How well did the Phalanx do against Heavy Cavalry?

[Pisces Axxxxx]

The reputation of the Phalanx is that of an impenetrable wall of shield and spears that cannot be broken by a frontal charge and can only be broken by an attack on its rear and its flank.

However when I read The Western Way of Way by Hanson, he stated while its true the flanks of the Hoplites were weak (especially on the right side in which the Hoplite assigned there did not have full protection proveded by the shield of another man), this can be countered by a well-disciplined Hoplite unit with a certain formation that resembled a turtle and was round. In this formation, even the flanks and rear of the Hoplite was protected and even a heavy cavalry charge at the rear and flanks would be fended off successfully. Here is the formation in link.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_q45pzp0qhpM/TTDN1O5jR7I/AAAAAAAAALU/YV9lS0_H-uU/s1600/300+B&W.jpg
 

In addition it provided near complete protection against archers.

However what I read is that not all Hoplites can do this and only the most disciplined and well-trained such as the Spartans were capable of forming such a formation. In addition, the Hoplites was pretty static when in this formation.

So I am wondering are the claims of Heavy Cavalry being the weakness of the Hoplites and Phalanx false (or at least over-exaggerrated)?

Also what is the formation in the link above called?I know its a type of Phalanx but I'm wondering what was it called.

[Onasander]

You linked a cover to the movie 300,showing only one guy posing.

 

The formation you speak of is universal for any spear based infanty unit, and we still use it to a extent today in the airborne unfantry after a jump when everyone joins up, waiting for stragglers to show.

 

You'll find it commonly refered to as a porcupine or hedgehog formation. Scotland exists because of their mastery of such spear tactics against the british knights.

 

Reason why it was largely immobile is.... the Greeks sucked at driving. They lead from the front, and would of had to train a unit where the guys in front moved really slow, and at every azimuth point walked awkwardly at a bad angle, till you got to the rear, where its all backwards.... all while expected to fight a enemy. No....

 

Hence the hollow used in swiss pike formations, allowing for squares to be used. Must better defence, regular lines, internal freedom of movement for guys to reinforce weak sides. Even the airborne formation I mentioned uses a hollow.

[barca]

The reputation of the Phalanx is that of an impenetrable wall of shield and spears that cannot be broken by a frontal charge and can only be broken by an attack on its rear and its flank.

 

However when I read The Western Way of Way by Hanson, he stated while its true the flanks of the Hoplites were weak (especially on the right side in which the Hoplite assigned there did not have full protection proveded by the shield of another man), this can be countered by a well-disciplined Hoplite unit with a certain formation that resembled a turtle and was round. In this formation, even the flanks and rear of the Hoplite was protected and even a heavy cavalry charge at the rear and flanks would be fended off successfully. Here is the formation in link.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_q45pzp0qhpM/TTDN1O5jR7I/AAAAAAAAALU/YV9lS0_H-uU/s1600/300+B&W.jpg

 

In addition it provided near complete protection against archers.

 

However what I read is that not all Hoplites can do this and only the most disciplined and well-trained such as the Spartans were capable of forming such a formation. In addition, the Hoplites was pretty static when in this formation.

 

So I am wondering are the claims of Heavy Cavalry being the weakness of the Hoplites and Phalanx false (or at least over-exaggerrated)?

 

Also what is the formation in the link above called?I know its a type of Phalanx but I'm wondering what was it called.

It all comes down to discipline. At Pharsalus, Caesar told his infantry to hold their pila like spears to ward off Pompey's cavalry attack.

Longer spears are obviously more effective against cavalry, but less useful at close quarters. The Scottish Schiltrons and Swiss Columns were very effective against some of the best heavy cavalry of the middle ages.

[caldrail]

Take a look at the BAttle of Leuctra in 371BC. The Spartans arranged their cavalry in a line ahead of their phalanxes, and so did the Thebans, which would result in a cavalry brawl ahead of the closure of phalanx lines. However the wiley Thebans advanced right flank refused (or a diagonal with the left leading if you prefer) allowing their cavalry an escape route and trapping the spartan horse between the rows of pikes. The Spartans lost.

[Onasander]

I would also like to point out, phalanx are a really, really bad idea against missle light calvary on open plains, as well as missile troops, even if armed with just darts, in rugged topography with plenty of vegetation. Really sucks to be a Spartan then.

 

Phalanx do really, really bad on islands, with little to no cover, when faced off against a missle based navy. You would think this obvious, but.....