*blocks your path*

I always wondered how these phalanxes fared in the 16th century. Western European countries readapted them at some point.

>legitimate phalanx combat

But it wouldn't be legitimate, unless you happen to have a bunch of 2000-year-old Thebans around to train them. It would just be academics trying their own pet theories as to how phalanxes fought, with their own internal biases throwing off the results.

The 16th Century Phalanx - particularly the latter ones- =/= Macedonian Phalanx.

They're a bit closer to Roman formations than Macedonian ones despite being pike-y. A singular "pike square" is actually a self contained army in and of itself capable of independent action while Phalangites really have to deploy in this massive longass line.

>16th century pikes*

The entire objective of the phalanx is to stack each heavily armored soldier so close, with their shields overlapping, as to create a wall of bronze. The men in the back would use their shields to push the man in front of him, and the front line would literally push the enemy off the battle field. The only advantage that the sarissa phalanx offers is that up to 5 people in one column can reach the enemy lines with their long spears. The raised spears at the back lines would act as a forest and deflect enemy projectiles. The tightly packed structure and well drilled soldiers created a slow moving, but almost unstoppable wall. And Alexander always used his phalanx troops to hold the enemies (anvil) while his cavalry and hypaspists delivered the killing blow (hammer)
It worked very well for the Swiss due to the terrain in which they fought. The single biggest problem of the phalanx is that it can only fight in one direction and is vulnerable to flanking attacks.

Phalanx vs phalanx just comes down to whoever has the deeper line, although there is important meta from a lengthier line, the flank role must go to lighter troops than the phalangite. Against non phalanxes the 16 man deep line is totally unnecessary, since it's pure phalanx on phalanx cheese.

Interesting. They used them to shield musketeers against cavalry attacks?

Yes the Swiss effectively ended Burgundy.

>Burgundy
a germanic tribe had that name

It was all self-reinforcing.

Yep, and that is where the name Burgundy originates from. Like Lombardy in Northern Italy and Sussex in England.

I love etymology.

And Franks were Germanic too but Frogs pretend they're not.

They did, with lighter infantry flanking the phalanx and cavalry flanking them in turn. The problem is that these lighter troops could b really, really varied in quality- anything form elite Macedonians or Greeks to poorly armed natives who didn't give a shit about their overlords or have any stake in the battle aside form getting out alive.

>and you never will see such a battle, because it's apparently "unconstitutional". Total bullshit from a revisionist and weak SCOTUS, supported by those who don't take the time to really think about it.
Actually, we know a fair amount about how they were trained, thanks to xenophon.

the problem is that the greeks forgot that its not the phalanx that won the battle,it was having them as a solid impenetrable line while you have something to come behind and flank them

Honestly the Macedonian Phalanx seems to be wholly ineffective when you lose a figure like Alexander or Phillip to lead them.

Shit, Pyrrhus had a carbon copy of Alexander's army plus elephants, and he still couldn't defeat the Romans.

Elephants is actually a drain unless you really know how to use them
i think line warfare is a regress towards days of greek hoplites

He won the majority of his battles with them.

How does one even make the enemy face the phalanx voluntarily, I ponder....were persians retarded?

The phalanx, despite common myth, could and did run at you. Even if it kept to a walk, you can fight or run away and let them win the field.

*teleports behind you*

Did Zulu have phalanx units?

What I don't get is how this phalanx shit gets popular, does great, then sucks, gets replaced by the manacle system, goes away for 1,000 years, and then in the 16th century people are all about massed pike formations again.

Shoot at them while moving backwards?

Real life doesn't work that way.

I guess the Turks didn't get that memo.

Settled Persians fighting on foot are not the same thing as fucking steppe nomads, you absolute retard.

does anyone have the flanked fgt pic

The phalanx was a good formation and the phalangites were also trained to fight as peltasts for mountain operations or sieges. The problem was that Macedon was depopulated after the emigration of many to Asia or Egypt, wars and Celtic invasion. Therefore Macedon had little cavalry since most nobles had left, leaving only a small pool of commoners to serve in the infantry. The Ptolemies and Seleukids therefore had much larger armies and plenty of cavalry but since they were immigrants in foreign lands, the rulers had to preserve their manpower pool and thusly a single battle could decide the fate of a war.

The Romans just kept recruiting plebs and levied Italians to grind down the enemy.

...

>And Franks were Germanic but Frogs pretend they're not.
>pretend they're not
We don't. Fact of the matter is though the Franks were assimilated by the Romanized Celtic-Gaulics and Roman colonists in Gaul. We don't know we have Germanic heritage at all unlike A*nglos.

Persian cavalry was busy pressuring and stalemating the Macedonian cavalry. Despite the clear difference in effectiveness, training, and skill between the Macedonian infantry and the Persians own, Persian and Mede along with Scythian mounted units were holding their own against Alexander's calvary and the fighting was incredibly desperate for the Macedonian/Greeks.

Parthian shot existed centuries before Turkic Steppe nomads and Mongols did it..

*shoots you with rifles*

You have absolutely no knowledge on the subject. Stop.

Don't be retarded now, Stephanolous.

Anglos don't actually have much Germanic blood either, Anglos and Saxons just were able to overthrow and replace the local culture with their own. Genetically Gaul and Britannia were equally changed.

t. totally not an A*nglo

> implying Greeks didn't like to fight naked

...

And whichever was both best and possible with the technology of Philip's time would be most likely to be what they used.

Don't at least a third of modern day English people have at least some Germanic admixture? Sure the Anglos/Saxons/Jutes were assimilated but they certainly also had a significant genetic impact on the Roman/Celtics living in the Isles.

Besides a big part of one's ethnicity and culture is derived from their language, and speaking a Germanic tongue is certainly a major cultural factor.

...

Grecian booty had me like

Except what the Persians faced was nothing like the later Macedonian phalanx. You're talking about a citizen militia-levy, they weren't professional soldiers unlike the Macedonian phalanx.
The real Greek phalanx is nothing like the Macedonian phalanx. It was actually very aggressive and little more than a shieldwall.

What are you talking about? The only parts of the Persian military that was seriously a match for the Macedonian/Greeks were their own horsemen. At Granicus, the Persian cavalry was pushing back the Macedonian/Greek cavalry and infantry flank on their left side, and at one point Alexander was nearly killed twice.

Are you seriously contesting the Persian horsemen weren't doing decently compared to their infantry counterparts for the Achaemenids?

First, Thebans were incompetent retards who prided themselves on having sex with children and derailing Hellenic civilization.

Second, there are a couple of manuals on phalanx combat. Someone already mentioned Xenophon, who does give a fair number of details, but there are others. Picture attached is of a very technical text. There are also plenty of depictions of hoplite combat.

The law must stand aside and allow men to take the field again, so we may learn what happens when shield clashes against shield.

*rains armor piercing crossbow bolts*

No. It was the main infantry block and opreated in Tercios. Fire-arms were rare and it was difficult planning around them. Each Tercio had its own small groups of skirmishers, usually armed with arquebuses who would deploy on corners of a tercio.
And muskets were still not invented at the time.

>re-adapted
Next to no one knew how ancient Macedonians/Greeks fought or what were their weapons and equipment.

>carbon copy
Try a shit-smeared copy. Descending generations did not have the same discipline or loyalty. Also even Alexander himself "lost" some of his battles against the Persians. In Issus his flank was broken but he still won because Darius fled the battlefield.

these guys existed centuries after Phalanxes did.

>>>/any board other than Veeky Forums/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna#Battle

>"haha im gonna prove him wrong with this"
>"shit I actually proved him right"
leave Veeky Forums and don't look back

I understand they're not the exact same legions.

Pyrrhus was successful against the Romans but he lost too many officers. Macedonian phalanx required combined arms which required a well trained officer corps.

Thanks for the correction, also now that I know hypaspists were the alternative name for shield bearers their being anti infantry in AoM finally makes sense.

...

Molotov cocktails.

>Why didn't they just put other, more maneuverable formations at the flanks?
You do not understand Hoplite warfare.

*Lays down Sarissa*
*Unsheathes Xiphos*