Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did Romans defeat the Greek Phalanx?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    mihais,

    Simply put,Alexander,Pyrhus or Antigonos would not have fought the Romans the way the hellenistic kings did.
    well, pyrrhus DID fight the romans, and despite being an acknowledged superior battlefield commander, really only managed to eke out tactical...pyrrhic (;)) victories against a numerically-similar force led by relative nobodies.

    i agree greece lost because it was far more disorganized than the romans, but even tactically i don't see how the phalanx was really superior or even the equal to the maniple/legion.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mihais View Post
      Varied they were,among them shock tactics.The idea that ancient cav didn't used because it lacked stirrups is a myth.

      The Romans won first and foremost because they had better leadership and because the Macedonian army ceased to be a professional and a combined arms force.Simply put,Alexander,Pyrhus or Antigonos would not have fought the Romans the way the hellenistic kings did.
      You cannot deliver the heavy lance shock charge without stirrups and a canted saddle its a matter of physics.

      Comment


      • #18
        With all due respect to him Polybius was writing for a Roman audience...

        Comment


        • #19
          Macedonian army, Greek phalanx, Roman leaders...

          No wonder it was a bloodfest.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            You cannot deliver the heavy lance shock charge without stirrups and a canted saddle its a matter of physics.
            ''Strangely'',it did happened without stirrups.The Sarmatians,the Macedonians,the Persians and the Parthians all did it.It's about horsemanship and doctrine,although the stirrup helps.

            Astralis,the Macedonian army of Alexander only had ~40% phalangites.It had ~20% cavalry,whith the rest being an assortment of medium and light troops.The later army had a much higher proportion of phalangites as well as a reduced understanding on how the combined arms thingy worked. Pyrrhus had a large army overall,but he was in no position to have a really united command and he also had a shaky political ground in Italy.His only asset was his Epirote army,which was about a third of the total force and it was this small force that actually won the battles.
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mihais View Post
              ''Strangely'',it did happened without stirrups.The Sarmatians,the Macedonians,the Persians and the Parthians all did it.It's about horsemanship and doctrine,although the stirrup helps.
              Find a single ancient piece of art showing the lance tucked under the arm to deliver a medieval style charge- you wont there are known. Lancers thrust either over or under armed without the stirrup. They did not add the kinetic mass of the horse man to the delivery.

              Comment


              • #22
                I am very much with Mihais on this topic: Alexanders army was composed of many different and allied units... 'slingers', even some of what we today call 'sappers' or engineers. The stirrup issue I simply don't get... first of all stirrups in the west ONLY become needed when you have 'heavy cavalry' - men wearing armour in the medieval knight sense. In the east the cataphract horseman was essentialy an armoured horse carrying an archer. You do not need a stirrup unless you are going to hit something hard with a long pointy stick as in that case without it you fall off your horse. Cavalry in ancient times are NOT for breaking up infantry formations - they have NO chance against a phalanx anyway unless the phalanx or legion is already pinned from the front. You have only to look at Hannibal's use of cavalry at Cannae. If anything I would argue that the phalanx was superior to the Roman gladius and pila as after all pikemen were used in Europe until gunpowder become more effective and what are 'pikemen' but a derivation of the Greek phalanx.

                The 'Greek' problem was precisely that... they weren't 'Greeks'. Sure they would attend the same games etc but the strength of the 'polis' was also a weakness. You were 'Athenian' or 'Theban' or 'Spartan' and while you might recognise others as 'Hellenes' it didn't make them the same as you. The same was true in early Roman times for other 'Latins' and Romes long early wars with the Samnites and Etruscans and the 'Latinisation' of Italy can actually be shown to have changed the nature of the 'Roman' way of life and war itself. The Vestal Virgins were 'imported' so to speak from another Latin tribe. But in the same way that Rome 'latinised' Italy Alexander (and his Hellenic allies/subjects) 'Hellenised' most of the Levant. If you want to ask why Rome conquered Greece and not the other way around you have to look at the continuity of the political system as this didn't happen in one lifetime but over generations. The problem for the Hellenic world was primarily the early death of Alexander and the subsequent Diadochi wars where nobody could regain overall control; divided they fell. Had Alexander lived until he was 50 or more a more stable Hellenic world may have been created but the sheer enormity of his achievement and early death (at 34) meant that Hellenic strength was used in internal disputes.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by snapper View Post
                  I am very much with Mihais on this topic: Alexanders army was composed of many different and allied units... 'slingers', even some of what we today call 'sappers' or engineers. The stirrup issue I simply don't get... first of all stirrups in the west ONLY become needed when you have 'heavy cavalry' - men wearing armour in the medieval knight sense. In the east the cataphract horseman was essentialy an armoured horse carrying an archer. You do not need a stirrup unless you are going to hit something hard with a long pointy stick as in that case without it you fall off your horse.
                  Ever wonder why the best cav units guarded the right flank? That is the side where there are no shields. Ancient cav could and did use lances, but as thrusting not impact weapons. and they could and did tear into infantry formations, usually on the right flank to maximize effectiveness. It is not until the stirrup that the horse can be added to the equation as anything other than a transport. No armor or sheild a man could wear or carry can survive the impact of a heavy lance with the weight of a destrier traveling at 25-30mph behind it. The lance point impacts with about twice the energy of a .50 caliber bullet.


                  Cavalry in ancient times are NOT for breaking up infantry formations - they have NO chance against a phalanx anyway unless the phalanx or legion is already pinned from the front. You have only to look at Hannibal's use of cavalry at Cannae. If anything I would argue that the phalanx was superior to the Roman gladius and pila as after all pikemen were used in Europe until gunpowder become more effective and what are 'pikemen' but a derivation of the Greek phalanx.
                  Cav on an unguarded flank will break infantry formations rather quickly.

                  The 'Greek' problem was precisely that... they weren't 'Greeks'. Sure they would attend the same games etc but the strength of the 'polis' was also a weakness. You were 'Athenian' or 'Theban' or 'Spartan' and while you might recognise others as 'Hellenes' it didn't make them the same as you. The same was true in early Roman times for other 'Latins' and Romes long early wars with the Samnites and Etruscans and the 'Latinisation' of Italy can actually be shown to have changed the nature of the 'Roman' way of life and war itself. The Vestal Virgins were 'imported' so to speak from another Latin tribe. But in the same way that Rome 'latinised' Italy Alexander (and his Hellenic allies/subjects) 'Hellenised' most of the Levant. If you want to ask why Rome conquered Greece and not the other way around you have to look at the continuity of the political system as this didn't happen in one lifetime but over generations. The problem for the Hellenic world was primarily the early death of Alexander and the subsequent Diadochi wars where nobody could regain overall control; divided they fell. Had Alexander lived until he was 50 or more a more stable Hellenic world may have been created but the sheer enormity of his achievement and early death (at 34) meant that Hellenic strength was used in internal disputes.
                  As much as political problems, the Greek style of war had structural problems. The Phalanx when unsupported is a very vulnerable target in a lot of areas, Just ask the Athenians in Egypt. The Persians slaughtered them. The need to fight in dense ranks limits frontage and mobility. In an area where there is room to move and a need to control a large frontage to prevent getting flanked this is a serious handicap.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Cav on an unguarded flank will break infantry formations rather quickly.
                    Which relies on them having their attention diverted or being 'pinned' at the front by other infantry. Nor to my mind does it make any difference if the infantry that cavalry will attack is a legion or a phalanx; both are susceptible to the same combined attack.

                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    As much as political problems, the Greek style of war had structural problems. The Phalanx when unsupported is a very vulnerable target in a lot of areas, Just ask the Athenians in Egypt. The Persians slaughtered them. The need to fight in dense ranks limits frontage and mobility. In an area where there is room to move and a need to control a large frontage to prevent getting flanked this is a serious handicap.
                    Firstly the Athenians beat the Persian Satraps frequently in Asia Minor during Delian League/Athenian Empire times (read Xenophons Anabasis). More often though the Athenians fought and won at sea as they were a naval power primarily. The Spartan King Agesilus II also campaigned quite successfully against the Persians after the Peloponessian War and before Alexander; in short the Greeks often beat the Persians. The ONLY difference between Alexanders campaign and previous 'Greek' campaigns in Asia was the lack of a serious threat to Macedonian power within 'Greece' itself. Agesilus was only recalled to deal with a Theban threat to Sparta. Also ALL these campaigns were 'allied'; in Xenophons expedition the leader (Clearchus) was a Spartan while the '10,000' come from many cities, Agesilus took with him 35 'Spartiates' and Alexanders expedition was more 'allied' than Macedonian. To cite one Athenian expedition to Egypt as the failure of the 'Greek' phalanx against Persians is massively disproportionate.

                    If you consider the Roman - Macedonian wars in a broader light of 'Roman - Hellenic' competition the war started with Pyrrhus and went on until the arguably the Battle of Actium where Anthony and Cleopatra were defeated. Egypt under the Ptolemies was a 'Hellenic' state and Alexandria remained 'Greek' until the Arabs went rampaging. The reason why the Romans won against Epirus/Macedon/the Antigonids etc etc down to the Ptolemies is simple; they never fought together. The 'Empire' fell apart. Very little to do with stirrups or supposed advantage of phalanx over maniple ore vice versa.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Lady&gents,no cavalry defeated a well formed infantry in a frontal assault,a couple of exceptions excluded(that would be the Polish Husaria in most of their battles).Stirrup or no stirrup.Didn't happened even in medieval times,whenever a well trained cavalry met a well trained infantry.Because the infantry has more nasty sharp points and/or bullets than there are horses per unit of measure.Also because of the mechanics of a cavalry charge.Which means that there is no mass of horses swarming the poor grunts,but a succession of charges,by each rank of the horsemen.A variation of this would be the combination of arms within the charging unit.The Byzantine cataphracts had only the first 2 ranks carrying spears.The rest had bows and maces.Same as the Parthians or Persians.Worked quite well against Hungarian knights as well as against other opponents.The Macedonian cavalry of Alex also apparently carried an assortment of weapons,one of which could have been a lance.So yes,in theory a stirrup offers a stronger impact.In practice,that was not so much the case.More important was the cohesion of the cavalry unit and its drill,which allow for a quick repetition of the impact at the chosen point.

                      About the vulnerable right flank in the ancient battles,that's valid wrt individuals.Otherwise,flanking is flanking.There were as many envelopments on the left as there were on the right.Flanking works at individual level because of the tunnel vision,regardless if you have a sword or an HK416.At unit level it works by massing superior combat power against inferior and by being in a position to go after the leaders,besides the psychological aspect.
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        On a few issue:

                        Phalanx : it should be noted, that a "greek" phalanx actually used shorter spears, probably overhand , which is really the same thing as the Romans except that their reach may be a little bit longer while they don't usually carry javelins.

                        Then there was the Macedonian Phalanx, which is what most people are talking about here, they wore almost no shield (usually only a tiny buckler at best) and often very little armour as well, but used exceptionally long pikes. as long as the enemy is in front of them and at pike's length they're basically invincible, but obviously enemies aren't always in front of them or at pikes length.

                        The Macedonian army under Alexander was a strong mix of many factor, the most unique of which was the pikes, but it was really only made possible because they also had all sorts of supporting cast, cavalry, peltest (javelin / sling /bows ) and other more tranditionally greek like phalanx that acted as mobile melee support.

                        Pyhrus still had that sort of army to some extend, though he didn't use it particularly well, but by the later period more and more the Macedonian style army reduced their supporting cast (or simply don't have the resource to field a sufficient one) . and focused entirely on their Phalanx.

                        It should be noted. that Alexander's decisive manuver was almost always with his cavalry (which he personally led). though the Phalanx did give him a significant advantage it was never his ultimate trump card. in Guatemela in fact the Phalanx came rather close to being destroyed had he not routed Darius AND return to save the nearly overwhelmed infantries.

                        The Kingdom of Macedonia more or less simply didn't have the resource to field a full support cast in their later war with the Romans, while the Selucids may have, they were horribly lead and imploded before a decently lead full army had a chance to fight the Romans.



                        On Cavalry : Spear Cavalry is common in antiquity as well, as noted Alexander 's trump card were essentially his cavalry which was for the most part a melee / charge type . and he almost certainly didn't have stirrup, you can fight without stirrup in melee, you just can't do a full couch lance, what genearlly happened was that you ride beside a target and just poke it , which espeically if done overhand wouldn't have a huge backforce anyway, and also by doing it overhand you come at an angel that most people will have a hard time defending.


                        Though obviously, this sort of tactic won't work against a coherent infantry block with large shield and/or long spear /pikes. (it should be noted that full couch lance also would have problem but it's all relative.) but if the infantry really lose formation then even running through it without weapon probably would cause a lot of damage already.

                        In antiquity, the more common tactic often involved horsemen throwing javelins into infantry group. and then run through them if they lose formation. this tactic remained valid until the late middle ages with the Iberian / Turks / Berbers being most notable for them. obviously similar tactic done with a heavy bow is probably more effective, but heavy bows are harder to make and good shooters with them usually don't come in bushels for non-nomadic people.

                        Cataphracts could essentially just ride up and into a shield wall and bang away with spear / mace / swords. without special tactics or weapons they're hard to take down and once your first line fall you probably start losing cohesion and then a route begin. Lamellar / scale armour in multiple layer is actually almost as effective as plate, especially earlier plates. it's just that they tend to be much heavier for the same protection. which rendered these cataphracts unable to do fast or too sustained fighting.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Just a short question: why didn't the romans incorporate phalanx style units or cataphracts in they're military?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dante View Post
                            Just a short question: why didn't the romans incorporate phalanx style units or cataphracts in they're military?
                            They did do this at various different times in their history. During the Republican period (prior to the reforms of Camillus) the Roman Army deployed a class of troops called Triarii in a phalanx formation. They were the formed from the wealthiest classes of the Republic and were the heaviest armed and armored troop type. They formed up as the third tier (line) of infantry with lighter spear and javelin equipped troops forming up in front of them. They were reasonably effective in battle against Romes immediate neighbors but the both the Gauls and Samites went on to inflict crushing defeats on Roman armies in part because the Triarii's tight phalanx formation proved ineffective/vulnerable in rough terrain.

                            As for the Cataphracts the late Roman Empire encountered them when campaigning against the Parthians and Seleucids where they proved to be a nasty surprise. The Romans began using them in some numbers in the 3rd Century AD and they remained in use particularity in the Eastern Empire long after the Western Empire fell. They were however an expensive troop type to maintain (the tanks of their era) so their numbers were always somewhat limited and they formed only a relatively small but highly effective part of most Roman Armies when they were deployed.

                            It should also be remembered that Greek and Macedonian phalanx was so successful for so long because of the type of opposition they faced. For the most part they faced the lightly armed and armored troop types from the East e.g. think Persia who fought with missiles and tried to avoid direct assaults until the enemy line was weakened or another phalanx based army neither of which troop type compelled any radical rethinking of the basic concept. The Romans however did encounter troop types and situations where the inherent weaknesses of the phalanx was displayed. The Samites showed them what happened when well trained and equipped javelin armed troops could get round their flanks and pepper them with missiles in bad terrain and the Gauls taught them what happens when a heavy infantry charge found a gap in the phalanx line. Hannibal had a lesson or two to teach as well. So the Romans learned their "lessons" and introduced more flexible formations using well armed armed and armored missile infantry capable of using missiles to open a gap in the enemies lined before closing. Various of Alexanders successors also began to learn the same lessons and some attempted to Romanise their troop types just not quickly or successfully enough.

                            Cheers.
                            Last edited by Monash; 25 Jan 13,, 14:32.
                            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Sorry, I should have been more exact: I meant macedonian style phalanx, armed withe pikes.As far as I know, the triarii didn't use pikes, nor did they fight as a classical greek phalanx.
                              Also, I meant using units armed with pikes, not replacing the legions

                              While the greek style of warfare (heavy infantry,big shields, tight formations that could act as one, light skirmish troops) is clear, the romans renounced the use of pikes/spears altogether in favor of short swords. I could also argue that the persians were superior to the gauls/germans/iberians, so maybe it wasn't a matter of opposition. Skirmishers would be a head ache to any heavy formation anyway, pikes or not.

                              After all, the pike and spear regained the place as main infantry weapon after the roman period

                              The romans encountered Cataphracts as early as Crassus. I perssonally think it was a matter of culture, Rome not being a "horse culture" so having trouble in incoporating this kind of tactic.



                              1643 A derrota de Rocroi - YouTube

                              Don't know if this was posted before, great clip :)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It's hard to say really, the Macedonian's first real enemy were other Greeks, who did use javelins in masses and certainly didn't shun away from melee, the Persian army were more problematic in the sense that because troops were often called up from very far corners fighting wars that had little direct concern to them, it was not a surprise to see that they usually either send poor troops and didn't want to take higher risk in melee. but on the merit of their army usually being huge, and that their core cavalry and immortals were still quite good, it was still very effective... until they meet someone that could equally stand against their cavalry / elite infantry and more. (Of course if the commanders were reversed I think the Macedonians would have been easily crushed).

                                I think in the end it's not as much that the Legion were a better fighting system as that the Romans were better politically, the real key is that the Romans were able to keep their coalition together a lot more effectively where as Greek and Successor state once were far more fragil, these political problems often manifest itself in the field too since when you can't trust certain parts of your army or vice versa (they fearing you using them as cannon folders) your tactic becomes much more restraint as well.

                                Even in the worst of times the Roman allies in Italy were surprisingly stubborn (see Second Punic war. ) most of the Successor States would have long crumbled by Cannae or even before that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X