Help on IB History Coursework needed!

[shootie]

I'm studying History for the International Baccalaureate Diploma; for my Internal Assessment (coursework) I've picked a research question in my favourite area of history

The research question is:
"To what extent did the structure of command differ in the Roman and Hellenistic systems of warfare?"

Knowing some of you guys are real experts/historians/academics, could you give me some advice on whether there are any particular Hellenistic sources and examples I could use. I know there are a lot describing the Roman command structure, but I need something to contrast it with or the whole question falls apart.

Thanks in advance,

G

Well, ill try help you out.

Roman commanders were smarter than Hellenistic, I say this as they knew how to use a victory and diplomacy. Whereas Hellenistic powers were always struggling, always seemed to be at war. The Phalanx tactics used, well the most known one is Alexnader's "Hammer And Anvil" Where he would pin the infantry of the enemy on the pikes and attempt to flank with Cavalry/Peltasts. Roman tactics were a bit more well thought out and orginised, leaving gaps in their army for their light troops to fall back into on approach of the enemy. And in early Roman Times, they had the Hastati and Principes, where when the Hastati were tired and had worn out the enemy. The Principes would come in, fresh and more experienced.

So all in all Roman Commanders were more smarter than Hellenistic, maybe this could be with the various cultures that appeared in Hellenistic (Especially Sucessor states) armies and it was harder to sort out a army.

Probably a poor answer but thats all I can think of to help you out ;)

1st post btw hello people :D

[fraoula]

Well, ill try help you out.

Roman commanders were smarter than Hellenistic, I say this as they knew how to use a victory and diplomacy. Whereas Hellenistic powers were always struggling, always seemed to be at war. The Phalanx tactics used, well the most known one is Alexnader's "Hammer And Anvil" Where he would pin the infantry of the enemy on the pikes and attempt to flank with Cavalry/Peltasts. Roman tactics were a bit more well thought out and orginised, leaving gaps in their army for their light troops to fall back into on approach of the enemy. And in early Roman Times, they had the Hastati and Principes, where when the Hastati were tired and had worn out the enemy. The Principes would come in, fresh and more experienced.

So all in all Roman Commanders were more smarter than Hellenistic, maybe this could be with the various cultures that appeared in Hellenistic (Especially Sucessor states) armies and it was harder to sort out a army.

Probably a poor answer but thats all I can think of to help you out ;)

1st post btw hello people :D

First of all welcome to the community.
I think he might be searching for something a bit more "intelectual" than that (no offence).
I' d reccomend Goldsworthy for Roman tactics though many of you will disagree.

This is from Polybius http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...s-maniple.html by the way.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I don't know - but maybe this might point you in the direction of useful books?

http://www.questia.com/library/histo...ient-world.jsp

[shootie]

First of all welcome to the community.
I think he might be searching for something a bit more "intelectual" than that (no offence).
I' d reccomend Goldsworthy for Roman tactics though many of you will disagree.

This is from Polybius http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...s-maniple.html by the way.

As I said, probably a poor answer, trying to help a guy in need you know ;)

[Ludens]

First of all welcome to the community.
I think he might be searching for something a bit more "intelectual" than that (no offence).

Let's not turn this into another phalanx vs. legion debate.

Shootie, welcome to the .Org and to EB.