>Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also admit.
one part of is was that all the successor states did not want to rely on their non-greek populace for their armies, preferring to draw them from Greek colonists. This kept their armies much smaller then you would expect.
Another part is that the whole Macedonian style of warfare was incredibly effective and pretty much unmatcched at the time - as long as you have the institutionla knowledge and training to properly support it - i.e. know how to effectively coordinate the various parts of it in a battle to cover eachothers weaknesses and play to eachothers strenghts. most of the successor states gradually lost this, as old knowledge was lost and training standards began to relax.
The most interesting explanation I've read is that in 100 years since Alexander average sarissa grew from 5m to 6-7m, since successor armies mostly fought each other and the longest pike always wins. So by the time Romans came sarissa became too heavy and unwieldy to be used effectively.
>>572453 >Why the fuck did a nation whose homeland was full of mountains and hills developed a battle formation that worked only on flat, bare land? Macedon is a flatland. Macedonians come from Macedon.
One theory is that the hoplite phalanx was originally invented to defend narrow mountain passes against invaders. If you can force your enemy to face you head on, a thick wall of spears and shields is a good tactic. After that, using a bigger spear then your enemy, to spike him before he spikes you, is just a good step.
the original Hoplites were meant to exploit bottlenecks. Macedonian terrain was more open then (most of) the rest of Greece, so they adapted the concept to suit their needs.
The biggest change of the Macedonians compared to the standard Greek style of warfare was the heavy use of cavalry. Useless in the mountains and hills along the Greek coast, great on open terrein to catch phalanxes in the side or run down skirmishers.
>>572513 And once Alexander dropped dead everyone forgot about cavalry and relied entirely on phalanxes which eventually fucked them over. Fucking Pyrrhus was one of the few who adapted the style instead of stubbornly getting fucked.
>>572884 DO YOU GUYS EVEN KNOW ANYTHING? The Successor states had the best cavalry of all antique settled nations. The Seleukids themselves had three thousand heavy cavalry which had elite status and then they had the settlers to call upon whom provided even more cavalry. Fucking romaboo inbreds.
>>572535 You do know they'd have called themselves hoplites, right?
>>575998 >butchered Actually, their infantry were winning when they left the field.
And, had they not had elephants in the formation, likely would have been able to march off the field intact-after losing both flanks, the phalanxes formed squares started marching off the field. the Romans weren't able to break it.
Eunemes, however, shot the shit out the elephants, and they snapped. Inside the squares.
Which they proceeded ot tear apart in their rage.
Also, the cavalry leaving wasn't even THAT big a deal. Less than ideal and stupid, but not a battle losing move.
Had it just been Romans and Italian auxiliaries forming the cavalry wing, the Romans would have lost both of their flanks, and then been ground out of existence against the pikes.
The knowledge that their baggage was being plundred (and servants, slave,s and women raped and killed) would likely have combined ot cause a rout.
However, they had an allied pergamese army wiht them, and pergmaese auxiliaries of their own, along with other Hellenic cavalry.
Take them away-or stop the Seleucids from fucking around with stupid fucking chariots-and the romans likely would have lost the battle.
>>576390 > camillan polybian and marian reforms > Rome 2 game mechanics is history now The only intentional "reform" was marian one, before that there was a slow process of adaptation and adoption. You can talk about "Polybian Legion" meaning "Roman army according to Polybius", but not about "Polybian reform". "Camilian reform" makes no sense at all, Roman army in 390s-380s was a typical (hoplite?) levy army, as it was a century before. If anything, you can mention Servius Reform, but it's a legendary stuff.
>>572314 This. Roman military manpower was more or less inexhaustible next to that of the Successor states.
>>572423 Roman's fucked up a lot of times. Against gauls, carthaginians, greeks. The difference is Rome could afford defeats. The greeks could not. Pyrrhus campaign against Rome was a taste of things to come and a pre-cursor of Roman dominance over the mediteranean. Even tho he was succesfull in his battles, the Romans would not yield.
There were battles in the Macedonian wars that the Macedonians won. But they were not decisive for aforementioned reasons, and we know very little about them today because of, you guessed it, the Victors write history.
>>572453 >Why the fuck did a nation whose homeland was full of mountains and hills developed a battle formation that worked only on flat, bare land?
The Pezheitaroi of Philip II and Alexander's campaign were trained in a multitude of fighting styles;
They were trained in pankration, They were skilled in mountain warfare, They were engaged when taking walls at sieges, They could form up in other formations.
Robin Lane Fox writes that when the Macedonian campaign reached Bactria and Sogdia, they abandoned the Sarissa.
Most likely, Hydaspes was not fought with the Sarissa at all, but rather they fought as spearmen in something that would more resemble a traditional phalanx.
The Macedonian phalanx was used when the terrain suited it. When it wasn't, they would equip themselves differently. It's likely that the sarissa could be divided in two, because of it's length, which means you could actually get a decent sized spear out of a sarissa as well. They also always wore their swords, with which they fought sieges and mountain warfare.
The idea of a Pezheitaroi as a phalangite - and only a phalangite - is not true to Alexander's army.
>I wonder, why? What was so different about Bactria and Sigdia, comparing to Iran?
First off, it could very well have been their experiences in Persia that made them abandon the Sarissa.
Second off, Iran isn't as mountaineous as Bactria was. They spent much of their time in Bactria hunting guerrillas through mountain ranges.
It should be noted that they didn't plan on abandoning the Sarissa forever. Alexander had 30,000 persian soldiers drilled in the Macedonian manner, including the Sarissa. Towards the end of his campaign, he may very well have had upwards of 100,000 - 150,000 men in his marching army ALONE (excluding the various garrisons) - including 50,000 - 60,000 Pezhetairoi of mixed origins.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.