The difference between the Gevierthaufen (the pike square) and the Macedonian phalanx is purely semantic, in practice they are the same.
Is different technique.
Syntagma is quite different.
Tactically, there were four major differences between Macedonian-style phalangists and later middle age and Renaissance pike formations:
- Macedonian-style phalanges were in much larger formations than in later pike warfare in the early Renaissance. Under Alexander, a phalanx was a unit of 256 and many of the Diadochi (successor kingdoms) used units that were larger. A Swiss pike formation of the 15th century had about 100 people. Larger formations meant poorer control.
- A major tactical innovation of the 15th century was the development of the pike square. Classical phalanges were forward facing, and though they were drilled to change direction en masse , that did not achieve the ability to effectively defend against flanking attacks. The pike square, on the other hand, was drilled to be able to effectively respond to threats from any direction and to form hollow squares with mini-bastions of men on the corners in case of being surrounded. They also drilled to work cooperatively with other units. Unlike the Scottish schiltron, pike squares were able to maintain unit cohesion and clear chains of command.
- Classical phalanges were used as part of a combined arms scheme, where the phalanges were largely static formations used to pin the enemy down while more mobile foot troops (hypaspistai) and light and heavy cavalry (especially the hetairoi, the âcompanionsâ) attacked the flanks and rear.
In contrast, medieval and early Renaissance pikes were highly aggressive and often operated as the primary component of an attack. The Swiss in particular were known for favoring the attack with quick charges, and eventually most armies that used pikemen developed strategies for a âpush of pike,â where a drilled force of pikemen would march into an enemy formation instead of just resisting their charge. From what we know of Macedonian phalanges, this offensive tactic was never adopted in their time.
- Macedonian phalangistsâ main armament was only the pike ( sarissa ). In contrast, late Medieval and early Renaissance pike formations used a mixture of pikes, shorter halberds, and swords integrated into the formation. All of these combined to allow the pike formation to act as more of an offensive force, especially when faced with troops that could successfully get under the pikes.
Interestingly, the Golden Age of pike warfare actually began with âpikeâ formations using primarily halberds, but for example at the Battle of Sempach the Swiss pikes were forced to adjust the ratio of pikes upwards because of Austrian heavy horse using long lances.
There are a few other minor differences, but these did not much affect tactics. For example, Macedonian phalangists wore a small shield, on their arms, but later pikes did not; some Macedonian-style phalangists used armor, while late Medieval and early Renaissance counterparts mostly did not. Some Medieval and Renaissance pikes were held using different grips depending on the rank within the formation to provide spearpoints at different levels (for example, when preparing to receive a cavalry charge, the front rank would crouch to anchor the pikes on the ground, and the third rank would hold the pikes on the shoulder), while all Macedonian-style phalanges held the pikes at hip level.
1 Like
Yes, you are right, they looked a lot like each other for me, I should have written pike square instead of phalanx. The thing is that it would be great if units have tactics like these, raise shields to mitigate damage from archers and things like that.
Not much for roads some games had didnât see much real consequence(Only on Knights and Merchants, Empire Earth 3 had also and Black & White both games i really love but if AOE had roads just for the sake of speed buffâŠ) bridges would be cool but only to certain distances
Not really the game could have a way to âmakeâ animals even more if the game had civs like the Mongols that were nomads same with trees a way to plant new ones
No doubt more formations one especially to protect against arrows a good one would be dual troops like an infantry that works like skirmisher they fight melee but can throw dart, javelin and to not abuse the archers i thought about ammo and restocking but they could have a max amount of arrows that they regenerate over time like archers come with 30 arrows every 2 seconds they recover 1
Visually i think even AOE 3 had that
Marching options as well, auto explore is the one i want the most
Would be nice when you use a banner carry you could pick a % bonus to attack or defense or mov etcâŠ
If they can be destroyed and it is gone no letâs say each time they are destroyed you can rebuild but it gets more expensive letâs say it starts with the price of a wonder if it is destroyed you can rebuild for 1250 of everything another one with 1500 of everything and on
1 Like
Big maps. AOE3 was too small compared to AOE2.
1 Like
Nice to have: real sappers tunnel warfare, and trench warfare too.
1 Like
Big maps and ability to build multiple cities and a larger population cap
2 Likes
Would be good to have large scale battles like in total war 3k
Or a smaller version like in ancestors legacy
1 Like
Youâre giving me flashbacks to the Military History of the Ancient World class I took at university 
Wasnât my favorite class in the world. Always wondered why on a test I needed to know that a Greek sarissa was like 21 ft long and a Hoplite shield 35 inches in diameter 
The tests totally caught me by surprise as they had questions asking about details like this. Yikes!
1 Like