Pike phalanxes - why ?

[jakeswe]

I don't think the troop types in itself is the most important factor but rather the leadership and experience of the troops. Usually after periods of peace the Romans initially got their asses kicked and then slowly worked themselves back into the game. What was most amazing about the Romans was their perseverance.

[JaM]

jakeswe: not sure what you mean, but except Pyrrhus invasion, Romans never had to deal with Greeks cornering them. Whole second Macedonian war was a result of Macedonian backstabbing Romans after their defeat against Carthage. Rome took that very bad, and once they dealt with Hannibal, they switched to pay their dues with Macedonia. and even if they didnt won all their battles, they were never on the loosing end in that war...

[Ichon]

jakeswe: not sure what you mean, but except Pyrrhus invasion, Romans never had to deal with Greeks cornering them. Whole second Macedonian war was a result of Macedonian backstabbing Romans after their defeat against Carthage. Rome took that very bad, and once they dealt with Hannibal, they switched to pay their dues with Macedonia. and even if they didnt won all their battles, they were never on the loosing end in that war...

Why do you keep referring to Macedonia "backstabbing" Rome?

[JaM]

Why do you keep referring to Macedonia "backstabbing" Rome?

Because they did -check the background for First Macedonian War- When Hannibal destroyed Roman army at Cannae, Macedonian king Philip V declared war on Rome. And while all fighting was mostly done by Achaean league, Rome never forgot this to Philip..


in my books, if somebody is beating you, and suddenly somebody else joins him, i call it a backstab..

[jakeswe]

What I mean is after generally peaceful periods and the battle hardened generation fading away Rome often suffered initial setbacks in new wars. Like the third Punic war, the Romans that fought Hannibal were gone and that war started badly. Same with the Teuton invasion, that happened after a long calm period. Rome got smashed bad in the beginning.

[Anna_Gein]

What I mean is after generally peaceful periods and the battle hardened generation fading away Rome often suffered initial setbacks in new wars. Like the third Punic war, the Romans that fought Hannibal were gone and that war started badly. Same with the Teuton invasion, that happened after a long calm period. Rome got smashed bad in the beginning.

You should be cautious to not mistaken period without "major conflict" for peaceful period. The conquest of Hispania was a source of almost constant warfare for more than one century. When the Cimbrian War broke out Rome was at war against the King Jugurtha in north Africa.

[jakeswe]

^Hispania was more about small time skirmishes, guerrilla warfare and defeating single independent cities. Not involving any real major campaigns. Usually it was only good schemers and generals who had any success there. Lets not forget many of these wars involved major setbacks. But Rome with it's usual relentlessness always came back.
The Jugurthine war didn't involve any really big battle, atleast not before the Germanic invasion.
My point was it doesn't really matter what equipment an army has if it's is not led by a competent general and your soldiers have a warriors mindset.

[vietanh797]

I have a feeling that may be JaM's ancestors back in B.C was killed by Macedonians.
Just a feeling no offend

[torongill]

Actually that's called ganging up on the target. A backstab is a betrayal by someone you trust, someone who was your ally. For example, backstabbing would be the British attacking France while the Germans are at Marne in WW1.

[JaM]

Actually that's called ganging up on the target. A backstab is a betrayal by someone you trust, someone who was your ally. For example, backstabbing would be the British attacking France while the Germans are at Marne in WW1.

yes, but nevertheless, Rome seen that as backstab, and never forgot Philip V. So once they dealt with Carthage, they went agaisnt Philip V next.

The battle of Aous (probable date 24 June 198 BC) was the first significant Roman victory during the Second Macedonian War. In 200 BC a Roman army had landed at Apollonia, on the eastern shores of the Adriatic, and in the following year had raided western Macedonia.
Philip could not allow a repeat of the events of 199, and so in the spring of 198 BC he took up a strong defensive position on the Aous River, defending a gorge close to Antigoneia (modern Vijose in Albania). This blocked the best route into Macedonia from the west.
The Roman commander at the start of 199, P. Villius Tappulus, decided to attack Philip, and had advanced to within five miles of his position when his replacement arrived. This was Titus Quinctius Flaminius, one of the consuls for 198 BC, a man with some experience of Greece.
His arrival was followed by direct negotiation with Philip. The Macedonian king had finally realised how dangerous the Romans could be now that the end of the Second Punic War had left them free to concentrate on the war in Macedonia, and so offered to accept the original Roman terms of 200 BC – to surrender those cities around the Aegean that he had conquered.
Unfortunately for Philip, the Romans were not interested in peace on these terms – their real war aim was to reduce the power of Philip, who had never been forgiven for his declaration of war in 215 BC, at the height of the Second Punic War. Flaminius now demanded that Philip should abandon Thessaly, an area that had been ruled by the Macedonians for a century and a half. Unsurprisingly Philip ended the conference and withdrew to his apparently impregnable position in the Aous gorge.

Philip’s bad luck continued. The Romans were provided with a local guide by Charops, a powerful Epirote. With the guide’s help 4,300 Roman solders marched around Philip’s position and threatened to trap him in the gorge (probably on 24 June 198 BC). Philip realised his danger just in time, and managed to escape from the trap. The fighting cost him 2,000 men, all of his baggage, and left Thessaly exposed to the Romans.

In the aftermath of their victory on the Aous, the Romans advanced into Thessaly, where they captured a number of towns, before turning south to over-winter on the Corinthian Gulf. The Roman successes also convinced the Achaean League to ally with them, ending their long alliance with Macedonia.

[Ichon]

yes, but nevertheless, Rome seen that as backstab, and never forgot Philip V. So once they dealt with Carthage, they went agaisnt Philip V next.

Since Rome was the aggressive expanding power not sure how an alliance between Carthage and Macedon is considered a backstab.

[Sixer19]

far out

[JaM]

Rome was not an agressor in Second Punic war! Hannibal attacked Roman Allied city and masacred the populace, which resulted in Rome asking Carthage to punish Hannibal. Carthagians denied, and Hannibal launched invasion into Italy... After several defeats, and lost of army at Cannae, Rome was in despair, they didnt had any army which would face Hannibal (but Hannibal didt pushed for Rome). At that time Philip V engaged Iliria and Roman Allies which started first Macedonian war... So, in both these wars, it wasnt Romans who were aggressors, but Carthagians and Macedonians...


not in many wars during Republican Era was Rome aggressor...

[torongill]

Rome was not an agressor in Second Punic war! Hannibal attacked Roman Allied city and masacred the populace, which resulted in Rome asking Carthage to punish Hannibal. Carthagians denied, and Hannibal launched invasion into Italy... After several defeats, and lost of army at Cannae, Rome was in despair, they didnt had any army which would face Hannibal (but Hannibal didt pushed for Rome). At that time Philip V engaged Iliria and Roman Allies which started first Macedonian war... So, in both these wars, it wasnt Romans who were aggressors, but Carthagians and Macedonians...


not in many wars during Republican Era was Rome aggressor...

Rome had shown to be aggressive before the start of the Second Punic war - the annexation of Corsica at Sardinia, the demands for additional tribute, the wars with the Celts of the Po Valley, the Ebro river contract. Besides, the Senate just wanted an excuse to go back to war with Carthage. The casus belli was Saguntum, a Roman "ally" inside the Carthaginian territory. The Romans left it high and dry. Saguntum was besieged for eight months. Then Hannibal let his men relax for another half year before he started on the track to Rome. In that time the Romans just stood and debated. Once the city had fallen, however, they sprang into action and sent emissaries to demand the extradition of Hannibal and his prosecution in Rome. This was an ultimatum and a de facto declaration of war.

[Ichon]

not in many wars during Republican Era was Rome aggressor...

Many on both sides wanted 2nd Punic war but come on... Rome wasn't aggressor in Republican era? You mean the era where majority of Roman Empire was conquered?

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/corinthians/maps/empire.gif

Greek soldiers were also sent to help Carthage to fight the final battles of 2nd Punic war in Africa (arrived just a couple weeks late) because it was obvious once Rome was done there, Greece was next (proven true). Rome was already picking sides in Greece and encouraging the weaker states of Hellenic world to become Roman 'allies' so that Rome could station soldiers there and then invade after their 'ally' provoked neighbors with raids and territory stealing until retreating back into their territory when defending army responds and send word to Rome of an 'invasion' which didn't occur on some evil plan.

[MDT]

After several defeats, and lost of army at Cannae, Rome was in despair, they didnt had any army which would face Hannibal (but Hannibal didt pushed for Rome).

A bit offtopic, but I think it would be more correct to say Rome didn't have an army that could face Hannibal in open field.
Hannibal didn't push for Rome because Rome was very well capable of defending its walls and Hannibal also just couldn't come up with a good plan to lure the citywalls into a trap...

And on topic:
I think it's just difficult to compare the macedonian phalanx to legions, because both are based on different concepts.

The pike phalanx, as many have mentioned, was originally optimized to pin (pin not crush) the main body of the enemys infantry and I think in this role it exceeds the legion. While this was the intended role this doesn't mean that veterans werent capable of difficult attacking maneuvers, while less experienced troops could not. (At this point one should also mention how rome learned that freshly raised legions aren't reliable either.)

Now when rome faced macedon (or most helelnistic factions) the role of the pike phalanx had slightly changed to the main weapon of the army. And in my opinion this didn't change because it was the superior solution in combat, but for economic and logistic reasons. (Its just easier to raise a big contingent of (lower quality) pikemen then one of companion cavalry.) As some of those who favour the legion in this thread mentioned, in some battles the hellenistic forces just lacked the troops capable of exploiting a weaknes/disorder in the roman formation.

This also leads to another point, flexibility:
While I don't see the huge advantedge of the Legion in a combat where roman forces fight equally trainded hellenistic ones (though they certainly have one), the important point is that an army of more specialized units, while slightly more effective in combat, is just harder to raise and maintain than the more standardized roman model (though rome also took its time to learn this).

[JaM]

<p>
Its hard to tell if Celtic wars Roman was aggressor, especially when Celts launched a lot of invasions into Italy, so later wars were more about securing the border than some unprovoked expansion. And regarding the First Punic War, i believe that started because Carthage positioned their troops in Messana, which was in direct violations of mutual treaty, anyway both Carthage and Rome had their eyes on Sicily so its quite hard to find the main bad boy here..</p>

[vietanh797]

I have to say this " Roman fanboy detected"

[Maklodes]

I have to say this " Roman fanboy detected"

Whereas you've clearly established yourself with your completely objective, unbiased commentary on all factions, right?

[TR00PER7]

This discussion is less about long wooden poles with metal pointy ends and more about boring dynastic politics and relations.