How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

[Ariamanesh]

Well if we check the Alexander campaign from one side and Romans wars against Carthage and specially Greece from the other we will see that Alexander win couse of his strategy skill and great army without diplomacy or enemy beyards or other dirty thinks.

Really?!Seriously?!Check the Alexander's adventure again and you will find him as dirty as you think romans were.
He tricked egyptions and convinced them to rebel against persians.Those idiot egyptions who tricked by him and treated him like the son of their god soon found out that he was nothing but the harbinger of doom.
Right after the occupation of egypt the egyption culture that persians kept live for years destroyed for ever and replaced by greeks and their bloody wars.
Yes alexander was the dirtiest man of those time believe me
The time romans destroyed the Greek was just like the time Alexander destroyed Persia.Same tricks same unluckiness same fate.
If Persia at the time of Alexander had a capable commander like Cyrus the great, Alexander could never even dream of such lucky future.

[Greek Iraklis]

Really?!Seriously?!Check the Alexander's adventure again and you will find him as dirty as you think romans were.
He tricked egyptions and convinced them to rebel against persians.Those idiot egyptions who tricked by him and treated him like the son of their god soon found out that he was nothing but the harbinger of doom.
Right after the occupation of egypt the egyption culture that persians kept live for years destroyed for ever and replaced by greeks and their bloody wars.
Yes alexander was the dirtiest man of those time believe me
The time romans destroyed the Greek was just like the time Alexander destroyed Persia.Same tricks same unluckiness same fate.
If Persia at the time of Alexander had a capable commander like Cyrus the great, Alexander could never even dream of such lucky future.

Egyptians made many revolts against Persians and most of times they asked help from Greeks or had Greek mercenaries to help them. So its not strange that Egyptians call him as liberator and God. Also he conquer Egypt after he win two big battles so was easy normal after that to conquer Egypt too...Darius was nice general and had huge armys and money just for first time the Persians was facing all the Greeks at the same time leaded by the Greatest general who had a balance and profesional army and that gave the victory for Greeks. All anatolian factions call him as liberator and God too not only Egyptians and love him as their new great King. Was just a so beautifull campaign.

[Greek Iraklis]

One thing to consider - When Romans faced Macedonians at Cynoscephalae and later at Pydna, Macedonians were shocked by their brutality in battle. When Pikemen thought they were defeated, they rose pikes up as a mark of surrender, but Roman legionary, not accustomed to fighting Pikemen, didnt recognized it as a sign of surrender (or maybe did, but didn't care) and slaughtered whoever they caught. This brutality can be explained if you look at what type of men was serving in those legions - at Pydna, majority of veterans were legionaries who served in brutal "low level small war" in Iberia, full of skirmishes and traps in broken terrain. They were accustomed to that brutal type of fight. Greeks/Hellenes were not familiar with such a type of warfare. yes, they had occasional raids from celts living on borders, but usually, they fought them before they could concentrate and present a huge problem. Brennus invasion was different, Celts came in huge numbers and rolled everything down. Seeing the brutality of Celts shocked Greek society same way, Roman brutality shocked them hundred years later. Plus, after Pydna, Paulus marched back through Epirus, who betrayed Rome and allied with Perseus. Paulus gave his Legionaries free hand at raiding and pillaging countryside, and several cities as a punishment for that betrayal.

Romans was just lucky couse Alexander die young or he could take Carthage and Rome for fun after he was ending with India. After his death his officers(diadochoi) prefered to fight eatch other and not end his work so Carthage and Rome finded the opportunity to become strong. Army of Pyrrhus was not enought to conquer Rome but think that he was dificalt enemy for Rome and he started his campaign with just 25k army and after 43 years from Alexander death. Diadochoi of Alexander was fighting with like 50-70k army per side included 10-15k cav and 100-500 elephants. Poor Pyrrhus army had 25k men with 4k cavalry and 25 elephants and still he won two battles What Romans could do at 320-300 b.c. if Greeks with 150k and not 24k was attacking at Rome with the veteran and profesional army of Alexander? I think answer its easy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ipsus
check the Greek armys at civil wars...Armys of Pyrrhus, Phillip V and Perseus was funny compared with Alexander and Diadochoi armys. 134k infantry 25k cavalry 475 elephants and 100 scythed chariots. Over Power quantity and very good quality at 301 b.c. What Rome had at 301 b.c.? Maximum 50k into a battle if you think that 80k was the biggest army of Rome into a battle 85 years later at cannae. I think Greeks at this period could be Romans into battlelfield only with 25k cavalry.Really phalanx no need Roman swords always was losing from Cavalry specially with the eastern and Greek cavalry whitch the best.

[Greek Iraklis]

could beat* Romans

[Ariamanesh]

Egyptians made many revolts against Persians and most of times they asked help from Greeks or had Greek mercenaries to help them. So its not strange that Egyptians call him as liberator and God. Also he conquer Egypt after he win two big battles so was easy normal after that to conquer Egypt too...Darius was nice general and had huge armys and money just for first time the Persians was facing all the Greeks at the same time leaded by the Greatest general who had a balance and profesional army and that gave the victory for Greeks. All anatolian factions call him as liberator and God too not only Egyptians and love him as their new great King. Was just a so beautifull campaign.

Yeah a liberator who doomed them in fact.
Something i should remind you is that darius was not a nice general he was just a mediocre general(if not a complete incompetent)and also he couldn't have such huge army the greeks wrote at their books(their notes on persian armies is some kind of jokes in my eyes).
They hugely exaggerate the persian army number to something 50x greater to just glorify their victories.
There is some modern scholars that believe persian number were far far far inferior to what those bluffers claimed.There is also a struggle between some modern historians that Ariobarzan was not a satrap of persis who put by the darius at command but a rebel general who fought against darius and their usurper forces.
In eyes of Persians the last true king was Artaxerxes III who was poisoned by the bagoas and then he and later darius usurped the throne.
And they believe if Ariobarzan was a general who appointed by darius then after gaugamela he would have retreated for the capital not Ecbatana.

And just to tell you Alexander was an absolute lucky guy because if he wasn't he would have been died right at the first battle with Persians but he was so lucky who always had a bodyguard who was ready to kill strikers from behind.

Also there was a tone of betrayals on persian side from the greek mercenaries to persian satraps and some persian generals that helped Alexander a lot(from the beginning of his reign to end of his life).

But he had a perfect mixture of units at all and had great army.
Every body knows that macedonians were not the people who invented the long lances(like kontos)and shock tactics(who first invented by the scythians)but in my opinion the macedonians were the first people who combined the infantry tactics with the cavalry tactics and mixing the hammer and anvil strategy.
The macedonian army was a harmony that should had all of its elements to perform nicely just like Alexander times.
Those elements were missile support(who made from rhodians and creatans)cavalry(companions)and infantry(phalanxes).
Everyone had their rule and should act just as needed no more no less.The mixture of these elements was a very very important factor to gain victories and that is why Alexander was victorious and perseus was not.
Perseus didn't care of his victory elements and so punished and defeated.
Phalanxes was not a standalone version of army able to fight anywhere or with anyone.It needed to be mixed with the other elements to perform nicely and the problem of perseus was just at this part(at another elements).
In my opinion the main problem for the helenistic warfare came right after alexander conquest when macedonians find some other tactics and thought that they can use them at their will and in their armies.Something like indian elephants or galatian mercenaries.
In fact the macedonian war machine didn't fit those units and they broke its beauty harmony.
To me the time macedonian used elephants in their armies was the start of their decline on their cavalries and the time they began to use galatians as infantries was the start of their decline on their infantries.
That needed a genius to invent a new tactic that can use those giant noisy undisciplined war elephants and those impetuous galatians at the same time along side phalanxes and macedonian cavalries and we know nor pyrhus neither perseus wasn't the person it took.
At the end i am agree with you about all of your statement about greek army but not completely about alexander and persians.

[JaM]

Perseus had no chance to use his cavalry, because Romans used their Elephants to block his cavalry off... horses have a natural fear of elephants, and using elephants as anticavalry force was quite common tactics used by multiple commanders...

[Ariamanesh]

Perseus had no chance to use his cavalry, because Romans used their Elephants to block his cavalry off... horses have a natural fear of elephants, and using elephants as anticavalry force was quite common tactics used by multiple commanders...

Of course but did he had the same quality cavalry as what Alexander had or at number or portion he had?!
Of course no.
Also my point is that Macedonian warfare that invented by Philip and perfected by Alexander had nothing to do with such kind of units like elephants or some barbaric warband or scythed chariots it was created to hammer the enemies that felt already into its anvil and crushed them between, no more no less but look at the later tactics used by the successors and diadochi you can see all of them were some kind of orientations of the original tactic but with lack of some important parts or having some extra elements they didn't know how to use them correctly just like Elephants,Galatians,Scythed chariots,...all had their benefits but the problem was they had no role on the original hammer and anvil tactic that both philip and alexander used with success and the later commanders couldn't invent a true and useful orientation of the original tactic to put those units in true use that gain an ultimate success just like alexander and philip.

[JaM]

Actually, using elephants as anticavalry unit was something Alexander witnessed a bit on multiple occasions, and it became a valid tactics ever since.. Pyrrhus used it a lot in the past, and Romans adopted it as well. it was inability of Perseus to overcome such tactics properly (Romans did it in the past by linking light infantry with cavalry).

Main benefit of Alexander was not the supposed Phalanx tactics per say, but his ability to improvise and come with solutions against changing situation on battlefield.. Perseus failed in that clearly at Pydna.

[Ariamanesh]

Actually, using elephants as anticavalry unit was something Alexander witnessed a bit on multiple occasions, and it became a valid tactics ever since.. Pyrrhus used it a lot in the past, and Romans adopted it as well. it was inability of Perseus to overcome such tactics properly (Romans did it in the past by linking light infantry with cavalry).

Yes but Alexander used them where they needed not every where every time but at the diadochi period all of the Seleucid or Ptolemaic generals were up to use them every where every time and at most times they used them wrong.That is my point.Also Romans used elephants in very very few occasions and at the imperial time they never used them again because those noisy giant undisciplined beasts had no place on their tactics.They know exactly what they wanted not like most of the diadochi kingdoms.

Main benefit of Alexander was not the supposed Phalanx tactics per say, but his ability to improvise and come with solutions against changing situation on battlefield.. Perseus failed in that clearly at Pydna.

I never said Alexander was successful because of his phalanxes alone,i say phalanxes were one of his victory elements when putted in good use alongside other victory elements like good cavalry and good missile support and of course perfect tactics.
There where absolutely no standalone unit at the ancient times who could win a battle on its own without the support of any other kind of troops, not Phalanxes nor legions neither cataphracts none at all.

[JaM]

Actually, i dont agree on Legion part.. it was quite self sustainable combat unit that could operate on it own and very often did, which is one of its main advantages. It was not dependent on other supporting units that much as Hellenic phalanx which made it universal. Plus, it had all required supporting units included, so it was practically first all arms type combat unit in history... something like a precursor of Napoleonic Army corps of some sort

of course, legions were used together with other units, but they fought as single entity and didnt required other units to work optimally..

[Ariamanesh]

Well everyone has his own opinions and my opinion at this matter is far away from your opinion.
No there were no standalone all around god unit ever existed that could fight on its own without any support from any other kind of units.
Legions performed well at the western part of the empire but at the east?!No they didn't because they didn't have the mobility of the cavalry armies of the east.
And the roman reforms of the byzantine era are my witness.If the legions were what you claim then why Romans begin to develop heavy cavalries and change their portion of them at their armies from ~10% at imperial time to ~40 at the end of 4th cent AD?!
Why they began to copy the persian style of warfare with favoring missile troops and super heavy cavalries and didn't only rely on their legionaries?!
Of course at the persian side was reforms too and infantry got grown from a levy corps to a semi elite force and persians copy the infantry style of warfare from romans too but if you compare the effects of persians on the romans and effects of the romans on persians you will find out that your opinion is not some kind of an ultimate fact.
Though i have a question:
Do you think a unit of 4800 legionaries could beat a unit of 4800 cataphracts without helping from any other kind of units?!
At carrhae they prove that they couldn't fight on their own in the east without the help of a strong missile support.
Later the romans defeated the parthians by using a vast amount of slingers and archers not by the might of legionaries.
So my opinion is:
Did the legionaries were a great invention by the romans who brought them several victories on their own?!NO they couldn't do it without the support of the other forces.

[JaM]

Unit of 4800 legionaries would be simpler to muster than unit of 4800 Cataphracts... most likely you would muster like 5-6 legions for the same sum you would muster 4800 Cataphracts.. and thsoe legions would definitely stand their ground against such a force as they originally did at Carrhae.. (they took 90% of casualties during retreat from Carrhae town, not during the battle) - Cataphracts couldn't charge them effectively... (no matter how heavy cavalry is, charging determined infantry is suicide)


Anyway i had in mind pre-Marian legion, with Velites, hastati, Principes ,Triarii and Equites. That was all arm force that was supposed to operate independently, and Praetors usually only had single legion in command, while only Consuls had two.. Roman Consuls rarely went into field with larger (Roman) force.

[Ariamanesh]

Unit of 4800 legionaries would be simpler to muster than unit of 4800 Cataphracts... most likely you would muster like 5-6 legions for the same sum you would muster 4800 Cataphracts.. and thsoe legions would definitely stand their ground against such a force as they originally did at Carrhae.. (they took 90% of casualties during retreat from Carrhae town, not during the battle) - Cataphracts couldn't charge them effectively... (no matter how heavy cavalry is, charging determined infantry is suicide)


Anyway i had in mind pre-Marian legion, with Velites, hastati, Principes ,Triarii and Equites. That was all arm force that was supposed to operate independently, and Praetors usually only had single legion in command, while only Consuls had two.. Roman Consuls rarely went into field with larger (Roman) force.

A truth yes you're right even more than 10 legions you can muster with the materials and resources you need to make 4800 fully armored cataphracts but my point was a clear point do you think a legion can operate well and successfully win the battle without any help of any other troops like velites or archers or cavalries?!
I should remind you at carrhae romans had cavalries and that cavalries was the only hope of crassus to get parthians not his legionaries!
When he sent two complete legion plus two units of skirmishers under command of publius who himself had 1300 gallic cavalry,publius alone had about 7-8k legionaries plus thousands of supports but they couldn't beat 1000 cataphracts of the parthians so i think if there was a unit of 4800 of them that would have been a huge pain in the legions asses!
Of course at the carrhae the greater work done by others not cataphracts but i only wanted to remind you even those solid all around legions had their weaknesses and they couldn't perform that good without support of the others as cataphracts couldn't without support of the horse archers that's all.
No body argue over the quality of those great troops cause they already proved themselves thousands of times but not without the support of equites or velites or ...
I hope you get my point friend this time again

[JaM]

Velites and Equites were integral part of pre-Marian Legion, each Maniple had own group of Velites. (40 if I remember it right). Same thing with Equites, as each Legion had 300 of them. My point was that pre-Marian legion was a self-sustainable unit, usually in the center of the formation and it didn't needed others to fulfill its role. Post Marian Legions were different. They were formed of Heavy Infantry only, with supporting Cohorts of auxiliaries.

And for Carrhae, yes, those cohorts were almost a full legion, yet they faced not just 1000 cataphracts but also thousands of archers covering those cataphracts. Plus, Publius thought he can fight it off with his cavalry (and those Gauls almost did it, they fought incredibly against all odds) and divided his force so it could be defeated one by one..

Anyway, i think Carrhae was deal of incompetent leadership than a fault of Roman tactics.. after all, just few decades later Bassus managed to defeat Parthians in multiple battles with the similar force at his disposal, but with far superior leadership..

[Ariamanesh]

Velites and Equites were integral part of pre-Marian Legion, each Maniple had own group of Velites. (40 if I remember it right). Same thing with Equites, as each Legion had 300 of them. My point was that pre-Marian legion was a self-sustainable unit, usually in the center of the formation and it didn't needed others to fulfill its role. Post Marian Legions were different. They were formed of Heavy Infantry only, with supporting Cohorts of auxiliaries.

And for Carrhae, yes, those cohorts were almost a full legion, yet they faced not just 1000 cataphracts but also thousands of archers covering those cataphracts. Plus, Publius thought he can fight it off with his cavalry (and those Gauls almost did it, they fought incredibly against all odds) and divided his force so it could be defeated one by one..

I don't call an onslaught an incredibly resistant mate the gauls under poblius crushed by surena's cataphracts like insects below a hummer and that's why the cataphracts were famous for to crush everything who dare to stand before their charge.
At the beginning of the battle Surena decided to charge up a head of one of the legions but when he tried the legion formed a loose formation and that is because they knew they can not withstand such devastating force and later surena forced them to do testudo to put them on a tight formation where they couldn't avoid the impact so yes the surena's brilliancy was one of the key elements but you can not deny the fact of power of the cataphracts though we are arguing about it.
Anyway poblius decided to confront them and that was his mistake and paid his mistake with a full devastation of his men.
Also the Archers who aided surena's luring party was not more than 3-4k who was a very small amount comparing to what poblius brought on them and they were busy with the skirmishers not the cohorts!At this point poblius and his two cohorts faced only the cataphracts and that was the poblius mistake who charged through and didn't wait for the others to join him.

Anyway, i think Carrhae was deal of incompetent leadership than a fault of Roman tactics.. after all, just few decades later Bassus managed to defeat Parthians in multiple battles with the similar force at his disposal, but with far superior leadership..

I don't call it a similar force mate.
Bassus learned that the main crassus mistake was ignoring the fact that he needed much more missile support when facing parthians and he manage to hire a vast amount of slingers and archers and also used of harsh terrain a lot.He knew that at a flat plain he can not out maneuver parthians so he decide to brought the battle on a hilly ground were the parthian horsemen could not perform well and then trapped them and destroyed them.

[JaM]

But Bassus had just 2000 slingers, while Crassus had almost same number light infantry as well.. main difference was how he lead that force.. instead of letting enemy choosing the battlefield, he forced them to fight in terrain he wanted to fight in... thats the main difference between bad and good commander..

and Publius Celts, they were simple light cavalry, yet they fought until bitter end (right to the point Publius was killed), historians mentioned them even crawling under Parthian horses and stabbing them into belly.. not something ordinary man would do... especially not against a warhorse.

[Greek Iraklis]

Roman legion was always weak against cavalry and of cource couldnt win alone into battle.Every time that Romans try to win only with legions they fail. For example against Hanibal they lost four battles and in all that battles they lost the cavalry fight. When Numidian cavalry beyard at the fifth battle then Romans win. Romans had not complete army from alone. They had just good infantry and they had allys or enemy beyards for missiles and cavalry.That was one of the reasons that they focus too mutch on diplomacy. Against Greeks they had Numidian,Italic,Aetolian,Pergamus and Cretan missiles and cavalry and Against Carthaginians had Italic, Siselian and Numidian missiles and cavalry.

Against Pyrrhus they had 5k ally cavalry.That was the reason that the battle at the flank was balance. Without italic cavalry they could lose easier. Against Xanthipus they crashed veary easy and one of the reasons was the superiority of Xanthipus at the cavalry. Against eastern army its same. Romans fail against horse archers and cataphract on open field even when they had more men. Also no need to have 4800 cataphract to beat 4800 swords. 300 cataphract and 2000 are enought to beat them. Horse archers are cheaper than cataphract and cost effective and can skirmish against Roman infantry and cavalry as well.

The Byzantines stop to use the clasical Roman infantry and start to use Scoutatoi. The early Scoutatoi was closer to Roman infantry but the late Scoutatoi looks like more as Greek hoplites than Roman legion.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/497014508851029044/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzant...tics#Skoutatoi

They had the skouton (σκούτον): a large and oval (later kite-shaped) shield made of wood, covered by leather and reinforced with steel and they carried that shiled with the way that hoplites carried the shiled. So techically could make a shiled and spear wall like the phalanx hoplite units. Also they use cataphract and horse archers as Seleusid and Parthian army. So Byazantium army with late Scutatoi, missiles, cataphract and horse archers was 0% Roman army from technical side. That army was Greeko-eastern army. Roman legions was old and not effective any more. And its funny that the Roman infantry change from hoplites to legions and after that they turn back to greek style hoplites again.

Btw Romans never win against greek hoplites. They beat only pikemen. My opinion is that hoplites are the best ancient infantry and best army was hoplites/cataphract/horse archers and not pikes/cataphract or legions. That was the reason that Byzantium(eastern Roman Empire) stop to use legions and when they go back to spears they didnt use pikemen but hoplites spearmen.

[Ariamanesh]

But Bassus had just 2000 slingers, while Crassus had almost same number light infantry as well.. main difference was how he lead that force.. instead of letting enemy choosing the battlefield, he forced them to fight in terrain he wanted to fight in... thats the main difference between bad and good commander..

and Publius Celts, they were simple light cavalry, yet they fought until bitter end (right to the point Publius was killed), historians mentioned them even crawling under Parthian horses and stabbing them into belly.. not something ordinary man would do... especially not against a warhorse.

Agreed 100%
Crassus was not sure what he wanted to do.
First he formed his army into the normal Roman fashion then he changed his mind and form the hollow square then again changed his decision and changed the formation again and again.
But bassus as you said was a clever man.He trapped parthians in the terrain he favored just like what surena did to crassus.
The role of the generals at the ancient times specially partho-roman wars(lead to perso-roman wars)was very important.
At the reign of the last parthian king he had much larger cataphract corpses than what surena had but he never gain any victory over roamns and almost beaten at every battle until Ardashir removed him and his dynasty and replaced them with Persian Sassanids who then could beat the same romans who defeated the parthians few decades before.
You are right friend

and Publius Celts, they were simple light cavalry, yet they fought until bitter end (right to the point Publius was killed), historians mentioned them even crawling under Parthian horses and stabbing them into belly.. not something ordinary man would do... especially not against a warhorse.

Yes agreed they bravely fought and died because they simply couldn't beat those super heavy tanks but they did their best and died honorably.
The problem was the enemy was far from an ordinary cavalry they ever faced at europe.

[JaM]

Greek Iraklis: there is no such thing as being weak against Cavalry... Heavy infantry that keeps the formation is untouchable by cavalry.. horses refuse to tun full speed into solid block of men.. only chance how to defeat formed infantry was to break their morale, so they start running before impact... but charging into properly formed infantry that awaits your charge is suicide and such thing failed in 99.999% situations...

[Ariamanesh]

Greek Iraklis: there is no such thing as being weak against Cavalry... Heavy infantry that keeps the formation is untouchable by cavalry.. horses refuse to tun full speed into solid block of men.. only chance how to defeat formed infantry was to break their morale, so they start running before impact... but charging into properly formed infantry that awaits your charge is suicide and such thing failed in 99.999% situations...

Two facts should be noted when we speak about such a battle:
First the manpower of the two side-While a full cohort could have 4800 soldier a full battalion of cataphracts could only have 1000 men(~5 to 1)
Second is the options available for the attackers in the time of charge and for defenders in time of embracing.When forces like cataphracts wanted to charge through a force like a cohort the only option they had was charge and that was all but the defenders they had many options.They could form a very loose formation and let them getting through and that will end with minimal casualties on the infantry side and will confusing the chargers for who is the target?!
AT the second phase when the charge ended the cataphracts had 2 options:
1)Stay and fight with a force that outnumber them ~5to1
2)Retreat and form another charge again
The first option is a suicide because no body will do such thing when they know enemy's number is far superior
The second though is impossible because the enemy blocks the way and surrounded them already
So the cohorts will destroy the cataphracts completely with maybe an equal amount of casualties=1000dead on catas 400-500 dead on legions side(just my opinion)
But at the other hand as Jam said they can form a solid tight formation and lock their shield together and stand firm before the cataphracts charge and at this situation i am fully disagree with Jam i think the cataphracts will sweep them all and destroy them to the last with the minimal casualties.
A tight infantry formed cohort was a very favored target for the cataphracts to charge and they could impale two three man with their long kontos lances at the first charge just they needed to divide their corpse to two or three one and charge from two direction at the same time and then bang all of the cohorts will slaughtered.
So at this case the casualties would be about=100-200 on Catas side and 4500 on the legions side(just my opinion)