Pike phalanxes - why ?

[Charerg]

Btw, is there any concrete evidence that shields with a metal outer layer are really more resilient than wooden ones, specifically composite shields, plywood shields in particular. Because I'm under the impression that the Macedonians themselves abandoned the bronze-coated shields in favour of plywood shields because the latter provided better protection.

And it doesn't sound particularly convincing that a thin bronze layer would offer much increase in terms of how much protection a shield provides. Sure, in some circumstances it could allow lighter shields without loss of protection but surely heavy shields like the scutum provided better protection, although they would weigh more as well.

[Charerg]

Well, at that point Rome had managed to defeat Carthage, so they had the resources of a much larger nation, as well as experienced commanders and soldiers, veterans of the punic war. And Carthage was surely a much bigger threat and more powerful nation than Macedonia at that point. So most likely the Macedonians would've eventually lost, even had they replaced their predominantly levied phalangites with levied thorakitai. Basically, if the Romans could take on the Carthaginians and triumph, they sure could take on Macedonia and win.

[Dan113112]

Well, at that point Rome had managed to defeat Carthage, so they had the resources of a much larger nation, as well as experienced commanders and soldiers, veterans of the punic war. And Carthage was surely a much bigger threat and more powerful nation than Macedonia at that point. So most likely the Macedonians would've eventually lost, even had they replaced their predominantly levied phalangites with levied thorakitai. Basically, if the Romans could take on the Carthaginians and triumph, they sure could take on Macedonia and win.

Yeah, but from the looks of things Rome didn't want to initially conquer Macedonia. They wanted them to be docile. So, they could have spent their time building a better army and making alliances instead of trying to expand even when Rome forbid them to do so.

Btw, is there any concrete evidence that shields with a metal outer layer are really more resilient than wooden ones, specifically composite shields, plywood shields in particular. Because I'm under the impression that the Macedonians themselves abandoned the bronze-coated shields in favour of plywood shields because the latter provided better protection.

And it doesn't sound particularly convincing that a thin bronze layer would offer much increase in terms of how much protection a shield provides. Sure, in some circumstances it could allow lighter shields without loss of protection but surely heavy shields like the scutum provided better protection, although they would weigh more as well.

I saw a test done, albeit on the controversial and ahistorical show Deadliest Warrior, that a small bronze shield like those carried by Macedonians would offer more defense against a pilum. It would probably still render the shield useless but protect the soldier behind it.

[JaM]

Yes, actually, Romans always had high standards for Greeks. They were quite happy when Greeks stopped to call them Barbarians.. So, initial Republic views on Greece was very positive. Problem is, the Second Punic War. Rome was in deep troubles, and when they needed the support the most, Macedonians stabbed them in the back and allied with Carthage. Romans never forget this, and once Carthage threat was dealt with they decided to "pay their dues" with Macedonia, especially as it started to threaten parts of Achaean league which stayed neutral or Allied to Rome.

I saw a test done, albeit on the controversial and ahistorical show Deadliest Warrior, that a small bronze shield like those carried by Macedonians would offer more defense against a pilum. It would probably still render the shield useless but protect the soldier behind it.

which part it was? i'd like to see what they actually did to compare the effect.

[Dan113112]

which part it was? i'd like to see what they actually did to compare the effect.

It was not a comparison test. It was a test against what appeared to be a small bronze, possibly iron shield of Indian origin that looked very similar to those carried by Macedonian pikemen. When they threw the pilum it only penetrated slightly but it was enough to make the shield unusable. I saw a test done on another show against a mock board shield that might have been used by Gauls and over half the iron shaft of the pilum went through the mock board shield.

[Påsan]

Another point might be in the use of the infantry. While the phalanx in its optimal form under Alexander was a primarily defensive formation and excelled at that, but they were fairly hapless unless supported with more offensive elements to actually rout the enemy, the Legionaries on the other hand were both pre and post marian a aggressive formation well capable of winning battles on their own merits.

Just wanted to point that out.

[Anna_Gein]

Another point might be in the use of the infantry. While the phalanx in its optimal form under Alexander was a primarily defensive formation and excelled at that, but they were fairly hapless unless supported with more offensive elements to actually rout the enemy, the Legionaries on the other hand were both pre and post marian a aggressive formation well capable of winning battles on their own merits.

Just wanted to point that out.

Why do you get the impression the phalanx was defensive under Alexander ? Yes Cavalry was used for decisive movement but why should he use the infantry alone to defeat his opponent and suffer unnecessary casualties if he could use multiple troops to outmanoeuvre and defeat his opponent ?

That would be like assuming that Hannibal's infantry was limited to a defensive role only because he used his cavalry to flank and decisively defeat his opponents at Trebia and Cannae.

Infantry have always been good for its staying power. And to flank your opponents when they are superior in numbers is one of most natural move to defeat them in battle if they are superior in numbers. Cavalry is the most adequate arm for this tasks thanks to its speed and the initial shock heavy cavalry could deliver.

[JaM]

Greeks or Macedonians never faced Germans in their natural habitat.. Anyway even then, only defeats Romans took, were due to bad leadership, and insufficient numbers. Polybian Legion was obsolete, there were not enough of men to fight wars against barbarians. Thanks to Marius who as you know reformed the army, Roman legions transformed levies into professional troops. Each soldier no longer had to own his weapon and armor, he doesn't needed to be a citizen, on contrary, anybody who joined could serve his citizenship.. Reformed Legions no longer had issues to replenish men, because there were many former farmers that lost their lands because they were unable to compete with huge latifundia, where slaves were working - unfortunate effect of destroying the Carthage - all the slaves from Africa imported into Rome had very bad effect on its population... and because people lost their land, they were unable to buy weapons and armor,therefore they were unable to serve in army if needed... so professional army was the only way how to solve this situation...

Wars against Teutons also shown that Maniple was just too small to fight independently, therefore three maniples were put together to form a cohort. As you know reformed legions defeated Teutons badly, practically wiping them out. So if you write that Gauls or Germans broke the Legion from the front, it clearly depends on what legion you have in mind... Late Republican Legion was hard nut to crack from the front, and i don't remember reading about it being broken from the front by Gauls..


And regarding Pyrrhus, didn't he say, "if he had army like these (pointing to dead Roman soldiers after battle of Heraclea), i would conquer the world"... Both Asculum and Heraclea while Roman defeats were very close calls, where Epirote Elite Phalangities were unable to break Roman position in frontal clash, and only were able to rout them using elephants which romans have never seen before.. yet still, while they took about 2x higher losses than Epirotes, majority of their losses were taken on the rout, while majority Epirote losses were taken in direct fight against Roman Legions..

[Ichon]

Greeks or Macedonians never faced Germans in their natural habitat.. Anyway even then, only defeats Romans took, were due to bad leadership, and insufficient numbers. Polybian Legion was obsolete, there were not enough of men to fight wars against barbarians. Thanks to Marius who as you know reformed the army, Roman legions transformed levies into professional troops. Each soldier no longer had to own his weapon and armor, he doesn't needed to be a citizen, on contrary, anybody who joined could serve his citizenship.. Reformed Legions no longer had issues to replenish men, because there were many former farmers that lost their lands because they were unable to compete with huge latifundia, where slaves were working - unfortunate effect of destroying the Carthage - all the slaves from Africa imported into Rome had very bad effect on its population... and because people lost their land, they were unable to buy weapons and armor,therefore they were unable to serve in army if needed... so professional army was the only way how to solve this situation...

Wars against Teutons also shown that Maniple was just too small to fight independently, therefore three maniples were put together to form a cohort. As you know reformed legions defeated Teutons badly, practically wiping them out. So if you write that Gauls or Germans broke the Legion from the front, it clearly depends on what legion you have in mind... Late Republican Legion was hard nut to crack from the front, and i don't remember reading about it being broken from the front by Gauls.

And regarding Pyrrhus, didn't he say, "if he had army like these (pointing to dead Roman soldiers after battle of Heraclea), i would conquer the world"... Both Asculum and Heraclea while Roman defeats were very close calls, where Epirote Elite Phalangities were unable to break Roman position in frontal clash, and only were able to rout them using elephants which romans have never seen before.. yet still, while they took about 2x higher losses than Epirotes, majority of their losses were taken on the rout, while majority Epirote losses were taken in direct fight against Roman Legions..

That quote was about Roman bravery and discipline not necessarily the formation but even then in an earlier version of the legion the Romans were tough opponents. Only about 1/3 of Pyrrhus army was Epirotes, 1/3 levies and 1/3 mercenaries. The Epirotes broke the Romans they faced while the Greek levies from Tarentum were broken on the other side- Pyrrhus defeated the Roman and allied cavalry and then circled to hit the Romans in the rear just after the mercenaries in the center broke. So the Epirotes defeated the Romans opposite without Pyrrhus in direct command- he was with the cavalry- and then held off the Roman center and far side long enough for Pyrrhus to break them with several charges. It was a violent battle with the lines supposedly swaying back and forth several times. That shows the difficulty of saying which formation was stronger because alot depended on the skill and tenacity of the men in the units as well as the leadership. Pyrrhus battles vs Romans is the only time veteran units in legions and phalanx were known to fight for any length of time directly. Roman legions evolved largely in response to enemies they faced which were quite variable and in my opinion the early Roman Empire had the strongest legions due to combination of discipline, experience, and available vassals/auxillaries. Greek phalanx peak was around time of Alexander because after his conquests most Hellenes were fighting each other and relying overmuch on phalanx because it was much cheaper to recruit and maintain then Companion style cavalry. Seleucids came the nearest to matching Alexander's era and conquered most of their Hellenic neighbors until meeting Romans and due to weakness of the dynasty it was over after one battle. The interesting aspect to me is the Gallatian invasion of Greece where phalanx was victorious in narrow passes with very little losses but overwhelmed most other places initially.

In the Romans vs Seleucid battles there were veterans present on both sides as well but Scipio's battle plan and Antiochus poor disciplined cavalry looting the Roman camp unlike Pyrrhus leading his back to ensure victory meant the phalanx did not have time to meet the Roman line fully. Not alot to go on but seeing as Romans in subsequent battles that reduced their engagements with phalanx frontally as much as possible indicates they still regarded phalanx as formidable when it was experienced and supported adequately.

So saying phalanx is the most powerful type of unit in frontal engagements just means in TW that elite experienced phalanx shouldn't be defeated frontally while lower quality phalanx might be even without rough terrain (unless you believe CA can model breaking of formation in rough terrain adequately?) However Roman legionaries and maybe some Gaulish champions could last longer in a frontal engagement vs elite phalanx than any other unit types giving time for flankers etc.

[JaM]

That quote was about Roman bravery and discipline not necessarily the formation but even then in an earlier version of the legion the Romans were tough opponents. Only about 1/3 of Pyrrhus army was Epirotes, 1/3 levies and 1/3 mercenaries. The Epirotes broke the Romans they faced while the Greek levies from Tarentum were broken on the other side- Pyrrhus defeated the Roman and allied cavalry and then circled to hit the Romans in the rear just after the mercenaries in the center broke. So the Epirotes defeated the Romans opposite without Pyrrhus in direct command- he was with the cavalry- and then held off the Roman center and far side long enough for Pyrrhus to break them with several charges. It was a violent battle with the lines supposedly swaying back and forth several times. That shows the difficulty of saying which formation was stronger because alot depended on the skill and tenacity of the men in the units as well as the leadership. Pyrrhus battles vs Romans is the only time veteran units in legions and phalanx were known to fight for any length of time directly. Roman legions evolved largely in response to enemies they faced which were quite variable and in my opinion the early Roman Empire had the strongest legions due to combination of discipline, experience, and available vassals/auxillaries. Greek phalanx peak was around time of Alexander because after his conquests most Hellenes were fighting each other and relying overmuch on phalanx because it was much cheaper to recruit and maintain then Companion style cavalry. Seleucids came the nearest to matching Alexander's era and conquered most of their Hellenic neighbors until meeting Romans and due to weakness of the dynasty it was over after one battle. The interesting aspect to me is the Gallatian invasion of Greece where phalanx was victorious in narrow passes with very little losses but overwhelmed most other places initially.

In the Romans vs Seleucid battles there were veterans present on both sides as well but Scipio's battle plan and Antiochus poor disciplined cavalry looting the Roman camp unlike Pyrrhus leading his back to ensure victory meant the phalanx did not have time to meet the Roman line fully. Not alot to go on but seeing as Romans in subsequent battles that reduced their engagements with phalanx frontally as much as possible indicates they still regarded phalanx as formidable when it was experienced and supported adequately.

So saying phalanx is the most powerful type of unit in frontal engagements just means in TW that elite experienced phalanx shouldn't be defeated frontally while lower quality phalanx might be even without rough terrain (unless you believe CA can model breaking of formation in rough terrain adequately?) However Roman legionaries and maybe some Gaulish champions could last longer in a frontal engagement vs elite phalanx than any other unit types giving time for flankers etc.

Roman legions during Pyrrhic Wars were composed of Levies as well. Early legion was Levy Legion composed of citizen militia troops,where soldiers differentiated by their wealth (ability to buy better weapons) and experience. It was nowhere as effective force, as late Republican Legions especially after Marius reforms when Roman Legions transformed into fully professional force. Late Macedonian Wars were waged with veterans of Punic Wars. Combat effectiveness of late Republican (Polybian)Legion was much higher than early form of legions used agaisnt Pyrrhus. Early Legions for example had much smaller numbers of heavy infantry, Hastati and Rotarii were equipped as light Infantry and were mostly used as a skirmish force. In late Republican Legion, Rotarii were replaced by Velites, and Hastati started getting heavier armor (hamata) procured by the republic (especially after defeat at Canae) so at the time of Second Macedonian War, Majority of Infantry in Legion were Heavy infantry.

Another point is, Pyrrhic victories at Heraclea and Asculum became famous for being very destructive to winning side - Pyrrhos would definitely not be commenting looses of his auxiliary forces,because he could replace them with local forces. Which clearly means this heavy losses were taken by his elite Corps (which is btw mentioned by historians). In two battles he lost about 15000 men, and if just 50% were his Elite Phalangitai, he would be left just with about a half of their original numbers...

edit:

per wiki (i know i know.. but it just takes numbers from this page anyway: http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Su...eScenario1.htm)
Epirote Army at Heraclea was composed of:

3,000 hypaspists under Milon command
20,000 phalangites, Epirotes including 5,000 Macedonian soldiers given by Ptolemy
6,000 Tarentine levy hoplites
4,000 horsemen, including the Thessalian contingent and 1,000 Tarentine horsemen
2,000 archers
500 Rhodian slingers
20 war elephants with towers holding troops.


And Roman army:

20,000 Roman legionaries, in four legions
16,800 allied legionaries, in four legions
2,400 light infantry, Bruttians and Campanians
1,200 Roman horsemen
3,600 allied horsemen
1,200 light horsemen from Southern Italian allies


Also here is battle description from that page:

The Battle of Heraclea

Pyrrhus marched to Heraclea and made his fortified camp*, there he witnessed for the first time the Drill and order of the Romans. It was quite a shock to him to realize that not only was his opposition more numerous, but it was also a cut above the “barbarian” forces he expected to face!
At least he felt confident that the Roman swordsmen would be at a disadvantage versus the phalanx, his superior cavalry, and his “Trump” card, the elephants. He reckoned that these factors would be enough to outweigh the Romans numerical advantage. Nevertheless, Pyrrhus deployed his forces behind the river Siris, smartly working the terrain to his advantage. Pickets and light troops covered the stream and the elephants were wisely kept behind the phalanx in reserve.
(*Apparently the Romans were so impressed with Pyrrhus’s walled camp that they copied it! Pyrrhus no doubt was well inclined to go to this unusual measure because of the tricks he learned from his first benefactor, Antigonus 1^st.)
The Romans for their part were unusually aggressive and spirited as they believed that they would deal with Pyrrhus’s army with the same ease that they had previously handled the Tarentine levies. Laevinius ordered out the Legions and they advanced on the Epirote pickets. The Roman and Allied cavalry were sent up and down stream and forded the river. The Epirote pickets along the stream fell back as their flanks were turned.
The Roman cavalry attempted to pursue and Pyrrhus saw his first opportunity to counterstrike. He charged the Roman and Allied horsemen with his Agema cavalry with his Thessalians in reserve. They were turned back by the Italian horse and soon this action turned into a stalemate in which Pyrrhus’ outnumbered horsemen just could barely hold their own. Soon, almost all of Pyrrhus’ horsemen were thrown into this cavalry battle. Pyrrhus joined the melee, inspiring his troops and overawing his opponents. At this time a Italian cavalry officer charged Pyrrhus and unhorsed him. Pyrrhus was luckily saved by his retainers and he decided to take off his conspicuous armor and gave it to his Commander Megacles. Megacles rejoined the fight and the Epirote cavalry held.
Pyrrhus, unhorsed and bruised, made his way back to the main battle line.
The Romans were busily crossing the Siris river and Pyrrhus launched the phalanx at their leading maniples. A severe struggle ensued as the Pikemen suffered the hail of Pila and then pressed forward against the Hastati. The Romans for their part were stymied by the serried ranks of pikemen and could make little impression upon them. Individual Legionnaires attempted to roll under the pikes and break up the phalanx’s but these “forlorn hopes” were cut down. Hacking at the spear points was also a desperate measure attempted with little success. The Maniples were unable to stop the Phalanx. The Hastati line was decimated and fell back and the Principes took on the struggle. A series of clashes occurred with charges and counter charges delivered by both sides. The Romans were frustrated because they couldn’t break through the wall of pikes, the Epirotes and Macedonians were frustrated because every time they defeated a maniple they couldn’t pursue, another maniple would threaten to flank them if they opened a gap in their line. These were seasoned phalangites and they were savvy enough to know that they could not offer these compact maniple formations a chance to penetrate their line. Seven times the phalangites clashed with the maniples as they charged, pulled back and were replaced by reserve maniples.
Luckily for Pyrrhus the river crossing apparently had funneled the Roman advance and somehow the Allied Legions were unable to deploy on a wide enough front to flank the Epirote battleline. Neither the Tarentines or the Allied Legions are mentioned and may have cancelled each other out.
As stalemate seemed to be spread across the battleline, a Roman officer killed Megacles and carried Pyrrhus’ goat horned helmet and cloak to Laevinius shouting to all that Pyrrhus was dead! The Romans, at their lowest ebb, were rejuvenated, and the Epirotes wavered and fell back. Pyrrhus took off his helmet and rode in front of the lines to show his troops the ruse. This dramatic display saved his army and they stood their ground once again.
During this confusion, Laevinius threw in his reserve of Roman cavalry against the phalanx’s exposed flank. Pyrrhus saw this as the decisive moment and gathered his elephants. As the Romans attempted to charge the phalanx they were in turn charged by the elephants. The Roman horses could not stand up to the “Lucanian Oxen” as they called them, and they fled through the Legions. The elephants spread panic and terror before them and the Legions broke. Pyrrhus launched a vigorous pursuit with his Thessalian cavalry. The Roman army could have been annihilated with it’s back to the stream, but the first Hastate of the Fourth Legion, Gaius Minucius, wounded Pyrrhus’ leading elephant which bolted back through the Epirote phalanx. The phalanx halted and the Romans melted away in confusion and rout.
The battle was a “Near Run thing” for Pyrrhus. It is stated that the Romans lost 7000 killed and carried away 6000 wounded, 2000 prisoners were taken. But unlike Alexander’s victories, Pyrrhus’ army suffered up to 4000 dead themselves, including his General Megacles and many of his closest Companions.

What i find interesting, is ability of Roman Cavalry to defeat Epirote Agema cavalry, and the mention that most of Allied Auxilary forces were left out of battle on both sides.

[Ichon]

Roman legions during Pyrrhic Wars were composed of Levies as well. Early legion was Levy Legion composed of citizen militia troops,where soldiers differentiated by their wealth (ability to buy better weapons) and experience. It was nowhere as effective force, as late Republican Legions especially after Marius reforms when Roman Legions transformed into fully professional force. Late Macedonian Wars were waged with veterans of Punic Wars. Combat effectiveness of late Republican (Polybian)Legion was much higher than early form of legions used agaisnt Pyrrhus. Early Legions for example had much smaller numbers of heavy infantry, Hastati and Rotarii were equipped as light Infantry and were mostly used as a skirmish force. In late Republican Legion, Rotarii were replaced by Velites, and Hastati started getting heavier armor (hamata) procured by the republic (especially after defeat at Canae) so at the time of Second Macedonian War, Majority of Infantry in Legion were Heavy infantry.

Another point is, Pyrrhic victories at Heraclea and Asculum became famous for being very destructive to winning side - Pyrrhos would definitely not be commenting looses of his auxiliary forces,because he could replace them with local forces. Which clearly means this heavy losses were taken by his elite Corps (which is btw mentioned by historians). In two battles he lost about 15000 men, and if just 30% were his Elite Phalangitai, he would be left just with about a half of their original numbers...

Romans did use levy which is where legere/legion word originates. The men fighting Pyrrhus weren't fresh levies compared to those raised by Tarentum or normal idea of inexperienced 'levies' - Rome had been fighting the Samnites, Sabines, and Gauls the previous 4 decades nearly every campaign season.

Right- we've already covered the losses of Pyrrhus, my point was that if roughly 8,000-9,000 of Pyrrhus 25,000 were Epirotes then losses of 1-2,000 were significant. That is 11-25% which from a single battle is alot. After 2 hard fought battles there might have been +40% losses of Epirotes and thus 'Pyrrhis victory' as an expression. Pyrrhus could and did easily replace mercenaries while also raising other troops from Greek allies in Sicily and some other places he went but Epirus was relatively small and very limited trained manpower pool. However of the well trained Epirotes could defeat the Romans opposite them, then hold the center and other flank long enough for Pyrrhus to win the cavalry battle and swing back around that is pretty good staying power vs even early legion which in same battle defeated real 'levied' Greeks of Tarentum and the center mercenaries (who were some Greeks but many Italians making last chance to throw off Roman hegemony).

Pyrrhus formation was fairly classic- weak left with the Tarentum levies fighting in phalanx, decent center of Greek mercenaries probably fighting as hoplites or mixed with reportedly many Samnites, Oscans, Sabines and others joined as mercenaries/volunteers, strong right with the Epirotes. Pyrrhus did make use of elephants which Romans hadn't experience with but still the infantry meeting we are looking at was was inconclusive mostly with Epirotes finally breaking Romans on one flank.

[torongill]

Don't forget that the real rise of the Hellenistic Pike Phalanx was after Alexander. Alexander took with him only six taxeis, i.e nine thousand Foot Companions. For the most part he relied on the more numerous and probably much more easily found traditional hoplites and more mobile light spearmen for usage against cavalry. It was the Successors who began to increase massively the number of phalangites in their armies, while also increasing the length of the pike. One reason might be the increased usage of elephants in the wars of the Diadochi and the phalanx provided better response than the traditional hoplite phalanx. Another reason could be that the pike phalanx was better than the traditional one, hence you would have an advantage against an opponent that uses the traditional phalanx.

[Dan113112]

Don't forget that the real rise of the Hellenistic Pike Phalanx was after Alexander. Alexander took with him only six taxeis, i.e nine thousand Foot Companions. For the most part he relied on the more numerous and probably much more easily found traditional hoplites and more mobile light spearmen for usage against cavalry. It was the Successors who began to increase massively the number of phalangites in their armies, while also increasing the length of the pike. One reason might be the increased usage of elephants in the wars of the Diadochi and the phalanx provided better response than the traditional hoplite phalanx. Another reason could be that the pike phalanx was better than the traditional one, hence you would have an advantage against an opponent that uses the traditional phalanx.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the hoplites came from the Greek leagues. Same with a lot of peltasts probably. There's also the Thessalian cavalry. Overall the foot companions made up less than half the army.

[Kraxis]

Well that is most likely down to two reasons:

1) Alexander had to leave a significant force at home to guard the northern approaches. That was something he could only assign Macedonians to, as it was their homes they were defending. So that was a significant part of his phalangite force stuck at home.

2) Macedon didn't have a lot of manpower at this time. This can be combined with the fact that while Macedon was on a the rise under Phillip, it wasn't yet rich. Most likely the limit had so far been in money.

Alexander's army was continually reinforced as loot reached home and more troops were trained. After all, heavy losses were suffered to many things, yet it seems more pikes were in his army towards the end.
I'm sure Alexander would have loved to have only Phalangites, Hypaspists and some good javelineers and archers to round it out on foot. But he had to bring what he had. And it was the right choice. Forced allies, and allies that fear you can't be trusted to defend your home. But they will gladly join you abroad if you are winning (loot and glory).

[Dan113112]

Well that is most likely down to two reasons:

1) Alexander had to leave a significant force at home to guard the northern approaches. That was something he could only assign Macedonians to, as it was their homes they were defending. So that was a significant part of his phalangite force stuck at home.

2) Macedon didn't have a lot of manpower at this time. This can be combined with the fact that while Macedon was on a the rise under Phillip, it wasn't yet rich. Most likely the limit had so far been in money.

Alexander's army was continually reinforced as loot reached home and more troops were trained. After all, heavy losses were suffered to many things, yet it seems more pikes were in his army towards the end.
I'm sure Alexander would have loved to have only Phalangites, Hypaspists and some good javelineers and archers to round it out on foot. But he had to bring what he had. And it was the right choice. Forced allies, and allies that fear you can't be trusted to defend your home. But they will gladly join you abroad if you are winning (loot and glory).

That could be true but I'm also of the opinion that, because he didn't have the light troops later employed by his successors, he needed infantry like hoplites to protect his rear and flanks.

[Kraxis]

Technically that would be the job of the Hypaspists and the light cavalry while Alexander and the heavy cavalry dealt the hammerblow. In a perfect world for Alexander of course. I would agree that some of the forces he brought from his allies were of a tactical necessity, but the amount seems out of place for that. Besides regular hoplites weren't exactly known for their impressive flankprotection themselves.

[Dan113112]

Technically that would be the job of the Hypaspists and the light cavalry while Alexander and the heavy cavalry dealt the hammerblow. In a perfect world for Alexander of course. I would agree that some of the forces he brought from his allies were of a tactical necessity, but the amount seems out of place for that. Besides regular hoplites weren't exactly known for their impressive flankprotection themselves.

Hypaspists were basically just elite hoplites of noble birth. Same with the Companion Cavalry. So these two forces would be in shorter supply than other irregular forces.

[vietanh797]

Companion Cavalry after Philips rise to the throne allow normal people join in. After that the number of Companion Cavalries raise from 2000 to 6000(If my memory serve me right) and many of them are Thessalian cavalries.

After the Persia campaign the Thessalian cavalry unit was disband and sent back to Thessaly but Alexander also form 2 new regiments of companion cavalry(I think I read that the 2 new unit have persia cavalry) so the most of Thessalians join those 2 new regiment instead of return home.

[JaM]

At Heraclea Epiros cavalry got badly defeated by Roman cavalry per the link i cited above:

The Roman cavalry attempted to pursue and Pyrrhus saw his first opportunity to counterstrike. He charged the Roman and Allied horsemen with his Agema cavalry with his Thessalians in reserve. They were turned back by the Italian horse and soon this action turned into a stalemate in which Pyrrhus’ outnumbered horsemen just could barely hold their own. Soon, almost all of Pyrrhus’ horsemen were thrown into this cavalry battle. Pyrrhus joined the melee, inspiring his troops and overawing his opponents. At this time a Italian cavalry officer charged Pyrrhus and unhorsed him. Pyrrhus was luckily saved by his retainers and he decided to take off his conspicuous armor and gave it to his Commander Megacles. Megacles rejoined the fight and the Epirote cavalry held.Pyrrhus, unhorsed and bruised, made his way back to the main battle line.

THis is actually quite surprising for me as Romans were never famous for actions of their cavalry, anyway only 1200 were actually Equites, remaining were most likely Campanian and other Allied cavalry, but still Italian..


Anyway i think we are talking about different battles, I'm mentioning Heraclea, where Epirote Phalanx fought against Roman Legions, and you are obviously mentioning Asculum, where Macedonian phalangities defeated first Legion, but third and fourth defeated Oscans, Epirotes and Tarentines in the center.

[Ichon]

At Heraclea Epiros cavalry got badly defeated by Roman cavalry per the link i cited above:

THis is actually quite surprising for me as Romans were never famous for actions of their cavalry, anyway only 1200 were actually Equites, remaining were most likely Campanian and other Allied cavalry, but still Italian..

Anyway i think we are talking about different battles, I'm mentioning Heraclea, where Epirote Phalanx fought against Roman Legions, and you are obviously mentioning Asculum, where Macedonian phalangities defeated first Legion, but third and fourth defeated Oscans, Epirotes and Tarentines in the center.

Not sure why you would call it a severe defeat? I read it as the cavalry clash was indecisive as neither side was driven from the field which isn't bad considering Pyrrhus had fewer numbers. Anyway that is off topic and wasn't there another thread we were talking about strength of Italian cavalry?