Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx

**machinor** · 03-16-2008, 23:55

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** · 03-17-2008, 00:45

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** · 03-17-2008, 00:58

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

**LordCurlyton** · 03-17-2008, 01:49

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

**pezhetairoi** · 03-17-2008, 01:50

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** · 03-17-2008, 02:09

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

**pezhetairoi** · 03-17-2008, 02:19

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** · 03-17-2008, 03:10

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.