NationStates Jolt Archive

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.

If the Greek Phalanx was more devastating than a medieval army the Phalanx would never have been abandoned in favor of that style of army. Just stands to reason. If a bunch of guys with spears marching in close formation were so great people would still fight that way.

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.

If the Spartans were using bronze weapons versus medieval iron wepons, I would have to give it to the medieval guys.

Medevel guys just cover themselves in metal and wave their arms around if you're smart you can beat them

Medevel guys just cover themselves in metal and wave their arms around if you're smart you can beat them

Right. I've seen medieval reenactors fighting with the weapons of the period, and they certainly don't "just cover themselves in metal and wave their arms around". Believe it or not, they actually did know how to fight and how to make the best use of the weapons available to them.

There's a reason the Phalanx was abandoned as long ago as the days of the Roman republic.

The Phalanx is a devastating defensive weapon, no doubt, but it has severe drawbacks:

-Slow moving, slow to maneuver.

That makes it easy to flank or maneuver away from. As an offensive weapon the phalanx is only useful if you have vast numbers and can somehow corner or flank your enemy. With the limited maneuverability of the phalanx, this won't happen.

-Small shields.
Defensively against missiles, a phalanx is very vulnerable. Archers would be devastating against a traditional Greek/Macedonian Phalanx.

I think those factors alone would decide the battle. In the game Rome:Total War you can run exactly this sort of battle. In LAN games I generally played the Macedonians and the only way I could beat my Roman opponent was if I could get him to charge my phalanxes. If he were the defender and I had to attack, I was hopelessly outmaneuvered and picked off by missiles.

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.

Given those tactics... I would say Phalanx. The bowmen loose effectiveness when their own men (knights and men at arms) are in the mix. also it leaves the bowmen exposed.

now change the tactics, have the longbows pelting away from the onset, set the men at arms infront of the bowmen for protection and when the phalanx reaches optimum distance, you pause the bowmen long enough for the knights to charge from the flanks... not head on.

after the charge you resume the arrow barrage while the knights wheel around to charge again from the flanks, again having the bowmen pause during the charge. this will keep the phalanx numbers dwindling while only putting the knights in danger. when they manage to reach the men at arms will be held back while the bowmen can now move back and selectivly pick off the phalanx while the knights can harry the sides and back.

mixed units... gotta love em.

Medevel guys just cover themselves in metal and wave their arms around if you're smart you can beat them

Especially if you have thermonuclear warheads.

The 1500 long bowmen can decimate that Spartan Phalanx alone. The typical Scottish pikemen using the Schiltron formation were decimated at the Battle of Falkirk by English Longbows.

Oh yeah How much LARPing have you done I totally know what I'm talking about LOLOLOLOLOLOLO ~! :p
Yeah, I was exagerating you are right. :)

I do plenty of LARPing. My RPG involves pretending I'm a responsible and law abiding citizen when at work or out in public. I've gotten pretty good at it.

Well for at start the knights certainly wouldn't just charge straight into a wall of spears, its just suicide! Just stand back and let the longbowmen do their job.flank with the knights and clean up disordered Phalanx with the men-at-arms.

Right. I've seen medieval reenactors fighting with the weapons of the period, and they certainly don't "just cover themselves in metal and wave their arms around". Believe it or not, they actually did know how to fight and how to make the best use of the weapons available to them.

Oh yeah How much LARPing have you done I totally know what I'm talking about LOLOLOLOLOLOLO ~! :p
Yeah, I was exagerating you are right. :)

Given those tactics... I would say Phalanx.

Yeah, the OP's suggested tactics are just one step away from retarded.

Hint: you don't charge people who have spears they can set to receive unless you really, really need do so.

English longbow, FTW.

Spartans would only be able to close with about a third of their force intact after the longbowmen let loose. I like the odds of steel arrow-tip versus Greek shield.

Once they closed, their weapons would clang mostly harmlessly against the full plate of the knights and the men-at-arms would be whirling just as dervishly as the Greeks.

Prediction:

Greek losses: 5000.
Medieval losses: 500 men-at-arms, 50 knights.

I do plenty of LARPing. My RPG involves pretending I'm a responsible and law abiding citizen when at work or out in public. I've gotten pretty good at it.

Really? I'm a level 19 College Student with The Sword of Overbearing Loans and the Shield of Minimum Wage.

If you had those unit's the said medieval army could just form up a defensive infantry line with the archers in front and they can fire at the phalanx as long as they have the arrows until the phalanx are forced to go on the offensive , flee or just be decimated then you can use your cavalry to sue a wedge to smash threw the centre (after they've suffered sufficient casualties) and send your infantry in after thhem into the gap and then watch the enemie be routed . Thats what i would do if we were just in a vast plains and the phalanx were formed into a big line...

Prediction:

Greek losses: 5000.
Medieval losses: 500 men-at-arms, 50 knights.

Given that the longbow has greater range than anything the Phalanx possesses, and that the bowmen will be fleeter of foot, and that we have no details of territory given to us, I see no reason for the medieval army to suffer a single loss. They need just perform a retrograde before the slowly advancing formation, firing at the rest and then withdrawing to keep the distance open.

I doubt you'd clock up 5k kills, but you don't need to: you just need lay down sufficient that the morale and cohesion of the rest breaks. Then you hit them with your knights (if mounted), or your faster men-at-arms (if the knights are on foot).

Of course, the trick is to hold back your knights as a reserve, despite whatever insane ideas of chivalry they may possess. Meh, Just tell them the phalanx is formed up of peasents and needless direct contact with them is below them.

...then you can use your cavalry to sue a wedge to smash threw the centre (after they've suffered sufficient casualties)...

Of course, getting horses to charge full pelt at spears is (a) a neat trick, and (b) a bad idea. You approach the phalanx from the side or the rear, not the front - possibly feint at the side, so as to cause confusion as they try to form up to receive a charge there, and then sweep away and back at them from the rear would probably be best.

The phalanx.

Why?

That's why. (http://www.bruceshankle.com/masterchief/masterchief_800x600.png)

Seriously nothing the medievil army has could puncture Spartan armor. Hell a single Spartan could wipe out a million of the knights given enough time.

5,000 is just overkill.

The phalanx.

Why?

That's why. (http://www.bruceshankle.com/masterchief/masterchief_800x600.png)

Seriously nothing the medievil army has could puncture Spartan armor. Hell a single Spartan could wipe out a million of the knights given enough time.

5,000 is just overkill.

You know I just had a feeling that someone would say that. :p

I didn't know we could use whatever kind of Phalanx we want. If so I'd go for this.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6906/phalanxgl5.jpg

And take this along for backup.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/184/squirrelwgunmp3.jpg

I didn't know we could use whatever kind of Phalanx we want. If so I'd go for this.

yadda yadda

And in what sense is that 'Spartan'? - forgive my ignorance in asking.

The phalanx.

Why?

That's why. (http://www.bruceshankle.com/masterchief/masterchief_800x600.png)

Seriously nothing the medievil army has could puncture Spartan armor. Hell a single Spartan could wipe out a million of the knights given enough time.

5,000 is just overkill.

Wow.

Beyond lame.

A Phalanx had pretty good protection against longbowman. They might have much lesser losses than normal medevial infatery or even cavallery which is approching the longbowman.

But they would be so slow, that the longbowman simply could retreat if the phalanx is getting close. And the longbowman don't have to stand in a close formation to have a devastating effect. A phalanx is a very bad for fighting against a loose formation.

So, if the longbowman have enough arrows, they could wipe the phalanx out alone, without any own losses, you don't need any knights or normal infantery for this purpose. You better invest in some cheap arrow-carriers.

GREEK Phalanx vs. Medieval: No contest.

EITHER the cavalry plows them after the bowmen open them up and make them break formation... or the bowmen just pick them off.

Losses (KIA, MIA, AWOL, etc.)

Greek: 100%
Medieval: 10% of the bowmen
25% of the archers
15% of the cavalry (knights)

AT BEST




But let's try something a bit different...

Make this a Roman-esque phalanx with iron pikes, swords, and shields (that are big enough to cover the entire body), slingers, and Numidian horsemen...

The medieval side will still win, but the Romanesques are improved a whole lot.

Expected losses:

Roman: possibly 100%, but I predict a 50-75% range
Medieval: Heavy losses of men-at-arms (up to 55%)
Moderate to heavy cavalry loss (~40%)
And still precious few bowmen lost (around 15%)

Of course, the most favorable strategies are as follows:

Grecian: Umm... get some more tech and come back later
Roman: Use the cavalry to smash up the bowmen... and knights behind. Then have the slingers have a go at the men-at-arms and use the phalanx to clean up what's left.

Success rate: 25%-55%, more cavalry ensuring success

Medieval: Rely heavily on the bowmen, moderately on the knights, and use the men-at-arms only if necessary.

Vs. Grecian: 80% success
Vs. Roman: 45-75%

And in what sense is that 'Spartan'? - forgive my ignorance in asking.

Meh, so it's not Spartan. As if they're the only ones who used a Phalanx.

Meh, so it's not Spartan. As if they're the only ones who used a Phalanx.

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ?

Emphasis helpfully, if a tad smugly, added.

Emphasis helpfully, if a tad smugly, added.

OK, whatever. I'm still not deleting it. I like the armed rodent picture.

The medieval army. You just use the bowmen from a far distance against the phalanx and then have the cavalry flank them. The men you just use to finish them off, as they by themselves don't have as much advantage over the greeks.

Normally I would have said the medieval side would win... but with those tactics... well, the medieval forces would be decimated. Knights charging at a phalanx means sheesh kabob, Men at arms have lower morale as they see the knights cut to pieces and the remanants flee, they are then suffer their own losses and will rout eventually. The Longbowmen will probably turn tail and run at this point. They could probably pick off the phalanx slowly, but seeing the rest of the army fleeing is probably enough to make them forget their oath of fealty to their lords. The Phalanx at most would suffer 20% casualties.

If I ever to use the medieval force I'd probably ditch the knights and me some lightly armoured cavalry armed with javelins and a lance.

Tactics: send to cavalry to harress the phalanx whilst the longbows fire at will and the men at arms to slowly close on the phalanx in a thin formation. The cavalry would retreat and move around to the rear of the phalanx and wait for the men at arms to close before charging at the phalanx's right flanx at about 30 degrees angle from the main battle line - this will allow them to disengage easily and return for another charge.

Oh, and the reason for light cavalry is that you're trying to coax the phalanx into breaking formation to try and drive the light cavalry off.

OK, whatever. I'm still not deleting it. I like the armed rodent picture.I quite agree... I like the Armed Rodent Picture also. I vote it stays! :p

Honestly this thread isn't even fair.

In comparison, pit the Medievil Army up against the a division of WWI germans. About the same time difference.

300b.c.-800a.d.

800a.d - 1900a.d

Honestly this thread isn't even fair.

In comparison, pit the Medievil Army up against the a division of WWI germans. About the same time difference.

300b.c.-800a.d.

800a.d - 1900a.d

Well once the men-at-arms got into the trenches of the germans they would be very effective, so what if they had to charge machine guns, so did the soliders of the time. As for the Knights, we were still using cavally in WWI, in fact Tanks had to pull over for them on the roads.

Well once the men-at-arms got into the trenches of the germans they would be very effective, so what if they had to charge machine guns, so did the soliders of the time. As for the Knights, we were still using cavally in WWI, in fact Tanks had to pull over for them on the roads.

Yeah, but who would win. :p

Yeah, but who would win. :p

The germans of course, I'm just trying to say that it wouldn't be as straight forward as how you were making it out to be. You would have been better using WWII as your example.

Also it would be over a 1000 years differnce between spartans and a medieval army is more like 3000 year difference. However in that 3000 year gap military technology hadn't changed as much as you would have thought.

The germans of course, I'm just trying to say that it wouldn't be as straight forward as how you were making it out to be. You would have been better using WWII as your example.

Also it would be over a 1000 years differnce between spartans and a medieval army is more like 3000 year difference. However in that 3000 year gap military technology hadn't changed as much as you would have thought.

I was using the absolute closest time frame between Medievil Europe and Uncolonized Greece.

Not saying it was straight forward, but the comparison is pretty much the same.

Light armored spartan grunts vs heavily armored cavalry and Teh English LongB0w.

Simply because you included the longbows, the medieval army wins.
The ancient greeks had NOTHING to match it, all the medieval army has to do is keep out of range of the Greeks. If the Greeks break ranks to charge the archers at speed, the knights and better equipped (technology wise, anyway) medieval infantry get them.

Simply because you included the longbows, the medieval army wins.
The ancient greeks had NOTHING to match it, all the medieval army has to do is keep out of range of the Greeks. If the Greeks break ranks to charge the archers at speed, the knights and better equipped (technology wise, anyway) medieval infantry get them.

except the archers will run out of arrows. if the Phalanx was unharried by the knights and men at arms then they will engage enmass and losses will be tremendous for both sides.

the Phalanx defense of interlocks sheilds is a tough thing to get through. remember, the Phalanx do know about bows. after the first barrage where they realize the rage, defenses will go up. if you want to see a great example of interlocked sheilds, watch LotR: The Two Towers. the Orcs up on the ramp provided a great example of interlocked sheilds.

which is why you need the knights to break up the formation. break up the interlocked sheilds and they are prey to arrows. you also need the men at arm defending the archers. Archers on the move cannot keep up the harried flight of arrows needed to wear through the phalanx defenses.

except the archers will run out of arrows. if the Phalanx was unharried by the knights and men at arms then they will engage enmass and losses will be tremendous for both sides.
AFTER the phalanx takes huge losses from the arrows.

the Phalanx defense of interlocks sheilds is a tough thing to get through. remember, the Phalanx do know about bows. after the first barrage where they realize the rage, defenses will go up. if you want to see a great example of interlocked sheilds, watch LotR: The Two Towers. the Orcs up on the ramp provided a great example of interlocked sheilds.
I am aware of this.
However, the hoplite shield did not cover the legs or face, and, by comparison with medieval shields, wasnt all that great. It was heavy and wieldy and not good for defending against ballistic volleys of arrows.
Think of it this way:
Youre holding a 20ft long pike in one hand and a 50lb shield in the other.
You cant lower the pike unless youre in the first few ranks.
You cant raise the shield without lowering the pike.
So, they could defend against DIRECT fire from arrows, but volleys would inflict huge casualties.

which is why you need the knights to break up the formation. break up the interlocked sheilds and they are prey to arrows. you also need the men at arm defending the archers. Archers on the move cannot keep up the harried flight of arrows needed to wear through the phalanx defenses.

Depends. The OP specified longbowmen, which I assume means English. English longbowmen were also used as light infantry, and were quite capable of fighting on their own. Agincourt?

Depends. The OP specified longbowmen, which I assume means English. English longbowmen were also used as light infantry, and were quite capable of fighting on their own. Agincourt?

Longbowmen usually means English or Welsh, both of which were more like men-at-arms, but were given longbows as well.

That combined with the usuall war of spikes they would erect in front of themselves, which would break up the phalanx as it came though, and give them a more even chance. And a man fighting up close with a sword is better than one with a 20ft pike.

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.

I voted Medieval, but then I read the word Spartan. Unfortunately, I cannot change my vote.

The Spartans would kick any army's ass, even if all they had was pointy sticks and rocks. But any other Greek Phalanx wouldn't stand a chance.

Really? I'm a level 19 College Student with The Sword of Overbearing Loans and the Shield of Minimum Wage.

I'm a level 10 Law-Ninja, with a loophole katana and armor of fine print.

Longbowmen usually means English or Welsh, both of which were more like men-at-arms, but were given longbows as well.

That combined with the usuall war of spikes they would erect in front of themselves, which would break up the phalanx as it came though, and give them a more even chance. And a man fighting up close with a sword is better than one with a 20ft pike.

Hoplites carried swords as well, and I understand they were quite good with them.
However, they would be using bronze armour, shields and weapons most likely. The longbowmen would be in chain/leather armour, but would have iron or steel weapons.

I voted Medieval, but then I read the word Spartan. Unfortunately, I cannot change my vote.

The Spartans would kick any army's ass, even if all they had was pointy sticks and rocks. But any other Greek Phalanx wouldn't stand a chance.

Mongols? The Spartans would lose horribly to Mongols.
Probobly wouldnt do to well against Romans either. Or Carthage. Or the Persians.

Mongols? The Spartans would lose horribly to Mongols.
Probobly wouldnt do to well against Romans either. Or Carthage. Or the Persians.

Technology and tactics aside...wait one god damned minute!

Persians

WHAT!?

Longbowmen usually means English or Welsh, both of which were more like men-at-arms, but were given longbows as well.

That combined with the usuall war of spikes they would erect in front of themselves, which would break up the phalanx as it came though, and give them a more even chance. And a man fighting up close with a sword is better than one with a 20ft pike.

I thought the Greeks also carried short swords?

In any case, my vote still goes to the medieval army. Now, just medieval infantry versus the Phalanx... that might go the other way, as Greeks were probably more disciplined and organized.

The Medieval army wins this on so many levels.

Firstly, people overestimate the greek phalanx's ability to defend against archers. Against ancient archers, they were a semi-adequate defense. Against medieval bows, and the Welsh Longbow in particular, they are almost defenseless. Not to mention bronze, rather than steel armour.

Even without the obvious advantage with the archers, the knights can easily overpower the greek phalanx. The spartan phalanx is not the Swiss pike formation. They used 8' spears, which would not be supereffective against fully armoured knights using longer lances. It's one thing for a bronze-armoured tightly packed formation defending against lightly-or-not-at-all armoured skirmishing cavalry, then against a tightly controlled mass of horseflesh and steel. The spartans eventually lost battles against another greek city-state (the Theban Band I believe) because the Thebans realized they could just make longer spears, and hit the Spartan's weak flank. And then Philip of Macedon made even bigger spears, and added the Companion Cavalry to boot.

The Spartans, despite their absolutely superb Esprit de Corps, are no match for a fully-trained and full-time occupational medieval army.

EDIT: Almost forgot; another problem with the greek phalanx formation, was it's mass and lack of manouverabilty. Once those knights hit that first rank of the phalanx, they roll the whole unit. This is why the Roman Legions were superior, using smaller units (maniples) working cohesively.

I don't see how anyone could put an argument in favour of the Phalanx.

With the longbowmen included, it's just a massacre, but the medieval army could probably win without them. The trouble with the phalanx is that it is only any good at going forwards - once it is in combat with the men at arms, the knights simply charge the phalanx on the flanks and rear.

This is why the Roman Legions were superior, using smaller units (maniples) working cohesively.

Even they didn't fare too well against cavalry forces, as demonstrated by the Battle of Carrhae.

Technology and tactics aside...wait one god damned minute!



WHAT!?

LATER Persians, the cavalry-oriented ones, not the bumrush ones. Late-Roman era. Cant remember their name.

Longbowmen. Wellington reckoned that a tropp of English yeomen would have outshot an equivalent number of musketeers at Waterloo. That's the calibre of the thing, and against Bronze armour amassed in on single target, I'm going for the longbow.

Even they didn't fare too well against cavalry forces, as demonstrated by the Battle of Carrhae.

There are a lot of reasons that the romans had problems at Carrhae, although I wouldn't put most of the blame on the Cataphracts. But the heavy use of cavalry by the germanic migrations in the declining years of the empire are another example. Once that stirrup was invented, the idea of the footsoldier dominating the battlefield was pretty much done.

LATER Persians, the cavalry-oriented ones, not the bumrush ones. Late-Roman era. Cant remember their name.

Sassanids?

LATER Persians, the cavalry-oriented ones, not the bumrush ones. Late-Roman era. Cant remember their name.

Everyone keeps mentioning armies hundreds of years after the Spartans were in their prime though. Tactics and technology aside they were the toughest soldiers in written history.

The same Persians who raped Crassus in 50bc?

AFTER the phalanx takes huge losses from the arrows.arrows alone? without knight charge or men at arms to hold em back? not enough damage to make a difference.

I am aware of this.
However, the hoplite shield did not cover the legs or face, and, by comparison with medieval shields, wasnt all that great. Hoplite sheilds were enough to cover body and legs or body and head. same as all sheilds short of Tower shields.

It was heavy and wieldy and not good for defending against ballistic volleys of arrows.oh yes they are. it's called raised sheilds. How it works? Front keeps shields up but not over head. the sides keeps their shields at their side to protect their sides. since their front is protected by the front rank. the middle, since the phalanx is a square, raises their sheilds overhead to protect their heads and the heads of the front and side ranks.

they were heavy, yes, but the training those men recieved allows them to move their shields quicker and to hold them up longer than we could. that's because of training.

Think of it this way:
Youre holding a 20ft long pike in one hand and a 50lb shield in the other.
You cant lower the pike unless youre in the first few ranks.
You cant raise the shield without lowering the pike.
So, they could defend against DIRECT fire from arrows, but volleys would inflict huge casualties.mistake number one. Spartans don't use pikes but short spears/javalins. not 20 ft. but much, MUCH shorter. the spears are used in an overhead stabbing motion. or it can be thrown like javalins.

The second mistake. Spartans had swords. what made the phalanx deadly is that when it's used, the spartan is protected by his neighbor's shield as his shield protects his neighbor. also, the second rank still has their javalins and spears and thus can also stab over the shoulder of their front rank.

remember they trained that way, so what seems unweildly to us is smooth as silk to them.

Third mistake. one spartan falls, his place is taken by the back person. so the line and formation holds.

Depends. The OP specified longbowmen, which I assume means English. English longbowmen were also used as light infantry, and were quite capable of fighting on their own. Agincourt? LIGHT infantry. the men at arms are heavy infantry. spartans are heavy infantry.

Don't use your mixed forces well and you will fall to the phalanx.

If the Spartans were using bronze weapons versus medieval iron wepons, I would have to give it to the medieval guys.

Even if they were using the same class of weapons, the medieval army would obviously win due to the heavily armored knights and extremely dangerous bow men, especially longbow men.

If we're talking the same Spartans that beat the persian army back, then I'd put my money on the Spartans any day. No degree of tactical advancement or technological improvement could measure up to the training and ferocity of those men. They'd have heavy casualties, sure, but they'd be the only one's on the field at the end.

A phalanx from. say, Athens, however, would get mowed down.

Once that stirrup was invented, the idea of the footsoldier dominating the battlefield was pretty much done.

Meh. They are still called the queen of the battlefield for a reason though. They may not be able to match cavalry for mobility, or artillery for long-distance killing power, or an emplacement for staying power, but they are highly adaptable and still to this day do dominate the battlefield. Heck, even an Abrams is going to divert around infantry rather than ploughing through them and exposing its weaker flanks and rear to close assault. If anything infantry are best looked at as part of the territory of a battlefield, much as you would look at a slope or a rise or a copse of trees, and so do continue to dominate it.

If we're talking the same Spartans that beat the persian army back, then I'd put my money on the Spartans any day. No degree of tactical advancement or technological improvement could measure up to the training and ferocity of those men. They'd have heavy casualties, sure, but they'd be the only one's on the field at the end.

There comes a point when prefering to leave the battlefield on your shield rather than without it becomes highly counterproductive. I believe this is one of those cases.

If the Greek Phalanx was more devastating than a medieval army the Phalanx would never have been abandoned in favor of that style of army. Just stands to reason. If a bunch of guys with spears marching in close formation were so great people would still fight that way.

The problem is, you need a well organized government to create that sort of military discipline. Midieval Europe didn't have that. Their political figures were always fighting with eachother. A phalanx was made up of a group of professional, well disciplined soldiers. A mideval force was made up of a few professional soldiers, a few engineers, and a bunch of untrained irregulars.

A phalanx of 5000 versus a cube of 300 musketeers however, and you'd have yourself a semi-modern victory.

But another stab at your "we'd still be fighting that way" theory is the evolution of musketeering. Initially they'd all shoot their rounds and the opposing army would have a minute to charge and break the line, forcing close combat making muskets useless. Eventually they learned to tier the shots in a manner very similar to the pikemen of a phalanx. Even if you avoid the shot of the first guy, the second has a chance to get you. Because they lost governments capable of supporting a phalanx, they lost the strategies that they used, and had to rediscover them.

If we're talking the same Spartans that beat the persian army back, then I'd put my money on the Spartans any day. No degree of tactical advancement or technological improvement could measure up to the training and ferocity of those men. They'd have heavy casualties, sure, but they'd be the only one's on the field at the end.

No they weren't. They all died. The reason that the Persians' advance was halted was because they were demoralized. The Spartans' victory was entierly psychological. The military victory went to Persia

I think the midevil army would win.

If we're talking the same Spartans that beat the persian army back, then I'd put my money on the Spartans any day. No degree of tactical advancement or technological improvement could measure up to the training and ferocity of those men. They'd have heavy casualties, sure, but they'd be the only one's on the field at the end.

A phalanx from. say, Athens, however, would get mowed down.
Any technological advancement, you say? Okay, one nuclear warhead vs. 5,000 Spartans. Push-button wars. They're the wave of the future. And if you want them to actually have targets, take any modernized army. Or guerilla force. Spears just don't beat bullets.

Medieval army wins too. Bowmen wear them down, men at arms attack the front to hold them in place, and cavalry flanks. Maybe if they had a better-mixed force.

Point is that technology and tactics beat disciplined men any day. I suppose you won't win many wars with a mob with guns, but you won't many with well-disciplined ones with spears either.

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.

What a waste of cavalry.

As for the Hoplite phalanx and the great shield debate...

What were those shields made of? If I recall wood was a common material. Not much protection against a medieval arrow if the shield is not really quite thick...

I'd imagine the same goes for bronze shields. As it is the actual helmets the Hoplites wore did not offer much protection against arrows.

With regards to the Hoplites...I would think there would be an amount of psiloi as well. Of course the Hoplite missile weapons (javelin and stones) would not harm armoured medieval cavalry.

Its like comparing Musketmen against Mobile/Mechanised infantry....

If the Greek Phalanx was more devastating than a medieval army the Phalanx would never have been abandoned in favor of that style of army. Just stands to reason. If a bunch of guys with spears marching in close formation were so great people would still fight that way.

Renaissance armies fought as a phalanx supported by archers and cavalry. So, it was so great for long after the middle ages. For that matter it's likely the medieval men-at-arms would contain enough spear-men to raise a phalanx of your own.

If the Spartans were using bronze weapons versus medieval iron wepons, I would have to give it to the medieval guys.

Hoplites carried swords as well, and I understand they were quite good with them.
However, they would be using bronze armour, shields and weapons most likely. The longbowmen would be in chain/leather armour, but would have iron or steel weapons.


Spartans were of the Iron Age, it was earlier people like the Mycenaean who would have used bronze.

Anyways, to the OP... I'd side with the combined-arms group. If the Spartans have skirmishers and other supporting troops they may stand a chance, other wise the side with cavalry and shot will win for certain.

Spartans were of the Iron Age, it was earlier people like the Mycenaean who would have used bronze.

They may have technically been in the Iron Age, but they still standardly produced spear-heads, armour, shields and swords from bronze.

They may have technically been in the Iron Age, but they still standardly produced spear-heads, armour, shields and swords from bronze.

Yep.

Yep.

Hmmm. Further skellying around on the net provides conflicting results. The consensus seems to be armour of bronze, shield bronze over wood, spearhead iron or bronze, and swords predominantly iron.

Hmmm. Further skellying around on the net provides conflicting results. The consensus seems to be armour of bronze, shield bronze over wood, spearhead iron or bronze, and swords predominantly iron.

its cost innit?

I am sure that the hoplites would have the best of the best (seeing as the Hoplites came from the elite of society)...but the psiloi would be armed with the cheapest mass produced weapons...unlikely to be kitted out like the Hoplites...

The same Persians who raped Crassus in 50bc?
Phartans.

The problem with using phalanx is that the troops are very close together and therefore make a brilliant target for medieval longbowmen. The old greek armour would be unlikely to stop the long range arrows of the longbowmen

Meh. They are still called the queen of the battlefield for a reason though. They may not be able to match cavalry for mobility, or artillery for long-distance killing power, or an emplacement for staying power, but they are highly adaptable and still to this day do dominate the battlefield. Heck, even an Abrams is going to divert around infantry rather than ploughing through them and exposing its weaker flanks and rear to close assault. If anything infantry are best looked at as part of the territory of a battlefield, much as you would look at a slope or a rise or a copse of trees, and so do continue to dominate it.

Undoubtedly, the advent of rifling largely changed that. Infantry in the modern age are very important, no doubt. I should probably have said that cavalry dominated the battlefield until, probably, Agincourt. Even long afterwards, Napoleon was using cavalry to devastating effect.

Phartans.

Fartans? Or Parthians?

Both were deadly I hear.

the medieval army would win. A few people seem to be forgetting the power of the longbow. For example, "at the siege of Abergavenny in 1182, when Welsh arrows penetrated a four inch thick oak door*" shows that, shields or not, the longbow, if on target, is going to hit the person. Further anecdotal evidence can be obtained from a similar siege, in which a longbow arrow struck a french noble on horseback in his leg, went through the armour, through the bone, out, through the wooden saddle on the other side, and killed the horse. Nothing the soldiers can do against that at all.

Secondly, horses don't charge pikes. They might throw the rider onto them, but the horse won't go.


source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_longbow.html

The problem is, you need a well organized government to create that sort of military discipline. Midieval Europe didn't have that. Their political figures were always fighting with eachother. A phalanx was made up of a group of professional, well disciplined soldiers. A mideval force was made up of a few professional soldiers, a few engineers, and a bunch of untrained irregulars.


Wrong on so many levels.

For a start, Greek hoplites were non-professional militia. When they weren't at war, they were farmers. The Spartans may have been professional, but this wasn't necessary for the creation of a phalanx, and they were certainly capable of losing battles to the other city states (i.e. Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra). Any militia rabble can be trained to form a disciplined spear formation, for example, the Scottish schiltrons. In fact, that was probably the only thing a militia rabble was good for, since they usually weren't good fighters individually.

Secondly, the Medieval Feudal system was a perfectly efficient method of creating professional, well disciplined soldiers - i.e. the Knightly class, which dominated European warfare for several centuries.

Thirdly, the English Longbowman can hardly be described as an 'untrained irregular', but he wasn't a professional soldier either.

The knightly class was hardly well disciplined...

Thirdly, the English Longbowman can hardly be described as an 'untrained irregular', but he wasn't a professional soldier either.

Qutie right, it wasn't until fairly recently that an old law, which said that every man over a certain age had to train with the Longbow after church on sundays, was removed.

This gave Britsh medieval armies a core of highly trained archers when ever they needed them. Also knights and other nobes were required to equip and train their own small force for use if the king/Queen ever needed one.

Of course, if the knights were clever, they'd have the men-at-arms in front of the longbowmen, while the knights circled around to behind the phalanx, then charged at full speed. You do realize how much inertia an armored knight and his horse have at full speed?

Hell, even if the knights charged the front of the phalanx, they'd still do serious damage.

Secondly, horses don't charge pikes. They might throw the rider onto them, but the horse won't go.




I've been following this thread for awhile and was wondering when someone would mention that, well done...

horses will not run into a wall of spears they'll turn away so a phalanx was quite safe from cavalry as long as they kept formation

but spartans would still lose, Iron>bronze, the archery factor would weaken phalanx formation to point where they would break formation and then the mounted knights would clean up...

the scenario is very similar to Battle of Hastings, shield wall of the House-Carls was an effective defense only so long as they held formation, they didn't and the battle was lost...

Medieval army would come out on top.

I've been following this thread for awhile and was wondering when someone would mention that, well done...

horses will not run into a wall of spears they'll turn away so a phalanx was quite safe from cavalry as long as they kept formation

but spartans would still lose, Iron>bronze, the archery factor would weaken phalanx formation to point where they would break formation and then the mounted knights would clean up...

the scenario is very similar to Battle of Hastings, shield wall of the House-Carls was an effective defense only so long as they held formation, they didn't and the battle was lost...

Thats why I said what a waste of cavalry a few pages back.

Hammer them them with the long bows while your infantry advances, use the horses from either flank. One mass charge through the ranks would be interesting considering that the phalanx relies on the rear ranks to push the front ranks into the enemy. They would have small chance to defend.

Or if the phalanx is about to break charge them. The real question though is how effective the bows are. The hoplite shield as far as I am aware was made of wood with a bronze covering. I suspect that they would suffer losses from ten barrages of 1500 arrows.

Well, thats all nice and well, but soon some tart will come along with this odd shaped tinker he calls a musket, and that one tart will turn into several, they'll form up a line, and well....history shows what happens next- All that expensive training and armour is no match for a metal tube with some gun powder and a lead ball.......

I've been following this thread for awhile and was wondering when someone would mention that, well done...

horses will not run into a wall of spears they'll turn away so a phalanx was quite safe from cavalry as long as they kept formation

but spartans would still lose, Iron>bronze, the archery factor would weaken phalanx formation to point where they would break formation and then the mounted knights would clean up...
..

The classical phalanx used iron weapons, not bronze.

Also, bronze is superior to non-steeled iron in every way: bronze is tougher, less brittle, and less prone to rust than iron. The only reason ancient people shifted from bronze to iron is because tin (the key ingredient of bronze) was more rare than iron in ancient times.

The classical phalanx used iron weapons, not bronze.

Also, bronze is superior to non-steeled iron in every way: bronze is tougher, less brittle, and less prone to rust than iron. The only reason ancient people shifted from bronze to iron is because tin (the key ingredient of bronze) was more rare than iron in ancient times.

What are you talking about? Iron swords would slice right threw a bronze shield, Bronze is quite weak....90% copper, 10% tin.. both weak, but when combined are stronger, however nowhere near as strong as Iron.

What are you talking about? Iron swords would slice right threw a bronze shield, Bronze is quite weak....90% copper, 10% tin.. both weak, but when combined are stronger, however nowhere near as strong as Iron.

Wrong - it is a myth that iron is stronger than bronze. Steel is of course stronger than bronze, but plain iron is weaker than bronze. A bronze sword does not shatter and rust as easily as an iron sword. Look it up!

Wrong - it is a myth that iron is stronger than bronze. Steel is of course stronger than bronze, but plain iron is weaker than bronze. A bronze sword does not shatter and rust as easily as an iron sword. Look it up!

your right about the rust... bronze is more versetile that way, but I've read of Iron swords slashing bronze shields in half when iron was first implemented in military affiars. I believe it was in greece... or mesopotaimia.

Thats why I said what a waste of cavalry a few pages back.

Hammer them them with the long bows while your infantry advances, use the horses from either flank. One mass charge through the ranks would be interesting considering that the phalanx relies on the rear ranks to push the front ranks into the enemy. They would have small chance to defend.

Or if the phalanx is about to break charge them. The real question though is how effective the bows are. The hoplite shield as far as I am aware was made of wood with a bronze covering. I suspect that they would suffer losses from ten barrages of 1500 arrows.
normally, the Chargers (the horses) will be wearing barding to protect them from pikes and spears.

Two, as I said earlier, Phalanxs that are equipted for normal fighting, won't be carrying Pikes. Pikes are too heavy and cumbersome. that is why Pikemen are a seperate group and their purpose is to face calvery.

Three, Chargers (again, the horses) are trained to fight and trample. if so ordered by their riders, they will ride into a wall of pikes and spears. (hence the barding needed to protect their necks, chest, head and flanks and why Setting for a charge is devistating to charging calvary.)

Four, The phalanx is in nice neat rows. the chargers aim between those rows to deal out the most damage. those in the middle have no room to lower spear or draw sword.

Three, Chargers (again, the horses) are trained to fight and trample. if so ordered by their riders, they will ride into a wall of pikes and spears. (hence the barding needed to protect their necks, chest, head and flanks and why Setting for a charge is devistating to charging calvary.)



You forget. Horses have more intelligence thank you give them credit for. They can tell when they're about to be impaled on a wall of pikes. They would throw their riders off first.

What are you talking about? Iron swords would slice right threw a bronze shield, Bronze is quite weak....90% copper, 10% tin.. both weak, but when combined are stronger, however nowhere near as strong as Iron.
Incorrect!

Bronze is much tougher than iron, but also quite brittle, and a bitch to repair.

Hence why iron is more useful - it doesn't snap, and you can warm it up and hammer it back into place pretty easily.

your right about the rust... bronze is more versetile that way, but I've read of Iron swords slashing bronze shields in half when iron was first implemented in military affiars. I believe it was in greece... or mesopotaimia.
The issue there is more due to the fact that the shields in a phalanx would have been wood plated with bronze - if you hit it so hard that the bronze cracked, as well as hitting the wood right on the grain, it'd split, yes.

But on the other hand, getting to a phalanx's shields was rather a tricky matter, due to the whole 10 feet of spear in your way and such.

Okay. To settle this debate about bronze and iron, I demand that one user who is a blacksmith make a bronze and an iron sword, keep on wacking them against a heavy metal wall, and record which one broke in the shortest amount of time. Also get a metallurgist to test for the metals other qualities such as brittleness etc. Also, videotape it all and let us watch.

Then we'll get to the bottom of this.

You forget. Horses have more intelligence thank you give them credit for. They can tell when they're about to be impaled on a wall of pikes. They would throw their riders off first.

Not horses trained for battle, they will not throw their riders.

A horse trained for battle (the types Knights would use) will charge a wall of pikes. It's what made battle trained horses so expensive.

Horses not trained to fight will not charge a person, armed or not unless the herd was in danger.

The Phalanx will not be armed with Pikes, so the point is moot anyway.

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.

A phalanx is powerful.

It's most devastating aspect is the tightly packed rows of men, a nearly impenetrable wall of 14 foot spears.

But its weakness is in its lack of flexibility.

1500 longbows would rip open enormous gaps in the ranks, especially if the armor is as minimal as that worn by the Greeks. It would be a matter of mopping up the survivors for the knights; the men at arms would provide an "anvil" to hold the scattered phalanx to the field after the devastation of the longbows.

Better armour and multilateral tactics that made use of the phalanx in addition to more flexible elements proved quite effective until the development of gunpowder; a phalanx on its own against a weapon as powerful as the British longbow would be destroyed.

A horse trained for battle (the types Knights would use) will charge a wall of pikes. It's what made battle trained horses so expensive.

You charge cavalry unit against a line of spears and you end up with a dead front rank of horses and if you're lucky some heavily armoured warriors who have suddenly become footsoldiers. Congratulations, you have just pissed away the whole advantage of having cavalry in the first place.

Medieval Army once the phalanxs been torn part form the rate of fire form the Longobowmen , they might get a few men at arms but once whne they pare past the lenght of the Pike they then would be at the mercy of the bill and smaller pole arms , puls it would be nice to have some bombards

Here is what would happen. The Spartans line up forming into a phalanx.

On either side the cavalry line up. In the center is the english footmen.
What happens first. The longbow men start firing. The arrows which can pierce steel cavalry platemail-- if you remember Agincourt devastate the advancing Spartans. They retreat a bit. The spartans are closing with the english footman. The cavalry flank the spartans attacking from the sides and rear. The footman stand their ground losing many men. The horses however are devastating because they can easily outmaneuver the phalanxes from the side and rear. Almost all of the spartans die horribly, a little over a thousand englishmen die.

Ancient persian arrows were terrible. They called them thimbles. They were not that effective against Greek armor.

medival. superior technology, horses, longbows, plate mail, ect.

You charge cavalry unit against a line of spears and you end up with a dead front rank of horses and if you're lucky some heavily armoured warriors who have suddenly become footsoldiers. Congratulations, you have just pissed away the whole advantage of having cavalry in the first place.

and my chargers will have barding that will deflect most spears, add to that my lances which is longer than a spear, and put the speed of the horse and the weight of both the rider and the horse behind that lance and your "wall of spears" not pikes mind you, will be destroyed since it will only be the first two rows that can put up any semblance of a defense against a knight charge.

Aim that charge into the flank (as I said where it should go), not the front of the phalanx, and those that turn to recieve the charge will be open to the long bows since they won't beable to interlock their shields. so again, your fabled "wall of spears", not Pikes comes down, if they try to put one up.

then you factor in that the width of a phalanx is rarely as wide as it's long, and you got a wall of people that won't slow the charge down to the crippling point.

Congratualtions, My knights broke up your phalanx, leaving them exposed to my longbows and in no way in shape to meet my Men-at-arms.

oh and Calvary are not the same as Knights, Calvary are lighter armed and armored, used for fast strikes and rapid "Hit and run" techniques, since their asset is speed, their horses are not bred to fight but to run, thus calvary horses are rarely armored with barding. Knights are the tanks, and their horses bred to take punishment as they deal punishment. thus the Knight horses have barding.

the OP mentioned Knights, not Calvary.

putting them on modern terms, Knights back then were the equivalent of Tanks.

and my chargers will have barding that will deflect most spears, add to that my lances which is longer than a spear, and put the speed of the horse and the weight of both the rider and the horse behind that lance and your "wall of spears" not pikes mind you, will be destroyed since it will only be the first two rows that can put up any semblance of a defense against a knight charge.

Aim that charge into the flank, not the front of the phalanx (as I said where it should go) and those that turn to recieve the charge will be open to the long bows since they won't beable to interlock their shields. so again, your fabled "wall of spears", not Pikes comes down, if they try to put one up.

then you factor in that the width of a phalanx is rarely as wide as it's long, and you got a wall of people that won't slow the charge down to the crippling point.

Congratualtions, My knights broke up your phalanx, leaving them exposed to my longbows and in no way in shape to meet my Men-at-arms.

oh and Calvary are not the same as Knights, Calvary are lighter armed and armored, used for fast strikes and rapid "Hit and run" techniques, since their asset is speed, their horses are not bred to fight but to run, thus calvary horses are rarely armored with barding. Knights are the tanks, and their horses bred to take punishment as they deal punishment. thus the Knight horses have barding.

the OP mentioned Knights, not Calvary.

putting them on modern terms, Knights back then were the equivalent of Tanks.

I'd still use the Knights on the flanks. Either one. After 15000 arrows (1500x10) into the Spartans they'll be hurting and disorganised. Slam 500 Knights into the side it'd be game over. Advance your infantry into the fray. Take out the knights to pick off the stragglers...

Thats assuming the terrain is suitable...

It's most devastating aspect is the tightly packed rows of men, a nearly impenetrable wall of 14 foot spears. while I agree with your assessment, I don't think they would have 14 foot spears. to cumbersome to weld in close combat (and I'm talking their formation.) add to that their shields and you got a recipie for a great comedy that would be fun to watch.

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.



Medieval win by longbow; greek shield and armour are ineffective against it. Also, the phalanx dies when it gets outmaneuvered by the cavalry attacking by two sides - no one would charge with knights directly against a forest of spears, they would split in two squadrons and charge both phalanx sides simultaneously.

I'd still use the Knights on the flanks. Either one. After 15000 arrows (1500x10) into the Spartans they'll be hurting and disorganised. Slam 500 Knights into the side it'd be game over. Advance your infantry into the fray. Take out the knights to pick off the stragglers...

Thats assuming the terrain is suitable...yep (mis-typed my post, I've always maintained that the charge be at the flanks.) the best place to hit any army with charging knights are the flanks. Even if you take their discipline to hold their formation after the arrows, (even if they charge) the knight charge from the flanks would stagger them and the Men-at-Arms will mop up the rest.

and didn't the OP say the terrain was flat?

yep (mis-typed my post, I've always maintained that the charge be at the flanks.) the best place to hit any army with charging knights are the flanks. Even if you take their discipline to hold their formation after the arrows, (even if they charge) the knight charge from the flanks would stagger them and the Men-at-Arms will mop up the rest.

and didn't the OP say the terrain was flat?

I think as well that after having been arrowed to bits to face 500 charging knights....ouchie! It would be devastating. No way for the hoplites to turn...goodnight.

oh and Calvary are not the same as Knights, Calvary are lighter armed and armored, used for fast strikes and rapid "Hit and run" techniques, since their asset is speed, their horses are not bred to fight but to run, thus calvary horses are rarely armored with barding. Knights are the tanks, and their horses bred to take punishment as they deal punishment. thus the Knight horses have barding.

the OP mentioned Knights, not Calvary.

putting them on modern terms, Knights back then were the equivalent of Tanks.

Knights are a subset of cavalry, no? What peculiar definition are you using that would exclude them.

Knights are a subset of cavalry, no? What peculiar definition are you using that would exclude them.

This bit here...

In a pitched battle, who do you think would win, a Spartan phalanx of about 5000 guys or a medieval army consisting of 500 knights, 1500 longbow men, and 3000 men-at-arms. ? Assume both sides were well rested, fully supplied, and neither side had any advantage in terrain, and were using standard tactics, IE: Spartans form phalanx and march forward, knights charge center, Men@arms follow, and longbows take flank to shoot.

Here is what would happen. The Spartans line up forming into a phalanx.

On either side the cavalry line up. In the center is the english footmen.
What happens first. The longbow men start firing. The arrows which can pierce steel cavalry platemail-- if you remember Agincourt devastate the advancing Spartans. They retreat a bit. The spartans are closing with the english footman. The cavalry flank the spartans attacking from the sides and rear. The footman stand their ground losing many men. The horses however are devastating because they can easily outmaneuver the phalanxes from the side and rear. Almost all of the spartans die horribly, a little over a thousand englishmen die.

Ancient persian arrows were terrible. They called them thimbles. They were not that effective against Greek armor.

I thought that it was the Persian archers that finally killed all the Spartans at Thermopylae. They still lost because they baisicly said "if we have to go through all this shit just to kill 300 of the bastards, then what the fuck is waiting for us at Sparta?!" And decided to go home. If they had just started with the archer's they'd have won.

Ok, looks like I need to clear up a few points.
1: Knights: 500 well trained guys wearing full plate armour, or at least platemail, caring lances and arming swords, and mounted on trained Clydesdales.

2: Spartan equipment: bronze breastplates & greaves, wooden 3ft round shields, 8ft. spears and short swords.

Ok, looks like I need to clear up a few points.
1: Knights: 500 well trained guys wearing full plate armour, or at least platemail, caring lances and arming swords, and mounted on trained Clydesdales.

2: Spartan equipment: bronze breastplates & greaves, wooden 3ft round shields, 8ft. spears and short swords.

are the Clydesdales wearing Barding?

and 8 ft spears? you sure about that? hard to effectively use spears of that length while having a 3 ft sheild strapped to one's arm.

still wouldn't change my tactics tho.

Okay. While the Medievals would win, there's a few common misconceptions.

One: A longbow did NOT punch straight through steel plate armour at long range. It could go through iron plate at closer ranges, and through chain mail at long range.

Two: The French at Agincourt did NOT wear full steel plate armour. Do not try to debate my previous point on that. If someone wants, I'll debate this properly with sources sometime.

Three: A Spartan Phalanx, of the type listed in the OP, used spears, not pike. They often wore linen armour, which could stop an arrow, apparently.

Four: If the Phalanx did have pike, such as the Macedonians, they could do a suprisingly effective job of dealing with large numbers of arrows, as the raised pikes of most of the rear ranks helped with that.

Five: There is more than one rank in a Phalanx. When you get inside the spear/pike of the front man (depending on type of Phalanx), he can draw his sword, and still be protected by the next man's spear/pike. With the Macedonians, this could result in you having to fight your way through 4 ranks of pikeheads, before you actually got to the first man, who had his sword ready by now.

Six: If you have a knight on a barded horse who charges into the front of a Phalanx, guess what's happening to the horse. It's effectively the reverse of a lance, with the horse impaling itself. That can go straight through steel plate armour.

Seven: Presuming the knights are of the same tech level as the longbowmen, the above could also happen to the chain mail on the knight's chest.

Eight: A well drilled Phalanx could rotate part of the troops on one end to help deal with a flank charge. The same could be done to a rear charge. I should clarify that for this I'm only working off my knowledge of a Macedonian Phalanx, but I expect the Spartans were of similar skill.

Next.

Three: A Spartan Phalanx, of the type listed in the OP, used spears, not pike. They often wore linen armour, which could stop an arrow, apparently.Probably the same philosophy the Asians used when they wore silk. the arrow will still puncture, but the silk would actually help in the withdrawing of the arrow. by keeping the barbs of the arrowhead from grabing the flesh.

Six: If you have a knight on a barded horse who charges into the front of a Phalanx, guess what's happening to the horse. It's effectively the reverse of a lance, with the horse impaling itself. That can go straight through steel plate armour. but only when the pike is set to recieve the charge. that would requre the font rank to kneel, the second rank to crouch. and no one would be standing with their pike set. and also they would have to break formation to create the "wall of pointy sticks" needed to be effective against knights. (and anyone charging from the front is throwing their knights away.)

two, the barding on the horse is not flat armor but rounded, angled to deflect the pikes from head on penetration. while I will admit it wasn't 100% effective, it did save more horses than without barding.

Seven: Presuming the knights are of the same tech level as the longbowmen, the above could also happen to the chain mail on the knight's chest. which is why Pikes were needed against knights. not spears. there is a big difference between the two.

Eight: A well drilled Phalanx could rotate part of the troops on one end to help deal with a flank charge. The same could be done to a rear charge. I should clarify that for this I'm only working off my knowledge of a Macedonian Phalanx, but I expect the Spartans were of similar skill.yes they could, but that takes time as well to set to recieve a charge. add to that the longbowmen would be peppering them (and it's nearly impossible to set to recieve charge while wearing/using a sheild.) would be devistating to anyone stopping to set their pikes... much less spears.