Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx

[Olimpian]

So history has proven the legion to be superior to the phalanx.But from what I have read,this was more due to other factors than military ones:lack of native greek population to serve in the army(hence superior numbers for the Romans),mediocre commanders that relied too much solely on the phalanx and didn't support it properly with cavalry(the hammer to the phalanxe's anvil) and flakers,lack of proper military training and drilling,etc.Still,Pyrrhus managed to defeat the Romans in "pyrrhic victories"(although the Romans suffered more casualties than him-from what I've read-but his were not easily replaceable).This leads me to think that the phalanx could defeat the Roman war machine if in the proper hand and supported by enough heavy cavalry to dominate the flanks and other supporting infantry like more mobile hoplites,spearmen or peltasts.Had Alexander fought against the Romans,I think he would have "hammer-and-anvil"ed 'em to their deaths,since the Romans had little cavalry or supporting troops,so their maniples would have been easy-pickings.
So,what do you guys think,in a historical "fair fight",phalanx or maniple?
(PS Sorry for the long post)

[Long lost Caesar]

Phalanx. As long as the troops were well trained, fresh and supported they could keep almost any enemy at bay, but it's like you said; Greek commanders relied too much on the phalanxes and forgot that they needed support=Roman conquest.

[Torvus]

Definately the Phalanx. I've always thought that Alexander could have done very well for himself if he went west instead of east.

[Korlon]

I would think that given enough cavalry support, the Phalanx could've done very well against the Romans. The Phalanx was very susceptible to uneven terrain though, so surely it would depend on whether it was a flat field or some rocky region, as the Romans were very flexible troops. Given the weak cavalry the Romans had, surely the Macedonian ones could rout their counterparts and be able to support the flanks of the Phalanx better than it was in history. This is, however, somewhat wishful thinking, but since we're going all out, I'd say that the Phalanx could definitely defeat the Roman Maniple if they were fighting in their prime.

[General Appo]

I´d go with the phalanx, but the great thing about history is that there was never ever a "fair fight". The Romans took advantage of the weak state of the Hellenes, and conquered those puny spear-wielders.

[CaesarAugustus]

Maniples. I am just not comfortable with the idea of slow moving, unmaneuverable blocks of men who are weak on three sides, and need flat, unborken ground to operate efficiently. If I could make one adjustment, however, I would have additional cavalry support for my maniples, which is what i often do in-game when facing a cavalry heavy enemy.

[anubis88]

Well, at Magnesia the Seleucid's did have quite a balanced army, and a pretty good general....:smash:

[General Appo]

Remember, we´ve got to make a difference between "Which one is better in a fair fight?" and "Could Alexander have kicked Roman ass?.
To the first one, I´d say the Phalanx, to the second, I´d say no, if we say that the Romans were in the state they were a few years after the Second Punic War, then Alexander would have lost. Remember, Alexander only needed to win a few battles to bring the entire Persian Empire crumbling down, Hannibal won just as many and great victories and but the Legions never stopped coming. Just look at Pyrrhos, he defeated the Romans in battles, but they didn´t go down on all four and beged for mercy just because of that, and so he got so shocked he moved to Sicily and the much more reasonable Carthaginians. Heck, Pyrrhos even had Elephants to suppoer the phalanx, what did Alexander have? Some Companion Cavalry, a bunch of Agrinians and a couple of thousand other various support troops, all nothing against a few dozen of Indian Elephants. Roma Invicta,

Sorry if I´m a bit offensive and dumbening things down a bit, but I´m tired, I´m pissed (not at any of you of course) and I think I might be intoxicated.

[LordCurlyton]

Well, at Magnesia the Seleucid's did have quite a balanced army, and a pretty good general....:smash:
QFT. I'd have to stick with the maniple, especially once you hit Augustan times. If the Hellenic states had not bled themselves dry they could definitely have hurt the Romans a lot more as phalanx warfare IS a very viable form but Western Europe is not quite as flat as going eastwards, and the locals tend to favor more unconvential forms of warfare. I believe the Alexander would probably have beaten any period Roman army thrown at him but would have eventually suffered the same fate as Hannibal. And if he didn't and managed to effectively subdue the Romans, well there's always the Iberians, Celts, and Germans, all of whom I don't doubt would gladly have used skirmish warfare to its utmost.
Now, if we're just talking your average legion vs your average phalanx army, with commanders of roughly average skill and knowledge on both sides, I give a coin toss to the battle. It would depend on whose flanks broke first, really. While the Romans may not have had much cavalry, its not like they didn't have any, and they didn't hesitate on using their allies to provide support troops. As long as the cavalry can check the Successor cavalry long enough for infantry to swarm it, then the legion wins in all likelihood. If the Successor cavalry can swiftly defeat the Romans then the phalanx army will win. But a maniple will be able to stand up to a pike push long enough for these things to matter.
Wow, I've rambled on and I'm still not sure whether I've said anything useful:sweatdrop:.

[Ayce]

I'd go with Phalanx, but I've broken many Greek Phalanxes easily by picking their flanks or by forcing them to raise their spears, that's why I use these guys, better at sword combat:

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/getai/getai_komatai_thorakitai_s.gif

[machinor]

Regarding Alexander having problems with western Europe terrain and persistent Romans... always remember, that Alexander conquered the region of later Baktria (today's Afghanistan) and subdued the very tough resistance there which would be comparable to what he'd have had to face in the west.
Pyrrhos was simply to impatient to fight the war against the Romans to the bitter end. He wanted quick and total victories. The famous Pyrrhic Victory is a product of Roman propaganda for the major part. Sure, he got losses, but Epeiros was not that far away. So his resupply situation was not that worse than the Roman one. Plus, the Romans needed trained troops, too. It's not liek they were born soldiers. The warwinning discipline and moral of the Romans was the result of training.
Hannibals unability to win his war was mostly because of his disastrous logistical situation. He was basically on his own in enemy territory with almost no supply lines. If you take that into your consideration, than it is astonishing how long he managed to keep on campaigning and winning battles one after another.
Coming back to Alexander: A commander with Alexander's persistence and tactical and strategical ability, combined with his superior logistical situation would've had quite a good change of reducing the memory of Rome to that of some obscure regional power that got wiped out without any greater problems.

But as usual in what-would-have-been-if-discussions, it's all pure speculation.

[TruePraetorian]

Maniple. First off, you have to account for the tremendous Morale of the Romans. If that wasnt enough, their lines would out-last the greeks due to their more professional nature.

Legion vs Alexander, though, would lead to many Alexander victories at first. Notice I said at first. The romans were well known to adapt to any situation: Reforming the military to fight phalanxs would have been done very quickly. Therefore, I suspect that after a few Greek victorys, the romans would turn the tide and ultimatley defeat the greeks.

[Watchman]

:inquisitive: ...might I inquire what "professional" there was about the militia system the Romans created the power-base of their empire with...?

[LordCurlyton]

Oh no not again........*whimper*

[pezhetairoi]

Phalanx without doubt. Alex's pezhetairoi were trained in all arms of combat--swordfighting, javelin throwing, sarissa play. But the phalanx that the Romani faced in the Makedonian wars were really some kind of pantodapoi phalangitai in terms of stats, minus the AP ability. In short, hopeless without their sarissae. It was never a fair fight. There were always extenuating circumstances, you could argue.

But there are signs enough that if they were fighting on ground of their own choosing, and the phalanx was made of Alex's pre-Granicus troops, that would already have been enough to prove the phalanx victorious. Even at Kynoskephalai, the formed phalanx on the (left? right?) wing forced the Romani right back down the hill. At Pydna, on their flat ground the Romani and Pelignani couldn't break through the phalanx and took heavy losses just trying to break through the hedge.

But of course, the phalanx is ever vulnerable to outflanking, however frighteningly elite they are. Hence we must consider the fact that the phalanx requires support in order to form a balanced battle line. The legion, on the other hand, is a self-contained force unto itself.

EDIT: Heh, why that response, Lord Curlyton? XD

[antisocialmunky]

Maniple. Divide and conquer doesn't work very well with all phalanx armies.

[pezhetairoi]

True, hence I say drawback of the phalanx army is that it is strictly not standalone, and that it is strictly defensive. But in defence, of course, it is brilliant.

[Gaivs]

Funny thing is, my Pursuit of Empire, Philip Alexander and Rome course, the essay topic is; "The Roman legion is a far superior fighting machine than the Macedonian Phalanx. Evaluate and discuss."

I raised several major themes.
1, Roman Flexibility
2, Lack of sufficient Cavalry for Macedonians
3, Evolution due to lack of cavalry, Phalanx turning into an attack instead of defensive role when it was under Alexander
4, Roman determination
5, Roman Political and Military institution

I obviously talk about other things, and expand on those points majorly, but to boil it down, you cant blame Macedonia as having a poor commander. Philip V was quite capable and had already won many battles until he faced the Romans. Phyrros was perhaps the best general since Alexander, yet he still could not defeat the Romans. Also id like to add, Rome was not Rome when Alexander conquered the east, if he went west he would have crushed it like any other tiny city state. However, the Rome after the Punic wars would have abolutely and easily annhilated Alexander in battle. He had what...One main army? The Romans, according to Polybius, had over 700 000 men able to serve in the legions.
Id like to note, The Macedonian style Phalanx, was undefeated in battle by any other type of army until Cynoscephelae. That is too say, the only defeats ever suffered by a Macedonian Phalanx, were inflicted upon them by another Macedonian Phalanx, until the Romans defeated them.

[Gaivs]

By the way, read Polybius on the Phalanx. I have included it here.

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.

[Ibrahim]

:sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop:
reeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllllly long post; very insightful.

[LordCurlyton]

Heh, why that response, Lord Curlyton? XD
Oh you know...past threads and all. I'm sure you can find or know of which ones I speak of.:clown:

[The General]

By the way, read Polybius on the Phalanx. I have included it here.

The Histories, Book XVIII, Chapters 28-32:

...

Thanks for that, was a very nice read. :yes:

[keravnos]

I say Pyrrhos' evolved phallanx that he used to defeat the Romani at Asklo/Asculum.

You can't get better than maniples (samniti maniples at that) interjected with taxeis of phallangites.

Makedonian phallanx was just a solid block of phallangites. Pyrrhos changed that. Hadn't the Carthaginians come to the rescue of the Romani, when they invaded Sicily, things that we all take pretty much for granted might not have been quite as such.

[NeoSpartan]

When MP is fixed in EB 1.1... we can actually test it. :yes:

[Olimpian]

Thanks for the read Gaivs,very interesting,and everyone for your sustained opinions.It seems many people see the great potential of the phalanx,and also its drawbacks and missuse.I always like to use "what if?"s when looking back on ancient warfare(although many say history and "what if?"s are not good friens),and this is one of them.Like WW2 or other such major events,the rise of the Roman Empire was one of the main moments in history,and I often think what a world dominated by a Greek Empire would have led to...

BTW,I find Pyrrhus' army composition(from Wikipedia) of 20.000 infantry(phalanx and others I suppose),3.000 cavalry,2000 archers,500 slingers and of course his elephats to be very similar to the proportions of what my armies look like.So could this be the ideal composition of an effective phalanx?

[The General]

When MP is fixed in EB 1.1... we can actually test it. :yes:
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...

[CCPAirborne]

Remember, we´ve got to make a difference between "Which one is better in a fair fight?" and "Could Alexander have kicked Roman ass?.
To the first one, I´d say the Phalanx, to the second, I´d say no, if we say that the Romans were in the state they were a few years after the Second Punic War, then Alexander would have lost. Remember, Alexander only needed to win a few battles to bring the entire Persian Empire crumbling down, Hannibal won just as many and great victories and but the Legions never stopped coming. Just look at Pyrrhos, he defeated the Romans in battles, but they didn´t go down on all four and beged for mercy just because of that, and so he got so shocked he moved to Sicily and the much more reasonable Carthaginians. Heck, Pyrrhos even had Elephants to suppoer the phalanx, what did Alexander have? Some Companion Cavalry, a bunch of Agrinians and a couple of thousand other various support troops, all nothing against a few dozen of Indian Elephants. Roma Invicta,

Sorry if I´m a bit offensive and dumbening things down a bit, but I´m tired, I´m pissed (not at any of you of course) and I think I might be intoxicated.
No offense taken of course, and I'm all for precious Rome just like you, but yeah, Hannibal could've won. He just decided not to take the city of Rome itself because he thought he could just make the Romans settle for a treaty that acknowledged the Carthaginians were superior.

[Ayce]

I raised several major themes.
1, Roman Flexibility
2, Lack of sufficient Cavalry for Macedonians
3, Evolution due to lack of cavalry, Phalanx turning into an attack instead of defensive role when it was under Alexander
4, Roman determination
5, Roman Political and Military institution



But the topic was related to a fair fight between maniples, or a maniple army, and a phalanx or a phalanx army. Both having the same professionalism and similarly able commanders. In that case, I'll take the phalanx, but the drawback is the cost of arming the phalanxes which is greater than the cost of arming maniples.

[Ludens]

No offense taken of course, and I'm all for precious Rome just like you, but yeah, Hannibal could've won. He just decided not to take the city of Rome itself because he thought he could just make the Romans settle for a treaty that acknowledged the Carthaginians were superior.
We don't know why he didn't attack Rome, but it may have been for a better reason than you attribute to him. His army wouldn't have been in top shape after Cannae, and as the following years were to prove, the Romans were still capable of creating more legions. Hannibal also lacked siege equipment, and IIRC Rome was too big to invest properly, so he may well have been incapable of taking it.

[Watchman]

Plus the Roman survivors of Cannae - including quite a large part of the cavalry - were busily reorganising not too far away.

Trying to march off to take a major city located smack in the middle of the enemy heartlands, with an exhausted army and a beaten but still active enemy field army in the vicinity, doesn't exactly sound like the recipe for a succesful operation IMHO. Likely didn't sound to Hannibal either.

[Parallel Pain]

Agreed, Watchman

I say maniple and I will now say why

What exactly is a fair "fight"? A fair "battle" certainly does not exist and for the following reasons:
Grounds:
Putting elevation aside, fighting on flat plain is advantageous to the phalanx so it's not fair for the Romans. Fighting in woods is disadvantageous to the phalanx so it's not fair for them.

Fighting style:
No really who will come out on top. Like good old Polybius said, a Roman maniple can fight by itself without support, while a phalanx can't. If a Roman maniple meet a phalanx even in the open, it'll just surround the phalanx and chuck their pila at the phalanx rear and then fall on their rear too. Heck a phalanx can't even beat skirmishers alone. Remember the traditional hoplite that lacked maneuerability? The Romans got kicked by who were they the samnites or something when they used the hoplite. To match the samnite's maneuverbility the Romans went maniple and changed equipments. The phalanx is even less maneuverable than the hoplite and you expect them to win?
So you can say "well it's not fair, the Romans broke their traditional formation and fought in a wierd style." Well firstly, fighting IN formation is advantageous to the phalanx so not fair for the Romans. Secondly, it's something they easily could have done if they came upon a phalanx 1 on 1. Thirdly, it is likely they did just that in tiny skirmishes against phalanx stupid enough to leave their army.

So you might say "we're talking about army"
Ok let's say we're talking about army vs army.

As I had experienced myself from hours of looking at the EB map to figure out a good maneuvering strategy for my AAR (novel), maneuvering is 80% of the battle in pre-modern times during and after the Peloponnesian War in Europe and after the Spring and Automn period in the far east, and who knows when in middle east. Before these periods armies said "It's war. Ok let's meet somewhere and fight" and met and fought (not counting the Persian invasion). After it (and also during the Peloponnesian War) it's "It's war. Ok let's go find a pass or a hill or something."
Now we have maneuvering. Armies had problems even finding each other, and they most certainly were not obliged to fight whenever an enemy nears as they had been before by the rules of war. If your side found themselves is an unstuable situation or can find an even more advantageous one, and the enemy is far away that they can't fall on your back, there's no reason you can't just march to somewhere else.
As battles are now not decided by fighting but by seeing who can outmarch each other and get the best ground, who will win? A phalanx army who can fight in 1/10 grounds and win or the maniple who can win in 9/10 grounds?

If we were to give to two Alexanders, both having equal experience with both forms of fighting, an equally sized army respectively. Then we throw them in a provice in which there's two cities one at each end of the province and these are the base of the two armies operations. This province shall be land-locked and have equal amounts of all types of grounds scattered all over the place and of course towns farming villages and the such. Now we have a fair fight, a fair CAMPAIGN.

Like Polybius said, to even avoid a defeat the phalanx army need to stick to a flat plain, in which case the maniple army will simply fan out and take towns and cut the supply line of the phalanx army or even take the city (and maniple is better at sieges too). If the phalanx army try to disperse to prevent it, then we end up with the 1 vs 1 situation we have already seen above.

Remember war is not just about tactics. In fact tactics is probably the least important part of war. It is just the flashiest. We have to remember strategy and logistics, both of which plays a larger role. As Theodore Dodge said: "Ammateurs study tacitcs. Experts study logistics."

So after we remember that we can look again. And really? Who's better?

[brymht]

It would depend ENTIRELY on who chose the battleground. The Romans had a huge example, in that thier formations were far more flexpible than anything else out there. Also, their command structure was modern; ie thier cohort and centurions could make command decissions. This was far more important than the makeup of thier troops.

If the Maniples set the battleground on their terms, they would win in a walk. If the MAcedonians set a perfect place held battle on a level plain with no hills and no ability to be outflanked with standard infantry and not levies, they win in a walk.

However, given the historical situation, the Romans won precisely because thier commanders were too smart to allow a battle to be fought on macedonian terms.

[antisocialmunky]

I would rather think it being the Successor's ineptitudes.

[Watchman]

Methinks it's generally bad analytical form to just blame one side of being categorical morons. Tends to cut corners way too much, lead to quite false conclusions, and generally be made of bore and fail.

It's rather that the maniple was based on the idea that the heavy infantry would be the decisive combat arm, and require appropriate arrangements. The phalanx, conversely, was a defensive suport arm whose job was to pin the enemy infantry in place for the cavalry to destroy - at which it was indeed extremely good, but at the price of over-specialisation.

The problem was, at least the western Successors started running short of heavy cavalry to deliver the hammer blow with and had to try adapting the phalanx into doing the decisive-attack role too, with the well-known mixed results...

'Course, I also kind of loathe these "which was better" sorts of discussions.

[antisocialmunky]

in·ept /ɪnˈɛpt, ɪˈnɛpt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-ept, i-nept] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment; maladroit: He is inept at mechanical tasks. She is inept at dealing with people.
2. generally awkward or clumsy; haplessly incompetent.
3. inappropriate; unsuitable; out of place.
4. absurd or foolish: an inept remark.


I guess what I said, though it sounds harsh in retrospect, wasn't trying to paint the Successors as morons. I was refering to the fact that on several occasions, something went horribly wrong that could have otherwise been prevented.

The way I see it with the knowledge that I have is that when it came down to it, atleast in the Macedonian Wars, something usually went wrong with the Macedonian command and control rather than the legions being able to trump the Phalanx.

It seems to me to depend more on the commanders, location, and luck than the method of fighting. Though granted, the Phalanx isn't the most flexible thing in the world.

[Watchman]

Well, it was rather specialised. It rather excelled at the job it was designed to do, but as usual with special-purpose weapon systems, wasn't too hot at many others and seriously sucked at some.

The maniple - itself adopted to improve the versatility of Roman heavy infantry - was something of a do-everything "jeep" in comparision. Naturally enough it had major trouble with the pike phalanx in a straight head-on clash, for that was something the latter had specifically been designed to be a very hard nut at; but it could also perform well in circumstances the pikemen were all but useless, and carry out a lot more diverse tactical roles and assignements without any real drop in effectiveness. For most of such purposes the phalangites either had to convert to a different equipement kit (in the case they were cross-trained for such operations), thus becoming something other than pike phalangites, or leave the matter to other troops.

Put short, the pike phalanx did a few particular things very well; the maniple did a lot of things at least passably. Which really just underlines the difference of their original roles in their respective tactical paradigms.

As for the Successor leadership, well, that's monarchy for you basically. You get what manages to reach the throne alive. :sweatdrop:

[antisocialmunky]

However, given the historical situation, the Romans won precisely because thier commanders were too smart to allow a battle to be fought on macedonian terms.


Well, I wasn't trying to comment on the weapon systems involved.

The main comment I was objecting to was to was that: The implicaiton that the Romans were smarter than the Greeks. The way I would say that would be:


However, given the historical situation, the Romans won precisely because the enemy was willing to let a battle be fought on unfavorably ground.

All things being equal, I prefer a balanced between simplicity and reliability.

[Parallel Pain]

munky the first one sounds like the Romans are smart and the second one sounds like the Greeks are dumb

And again what's favourable to one side is not to the other, just that the phalanx has only one favourable ground while the maniple (if fighting the phalanx) has nine so it's obviously much easier for a maniple army to force a battle on grounds unfavourable for the phalanx.

[Watchman]

Well the Romans had picked up the maniple for a reason. ~;) You want to get anywhere far in Italy, you need troops capable of handling broken terrain decently. Bit different pressures from, say, Hellas, where the geostrategic logic was another.

Sort of like how if you're heading for the steppes, better take lots of archers and cavalry with you.

[antisocialmunky]

munky the first one sounds like the Romans are smart and the second one sounds like the Greeks are dumb

And again what's favourable to one side is not to the other, just that the phalanx has only one favourable ground while the maniple (if fighting the phalanx) has nine so it's obviously much easier for a maniple army to force a battle on grounds unfavourable for the phalanx.

Well, I don't think that it was prudent to run like hell and leave your army to fend for itself like Perseus or leave the field with the battle half finished like Antiochus III. :inquisitive:


The Macedonians fought the Romans to a near standstill during the early wars with Rome. It was pretty much a strategic stalemate for a very long time during the Macedonian Wars to my understanding. In my opinion, it seems that the political situation contibuted to Roman victory as much as flexibility did.

[Sarcasm]

Also, their command structure was modern; ie thier cohort and centurions could make command decissions. This was far more important than the makeup of thier troops.

It's not about being modern or not. The nature of their formations directly imparts on their command structure. You can't expect Makedonian-style phalanx to have the same autonomy or divide at the same level maniples did - the whole point of the pike block is to maintain the formation as to become impregnable. This is where the whole issue on Romanized infantry formations might reside; an armoured infantryman with a large shield, helmet, sword and javelin already existed in Hellenistic armies, so the answer might lie in a doctrine change instead.

[russia almighty]

Though, I do wonder if the Make phalanx could have been used offensively. Considering how effective the Swiss and their blocks were at stabbing **** to death on the move, makes me wonder what a Make Pike line trained like that could do.

[antisocialmunky]

If you're talking about pushing/advancing, Pydna is an example of that as well as the Epeirote's campaign in Italy.

[Ibrahim]

about which is better: does it really matter in the end?
it really depends-they're all balanced in the end for what they were meant to do. supriority/inferiority are relative matters:yes:

[machinor]

Aaah, a very diplomatic conclusion, Ibrahim. So is this dispute settled? Because then we could turn to far more urgent disputes like:

- Who's better: legionaires or ninjas?? Were the Arcani introduced after Roman legions taking a beating from ninjas battaillons?!
- Would the Roman maniples have beaten pirates?? Even if they would have been lead by Ghengis Khan?!
- How come, neither the Carthaginians nor the Greek empires demanded a patch to balance the Uber-Killer-Massacre-Legionaires??

[Ayce]

You forgot:

-And why isn' the Lorica Segmentata present in EB? :eeeek:

[Ibrahim]

Aaah, a very diplomatic conclusion, Ibrahim. So is this dispute settled? Because then we could turn to far more urgent disputes like:

- Who's better: legionaires or ninjas?? Were the Arcani introduced after Roman legions taking a beating from ninjas battaillons?!
- Would the Roman maniples have beaten pirates?? Even if they would have been lead by Ghengis Khan?!
- How come, neither the Carthaginians nor the Greek empires demanded a patch to balance the Uber-Killer-Massacre-Legionaires??

I didn't say it was settled-I just said that's my opinion

[General Appo]

The Macedonians fought the Romans to a near standstill during the early wars with Rome. It was pretty much a strategic stalemate for a very long time during the Macedonian Wars to my understanding.

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.
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.
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!

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

A phalanx-based army is theoretically invincible. But the phalanx could never win on its own. It needs flank protection and the so called hammer, the heavy cavalry. And, most important, it needs an able commander who is capable of making the right decisions.

The maniple can do everything on its own. They are not very vulnerable to flanking. They don't need an able commander. They can even cope with an idiot as a commander. They don't need to be babysat.

The phalanx is theoretically superior, but practically inferior.

Does anybody know why the Makedonians abandoned their equestric traditions and couldn't field a heavy cavalry any more?

[Ludens]

I say Pyrrhos' evolved phallanx that he used to defeat the Romani at Asklo/Asculum.

(...)

Makedonian phallanx was just a solid block of phallangites. Pyrrhos changed that. Hadn't the Carthaginians come to the rescue of the Romani, when they invaded Sicily, things that we all take pretty much for granted might not have been quite as such.
How would this have worked? Wouldn't the Romans simply focus on the Samnite maniples and leave the phalanxes alone? If the Samnites broke, it would have been easy to flank the phalanxes. If the phalanx moved moved forward, it would have exposed its flank. If the phalanx tried to assist the samnites, it would also have also exposed its flank. I have trouble visualizing how phalanxes could have contributed to this.

[Ibrahim]

How would this have worked? Wouldn't the Romans simply focus on the Samnite maniples and leave the phalanxes alone? If the Samnites broke, it would have been easy to flank the phalanxes. If the phalanx moved moved forward, it would have exposed its flank. If the phalanx tried to assist the samnites, it would also have also exposed its flank. I have trouble visualizing how phalanxes could have contributed to this.

you are right about the flank issues; Antiochos III did the same and paid for it at Magnesia

that said, push away the *cough* samniti? you heard of what the samniti did to the romani at the Caudine forks? It's more likely for the Samniti to push the romani away than vice-versa.:yes:
besides, the idea was to individualize the phalanxes; i.e every phalanx has it's own flankers, giving more flexibility.

[Watchman]

...and more to the point, in the nigh-inevitable instance it gets "out of line" relative to the other sub-units it has flank-guards from the start.

[cmacq]

Does anybody know why the Makedonians abandoned their equestric traditions and couldn't field a heavy cavalry any more?

Phillip started the tradition as he got his Steppe breeding stock by way of Thracian middlemen. He quickly developed a huge herd. This was the basis for the Mako-cavalry taken into Persia, never to return. It seems the breeding herd remained in Makedonia to some extent afterwards, yet the Thracians and their economy was tossed on its head (hugely disrupted) by the Keltic invasion of the Balkans in the early 3rd century. This cut in access to the steppe horses may have had something to do with the Makedonian problem.

[Watchman]

Eh, by what I've read of it the Maks had been just about the most cavalry-heavy bunch of Hellenes since the year Stick, only rivaled by their Thessalian neighbours who similarly pursued a pastoral economy on a sort of mini-steppe. Before Philip devised the whole phalangite idea (probably from the Iphicratean "peltast-hoplite" concept), their armies basically consisted of a hard core of aristocratic feudal cavalry and lots and lots of poor-ass psiloi, the kind of "middle class" that furnished the heavy infantry of the southern urban areas being virtually nonexistent in the society.

I understand 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.

[Sarcasm]

The Chalkidian peninsula was already riddled with cities, mostly Athenian colonies actually. There was a war between Makedonia and Athens just prior to Philip's invasion of the South. They probably could have supplied a large part of their first heavy infantry in the form genuine hoplites.

[antisocialmunky]

...and more to the point, in the nigh-inevitable instance it gets "out of line" relative to the other sub-units it has flank-guards from the start.

I've been thinking about it it but does anyone know how they managed to form and keep cohesive long lines?

I would imagine it would involve some sort of visual system like each command group has a big flag or marker so the commanders could try and keep all the flags lined up or something. I doubt they waited until the guys on the right started getting stabbed in the sides to figure out whether they were in line or not.

[Watchman]

They didn't, really, AFAIK. At Gaugamela the Persians got an entire cavalry squadron through a gap that had appeared in the disjointed phalanx line...

...and that one was on level ground. Heck, the Persians had even smoothed out any major bumps beforehand for their scythed chariots.

[cmacq]

Eh, by what I've read of it the Maks had been just about the most cavalry-heavy bunch of Hellenes since the year Stick, only rivaled by their Thessalian neighbours who similarly pursued a pastoral economy on a sort of mini-steppe.

The year Stick? Come again?


Another quickone.

Craven upon wooden doors were scenes,
for every single eye these knotted images.
Where noble hounds devoured lesser dogs,
graven of whom strayed too far from home.

I must be getting well?

[Watchman]

Would the Sausage Wars make a better point of reference ? ~;p

[cmacq]

Sorry...
I was unfortunately reminded just how very sick I still am.

Right, the year stick...

a stick is straight with no branches, ergo the year one, as it is also straight; or the beginning of time?

Thus, we have the northern dark age noble Dorian horse, indeed. At year strick, by your reckoning, relatively small, weak, and used in pairs to pull the light two-man chariot of the day. By the Classical Period their horse much better than those in Greece proper whom by this time had all but given them up for Lent, yet still hand-me-downs from Thrace.

Phillip 2's new gold mines may have bought more than just merc muscle; maybe high quality horse on-the-hoof. Ever notice the plethora of big horses on Phillip's many new gold coins. I believe that Phillip's acquisition of a large steppe type breeding herd was a two fold strategy. First, and foremost he tied the Mako aristocracy directly to his house in Pella. Second, he provided the hammer or deceive arm for his new model army.

Crazy talk I know, it must be the fever?

[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/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%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. :balloon:

[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. :dizzy2:

[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.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


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]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


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...

[Cybvep]

The thing that sucks is the fact that in RTW phalanx formation is very poorly represented. It can be very easy to control and has much better maneuvering capabilities than in real life - it's possible to turn 180 degrees in 2 seconds! Also, on RTW engine it's much easier to defend than to attack. You can just sit with phalanx and wait for the enemy - nothing will destroy you. In sieges it's even worse - just block the streets and you are good. If it weren't for terrible pathfinding in RTW cities, nothing would ever have a chance to penetrate it. Of course, there are also other quirks with RTW engine (some of them were nonexistent in MTW1) that contribute to overpowered phalanx, e.g. no severe terrain penalties or oddities of the morale system, but these are engine's limitations in general, so let's say that we can ignore them. Unfortunately, the situation isn't much better in MTW2, but what really sucks is that RTW and MTW2 are our best choices when it comes to battlefield... uch... "simulators":inquisitive::thumbsdown: . Damn, why things like "hitpoints" and plain "damage" are so popular in all those other-than-TW RTS games:wall: .

[Vorian]

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

Kynoskephalai:

a)Philip is stupid enough to march in a fog
b)The left part of his army had not been organised and when attacked routed immediately. After that the right wing was encircled. Many also ignore the Aetolian allies of the Romans

Thermopylai

a)Surrounded as the Spartans
b)Unsure troops routed when they heard Romans had their flanks
c)Twice as many men for the Romans?

Magnesia

a)Not a strictly phalanxvs Maniple fight since they had elephants and chariots. Antiochus misused the chariots and elephants disorganising his flanks. Grave mistake

Pydna

a)Perseus instead of using the phalanx in Philip's doctrine, he used to attack and repulse the Romans until the ground was to uneven to retain cohesion. If he used cavalry to flank it would be devastating for the already wavering morale of the Romans.
Stupid Perseus didn't even engage with his strong cavalry and fled when the phalanx broke.


Not lucky events. Bad leadership and misuse of the phalanx's military doctrine

[Woreczko]

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.
Same is very much true for the succesor armies.

[Parallel Pain]

At Pydna didn't the Romans place elephants as an anti-cavalry screen on one of the flanks?

And for those who did not bother reading the previous posts, pike squares and pike phalanx are different.

And the late legion became a nearly completely different fighting force (smaller groups of lighter troops), but the successor armies kept the phalanx.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Kynoskephalai:

a)Philip is stupid enough to march in a fog
b)The left part of his army had not been organised and when attacked routed immediately. After that the right wing was encircled. Many also ignore the Aetolian allies of the Romans


ad a) Absolutely not. Seeing that the fog is too dense for marching, he ordered setting camp and sent a lot of men to gather supplies, as he thought it will not clear enough to allow battle.
In the meantime violent clashes erupted between light armed and while macedonians were more or less victorious each time, Philip was forced to deploy for battle with about 1/2 of the army in battle ready condition. Then the weather started clearing, and Flaminus counterattacked Philip's light armed with hastati.

In this campaign luck was swiching sides: at first Flaminus skillfully outmaneouvred Philip near Pharsalos and light armed and cav fought in rough ground unsuitable for both armies. Seeing this Philip marched west to force Romans to break from their ships with supplies. This time he was succesful, and gained from few hours to one day advance. But then fog held him in place in one day distance from perfect battlefield.

One can imagine Zeus sitting on Olympus and and playing with his balance :juggle2:

[Jolt]

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) :\

Ok, then I'll pose a question on an imaginary battle:

Imagine a conflict between Caesar and Alexander. Caesar had the legions plus auxiliaries used in his Gallic Wars (est. roughly 120,000 troops) against the army Alexander had when he began leaving India. (est. roughly 100,000 troops). Imagine that we divide the armies in two and put each halves on two different battles. One is the Battle of Ipsus and the other is Gaugamela. Who do you think that would win each one? Don't forget to take into account besides terrain and the genius of both commanders, the basic thing we debate in this thread: "Type of Warfare"

[cmacq]

Ok, then I'll pose a question on an imaginary battle: Imagine a conflict between Caesar and Alexander. Don't forget to take into account besides terrain and the genius of both commanders, the basic thing we debate in this thread: "Type of Warfare"


Expect the unexpected; please see Massilia, Dyrrachium, and Pharsalus.

[Parallel Pain]

Jolt please see my post about fighting "fair"