Quote from: JeremyR;1082005The thread was dead for like a week, I don't think the admonishment was needed.

But I finished reading that Legion vs Phalanx book mentioned and it's quite interesting.  While it doesn't really prove anything (beyond the fact that Roman legions with swords consistently beat phalanxes with pikes), it does cite the case of Dioxippus vs Coragus.  The latter was one of the Alexander's soldiers and he challenged the other, a Greek Athlete to a duel.  Coragus showed up in full battle gear, including a spear, a pike, sword, and a shield, while Dioxippus showed up naked but for a club. Dioxippus kicked Coragus's ass badly, dodging the thrown spear, breaking the pike, and then wrestling with him before he could draw the sword.

The Romans, barring when they fought Pyrrhus, came up against late phalanxes who were inflexible and habituated to fighting other phalanxes in an extremely formalised way. They had very long spears, heavier armour and surrendered whenever a block was broken. At Pydna, for example, many of the phalangites didn't even have sidearms with which to fight Romans who had infiltrated the phalanx. They were also trying to surrender (signified by raising their pike), a signal the Romans didn't understand, so kept killing them.

Dioxippus was then shamed into committing suicide by Alexander's men, because the Makedonians were so honourable.

Quote from: Kiero;1082008The Romans, barring when they fought Pyrrhus, came up against late phalanxes who were inflexible and habituated to fighting other phalanxes in an extremely formalised way. They had very long spears, heavier armour and surrendered whenever a block was broken. At Pydna, for example, many of the phalangites didn't even have sidearms with which to fight Romans who had infiltrated the phalanx. They were also trying to surrender (signified by raising their pike), a signal the Romans didn't understand, so kept killing them.

Dioxippus was then shamed into committing suicide by Alexander's men, because the Makedonians were so honourable.

Yeah - by the point that the Romans fought them, the phalanx had become specialized in fighting other phalanxes because nearly everyone in the area was using phalanxes - sort of a meta shift over time. It's unclear if they would have fared so well against troops equivalent to Alexander's phalanxes.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1082026Yeah - by the point that the Romans fought them, the phalanx had become specialized in fighting other phalanxes - sort of a meta shift over time. It's unclear if they would have fared so well against troops equivalent to Alexander's phalanxes.

Philip's phalanxes that Alexander inherited were a very different beast. Shorter pikes, much less armour, smaller blocks with fewer ranks, more tactical flexibility. They were dual-trained to fight as skirmishers, so he could tell off an entire block to act as a much stouter-than-normal unit of javelineers.

Quote from: JeremyR;1082005The thread was dead for like a week, I don't think the admonishment was needed.

But I finished reading that Legion vs Phalanx book mentioned and it's quite interesting.  While it doesn't really prove anything (beyond the fact that Roman legions with swords consistently beat phalanxes with pikes), it does cite the case of Dioxippus vs Coragus.  The latter was one of the Alexander's soldiers and he challenged the other, a Greek Athlete to a duel.  Coragus showed up in full battle gear, including a spear, a pike, sword, and a shield, while Dioxippus showed up naked but for a club. Dioxippus kicked Coragus's ass badly, dodging the thrown spear, breaking the pike, and then wrestling with him before he could draw the sword.

How many arms did this Coragus have? So he's wearing the sword, carrying the pike and shield. Where is his spear? Maybe I don't want to know.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1082046So he's wearing the sword, carrying the pike and shield. Where is his spear?

... he threw his spear.

Would not be too hard to carry both the pike and spear in the same hand before this.

Greetings!

I think that overall, the Roman Legion proved to be a generally superior formation and equipment scheme than the Greek Phalanx. Of course, in some ways that is ultimately *mitigated* by the commanding leadership, and the unit's training and esprit de corps. Under Alexander the Great, he was invincible. Alexander the Great always had the answer for whatever problem he was faced with. It is interesting to note that Alexander's primary force was his heavy Phalanx. However, the Phalanx was not the *only* answer to whatever challenges he faced. Much of the time, his heavy Companion Cavalry was the crucial force. At other times, it was archers, or horse-archers, or peltasts. Alexander was the ultimate master of war, and used combined arms operations in a way that mirrored modern war philosophy. The fact that lesser generals in later years highlights the distinctions that divided them from someone like Alexander.

I also think that the Roman Legion contained an element of inherent speed and flexibility that gives it the edge in military operations. Let me say that some of the elements in training, organization, and equipment--even in the hands of a mediocre commander--ensured a greater likelihood of success. The Roman Legion mitigated stupidity better than the Greek Phalanx, whereas the Greek Phalanx required more finesse and had a smaller margin of error, if that makes sense.

In several battles against the Romans, the Greek Phalanxes performed very well. There were some occasions where the fighting was so intense and the operation hung by a thread that it was only the intervention and leadership of the Roman commander that ensured victory. I cannot recall the specific battles at the moment, but I believe there were a few occasions where the battle had some very closely contested fulcrums.

Ultimately, however, the Roman Legion was superior to the Greek Phalanx. One has to remember, at an earlier time, the Romans themselves used the same Greek-style Hoplites and Phalanx formations of troops. The Romans stopped using such formations because the Roman Legion was in fact superior. I think that many readers overlook the very real advantages on the battlefield that real speed and flexibility provide. Numerous battles engaged by the Romans were won in large part because of how *fast* they arrived; how *fast* they deployed for battle once they arrived at the scene of battle; how *fast* they were able to react and respond to problems or breakthroughs here, or over there, again, often when the time window was a crucial hour or so, or less. In different terrain, under sun, rain, in forest, desert, hills or marsh, the Roman Legions demonstrated a lethal speed and flexibility that the Phalanx, in anyone's hands less than Alexander, simply could not match.

Even Ceasar often moved whole Legions, or centuries of them, into new positions in actual moments, arriving just in time and charging into action at the precise moment to change the battle's outcome. At othertimes, Ceasar marched his legions so quickly that foreign opponents were often amazed and taken completely by surprise, who often while attempting to respond, were then shockingly too slow, and were destroyed by the swift-moving Roman Legions that also practiced moving into combat quickly, even after a long march. Not merely a few brave platoons, but the entire Legion moving in action, like a well-oiled machine, striking with lightning speed, engaging in fierce hand-to-hand combat, grinding through a slaughterhouse--and then also having the discipline and vigor--to pursue a retreating enemy also swiftly, hounding them day and night, to crush them. Many times the Roman Legions marched at night, under rain and darkness, to fight in the deep of the night, or precisely at the new dawn.

I suppose the defining legacy is the fact that Roman Legions performed such feats routinely--even when not in the hands of a commander like Ceasar.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Sorry, SHARK, you've glossed over the fact that Alexander's phalanx was not the same as that faced by the Romans. A century and a half or more of evolution (and frankly decline in quality) had occurred in the meantime. Again, look at how the Romans performed against Pyrrhus for a more apposite comparison.

Just as the Romans at Pydna or Magnesia or Cynocephalae weren't the same as Caesar's legionaries, a century later.

And for clarity, the pike is the Makedonian phalanx, not "Greek" - that's the hoplite phalanx.

Quote from: Kiero;1082093Sorry, SHARK, you've glossed over the fact that Alexander's phalanx was not the same as that faced by the Romans. A century and a half or more of evolution (and frankly decline in quality) had occurred in the meantime.

I wouldn't say that it was a decline in quality - just an overspecialization. The later phalanxes would probably have had the edge over Alexander's phalanx due to having heavier armor & longer pikes. (Not beat Alexander's specific soldiers who were badass veterans - but the same style of phalanx.) But they lost a TON of flexibility in the process - both to deal with unexpected changes on the battlefield (it took them an hour or two to set up their formation) and strategic - because they were slower.

Quote from: Kiero;1082093Sorry, SHARK, you've glossed over the fact that Alexander's phalanx was not the same as that faced by the Romans. A century and a half or more of evolution (and frankly decline in quality) had occurred in the meantime. Again, look at how the Romans performed against Pyrrhus for a more apposite comparison.

Just as the Romans at Pydna or Magnesia or Cynocephalae weren't the same as Caesar's legionaries, a century later.

And for clarity, the pike is the Makedonian phalanx, not "Greek" - that's the hoplite phalanx.

Greetings!

Hello, Kiero! Well, I apologise. I certainly didn't intend to gloss over the changes that developed with the Phalanx in the years after Alexander. As magnificent as Alexander the Great was, as a general, and as formidable as his outstanding armies were--they still never encountered a force quite like the Roman Legions, trained and led by the Roman system. The Phalanx forces had indeed changed in the intervening years--and such changes, as others have noted--in equipment, training, and leadership--did not equip them well to stand against the Roman Legions.

The Romans proved to be a uniquely different and powerful *system*--never before encountered by the various powers around the Mediterranean. The Roman state was so dedicated and efficient, that even when suffering an epic disaster like Cannae, where Hannibal annihilated a Roman army of 80,000 soldiers--within a matter of a few months, Rome had replaced them all, and was ready to fight again, and again. Virtually all of the Mediterranean powers at the time were entirely astonished by such a turn of events--it was the accepted wisdom that any state suffering such an absolute disaster would have surrendered, and otherwise collapsed internally. And yet, Rome did not kneel, and beg for mercy. Instead they redoubled their efforts, hardened their resolve, and raised entirely new armies to defend Rome. Even the word "Peace" was outlawed within Rome. LOL. The Romans proved again and again that they could lose a battle, or even several--but they would win the war. That kind of ruthless, unyielding tenacity helped elevate them to new heights of dominion and unassailable power.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1082110Greetings!

Hello, Kiero! Well, I apologise. I certainly didn't intend to gloss over the changes that developed with the Phalanx in the years after Alexander. As magnificent as Alexander the Great was, as a general, and as formidable as his outstanding armies were--they still never encountered a force quite like the Roman Legions, trained and led by the Roman system. The Phalanx forces had indeed changed in the intervening years--and such changes, as others have noted--in equipment, training, and leadership--did not equip them well to stand against the Roman Legions.

The Romans proved to be a uniquely different and powerful *system*--never before encountered by the various powers around the Mediterranean. The Roman state was so dedicated and efficient, that even when suffering an epic disaster like Cannae, where Hannibal annihilated a Roman army of 80,000 soldiers--within a matter of a few months, Rome had replaced them all, and was ready to fight again, and again. Virtually all of the Mediterranean powers at the time were entirely astonished by such a turn of events--it was the accepted wisdom that any state suffering such an absolute disaster would have surrendered, and otherwise collapsed internally. And yet, Rome did not kneel, and beg for mercy. Instead they redoubled their efforts, hardened their resolve, and raised entirely new armies to defend Rome. Even the word "Peace" was outlawed within Rome. LOL. The Romans proved again and again that they could lose a battle, or even several--but they would win the war. That kind of ruthless, unyielding tenacity helped elevate them to new heights of dominion and unassailable power.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Sorry, but you've mistaken me for an Alexander fanboy, I am not. He wasn't magnificent, he was capable enough and inherited an incredibly benevolent situation. His father certainly was magnificent - look at the situation he inherited, Makedonia was a small, poor, dysfunctional kingdom, occupied by neighbours and without any meaningful army. Alexander's phalanx wasn't his, it was the machine his father crafted. And I don't mean that figuratively, they were Philip's veterans filling his ranks and officer cadre.

Again, you're comparing apples and pears, and frankly you seem to have swallowed the myth of Roman invincibility whole. Look at the Pyrrhic Wars, where pre-Marian Romans came up against a recent Successor to Alexander. The Romans lost repeatedly, and lost more men than Pyrrhus, they won strategically because their reserves were effectively infinite. And because their Carthaginian allies defeated Pyrrhus' naval forces.

The Romans lost many times, they escaped catastrophe because they had huge manpower available to replace losses in a way no Hellenistic kingdom of the act could have done. They lost hundreds of thousands of men in naval defeats (and even after some victories) in the First Punic War. They hundreds of thousands again to Hannibal in the Second Punic War. They lost repeatedly in the Numantine War in Spain, to the Cimbri-Teutones migration, to Sertorius in Spain, to Mithridates, to the Parthians.

Ruthless, unyielding tenacity only gets you far when you can replace entire armies in a season or two.

Quote from: SHARK;1082110As magnificent as Alexander the Great was, as a general, and as formidable as his outstanding armies were--they still never encountered a force quite like the Roman Legions, trained and led by the Roman system.

I expect Alexander vs Rome would have gone a lot like Hannibal vs Rome. He'd have destroyed a lot of Roman armies and still lost the war.

As I think you noted above, the greatest Roman genius was a logistical & military system that could cope with very average generalship and still come out victorious in the end. They remind me of the Americans in fact.

Quote from: S'mon;1082144I expect Alexander vs Rome would have gone a lot like Hannibal vs Rome. He'd have destroyed a lot of Roman armies and still lost the war.

As I think you noted above, the greatest Roman genius was a logistical & military system that could cope with very average generalship and still come out victorious in the end. They remind me of the Americans in fact.

Even more fundamental was vast reserves of manpower and agricultural volume that meant they had more men and better supplies than anyone else. Yes, much like modern America.

Quote from: S'mon;1082144I expect Alexander vs Rome would have gone a lot like Hannibal vs Rome. He'd have destroyed a lot of Roman armies and still lost the war.

As I think you noted above, the greatest Roman genius was a logistical & military system that could cope with very average generalship and still come out victorious in the end. They remind me of the Americans in fact.

Greetings!

LOL! Yes, indeed, they remind you of the Americans, don't they? America is often compared and seen as a modern "Roman Empire." I can also see the similarity in the systems involved. I've long thought that it is precisely the organizational and recruiting system that the Romans developed that really elevated and secured the foundations of Roman dominance for centuries. As I mentioned, and Kiero expounded upon, Rome suffered huge losses and numerous battles, though they always prevailed in winning the war. Other Mediterranean powers were not adequately equipped politically, socially, and economically to effectively deal with such a challenge.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1082153Other Mediterranean powers were not adequately equipped politically, socially, and economically to effectively deal with such a challenge.

No, other powers didn't have a reserve of four million people they could call upon if necessary. Even after depopulating their regular reserve by the 1st century BC, Rome found they could turn to a new one with the urban poor after that.

Quote from: Kiero;1082143Sorry, but you've mistaken me for an Alexander fanboy, I am not. He wasn't magnificent, he was capable enough and inherited an incredibly benevolent situation. His father certainly was magnificent - look at the situation he inherited, Makedonia was a small, poor, dysfunctional kingdom, occupied by neighbours and without any meaningful army. Alexander's phalanx wasn't his, it was the machine his father crafted. And I don't mean that figuratively, they were Philip's veterans filling his ranks and officer cadre.

Again, you're comparing apples and pears, and frankly you seem to have swallowed the myth of Roman invincibility whole. Look at the Pyrrhic Wars, where pre-Marian Romans came up against a recent Successor to Alexander. The Romans lost repeatedly, and lost more men than Pyrrhus, they won strategically because their reserves were effectively infinite. And because their Carthaginian allies defeated Pyrrhus' naval forces.

The Romans lost many times, they escaped catastrophe because they had huge manpower available to replace losses in a way no Hellenistic kingdom of the act could have done. They lost hundreds of thousands of men in naval defeats (and even after some victories) in the First Punic War. They hundreds of thousands again to Hannibal in the Second Punic War. They lost repeatedly in the Numantine War in Spain, to the Cimbri-Teutones migration, to Sertorius in Spain, to Mithridates, to the Parthians.

Ruthless, unyielding tenacity only gets you far when you can replace entire armies in a season or two.

Greetings!

No, Kiero, I'm not mistaking you for being a fanboy of Alexander the Great. Indeed, I'm quite well-aware that Phillip of Macedon established the foundations of the army that Alexander the Great later led into the Persian Empire while he was a teenager. In addition, yes, most of his commanders and officers had served under Phillip before Alexander. I never said anything contrary to such facts. And, furthermore--the fact that Phillip of Macedon established the foundations of the army that Alexander marched into Persia--doesn't make Alexander the Great any *less* magnificent of a commander. Alexander the Great demonstrated outstanding leadership and battlefield skills, all of which Alexander demonstrated long after his father was in the grave.

As for your analysis of Roman losses and assuming I have "swallowed the myth of Roman invincibility whole"--I'm not sure if you read my statement fully. I specifically mentioned that Rome suffered a crushing, believed to be disastrous defeat--at the at Battle of Cannae, among others. Roman Legions were certainly not invincible, and I never said that they were. However, the Roman system--which I did specifically mention, was indeed novel at the time. Rome proved to be particularly powerful in the political, economic, and social system that they established that allowed them to contantly raise new armies, and power-project them around the Mediterranean world over sustained campaigns. That was a historically remarkable fact, supported and articulated by mountains of scholarship, both ancient and modern. While there were a number of factors which contributed to the rise of the Roman Empire, I certainly think that the particular Roman system was a very key element that promoted the Roman Empire to such extraordinary heights of dominion.

Pyrrhus was an outstanding general, and led a potent campaign fighting the Romans. That is all quite accurate. Pyrrhus still lost an unacceptable number of casualties, and ultimately failed. That is why we remember Pyrrhus to this day for giving us "Pyrrhic Victories." In the end, though, the Romans were victorious.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK