Important WAFF Documents

How Do I Join WAFF?
The Rules at WAFF
The Management at WAFF
The Groups at WAFF
The Links at WAFF
World's Armed Forces Forum Member Rankings World's Armed Forces ForumWorld's Armed Forces Forum 2010 NFL Pool
General Discussion
(The Den)
The World's Armed Forces Forum History, Politics & Economics Forum
Greece & Turkey Defence Forum Europe, Middle-East & Africa Defence Forum Asia & Pacific Defence Forum
Help & Suggestions Join Now!!! WAFF Vet Club
Other WAFF Help Forums

Registration Help
WAFF Help Documents
WAFF Testing Forum (Alcatraz)
Old WAFF Forums
Search WAFF Help
WAFF Flag Banner
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 15 2006 at 4:37 PM
Dee  (Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

From Polybius (the authority on the matter) taken from "The Histories" book XVIII

link:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html

//
Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE):
The Roman Maniple vs. The Macedonian Phalanx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Histories, Book XVIII, Chapters 28-32:

In my sixth book I made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and pointing out how they differ for better or worse from each other. I will now endeavor by a reference to actual facts to fulfil that promise. For since in former times the Macedonian tactics proved themselves by experience capable of conquering those of Asia and Greece; while the Roman tactics sufficed to conquer the nations of Africa and all those of Western Europe; and since in our own day there have been numerous opportunities of comparing the men as well as their tactics, it will be, I think, a useful and worthy task to investigate their differences, and discover why it is that the Romans conquer and carry off the palm from their enemies in the operations of war: that we may not put it all down to Fortune, and congratulate them on their good luck, as the thoughtless of mankind do; but, from a knowledge of the true causes, may give their leaders the tribute of praise and admiration which they deserve.

Now as to the battles which the Romans fought with Hannibal and the defeats which they sustained in them, I need say no more. It was not owing to their arms or their tactics, but to the skill and genius of Hannibal that they met with those defeats: and that I made quite clear in my account of the battles themselves. And my contention is supported by two facts. First, by the conclusion of the war: for as soon as the Romans got a general of ability comparable with that of Hannibal, victory was not long in following their banners. Secondly, Hannibal himself, being dissatisfied with the original arms of his men, and having immediately after his first victory furnished his troops with the arms of the Romans, continued to employ them thenceforth to the end. Pyrrhus, again, availed himself not only of the arms, but also of the troops of Italy, placing a maniple of Italians and a company of his own phalanx alternately, in his battles against the Romans. Yet even this did not enable him to win; the battles were somehow or another always indecisive.

It was necessary to speak first on these points, to anticipate any instances which might seem to make against my theory. I will now return to my comparison.

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae are sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissa projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer:

So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm; And man on man; and waving horse-hair plumes In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed In order: in such serried rank they stood. [Iliad, 13.131]



And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.

With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.

Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also admit. However, let us suppose that such a district has been found. If the enemy decline to come down into it, but traverse the country sacking the towns and territories of the allies, what use will the phalanx be? For if it remains on the ground suited to itself, it will not only fail to benefit its friends, but will be incapable even of preserving itself; for the carriage of provisions will be easily stopped by the enemy, seeing that they are in undisputed possession of the country: while if it quits its proper ground, from the wish to strike a blow, it will be an easy prey to the enemy. Nay, if a general does descend into the plain, and yet does not risk his whole army upon one charge of the phalanx or upon one chance, but maneuvers for a time to avoid coming to close quarters in the engagement, it is easy to learn what will be the result from what the Romans are now actually doing.

For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts. The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.
//


Yes, it's true.. many are at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx it seems


-- Dee


    
This message has been edited by dhp on Jun 15, 2006 4:38 PM
This message has been edited by dhp on Jun 15, 2006 4:37 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Dee
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 15 2006, 5:17 PM 

Important to note:

//
Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear.
//

Here Polybius claims that when phalanx makes any movement which dislocates it's formation; pockets are opened, which the roman legion filled (which could not be filled by the phalanx as they had little lateral movement) these pockets where on the flanks, thus.. even a HUGE line of them .. could become fractured and within the fractures they could be flanked and defeated from the line.

After the marian reforms; in the war with pontus (Mithridatic wars 80's BC); Roman legionaries engaged
phalanx armies on terms often in excess of 6 to 1 against, and still beat them decisively.

Whilst I cannot find a historical reference for the tactics used to gain these IMMENSE victories, I am
suprised they are not well documented. Such a victory deserves to be properly accounted.

Oh, and the commander of those victories; Sulla who eventually became roman emperor;
when He retired; retired with a gay pride march !!

And that's a fact.

//
By the next year though, Sulla had either tired of the political life, or felt that he accomplished all that he could. In 79 BC he retired to a country villa with the intention of writing his memoirs. Before he left Rome however,
--- Sulla confirmed long standing rumors about his own sexual behavior to a shocked audience. He announced that Metrobius, a famous actor, had been his lifetime lover. As he left Rome, he was accompanied by a large contingent of actors, dancers and prostitutes in a final act of disdain. His memoirs, which he would finish ---- over the next year, while they have not survived, did prove a valuable resource to later Roman writers (Plutarch and Appian in particular). Sulla died shortly after, in 78 BC, opening the Roman political system to a new and even more dangerous wave of power grabs.
//

So huge formations of Phalanx, where decisively beaten.. even by a gaybo.

-- Dee

 
 


(Login CretanArrow)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 15 2006, 10:58 PM 

Dee,

Don't kid yourself. The phalanx of Phillip/Alexander the Great bore little resemblance to how it was used during later engagements with the Romans. The phalanx the Romans encountered was not the steamroller that Alexander used. Alexander used the phalanx as a buckler and the cavalry as the offensive arm which would either flank or create a wedge formation and crush the infantry lines (see Gaugamela). If you look at later engagements of the Macedonians vs the Romans you will see that the phalanx did in fact push back the legions or pin them down, but the cavalry arm never did its job of outflanking the enemy because the commanders either sucked or fled the battle and never engaged the Romans. In fact, Aemilius Paulus stated that when he first encountered the phalanx it was the most terrifying thing he had ever seen.

Hannibal used phalanx tactics against the Romans at the battle of Cannae in which he annihalated 8 DOUBLE LEGIONS.

The truth is that if the flanks of the phalanx are protected with sufficient cavalry, nothing can stop the momentum of a 16 deep phalanx. It will steamroll over everything in its path. The Romans were just lucky enough to have never encountered a commander like Phillip or Alexander.

 
 
Tancrède
(Login ParaColo)
La Grande Armee (France)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 12:16 AM 

Don't gorget the capital part played by light infantry and archers (plus stone throwers) on the sides and behind the phalanx (to fill in the gaps when they open their ranks): their uses, their versatility are the necessary counterpart to the massive cohesion of the phalanx. Plus, their mobility were of great importance to go along short cavalry movements (Gaugamele...).

Par St Michel vivent les Paras,
Pour que toujours vive la France...
Et pour qu'au nom de Dieu vive la Coloniale!

"Le fantassin se doit de calquer en tout son attitude sur le morpion, cet animal sublime qui meurt mais ne décroche jamais" (Maréchal Joffre)

 
 

Eryx
(Login Eric_De_La_Legion)
Elite WAFF Vet Club

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 5:51 AM 



Anyone with a tactical eye, from a modern POV, can easily discover the major shortcoming of the Phalanx: the Phalanx is not as fluid as the roman formation. War, tactics, formation evolve people!

THe Phalanx vs Roman formation is like comparing Frederic's Prussian formation vs Napoleonic formation. Same kind of argument. Frederic's formation was great only for a time period.

--------------------------------------------
Pity is treason -Robespierre






 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 6:39 AM 

//
Hannibal used phalanx tactics against the Romans at the battle of Cannae in which he annihalated 8 DOUBLE LEGIONS.
//

As the major authority (polybius) from which most ancient historians recite when discussing the subject, Hannibal's and Pyrrus's victories had little to do with the
tactics of the romans, but more to do with poor commanding; which in all cases soundly
allows snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

During this time, roman's had little in the way of battlefield strategy, it was just
a bit of line up, and move forward. Being adaptive (unlike phalanx) was the key, and
when a decent commander was around, both of them where trounced.

The roman army was a different animal here than after the marian reforms (where every
phalanx army afterwards was soundly beaten.. even at incredible odd's) there is no
denying that.

-- Dee

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 6:44 AM 

//
Don't kid yourself. The phalanx of Phillip/Alexander the Great bore little resemblance to how it was used during later engagements with the Romans. The phalanx the Romans encountered was not the steamroller that Alexander used.
//

You are of course right here, there is no deny'ing this. The Phalanx of Alexander was a different animal.

largely they were equiped differently (for greater mobility) and better trained.. and of course
better commanded.

That's not to say they would have had any chance of defeating post marian reform roman armies..
EVEN on flat ground.

With scorpions, onagers, (REAL) heavy cavalry, repeating ballistae, we can see a variety of
reasons why phalanx was outdated (no loose formation).

-- Dee

 
 

Lakedaimon
(Login miltos75)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 7:52 AM 

That's not to say they would have had any chance of defeating post marian reform roman armies..
EVEN on flat ground.

With scorpions, onagers, (REAL) heavy cavalry, repeating ballistae, we can see a variety of
reasons why phalanx was outdated (no loose formation).

Dee,

this is true but rather obvious.. It's like saying the Napoleonic Army would stand no chance against Rommel's Afrika Korps..?

As for Polybios being the "major authority" on this issue I respectfuly disagree.

Polybios is definatelly the primary source both for Plutarch and Livy as far as events go. But his treatise on Maniple vs Phalanx is mainly his own judgement, a simplistic and misleading one IMO which did his Greek audience a disservice.

1 Flaw of Polybios: "Maniple vs Phalanx". He should have focused on the Legio vs Hellenistic Army i.e. combined arms.

2 Flaw of Polybios: Phalanx became disoriented on rough ground while Maniple didn't. Wrong. Maniple would have lost cohesion as well. Simply, however, that was not a major problem for the Maniple which was better suited for fighting mano-a-mano (designed to fight Oscans).

3 Flaw of Polybios: If the Phalanx moved forth or back it lost cohesion. Not necessarily. That was very much dependant on training and leadership. Look at Gaugamela. However, the phalanx's role was definately NOT to pursue.

In any case the Legio was definately the way to go in the sense that it could be manned, trained and led easier than the phalanx. It could also be effective in more ways, against more adversaries and on various terrains. IOW the Legio gave the commander many more options. And in a campaign you will not have to give battle on the opponent's favourable terms. The discussion here is IF the phalanx fights on favourable terms will it prevail? IMO against the Republican Legio yes it CAN. Against the Imperial Legio (post Marius) I certainly doubt even if Alexander could have pulled it off. The artillery alone would be enough to end it.

As for the Mithridatic wars you mention may I point out that:

1) Sulla and Pompey were two of the best Roman commanders ever.
2) Mithridates was in all likelihood a fool.
3) The Pontic troops lost not only as phalanxes but even as immitation legionaires also (trained and led by Roman vets). So I believe their blunders shouldn't be blamed on their formations but somewhere else...
4) If it weren't for Rome's internal problems the Mithridatic Wars would never have happened. Simply put, this man would have been crushed like a bug right away if Rome had paid attention to him. He's not worth mentioning in our argument.



Cheers,

Miltos

AIEN ARISTEYEIN!




 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 12:18 PM 

//
As for Polybios being the "major authority" on this issue I respectfuly disagree.

Polybios is definatelly the primary source both for Plutarch and Livy as far as events go. But his treatise on Maniple vs Phalanx is mainly his own judgement, a simplistic and misleading one IMO which did his Greek audience a disservice.
//

The primary source for both of the major historians of any credit. His remarks
are generally considered by most historians to be quite objective.

It's also important to remember that Polybius had in fact served as a cavalry leader (unsure if it was as a general or not), and had intimate military knowledge.

//
this is true but rather obvious.. It's like saying the Napoleonic Army would stand no chance against Rommel's Afrika Korps..?
//

This is my point entirely. (Imperial) Legion where in a totally different class.


-- Dee

 
 

Lakedaimon
(Login miltos75)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 12:42 PM 

This is my point entirely. (Imperial) Legion where in a totally different class.

Well since they're more than 3 centuries younger!

Another tjhing I noticed. You named the title Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really).

A Hoplite Phalanx and a Macedonian Phalanx are not the same. The Mac Phalanx annihilated Hoplite Phalanxes on many occasions (Chaeronea for instance). But there were occasions when the opposite occurred (Issus). There is also the Battle of Bagradas where a "Spartan" Hoplite Phalanx employed by Carthage and covered by Elephants/Cavalry utterly destroyed the army of Regulus during the 1st Punic war.

This only goes to show that there is not simple rule of thumb : This better than that. A gifted commander will always find the way to win and an idiot commander will always find a way to lose even if he is in command of the best men of his time.

Cheers,

Miltos

AIEN ARISTEYEIN!



 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 2:14 PM 

//

Well since they're more than 3 centuries younger!

//

Yep, but phalanx was still widely deployed.

-- Dee

 
 


(Login CretanArrow)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 16 2006, 7:29 PM 

The truth of the matter is that a phalanx in the hands of an able commander (Alexander, Phillip, Hannibal) cannot be stopped. The mass wall of spears and shields and the forward momentum of thousands cannot be be halted. It is the commander's duty to protect the flanks of the phalanx (its weakness). At Cannae, Hannibal's phalanx annihalated 80,000 Romans. Do you know what kind of loss this is?

Any other state would have ceased to exist with these kinds of losses. The only reason the Romans became a superpower was due their manpower and infinite amount of resources. Phyrrus, Hannibal, and a host of others defeated the Romans multiple times, but they just kept throwing men into the legions and eventually would overcome their opponents. The Romans could sustain multiple losses of thousands of men, but their opponents would be finished after just one defeat.

The Legion is not a specific tactical unit, just an organizational unit. The Romans initially used to line up in three lines and advance (Phyrrus, Hannibal). They later adopted a checkboard type formation.

 
 

NeroAzzuri
(Login NeroAzzuri)
The Redcoats (UK)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 17 2006, 12:30 PM 

Legions were surely superior to phalanxs,but i would have liked to have seen the Roman legionaires take on Spartan hoplites.Flank them or not,i think the spartans would have won.They were just as capable with swords afterall..

At the battle of plautea they were flanked severals times by persians soldiers.Yet the persians still suffered catasrophic losses against them.


 
 
Anonymous
(Login arionas)
Hellenic Hoplites (Greece)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 19 2006, 5:21 PM 

forced to make the same points again...
The legion is not much different than the spartan fallanks. they are both based on the sword and as flexible with each other. the spartan fallanks had its loxoi the same way the legion had the cohorts.

The legion cannot be possible tactically superior to the mac fallanks because it simply provides the commander with more in quantity and more in specialisation wepons

Of course that means that is necessary for good comanders since they have greater complexity to handle. if they can do that then simply there is no contest

the romans were not undefiteable by no means they lost a great number of battles to many different opponents. the roman society though was able to absorb this and contineu

Ask any officer of any of the worlds armies and he will tell of the superiority of the combined weapons attacks

 
 

Parham
(Login Parhamz)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 19 2006, 6:23 PM 

.

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 19 2006, 8:44 PM 

//
The legion cannot be possible tactically superior to the mac fallanks because it simply provides the commander with more in quantity and more in specialisation wepons
//

Oh bullcrap. Tactically superior ? Phallanx could not be re-inforced.. their rows where static; they where
not particularly maneuverable. They could not form multiple formations (wedge, saw etc).

They did not operate well on any ground that wasn't plain (or flat).

Due to pilum strikes they lost their entire defensive ability; and I can imagine them getting humped by cavalry auxiliaries (Sagittarii in particular).

Their inadequacies are easy to see. Compared to post marian reform Legion; phalanx was antiquated.

END OF STORY.

-- Dee

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 19 2006, 8:51 PM 

//
There is also the Battle of Bagradas where a "Spartan" Hoplite Phalanx employed by Carthage and covered by Elephants/Cavalry utterly destroyed the army of Regulus during the 1st Punic war.
//

Also note that this is long before the marian reforms.

-- Dee

 
 

(Login arionas)
Hellenic Hoplites (Greece)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 20 2006, 4:48 PM 

lets clear up the confusion.

There is no 1 phallanks but many different types, so you cannot make a comparison between all of them. choose which one you compare with the legion.

the legion is nothing more than a variation of the spartan phallanx. They were both phallnkses based on the sword and not the spear. The romans made some clever aduptions, but to consider that they made a whole new contribution is obsurd.

The javellins of the legion is a great idea, but specialised for fighting against infantry. When the opponent has cavalary then the spear is a must. This explains why the legions failed repeatedly against cavalry. It was the weapon of choice for hannibal and also the parthians humiliated the legions by using only a combination of light and heavy cavalary and the partians were a hellenistic kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_formation>

(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae>)

No phallanx ever was rigit unless its comander wanted it so.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html>

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/adrianople.html>

Even the greatest of roman victories the battle of zama was won because except the larger numerical advantage, the romans used successfuly cavalry

All in all the legion had its maniples and the spartn phallanx had its mora so flexibility was obvious. But lets examine some battles so to prove hat the phallanx was not rigit unless the commander wanted.

First the battle of marathon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon>

It is clear that the phallanx had variable geometry and depth.

The thebans with epeminondas had made a phallanx with variable depth and geometry as a standard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epaminondas>


When comparing the legion to the Macedonian phallanx specifically, it is appropriate that the comparison includes except the pikemen also the light infantry (peltasts)and the slingers and archers as well as as the normal hoplites (usually from allied cities)that their job was to cover the flanks of the sarissa soldiers.

This is where the compined weapons assualt principle comes to hand. In this area is the legion that is rigit since it provides 1 tool for all occasions and circumstances. The Macedonian phallanx has many speciallised tools that can be combined in many different ways to adupt to each circumstance.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ancient-macedonian-military

In the battle of gauagamele http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela> one can see that the different types of phallankses that were used, the flexibility of the line (it chancheed shape dramatically through the battle and the opening of the rows of the phallanx so that the enemy chariots will go through without causing damage)

In the battle of canes
http://www.apollonia.com.tn/hgbcann.htm> the phallanx was more flexiblke than the legion. That is enough i think to prove that the phallanx was not rigit unless its commander wanted it so.

That is why alexander even managed to defete the tribes of central asia that over a thousant years later they would dominate the world.

The only time that the legion could defeat the Macedonian phallnx is when it did not work all its weapons in cinergy
http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-pydna Hier the pikes did their gob, but when needed cover the cavalry did nor appear. The phallanks because of its variety, demnds a well trained force and excellent commader. Average commanders will not do ,because it is simple too complicated for them. That I accept as a weaknes.

The romans were forced to adopt the phallanx when facing the parthian cavalry because the legion was inadequate.

The geopolitical situation in the maditaranean and the middle east at the time of the rise of rome, was very influenced from hellenic war doctrine (even hanibal studied in hellenic "war" academies)

The legion was a very specialised weapon against that philosophy. The phallanx was made to face anything. Which one is the rigit and which is flexible?

 
 


(Login oki81)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 20 2006, 5:27 PM 

Well

Phalanx VS roman legion...

there are more to war than just the obvious weakness and strength.

alot of historical battles are decided by: Time, Place, Moral, Number, Training etc...and very little is about troop types, let explain breifly:


Time, what time of the day are they attacking, the matters between if the troops had breakfast or water in the morning or not can decided the fate of the whole battle. who is attacking, who is defending... meaning, how long did the attackers travel before they initiated the attack.. how long did they rest.

Place, Probablly the most important factor, how does the terraine look like, can troops advance fast, is it open battle field or dense vegitation. are there rivers behind or in the flanks. height of the standing army, which army is on high ground.


Moral, what are the mental state of the armies. do both army worry about food and water supply, are they adjust to the new environment... army that has been travling far usually cant adjust to the local food and water right away (that can easily make soldiers sick). kinda like if you live in europe when you go to thailand on a trip you most likey fall ill for a couple of days. Do they feel secure about their flank and availability of reinforcement.

number and training.. is pretty obvious no need to explained..

And you cant not really say consider everything equal which army is better.. because in reality usually it is these details that determine the outcome of a battle...





__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!

 
 


(Login oki81)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 20 2006, 5:45 PM 

However, if you ask me which army is better in general.. i would say the Roman Legion... especially the cohorts, not only hand picked fighters but also had great support (the could acheive their goal by putting in political pressure, get what ever supply they pretty much need).

Also doesnt matter how long the Phalanx's spear is.. they couldnt reach as far as how far the legion could throw their iron spears... another reason is the legion is highly adaptable and more flexible in the formation than the phalanx -which have a deadly front.. but extremly clumpsy, a frontal charge toward phalanx is stupid...but phalanx unfortunatley has a very weak flank, and are extremly vunerable to arrows and throwing spears.. while the legion usually carry large shield.. and some can even form testudo formation.




__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 21 2006, 7:55 AM 

//
the legion is nothing more than a variation of the spartan phallanx. They were both phallnkses based on the sword and not the spear. The romans made some clever aduptions, but to consider that they made a whole new contribution is obsurd.
//

As I documented in the other thread; the legion is based on the scutarii (essentially celt-iberians) who where often mercenaries and often employed by the romans. The gladius is "gladius Hispaniensis" just as the scutum (and indeed the celt-iberians) can be considered spanish imports.

Roman legionaries drew from the scutarii almost every aspect of their weaponry and tactics.

When the Roman's employed phalanx they were soundly beaten.. and Rome was sacked as a result.

Don't let you're bullcrap nationalism infect you're posts; I'm so sick to death of greek's
trying to take credit for everyone elses empires (The Macedonian and the Roman).

Soon greek's will be taking credit for American democracy too (laughable).

I have already documented (from the other thread on Ancient Greek Warfare) many instances of incidents drawing from polybius' and livy's accounts where even before the marian reforms the
romans where beating the phalanx (And SOUNDLY) and after the marian reforms.. Legion cutting down phalanx often at odd's of 6 to 1 or greater against. There is no other way to put a 6 to 1 against
victory anything other than .. chewing them up and spitting them out.

Most of my opinions and historical claims are made in that thread, which I suggest you read.

as I've stated before:

//
I've not read of any engagement (apart from either pyrrhus or hannibal) where
romans where routed by phalanx, and the reasoning for pyrrhus and hannibals victories are generally not as a result of the capabilities of the phalanx but
rather a great command despite the phalanx; (hannibal if you remember ended up
employing captured roman weaponry).
//

I am yet to be provided with any historical evidence to disclaim this; and some have tried.

Can you provide a historical reference to classic legionaries (after the marian reforms) being
routed by phalangites ?

-- Dee


 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 21 2006, 8:02 AM 

//
a frontal charge toward phalanx is stupid...
//

As I have noted; it is not necessarily stupid.

You must engage from the front in order to create the possibility for a flanking maneuver.

I'm quite convinced that the Legions (at least after the marian reforms) where engaging phalanx from the front .. And beating them.. against the odd's.

The historical evidence certainly suggests that this is the case.

as mentioned before "But the best example of phalanx getting destroyed by the romans, is probably Chaeronea (86bc) or Orchomenus (a year later), where vastly outnumbered roman legion
thrashed the phalanx. -- (Mithridatic wars)" <- by me in the other thread.

"In fact, in Cynoscephalae a great example of the uselessness of phalanx against
legion can be made; due to with phalanx being ordered to drop their spears and engage with swords."

-- Dee

 
 

Lakedaimon
(Login miltos75)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 21 2006, 8:19 AM 

This explains why the legions failed repeatedly against cavalry.

Ariona,

I think you are oversimplifying the infantry vs cavalry age-old debate here. Legions were for the greater part wonderful infnatry. But infantry comes with limitations. Besides the debate is not legio against cavalry.



It was the weapon of choice for hannibal and also the parthians humiliated the legions by using only a combination of light and heavy cavalary and the partians were a hellenistic kingdom.

You are rather confused here. Perhaps you have the Hellenistic kingdom of Bactria in mind. The Parthians were an Iranic people, purely horseback culture. Their Horse Archers and Cataphracts defeated Crassus at Carrhae but the Romans came back less than a generation later and defeated the Parthians. The resilient Romans always observed and learned and came back with a solution.

When healthy the Roman empire always adapted her Legios against the various fighting styles of its foes with eventual success. It was later overrun by barbarian horse armies when the Empire was in decay and her Legios were nothing like what they used to be, instead the Romans tried to immitate their foes by giving up foot for horse. A game at which they were surely not the experts.

Cheers,

Miltos

AIEN ARISTEYEIN!

 
 
Anonymous
(Login arionas)
Hellenic Hoplites (Greece)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 21 2006, 4:18 PM 

@ Dee

First i would appreciate it if you write to me in an appropriate manner. I dont call your writtings bullcrap. Learn some manners. This can be a constructive conversation, lets keep it like that!

Quote:
TEXT

As I documented in the other thread; the legion is based on the scutarii (essentially celt-iberians) who where often mercenaries and often employed by the romans. The gladius is "gladius Hispaniensis" just as the scutum (and indeed the celt-iberians) can be considered spanish imports.
Quote:
TEXT


Well... The shield of the legion (its most important weapon) was actually originated in rodes (talking about the design of the shield)

The gladius might be from spain, but in the end of the day is a short straight sword, just like the spartan (the spartan was actually shorter, because the spartans were famous for liking to fight extremely close to the enemy)

Quote:
TEXT

Don't let you're bullcrap nationalism infect you're posts; I'm so sick to death of greek's
trying to take credit for everyone elses empires (The Macedonian and the Roman).

Soon greek's will be taking credit for American democracy too (laughable).
Quote:
TEXT


Woaw!!!! You just showed us an insight to your prepositioning here!!!

So you say that rome had nothing to do with greece? (as for macedonia not being greek, whatever...)

As for American democracy, you just said it your self. Democracy (political system invented in greece...) Do not forget that the roman republic is based structurally in the spartan type of democracy (some compare it to socialism and the theoretical basis of comunism) and not the athenian. So let me recap. The romans got their political system from greece, their alphabet, the art forms (architectyre, sculpting and poetry ainiad as continuation of iliad and odussay)and developed a fighting system that had the principles of decisive victory and frontal engagement (pioneerad in greece) and you want to say that greece has nothing to do with rome? It is funny because most historians and people of itally will admit the imortance of rome as a continuation of greece.

As for the marian reforms

http://www.fanaticus.org/dba/armies/II49.html


and from that i quate"It was still based on the Roman legion, but had abandoned the maniple as the basic tactical unit and formation into three battle lines (hastati, principes, and triarii) including the quincux (checkboard formation) in favor of in ten large cohorts, which generally fought in a SOLID LINES of battle."TEXT

So marian changed the legion to became more of a phallanx. I see hier your own argument going against you!

As for the battles you mentioned, of course the romans would win . There is not only tactics to be involved in a fight, is also quality of commanders and quality of the troops. Udouptetly the roman soldier at the time was of better quality than the greek.

@Lakedaimon
Milto i dont overegadurate. If you see the links i provided, they clearly indicate that weakness of the legion.

As for the parthians in the link i provided you will see that the romans did come back victorious, but the specific legions were changed to fight like phallanx

That didnt last long either at 259 the sassanians (successors of the partians as new dynasty) defeated again the romans under the emperor valerian in the battle of edessa.

End of course the romans could udapt and they did. This is what made them an empire. That though indicates two things

a) They could afford to adupt (Hannibal had to face a potential army of 800,000 legioners!!! Rome was the master of controlling resources the same way as the US does doday)

b) They needed to adupt. So the legion had to change shape and structure frequently. That sais plenty about the ability and forsight of roman administration, but also shows that the legion was not capable to face every type of threat. The mac phallanx thou did. It faced anything between the persian army, the indian elefants and the nomads of centrall asia successfuly. Even in the demise of greece it managed to achieved victories against the legions of the up and coming and virile rome.TEXT TEXT

 
 


(Login CretanArrow)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 21 2006, 6:57 PM 

@Dee

"Don't let you're bullcrap nationalism infect you're posts; I'm so sick to death of greek's
trying to take credit for everyone elses empires (The Macedonian and the Roman).

Soon greek's will be taking credit for American democracy too (laughable)."

No Greek will ever take credit for anything Roman as they were not of Hellenic stock, nor did they speak Greek, despite having adopted many things of Greek culture (partial alphabet, dress, religion, culture etc).

The Macedonians, on the other hand, were of Hellenic stock, spoke Greek, and spread Greek culture and religion to every corner of the empire. There are numerous quotes by ancient authors about the Greekness of the Macedonians. Based on this, of course we will take credit for the accomplishments of the Macedonians, the Athenians, the Thebans, the Spartans, the Corinthians, the Mollosians, the Argives, the Rhodians and all the other Greeks etc.

Of course the Roman empire was a great one in terms of conquest, war, and organization, but all the Hellenic empires were empires of culture and the mind. The greatness of Hellas lay in her wisdom and beauty, not in her arms.

Rome was nothing more than a culture of death and enslavement; a martial state who's primary function was the conquest of others via the sword for its own benefit.

The Hellenes had the Olympic games, the Romans had the Collisieum. On that point alone one can see how much more culturally superior the Hellenes were compared to the barbarous Romans.

If Hellenes had been united against the Romans, they would have prevailed. Rome simply ruled by divide and conqueror.

Why don't we do this; let's say we have 5,000 spartan hoplites and 5,000 roman legionaires. Who will prevail?

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 21 2006, 9:15 PM 

Yawn.

Now it's almost like the greece vs turkey forum.

Pathetic.

-- Dee

 
 

Lakedaimon
(Login miltos75)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 22 2006, 8:51 AM 

Yawn.

Now it's almost like the greece vs turkey forum.

Heh yes it is LOL

But I'm afraid noone is to blame more than you Dee. It was a great thread until you brought up Macedonia not being Greek yada yada which naturally instigated heated replies from the Greeks.

How is it related to the topic? You're sick of Greeks doing this or that? But it was you who challenged them in the first place..?

Cheers,

Miltos

AIEN ARISTEYEIN!

 
 


(Login CretanArrow)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 22 2006, 5:40 PM 

Do you know what's pathetic Dee? You telling or implying that the Macedonians were not Greek. That's pathetic.

As for Rome, the only reason she became an empire was due to infinite amount of man reserves. Pyhrus, Xanthippus, Hannibal, Spartacus, and a host of others slaugtered tens of thousands of Romans on the battlefield, but for some reason they were always able to find more "sheep" to throw against their opponents. While it usually took only one Roman victory to defeat their opponents completely, why? Because the others didn't have vast amounts of reserves to draw from and fill the ranks.

Did you ever notice than when the Romans did in fact loose to a phalanx formation, the Roman losses were staggering? There was nothing scientific about the Romans tactics.

Throw your two pila at 30 and at 15 yards, move forward in one line and fight. At Cannae the Romans did this (3 lines of men) and moved forward, only to be flanked on all sides. A legion is useless in the hands of a bad commander and a phalanx is gold in the hands of a good commander. While formation does play a role in any outcome, its timing and the ability of a commander to determine victory or defeat.

Who would you rather fight for? Varro's legions or Alexander's phalanx?

I think we all know the answer...




 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 22 2006, 10:23 PM 

//
But I'm afraid noone is to blame more than you Dee. It was a great thread until you brought up Macedonia not being Greek yada yada which naturally instigated heated replies from the Greeks.
//

You know; the only reason they get heated is their inferiority complex because their country is FAR FAR
from a world power. And they know it, and their ashamed.

AND NO. I responded to people going blah blah the greek's are so great because some macedonian created an
empire which lasted 50 years (BIG FVCKING WOOOOPPPEEEE)

Ask any macedonian today if he's a greek. I can assure you .. I know what he'll say.

-- Dee

 
 

Lakedaimon
(Login miltos75)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 23 2006, 7:42 AM 

You know; the only reason they get heated is their inferiority complex because their country is FAR FAR
from a world power. And they know it, and their ashamed.

I don't understand you. As a greek I've no dillusions of Greece being a world power. What would that have to do with anything? You are drifting us even further from the topic.


AND NO. I responded to people going blah blah the greek's are so great because some macedonian created an
empire which lasted 50 years (BIG FVCKING WOOOOPPPEEEE)

Again I seem to be having comprehension problems... Are you now implying that Alexander the Great was no big deal? A minor personality of little importance or effect in history? What exactly are you saying here? Big F Whooopeee? What in your expert opinion is worth talking about then?


Ask any macedonian today if he's a greek. I can assure you .. I know what he'll say.

Funny that you should mention it cause half of my family comes from Makedonia. And AFAIK all my uncles and cousins up there proudly answer YES to both questions - are you a Makedon and are you a Greek. But if YOU know better perhaps I should inform them.

In any case this is not the subject of the thread. I'm afraid your despise for Greeks is not permitting you to discuss anything other than Greek bashing.

Personally I'd rather discuss the phalanx vs legio rather than your political agenda and/or personal issues.

Cheers,

Miltos

AIEN ARISTEYEIN!

 
 


(Login CretanArrow)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 26 2006, 7:23 PM 

"Ask any macedonian today if he's a greek. I can assure you .. I know what he'll say."

If you're referring to the Slavs living north of Greece who want to be called Macedonians you are mistaken. They cannot call themselves something they are not.

1. The area FYROM occupies was never part of ancient Macedonia. This area was called Paeonia and its people Paeonians.

2. Secondly, these people are Slavs; Their language and alphabet are identical to Bulgarian. Their culture is Slavic and never did and never will have any connection to the Macedonians of Hellas. The Slavs arrived in the Balkans in the 6th & 7th centuries (A.D).

3. Third, we have direct quotes from Macedoanian kings proclaiming their Hellenic blood.

4. Fourth, the Macedonians spread the Hellenic language and culture throughout the empire because they were in fact Hellenes.

5. Fifth, Alexander claimed direct decent from Achilles from his mother's side. His mother Olympias was a Mollosian from western Greece. It is a well known fact that the Mollosian dynasty was started by Achilles' son.


You see Dee...
The TRUTH always shines...


 
 


(Login phaethon)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 27 2006, 11:23 AM 

"Ask any macedonian today if he's a greek. I can assure you .. I know what he'll say."



Guys,guys.....
Dont spend your time.

@dhp
is tired of hearing about greeks....


@dhp
"There's an amusing saying I once heard in Melbourne:
The Greek's have very similar food, music, instruments and culture to the Turks.. but don't tell them that. (likewise the Turks)."

@dhp
"I love how greek's always like to go on AND ON about GREEK THIS and GREEK THAT - Alexander blah blah."


@phaethon
"Ehmm ok my friend,...but whats your point?
If its the usual "was Alexander greek?" issue,
lets make a topic and discuss it."

@dhp
"There is no question that he wasn't a greek and I'm sick to death of blind grecien nationalists
making absurd claims about his origins. It just makes them look stupid."


while @dhp
was keep posting his claims in an offending way ...

@phaethon
"Again,however, if u want to discuss this,create a topic
and i will be more than happy to participate in it.
Also,IF u want also check the official "claims" of Cambridge Un.,etc etc."

He didint answer of course....


now he says about greeks....
@dhp

"You know; the only reason they get heated is their inferiority complex because their country is FAR FAR
from a world power. And they know it, and their ashamed.

AND NO. I responded to people going blah blah the greek's are so great because some macedonian created an
empire which lasted 50 years (BIG FVCKING WOOOOPPPEEEE)

Ask any macedonian today if he's a greek. I can assure you .. I know what he'll say."




Concerning the Greek language (ionian,Aeolian,etc dialects) and the greek
tribes in general, he said....

@dhp
"Bullcrap. Different culture's, different language's, their own state borders, their own governments
their own traditions.. occasionally their own empire's too."


After showing however the world accepted indo-european linguistic tree...

@dhp
"Regardless of what anybody says; I refuse to concede that all of these peoples can merely be clumped into
a single group called Greek. (....) "




Understood amigos?
So,lets go again....

@dhp
If u want, create a topic related to AlexandeR - Macedonia,and
everyone will b more than happy to discuss anything.
NO offensive posts,NO flamming,simple,clear words.

Its better than saying sth every now and then
in order to reveal the ..."greek inferiority complex".

Your (EXTENDED) historical knowledge is not to b questioned by me.
Your behavior though is offensive mate.
Cheers




4.500 YEARS OF HISTORY AND ON.....
Must check: www.e-history.gr

 
 

Spider
(Login spider034)
WAFFer

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 27 2006, 12:45 PM 

There's an episode of "Decisive Battles" in which they recreate the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC. Roman Legions versus Macedonian Phalanxs. In that episode they explain that once you send in the phalanx it was almost impossible to change tactics, whereas the roman legions where much more flexible and roman commanders in the field had enough power and initiative to seize any opportunities that might arise in the course of the battle. In that battle "one of the Roman tribunes took twenty maniples (a smaller division of the legion) and attacked the Macedonian right wing from behind". It was a decisive Roman victory, 8,000 macedonians killed and 5,000 captured against 700 roman casualties.



 
 


(Login CretanArrow)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 27 2006, 4:04 PM 

If the cavalry had done its job of protecting the flanks of the phalanx the battle would have ended the other way around with thousands of Romans bleeding the field. The Phalanx's job is to pin or steamroll the opponents. The cavalry arm is supposed to deliver the decisive blow (see Gaugamela, Cannae etc).

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 29 2006, 10:17 PM 

@Spider

I did a bit of writing on that battle.. in the other topic. I'll paste what I said there.

""""
True; I didn't read a lot of the thread until after my post, but I have seen no reference in any account of principes being routed at Cynoscephalae. I'm very curious of the account you mention.

I'm expecting it's Livy (book 33) or polybius (book 18) - Livy in Book 33 (paragraph 10) actually claim's use of polybius' numbers, thus polybius can be considered a valid source#1) and even in those accounts there is no mention of roman principes being routed. There is mention of an advance party of 1000 velites and ten squadrons of cavalry (to reconnoitre) being dislodged, and calling for reinforcements (which arrived to the tune of 500 cavalry and 2000 infantry); which screwed the Macedonians royally: with Phillip going into hysterics about what to do; with half his forces out foraging.

When Phillip finally sent reinforcements (when things got really desperate); the roman contingent withdrew in an orderly fashion.. hardly a route and shortly afterwards to give battle in full (and a crushing victory).


In fact, in Cynoscephalae a great example of the uselessness of phalanx against
legion can be made; due to with phalanx being ordered to drop their spears and engage with swords.


But the best example of phalanx getting destroyed by the romans, is probably
Chaeronea (86bc) or Orchomenus (a year later), where vastly outnumbered roman legion thrashed the phalanx. -- (Mithridatic wars)

#1, from Livy (book 33 paragraph 10):

//
If we are to believe Valerius, who is given to boundless exaggeration, 40,000 of the enemy were killed and-here his invention is not so wild-5700 made prisoners and 249 standards captured. Claudius too writes that 32,000 of the enemy were killed and 4300 made prisoners. We have taken the smaller number, not because it is the smaller, but because we have followed Polybius, who is no untrustworthy authority on Roman history especially when the scene of it is in Greece.
//

"""""

OH MAGIC. Someone put in a thread about it.

And lastly.. looking at the chronology above; Perhaps I've been a bit harsh with my fellow forum members of
greek dispensation. Apologies for consistantly piling crap on you.

-- Dee

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 29 2006, 11:07 PM 

//
In that battle "one of the Roman tribunes took twenty maniples (a smaller division of the legion) and attacked the Macedonian right wing from behind".
//

I'm not 100% prepared to believe this.. it's fairly hard to position yourself behind the enemies line..
even at the best of times. I have asserted tacticly that the Roman's used holes created in the phalanx
line .. to create flanks for themselves.. and that this attack was such a tactic.

I've also asserted my belief that these holes .. where not merely created by uneven ground, poorly trained
or supported phalangites, suprise and other such reasons.. but also by frontal assault by the legions.

Legionary rows are easily re-inforceable.. phalanx are not. Once a row of phalangites are cut down there
is a hole in the line; because re-inforcement doesn't happen. I believe that these holes are what the Romans
took advantage of. Part of the whole tactic of the phalanx is to have everybody in the row.. to
increase the force generated in a thrust.

It's easy to imagine that these holes would greatly debilitate a phalanx column.. if Roman legionaries could get in there .. their attacks would be:

#1, Incredibly effective. (depending on the side, there is no shield cover for the phalanx).

#2, Reasonably safe. (in order for the phalanx to actually attack, they'd have to drop their spears and
fight with swords (which where in reality large daggers).

I believe that the order to drop their spears and engage with swords was likely as a result of this type of
situation eventuating. Imagine column split in two.. and furious attacks from both sides .. I'm sure they
would break fairly quickly.

As to wether or not it was forthought or not.. I beleive it's quite possible that this is what happened.

-- Dee

 
 
Anonymous
(Login dhp)
Imperium Europeum (Europe)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

June 29 2006, 11:14 PM 

//
Well... The shield of the legion (its most important weapon) was actually originated in rodes (talking about the design of the shield)

//

The shield was called the scutum.. from scutarii.. from the iberian scutartus.

Please post some further historical reference of it's origination from rhodes.

-- Dee

 
 

(Login arionas)
Hellenic Hoplites (Greece)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

March 20 2007, 12:12 PM 

havent found a link in the net for the rodos but i found one that shows the usage of this shield in an even older past thanks to the forumers in tis forum

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/shields4.htm and notice ajax's shield

 
 

(Login VorianGR)
Hellenic Hoplites (Greece)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

March 21 2007, 2:44 PM 

First of all it should be Roman Legion vs Hellenic army.

No conclusions can be drawn since Romans opposed Greeks in only a few major battles. Furthermore, the Hellenic states were in decline while Rome, though it hadn't reached its peak, was in a strong position. Most hellenic armies had too many fresh recruits and untrained men and poor cavalry, plus weak leadership.

In my opinion, a Macedonian army in ALexander's era, under a capable commander (no need for a genious), could win against a Roman with a commander of the same value.

 
 

Kallimachos
(Login Kallimachos)
Elite WAFF Vet Club

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

March 21 2007, 5:02 PM 

"In my opinion, a Macedonian army in ALexander's era, under a capable commander (no need for a genious), could win against a Roman with a commander of the same value."

The Spartan general smashed the Romans in North Africa, Phyrrus destroyed the Romans in two battles(albeit with many losses), Hannibal smashed every Roman army that marched against him in Europe especially at Cannae (8 double legions annihalated), and Spartacus (Greek slave) smashed legion after legion that was sent against him.






Hellas - Faster, Stronger, Better...the tide is turning!

 
 

(Login VorianGR)
Hellenic Hoplites (Greece)

Re: Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.

March 21 2007, 5:02 PM 

I found an interesting quote.

"The Romans were able to defeat them as easily as they did for two main reasons. One, the Roman army was at a high state of readiness and tactical prowess after defeating the Carthaginians. Two, the heavy cavalry arm of the Diadochoi armies had degenerated to the point where they were no longer able to field significant numbers to fulfill their part of the hammer and anvil tactic of Alexandros. There were also many lesser reasons, numbering among them the misuse of the Thureophoroi, the under use of Peltastai, and the lax state of warfare that the Diodachoi states were used to. In any case, the phalanx was not as anachronistic or inflexible as widely believed; it was simply misused and under-supported."

 
 
Current Topic - Macedonian Phalanx (any Phalanx really) VS Roman Legion.  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index