Enlighten me

[Husker98]

"Some sucesses"? He never got defeated by the romans! (Pyrrhus)



The results arent the point. The point is, that the roman war machine wasnt that "awesome". After all their warfare was based on what? Sending wave after wave. Overwhelming numbers over and over again instead of using their brain.

Even despite the countless fiascos Rome suffered, for example, during the 2nd Punic war, they managed to win in the end. That just shows how big their manpower pool/economy was. And that yes, was Rome's greatest strength.

Whenever facing someone who used some sort of "hellenic warfare", in equal grounds (and sometimes even with a vast superiority), they lost. Rome always lacked proper cavalry, and given the fact that heavy infantry units are slow, their enemies always exploited that weakness to deliver a blow either on the flanks or in the rear.

You can easily see that in Cannae, for example. Although in that battle the carthaginian infantry also had an important role.

something you will have to accept though is that Rome developed a strategy that EB cant replicate. when roman legions where faced with Hellenic/Macedonian style warfare they tossed their pila and well see for your self...



The Phalanx was not an all terrain battle formation either unless you were on flat level ground the following happens.... the image and excerpt below or from the website http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008...-pike-phalanx/

Regarding the causes of the Roman victories, Polybius wrote in his classical comment on Macedonian and Roman tactics that nothing could withstand the frontal charge of the phalanx as long as it preserved its characteristic formation.22 However, ‘ … it is acknowledged that the phalanx requires level and clear ground with no obstacles such as ditches, clefts, clumps of trees, ridges and water courses, all of which are sufficient to impede and break up such a formation …. the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engage the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy’s reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx …. the Macedonian formation is at times of little use and at times of no use at all, because the phalanx soldier can be of service neither in detachments nor singly, while the Roman formation is efficient. For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter . He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly
In this way Polybius clearly presented what was most likely to happen in every encounter between phalanx and legion.

The point is that the Phalanx was not flexible and its soldiers when forced into man on man combat where inferior to better trained roman legionaries. the Phalanx was great but the problem was that you had to be on flat ground with out any stumps large rocks or any other formation to screw up the formation. and more often than not you are fighting in or on terrain not favorable to this formation. Great Generals like alexander and phillip made this formation work only because on top of being geniuses they wouldn't let their men chase retreating troops and chose their battlefields and didn't let their men leave the area for fear of exposing or breaking up the formation. so in the end the phalanx was out dated by a style of warfare that was more flexible and could be executed in almost any terrain. sory for the long post guys lol