Why did the romans changed from Hoplitewarfare

Do any of you know the answer to this question?

Why did the Romans change from Hoplite warfare to the acer triplex/manipular system.

I know a bit of background info about this topic but maybe you can enlighten me...

thanks in advance,
:bow:

Haven't you asked this before :inquisitive:

Well i'll ask to then making the previous post unusable

no i asked about the influence of roman reforms before... this is specific about the change from hoplite to acer triplex and the reason why...

Taken from another thread of yours:

Quote:

---

In the 4th century BC, the Sennones (a Gallic people) sacked and plundered Etruria and Rome (wich was already independent)
This disaster forced them to rethink how their army should operate. Most of the inspiration, and the scutum shield, came from the Samnite tribes in southern Italy, though the Samnites fought with only one line of reserve plus skirmishers IIRC.

---

Quote:

---

The fact that the Greek-style hoplite phalanxes kinda sucked in the rugged terrain of Samnite territory, and the Samnite proto-maniples didn't, doubtless also kind of had an influence given how much the Romans had to fight with those guys.

---

One Word:Mountains

Quote:

---

Why did the Romans change from Hoplite warfare to the acer triplex/manipular system.

---

You know I never thought about this before

Quote:

---

The fact that the Greek-style hoplite phalanxes kinda sucked in the rugged terrain of Samnite territory, and the Samnite proto-maniples didn't, doubtless also kind of had an influence given how much the Romans had to fight with those guys.

---

So the answer is really in the question. Its because they were easier to manipulate :laugh4:

I guess thats the root of the word.

Out of necessity. First, the Roman's terrain meant there would be little room to maneuover a hoplite block. Second, when fighting masters of hoplite warfare, what can you do but out maneouver them and exploit there cumbersome fighting style? It is not as if you can best the creators of the hoplite block.

Well these are all valid points, but none are really confirmed.
The greek historian Polybius was the first to describe the manipular legion, about mid 2. century BC.
It was then already an established military doctrine, albeit more dependent on spears than the later legions.

It is speculated that the Romans adopted a deep figthing formation because of terrain, partly influenced by Samnites, and lessons learned establishing the northern borders. That this formation proved succesful in the Macedonian wars ensured it's continued use.
It is also speculated that they adopted the 4 maniple formation to differentiate the tiered roman society.

Roman society was competitive to the extreme, so a need to single out who was excelling in single combat was there, in addition to having 3 differently equipped hoplites/legionaries, based on wealth and social standing.
The citizens mustered on Campus Martius every fifth year, where the tribunes would take their pick in turns to the legions. This was also where one could make claims to climb the social ladder, by appealing to a Censor, who would evaluate the Citizens property, gear and accomplishments. Thus the manipular legion was the very core of Republic society.

The fact that the Triarii were equipped with a heavy spear and fought in a more hoplite-like manner a was proof enough that Rome's military minds in the pre-Marian era were not completely convinced that the hoplite style of warfare was obsolete or irrelevant. The fact that they would equip their best troops in such a fashion implied that they believed a shield wall bristling with spears still had relevancy, especially on the defensive and especially against enemy cavalry.

:laugh4: @ Gawain

The two obvious answers above would be that the rugged terrain of central Italy was not well suited to phalanx warfare, and also the new system of military organisation reflected and reinforced Roman society better than the former system of uniform hoplites.

I would argue that the change in system was more due to the attitude of the Romans and their surrounding neighbours in Latium rather than territorial necessity. Greece, where the phalanx formation as we know it was perfected, is very similar to Italy in that it too is very hilly and posesses few flat plains of any considerable size. However, we can see that the phalanx formation remained in constant use pretty much up until the Roman conquest of Macedonia and assimilation of the Greek city-states. Why didn't the Greeks develop a military organisation system of heavy infantry similar to the Samnites and Romans if this was a logical evoloution?

The reason is that the Greeks tended to treat warfare as rather like a ritual practice, using it to drain off excess aggression in society and also to reinforce social values like community and honour. We can see this in the mutual consent of both sides on the battlefield (usually one of the few flat plains of Greece), the relatively low casualty rates of hoplite warfare (somewhere around 5%, mostly while the losing side routed from the battlefield) and the relatively static nature of Greek borders in classical times. These reasons all show that war was not necessarily considered a decisive struggle to ascertain the existance of nations, but rather an outlet for communities to express rivalries, solidify their own communal bonds and focus their hatred. Greek wars rarely resulted in any decisive control of the surrounding area, and any substancial gains were most likely to be negated in turn by a creative alliance of surrounding states. There obviously exceptions to this rule, the most obvious being Sparta, but for the most part the ancient Greeks remained divided but free.

The Romans treated war as a far more serious matter, and thought of the obliteration of the losing party as a matter-of-fact. The hoplite system of warfare may have worked for two sides who may have just wanted to get the battle over and done with so they could return to their farms, but in the Latin hills war decided the very existance of independant states. The gentlemanly mutual consent of battlefields that the Greeks practised was unheard of, and any advantage in warfare was sought out immediately. Thus the Romans found the idea of disbanding the hoplites' tight formation very useful for gaining an advantage over foes in rough terrain. I think that while the terrain may have been the catalyst in this reinvention, the primary cause of the change was the Latin attitude to warfare.