How did the Romans manage to defeat the Greek phalanx? It seems like impenetrable.

How did the Romans manage to defeat the Greek phalanx? It seems like impenetrable.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They had the advantage where the phalanx was broken up by rough terrain or disorganization in the enemy army.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did the Romans manage to defeat the Greek phalanx? It seems like impenet-ACK

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We're just gonna conquer these silly Latin barbari-ack!
      He didn't die there though. Some Greek hag threw a brick on his head when he was riding in the shade. Unclear if he was wearing a helmet or if his generals Alexander'd him too.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >He didn't die there though. Some Greek hag threw a brick on his head when he was riding in the shade. Unclear if he was wearing a helmet or if his generals Alexander'd him t-ACK

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >his bodyguard on the right wondering what the f-ack!
          I've read somewhere that his top three generals were in on it, along with the Macedonian king who wanted to israelite Pyrrhus out of some hard earned clay. But it's also likely he actually banged her daughter and she shingle'd him in return.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Heh, Nothing personnel, infantulus.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of Cynoscephale, look it up. Terrain was very uneven and this meant phalanx did not have an ideal frontal cover, which let legionaries approach and engage them in close quarters. That and some side flank manoeuvres.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So they used elephants. buttholes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That is a pike phalanx and the Romans never did beat them. The Roman Macedonian war saw Roman cavalry outflank the Macedonian formation and route the Pike formation. However it’s left out but the Roman infantry was losing to the Pikemen.

      Not what happened. The legions were losing even on the uneven terrain. It was the cavalry which routed the Macedonians.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >roman cavalry
        >doing anything useful
        Say something more believable next time.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is a really good point. The phalanx itself did fine with the Roman-Seleucid war. Despite Selecuids having much better cavalry than the Macedonians and outnumbering the Romans by 2:1 or more, the Romans still took the center at Magnesia and routed them. All the Roman forces took orders in Latin and could coordinate better and faster, plus the morale factor of fighting as one. Along with constantly harassing Roman projectiles, it was only the panicked war elephants of the Seleucids that broke their phalanxes and caused them to lose their center.

        Stupid gay elephants.

        At least among Seleucids there a kind of tower of babel strategy in terms of linguistic and cultural integration that was very effective until Romans came on the scene. I genuinely have no idea how one could coordinate such a force in-battle effectively against a monolingual force and that's likely why the Seleucids got routed so quick even after initially BTFO'ing Roman cavalry. Before the Romans that's just how things were done in Alexander's former territory. That and MENA chuds get routed laughably easily when you kill like 15% of their force and not even a single one of their leaders just LMAO.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I genuinely have no idea how one could coordinate such a force in-battle effectively
          It's not easy. Alexander and Pyrrhus were able to do it, use complex combined arms. But it's not easy and if something goes wrong the whole thing tends to fall apart. Shame Antiochus III's oldest son died early. He seems to have been quite capable, judging by Panium, at Magnesia might have gone differently had he been commanding the cavalry and not Antiochus III.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Romans also used the Phalanx along with their Triplex often employing Greek allies in their battle line. Sometimes the Roman centre was completely pushed off, sometimes it was the Greeks that tumbled but there was a lot of shit storms during the Pyrrhic and the Macedonian wars that could have gone both ways.

    If there was any advantage to the Roman troops it was known that the Gladius had a specially horrifying effect to the Greeks according to Titus Livius.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the Gladius had a specially horrifying effect to the Greeks
      didn't Greek hoplites carry swords too? What was so special about the gladius?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Hispanic swords were a lot heavier and longer. The Xiphos were depending on the period were small as long knives. Also the effects in which the hacking and maiming gladius was used put the fear of the gods in the Greeks.

        "With the view of doing more to win the affections of his men and make them more ready to meet danger on his behalf, Philip paid special attention to the burial of the men who had fallen in the cavalry action and ordered the bodies to be brought into camp that all might see the honour paid to the dead. But nothing is so uncertain or so difficult to gauge as the temper of a mass of people. The very thing which was expected to make them keener to face any conflict only inspired them with hesitancy and fear. Philip's men had been accustomed to fighting with Greeks and Illyrians and had only seen wounds inflicted by javelins and arrows and in rare instances by lances. But when they saw bodies dismembered with the gladius hispaniensis, arms cut off from the shoulder, heads struck off from the trunk, bowels exposed and other horrible wounds, they recognised the style of weapon and the kind of man against whom they had to fight, and a shudder of horror ran through the ranks."
        Livius 31.34.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sounds like Roman propaganda
          it's just a sword, nothing special

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sounds like Roman propaganda
            >it's just a sword, nothing special

            What is next? Iron is no better than bronze?
            Stirrup looks also mundane but the consequences of its use were huge.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrought iron isn't better that bronze

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good thing the Romans used steel to make the gladius

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not always; but that is beside the point

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Romans had steel in the bronze age? Time travelers messing with history again.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Idiot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bro Rome starts at the very end of the bronze age.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no it does not, it starts in the 8th century BC which is the iron age, yeah there were some villages before but that's like saying Athens starts in the Neolithic because there were villages in the area during that time

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            iron != steel

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Steel was already known by the 12th-11th century b.c.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >impenetrable
    but also not very maneuverable - which is precisely how Alexander had such a swell time defeating it during his subjugation of the Greek city states, by using cavalry and light(er) infantry to flank and harass and break up the formation
    The Romans also used this to an even greater degree because their infantry, while still heavy, was much better at wheeling around and changing face to deal with flanking maneuvers whereas the phalanx really only superior in a head-on fight

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Alexander only marched on Greece twice, and sieged and razed Thebes during during the second time as the only major instance of fighting, and was confirmed as hegemon both times by the sufficiently freightened Greeks. He had no need to undertake a subjugation campaign in Greece, unlike Illyria and Thrace which took actual military campaigns to insure their docility for the upcoming Persian undertaking.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Frightening people who would otherwise want to determine their own affairs into doing what you tell them to do by eradicating an entire city kinda seems like subjugation to me

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The quest for subjugation had already been undertaken by his father and had taken 25 years of constant campaigning and diplomatic shrewdness to see to fulfil. Alexander, in comparison, only had to restore the status quo which didn't even take any battles (save for the razing of Thebes). So the previous poster is wrong about Alexander using cavalry and lighter troops to flank, harass and break the clunkier Greek formations by the virtue of such campaigns not even existing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Could Alexander have stopped the Romans?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No.
          Macedon phalanx was outdated by 2nd century BC.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Had he lived longer and then later invaded Italy he would have flattened them.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you've made this exact same post in one of these threads before and have been corrected before. Stop posting in these threads until you learn the history properly

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They simply maneuvered around it. This sounds easy and simple, but it isn't. You need a highly organized and coordinated force to maneuver in small groups the way the Roman maniple system did. The Greek phalanx kept its army in a large group which meant sub-commanders were simply relays for the primary commander, their main task was to keep every one in sync, holding formation. Roman sub-commanders actually adapted to the situation and had to be capable of flexible, independent thinking.

    Remember that in pre-modern times there were no radios, if a commander wanted to relay commands to his sub-commanders he had to do so either with his voice, with messengers, or with long-distance signals (horns, drums, flags, etc). These methods constrain the distance over which an army can maneuver, and the speed with which it can react to new commands.

    Maniple formations were a huge breakthrough only possible because of the density of autonomous command structures in the Roman military. Unlike the Greek system, taking down a high ranking commander wouldn't necessarily cause a Roman army of this era to completely fall apart. The centurians could hold the army together and regroup.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This homie gets it.

      The great strength of the Roman legion was not in any specific formation or tactic, but in the redundancy and independence of it's command structure. The Roman Legion was absurdly adaptable and capable of recovering from blows that would have crippled or destroyed other armies of the time.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It didn't happen because you're dealing with 1,000+ years of essentially backstory made up after the fact by bored monks.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cope

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were prohibited by Roman Law from losing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love posts like these

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    5 Again, 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, 6 all of which are sufficient to impede and break up such a formation. p155 7 Every one would also acknowledge that it is almost impossible except in very rare cases to find spaces of say twenty stades or even more in length with no such obstacles. 8 But even if we assume it to be possible, supposing those who are fighting against us refuse to meet us on such ground, but force round sacking the cities and devastating the territory of our allies, what is the use of such a formation? 9 For by remaining on the ground that suits it, not only is it incapable of helping its friends but cannot even ensure its own safety. 10 For the arrival of supplies will easily be prevented by the enemy, when they have undisturbed command of the open country. 11 But if the phalanx leaves the ground proper to it and attempts any action, it will be easily overcome by the enemy. 12 And again, if it is decided to engage the enemy on level ground, but instead of availing ourselves of our total force when the phalanx has its one opportunity for charging, we keep out of action even a small portion of it at the moment of the shock, it is easy to tell what will happen from what the Romans always do at present, 32 1 the likelihood of the result I now indicate requiring no argument but only the evidence of actual facts. 2 For 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.

    Polybus The Histories Book 18

    Basically the Romans knew that their less rigid infantry would overcome the Phalanx under odd terrain. Whether the phalanx chose to push forward by momentum or were forced to by missiles or flanking depended on the battle.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Polybius quoted. Thread is over. Question answer. Great job anon.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Np. Im downloading Rome 2 again and try what Polybus said for fun.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It works (Triplex Acies also works) but only against the AI. Even then the AI can generally react supernaturally fast to any maneuvers you try and because of the nature of the TW games (blocks of 100-200 infantry with distinct orders) it doesn't really work as well as it should. It basically makes the phalanx armies work in manipules like a consular legion instead of fighting as one huge army group like they really did and negates the disadvantages of the phalanx.

          IIRC there is a mod that tries to replicate the difficulty of sending or rescinding orders to each unit which makes it a lot easier to replicate actual ancient combat, in that units are basically forced to act on whatever orders were last issues and can't just flip direction on a dime.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Polybius quoted. Thread is over. Question answer. Great job anon.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna
    Once they start dying the formation is not as pretty

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did the Romans manage to defeat the Greek phalanx?
    Easily

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have a question that doesnt deserve its own thread but it has to do with romans so I'll ask here.

    I heard a long time ago that when romans sacked carthage they 'salted the land' to prevent crops from growing. But what does that look like in practice? How do you cart around or ship in enough salt and deposit it into the soil to prevent crops from growing? There's a lot of land out there.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I heard a long time ago that when romans sacked carthage they 'salted the land' to prevent crops from growing.
      According to my rome prof, that story is false.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh okay. I was thinking it would take an insane amount of man power to pull off so that makes more sense.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just flank it bro

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What happens when an unstoppable force (Phalanx) meets an immovable object (Tesudo)?

    But seriously now, the Phalanx is weak to projectiles and maneuver warfare.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By being a proto version of a modern nation state in the ancient world. Having some superior infantry formations isn't going to counteract the huge advantages rome had over everybody else.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    greekoids are inferior men to roman bulls

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16679890

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *