Macedonian Phalanx as Heavy Foot

A place to talk about MESHWESH army lists
Post Reply
User avatar
Dekelia
Levy
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:34 pm

Macedonian Phalanx as Heavy Foot

Post by Dekelia » Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:08 pm

So I imagine this will be a radical idea, but I think it has merit so please hear me out.

I've been playing a lot of Alexander Macedonian against many of his historical matchups. In almost all cases, the Macedonian Phalanx is historically disappointing (i.e. doesn't match up with it's historical performance and use). My initial thought was to try to figure out what is wrong with the Pike unit type that makes it perform so bad in it's historical matchups, but at some point I realized the actual problem. The Triumph Pike is not a good fit for the Macedonian Phalanx.

I was not around for initial playtesting and design decisions so I'm purely basing this on rules as written and general knowledge of the use of the Phalanx from Phillip until it was supplanted by other forms of infantry. My view of the Triumph Pike unit type is that it is optimized for fighting Heavy Cavalry (Knights and Cataphracts) and can be equal to other close order infantry in the right situation. It is difficult to maneuver and especially weak on the flanks.

The Macedonian Phalanx was built to fight against the Greek Phalanx. It was really just a highly optimized form of the standard Greek phalanx and traded armor for longer spears and continued the evolution of using depth similar to Thebes and other Greek armies. They never really fought against heavy cavalry that I can tell. They certainly fought against Persian cavalry but in Triumph those are Elite, Javelin, and Bow Cav which the Pike is generally bad against and there really aren't any cases I know of where the phalanx clashed directly with the Persian cavalry in a meaningful way.

For all the reasons that the Greek Phalanx (which fought with spears) are classed as Heavy Foot in Triumph, the Macedonian Phalanx should be too. Yes, they have really long spears that would generally be regarded as pikes but the weapon shouldn't define the troop type, the use in battle does. It was used as a solid anvil against other infantry. The phalanx under Phillip and Alexander was especially good against and is really the apex of the Greek Phalanx. In that way, I think there is an argument that it could even be Elite Foot in that era, though by the Successor era, it was really just the standard heavy infantry of the region until supplanted by the Roman style of fighting.

I don't see any evidence in history that it was any less maneuverable than the Greek Phalanx, there is some evidence that it is more maneuverable (not a high bar) because of the lighter armor. Likewise, there is no evidence that I can find that it is more susceptible to being flanked than the Greek phalanx. Certainly both were very weak to the flank but that is true for all units in Triumph.

So there is my argument. I doubt it will change anything but since it's been said that army makeup is fluid, I thought I'd make the argument.
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Macedonian Phalanx as Heavy Foot

Post by David Kuijt » Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:55 am

Interesting thoughts.

To continue the discussion, I'm not sure your argument works after the death of Alexander. You say (about the Macedonian phalanx): "They never really fought against heavy cavalry that I can tell." Except that all the battles of the Diadachoii (Alexander's successors) for the next 200 years are against other Diadachoii -- and all of them used Knights (or later Cataphracts) as their primary cavalry arm. And I see no evidence that the phalanges at the Hellespont, Orkynia, Cretopolis, Paraitakene, Gabiene, Gaza, Ipsus, Corupedium ... were in any way different from the phalanges used against the Persians.

Further, I think rating the phalanx as Pike makes them more useful and more effective against the predominantly mounted armies of the Persians. You make the observation "They certainly fought against Persian cavalry but in Triumph those are Elite, Javelin, and Bow Cav which the Pike is generally bad against and there really aren't any cases I know of where the phalanx clashed directly with the Persian cavalry in a meaningful way." -- another take on the same data is that the Persian cavalry were generally ineffective against the Macedonian phalanx. That's data that supports rating them as Pike (+4 vs mounted) rather than Heavy Foot (+3 vs mounted). And I'd disagree with your statement that they are "generally bad" -- that's the interaction between fast standoff troops and effective slower troops, and happens multiple places in Triumph. You cannot say that Elite Foot or Heavy Foot are "generally bad" against Skirmishers or Rabble -- that's a misunderstanding of the necessities of how you fight against faster standoff troops.

None of which directly answers your contention that the phalanx of Alexander during his life might be better rated as Heavy Foot when fighting against the Hoplite armies of the Aegean. That's an interesting idea. For the reasons above I'm unconvinced once Alexander starts pounding on Persians and Indians and then kicks off, but it's very interesting for the expansion of Philip battles in Greece. I look forward to trying some of those battles and matchups with our ratings, to see if I can replicate your discontent with the pike performance. Sadly, that won't happen until after Covid stabilizes, but that's the world we live in now. :(
DK
User avatar
Dekelia
Levy
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:34 pm

Re: Macedonian Phalanx as Heavy Foot

Post by Dekelia » Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:48 pm

Thanks for engaging on this. I find this kind of discussion interesting.

I did indeed intend to lump the Successor armies into the discussion as I think they are basically the same purpose and tactics as Alexander used them. Most of the Successors had small numbers of Knights. Looking at Meswesh they mostly get a single knight unit. Only the Seleucids had access to significant heavy cavalry (which I frankly forgot about and is a good point). They did all use Elephants, which I also overlooked, that the Pike would be better than Heavy Foot against. I still don't think either of those is a good reason that so many armies would have a primary heavy infantry block optimized to fight heavy cavalry.

When I say they are "bad against" the Persian Cavalry, I mean it in exactly the way you say and exactly the same as Skirmishers. When I'm the Persian player, I'm freely pushing my Elite and Jav Cav into the Pikes (assuming all else is equal). I might win and double (3 vs 4 isn't awful), I can't die, and I could potentially pull them out of line. All good things. This is the same advantage they have against any heavy infantry and though they are slightly better than Heavy Foot, that isn't a fight you'd go looking for if you are the Macedonians. The only time the Pike feels useful is when pulling a single Pike element to guard the flank against flanking cavalry - which is really strange - not that it wouldn't be done, just strange that it is their best use.

I should be clear, I primarily have been playing these armies as a sort of historical simulation - usually solo (pandemic and all) but have been able to get a couple real games. I'm not interested in making them "better", that's not really my goal. They are certainly playable as is and the battles generally play out in a reasonable way. The problem I'm running into is really that when fighting against Greek Hoplites, which most historical opponents used in large number - whether Greeks themselves in Philip's campaigns, or Persians using Greek Mercenaries, the Pike have a small, but significant, disadvantage in that fight. Enough so that as the Macedonian player, I would stand back and not push the phalanx in. It feels very strange.

I suspect that the Successor armies won't have this issue because they are all using the Pike against each other so they'll work fine against their historical opponents. It does make me wonder if they'd end up too good against the Seleucids. It would be very difficult for a cav heavy Seleucid army to deal with a Pike heavy opponent. Whether that is historical or not, I'm not sure. I might have to pull the Elephants out and get into some Successor battles :)
User avatar
Rod
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Macedonian Phalanx as Heavy Foot

Post by Rod » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:42 pm

Interesting discussion this since part of Project "Lunacy" is to recreate the battles of this time period in 28mm.

I.e.
Greece vs. Persia
Greece vs. Macedon
Persia vs. Alexander
Pyrrhus vs. Rome
Wars of the Diadochi

David,
Seems like we should I should do a Zoom battle with the Greek match up with Macedon maybe a video on it.

I have all the forces to do this in 15mm and happy to set up one based on the discussion, say later Hoplite Athens vs. Rise of Macedon?
User avatar
Rod
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Macedonian Phalanx as Heavy Foot

Post by Rod » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:54 pm

One thing I want to make sure we are careful about in this discussion (as DK is frequently warning us) is that we do not confuse larger strategic factors of a particular culture with on battlefield performance of specific troop types.

i.e the classic argument about Roman soldiers were super elite thus the reason Rome conquered much of the known world when in reality it was the Roman society/government and organizational structure that contributed to their success over their enemies.

Or the Mongols vs many other Horsebow armies, none approached the level of conquest the Mongols achieved, and they all had Horsebow.

Many Historic battles and wars are won before the troops ever fought or after they are over.

Triumph is trying to recreate only the actions on the battlefield, not the strategic stuff behind the scenes and this is an important distinction.
Post Reply