"How do Romans Fight the Phalanx?" Topic

How should games depict Romans fighting the phalanx in skirmish games?

I took a game designed for Vikings and Anglo-Saxons and adapted it for Britons against Romans, which, to be honest, mainly needed adaptations for pila and chariot-shock. Even though the use of pila to bring down shields is probably exaggerated. It also gives me a means to introduce my ideas about gods, ritual and mystery as obstacles, objectives and protagonists.

Anyhow, now I have Latins I can pitch them against Bubbles. So at skirmish-level, we have Romans facing a small phalanx and the long Macedonian sarissas mean that there has to be an intermediate stage to the melee process: the part where Romans get stabbed while trying to use their shields to push their way past the sarissa-points. Except, that sounds easier than it is because their isn't one row of points. You get past the leading line's sarissas and then there's the second-line's poking at you and so on.

Certainly Romans beat the phalanx, but was that because they just pushed their way through the pikes, or because, not being burdened with a seven-yard-long pole, they could come in at the flank more easily? How difficult should pushing past the sarissa-points be?

Once they're in, most commentators say the Romans had the advantage. Yet even now it's not so simple. The gladius, being the Roman shield-wall sticking weapon has the edge, as it were, especially as the Italians have the bigger shield to defend themselves. While presumably the Greek Xiphos

comes into its own as a bloody slashing horror when formations turn into a free-for-all.

How to best balance these competing abilities? And am I mad for considering a phalanx at skirmish-level anyway? I guess I'll have to be able to allow them to drop their poles by swapping them for new figures.

John Warry (Warfare in the Classical World) is of the opinion that pila did indeed disrupt the phalanx effectively. The scutum, a larger shield, could also deflect the sarissa. The close order formations of the pikes meant that gaps are extremely disruptive to the function of the phalanx. When the Roman swordsman (who was very well trained with his gladius) got inside these gaps, he wreaked havoc on the pikeman, who was not a trained swordsman and had a weaker shield.

Also, the maniple system allowed fresh troops to replenish the Roman line; the phalanx— which is extremely dense and tight— could not do that without breaking its cohesion.

Agree with Parzival and the source highlighted. I think you may be underestimating the pila's effectiveness as well. Several hundred large lawn darts with really no real defense? Yeah that's going to cause the phalanx an issue. Now that dozens of the men in the phalanx are down/wounded/disrupted, a maniple of men with large shields can probably exploit the gaps, push them aside enough to get close.

Now for a skirmish game, I'd guess your phalanx troops are just going to be out there with their small shields and swords; they'd again be at a minor disadvantage as the formation they are most used to and would revert to would be less effective than what we know about how a maniple deployed and fought.
And now we have a slashing sword in a tight formation versus the stabby sword and the looser formation-point to the Romans again.

However, there were recorded instances of the Romans struggling versus an intact phalanx. Its hard to get a soldier, trained or not, to run into a bunch of point sticks..

I think the historical battles suggest that an intact phalanx was still a very formidable opponent.

At Battle of Heraclea and Battle of Asculum, Pyrrhus' Macedonian-style phalanx defeated Roman armies. The Romans fought hard, but they certainly didn't just charge through the sarissas.

Even later, at Battle of Cynoscephalae, the Macedonian right wing drove the Romans back when its phalanx was properly formed and advancing on suitable ground. The battle turned because the Macedonian left had not yet fully deployed and because the terrain disrupted the phalanx's cohesion.

Similarly, at Battle of Pydna, the phalanx initially pushed the Romans back. Ancient accounts describe the legionaries struggling to approach the hedge of pikes. The decisive moment came when rough ground opened gaps in the phalanx, allowing Roman maniples to penetrate between the blocks and fight at close quarters.

To me, those battles suggest that the Roman advantage was not that legionaries could routinely bull their way through several ranks of sarissas. Rather, they were better able to exploit disorder once the phalanx lost alignment, encountered broken terrain, or developed gaps.

So, if your skirmish game represents a part of a battle, I'd therefore make a formed phalanx extremely difficult to frontally assault, but vulnerable if disrupted, attacked on the flank, or forced to break formation. That seems closer to what happened historically than treating the Roman as a superman who simply pushes past twenty feet of sharpened ash wood, pila or no.

Parzival,
"The close order formations of the pikes meant that gaps are extremely disruptive to the function of the phalanx. When the Roman swordsman (who was very well trained with his gladius) got inside these gaps, he wreaked havoc on the pikeman, who was not a trained swordsman and had a weaker shield."

Maggot
"Agree with Parzival and the source highlighted. I think you may be underestimating the pila's effectiveness as well. Several hundred large lawn darts with really no real defense?"

I see. So I suppose creating gaps with pilum and javelins from the velites is what would get the legionaries in.

Ochion
"The decisive moment came when rough ground opened gaps in the phalanx, allowing Roman maniples to penetrate between the blocks and fight at close quarters."

Good point. So the phalanx is more sensitive to disordered ground than an ordinary shield wall.

Now wondering how to use the phalanx aggressively. It's supposed to pin an enemy. So I'm thinking the normal "missile" and "melee" stages aren't really there to deal with sarissa, which I suppose I have to treat like a one-sided melee. If the pikes get into your formation, then perhaps they are physically pinning it, like a struggling insect! An enemy is going to have to have penalties for trying to get away.

Yes, in fact that's what Warry puts forth.

A functioning phalanx, however, does seem to call for a much larger than skirmish game.

A phalanx would be inappropriate in a skirmish game. Macedonian phalangites would put aside their pikes in favour of other weapons, typically thrusting spears or javelins when not in a formal line of battle.

I've read about Foot Companions (named units usually armed with pines) assaulting fortress walls via ladders. I don't they were armed with the Sarissa.

The idea that the pila were not very effective against the phalanx springs mostly from Livy's description of the action at Atrax in 198 (32.17):

"After clearing the ground where the shattered wall lay in heaps he brought up a movable tower of immense height carrying a large number of men on its numerous stages, and sent on cohort after cohort to break through, if possible, the massed body of Macedonians, which they call the phalanx. But in the narrow space-for the breach in the wall was by no means a wide one-the kind of weapon he used and his style of fighting gave the enemy an advantage. When the serried Macedonian ranks presented their enormously long spears it was like a shield-wall, and when the Romans after fruitlessly hurling their pila, drew their swords they could not get to close quarters, nor could they hack off the spear-heads; if they did succeed in cutting or breaking any off, the splintered shafts kept their places amongst the points of the uninjured ones and the palisade remained unbroken. Another thing which helped the enemy was the protection of their flanks by that part of the wall which was sound; they had not to attack or retire over a wide stretch of ground, which generally disorders the ranks. An accident which happened to the tower gave them still greater confidence. "

Very carefully.

Scale enters in, I think. I agree with Ochoin that the Phalanx seems to have been the superior weapon on level ground, the problem being that ground is seldom perfectly level. At 1:10 maybe you give the edge to the phalanx on the level but include every bump and fold in the terrain? And maybe at Stand=1,000 you just give a slight edge to the Romans and posit ground irregularities you can't show?

How should games depict Romans fighting the phalanx in skirmish games?

Shouldn't be depicted in a skirmish game. The phalanx was a large formation who's tactical impact was based on mass. It is not possible to represent this in a skirmish game.

That it's supposed to be a skirmish makes a big difference. There's no way a small group of pikemen can possibly produce the phalanx effect, at least on open ground. The flanks will be overwhelmed in short order.