Macedonian Phalanx beats Roman Legion?

Ah, then it does not seem, that Romans have such inherent tactical advantage as some people here make it out.
But it was already after the reforms (introducing the cohort as the main tactical formation) made by Scipio Africanus.

Already a big step forward compared to the linear tactics that so cost them at Cannae.

Off course, this did not mean all was well: at the end of the 2nd century BC the Romans lost about a 100,000 men TWICE to Germanic tribes, which in turn prompted Marian's reforms.
To quickly put a lot of people in the army, Marian had the state pay for his soldier's kits, so he could recruit from the poor that could not afford their own weapons. He managed to defeat the barbarians, but from then on, the troops were loyal to their commanders, not the state. Indeed, the first Roman Civil War followed quickly when Sulla and Marius fought eachother only a few decades after his reforms.
 
I think it'd be a one time victory, and then Rome would come roaring back. The Romans developed a perfectly good strategy against the phalanx.... first, a couple of volleys of their weighted javelins would disrupt the phalanx ranks, as the javelins would stick in the shields and drag them down. Second, the big shields and stabbing blades carried by the legions were ideal for dealing with what was effectively a pike formation... the shields turn aside the pikes, and once they're inside the formation, the swords of the legionaires makes short work of the phalanx soldiers. Centuries later, the Swiss pikemen ran into the same problem against sword and buckler men....

Actually, phalanx did not have shields, or rather, they had small shields, of which it's debatable about how they were used in battle. In any case, they should be easily dropped and not impair operational efficiency at all. Thus, pila would have no different effect against phalanx than other missiles it might have had to face.

Secondly, the Swiss and phalanx are two wholly different matters. A Swiss square would kicked Roman ass all over the battlefield, cavalry or no cavalry, even or uneven ground. Sword and bucklers were quickly abandonded by both the Spanish and the Italians when they came into contact with the Swiss, because they simply were too ineffective. Gonzalo Cordova instituted them, but very soon he got his own pikemen instead and his successors abandoned them altogether.

Basically, swords and bucklers worked fine when the Spanish or the Italians were storming immobile, defensive Moorish/Italian pike formations, but against, fast, aggressive, lethal Swiss squares?

Roadkill.
Roadkill, baby.
 
I agree that Macedonia stood no chance against Rome.

  • The Macedonian phalanx needed a leader like Phillip II or Alexander to make it truly effective.
  • Macedonia was too warn out after Alexander and the wars of his successers. Remember Greece had never truly been unified.
  • The Roman legion allowed for initiative to be taken on the battlefield. Individual commanders could make quick decisions to take advantage of opportunities that arose.
  • The phalanx was like a steamroller in that once it started moving, that was it, and if it lost its cohesion, it would be undone.

Actually, it did not need a genius like Philip or Alexander to be effective. The problem was that warfare devolved after the Diadochi, instead of evolving and advancing. Alexander would've been at disadvantage, had he fought a legion, because his battle style made no allowance for either a true reserve or the concept of commander in chief. The difference would've been that he would've learned his lessons and modified his tactics accordingly.

The heirs of Alexander showed, apparently, no such adaptive ability whatsoever. It took a Carthaginian, Hannibal, to advance the Alexandrine tactics to the point that it should have. Really, what would Alexander and Philip have thought of garish scythed chariots and elephants, and horse archers and archers of dubious loyalty and proven dis-integration into the regular army? Or outlandishly cumbersome phalanx that lost all but the most basic mobility, for a formation that was cumbersome even in Alexander's day?
 

Susano

Banned
Pydna or no Pydna, Macedon was fated to lose. Macedon post-Alexander had zero chance to be a world power. The only Antigonid who could've made a difference was Philip V, and that was only because of Hannibal in Italy, but Philip even botched that. In consequence, he was stuck in Greece fighting a war he never should've, while Hannibal sat on his ass after Cannae, waiting in vain for Philip to appear.

Seleucid Asia could have become a counterweight to Rome, for it had sufficient wealth and manpower (above all, in cavalry) to stop Rome from crossing over into Asia, but for the Great King Antiochus' follies that prematurely ruined the kingdom.

Egypt was the most ideal location for a Hellenistic counterweight, but for some reason, Egypt had been known as the Broken Reed since the New Kingdom, and the Ptolemies did not disappoint either. They, like their Egyptian and Persian predecessors, ran the country into political oblivion and thus was of no consequence after Queen Arsinoe died.

The Ptolemies? They had to enter vasallage to Rome to not fall to the Seleucids! If at all, the Seleucids are the best bet. Had they managed to secure Egypt, then Rome would have faced a massive counterweight in the East.
 
The Ptolemies? They had to enter vasallage to Rome to not fall to the Seleucids! If at all, the Seleucids are the best bet. Had they managed to secure Egypt, then Rome would have faced a massive counterweight in the East.

That was only because their political leadeship was so lacking. In theory, Egypt had the best chance; it was like Australia in Risk. ;)

It was rich, though lacking in many important commodities, and so long as it had a great navy, it was an impregnanble fortress: an invasion by Sinai, a virtual suicide for the invaders.

Unfortunately, Egypt had this strange effect on its rulers, making them weak or complacent, or both. As result, its potential was never matched since the New Kingdom. The Sick Man of the Ancient World, if you will.
 
Interesting...any delay of the war helps unite Egypt and Syria though, as Antiochus IV invaded Egypt in 166 or 165 (can't remember!), but was famously forced to leave thanks to the whole "line in the sand" business. If Rome is too busy dealing with Perseus, this becomes a fait accomplit, and you have your Seleucidity in place to...hopefully get really lucky and watch as someone else blows two-inch holes through Rome's kneecaps. :)

EDIT: Of course, this has interesting run-on effects. Antiochus is not in a pissy mood from getting WTFPWNED by the Romans, and doesn't enact the Abomination of Desolation in the temple at Jerusalem. He also doesn't go off and try to conquer Parthia right away, and maybe he doesn't catch his disease (is that how he died?). If he lived another twelve to fifteen years, his infant son will actually be of some age, preempting the succession crises that humbled the Seleucids in the first place...
 
Interesting...any delay of the war helps unite Egypt and Syria though, as Antiochus IV invaded Egypt in 166 or 165 (can't remember!), but was famously forced to leave thanks to the whole "line in the sand" business. If Rome is too busy dealing with Perseus, this becomes a fait accomplit, and you have your Seleucidity in place to...hopefully get really lucky and watch as someone else blows two-inch holes through Rome's kneecaps. :)

EDIT: Of course, this has interesting run-on effects. Antiochus is not in a pissy mood from getting WTFPWNED by the Romans, and doesn't enact the Abomination of Desolation in the temple at Jerusalem. He also doesn't go off and try to conquer Parthia right away, and maybe he doesn't catch his disease (is that how he died?). If he lived another twelve to fifteen years, his infant son will actually be of some age, preempting the succession crises that humbled the Seleucids in the first place...

That is, if he didn't get another son/sons - ah, the home war...

Also, didn't Antiochus IV got his chance at Egypt BECAUSE Rome was involved with Macedon? If Romans were unoccupied, it is possible that he wouldn't even get to Egypt...

BTW, Antiochus invaded Egypt in 169 BC...
 
WI Perseus after his victory at Pydna pursues the fleeing Romans and kicks them out of Balkans? Perhaps an attack to Italy like Pyrrus? (though i highly doubt if he was able to do that...)
 
Perhaps an attack to Italy like Pyrrus? (though i highly doubt if he was able to do that...)
To move army to Italy Perseus would need a big navy... which he didn't have. His father had the same problem and wasn't able to solve it - Philip II even tried to use his soldiers as oarsmen, so he would keep the number of employed people down, but...
 
Top