How did Romans defeat the Greek Phalanx?

[Blademaster]

What formations did they use to defeat the Greek Phalanx? Was there an unique formation that proved superior to the Greek phalanx such as the rotating body to put fresh men on the front line or checkerboard formations? I don't understand how checkerboard formations work against greek phalanxes. Or was it simply the concept of flanking? Or was it at a critical juncture where the commanders of the Greek armies were inept due to decay and rot setting in? Would the great general Gaius Marius beat Alexander the Great's armies?

[bolo121]

GIYF

Found this in about 5 mins. Bunch of people discussing the actual way the triples acies might have been used.

RomanArmyTalk :: Topic: Functionality of the triplex acies (1/2)

[Doktor]

Picking the battle terrain.

Phalanx were not useful on hills let's say ;)

[1979]

What formations did they use to defeat the Greek Phalanx? Was there an unique formation that proved superior to the Greek phalanx such as the rotating body to put fresh men on the front line or checkerboard formations? I don't understand how checkerboard formations work against greek phalanxes. Or was it simply the concept of flanking? Or was it at a critical juncture where the commanders of the Greek armies were inept due to decay and rot setting in? Would the great general Gaius Marius beat Alexander the Great's armies?

there was not a matter of Romans having a more efficient combat formation but tactics employed in breaking the enemy wall of spears in order to start hacking with the short sword.

[zraver]

Picking the battle terrain.

Phalanx were not useful on hills let's say ;)

Actually the Phalanx was quite effective in hilly terrain. Greece is after all a mountainous area. In addition Alexander pushed through the Hindu Kush and to do that had to fight multiple hill tribes.

is also important to note that under good commanders the Phalanx could beat the legion. Its also important to note that the Romans generally won the commander lottery.

Terrain did play a part, the Phalanx was less useful on broken terrain. The Phalanx stripped of its supporting cavalry and peltast could also be out maneuvered by the legions. Because the Phalanx fought so deep their line could never be as long as the Romans. Also ancient armies tended to engage in a pushing contrast, which the Macedonians usually won, how that contest could be exploited to split the Phalanx to create gaps for the Legions to go in close for the sword work.

Also important to note is the importance of the Pilum. The Roman volleys wrecked the Macedonians ability to maintain of shield wall, or even go sword and shield mano eh mano against the legionnaire. A Macedonian watching a legionnaire come at him with Scutum and gladius, having lost his own sheild and been forced to drop his Sarrissa naturally wants to get behind the shield wall so he starts trying to break his sides own shield wall and pushing against his own side- chaos..... Roman victory.

[Triple C]

Borrow a copy of Polybius's history of Rome. He discussed Legion versus Phalanx at some length. Other than the phalanx's tendency to lose cohesion in broken terrain, he also highlighted the legion's greater flexibility in being able to break into small groups of marauders and defend itself too, while the phalanx need to be highly concentrated in order to have combat power; therefore the legion was more able to forage and blitz lightly defended areas better than the phalanx.

The actual battle in which the Romans broke Macedon is instructive. Battle of Pydna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Once engaged by the pikes, the Romans were pushed back and conducted a fighting retreat over broken terrain; when the Macedonian formation was disrupted the Roman commander divided his Legions into maniples and poured them into the gaps and the flanks. It seems that fight devolved into separate melees; the Macedonians were cut to two pieces, and after the Romans crushed the left wing, they turned on the right, and the Macedonians were slaughtered.

It should not be said that the Macedonian phalanx was decidedly inferior than the Roman legion, however; the Macedonians won many engagements in the previous two Macedonian wars and fought Rome to a draw in both.

[astralis]

it would be interesting to see how swiss pike formations would have done against the roman legion. they were a rather more flexible version of the phalanxes of antiquity.

[Triple C]

Interestingly enough, Machiavelli argued that fighting men armed with swords and light shields, like the Spanish rodelero, should be incorporated into infantry contingents to increase offensive power against pikemen. He probably based his assessment on contemporary accounts of the Battle of Ravenna in which the Spanish army was defeated but did manage to inflict high losses on the Swiss. The problem with that idea is that rodeleros were incapable of protecting themselves against armored cavalry, which counterattacked the Spanish with excellent effect.

[astralis]

yeah, the ancient legions never had to face something like the medieval knights; they faced parthian/sassanid cataphracts, which were armored with scale and lamellar armor.

if i understand it right, one way that pikemen were countered was through mercenaries (landskenchts) using massive zweihanders to disrupt the formation.

[zraver]

yeah, the ancient legions never had to face something like the medieval knights; they faced parthian/sassanid cataphracts, which were armored with scale and lamellar armor.

if i understand it right, one way that pikemen were countered was through mercenaries (landskenchts) using massive zweihanders to disrupt the formation.

The cataphracts used more varied tactics since they lacked the stirrup and ability to deliver the shock charge. In this the medieval knight excelled, but could do little more, including stopping a charge. The early imperial legions had a good mix of troops, carried equipment to break up a charge and had field artillery so its questionable if the knights would win. The front rank of the legions would be pulverized but the rest of the ranks would be set up to swarm under the kights.

[astralis]

z,

i dunno if you're still reading the Emberverse series but this type of scene was in Lord of Mountains...

[snapper]

To be honest I don't think the Roman 'gladius' (which they actually borrowed from the Iberian Celts) soldier, even armed with his 'pila', is 'superior' to the phalanx. For sure it is more flexible and has some terrain advantages; fighting over rugged ground and uphill would be nigh impossible for a phalanx which has to keep a united front. But Alexander and Pyrrhus etc used strong cavalry (and even elephants in Pyrrhus case) to make up for this. The role of the phalanx in Alexanders campaigns is secondary to the use of a superior cavalry; to pin the main enemy infantry so that the Companion Cavalry can defeat the enemy cavalry and deliver the coup de grace from the rear. As for the terrain disadvantage of the phalanx infantry, pff if the Romans want to sit on the top of a mountain good for them! A good General doesn't give battle on ground chosen by anyone but himself.

The answer to why the Romans were able to defeat the Macedonians and 'Greeks' in general is more political than any superiority of formation or weaponry. Had Alexanders Empire remained more united and broken up into internal fights (which it could be argued was inevitable anyway) Rome would have been 'Greek' instead of vice versa.

[astralis]

i'll echo Triple C above and paste the famous Polybius comparison here.

What therefore is the cause that gives the victory to the Romans, and defeats those, who make use of the Phalanx? It is this: military operations are uncertain both in time and place; whereas the Phalanx has but one time, one place, and one disposition, in which it can perform the service that is expected from it. If therefore there was a necessity for the enemy to engage the Phalanx at its own time, and place, in every decisive action, it is reasonable to conclude from what has been said, that the latter would always prove victorious. But, if this is possible, and easy to be avoided, why should that disposition be, any longer, looked upon as formidable? And, indeed, it is allowed that the Phalanx stands in need of an even and open ground, where there is no lmpediment, such as ditches, chasms, valleys, eminences, and rivers. All these are capable of confounding, and breaking its ranks. It must also be allowed that it is almost impossible, at least, very rare, to find places of twenty or more stadia, in which there is nothing of this nature, however, admit there are such Places. If the enemy does not think fit to engage the Phalanx there, but, instead of that, marches round, and lays waste the towns and country of their friends, what will be the service of such a disposition? Since, while the Phalanx remains in the places, that are proper for it, so far is it from being able to relieve its friends, that it is incapable even of preserving itself. For the enemy will easily cut off their provisions, the moment they have, without opposition, made themselves absolute masters of the country. And, if the Phalanx quits the places that are proper for it, to engage in any enterprize, it will become an easy conquest. But, if the enemy, resolving to engage the Phalanx in an even place, should, instead of exposing his whole army at once to the onset of the Phalanx, retreat a little the instant it charges, the event may be easily foreseen from what the Romans now practice.

For I desire no judgment be formed of my assertions from what I say, but from what has already.happened. Since the Romans do not engage the Phalanx with all their Legions drawn up in a line parallel to the former; but some divisions of them lie behind in reserve, while others are engaged. So that, whether the Phalanx .forces those who are opposite to it to give way, or is itself forced by them to give way, the property of it is destroyed. For, in order to pursue those who fly, or to fly from those who pursue, some Parts of the line must leave the rest; which no sooner happens, than an opening is given for the reserve to take the ground they left, and, instead of attacking those who remain in Front, to break in upon their flanks, or their rear. Since, therefore, it is an easy matter to avoid the opportunities, and advantages of the Phalanx, but impossible for the latter to avoid those the Romans have over it, how is it possible there should not, in reality, be a great difference between them? Besides, it is sometimes necessary for the Phalanx to march through, and encamp in all sorts of places; at others, to prevent the enemy, by seizing some advantageous post; some times, to besiege, at others, to be besieged, and to meet with unexpected occurrences; for all these things are incident to war, and either decide the victory, or greatly contribute to it. And, in all these, the disposition of the Macedonians is of little, or no use; it being impossible for the men, either in companies, or singly, to perform any service. Whereas that of the Romans is properly adapted to all; for every Roman, when once armed for action, is equally fit for all places, for all times, and all occurrences. He is also ready and equally disposed either for a general, or a particular action, to charge with his company, or engage in a singlecombat. As, therefore, the disposition of the Romans is vastly superior to that of the Macedonians in the use of all its parts, so the enterprizes of the former are vastly more successful than those of the latter.

[zraver]

z,

i dunno if you're still reading the Emberverse series but this type of scene was in Lord of Mountains...

Not up to date on it, been too much going on.

[Mihais]

The cataphracts used more varied tactics since they lacked the stirrup and ability to deliver the shock charge. In this the medieval knight excelled, but could do little more, including stopping a charge. The early imperial legions had a good mix of troops, carried equipment to break up a charge and had field artillery so its questionable if the knights would win. The front rank of the legions would be pulverized but the rest of the ranks would be set up to swarm under the kights.

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.