Macedonian Wars

>>2495753
Is this thread a joke. For fucks sake!

Alexander's enemies were unfamiliar to how to approach defeating the Macedonian phalangx while his Macedonian successors were unfamiliar with how to defeat the maniple.

Alexander never built the main concept of his army of that of a defensive one. In-fact, he was said to do shit like destroy defense dams on the Euphrates, despite owning the territory for a couple years already and them not being used against him, because he didn't like the idea of fighting defensively but always approach battles with an offensive or counter offensive mentality. The Macedonian Phalangx was heavily reliant on auxiliary to function, they needed to have a competent cavalry and or skirmisher forces to work, as-well as Hypaspists to defend it's flanks and to station at forts or garrisons in the places they conquered. If you broke through it on it's sides or back it would easily crumble. And it ultimately required a very experienced officer to co-ordinate the movement and formation of the forces.

The Roman maniple was far more expendable and versatile. They could bend when the situation called for it while the phalanx couldn't. They could fight offensively or defensively, and it was quite frankly more easier for the typical General in charge of a maniple to fully comprehend and know how to utilize the essential units in it, seeing how 3 out of the 4 (or 5, if you count the cavalry, but that wasn't as emphasized or crucial to it as a unit) were more identical with how to function together than a typical general in a Macedonian army would with his units (which phalangites, peltasts, and cavalry which compromised of them were very different specialties that it's hard to be an expert with knowing the capabilities of all of them).