Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx

[RLucid]

Macedonia got rather urbanised after Alexander, which is more likely to have created problems with the supply of skilled horsemen. Ditto for the drain of such personnel off to the other Diadochi realms, which were willing to pay premium to any Hellene willing to fight for them - they never had enough to go around.

According to "Greek & Roman Warfare" John Drogo Montagu, and "Warfare in the Ancient World" Carey, Allfree & Cairns that is exactly true. The raising of large Cav armies required "huge tracts of land". Even the Huns initially Missile-Horse, became heavily Infranty based when they reached western Europe.

On the orginal question. It's a bit like asking, whether Cavalry or Chariots is "better". The flexibility of the Roman Legions, with part-missile maneuvable HI, fighting in a relatively open order (about every 6 foot with 3 foot between ranks), against standard 8 deep (but in 1 battle Thebans used 50 deep to defeats Spartans) all hunched together and creeping forward en-masse as a vast block of men. The Greeks evolved HI v HI battles, fought on their plains, on even ground because they "agreed" to even fight. Any defender could have a huge advantage in hills but then the attackers simply didn't fight there but lay waste to the small area of plains, forcing the defenders to offer battle on "fair" terrain.

Greek Phalanx v Roman maniples happened. Frontally the Phalanx spear tips bit into Roman shields and the soldiers are no threat. So they are forced to retreat, and suffer losses. So long as the battle field is flat and the phalanxes are unbroken, there's no weak spots to infiltrate. Then they move off the "prepared" battled field, and the phalanx hit broken terrain, gaps open up, and shield and gladius chew up the phalanxes, from within "units" by infiltration and on flanks of any break in lines.

How long does it take a barely competent Roman commander, to avoid a line v line static battle, and use light missile infantry for attrition, and maneuver to crumble a phalanx based army, piece by piece?

[pezhetairoi]

This debate is only dealing with half the issue, and as long it continues to deal with only half the issue, it will never be even close to satisfying.

As Parallel Pain has alluded to in his commentary on 'fairness', but not actually said outright, tactical power (which is all this debate is really about) is only the culmination of what must serve a greater and perhaps, more important function (depending on the situation/topography etc), strategic acumen. No amount of powerful tactics and formations will serve you well if you do not strategise well. Clausewitz divides the conduct of war into 4 levels: Grand strategy, strategy, grand tactics, and tactics. This debate must necessarily deal with at least the last three of the four, if not the first one also.

Tactics: Within each syntagma, or within each manipulo, it all hinges on how well the syntagmarch or the centurion handles his unit in direct combat against the enemy. A centurion who orders his manipulo into an all-out charge at what is obviously and indubitably a wall of sharp pointy sticks will no doubt be pwned, as might a syntagma who orders double-tight formation to receive a pila shower, or orders his men to raise their spears and adjust their armour to their comfort just five seconds before the manipulo arrives in its charge. Ordering pezhetairoi to retain their sarissa when assaulting Roman cities instead of switching to their peltast equipment set is plain idiotic.

Grand tactics: The actual concept of the battle plan decides how well the two systems will perform against each other. If the battle plan does not allow the phalanx to do its thing from a position conducive to it (Read: flat or at least unbroken ground) then it will lose. It's about recognising the strengths of each unit and dealing with it so that each can perform to the best of its ability. It's no longer really a simple matter of phalanx vs legion, but a matter of whose commander is better and is able to give the best conditions for his system to work. The clash of the two systems is only incidental to this clash of commanding wills.

Strategy: On this level, the actual parameters for combat (the meeting place for the battle) are decided by both sides as they manoeuvre for a ground of advantage. Just as the battle plan must allow each system to do its thing from a position conducive to it (as above), the strategic level is the one where the commander manoeuvres to get the chance to use a location where there are places he can allow each system its conducive place, in which will occur the individual phalanx and legionary units doing their own unitary thing. The phalanx and legion contest only colours the thinking here indirectly, though we do not deny that it is the final end product after all.

I think I can say that more engagements and battles in antiquity were won on the grand tactical and strategical level than on the tactical level. The question of whether the phalanx is better than the maniple can never be answered purely on the tactical level as Parallel Pain has already said, but must also be considered on the other levels as well, which underlie the engagements in which the two systems actually clash, the tip of the iceberg as it were.

In short: this whole debate is being a bit narrowminded, since we must consider the contest not in isolation, but with the various other, much broader factors that contribute to the 'fairness' and final result of the contest. Remember that fairness in combat is an impossibility. The objective of any military commander would be to make things as damned UNFAIR as possible for the other side.\




EDIT: Welcome to the Org, RLucid! What a good first post.

[Parallel Pain]

And that's why I proposed throwing them into a huge province instead.

[cmacq]

As Pezhetairoi so elegantly offers Polybius provides.

Please read

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...%3Aid%3Db18c31

[pezhetairoi]

Damn, I should have just saved myself the trouble. XD

BTW cmacq, you have just given me the exact site I have been searching for (not very skilfully)! I couldn't believe that no matter where I looked I couldn't find a copy of Polybius! Now my next dream is to find a version in greek so I can compare and cobble together some understanding of ancient greek.

I love you, cmacq. A balloon for you.

[pezhetairoi]

And that's why I proposed throwing them into a huge province instead.

Precisely, your argument was very good, I was only building on it. In other words, this debate is not about phalanx against maniple; it's about commander vs commander. And THAT is one whole lot more variable and flexible than the two systems can ever be.

Sorry for the double post... I was replying in two windows. (And don't ask why I had two windows open with the same thread) :\

[cmacq]

By your command.

Is this a bit of what you want?

XXXI.̣ Τισ ουν αιτια του νικαν Ρηομανιουσ και τι το σπηαλλον εστι τουσ τουσ ταισ πηαλανχι ξηρομενουσ; [2] ηοτι συμβαινει τον μεν πολεμον αοριστους εξηειν και τους καιρους και τους τοπους τους προς τεν ξηρειαν, τες δε πηαλανγος ηενα καιρον ειναι και τοπον ηεν γενος, εν ηοις δυναται τεν ηαυτες ξηρειαν επιτελειν. [3] ει μεν ουν τις εν ανανκε τοις αντιπαλοις εις τους τες πηαλανγος καιρους και τοπους συνκαταβαινειν, ηοτε μελλοιεν κρινεστηαι περι τον ηολον, εικος εν κατα τον αρτι λογον αει πηερεστηαι το προτειον τους ταις πηαλανχι ξηρομενους. [4] ει δε δυνατον εκκλινειν και τουτο ποιενιν ρηαιδιος, πος αν ετι πηοβερον ειε το προειρεμενον συνταγμα;


As I've addressed elsewhere, I wish EB could incorprate some of the more significant of these issues into their phalanx formations?

[pezhetairoi]

Uorgh. Now if only there was a place where the whole thing was available... I would then select 'tile windows vertically' and start reading and taking notes.

...I like the way Greek rolls of my tongue. It's also darnedly fun when I call up some Greek webpage while teaching my class (16-year-olds) and read fluently what it says. And they are like 'cool!' because it's a language they have never heard before.

...I didn't understand a word of it of course, because there wasn't anything about 'οπλιται anywhere there, but they were impressed enough that no one thought to ask me what it actually meant. XD

...We wish, but I suspect the thing we should be wishing should involve the hardcoding and the engine...

...

[RLucid]

The Phalanx is designed for frontal strength, even with the light infantry flank & rear guards of the Mac. Phalangists.

The manipular legion is a small self-contained combined arms unit. It is "articulated" capable of maneuver, and is armed with pila, as well as javelin skirmishers lightly armoured and fast moving.

Even the Mac. battles Phillip II (with Alexander commanding the Companion HC) show tactics to breach phalanxes, a planned retreat onto raised river banks, open up the gap for Alexander's cav, and then counter-attack; just as the hoplite phalanxes were about to be hit in the rear.

The development of oblique advances, refused flanks, just made Phalanxes too clumsy to use alone.

Philip II and Alexander, used light infantry missile units to bolster them, and that combined arms approach is why they cut through the Greeks & Persia. They didn't use Infantry or Cavalry alone, but supported each other.

The trend was towards lighter more mobile troops. Perhaps the AI in RTW accepts linear matchups, and will cooperate in impaling it's units on your spears, but against opponents who avoid that, and are faster moving with space to maneuver a phalanx poses zero threat. It's just too slow and unwieldy to catch them.

Phalanx armies, also took hours to deploy and organise, which is not what you want, against opponents capable of raiding camps and supply caravans.

[RLucid]

I think I can say that more engagements and battles in antiquity were won on the grand tactical and strategical level than on the tactical level. The question of whether the phalanx is better than the maniple can never be answered purely on the tactical level as Parallel Pain has already said, but must also be considered on the other levels as well, which underlie the engagements in which the two systems actually clash, the tip of the iceberg as it were.

In short: this whole debate is being a bit narrowminded, since we must consider the contest not in isolation, but with the various other, much broader factors that contribute to the 'fairness' and final result of the contest.

Like your post, and agree mostly. The combined synergistic effects of the sussessful Philip/Alexander style armies do seem to be underated. Later becoming lighter on cavalry and defeated by Roman Manipular based armies in the Macedonian wars, causing the Macs to switch themselves, so if lack of cavalry was the cause it simply was less practical than immitating the Roman Infantry style (inspired by the Iberians who'd themselves given Romans trouble and could have used Phalanxes if they'd been the most effective solution).

But, whilst grand strategy, ultimately determines the courses of wars, so long as communities could replace the losses, in reality...

On the day of a battle, someone had to win it. Hannibal, Alexander and Scipio Africanus would seek out every advantage they could, and ameliorate their weaknesses. But someone like Julius Caesar did rely on the strength and morale of his "boys" to win it for him. From accounts recorded, he was in genuine peril, on several occasions and could have failed. Perhaps he wanted to talk up the "gambling" aspect, rather than belittle his achievement by saying it was inevitable. More plausible in light of his two campaigns against the Britons, he just didn't excel as a grand strategist. Yet he was a rather successful commander, so grand strategy could not be all important.

As most communities, could not bear the destruction of their armies in the field, and conceeded the war, sueing for peace terms after decisive defeats; with the Romans being the notable, stubborn, unreasonable exception much to Hannibals discomfort.

The battlefield tactics and strategy, really did have a significant effect. Someone had to do it on the day.

There's instances of relatively low ranked Roman commander turning back some of the right wing, to turn the tide on the losing left flank, rather than pursueing routers with whole of victorious right. Thus turning an indecisive draw into a significant victory.

One of the main problems in RTW, is that you don't have any representation of the reality of supply trains, the army camps (apart for sieges of forts), and all the necessary logistical train required to keep a large army in the field. Sometimes armies had to redeploy to weaker positions, due to successful raids on their pack animals, to shorten lines of communication.

Without those details, armies will tend to be considered in isolation and so the focus is bound to be on battlefield tactics and strategy, rather than realistic campaign issues.

[Disciple of Tacitus]

One of the main problems in RTW, is that you don't have any representation of the reality of supply trains, the army camps (apart for sieges of forts), and all the necessary logistical train required to keep a large army in the field. Sometimes armies had to redeploy to weaker positions, due to successful raids on their pack animals, to shorten lines of communication.

Without those details, armies will tend to be considered in isolation and so the focus is bound to be on battlefield tactics and strategy, rather than realistic campaign issues.

@ All. Fascinationg conversation. I have a question, mostly related here. Given the above quotation from RLucid, how might one implement some of these "realistic campaign issues" in our own campaigns? My only idea at this point is that the field army would have to build a fort at the end of every turn whilst in enemy territory. After that idea (still don't know about it) - I can't think of anything.

Ideas?

[Parallel Pain]

Can't be done. The real problem that comes to mind is the game is turn based.

RLucid, I wouldn't call Caesar bad at any of the 4 areas. You talk about the British Campaign. He didn't do very well in that campaign.

But think during Gallic War and the Civil War. He was able to play the tribes against each other in the Gallic War so he can make each submit in turn. In the Civil War he went and cleared out Spain first to deprive Pompey of the province before moving on to Greece.
So yes Caesar also excelled as Grand Strategist.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

It's ironic that the phalanx needs flat, level ground to operate at it's best - and yet the phalanx was developed in Greece, one of the most mountainous lands in all of Europe.

Based on countries with flat land, You would have expected the Persians or the Carthaginians to have invented the phalanx, not the Greeks.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Now that is just outrageously wrong. Firstly, Rome was at war with Carthage during the first Macedonian war with Hannibal roaming the fields of Italy, and so couldn´t send a lot of troops to fight Phillip V. The only reason they even attacked him was because he´d made an alliance with Hannibal and had attacked some city´s allied to Rome and because they feared he might otherwise send reinforcements to Hannibal. They did send some minor forces under a Praetor and some ships, but almost all fighting was done by their Greek allies. Infact the Romans did achieve their goals with their war against Phillip, as he neither achieved contol over Greece or Illyria, nor did he send any help to Hannibal.

First of all - Philip won that war. He actually gained ground in Illyria, including major port at Lissos. His problem was that Macedon had no fleet and illyran lemboi were no match for Roman Quinquiremes. If Cartaginian fleet supported Philip, as was planned, they would crush romans and Philip would have pushed Romans from Greece.

The Second War was started after Rhodes and Pergamon begged their ally the Romans to stop Phillip after he had taken to many Greek colonies in Thrace and invaded Asia Minor. After some initial difficulties, he got his ass handed to him by Titus Quinctius Flamininus who kicked him out of Greece and forced all allies to abandon him, and then destroyed his final army at Cynoscephalae. Even after this and the subsequent peace treaty the Romans did not make Macedonia or Greece a province, and had soon evacuated the region.

Philip was never "kicked out of Greece" he had to abandon Aoos valley, and then he was too weak to defend anything except northern Thessaly. There was no other position where one Mak army could hold multiple roman groups using ships to travel around Greece at high speed.
Southern Greece abandoned Philip because he was not able to protect them against Roman terror tactics (plundering, burning, killing, cutting children in half ... etc)

Then Kynoskefalai... This battle is a prime example why Legion is superior...
Yeah, obviously. Formed and prepared for battle right wing of the phalanx kicked the roman ass in terrain that in theory should be completely unsuitable for them. Its a great achievement that romans were able to defeat unformed and not ready left wing...
and then suround and defeat Macedonians.
Romans were never, ever defeated in such situation...... Cannae anyone?

This battle was decided by weather and order that sent large portion of Mak troops out of camp to gather supplies. Had the weather been clear, there would be no battle on that day. Had the fog never cleared, the battle would not extend beyond light armed clashes.

besides it's possible that mak losses were gratly exagerated, Philip is reported to muster 6000 men next year, which is 2/3 of mak army from before the battle.

The Third Macedonian War started because Phillips son Perseus (that you seem to know of) disturbed the political balance in the area, and once again after some inital difficulties (the Romans seemsto have had intial difficulties in all their wars) they kicked his ass (the Romans seems to have done this in all their wars as well) at Pydna, whereafter Macedon was seperated into four republics that had to pay tribute to Rome.
In the 4th Macedonian war (anyone else getting tired of these?) Andriscus usurped the Macedonian throne and after some inital difficulties (again?) the Romans kicked his ass (suprise!) and finally got tired with the Macedons and made Macedonia a Roman province.
So, there you have it. A long post to prove a point that could just as easily have been proved in a single sentence. Hooray!

Perseus was almost succesful in recreating greek city league that would give him power to keep Romans out of Greece. Obviously they could not wait till it happen.
At Pydna something worked terribly wrong. Nothing is known about mak cavalry actions, about light armed etc. Yet phalanx did what they were supposed to do - pushed romans back. In fact success was too big and some units pushed too hard into roman formation, creating famous gaps. Had they be properly trained in full army maneuvre (like Philip II men) they would keep in line and crush Romans (or not... but the battle would be much more costly for Romans)

Andriskus wasn't usurping the throne, technicaly. Throne was empty so he just took it, and was accepted by Macedonians. He defeated pretor's army but was later defeated because "nobles" abandoned him (Available info makes this look like if it had been used as script for Bravehart). Difference is that those men were not really nobles - they owned their positon to Romans and their mass deportation of true nobles.

In EB elite phalanxes seem to ignore their biggest supposed weakness, flank/rear attacks... Every now and then you get to face single formations that are attacked from all directions (both flanks and rear, at least), and who then just turn to face the enemy and the formation doesn't disintegrate and morale doesn't drop as it should...

Elite phalanxes were not that easy to break. At Pydna 3000 men strong Agema of Macedonians fought to the last man despite flight of the king and rest of the army.

[Sarcasm]

It's ironic that the phalanx needs flat, level ground to operate at it's best - and yet the phalanx was developed in Greece, one of the most mountainous lands in all of Europe.

Based on countries with flat land, You would have expected the Persians or the Carthaginians to have invented the phalanx, not the Greeks.

You need flat land to fight the battle, but some rougher terrain to limit the actual strategic battlefield. Featureless plains were the bane of any pure heavy infantry army.

[General Appo]

O´ETAIPOS, you seem so in love with the Maks and phalanxes that you forget one thing. The Romans won! So, I have history on my side.

[hellenes]

O´ETAIPOS, you seem so in love with the Maks and phalanxes that you forget one thing. The Romans won! So, I have history on my side.

So by this explain why the legion dissapeared of the face of earth while phalanx returned triumphant (and even ERE readopted phalanx as the Kontaratoi pikemen)....???? And dominated the battlefields up until 18th century?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh, dear. Here we go again.

[Vorian]

O´ETAIPOS, you seem so in love with the Maks and phalanxes that you forget one thing. The Romans won! So, I have history on my side.

Well the Romans did fight an impoverished state that could only field levies and too few cavalry. Macedonian phalanx was not created to act alone but to hold while the cavalry wins the day.

The ironic thing is that if Greeks had reverted to the classical hoplite phalanx to fight the Romans they would have done much better.

[cmacq]

What, no Parista Albannius Muy Maximus?

[Watchman]

It's ironic that the phalanx needs flat, level ground to operate at it's best - and yet the phalanx was developed in Greece, one of the most mountainous lands in all of Europe.

Based on countries with flat land, You would have expected the Persians or the Carthaginians to have invented the phalanx, not the Greeks.

Well, it's not like either the Greeks or their Makedonian cousins had much need for the mountains... everything valuable (like decent arable land) was in the lowlands after all.

The Persians had no shortage of rugged terrain to deal with the last I saw, and I don't really see where the Carthies were particularly better off either. I mean, their areas of interest ? Northern Africa, Iberia, the western and central Mediterranean islands - none of them overly flat land...

[Mindaros]

Yeah, one shouldn't look for the causes for a certain way of fighting merely in geography, but also in the society from which the soldiers came.

[hellenes]

Well the Romans did fight an impoverished state that could only field levies and too few cavalry. Macedonian phalanx was not created to act alone but to hold while the cavalry wins the day.

The ironic thing is that if Greeks had reverted to the classical hoplite phalanx to fight the Romans they would have done much better.

Except that Romans took the Hellenes hands down...apart from Makedonian Hellenes of course....

[abou]

O´ETAIPOS, you seem so in love with the Maks and phalanxes that you forget one thing. The Romans won! So, I have history on my side.

That is a very weak argument... very weak. It ignores actual study of the battles to see how the phalanx performed and under what circumstances. In all the major examples of Rome v. Hellenistic power, Rome wins by some extreme stroke of luck; not by being somehow superior to the phalanx.

[Woreczko]

This is the same, as arguing, that barbarians overran Roman Empire due to set of extremely lucky events. The only objective measure, by which we can measure the "values" of different military machines are wars and battles. Face it, the quality of military systems depends on much more than armaments and tactics (in which fields Rome was >>> barbabrians, yet it still fell prey to them).

[Watchman]

Yeah, one shouldn't look for the causes for a certain way of fighting merely in geography, but also in the society from which the soldiers came.

And above all what exactly they fought over/for and why, and with what resources.

[abou]

This is the same, as arguing, that barbarians overran Roman Empire due to set of extremely lucky events. The only objective measure, by which we can measure the "values" of different military machines are wars and battles. Face it, the quality of military systems depends on much more than armaments and tactics (in which fields Rome was >>> barbabrians, yet it still fell prey to them).

So then how would you explain the performance of the phalanx at Kynoskephalai, Thermopylai, Magnesia, and Pydna?

[General Appo]

Oh come on, can´t we just agree that the Romans won. And yeah, saying "In all the major examples of Rome v. Hellenistic power, Rome wins by some extreme stroke of luck" is ridicolous, that´s like saying that the Persians were a lot better then Makedonia in ever way and Alexander only won because some extreme strock of luck. Face it, the Romans won, and if you don´t think they deserved to win, then fine, but they still won.
And the degradation is use of the legion was more because external changes (social ones as well as other changes in general warfare) then the inherent bad quality of the legion as a fighting force.

[Watchman]

Except that Romans took the Hellenes hands down...apart from Makedonian Hellenes of course....

In most cases AFAIK, said Hellenes found it preferable to bend knee to the Romans rather than the Maks - or any other Hellenes for that matter.

[Obelics]

saying "In all the major examples of Rome v. Hellenistic power, Rome wins by some extreme stroke of luck" is ridicolous

Im agree on that, and i see some partisanery, from a pair of eb members that wasn't expected...