedonian Phalanx was armed with the sarissa.
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors
User avatar
Arquinsiel
Shadowdancer
Posts: 4987
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
Contact:

Post by Arquinsiel »

Strategy is the large scale deployment of resources to achieve a military aim. Tactics is the small scale useage of deployed resources to achieve a military aim. Tactically he relied on a lot of luck. Strategically he was way ahead of his time allowing for the possibility of the enemy unexpectedly coming upon his supply trains, fostered a deep sense of camraderie amongst his troops and generally deployed reasonably well when outnumbered by his enemy. Maybe not a genius but still very good strategically. Problem is, when things got messy in combat up his actions often seem nearly random and do regularly depend upon a particular part of the opposing forces breaking when they are unlikely to.
ImageImageImageImage
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
User avatar
Eldacar
Loremaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Eldacar »

Arquinsiel wrote:Strategy is the large scale deployment of resources to achieve a military aim. Tactics is the small scale useage of deployed resources to achieve a military aim. Tactically he relied on a lot of luck. Strategically he was way ahead of his time allowing for the possibility of the enemy unexpectedly coming upon his supply trains, fostered a deep sense of camraderie amongst his troops and generally deployed reasonably well when outnumbered by his enemy. Maybe not a genius but still very good strategically. Problem is, when things got messy in combat up his actions often seem nearly random and do regularly depend upon a particular part of the opposing forces breaking when they are unlikely to.

Oh, I agree that he had flaws. Every general does, after all.

As to the sarissa, my lecturers referred to it as a long spear-like weapon rather than a pike.
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors
User avatar
Arquinsiel
Shadowdancer
Posts: 4987
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
Contact:

Post by Arquinsiel »

The only difference between a pike and a spear in my mind is the length and the ability to throw the weapon. A sarissa is merely a pike with a chunky ball counterweight on the end of it really.
ImageImageImageImage
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
User avatar
Eldacar
Loremaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Eldacar »

It depends on perspective, I guess. :)
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors
Post Reply