roman-macedonian wars question

**Trotsky** · February 14, 2010, 08:06 PM

This is not a gameplay question but a historical one. I realise the macedons didn't give the romans much trouble especially compared with the punic wars but me and my friend were having an argument about what happened when the pike phalanxes were met with a frontal attack my legionaries. I couldn't find any sources (didn't really know where to look to be honest) so i was wondering if anyone here either
knows or can offer a good idea.

Disclamour: this suggestion is written in complete ignorance
I imagined that the volley of javelins before the charge would have thrown the front rank into such disarray that the formation wouldnt have been able to recover in time, enabling the romans to batter past the pikes (the charge led by the seemingly suiccidal centurions maybe?) and get in close surely causing a rout?

However, this war winning formation coudlnt have been that vulnerable so did the shields and armour as well as the disalplin of the macedonians mean the volley of javalins woulnt do much damage meaning the pikes could be used to pin the romans in place?

Any thoughts or links to sources would be much appreciated. Thanks.

**torongill** · February 14, 2010, 09:50 PM

See in Wikipedia Battle of Cynoscephalae and of Pydna.
At Cynoscephalae The Macedonian right wing was deployed in battle order and also commanded the higher ground. The attacking Romans couldn't get to close quarters; in desperation they tried hacking of the blades of the sarissa pikes of the phalanx but in vain. They retreated and the macedonians followed. On the macedonian left wing the infantry was still in marching formation. The roman general ordered his elephants to charge the marching formation and routed them. Then one of the military tribunes took command of 20 maniples and attacked the macedonian right fron the rear and flank. The already engaged phalanx could not bring itself about to face the new threat and desintegrated.
At Pydna, 30 years later, the Romans charged but again couldn't penetrate the phalanx and made a preplanned retreat over rough ground. The macedonians followed and as they passed the rough terrain the phalanx began losing cohesion. Seeing this, the roman commander ordered the legions into the gaps that had appeared. Once the romans got in close quarter combat, the gladius, heavy scutum and armor proved much more superior to the equipment of the phalangites. This is the only example when the macedonian phalanx has been defeated by the roman legion in a head-on fight.

**Trotsky** · February 14, 2010, 09:59 PM

Oh wow thanks for that! Hmm i would have thought the pila would have been effective enough to break up the formation but obvisouly not.
Are there any books that deal with the roman-macidonian wars?

**Dargaron** · February 16, 2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Trotsky

Oh wow thanks for that! Hmm i would have thought the pila would have been effective enough to break up the formation but obvisouly not.
Are there any books that deal with the roman-macidonian wars?

It's not a book, but the Teaching Company lecture set "Great Battles of the Ancient World" has a half hour lecture devoted to the Roman Legion vs the Phalanx. Albiet three of the battles didn't involve Macedon, but the same principles apply. (If you get it, WAIT TILL THE SET IS ON SALE! They reduce the price dramatically for courses that are on sale.)

**Titus Maximius Thongus** · February 16, 2010, 01:22 PM

the pikes in a phalanx were angled to break up missile fire, but I'd imagine they were well trained enough to step into the places of their comrades who had been killed by pilla fire.

also note that by the time the Romans invaded Macedonia, the Macedonians were very much a shadow of their former self and the art of Alexander's famous hammer and anvils had very much been lost. Late-era Macedonian armies were very static and rigid in comparison to Alexander's aggressive and fluid armies.

**0N3** · February 16, 2010, 02:53 PM

According to this, if the macedonian phalanx force had stayed in formation and on clear field(no rocks etc.) the romans would have been smashed. Also with most of the succesor armies not having the recommeded cavalry it seems rome easily should have failed if not for macedonian incompetence?

**Ludens** · February 17, 2010, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by 0N3

According to this, if the macedonian phalanx force had stayed in formation and on clear field(no rocks etc.) the romans would have been smashed. Also with most of the succesor armies not having the recommeded cavalry it seems rome easily should have failed if not for macedonian incompetence?

The Romans also beat a Macedonian-style army at Magnesia, although it that case it seems to have been the elephants that caused the disruption in the phalanx. Either way, yes, it does seem that a Macedonian phalanx will drive the Romans back provided it stays in formation. However, staying in formation becomes increasingly difficult as a battle progresses, and the Roman legionary is also a good soldier when not fighting on a clear field.

**torongill** · February 17, 2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ludens

The Romans also beat a Macedonian-style army at Magnesia, although it that case it seems to have been the elephants that caused the disruption in the phalanx. Either way, yes, it does seem that a Macedonian phalanx will drive the Romans back provided it stays in formation. However, staying in formation becomes increasingly difficult as a battle progresses, and the Roman legionary is also a good soldier when not fighting on a clear field.

You have to give it to Antiochus, at least ten points for ingenuity, covering the gaps between his phalanx blocks with elephants was a brilliant idea. Of course, we then have to substract twenty THOUSAND at least for sheer lunacy and idiocy. Didn't someone tell this guy elephants panic? And that when they panic, it's epic? What was he thinking? Stationary elephants are nothing but hell in a (temporary)stationary handbasket. And even if we suggest that the idea was to disrupt the roman line, shouldn't the genius have put infantry behind the elephants to exploit the disruption. I actually have to admit I know nothing of Antiochus, I just read the article about the battle of Magnesia and when I got to the part "He ordered intervals to be formed among the taxeis in which he placed 2 elephants each." I thought "Huston, WTF, over?"

P.S. I just thought about this... Didn´t Antiochus saw the writing on the wall? He outnumbers the Romans, he has elephants, he has Hanibal on his side and Scipio Africanus against him... Zama anyone?

**Ludens** · February 17, 2010, 11:10 AM

I guess the idea was to prevent the Romans from entering the gaps between the phalanx lines by placing he elephants there. Although that still sounds pretty dumb.

That said, the elephants held long enough for Antiochus and his cavalry to rout one wing of the Roman army and starting looting their camp. Now if he had managed to retain control of the cavalry and flanked the Romans like, just to throw out a name, Hannibal would have done, history might well have looked different.

BTW, wasn't there the suspicion that Livy misrepresented the numbers at that particular battle?