Hannibal's Libyan Infantry

[Jolly Roger]

Hi Al.

Thanks, again a great comment.

When the 2nd Punic War began, the Phalanx wasn´t an effective tactic anymore. Although Alexanders successors still relied on this tactic, the battles of Cynoscephalae and Pydna disclosed the deadly inflexibility of the Phalanx. Hannibal´s Army consisted of very specialized troops: Spanish HI equiped with armor penetrating Falcata´s, Balearic Slingers used as short range art., Numidian Cavalry, Warelephants etc..
Assume Hannibal introduced combined arms warfare into military history.

Cheers, Klaus :smoke:

[Al Amos]

Fair enough, but what is the tactical organization for his African MI/HI?

I suggest that the phalanx org is flexible depending upon the weapons used. With Pike it has to be monolithic, not suitable for Italy at all. With spear and shield it is still not the best, but if armed as Romans, or Spanish, as you say, then the basic structure lends to a strong formation to withstand the charge of a Roman army, and hold it until the cavalry has the opportunity to defeat the Roman cav, and circle around to hit the Roman inf in the flanks and rear.

16 files x 10-12 ranks may be a better use of manpower, and armed with sword and shield the individual stygmas don't have to worry about gaps appearing as severely as a spear or pike armed ones do.

I can see the simple phalanx org being a good base to make an army for PW, just arm it with sword and shield. I'll have to look in the editor to see how to build it that way.

The supporting LI, peltasts and cavalry I listed in my long post support your theory of combined arms usage nicely. Which incidently would point to Alex of Macedon introducing combined arm warfare then, wouldn't it? ;-)

[Jolly Roger]

Hi Al.

You raise a difficult question. Assume a primary tactical unit of
256 men wasn´t even appropriate for this era. But your idea of breaking the Phalanx structure down to more flexibel units of
4 x 64 men might be historically accurate.
After the Marian reform, the Roman Legion consisted of 10 Cohorts, with 6 Centuries of 80 men each + 5 overstrength centuries of 160 men. The primary tactical units were the centuries.
This structure undoubtely resulted from a developement of army organisation, means your model might be a missing link.
In my opinion the dominating element in Alexanders strategy was the Phalanx tactic and the crack elite Macedonian Cavalry.
Others units were used for support. But Hannibal used even his skirmishers or the Numidian Cavalry as an independent tactical element.

Cheers, Klaus

[Al Amos]

Klaus,

With the game engine only allowing three units per hex, one must be careful in considering how small or large he makes the individual units.

If you make the units too small then the army will cover too large of a footprint, and opponents will be able to overwhelm them in melee when historically that may not be correct.

If you make the units too large then the army battle line may be too short allowing it to be wrapped up when historically that wasn't the case or, the units will overpower thier opposite numbers too readily.

Unfortunately, there isn't an historical unit between the Tetrarchia (64 men), and the Syntagma (256 men.) So the designer has to chose what to do. Make a new intermediate unit, or go small, or go large.

[Barca]

When the 2nd Punic War began, the Phalanx wasn´t an effective tactic anymore. Although Alexanders successors still relied on this tactic, the battles of Cynoscephalae and Pydna disclosed the deadly inflexibility of the Phalanx.

The problem is that the successors of Alexander use the phalanx as the hammer instead of the anvil, and paradoxically, made them more and more heavier in armament and composition: longer sarissas for 16, even 32 ranks depth phalanxs (like at Pydna, not so dumb since nothing could stop a 32 ranks depth phalanx but what if the Macedonians double or quadruple their front lines with 8 or 16 rank depth phalanxs?) instead of 8 ranks depth with Alexander. By doing this, they worsened the defaults of the phalanx (his lack of mobility) and misused them tactically but the phalanx was still a very good tool if used correctly (like a wall, none shall pass![/quote]).