How mobile was the Macedonian phalanx?

The cliched notion is that the phalanx was this lumbering block that could only move forwards, barely able to do anything once set on its course.

While that's not quite true, I've seen assertions that one of the tactics was for the phalangites to charge by sprinting. I can believe a jog/double-time is possible to remain in formation, but I'm struggling a little to see how someone holding a very long pole with both hands (even a counter-weighted one) could sprint easily. Moreover that the phalanx would retain any cohesion with men running at different speeds, tripping over each other and so on.

There's also some stuff I was reading about how Philip's military reforms involved a lot of close order drills, changes of formation and the like to allow a much greater degree of flexibility.

So what was the deal?

Sprinting? Like a pole vaulter? You must be joking! If you let the point drop too far while sprinting with a sarissa you would BECOME a pole vaulter - I'm not sure that falling down on top of your enemies really helps....lol!

With very well trained phalangites, a slow jog might be feasible without losing formation - or a fast jog with the sarissas in a vertical position - but no more than that IMO.

Changing formation depth or facing rapidly, that's possible with well-drilled and disciplined troops.

Hoplites charged by sprinting, as at Marathon. And hoplites fought in a phalanx.

Perhaps that's where the confusion comes in? Charging phalanx (of hoplites) yes, charging phalangites (with sarissas) no.

Anyway, in antiquity (and the middle ages for that matter) I imagine most infantry was pretty much immobile. Forward fine, retreating sometimes fine, anything more complicated recipe for instant chaos and defeat.

This was because of lack of communication, difficulties of observation, limited number of officers, etc.

For the most part in battle, armies would deploy according to a plan drawn up the previous night or even earlier, and then more or less were stuck to those positions.

It was one of the big strengths of the Romans (especially after they dropped the manipular system) that they were able to perform far more complicated manoeuvres on the field than most of their opponents. What made Hannibal such a great general was that he too had trained his army to the extent it could perform complicated manoeuvres. The Romans did it by having far more petty officers and a far larger chain of command than most other armies. (The Spartans also had a lot of officers, iirc.) I imagine Hannibal did something similar.

In this context, the phalanx' lack of manoeuvrability wouldn't be nearly as big a weakness as it might otherwise seem.

I distinctly remember Alexander using maneuvers that basically scared enemies off just by their complexity. I wouldn't necessarily call the Macedonian Phalanx that lumbering , at least under Alexander's command. They were fighting much more mobile people for a long time

I don't doubt Alexander did that, but were those manoeuvres with his phalanx? Or with his cavalry and light infantry? Or his non-sarissa armed heavy infantry?

Alexander was a great general and quite probably capable of making his army do things that for lesser generals would have resulted in chaos. But also relevant is that his army had a far smaller proportion of pikemen than the successors did. His hypaspistai, Greek hoplites, Agrianians, Thracians, Kretans, etc made for a very flexible combined-arms force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randal

I don't doubt Alexander did that, but were those manoeuvres with his phalanx? Or with his cavalry and light infantry? Or his non-sarissa armed heavy infantry?

Alexander was a great general and quite probably capable of making his army do things that for lesser generals would have resulted in chaos. But also relevant is that his army had a far smaller proportion of pikemen than the successors did. His hypaspistai, Greek hoplites, Agrianians, Thracians, Kretans, etc made for a very flexible combined-arms force.

---

They were with his phalanx. Well-drilled maneuvers were one of the other things, besides longer spears that Philip learned from his time in Thebes.

Fair enough.

Hm. Thinking in this vein it might actually make sense to claim Alexander's phalanx was more manoeuvrable than earlier hoplite phalanxes, because unlike those militia forces they had been properly drilled. Though of course there were also more professional hoplite forces.

Sprinting does seem a bit much, but I do know that in a much later era, the Swedish army employed Carolean tactics, by which they would advance to point blank musket range, fire a volley or two, and then the pikemen would charge, using their pikes as an offensive weapon. They were only charging a short distance, so perhaps they did sprint, and perhaps this means it would be possible to have used a similar tactic in a different era. However, the Swedes were also not wearing much in the way of armor, which would make charging easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randal

I don't doubt Alexander did that, but were those manoeuvres with his phalanx? Or with his cavalry and light infantry? Or his non-sarissa armed heavy infantry?

Alexander was a great general and quite probably capable of making his army do things that for lesser generals would have resulted in chaos. But also relevant is that his army had a far smaller proportion of pikemen than the successors did. His hypaspistai, Greek hoplites, Agrianians, Thracians, Kretans, etc made for a very flexible combined-arms force.

---

I'd go search for the battle right now in Arrian, but im almost positive he had his main battle line, which im assuming were his pikemen, march up the hill against the settlement. He had earlier done something with the Agriannes and Guard so i think the distinction had already been made.

But yeah your right, these were more or less professional soldiers, not militia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Sprinting does seem a bit much, but I do know that in a much later era, the Swedish army employed Carolean tactics, by which they would advance to point blank musket range, fire a volley or two, and then the pikemen would charge, using their pikes as an offensive weapon. They were only charging a short distance, so perhaps they did sprint, and perhaps this means it would be possible to have used a similar tactic in a different era. However, the Swedes were also not wearing much in the way of armor, which would make charging easier.

---

Remind you that the muskets of the 17th and 18th century were not that accurate, which the swedish carolean kings knew. Every third soldier (!) of the swedish carolean army were actually equipped with pikes between 1650-1720, thus favouring a very offensive tactic called "Gå på" translated "Go on", and was basically a cold steel charge as you have described it.

Heh, funny you'd mention the caroliners, I actually helped Bohus-Älvsborgs Karoliner with one of their gigs. I'm used to running around fighting full contact in full armour, (mine ways roughly 25 kg + sweat) so I figured a day doing drills in minimal armour with a five meter pike, walk in the park. (Just helmet and a harnersk.) Boy was I wrong, the pikes weren't counterbalanced, which I assume would help A LOT. Because the biggest problem with them was the balance, five meter of anything is unwieldy, so a wobble or a bit of wind pulling or pushing on the tip is a real strain to counter on the other end.

As for running, sure, might be possible a short distance, but not a full on "charge", it'd be some sort of controlled jog.
The equipment I carried that day was easily less than half of what I normally wear, but as for manuvering, I'd say I normally walk around relaxed at a pace as fast or faster than we marched.
As for moving into different formations, I'm not sure they apply, most of them were stationary and included the fist two rows actually standing on the ends on their pikes to lead the force of a cavalry charge into the ground. Needless to say, with half of us untrained and the rest of unknown training each fromation change took a couple of minutes, which is a pretty darn long time, though for many of them I really doubt that it could be achieved in less than 30 seconds. (Like the newb-box with protected corners and archers in the middle...yes we did it!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaertecken

Remind you that the muskets of the 17th and 18th century were not that accurate, which the swedish carolean kings knew. Every third soldier (!) of the swedish carolean army were actually equipped with pikes between 1650-1720, thus favouring a very offensive tactic called "Gå på" translated "Go on", and was basically a cold steel charge as you have described it.

---

Oh, I'm fully aware why and how they practiced these tactics (The Great Northern War is one of my favorite periods, historically), I was just mentioning that if the accounts are true, they did charge with pikes. But thanks for further explaining, I didn't explain as much as I should have perhaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alrik

Heh, funny you'd mention the caroliners, I actually helped Bohus-Älvsborgs Karoliner with one of their gigs. I'm used to running around fighting full contact in full armour, (mine ways roughly 25 kg + sweat) so I figured a day doing drills in minimal armour with a five meter pike, walk in the park. (Just helmet and a harnersk.) Boy was I wrong, the pikes weren't counterbalanced, which I assume would help A LOT. Because the biggest problem with them was the balance, five meter of anything is unwieldy, so a wobble or a bit of wind pulling or pushing on the tip is a real strain to counter on the other end.

As for running, sure, might be possible a short distance, but not a full on "charge", it'd be some sort of controlled jog.

---

That's very interesting, maybe the accounts of the pikes "charging" really meant just jogging forward and lowering it to engage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

That's very interesting, maybe the accounts of the pikes "charging" really meant just jogging forward and lowering it to engage.

---

Well "Gå på!", if I'd interpret that by the use of the modern language, (Which hasn't changed that much since the 17-hundreds) I'd take it as a forceful shoving march. "Go on", is really a too weak a translation, sounds more like an encouragement to keep at it rather than "Put your backs into it and don't stop until you've walked right through and over them!"(But it still says walk, so the way I'd see it is a controlled marching spearwall of doom, not a running one. But then I haven't read anything, I'm just saying how I'd interperet the order "Gå på! if it was given to me.)

Oh, and I'm terribly sorry about my spelling, I fixed quite a few errors earlier, but I see I missed a lot as well...

Edit: I mean that I'd interpret it as not stopping once you've engaged, but actually keep on walking, for this to work, you need an orderd spearwall.

The Macedonian phalanx was actually one of the most mobile military units of all time. It traveled thousands of miles in its heyday, under Megas Alexandros. I have yet to march as far and long as these men did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

The Macedonian phalanx was actually one of the most mobile military units of all time. It traveled thousands of miles in its heyday, under Megas Alexandros. I have yet to march as far and long as these men did.

---

I'm talking about tactical, rather than strategic mobility.

yeah definitely. Would the Phalanx have become 'outdated' at a later date if it retained the tactical mobility as it was under Alexander? I don't know much about the Macedonian's wars against the Romans but i'd feel at this point they would not be as well trained, drilled, disciplined as they once were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I'm talking about tactical, rather than strategic mobility.

---

Not to worry. Vartan takes things literally for comedic or de-stabilizing purposes.

~Jirisys ()

The Successors did use much longer pikes than Alexander did, the better to fight other pike-phalanxes with. That can't have helped tactical mobility at all.

But I think the decline of combined arms tactics had more to do with the phalanx getting outdated.

combined arms tactics? what is that?

Uh... sorry, not sure if you're being facetious or not.

But to answer anyway: It's combining several "arms" in a cohesive whole, stronger than the sum of its parts. In Alexander's case it was the combination of his heavy cavalry (Companions, Thessalians) and heavy infantry (Phalangites, hoplites, hypaspistai) and light infantry (Agrianians, Kretans, Macedonians) which together made for a very effective army.

The successors lacked his cavalry strength in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

combined arms tactics? what is that?

---

Irrelevant to this particular question about the mobility of one particular element. I'm well aware of the other elements of the army, I'm focusing specifically on the pikemen.

I recall that sarissa can be separated in 2 parts

maybe they are sprinting using only the one half of sarrissa as normal spears

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randal

Uh... sorry, not sure if you're being facetious or not.

But to answer anyway: It's combining several "arms" in a cohesive whole, stronger than the sum of its parts. In Alexander's case it was the combination of his heavy cavalry (Companions, Thessalians) and heavy infantry (Phalangites, hoplites, hypaspistai) and light infantry (Agrianians, Kretans, Macedonians) which together made for a very effective army.

The successors lacked his cavalry strength in particular.

---

no not at all, thanks for the reply.

That makes sense, i just didn't want to assume on what you meant.

Every wonder what would happen if you rolled a log into a phalanx formation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Every wonder what would happen if you rolled a log into a phalanx formation?

---

The same thing that happens in the beginning of Assassin's Creed.

I recall it being mentioned long ago on this very forum that the phalanx could march backwards instead of turning around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

I recall it being mentioned long ago on this very forum that the phalanx could march backwards instead of turning around.

---

Ah, the wonder that is the phalanx bug. When one of the soldiers is isolated, it can be referred to as the moonwalk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

I recall it being mentioned long ago on this very forum that the phalanx could march backwards instead of turning around.

---

Yes this would be almost as easy as walking forwards. (possibly easier than for other units as the pikes both keep the unit together as well as offer visible aid to where the rest of your friends are without taking eyes off the enemy, in contrary a shieldwall-unit can easily leave the first line behind and even that can easily lose its solidity as they back up, a wavy snake thingie look with gaps forming between the shields is something we suffer a lot.) Straifing or sideways movements is a no-no with the weapons in lowered position, what differ pikes from other utits is that you involve yourself with several rows of your own unit. the pikes/sarissas litterally from fences within the unit, so ging back and forth is fine to some extent but sideways is blocked with a pike locked in place by the people around it, turning, thus forcing the pike on to the diagonal, doesn't work very well either unless you loosen the formation, which you normally don't want, ecpecially for pikes. There's also the offset weight to take into accont, perhaps the pikes we used (Which were supposedly Swedish army replicas) were heavier than the Greek sarissas, but you really needed a solid stance to keep the tip up and mine was just five meters, I know the Greeks had longer pikes than that.
That also have me wondering how agressive you can actually be with the weapon (we never forght or simulated any fighting, other than where we pikemen acted as a mobile fort for the musketeers and bowmen.) It just felt that you couldn't thrust the weapon forward much asit had sucha a massive impact on your balance and center of gravity, you'd be forced to drop the pike to the ground and pull it backif you over reached (which wouldn't be that far.) On the contrary a unit with 3 meter spears I know is horribly aggressive, those spears are flying everywhere. And I think that might be because they weigh almost half as much and don't have the same unbalancing leaver effect on the wielder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

I recall that sarissa can be separated in 2 parts

maybe they are sprinting using only the one half of sarrissa as normal spears

---

I doubt the enemy would be so obliging as to wait while the pikemen were reassembling their sarrisa after the charge. So any charging pikeman would have to fight with a normal spear during combat. In which case, why didn't they simply front the phalanx with hoplites, who have a spear and a proper shield as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I doubt the enemy would be so obliging as to wait while the pikemen were reassembling their sarrisa after the charge. So any charging pikeman would have to fight with a normal spear during combat. In which case, why didn't they simply front the phalanx with hoplites, who have a spear and a proper shield as well?

---

I'm sure I read somewhere that the promachoi/front rank might be armed in the hoplite fashion. Can't for the life of me remember where I saw it, though.

i read post this the other day and i thought to my self "I wanna try jog with a 4 meter long stick"... and I did so, and it worked... for 2 minutes, then i was exhausted

but my assesment of the "running pikes" is YES:a well drilled formation with really endurant men can do it... but, it could turn into a game of mikado if they are not carefull... the teqhnique is for the guys in front row to use their right hand held relatively close to the counterweight, to push it down... and the rest is easy peasy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Blacksmith

i read post this the other day and i thought to my self "I wanna try jog with a 4 meter long stick"... and I did so, and it worked... for 2 minutes, then i was exhausted

but my assesment of the "running pikes" is YES:a well drilled formation with really endurant men can do it... but, it could turn into a game of mikado if they are not carefull... the teqhnique is for the guys in front row to use their right hand held relatively close to the counterweight, to push it down... and the rest is easy peasy...

---

This is the thing, one guy could do it. But 256 trying to stay in formation?

If they have been training at it for years, then yes, they probably could pull that off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

This is the thing, one guy could do it. But 256 trying to stay in formation?

---

If their profession is combat then i don't see it as unlikely. Not that professionals were really common i don't think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

This is the thing, one guy could do it. But 256 trying to stay in formation?

---

256 hundred you mean?

Maybe 256 dozens, but you cannot part it that small or else it would be quasi-useless, I agree the lochagos can see to the few men he has under his command but remember this is not a manipular or cohortal army.

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

256 hundred you mean?

Maybe 256 dozens, but you cannot part it that small or else it would be quasi-useless, I agree the lochagos can see to the few men he has under his command but remember this is not a manipular or cohortal army.

~Jirisys ()

---

No, I just meant one syntagma as the smallest possible tactical unit of the phalanx. If that small a number would struggle to do it, then a full taxeis or bigger would make it impossible.

I actually read a good book on this topic.

Anyway, the quick summary is that Alexander's Phalanx was highly mobile, and could change directions very quickly.

After his death, phalanx formations became deeper, used longer spears and the soldiers had heavier armor. This meant they could easily overwhelm one of Alexander's formations in a head on fight and stood a better chance against elephants that became common in Sucessor Armies. However, they became increasingly immobile and unable to manuver. The result was that flank attacks were devastating, and soldiers often just fled when the threat of a flank attack occured, since their spears were so long and often were intertwined between the ranks of many of their peers in front of them that they had no way of turning to meet their enemy.

So the answer is quite complex. Over time they became increasingly heavier armed and armored, because when one nation increases ranks and spear length, all nations have to, because the phalanx with the deeper ranks, longer spears and heavier armor wins in a head to head fight. The result is that this left them vulnerable in other areas, and made them a very one dimensional unit, which led to the rise of many types of support units that surrounded their flanks. So the answer is that it really depends on what period you are looking at the phalanx. The earlier you go, the more mobile the unit is.

Interesting, so there was perhaps, as time went on, a move away from quality of training towards quality of equipment?

Absolutely. Phalanx equipment keep growing (longer spears and heavier armor) until it finally the physical limitations of man, so physical strength played an increasing role, even as the training waned. Deeper ranks also meant more men to train, and thus each man wasn't as well trained, and also their training was focused on head on fights.

There's an article on Iphikrates' reforms and how they impacted the Macedonian (and thus Successor) phalanx. Some interesting bits:

Quote:

---

It is often remarked how similar the equipment of an Iphikratean hoplite is to that of a Macedonian phalangite.24 Philip is credited with inventing the equipment as well as the order of the Macedonian phalanx in or soon after 359 BC, which should probably be taken as a reference to the invention of sarissa (pike), since the other items of equipment said to be carried by Phlilips' men by Polyainos, helmets, greaves and shield, were clearly already in existence, even in Macedonia.25 The spear of a hoplite is usually reckoned as being somewhat under 6 cubits long, about 8 feet. By Diodoros' account, the Iphikratean spear would thus be 8 cubits long, or 12 feet, and hence still shorter than a Macedonian sarissa which had a minimum length of 10 cubits, 15 feet, and was normally 12 cubits or 18 feet long, although later Hellenistic phalanxes apparently used pikes 14 cubits long.26 By Nepos' somewhat less reliable account, the spear would be about 16 feet long which would put it in the sarissa range, although it is hard to see how such a weapon would be wielded one handed, and if it was wielded two handed, Iphikrates would be the inventor of the phalangite, not Philip. It is more likely Nepos' source considered that a normal hoplite's spear was less than 8' long and indeed many artistic depictions show hoplite spears 7 foot long or even slightly less, which would put the Iphikratid spear at under 14 feet long.

It is widely appreciated that Philip is likely to have picked up many of his tactical ideas from living for a time in the house of Pammanes, close friend of that great tactical innovator, the Theban general Epameinondas. It is not generally appreciated however that Philip was even more closely related to Iphikrates, who was Philip's own brother by the adoption carried out by Philip's father Amyntas.27 Philip could not but help but have been aware of Iphikrates' reforms.

The Macedonian army before Philip's time relied on its aristocratic cavalry. It included a few hoplites, but the majority of the men were essentially an ill-armed and untrained rabble.28 Thukydides implies that the infantry situation improved somewhat just before the start of the 4th century, but it is evident from the number of times the Thracians and especially the Illyrians overran the country over the next 50 years that they were still not up to the task of defending the borders, let alone catapulting Macedonia onto the world stage.

Philip took Iphikrates' reforms as his model and adapted them to his own needs. He needed to equip himself with an infantry force that could fight competently in hand-to-hand, in a phalanx, and to do so as cheaply as possible since he would have to pay for it personally, rather than his infantrymen, who being essentially peasants, not middle-class city dwellers, could not possibly afford to do so themselves. Iphikrates had pointed the way. The Macedonians were already using a bronze shield before his time, but it was not the aspis of the Greek hoplite, as it was smaller, between 60 and 75 cm in diameter, and lacked the characteristic rim of the Greek aspis - in other words, something of a hybrid between the traditional pelta and the Argive aspis. It was probably introduced by Archelaos, who sometime between 413/2 BC and 400/399 BC according to Thukidydes (2.100) "reorganised the cavalry, the arming of the infantry, and equipment in general", and the first depictions of it indeed come from circa 400 BC.29 It may have been adapted from the neighbouring Illyrians. The southern Illyrians bordering Macedonia used round shields that are extremely similar to those used by the Macedonians.

---

Quote:

---

While such shields might have been equipped with an Argive-style shield grip, their smaller size meant that the position of the forearm brace would have been different from that in a Greek aspis. Equipping such a shield with a Greek-style grip in the same relative positions as a Greek aspis rather than a pelta, so that the forearm brace retained its position near the centre of the shield, would mean that the hand would be positioned much closer to the edge of the shield. This would normally be a disadavantage in terms of balancing the shield and protecting the hand, but it would allow the hand to grip a spear despite the curvature of the shield.31 This I believe was Philip's first military innovation: providing the Balkan bronze pelta with a shield grip in the Greek manner positioned so that the hand was right at the rim of the shield.32 The length of the Greek spear, as carried by Iphikrates' men, had been limited by the requirement for it to be wielded in one hand, but with a two handed grip it could now be lengthened even further and become a true pike. Providing his army with even these arms would have overtaxed the finances of the country at the time, and no doubt only officers got the full kit of greaves, pike, bronze shield and helmet. Even they would not have had armour for the torso, and rear rankers probably had to be content with bare legs or boots (krepides), a cheap mass-produced wicker pelta and a helmet fashioned from leather.33

Unlike a spear, which retains some utility in single combat, a pike is essentially useless outside a compact phalanx. The formation, in both senses of the word, of the Macedonian phalanx, gave Philip an infantry force that was capable of standing up to Greek hoplites in open battle. If it was to retain any strategic utility however, its men needed to be able to fight outside the confines of the phalanx. As with most peoples living in an area surrounded by hills, the traditional Macedonian weapon was the javelin. Philip ensured that his men were trained in the use of both weapons, and carried whichever was the most appropriate for the occasion, so that his infantry could fulfill the role of both hoplite and peltast as need be.34 When marching through broken country, javelins were carried: Polyainos relates how when Onomarchos' Phokian's ambushed Philip's men, they were able to fight back at a distance.35 Similarly, a pike was of little use when assaulting a city, when troops had to climb ladders up walls and inside seige towers, so the javelin was carried in this situation as well.36

Philip's brutally efficient training programme, backed by his autocratic royal power, ensured his men lived up to his expectations. Training men to use two sorts of weapons with equal facility is no easy task, and very few other classes of warriors over the millenia have ever attained such dexterity; the few that readily spring to mind are mostly aristocratic steppe horsemen accustomed to both lance and bow. Training his men to use two weapons that required a completely different formation to fight with, a rigid pike phalanx against the loose order required to hurl javelins, made the achievment all the more outstanding, especially given the inclusive nature of his reforms - it was the entire national levy that was so trained, and not just a picked elite. The result was that not only could Philip eventually come to count on troops as good as any opposition could field, but he would have numbers of his side as well.

---

Quote:

---

This then was the force that Alexander inherited from his father for the conquest of Persia. The evolution of the Macedonian infantry proceeded under Alexander. As already noted, the phalanx had acquired body armour by the seige of Tyre at the very latest, possibly non-metallic, as it was burnt when it was replaced with elaborately decorated cuirasses while in India.37 Expansion of the army entailed reorganisational changes,38 and at his death, Alexander was experimenting with a radically new type of phalanx, incorporating javelinmen and archers in its rear ranks, but it was never used in action. Upon his death, his generals carved his empire up amongst themselves. Quality troops were at a premium, and no-one could afford to dilute the effectiveness of their most valuable units with such Persian missile troops. The struggles of the Diadochoi, the Successors, however set off a new round in the evolution of Hellenistic infantry...

---

The key interesting point here is that under Philip, phalangites were trained as both heavy infantry and skirmisher. But that role diminished over time as they focused solely on being heavy infantry.

The reference to Alexander literally scaring an enemy into submission with precise phalanx movements is described in Arrian in the early part of his rule, before Thebes got owned I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishHitman

The reference to Alexander literally scaring an enemy into submission with precise phalanx movements is described in Arrian in the early part of his rule, before Thebes got owned I believe.

---

yes it was quite early in his career, i figured it was either right before he left greece or right after. When i read that i was just, dang, there really isn't any force as well trained as that and his quick work of Persia really showed that. It wasn't until Porus that he seemed to be challenged to the highest degree.

I read an article in an Ancient Warfare magazine contending that the Macedonian Armies up until their ultimate defeat were actually more disciplined than the Roman Legions, yet did not resort to the very brutal reprucussions used to keep discipline found in the Roman Army.

It was actually argued that the reason the Roman army had to resort to such brutal forms of discipline because of a relative lack of overall drilled discipline and punishment by death was a necessary measure to keep basic composure.

Macedonian infractions were punishable mostly by fees, but they were systematically so based on a written set of rules. It also mentioned the Hypaspists as a police/guard type of force when camp was set up.

Well, the early legions were semi-professional semi-militia forces, organised on an ad-hoc basis. It doesn't surprise me that the professional soldiers of the Macedonian army were more professional and more disciplined to boot, and that the Romans chose to use more extreme measures to quickly instil discipline in their non-professional forces, especially when newly raised.

It comes down to differing traditions. Romans had always been willing to submit themselves to a harsh disciplinary regime when serving in the legions. Macedonians had a different way.

I think it boils down to culture. Makedonia, after all consists more of mountain villages than actual poleis. They've long been accustomed to low intensity warfare of defending their homes from those 'pesky' barbarians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

I think it boils down to culture. Makedonia, after all consists more of mountain villages than actual poleis. They've long been accustomed to low intensity warfare of defending their homes from those 'pesky' barbarians.

---

but weren't the Roman's always in some form of warfare, one way or another? They even have the familiar hyper patriotism attributed to that in order to justify aggressive acts. It seems a very systematic set of rules would have been established pre marian (this is when they become a professional force yes?) on par with Macedonian military. Even if Phalanx warfare was slowly becoming the old way there is still a lot to take from the home of conquerers of 'the world'

I certainly see the purpose of decimatio when dealing with levied militias but still. Excuse my ignorance on the subject but the reading just came to a very big surprise to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

but weren't the Roman's always in some form of warfare, one way or another? They even have the familiar hyper patriotism attributed to that in order to justify aggressive acts. It seems a very systematic set of rules would have been established pre marian (this is when they become a professional force yes?) on par with Macedonian military. Even if Phalanx warfare was slowly becoming the old way there is still a lot to take from the home of conquerers of 'the world'

I certainly see the purpose of decimatio when dealing with levied militias but still. Excuse my ignorance on the subject but the reading just came to a very big surprise to me

---

The point is the Romans were a more settled people living in a safer region (the odd Celtic incursion aside for those north of Rome). Even when the conflicts with the Samnites were going on, they were more ordered affairs than the fairly constant feuding, raiding and cattle-theft that went on in rural Macedonia. Not to mention regular Thracian incursions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

The point is the Romans were a more settled people living in a safer region (the odd Celtic incursion aside for those north of Rome). Even when the conflicts with the Samnites were going on, they were more ordered affairs than the fairly constant feuding, raiding and cattle-theft that went on in rural Macedonia. Not to mention regular Thracian incursions.

---

You forgot them Illyrians, the main source or woe for the last hundred years until Phillip came along. Piecemeal hoplite warfare is simple ill suited for Makedonia to defend her lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

You forgot them Illyrians, the main source or woe for the last hundred years until Phillip came along. Piecemeal hoplite warfare is simple ill suited for Makedonia to defend her lands.

---

Didn't illyrians have mercenary hoplites?

~Jirisys ()

Everyone did. :\