Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx

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?

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brymht

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.

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.

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

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:

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??

You forgot:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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??

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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!

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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

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?