I'd love a Greek Style Hoplite Phalanx or Macedonian Pike Phalanx for my Peasants and their pitch forks. It's not a shield wall, which is defensive, A phalanx is offensive. Everyone moves together, in sync, keeping formation when attacking.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Phalanx Formation Please
- Thread starter archaicwarrior
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
A greek phalanx can be both, one 50 ranks deep is definitely offensive.
If you pit a 50 ranks deep greek phalanx vs a 50 ranks deep greek phalanx. It is still defensive, it does not suddenly become offensive. In the other hand, if you pit a 50 ranks deep macedonian phalanx vs 50 ranks deep macedonian phalanx, it still is offensive.
Anything can be offensive if you really want it to be offensive. Castles can be really be offensive if you want them to be. But inherently they are a defensive structure, and inherently greek phalanx is a defensive one.
Anything can be offensive if you really want it to be offensive. Castles can be really be offensive if you want them to be. But inherently they are a defensive structure, and inherently greek phalanx is a defensive one.
Nope, a greek phalanx is defensive. Macedonian Phalanx is the offensive one. ---This is right sorry Hoplites were defensive. It all comes down to how long the spears were and the way they fought.
bestmods168
Sergeant at Arms
How can one start anything when people dont have their priorities sorted out. Someone would mod a defensive formation. Then complainers will say its supposed to be offensive. And vice versa.
I was answering the history debate part..A Greek phalanx was made to hold a position. Where as the Macedonia was used as an anvil yes, but do to the size of a sarissa it could be very offensive. Also the Macedonians used them to advance as a force more in a combined armed approach as it is know.
bestmods168
Sergeant at Arms
Np. I was complaining to those two above you and other posts. They want brace spears. Then they start complaining about how the impact should force the infantry back or how the pike should break, etc. Im like, one thing at a time please.
Capillati
Banned
Aa... Wrong. Robert of Bruce, first independent king of Scotland defeated the English at Banockburn, 1314, using phalanx like formations. Ok, it wasn`t spears and shields like the greeks, but it was a rectangle formation of pikes attacking the enemy, cavalry and infantry alike.
Last edited:
Capillati
Banned
Wrong, it was a spear formation. Equally adept at both offensive and defensive warfare. Defensive or offensive roles were given by commanders, but ultimately, if a row of spears comes at you, trust me there is little defense. Romans for instance could only win against greek armies of phalanx like formations strictly by flanking them. Front to front they lost and got pushed back quite often. Conincidentally, the Macedonian formation you deem as offensive was used by Philip against romans as a defensive line whilst having his peltasts and cavalry do the attacking.
Forlorn Hope
Recruit
I agree with you. The notion that a Greek phalanx is inherently either defensive or offensive is a bit silly. As an example let's say the phalanxes of two rival Poleis enter the clash of spears together. Which one is acting offensively, and which defensively? You can't tell without more information, right? Because they are capable of both and it could be either.
+1
Phalanx would be useful and a nice addition to the formations.
Capillati
Banned
There`s no myth, it`s simple fact, English had upwards of 4000 cavalry, total of 13000 men so 9000 split between archers and infantry. Scots had small contingents of archers and cavalry and a lot of pikes. The English did charge early and in disorganised fashion, especially with the cavalry and terrain did play a large factor in it (scots managed to put the English with their backs to a rocky wall) but it was mostly pike formations that won the day.
"Romans for instance could only win against Greek armies of phalanx like formations strictly by flanking them". Not sure if you know your history. I'm fairly sure Roman's won because there maniples were #1 more flexible and #2 allowed for more independent command through there centurions. They didn't need to rely on a solid wall to win... And I'm sorry I know I'm going to far IL stop lol.
Capillati
Banned
Which helped them outflank the hoplites, units with no local commanders and no independence in acting on orders. But if you check multiple chronicles of the age, both roman and greek, both sides claim the phalanx was unassailable in frontal assault. Romans relied on flanking when engaging phalanxes. That`s how the Macedonians were defeated, that`s how the rest of the greek world fell to the Roman Empire.
