ShieldWall
Legionary
posted 29 November 2012 03:46
EDT (US)
3 / 6
I'll always prefer a phalanx myself, providing you don't want to move it much then it will give you the most solid of front lines. A drawback though is that it's pretty inefficient on a man-for-man basis. Only the front three ranks are doing any fighting, and if you're on good ground you might only need the first two. Okay this is true for all units, only the front ranks fight and those behind just stand still until casualties in the unit bring them to the front - which is very unlikely to happen in a phalanx. The problem is that the phalanx is a very tight formation by design, Roman infantry units are much looser and so occupy more width, therefore 10 cohorts will form a wider line and certainly outflank 10 hoplites. The obvious solution is to take them out of phalanx mode and stretch them out to three ranks deep. You now have a very long front and one that's unlikely to be broken head-on.
Anyway, back to the point of the question. Roman infantry on guard mode are actually very strong indeed, not only don't they move, but they also seem to hold up better to a phalanx attack than they do in melee. In melee they move about and wrap themselves around the unit, which is better for fighting back, but they move over those spear points in the process taking losses as they go. But in guard mode they just seem to last an awful lot longer, even Hastati. They can still throw pila while in guard mode, and although they don't fight back well, they do fix the phalanx in place, not taking many losses, until another unit can come and hit them from behind. So this can be a very efficient way to fight.
I don't think it's sensible to have an entirely flexible army because you can very quickly lose track of where everyone is and which of your units is getting murdered. I think some sort of fixing, via a phalanx or guard mode is good as you can leave them be to do their thing whilst concentrating on a relatively small group of mobile forces. Hammer and anvil is what it all comes down to. Either your mobile infantry wheel around an engaged enemy and attack them from behind, or you can run them in amongst your mass of cavalry. The latter struggle when they run into infantry, but if you have hard hitting infantry of your own to attack, and then throw the cavalry in after them, you start packing one hell of a punch that way.
Basically it comes down to what units you have in your arsenal. Axemen, berserkers, chosen swordsmen and basternae were born to do that sort of thing. Roman units can pick apart a phalanx if you do it properly. So there are good alternatives, but honestly, when it comes down to it, I'd always prefer a phalanx.
ShieldWall
Legionary
posted 29 November 2012 10:51
EDT (US)
5 / 6
If the Roman infantry can get past the pikes, either by wrapping around the sides of the phalanx or the formation getting broken up and descending into a sword melee, then they'll do it a lot of damage. It probably comes down to what ground they're on. With a height advantage on a hill, the phalanx should hold firm. If they can keep them on the spears though the Urbans can sit there all day and will do no damage other than with pila. The pikes will keep stabbing at that armour until they find a way through.