Rome vs. India

Am I the only person who noticed that the Roman's did not use phalanxes?

Well, aside from the early republican army, but I challenge anybody to seriously claim that that is Rome at it's greatest power.

Anyways, the Roman legionary system did a pretty decent job of countering elephants when they encountered them (Pyrrhus's expedition, for instance).

Finally, I would point out that the wars of the successors saw elephants used fairly frequently, and it did not render the Macedonian-style phalanx obsolete (it declined in importance, but not because of the presence of elephants).

Yeah they declined in importance because of the legion's ability to operate in small units. In many battles the tactical flexibility of the legion beat the the weight of the phalanx. And as many people pointed out, Romans faced elephants not just with Pyrrhus but also against the Carthaginians (who used African Elephants) and beat them handily. Elephants were mobile tanks (moving at roughly the same speed on the ancient battle field that the first tanks did on the modern battlefields of WW1) that were hard to control and really only good as terror weapons and as archery platforms. Hands down I give this one to the Romans.
 
Yeah they declined in importance because of the legion's ability to operate in small units. In many battles the tactical flexibility of the legion beat the the weight of the phalanx. And as many people pointed out, Romans faced elephants not just with Pyrrhus but also against the Carthaginians (who used African Elephants) and beat them handily. Elephants were mobile tanks (moving at roughly the same speed on the ancient battle field that the first tanks did on the modern battlefields of WW1) that were hard to control and really only good as terror weapons and as archery platforms. Hands down I give this one to the Romans.

The republican legions did defeat the phalanx, but that isn't what I refer too. The phalanx's role in Hellenistic warfare had been declining in some respect since the Peleponesian war, albiet with revivals by the thebans and Phillip/Alexander. This decline wasn't due to the legion (at the time of alexander, the legion did not exist), but rather due to the rise of lighter forces, and, in the case of the successor's armies, the development of heavy cavalry as the primary means of decision. The legion finished off the phalanx, but it was already not nearly as vital to Hellenistic warfare as it had been.

As for elephants, they had their uses, but were of limited utility, and the romans demonstrated repeatidly that they could handle them.
 
Assuming that Rome conquers Persia (a historical question in it's own right, but we have an OP) and either crosses or is at the Indus and mountaing an expedition where Alexander didn't go, they have to face ...what? The Kushan Empire? It doesn't seem to be the Guptas (too late) so it will be at a time India is rather divided, and before the Golden Age... hmm...
Anyways, the discussion is veering a bit off with the war elephants. Indians will have infantry too, you know... If I recall it would be lighter than the Romans.
In general, even if the Roman gain some victories, they still have to go through the Middle East and Persia. Long, long supply line. There probably won't be any long-term occupation of large sections of India, especially if/when Persia rebels.
 
The republican legions did defeat the phalanx, but that isn't what I refer too. The phalanx's role in Hellenistic warfare had been declining in some respect since the Peleponesian war, albiet with revivals by the thebans and Phillip/Alexander. This decline wasn't due to the legion (at the time of alexander, the legion did not exist), but rather due to the rise of lighter forces, and, in the case of the successor's armies, the development of heavy cavalry as the primary means of decision. The legion finished off the phalanx, but it was already not nearly as vital to Hellenistic warfare as it had been.

As for elephants, they had their uses, but were of limited utility, and the romans demonstrated repeatidly that they could handle them.

One should distinguish between the the classical Hellenic hoplite phalanx of the Peloponnesian War, which became obsolete during Philip II's invasion of Greece, and the sarissaphoroi phalangites of the Hellenistic successor-states, which dominated Hellenistic warfare until the 1st century BC. Although other troop types, most notably the heavy mobile infantry thureophoroi and thorakitai, the pseudo-Roman legionary machairophoroi, and the light-infantry peltastai did emerge, the backbone of the Hellenistic armies remained the sarissa phalangites. It was these sarissaphoroi phalangites that were defeated by the Roman legions at Cynosephalae, Magnesia and Pydna. The use of large numbers of heavy cavalry and cavalry archers was restricted to the Graeco-Bactrian state, and, to a lesser extent the Seleucid Empire. A combined arms doctrine was only succesfully employed by Alexander III the Great; following his death it was largely abandoned in favor the traditional phalangite infantry dominated battle.
 

Maur

Banned
Assuming that Rome conquers Persia (a historical question in it's own right, but we have an OP) and either crosses or is at the Indus and mountaing an expedition where Alexander didn't go, they have to face ...what? The Kushan Empire? It doesn't seem to be the Guptas (too late) so it will be at a time India is rather divided, and before the Golden Age... hmm...
Well, OP seems to mention Mauryan Empire....
 
Top