A contemporary explanation of the superiority of the Legion to the Phalanx. Polybius is referring to the Manipular Legion and not the Cohort Legion which hasn't been invented yet. Personally, I think it was the office of the Centurions that gave the Romans the critical advantage. The Centurions were an expert class of officers who knew what to do in any situation. The Phalanxes had file officers whose job it was to maintain formation - no matter what - and could not act outside of the formation. Polybius refers to this indirectly in his discussion of the individual Roman soldier.
That is a really great point, it makes me want to look into some sources on centurions they are so badass. Also Polybius discussion of the individual Roman soldier sounds really interesting!
Very true, tactically the Romans found the chink in their armour. But I believe there were a number of other contributing factors as well outside of the battlefield. Like the Greeks were not all United at that time and had some internal conflicts which didn’t help.
I've always found it highly fascinating that the hillier terrain of Greece did not promote more flexibility within a traditional hoplite phalanx as well as the Macedonian phalanx. The Romans seemingly adopted more space during the Camillan reforms. Then they altered again during the Samnite wars due to hilly terrain. The Greeks seemingly just stayed tactically stale despite being FAR MORE hillier than Italy. Xenophon's Anabasis seems to suggest that his heavy hoplites could also fight very tactically and be very flexible in hilly terrain. This art was seemingly lost after Alexanders conquests. Sarissa pikes become longer, and the armor was also heavier in the succession kingdoms. I assume for the most part was that Greece's city state armies were largely a reflection of other city states and that they did not fight different varieties of arms like the Romans happened to on their doorstep. Hence why Rome transitioned away from a hoplite phalanx like the Greeks and Etruscans had for centuries, and ended up with the manipular formation. I think the Macedonian phalanx was at its zenith under Alexander, less so under Pyrrhus (though my understanding is that Pyrrhus adopted formations into his army that were native of Italians at the time - Samnites, Lucainians, Bruttians etc). I do wonder if Alexander lived and went to Italy that he too would have incorporated those formations into his army. The Macedonians could have easily won both Cynoscephalae and Pydna but failed to account for their weaknesses that the Romans were able to exploit.
"Macedonians could have easily won both Cynoscephalae and Pydna" Was there even a single battle outside of Pyrrhus's where the Romans actually lost against the Greek / Macedonian phalanx? "I think the Macedonian phalanx was at its zenith under Alexander" I think later successors - Antiochus III, Ptolemy IV, Pyrrhus, etc. - could have possibly beaten Alexander. Alexander attacked Persia with a new, relatively novel military formation (alongside veteran soldiers and great officers) - we don't know how he would have fared against other armies of the same type, possibly modified to face off against other Macedonian phalanxes. "I've always found it highly fascinating that the hillier terrain of Greece did not promote more flexibility within a traditional hoplite phalanx as well as the Macedonian phalanx. " I think it did. I deny the entire narrative that "tHe PhAlanX oNlY WoRkS oN FlAt GrOuNd!1!". Nonsense. I haven't seen anything in the primary sources yet that would suggest it being so. Plutarch, Aemilius Paulus 20:4 suggests so, but the passage suggests that disorder from the battle was more important than the "roughness" of the ground. This is mostly a fake myth parroted uncritically by ignorant people.
the macedonian phalanx is invincible in frontal engagement..at battle of cynocephalae, pydna and magnesia the legion never break the phalanx in frontal assault, cynocephalae the phalanx was winning until it got outflanked, at pydna same thing until the romans retreated to rough grounds that created gaps in the phalanx formation which they charge in and flank the phalanx, battle of magnesia the phalanx again manage to hold off the legion until it got outflanked..a phalanx army with proper flank protection would rival the legionary army of rome..pyrrhus of epirus army was model after alexander and philips army and it manage to beat rome and carthage in couple of battles, pyrrhus army just like alexander army have around 5k-6k hoplites and 2k-3k hypaspists to protect the phalanx from flanking, the late diadochi armies that fought rome lack flank protection, they usually employ around 1k-2k light infantry and 5k-6k mercenary hoplites as phalanx support to protect its flank, light infantry and merc hoplite against a legion is a recipe for disaster.
"at pydna same thing until the romans retreated to rough grounds that created gaps in the phalanx formation which they charge in and flank the phalanx" I think the "retreated" part did much more than the "rough grounds" part. Having to move the phalanx is a difficult action which requires a lot of discipline - it's only natural that gaps would form in the heat of battle, even over flat terrain. "a phalanx army with proper flank protection would rival the legionary army of rome." Read: If a Macedonian army was 2 times bigger than Rome's and was made up purely of Macedonian phalangites, it would have won. Sure. The bigger army usually wins. But the phalanx was always denser and more compact that the Roman legions - you'd need way more men to fill up the battle space with the phalanx only.
the sarissa upright would parry them away, the pilum wasnt effective in phalanx vs legion engagements, frontal assault the legion fail to penetrate the phalanx even though they launch there pilum and than engage the phalanx.
@@fabianojota i just saying that from accounts of legion vs phalanx, the phalanx manage to hold its own against the legion and in one of the battles manage to push back the legion, if the romans use pilum in this battles it didnt amount to nothing in frontal assault against the phalanx, the legion won cause its more flexible and manage to outmaneuver the phalanx, they didnt won cause of the pilum.
That explanation of the phalanx having weaknesses in rough terrain seems weak in the light if the vast territories that Alexander conquered. Did everyone but Rome throw themselves against a wall of spears in ideal flat terrain? I doubt it.
Yes, MOSTLY, due to "proper/civilized battle field tactics", of the time/era. For hundreds of years, men would line up on the battle field and just shoot at each other, on open ground. Groups that used guerrilla warfare tactics in these times/eras would have been declared savages, cheaters, etc. and NOT recognized, as a fighting/army force. Proper warfare has, slowly evolved, through time and coming to the conclusion, of fighting on another's terms, means you lose, usually. 🤔
@@yknowiknow5937 "Groups that used guerrilla warfare tactics in these times/eras would have been declared savages, cheaters, etc. and NOT recognized, as a fighting/army force." That's ridiculous. If guerilla warfare was effective, it would dominate battle. After all, tribal raids was the initial form of warfare, that then got replaced with organized armies. The simpler answer is that guerilla warfare tactics were purely inferior, and could not expect to do damage to a proper army that would ravage through the territory of the enemy and ultimately deliver the siege.
@@roadent217 do you, even know what guerrilla warfare is?? It's unconventional warfare. The Vietcong used guerrilla warfare, as well, as MAC V SOG. The Taliban in Afghanistan and every, other small army/small militia used guerrilla warfare throughout history.
@@roadent217 Europeans stood in a line on the battle field and shot at each other for a couple hundred years, before they came to America and met the native Americans that used GUERRILLA WARFARE AND UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE tactics of the time in battle/war. ALL forms of battle evolved into guerrilla warfare/unconventional warfare, because lining up on a battlefield like pons is dumb, kinda like you.
@@roadent217 European armies lined up on battlefields exposing their numbers and bodies for a couple hundred years, before coming to America meeting natives, and evolving conventional warfare, into unconventional/guerilla warfare. All types of warfare evolved into what would've been considered "guerilla warfare" at THAT time.
@HistoryLeaks hammer and anvil. The Roman's knew how to make use of their shields moving in tight formation like a turtle. However I believe Alexander would of used his skirmish soldiers to tie up the Roman's flank assault while his Companion Calvary would of smashed them from the rear. However the Roman's would of known that Alexander lead from the front and had assassin archers, sling and javelin specialist with orders to seek Alexander out and kill or capture hm. It would of been epic no doubt.
@@patricknelson1471 Yes it was definitely a better shield in many ways, I believe they adopted it from the Gallic tribes, after coming into contact with them, and of course made improvements. Originally the Romans fought in a phalanx, just like the Greeks.
It was not the greek phalanx but rather the Macedonian phalanx. Macedonians were not greek and the Romans knew it. How do we know this, well in Appians work named "Macedonian Affairs "...the greeks asked the Roman senate to require Philip to remove from their country the three garrisons which he called the fetters of greece...". This clearly shows the greeks thought they had a separate country from the Macedonians. In addition, Polybius writes the Roman generals ordered the Macedonians to leave the whole of greece.
what a load of lies the romans viewed the macedonians as greeks livy mentions that the macedonians spoke the same language as the aetolians and acarnaneans,cicero mentions the macedonians along with pyrrhus as part of the roman wars against the greeks hell even phillip v of macedon in his oath to hannibal mentions "macedonia and the rest of greece"
Macedonians were not greek - can you elaborate on what you mean by this? They shared same culture, traditions, language and Philip V tried to encourage all Hellenes to join the resistance to the Roman machine, its obvious he viewed his fellow Greeks as his own. The city states were fiercely independent, they referred to themselves from where they were from and not as Greeks. Athenians, Spartans, Ionians, Macedonians.. sure they thought they were all better than each other, but in reality they were all Hellenic / Greek.
A contemporary explanation of the superiority of the Legion to the Phalanx. Polybius is referring to the Manipular Legion and not the Cohort Legion which hasn't been invented yet.
Personally, I think it was the office of the Centurions that gave the Romans the critical advantage. The Centurions were an expert class of officers who knew what to do in any situation. The Phalanxes had file officers whose job it was to maintain formation - no matter what - and could not act outside of the formation. Polybius refers to this indirectly in his discussion of the individual Roman soldier.
That is a really great point, it makes me want to look into some sources on centurions they are so badass. Also Polybius discussion of the individual Roman soldier sounds really interesting!
Greeks got conquered because they got out flanked by the Romans, legions formation is more manageable than hoplites phalanx
Very true, tactically the Romans found the chink in their armour. But I believe there were a number of other contributing factors as well outside of the battlefield. Like the Greeks were not all United at that time and had some internal conflicts which didn’t help.
I've always found it highly fascinating that the hillier terrain of Greece did not promote more flexibility within a traditional hoplite phalanx as well as the Macedonian phalanx. The Romans seemingly adopted more space during the Camillan reforms. Then they altered again during the Samnite wars due to hilly terrain. The Greeks seemingly just stayed tactically stale despite being FAR MORE hillier than Italy. Xenophon's Anabasis seems to suggest that his heavy hoplites could also fight very tactically and be very flexible in hilly terrain. This art was seemingly lost after Alexanders conquests. Sarissa pikes become longer, and the armor was also heavier in the succession kingdoms. I assume for the most part was that Greece's city state armies were largely a reflection of other city states and that they did not fight different varieties of arms like the Romans happened to on their doorstep. Hence why Rome transitioned away from a hoplite phalanx like the Greeks and Etruscans had for centuries, and ended up with the manipular formation.
I think the Macedonian phalanx was at its zenith under Alexander, less so under Pyrrhus (though my understanding is that Pyrrhus adopted formations into his army that were native of Italians at the time - Samnites, Lucainians, Bruttians etc). I do wonder if Alexander lived and went to Italy that he too would have incorporated those formations into his army. The Macedonians could have easily won both Cynoscephalae and Pydna but failed to account for their weaknesses that the Romans were able to exploit.
"Macedonians could have easily won both Cynoscephalae and Pydna"
Was there even a single battle outside of Pyrrhus's where the Romans actually lost against the Greek / Macedonian phalanx?
"I think the Macedonian phalanx was at its zenith under Alexander"
I think later successors - Antiochus III, Ptolemy IV, Pyrrhus, etc. - could have possibly beaten Alexander. Alexander attacked Persia with a new, relatively novel military formation (alongside veteran soldiers and great officers) - we don't know how he would have fared against other armies of the same type, possibly modified to face off against other Macedonian phalanxes.
"I've always found it highly fascinating that the hillier terrain of Greece did not promote more flexibility within a traditional hoplite phalanx as well as the Macedonian phalanx. "
I think it did. I deny the entire narrative that "tHe PhAlanX oNlY WoRkS oN FlAt GrOuNd!1!". Nonsense. I haven't seen anything in the primary sources yet that would suggest it being so. Plutarch, Aemilius Paulus 20:4 suggests so, but the passage suggests that disorder from the battle was more important than the "roughness" of the ground. This is mostly a fake myth parroted uncritically by ignorant people.
rome also good at making allies, some greeks sided with rome against macedons and seleucids
the macedonian phalanx is invincible in frontal engagement..at battle of cynocephalae, pydna and magnesia the legion never break the phalanx in frontal assault, cynocephalae the phalanx was winning until it got outflanked, at pydna same thing until the romans retreated to rough grounds that created gaps in the phalanx formation which they charge in and flank the phalanx, battle of magnesia the phalanx again manage to hold off the legion until it got outflanked..a phalanx army with proper flank protection would rival the legionary army of rome..pyrrhus of epirus army was model after alexander and philips army and it manage to beat rome and carthage in couple of battles, pyrrhus army just like alexander army have around 5k-6k hoplites and 2k-3k hypaspists to protect the phalanx from flanking, the late diadochi armies that fought rome lack flank protection, they usually employ around 1k-2k light infantry and 5k-6k mercenary hoplites as phalanx support to protect its flank, light infantry and merc hoplite against a legion is a recipe for disaster.
"at pydna same thing until the romans retreated to rough grounds that created gaps in the phalanx formation which they charge in and flank the phalanx"
I think the "retreated" part did much more than the "rough grounds" part. Having to move the phalanx is a difficult action which requires a lot of discipline - it's only natural that gaps would form in the heat of battle, even over flat terrain.
"a phalanx army with proper flank protection would rival the legionary army of rome."
Read: If a Macedonian army was 2 times bigger than Rome's and was made up purely of Macedonian phalangites, it would have won. Sure. The bigger army usually wins. But the phalanx was always denser and more compact that the Roman legions - you'd need way more men to fill up the battle space with the phalanx only.
Your content is great!!
Thank you man, I really appreciate it but all the credit should go to Polybius 🙏
@@HistoryLeaks The graphics and narration are yours, nice job!
@@mainemountainman3743 thank you brother 🙏
Polybious radiates a very powerful intellect, amazing.
When the Pillum was created? I think it is a key equipment to surpass a Phalanx
That’s a good point, I know the pillum was created quite early on and really effective, I’m surprised Polybius didn’t mention it.
the sarissa upright would parry them away, the pilum wasnt effective in phalanx vs legion engagements, frontal assault the legion fail to penetrate the phalanx even though they launch there pilum and than engage the phalanx.
@@fmoa2541 Pillum's charge aims first and second lines, not deep ones.
@@fabianojota i just saying that from accounts of legion vs phalanx, the phalanx manage to hold its own against the legion and in one of the battles manage to push back the legion, if the romans use pilum in this battles it didnt amount to nothing in frontal assault against the phalanx, the legion won cause its more flexible and manage to outmaneuver the phalanx, they didnt won cause of the pilum.
The Roman cheated by using superior tactics.
No fair 😤
That explanation of the phalanx having weaknesses in rough terrain seems weak in the light if the vast territories that Alexander conquered. Did everyone but Rome throw themselves against a wall of spears in ideal flat terrain? I doubt it.
Yes, MOSTLY, due to "proper/civilized battle field tactics", of the time/era. For hundreds of years, men would line up on the battle field and just shoot at each other, on open ground. Groups that used guerrilla warfare tactics in these times/eras would have been declared savages, cheaters, etc. and NOT recognized, as a fighting/army force. Proper warfare has, slowly evolved, through time and coming to the conclusion, of fighting on another's terms, means you lose, usually. 🤔
@@yknowiknow5937 "Groups that used guerrilla warfare tactics in these times/eras would have been declared savages, cheaters, etc. and NOT recognized, as a fighting/army force."
That's ridiculous. If guerilla warfare was effective, it would dominate battle. After all, tribal raids was the initial form of warfare, that then got replaced with organized armies.
The simpler answer is that guerilla warfare tactics were purely inferior, and could not expect to do damage to a proper army that would ravage through the territory of the enemy and ultimately deliver the siege.
@@roadent217 do you, even know what guerrilla warfare is?? It's unconventional warfare. The Vietcong used guerrilla warfare, as well, as MAC V SOG. The Taliban in Afghanistan and every, other small army/small militia used guerrilla warfare throughout history.
@@roadent217 Europeans stood in a line on the battle field and shot at each other for a couple hundred years, before they came to America and met the native Americans that used GUERRILLA WARFARE AND UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE tactics of the time in battle/war. ALL forms of battle evolved into guerrilla warfare/unconventional warfare, because lining up on a battlefield like pons is dumb, kinda like you.
@@roadent217 European armies lined up on battlefields exposing their numbers and bodies for a couple hundred years, before coming to America meeting natives, and evolving conventional warfare, into unconventional/guerilla warfare. All types of warfare evolved into what would've been considered "guerilla warfare" at THAT time.
Alexander would of cut down the Roman's trying to flank the phalanx with his Calvary or would of died trying...😮
I would have loved to see how that played out
@HistoryLeaks hammer and anvil. The Roman's knew how to make use of their shields moving in tight formation like a turtle. However I believe Alexander would of used his skirmish soldiers to tie up the Roman's flank assault while his Companion Calvary would of smashed them from the rear. However the Roman's would of known that Alexander lead from the front and had assassin archers, sling and javelin specialist with orders to seek Alexander out and kill or capture hm. It would of been epic no doubt.
Sounds epic especially the way you described it!
Nice
Thank you buddy
Roman shield was a brilliant invention
Was it their invention? or did they adopt it form someone else? 🤔
@@HistoryLeaks not sure but that thing overperformed far better than the Greek shield
@@patricknelson1471 Yes it was definitely a better shield in many ways, I believe they adopted it from the Gallic tribes, after coming into contact with them, and of course made improvements. Originally the Romans fought in a phalanx, just like the Greeks.
You sound like a poet.
The porcupine was finally defeated.
The Romans used guns.
It was not the greek phalanx but rather the Macedonian phalanx. Macedonians were not greek and the Romans knew it. How do we know this, well in Appians work named "Macedonian Affairs "...the greeks asked the Roman senate to require Philip to remove from their country the three garrisons which he called the fetters of greece...". This clearly shows the greeks thought they had a separate country from the Macedonians. In addition, Polybius writes the Roman generals ordered the Macedonians to leave the whole of greece.
what a load of lies the romans viewed the macedonians as greeks livy mentions that the macedonians spoke the same language as the aetolians and acarnaneans,cicero mentions the macedonians along with pyrrhus as part of the roman wars against the greeks hell even phillip v of macedon in his oath to hannibal mentions "macedonia and the rest of greece"
Bravo majstore
Macedonians were not greek - can you elaborate on what you mean by this? They shared same culture, traditions, language and Philip V tried to encourage all Hellenes to join the resistance to the Roman machine, its obvious he viewed his fellow Greeks as his own.
The city states were fiercely independent, they referred to themselves from where they were from and not as Greeks. Athenians, Spartans, Ionians, Macedonians.. sure they thought they were all better than each other, but in reality they were all Hellenic / Greek.
@@salvatoretotoriina9523what do Slavs have to do with ancient Macedonians ?
Yeah … but they where Greeks so 🤫
Bulgarians thinking there ancient people … jeeez
Grazie a due coorti di miei antenati abruzzesi, Marrucini di Teate e Peligni di Sulmona, che aprirono un varco nella falange.
Roman conquer Greece like da muslim conquered india not good
Both are really different Islamic attack is a worst thing that can happen to any non Muslim cuntry.