What if the Romans had adopted the Macedonian Phalanx instead?

[Carpathian Wolf]

I think when the Romans first encountered the Phalanx, in large part the reason as to why the Phalanx lost was because their commanders at the time did not use the combined arms approach of Alexander. But what if the Romans adopted the Phalanx and used it correctly? What do you think some of the advantages would be? Some of the short comings and challenges both on and off the battle field?

Personally I think the formations would be much more compact and due to this more troops would have to be raised to cover the same area. At the same time the individual soldier (infantry) would not have to be trained to such an extent as a legionnaire. On the other hand you had more mouths to feed. I also think the Phalanx is less capable of adapting to different terrain. Maybe the Empire wouldn't be smaller but focused more so on flatter areas.

Battlefield wise I think an emphasis will be placed more on cavalry to maintain the flanks and to continue the hammer and anvil tactic of Alexander. I'm not sure if battle stamina would lessen because a rotation system would be impossible, or better since for the most part your enemy is a dozen or so meters away due to the pikes. Perhaps their armor would also be lighter but who knows.

[Bokks]

If by phalanx you mean specifically the Macedonian-Hellenistic phalanx of round hoplite shields and spears ranging from 21-30 feet long, then i have to say that such strategies were beneath them, which would probably be why the Romans didn't inheret it to begin with.

The Roman style was specifically engineered to allow for very fast, very liquid troop movements. The Hoplite formations lacked this, and made it so that anyone in the front line would stay at the front line for the duration of the battle--or until they died, which was much more likely. This was why the Romans suffered far fewer casualties than ... well, anyone... most of the time.

You could argue, however, that once the Romans did adopt the Phalanx formation more related to that held by the Greeks and Macedonians: at Cannae. The lines were pushed together, the flanks spread out and all gaps that would traditionally exist between the separate cohorts and the first, second, third line formation were dissolved. The results were more Romans dead in one day than American casualties in the entire Vietnam conflict... or the Korean conflict, take your pick.

The result was that the Romans were boxed in, those in the inside were unable to move towards the front until the front moved to them. Even before the battle, if a legionnaire slipped or fell, he did not have the time to regain his balance as he would in the traditional formation and was instead trampled by every soldier who came after him in a line.

I agree that emphasis would have to be on cavalry, at least as far as any troop mobility is concerned, at Cannae there were very few horses and they were quickly chased away.

I'm not sure what kind of flatter areas the empire could have been concentrated on, they really controlled everything they ever could as it was. More likely the land they had dominion over would have been smaller but the numbers of each individual city would be larger.

Although I doubt any change in infantry strategies would have had that much of an effect, personally.

[hellheaven1987]

Early Roman Legion used Greek Phalanx, just to inform you.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Hoplite phalanx warfare has quite some differences from the Macedonian phalanx one.

You need to take into consideration that a Macedonian phalanx style of warfare required a strong cavalry arm as well to be successfull. Its lack or degeneration proved disastrous for the later fights between Rome and Diadochoi kingdoms.

Then again the more flexible infantry was something that was appearing even among nations with phalanx based armies, with the concept of Thureophoroi for example. Mainly a reform inspired/forced by the Gaulish/Galatian invasions in the region. Strange considering it was Gauls who made Romans drop the hoplite phalanx tactics they employed in their earlier times.:hmmm:

[hellheaven1987]

Strange considering it was Gauls who made Romans drop the hoplite phalanx tactics they employed in their earlier times.:hmmm:

?? Roman dropped their Phalanx tactic quite early, probably during their struggle against Etruscans...

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Perhaps some of the more brighter historical folks can clear this out, I was under the impression that Romans dropped their hoplite phalanx warfare as a result of their early fighting with Gauls (from the early times that Gauls sacked Rome).

[Last Roman]

Early Roman Legion used Greek Phalanx, just to inform you.

well, technically, they weren't Roman legions, but rather one of the earliest military formations the Romans used.

[hellheaven1987]

well, technically, they weren't Roman legions, but rather one of the earliest military formations the Romans used.

So, what do you think it was "Legion"??

[Last Roman]

So, what do you think it was "Legion"??

Romans wouldn't have called the hoplite phalanx a legion. the legion came around with the manipular formation.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The Macedonian Phalanx was only successful because of the cavalry. It's kind of funny if you look at Byzantine Roman military fighting, the infantry was used just to hold the enemy line in place while most of the work was done by the Kataphracts. It's almost as if it was a combination of the two or it came full circle.

[Antigenes]

I doubt the Republic had the social structure to adopt phalangitai even if they had wanted to.

[Starlightman]

The early Roman army, however, was a different thing altogether than the later imperial army.
At first, under the Etruscan Kings, the massive Greek phalanx was the mode of battle. Early Roman soldiers hence must have looked much like Greek hoplites.
A key moment in Roman history was the introduction of the census (the counting of the people) under Servius Tullius. With this the citizens were graded into five classes, from these classes were in varying degrees recruited the ranks of the army. The most wealthy, the first class, were the most heavily armed, equipped like the Greek hoplite warrior with helmet, round shield, greaves and breastplate, all of bronze, and carrying a spear and sword.
The lesser classes bore lesser armament and weaponry, the fifth class carrying no armour at all, solely armed with slings.
The army officers as well as the cavalry were drawn from leading citizens who were enrolled as equestrians (equites).
All in all the Roman army consisted of 18 centuries of equites, 82 centuries of the first class (of which 2 centuries were engineers), 20 centuries each of the second, third and fourth classes and 32 centuries of the fifth class (of which 2 centuries were trumpeters). In the early fourth century BC

Rome received its greatest humiliation, as the Gauls sacked Rome itself.
If Rome was to reestablish her authority of central Italy, and be prepared to meet any similar disasters in future, some reorganization was needed. These changes were traditionally by the later Romans believed to have been the work of the great hero Fluvius Camillus, but it appears more likely that the reforms were introduced gradually during the second half of the fourth century BC.
Undoubtedly the most important change was the abandonment of the use of the Greek phalanx.
Italy was not governed by city states like Greece, where armies met on large plains, deemed suitable by both sides, to reach a decision. Far more it was a collection of hill tribes using the difficult terrain to their advantage. Something altogether more flexible was needed to combat such foes than the unwieldy, slow-moving phalanx.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

[Phoebus]

But what if the Romans adopted the Phalanx and used it correctly? What do you think some of the advantages would be?

That's a big "what if". The Hellenistic army was what it was in large part because of the Hellenistic society. Roman society was largely different. Right off the top of my head, prestige was first and foremost given to the native cavalry, which was precisely the Romans' weak point. Thus, you're requiring a major restructuring on the Romans' part. And, to look at it from their point of view, for what? They won.

Some of the short comings and challenges both on and off the battle field?

No different than those that the Hellenistic monarchs faced.

Personally I think the formations would be much more compact ...

Why would they need to be more compact?

At the same time the individual soldier (infantry) would not have to be trained to such an extent as a legionnaire.

Quick question for anyone here: how long was a phalangite trained for in the Macedonian-style armies--from Alexander's to, say, Perseus' reigns?

I also think the Phalanx is less capable of adapting to different terrain.

Not meaningfully so. Seriously, Alexander took his Pezhetairoi up mountains, down valleys, and across rivers. Is the historical record so full of battles where legionnaires fight in, say, swamps, or craggy mountains, etc.?

Perhaps their armor would also be lighter but who knows.

The shield would be, but I'm not sure that their body armor would be significantly lighter than Roman mail.

If by phalanx you mean specifically the Macedonian-Hellenistic phalanx of round hoplite shields and spears ranging from 21-30 feet long, ...

Only at the very end did Macedonian-style armies consistently use sarissae 20+ feet long... and they never exceeded 25 feet, as I recall.

then i have to say that such strategies were beneath them, which would probably be why the Romans didn't inheret it to begin with.

The Roman style was specifically engineered to allow for very fast, very liquid troop movements.

To the front and to the rear, perhaps. But I don't buy the idea that they were able to do this on a lateral axis. I agree that a quick charge can often win you an advantage in the fight, but I disagree with the concept that Romans were able to rapidly outflank their foes, R:TW-style thanks to their mobility.

You could argue, however, that once the Romans did adopt the Phalanx formation more related to that held by the Greeks and Macedonians: at Cannae. The lines were pushed together, the flanks spread out and all gaps that would traditionally exist between the separate cohorts and the first, second, third line formation were dissolved. The results were more Romans dead in one day than American casualties in the entire Vietnam conflict... or the Korean conflict, take your pick.

The formation choice was hardly the reason for that. The results of Cannae were due to the fact that the Romans suffered a double envelopment, period.

No, it was clear the when Gauls sacked Rome Legion already dropped phalanx quite long time. It was never too sure why Roman dropped phalanx as most of early Roman history was based on myth...

I was always under the impression that it was because of the associations Rome made. The phalanx was predominate during times when the Etruscans were at the top, whereas the manipular formations came when Rome moved from under their sphere and alongside other Latin allies.

... and Alexander already proved that Macedon phalanx, which was even less flexible than Greek phalanx, could operate in those terran too.

I think any formation that requires troops to remain part of a single, homogenuous formation (often kilometers wide) is doomed to inflexibility. Having said that, Alexander's army (for example), advanced in the oblique, which means that there were several blocks moving independently. Hence, greater flexibility. Ditto for hoplites, who showed they could do so just as well, at least as early as Epaminondas' time.

You need to take into consideration that a Macedonian phalanx style of warfare required a strong cavalry arm as well to be successfull. Its lack or degeneration proved disastrous for the later fights between Rome and Diadochoi kingdoms.

But extant sources, such as Polybius, tell us that Macedonian horse was considered as good as Aetolian, which was the best in Greece at the time of the battle of Cynoscephalae...

[Holger Danske]

Tbh that is a difficult question to deal with as both the Phalanx and Cohort proved to be very formidable against a vast range of different tactics and formations. Personally I'd rather stick with the Cohort as the Phalanx formation is a lot more dependent on cavalry units than the Cohort.

The combination of pila+gladius+scutum just makes up for a perfectly well balanced killing machine capable of handling infantry and cavalry a like.

[Manco]

For the experts: how would a Macedonian phalanx have fared in forested terrain? My guess is that it would have had serious problems, and if Romans had adopted it or something similar, the conquest of Gaul would have been more difficult.

[Farnan]

For the experts: how would a Macedonian phalanx have fared in forested terrain? My guess is that it would have had serious problems, and if Romans had adopted it or something similar, the conquest of Gaul would have been more difficult.

Any formation in the woods is difficult. Even a modern wedge has a hard time staying right.

[Manco]

well of course, but since a Macedonian phalanx relied on very long spears, trees must have bveen even more of a problem than for other formations.

[sephodwyrm]

@Last Roman:
With regarding to the etymology of the Legio - legere about choosing...

I read a book by Peter Connolly (yes it is a children's book about the Roman Army) that during the early republican era prior to Marius, all men of military service were gathered when Rome marches to war and then they were chosen to serve in each of the units depending on their social class and property.

And then, the head of the legion would be a chosen representative or legate...
That's my understanding of it. What do others say?

[John I Tzimisces]

@Last Roman:
With regarding to the etymology of the Legio - legere about choosing...

I read a book by Peter Connolly (yes it is a children's book about the Roman Army) that during the early republican era prior to Marius, all men of military service were gathered when Rome marches to war and then they were chosen to serve in each of the units depending on their social class and property.

And then, the head of the legion would be a chosen representative or legate...
That's my understanding of it. What do others say?

For some reason I imagine the root of "Legio" (Legion) comes from Lex, Legis ("Law, of Law") as in those who were obligated by law to serve in whichever formation their social status determined.

But I'm just nitpicking.

Futhermore on why the romans did not adopt the macedonian tactic of the sarissa phalanx...didn't the romans learn at the hands of the gauls (having their army shattered on the field and Rome itself sacked in 390 BC) to reorganize their legions (previous the Triarii would have fought as a phalanx and the other lower classes would have fought at the flanks), and then again facing defeats at the hands of the samnite tribes to the south to adopt a similar way of fighting(the samnite wars starting in 340 and ending in 290 BC)?
And then considering that the tactic that would become the macedonian phalanx would only be developed in the middle of the 4th century BC...if most greeks bar the thebans who may have developed the sarissa phalanx Philip and Alexander made legendary did not use the sarissa phalanx, and they were the neighbors of the Macedonians, why would the romans, who were further isolated from macedonian influence, adopt the sarissa?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Are you speaking of Pydna?

The argument of terrain is the one offered by Livy, etc., but I find that to be secondary to the stated departure of Perseus and his cavalry, and of the first turning point of the battle being in the "naked" Macedonian flank, by the Roman cavalry and elephants.

Well that was my main point. The phalanx lost out due to the loss of its combined arms element.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here--the types of troops the Romans faced there, or the terrain? Or both? I don't really see a difference, one way or another. Did the Romans fight in modern-day Afghanistan? I have a hard time seeing Iberia or Germania's terrain proving more difficult. Similarly, I don't see how their particular brand of infantry or cavalry would have proven to be unbeatable to Hellenistic armies.

Okay well you explain to me how a phalanx would work in a forest.

You're still not explaining why a Roman phalanx would need to be more compact than a Macedonian one.

Because I never said that. I said the Phalanx would be more compact than the cohorts.

Neither does a Roman cohort. Not successfully, anyways. At any rate, I wasn't just talking about moving in mountains and valleys. Alexander's Pezhetairoi were used in siege fighting, mountain attacks, etc.--all of which involved hand-to-hand fighting.

You do understand that a phalangist without his pike would be inferior to a Legionaire right? I know where Alexander fought, did this and that. I don't know how you can say a phalanx would be just as capable in a forest.