WI : Romans adopt Sarissa / Macedonian Type Phalanx

Yuelang

Banned
Basically what's said on the title.

I know that Roman style legionaries (with swords, javelin, and scutum shields) are more flexible tactically, while Macedonian Phalanx is more rigid formation who need to be used with combined arms tactics to really shine, like what Alexander do...

But still, we could argue that the Diadochi, when the time they fight against Romans, they are already degrade militarily so instead of using the Phalanx as impenetrable anvil, they end up using it as the hammer instead of forming a competent section of flexible infantry comparable to Romans to guard their flanks as well as large enough contingent of cavalry to act as the hammer. Yes, they literally spend their money on Elephants, while powerful if used right, still we know that Elephants are more unreliable compared to horsemen.

The late hellenic troop types (Thureophoroi and Thorakitai),did exist and some actually think that they are the copies of Roman Legions, and at the time when they actually used in proper combined arms with Phalanx as the anvil, the Hellenic army will give good accounts of themselves.

Yeah, we know that later Roman Empire also adopt heavy cavalry tactics and use them as their main arms later on, especially in ERE. But still, in this hypothetical scenario, What If instead of dismissing the value of a massed group of disciplined men holding long spears, the Romans actually adopt Macedonian style Phalanxes and incorporate them (competently) into their combined arms tactics?

Discuss.
 
Well, Rome did used phalanx formations historically, that is until their main opponents were highlander leagues such as Samnits.

Phalanx formation(keeping in mind that we're talking about hellenistic phalanx, where sarissa became longer and heavier, with phalanx even less mobile that their predecessors) is painfully unadapted to fight on these grounds.
Eventually they adapted their tactics to create an articulated hoplitic formation that allowed them to fight more efficiently.

Holding on the phalanx model would eventually force Rome being a coastal power, probably rivaled by Samnits for Central Italian hegemony.
 
The Romans may hold their own against the Hellenes but they'll get completely wrecked during the Punic wars, which will inevitably happen.
 

Yuelang

Banned
Well, Rome did used phalanx formations historically, that is until their main opponents were highlander leagues such as Samnits.

Phalanx formation(keeping in mind that we're talking about hellenistic phalanx, where sarissa became longer and heavier, with phalanx even less mobile that their predecessors) is painfully unadapted to fight on these grounds.
Eventually they adapted their tactics to create an articulated hoplitic formation that allowed them to fight more efficiently.

Holding on the phalanx model would eventually force Rome being a coastal power, probably rivaled by Samnits for Central Italian hegemony.

Not necessarily I think, they can have their OTL manipular legion development early on when fighting against Samnites and other Latin tribes in Italy.

But they could (re)adapt to Macedonian style Phalanx warfare when fighting in Balkans and Asia I think, perhaps if one of the Diadochi actually end up reigning supreme (either Makedonia itself, Seleukidai, or Ptolemaioi, those three has the potential) the Romans would be forced to fight a massed battle against them on their terms...
 
The Romans may hold their own against the Hellenes but they'll get completely wrecked during the Punic wars, which will inevitably happen.

Why?

Carthaginian armies didn't have a great record against Greeks and Successor armies which emphasised more cavalry than the Roman norm would have coped with the Carthaginian cavalry better. The hoplites and Gallic / Spanish foot wouldn't fare well against the phalanx either.
 
But they could (re)adapt to Macedonian style Phalanx warfare when fighting in Balkans and Asia I think, perhaps if one of the Diadochi actually end up reigning supreme (either Makedonia itself, Seleukidai, or Ptolemaioi, those three has the potential) the Romans would be forced to fight a massed battle against them on their terms...

I don't think you'd have a real motivation for that. As I said above, phalanx became more and more hard to manoeuvre, essentially due to the costantly increased size of sarissa (up to 7 meters). As long you fought against other phalanxs, it was okay (not that Hellenistic kingdoms didn't tried to by-pass them using different methods : elephants, cavalry, Celts, etc.)

This unability to really manoeuvre and to adapt tactics safe for really great generals during a battle became painfully obvious when Romans landed in Greece. It could be argued that the Celtic victories against phalanx armies, using mobility and skirmishes already pointed out the tactical issue, adressed partially by Pyrrhus when he included more light troops (using equipment and tactics close to Romans') to his phalanxes in order to prevent maniples to out-maneuvre him.

But really, with Cynocephales, the tactical superiority of the maniple on phalanx was clear : Romans found the perfect can-opener (or rather, phalanx-opener) to deal with what became a tactical monstruosity.

Eventually, though, I could see phalanx re-utilisation less against a new unified hellenic ensemble than against actually skilled generals. In spite of his reputation, Pyrrhus pointed that it was possible to prevent flanking granted you used a mixed army and using more reasonably-sized sarissas and Hannibal did adapted well the hellenistic phalanx against Romans using equivalent protections.

A greek general attempting that again, protecting the flanks by simili-maniples or light troops could force Romans to copy these formations would it be only to avoid being crushed by still strong and more manoeuvrable phalanx.
Though I'm not convinced entierly it would last: the battles against most of great hellenistic phalanx really pointed out maniple tactical superiority. But that's the best I can think of.

Or, maybe more doable, having maniple getting back at phalanx-like tactics (as Hannibal did, without exactly using phalanx). After all, triarii abandoned long spears only recently by then, and they could keep it in this context. I'm not sure it would fill your OP, tough.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily I think, they can have their OTL manipular legion development early on when fighting against Samnites and other Latin tribes in Italy.

But they could (re)adapt to Macedonian style Phalanx warfare when fighting in Balkans and Asia I think, perhaps if one of the Diadochi actually end up reigning supreme (either Makedonia itself, Seleukidai, or Ptolemaioi, those three has the potential) the Romans would be forced to fight a massed battle against them on their terms...

The Romans fought several massed battles against the Diadochi on the Diadochi's terms, Magnesia being the most notable.

Rome won. Rome always won. I don't see the Romans ever choosing to abandon their maniples for a style of warfare they'd so comprehensively bested.
 
Probably the most obvious time for Romans to go down the Greek / Successor way of fighting would have been in the aftermath of a worse "defeat" to Pyrrhus.

So the "Roman" phalanx would have been based on the more flexible Alexandrian / Pyrrhic model rather than the clumsier versions that the later Successors used (Macedonia in the second century BCE was very much a degenerate version of a Successor army)

I doubt that the Roman phalanx would have been any less effective than Pyrrhus against the Carthaginians. Whether it would remain as a phalanx is a good question.

It would be extremely interesting to see a mix of phalanx and pilum - the pilum troops could take on the more flexible role that peltastes and hypaspists did in Alexander's and Pyrrus' armies.
 
So the "Roman" phalanx would have been based on the more flexible Alexandrian / Pyrrhic model rather than the clumsier versions that the later Successors used (Macedonia in the second century BCE was very much a degenerate version of a Successor army)
So, something more akin to Punic tactics and formations?

It would be extremely interesting to see a mix of phalanx and pilum - the pilum troops could take on the more flexible role that peltastes and hypaspists did in Alexander's and Pyrrus' armies.
Extremly interesting idea indeed.
 
So, something more akin to Punic tactics and formations?

It is difficult to say what a "Punic" tactic was.

They had a solid core of hoplites (African and/or Greek) and some good cavalry (heavy and light) but made do with a large percentage of mercenaries so, for example, Hannibal and his family didn't have a single tactical "manual" to work from but instead made the best of what they had. This often meant a large element of "tribal" infantry from Spain and Gaul.

I think you mentioned in a previous post about the Triarii transitioning from hoplite to legionary only a decade or two prior to Pyrrhus (and maybe never having completed the change according to some sources).

Some authors make a case for some of the Alexandrian phalanx elite being dual trained to fight either as close order phalangites or as a looser peltast type. I could see this "dual use" concept being retained in a "Roman" phalanx.
 
For a more or less professional and experienced fighting force like the Romans, the sword was far more preferable to the spear. It is also far more flexible for use on the uneven ground of Italy, especially when mixed with the manipular formation. There's no reason for the Romans to abandon their manipular formation and sword in favor of the more rigid phalanx. This is especially true when you consider the Diadochi states also had to adapt their phalanx to add more flexible formations as well-the evolution of the more flexible Thureophoroi, Thureokitai, and peltasts is a good example.
 
Top