Like you have this wall of spears coming toward you, you just have a short sword, they have way bigger reach and momentum, I don't get it, like the romans needed to get inside the wall of spears (suicidal) to be able to stab, you would expect a lot of casualties trying to do that yet it seems they defeated the phalanx with relative ease?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
They did have insane casualties. Its called a pyrric victory for a reason
I meant later on during their battles with the Macedonians. I think when they fought against Pyrrhus the romans didn't even use gladius yet, I think they also used spears at the time.
>Its called a pyrric victory for a reason
That refers to Pyrrhus' losses against the Romans not the other way around.
>flanks your spear wall
>Like you have this wall of spears coming toward you, you just have a short sword, they have way bigger reach and momentum, I don't get it, like the romans needed to get inside the wall of spears (suicidal) to be able to stab, you would expect a lot of casualties trying to do that yet it seems they defeated the phalanx with relative e-ACK
>STRUCK IN THE HEART
>AND PILLUM TO BLAME
>SNEEDOS WAS MY NAME!
Better flexibility
The phalanx were unbeatable in the front but always limited by their rigid formation, Alexander got over this by having good cavalry and a mix of peltast between them but this was forgotten over time
This. All successful pike formations had other arms supporting them.
>but this was forgotten over time
No it wasn’t. Every Diadochi army would have lighter infantry occupying the space between the cavalry and the phalanx or in some cases between the gaps in an “articulated phalanx”
Go look up a battle like Raphia or Magnesia. Those successor state armies were configured a lot like Alexander’s.
Ironically the romans suffered from the same sins of rigid tactics. They hated archery and considered it a cowardly "un-roman" weapon.
If they weren't such smug buttholes they would've been able to beat the persians
You can throw shit at them and flank them.
>How did the romans defeat the phalanx?
Realistically speaking they don't stand a chance against even an AK47.
>inb4 hurr that's cheating
you never specified the timeframe
honestly do you think it's possible to conquer the roman empire if you're just a guy who's in shape and has an infinite ammo assault rifle, basic understand of survival and tactics, and also an infinite ammo assault rifle?
i feel like if you engaged in guerilla tactics you could really frick their shit up. unless they send out some scouts to sneak up on you in the dead of night and cut your throat while you sleep, you can realistically just keep burning down the number of soldiers until they lose morale. imagine being some dipshit legionary and some dude 1km away starts picking you off, and anytime you try to run after him, he's already long gone.
how many legions would you have to wipe out before you could simply march into Rome and they'll cower away from you?
I guess they would whack you in your sleep
>some dude 1km away starts picking you off
I defy you or anyone else to do that with an AK
>romans pin you and surround your position
>figure out that line of sight = death
>very carefully move some ballistae into range and take you under fire from all sides
>capture infinite ammo rifle for the empire
I mean the question of which is better and how the Romans beat them was asked since Polybius. It’s obvious that the legion is the “superior army”. In the defence of the phalanx, it has to be noted that in all the Diadochoi battles it did its job of pinning the enemy down. Kynoskephalai was the exception but the terrain was unsuitable and Philipp V used 16 year olds and people older than 50 to bolster his phalanx numbers. In most other battles it was the Diadochoi flanks that first gave in which led to the phalanx being surrounded.
In some ways, the remarkable thing about all the Roman vs Hellenistic battles isn’t the ‘failure’, if one even exists of the phalanx, but rather the failure of Hellenistic cavalry. The standard game plan was for the heavy cavalry stationed on the right flank to come crushing in and rout the enemy. But at least in my reckoning, you have 3 major battles between Rome and the Epirotes, and 5 more against the major successor states; Heraclea, Asculum, Beneventum, Aous, Cynoscephalae, Thermopylae, Magnesia, and Pydna.
In none of them do the Hellenists pull off a crushing cavalry flanking attack. The closest they get is at Magnesia, and there it’s ruined by running off to try to back the camp and failing. And it’s not like the Romans had great cavalry to stop the Hellenistic horsemen. Always thought it a bit weird.
The legion is more flexible and fast. The phalanx is more strong to defend but is more rigid. The romans flanked them and they eventually collapsed.
The problem with the greeks is that they weren't united, if they would have been a unified empire from many time before I think the romans couldn't have defeated them.