Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

: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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

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...

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: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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.

Jolt please see my post about fighting "fair"