Knight Lance Charge vs Spartan Phalanx

[R.E.H.W.R.]

as to phalanx v. knight: well, spear armed, disciplined army v. heavy cavalry. you want to know the result? look up Bonnackburn...

I wouldn't exactly call that a phalanx, closer to pikemen.

[evensgrey]

If it takes a close range shot , like 20 meters, from an english longbow to penetrate plate, I doubt slings would even annoy a plate covered knight.

Second point first, sling stones and bullets are concussion weapons. Most helms are of very little help against them.

Against both points, the HORSE isn't very well protected, since a horse can't gallop around in full plate barding, and outside of point-blank range ranged attacks are going to be made at the mount, not the man. Cut down the mount of a charging knight and he's on foot if he somehow managed to not get injured by the fall from a galloping horse in full armor (in a fall, armor works against you because it can't protect your from hitting the inside of the armor, and if you don't fall exactly right the armor will probably damage your limbs in the process). Worse, knights operate in groups too, and cutting down the mounts of the front rank breaks the charge (because anyone who doesn't break off will have their horse fall over the already fallen horses and men, and breaking off means the charge just fizzled).

The cavalry would never charge straight into a formation that deep. Eventually the mass of bodies stops the horses. They would skirt around and hit a softer target.

Don't forget hat Hoplites were spearmen who also carrier swords, not swordsman who also carried spears like the Roman Legionaries. They carried spears up to 15 feet long, which puts them into the low end of the range bracket of pikemen. The worst problem they would have is, because the stirrup wasn't available until well after the Spartans were gone, there was no such thing as cavalry in their period so they would have had to improvise on how to receive a cavalry charge.  Even if they did it badly and didn't set their spears first, they'd still make a hell of a mess of the knights and their horses.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Second point first, sling stones and bullets are concussion weapons. Most helms are of very little help against them.

The helmet is the thickest pieces of armor, so I don't think a stone or bullet will have that much of an effect.

Against both points, the HORSE isn't very well protected, since a horse can't gallop around in full plate barding, and outside of point-blank range ranged attacks are going to be made at the mount, not the man. Cut down the mount of a charging knight and he's on foot if he somehow managed to not get injured by the fall from a galloping horse in full armor (in a fall, armor works against you because it can't protect your from hitting the inside of the armor, and if you don't fall exactly right the armor will probably damage your limbs in the process). Worse, knights operate in groups too, and cutting down the mounts of the front rank breaks the charge (because anyone who doesn't break off will have their horse fall over the already fallen horses and men, and breaking off means the charge just fizzled).
.

Sure, archers could do it, but I don't think a sling would have much of an effect against an European warhorse. And I don't think the sling has the accuracy to be able to stop a charge in that manner.

Don't forget hat Hoplites were spearmen who also carrier swords, not swordsman who also carried spears like the Roman Legionaries. They carried spears up to 15 feet long, which puts them into the low end of the range bracket of pikemen. The worst problem they would have is, because the stirrup wasn't available until well after the Spartans were gone, there was no such thing as cavalry in their period so they would have had to improvise on how to receive a cavalry charge.  Even if they did it badly and didn't set their spears first, they'd still make a hell of a mess of the knights and their horses

That's why they wouldn't charge straight on. Phalanx are terrible at turning. Kinda how the Romans beat the phalanx.

[Ibrahim90]

I wouldn't exactly call that a phalanx, closer to pikemen.

no, but the idea is the same: guys in tight formation with lots of pointy things sticking out.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

no, but the idea is the same: guys in tight formation with lots of pointy things sticking out.

A phalanx is a lot denser formation than a pikemen. A row of pikemen can easily turn around to face cavalry coming from another direction than a phalanx can.

The phalanx is so tightly packed that is makes turning very difficult.

[evensgrey]

The helmet is the thickest pieces of armor, so I don't think a stone or bullet will have that much of an effect.

Concussion weapons are not defeated by thick steel, but by the padding behind it.  Helms are notoriously poorly padded.  That's why the late-Medieval/early-Renaissance shift away from shields and to concussion weapon (like hammer or flange mace) in the main hand and a penetrating weapon in the off hand.

Sure, archers could do it, but I don't think a sling would have much of an effect against an European warhorse. And I don't think the sling has the accuracy to be able to stop a charge in that manner.

They aim low and break the horse's legs.  Very simple, and very effective.  Slings are VERY accurate, and VERY fast in the hands of properly trained men.

That's why they wouldn't charge straight on. Phalanx are terrible at turning. Kinda how the Romans beat the phalanx.

The Romans beat the phalanx by fielding swordsman who happened to carry spears (the pillum, which was specifically designed to impair the function of shields by sticking in them and being hard to remove), rather than the spearmen who happen to also carry swords that the phalanx was. Once you get in close, which happens quite quickly if you use your shields properly to keep the spears of the phalanx out, the better swords and swordsmanship of the Legionnaires gives them the edge. (Notably, the Spartans were among the best at closing and using their swords in Greece, and they used the shortest swords among the phalanxes specifically because they work better in close once you break formation due to shield walls collapsing, which tended to not happen with the Romans.)

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Concussion weapons are not defeated by thick steel, but by the padding behind it.  Helms are notoriously poorly padded.  That's why the late-Medieval/early-Renaissance shift away from shields and to concussion weapon (like hammer or flange mace) in the main hand and a penetrating weapon in the off hand.

They aim low and break the horse's legs.  Very simple, and very effective.  Slings are VERY accurate, and VERY fast in the hands of properly trained men.

The Romans beat the phalanx by fielding swordsman who happened to carry spears (the pillum, which was specifically designed to impair the function of shields by sticking in them and being hard to remove), rather than the spearmen who happen to also carry swords that the phalanx was. Once you get in close, which happens quite quickly if you use your shields properly to keep the spears of the phalanx out, the better swords and swordsmanship of the Legionnaires gives them the edge. (Notably, the Spartans were among the best at closing and using their swords in Greece, and they used the shortest swords among the phalanxes specifically because they work better in close once you break formation due to shield walls collapsing, which tended to not happen with the Romans.)

1. Can I get a source for that?
2. There's no way that a sling can break the leg of a european warhorse, Maybe scare them.
3. Plus, the romans were more mobile and could hit the flanks.

[Ibrahim90]

A phalanx is a lot denser formation than a pikemen. A row of pikemen can easily turn around to face cavalry coming from another direction than a phalanx can.

The phalanx is so tightly packed that is makes turning very difficult.

I'm skeptical of this claim: a pike square typically had two intervals: a regular interval (3 feet a man), and tight interval (1.5 feet a man): this can be found in the manuals of the period when pike and shot predominated. 1.5 was the one typical for cavalry.

a phalanx (Greek or Macedonian--the latter's intervals are basically the same as the former), had three intervals: close, medium, and wide. the default (medium), was the main fighting and maneuvering formation, with an interval of 3 feet a man; tight was 1.5 feet a man, and wide was 6 feet a man (Polybius is a good source on the phalanx, as is Xenophon). So it's clear that it's the other way around: the Phalanx is the looser formation--at least conceptually.

Both formations can wheel and move quickly--be it a pike square or phalanx. It's a matter of training: the better trained the soldiers, the more maneuverable the phalanx. the cavalry could outflank a phalanx, but only if the Phalanx was already engaged fighting something to the front (e.g. Raphia): but this was the case with pike phalanxes too (e.g. Marston Moor, Naseby, Breitenfeld).

bear in mind, I'm assuming a head to head fight: so a "frontal charge".

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Both formations can wheel and move quickly--be it a pike square or phalanx. It's a matter of training: the better trained the soldiers, the more maneuverable the phalanx. the cavalry could outflank a phalanx, but only if the Phalanx was already engaged fighting something to the front (e.g. Raphia): but this was the case with pike phalanxes too (e.g. Marston Moor, Naseby, Breitenfeld).

I'm talking about comparisons, The Romans didn't lock their shields together allowing them to be able to turn a little quicker, pikemen have no shield to deal with at all, while a phalanx have heavy bronze shields that they have to clear to turn to turn face.

And its entirely possible that they could divide the cavalry in half, one to harass the front, charge, stop, turn around, while the other force hits the flank.

[evensgrey]

1. Can I get a source for that?
2. There's no way that a sling can break the leg of a european warhorse, Maybe scare them.
3. Plus, the romans were more mobile and could hit the flanks.

Here's a good one:

http://slinging.org/index.php?page=the-sling-in-medieval-europe---chris-harrison

They point out that sling stones travel about 50% faster than arrows, while being about the same mass, which equates to about 125% more kinetic energy. Despite their larger cross section meaning they don't penetrate well, penetration is irrelevant when plate gets good enough to block arrows at range.  He mentions lots of sources that mention how sling projectiles would kill without penetrating at all. There's also reports of Incan sling stones breaking swords and killing horses.

Charles C. Mann in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus also reports that Incan slingers could kill horses outright and break swords, and they weren't even all that good at the kind of warfare they were involved in against the Spanish.

Roman infantry was not especially mobile, they just almost always had more units they could throw at you, no matter when you were doing, although it might be next week.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

They point out that sling stones travel about 50% faster than arrows, while being about the same mass, which equates to about 125% more kinetic energy. Despite their larger cross section meaning they don't penetrate well, penetration is irrelevant when plate gets good enough to block arrows at range.  He mentions lots of sources that mention how sling projectiles would kill without penetrating at all. There's also reports of Incan sling stones breaking swords and killing horses.

Maybe if you hit the horse in the head, But since the horse is charging you at 35 or more MPH, I find it highly unlikely. If this is true, then why did Europeans use them less and less? If they were so capable, why were they fazed out? Plus the guy misses the point of the pilum, The whole point was to hit the guys up front from that distance. To kill the guy up front or make his shield useless.

Charles C. Mann in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus also reports that Incan slingers could kill horses outright and break swords, and they weren't even all that good at the kind of warfare they were involved in against the Spanish.

See, I have some issues with New world weapons stories since I heard one that said that the dart thrower could pierce plate.

Roman infantry was not especially mobile, they just almost always had more units they could throw at you, no matter when you were doing, although it might be next week.

Actually, more often than not, the Roman army was outnumbered. They had to be mobile, usually the Roman army always moved forward, Its not like in the movies where the Romans picked a spot and stayed there, they tried to attack, even when being attacked, they would move forward trying to use the shields to walk through the enemy while stabbing with the gladius.

Then again, we're probably both wrong.

[evensgrey]

Maybe if you hit the horse in the head, But since the horse is charging you at 35 or more MPH, I find it highly unlikely. If this is true, then why did Europeans use them less and less? If they were so capable, why were they fazed out? Plus the guy misses the point of the pilum, The whole point was to hit the guys up front from that distance. To kill the guy up front or make his shield useless.

Slings went out of military use for one of the two reasons bows did later on, and another problem of their own, even though at the time bows were still more lethal (both in terms of hitting power and rate of fire) than the guns that replaced them:  It took too much time to train slingers compared to those using the weapons that replaced slings. If the commoners are allowed to hunt, they will prefer a bow to a sling in a forest because a sling, while lethal and with better range than small bows, takes a few feet of clear space to use, while a bow works just fine anywhere you can stand, and this extra space compared to bowman is the other problem. (You could get a much denser rain of projectiles since bowman can fire standing shoulder to shoulder.) This means that, in most of Europe, you're not going to find people who already know how to use a sling during the later periods.  (Bows lose to guns because guns are easier to learn, and easier to source since longbows require exactly the right piece of timber to make, and composite bows require expensive materials and a long manufacturing process that typically takes a year.)

You seem to have a very strange idea of how tough horses are.  A horse, particularly if galloping while carrying a heavy weight like a large, plate-armor man with large weapons, is very precarious.  A light riding horse doesn't have 30% margin on each leg's long-term bearing strength just standing there (which is why a broken leg is almost invariably fatal: the horse cannot stand on the other three for the weeks even the simplest break will take to heal).  If galloping under heavy load, anything that goes substantially wrong is likely to be fatal.  Getting bone-breaking sling strikes (and a sling stone, or worse, a sling bullet, at medium range can easily break bones) is going to take down a galloping horse without difficulty.  (Later on, archers routinely took down horses at extreme range with the 'arrow storm' effect:  A block of prepared archers, and it only takes a few minutes for archers to prepare, can fire arrows fast enough to make a horse into a pincushion out at extreme range. That each strike is minor doesn't help when there are dozens of them.)

[R.E.H.W.R.]

It took too much time to train slingers compared to those using the weapons that replaced slings.

It takes years to train someone to use a bow in battle. Not only is their the marksmanship, but physical conditioning.

You seem to have a very strange idea of how tough horses are.

No, I don't think slings are accurate enough to get the hits your talking about,

A light riding horse doesn't have 30% margin on each leg's long-term bearing strength just standing there (which is why a broken leg is almost invariably fatal: the horse cannot stand on the other three for the weeks even the simplest break will take to heal).

We are not talking about light riding horses. We are talking about big, beefy warhorse, Its not a riding horse that you travel in.

[evensgrey]

It takes years to train someone to use a bow in battle. Not only is their the marksmanship, but physical conditioning.

Slingers are at least as hard to train, and they cannot operate nearly as close together either.  If it wasn't for them being so very deadly and with even better range than the bowmen available in the ancient world, they wouldn't have been the feared forces they were.

No, I don't think slings are accurate enough to get the hits your talking about,

Yes, I'm aware that you don't care about both the documented accuracy of slings (even in the hands of comparative novices they are documented to be reliably able to strike small targets with ease at substantial range) and their demonstrated killing power.  This is not my problem.

We are not talking about light riding horses. We are talking about big, beefy warhorse, Its not a riding horse that you travel in.

Yes, war horses are notoriously fragile things.  You demonstrate ignorance of basic bio-mechanics: Scaling up an animal makes it WEAKER, not stronger. Strength goes as the square of the scaling factor, mass goes as the cube.  If I make a horse twice as big, it doesn't gain any advantage in terms of resistance to injury because the proportionate strength of bones/muscles/tendons/etc. falls in half.  While galloping, a horse is at the limit of what its' legs can handle.  Any significant injury to a leg will cause it to fail catastrophically.  A blow from a sling bullet, which is a football-shaped piece of lead of about 28 grams moving at about 90 m/s, is not insignificant.  A trained slinger could manage 12 rounds a minute easily, so a group of 20 could manage 4 rounds per second with reasonable accuracy out to well over a hundred meters.

A kinght, or even a group of knights, is not going to be able to close the range fast enough to avoid taking a deadly pounding.  Even if they do, they're still trying a lance charge against a thicket of heavy thrusting spears, which is precisely the thing that was used to butcher knights in medieval warfare.  (Any knight who reaches the phalanx doesn't even need to be injured by the spears, he'll just get knocked off his horse if the horse isn't just speared out from under him.  While he's taking a few seconds to get back on his feet, a couple of guys nip out and stab him in the groin/armpit/elbow/anywhere else that the armor has a protection gap that normally would be protected by knowing how to prevent blows from being made there.)

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Slingers are at least as hard to train, and they cannot operate nearly as close together either.

So? You said, "It took too much time to train slingers compared to those using the weapons that replaced slings."

Yes, I'm aware that you don't care about both the documented accuracy of slings (even in the hands of comparative novices they are documented to be reliably able to strike small targets with ease at substantial range) and their demonstrated killing power.  This is not my problem.

I never said that. I'm saying that a small projectile hitting a leg of an animal charging you at 35 MPH is incredibly unlikely.

Yes, war horses are notoriously fragile things.  You demonstrate ignorance of basic bio-mechanics: Scaling up an animal makes it WEAKER, not stronger

And you seem to think bigger means taller. War horses were the same height as riding horses. There's a difference between height and musculature.

A trained slinger could manage 12 rounds a minute easily, so a group of 20 could manage 4 rounds per second with reasonable accuracy out to well over a hundred meters.

No, a small projectile hitting a leg of an animal charging you at 35 MPH is incredibly unlikely. There are just too many moving parts for that to have a reliable shot of that happening. Sure if it hits a leg it will do serious injury, but its highly unlikely. I think the most likely part of the body hit will be the chest. With a war horse's training it might continue charging if its nothing to serious.

Even if they do, they're still trying a lance charge against a thicket of heavy thrusting spears, which is precisely the thing that was used to butcher knights in medieval warfare.  (Any knight who reaches the phalanx doesn't even need to be injured by the spears, he'll just get knocked off his horse if the horse isn't just speared out from under him.

Why do have to keep repeating this? That's why they wouldn't charge head on, the Heavy cavalry would try to outflank them. The knights are aware of how bad that would be.