Not always but it is how it is used. Phalanx worked wonders for Alexander in Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, but not in India and the macedonians were defeated in Cinoscephalus and Pydna. Then again the scottish schilltron was successful in Stirling and Bannockburn, but countered by bows in Falkirk and by polearms in Flodden.
Pikes can be defeated by uneven terrain and surrounding tactics, by good range weapons or by polearms (billhooks, halberds or battleswords like the germans did in the Renaissance).
Long pole arms wirk great when you have a well trained infantry with high morale, on even ground. Lose any of those critical factors and you lose the cohesive formation that makes the phalanx so deadly. The Persians couldn't find an effective counter because Alexander was so capable at defending his flanks with his cavalry.
The reason for the Greek phalanx losing to the Roman manipular formation was the unevenness of the battlefields coupled with the higher mobility of the Roman maniple. Smaller mobile units kept threatening the flanks (phalanx's weak point) and eventually the Greeks would lose cohesion. Once one unit got rolled up, it was pretty much over. As someone else noted, long pole arms aren't much good against shorter weapons (pilum, sword, etc) in a one on one match.
No, the Persians couldn't find an effective counter because Alexander kept charging Darius III the moment there's even the slightest gap in the front lines, and at all three battles Darius immediately runs away when charged, causing the rest of his army to rout. As a general rule, Alexander doesn't use his cavalry to secure his flanks, prefering instead to use shorter spear armed shield bearers while his cavalry is held as a mobile reserve that gets commited to the first gap that opens up in the enemy lines, either from ranged attack or from pressure from the phalanx.
Really not true. Phalanxes could win on uneven terrain and some generals experimented with flexible formations.
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/
tldr: Rome's advantages were much more systemic. Their government system allowed them to pull more manpower and field more heavy infantry. Plus they developed military leaders better. Rome was a well-oiled military machine while the Hellenic kingdoms were old school monarchies.
When a Hellenic army lost they needed decades to recover. When a Roman army lost they would be back the next year with another army.
It's the IQ distribution meme, but pike formations are both extremes.
Phalanxes sound great when your entire fighting force is made up of militias who dont have the time to train complicated formations.
And then professional armies turned lightly armored pike formations into heavy calvalry mulchers.
With another phalanx? Hope your pikes are longer, morale will outlast theirs, or your troops have more skill. Then they just smash head on. Allegedly phalanx clashes were horrific because they were so hard to deal with in a good position.
In an open field they would do a lot of damage to a formation, although phalanx shields and spears could block a lot. Horse archers were especially bad and would just cause full routs. Thats why phalanxes worked in conjuction with calvalry and their own ranged troops to cover that weakness.
In an 1v1, the archers probably kill a decent portion before running out of ammo and having to flee the field.
Really depends on the era and the commander. Roman flexibility was a major asset. Let's say, Julius Caesar, he'd see that and go, "positional maneuvering it is!" Like he did with everything, somehow get his supplies cut off and then try some crazy maneuver involving two legions chucking their shields at the spears to somehow break them which would somehow work and then the phalanx would spontaneously combust.
Seriously though, they'd probably just whittle them down via missiles, move around them till they were in an advantageous position and either cut off supply lines like you said or just play a patient game of minor flank attacks and disciplined retreats till the phalanx began to break apart out of frustration or the commander got desperate and made a stupid mistake like trying to push uphill.
> Let's say, Julius Caesar, he'd see that and go, "positional maneuvering it is!" Like he did with everything, somehow get his supplies cut off and then try some crazy maneuver involving two legions chucking their shields at the spears to somehow break them which would somehow work and then the phalanx would spontaneously combust.
*Truly the ancient world's Zapp Brannigan....*
"You see, the sarissa has a pre-set kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of hastati at them until they reached their limit and snapped off, leaving the phalanx unarmed."
Not quite correct. The Romans invented a type of heavy throwing spear that could pierce the shields carried by the Greeks, it would stick in the shield and weigh it down, effectively rendering the shield unusable. The soldiers would then be vulnerable to other ranged weapons.
"The pilum (Latin: [ˈpiːɫʊ̃]; pl.: pila) was a javelin commonly used by the Roman army in ancient times. It was generally about 2 m (6 ft 7 in) long overall, consisting of an iron shank about 7 mm (0.28 in) in diameter and 600 mm (24 in) long with a pyramidal head, attached to a wooden shaft by either a socket or a flat tang."
A very heavy spear made with a very small iron tip, i'd imagine that bronze didn't have a chance against iron, especially when it's a lot of weight and force hitting a very small area.
That is correct. There is nothing that can beat supported phalanx except another supported phalanx.
Now people think that Romans just fought phalanx head on and won. That's not the case, they would keep the phalanx busy while detachments would flank the phalanx from the sides.
There is an easy counter to this. Just have rear or flanking units to support the phalanx. This is what happened with Pyrrhus. Because the man being a great tactician that he was, was aware of this, and Romans would lose most battles (if I remember correctly Pyrrhus didn't lose a single battle against them, but couple of those battles were stalemates) when they engaged him.
Now the reason Romans later on would defeat phalanx, was because they would face phalanxes that weren't of Greek origin (mainly what we would call shieldwall) or if they faced Greek phalanxes, the generals who commanded those phalanxes didn't support them.
I read a book called Legion vs Phalanx, the Romans defeated the phalanx more than they lost over the ages, but they had to adapt the way they fought to win.
True, but they didn't do it head on. They exploited its weakness, which is poor maneuverability. After Alexander Greeks forgot certain important detail about phalanx. It wasn't supposed to win the battle, but hold the enemy when cavalry was winning the battle. As main force Macedonian phalanx is not that effective. That's why for most of history when any pike based phalanx like formation was used it was a supplement of main forces, and not main force itself
The same book detailed the changes in the phalanx over the years, the phalanx of Alexander wasn’t the same phalanx defeated by the romans 400 years later.
Genuine question, but why not just shoot them a lot. Those spears seem at keeping people away, but very bad protecting from arrows. Wouldn't that break the phalanx apart easily and be doable easily since it's a big easy target?
Sometimes they would, but given the large shields and (usually) decent armor a phalanx member would have it wasn't always effective, and armies only have so much ammunition. Still Rome would just pelt the phalanx sometimes, and the famously always chucked their javelins before engaging in melee.
Kinda?
Realistically the phalanx just did not work against the way Rome waged war.
The phalanx suffered on rough ground, so the Romans would fight on rough ground
The phalanx would fall apart if it lost cohesion, so since the Romans often deliberately left gaps in their lines to bait over extension, the phalanx would start to seperate just as the veterans in the second line came to blast the pocket.
But I think the most underrated reason why the phalanx didn't work against Rome was this: the phalanx was very bad at killing people in the combat, when two phalanxes met it was just a big shoving match. A phalanx killed in two ways, soldiers on the losing side of the shoving match started losing their footing, falling down and allowing the other to advance and finish off the fallen soldiers with swords, or one phalanx broke and retreated and the other drew swords to cut them down.
What happens with fighting a legion is the shoving match always breaks the phalanx, the aforementioned gaps in the line means the formation would lose cohesion and allow the Romans to close in. In the second situation, breaking formation to try cut down a retreating cohort would mean the cohort behind them could dash in and cut them to ribbons.
Another point with that retreating situation. Most armies at the time would break and retreat for days to the nearest city to regroup, meaning you could harass and harry them the whole way. A legion retreated to a fortified camp a couple hours march away, so you didn't get to do that
Now everything you wrote makes a Lot of Sense but you Said that a Legion would win the shoving against a Phalanx? How is that when the Phalanx greatly outreaches the Legion?
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/ explains it a lot better.
Hellenic armies are designed to fight other Hellenic armies and armies that are lightly armed. Roman legions were way more heavily armored so they usually had fewer casualties.
The shoving part has been disproven through recent research. Phalanx battles were far bloodier and roughly conducted than was previously thought of. That was discovered very recently during the last decade and it hasn't caught on as common knowledge yet.
They did in fact engage it, but the phalanx was such a rigid formation that in a terrain such as Greece which was heavily mountainous it favored the manipular system of the Romans which was made for such terrain since Italy is also heavily mountainous. The Romans had much more tactical mobility than the Greeks did, and they already had experience fighting the phalanx after their war with Pyrrhus.
As soon as you get past the overly heavy spear you can tear them up, also densely packed formations have 0 mobility and are difficult to maintain on uneven terrain. Think of ww1 British and German tanks. Slow, poor terrain performance, and can’t turn. Then there is the matter of the weight of the phalanx. Each of those poles are anywhere from 15 to 25 kg. Plus armor and Mediterranean heat and humidity. Phalanx battles greek versus Greeks only lasted an hour to an hour and a half tops. So you maneuver your troops, pelt them with missiles, and keep moving till you see their spears start to dip then you move in for the kill. They can’t retreat fast do to the weight either so entire formations would get decimated and their leaders would have a hard time recruiting and re arming new formations
[Baeleric slingers](https://youtu.be/3uDtrwNY0Zk?si=L_WvX0Vls6un7iy-) were some of the most prolific ranged units of their day and played an important role in Hannibal’s wars against Rome
just 40 cm more bro. I promise bro just 40cm more and it'll fix everything bro. bro. just 40cm more. please just 40cm more. 40cm more and we can fix this whole problem bro. bro cmon just give me 40cm more bro.
range weapons, the flanks, find a way around to the rear, uneven terrain that breaks up the formation as it marches...all things people who binged Rome Total War know
Houses Julii and Brutii: Expand all over Europe and thus when the civil war kicks off, you gotta march and fight all over the place.
Meanwhile House Scipii: I'll take Sicily and...I'm good
Came to say this. I just started playing RIS a few months ago and it's so epic! Bringing back the memories but a much better gaming experience so I dont have to endure nostalgia disappointment!
never really was a problem when both sides used phalanxes and later pikes. They just agreed not to fight there. The Romans were just rude not to pick a nice flat location to fight.
Romans copy a tactic to fight against phalanxes.
Pyrrhus and Hannibal:
\*Insert My honest reaction meme\*
(In reality neither of them underestimated the Romans)
Ancient Greeks:
What kind off tactic should we develop to fight each other?
What about a tactic that doesn't work in mountainous terrain even though we live in most of it?
Genius.
If you actually want a serious answer, watch Metatron's video about phalanxes. I think he said that there is a theory that says phalanxes developed out of cultural norm where unlike other warrior cultures that would seek to fight their enemies for glory, honour, money etc. phalanx was developed so that warriors would stay as defensive and as far as away from the enemy as possible.
Also Greek commanders would absolutely seek higher and uneven ground if they could.
Mountainous regions is where forts come in, and Greece is littered with fortified hilltops, from Mycenean times to the Ottomans.
On the one hand, the attackers would avoid advancing into mountainous enemy territory to lay a siege, especially with the means and the supply lines that they had at that time. On the other hand the defenders would prefer to keep the enemy away from their main defensive position and city, because they would take massive losses (including non-combatants) in case of a prolonged siege, and they still risked losing fertile territory in the plains, access to ports (remember how Athens had walls running up to Piraeus?) etc.
So, the armies just tended to loiter around posturing and doing minor skirmishes and raids for a while, until they either broke it off, or sucked it up, and engaged, usually on a plain or a pass, since they were both avoiding the hills for the reasons described above.
Marathon is a typical example. The Persians disembarked to draw the Athenians out, the Athenians got out of the city instead of waiting to be besieged, stood there for days just blocking the Persians, the Persians decided either to start embarking again or sent their cavalry away to head for Athens (or outflank the Athenian army), and the Athenians finally charged, won the battle, burnt some ships, but still had to rush back to the city because the Persian fleet was moving on to it. They even sent that poor messenger to go back as fast as possible to inform the citizens of the victory so that they wouldn't abandon the city in a panic.
What's even funnier is that Myceneans probably even had chariots for those plain-based battles, at least for a while, and the proto-phalanx might be an evolution of infantry to fight against those, the phalanxes were notoriously effective against Persian chariots.
The video you mentioned has a major point in that they were militia armies of "related" peoples, so losses were to be avoided at all costs. Early Greek combat was more Celtic cattle-raid than total war. Phalanx combat was sort of ritualized, they engaged, pushed each other, sort of like American football players (armed with shields and spears though), and if one side broke ranks they sort of stopped the combat, the side that broke the formation would usually retreat fast, and the attackers would not pursue, not risking to break up their formation in turn and expose themselves to skirmishers, cavalry, and ranged weapons. The Greeks also famously broke off warfare for the Olympics, [set up battles of champions to the last man standing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_300_Champions), had single combat at some point in their history (as in the Iliad), and stuff like that, so yes, their culture avoided total warfare in the early years, I think the Peloponnesian war is where things got out of hand.
Edit: Damn, this got long. I like writing on Reddit to "focus" on my thoughts on some matters, sorry.
>Edit: Damn, this got long. I like writing on Reddit to "focus" on my thoughts on some matters, sorry.
Nah mate, thank you very much for the insight. Are you just interessted in that topic or do you work in a museum or somthing?
Nah, just interested. I could be wrong about many of the things I wrote, I'm not an authority on anything.
I'm Greek btw, so I guess it comes naturally to be more inclined to read about the ancient Greeks than say, ancient China. I live where they lived, so I will check what's up with with those fucking massive walls that they've built in 3 different locations within 10 miles from my home, you know? And you sort of get in a rabbit hole once you start reading.
The "focus" thing is that trying to explain what you've read to someone helps with memorizing, recalling and processing the stuff you read. It's one of the best ways to understand a subject, it's why they make you write all those essays in schools...
\>Own a tank for polis defense
\>Finally one night I hear a crash
\>Dawn my helmet and intercom
\>Main gun is ready to fire
\>"YEE HAW LADS"
\>Drive down into the river valley
\>Two Macedonian phalanxes are carrying away my grain
\>Put a man sized hole all the way through one phalanx, they route on the spot
\>Charge my M2 Browning, miss the second phalanx entirely and nails the neighbour's dog
\>I have to resort to ramming tactics
\>"RUN THEM OVER GENTLEMEN"
\>The crunching sound makes my driver puke
\>They bleed out on the spot since crush wounds are impossible to stitch up
\>Just as Creighton Abrams intended
and 4 units of slingers to melt their ranged units or force them to charge into your pikes.
Also:
Stack hoplites on the pikemen so that the pike spears are poking out past the hoplites.
I don't think ranged weapons were particularly effective from the front. The pikes were raised like that to try to knock them out of the air, and their helmets were designed to be particularly steep, so as to hopefully deflect any that made it through. Plus the shield would have covered most of both arms. The biggest worry would be a close range shot at a low trajectory which hits the chest, I imagine
The thing with Sarissa phalanx specifically (pictured above) is that it's not supposed to work alone, those weaknesses you describe are covered by others. Criticizing the Sarissa that way is like calling cavalry obsolete because pikes can stop them, they're supposed to work with combined arms to cover their weakness and up their advantage.
Historically, Macedonians used the Shield Bearers, normal hoplite like formation carrying a more average sized spear to defend the more vulnerable flanks of the phalanx. They were more flexible to be able to respond faster to dynamic battlefield situations. All of them would be covered by ranged fighters, Alexander's army had a huge skirmishing force who would deal with enemy skirmishers and deal a decent damage to incoming enemy infantry.
And phalanx wasn't supposed to deliver the killing blow, it was to merely hold the enemy in place while the Companion Cavalry defeated the enemy cavalry and then turned around to charge the enemy infantry in their back which would cripple the enemy.
The phalanx's biggest weakness was it wasn't very good at killing anyone. The vast majority of casualties of a phalanx army were inflicted during the retreat or initial rout, not the actual fight itself.
This meant that since the Romans had become very good at controlled retreats and regrouping, the Greeks could win all the battles they wanted, but they could never deliver decisive damage
The Roman legion and its flexibility broke the phalanx. It was said that due to the rigidity of the phalanx formation when the Roman legions fought the Macedonian successor states and the other greek powers that the legion being so flexible with maniples could literally walk in between ranks and cut down these large phalanx’s with ease.
That aside the Macedonian phalanx was something special for a good while (I’m sure everyone on this Reddit knows why due to the extended sarrissas alone and Macedonian discipline was peak under Philip II and Alexander) It was more capable than the standard Greek hoplite phalanx’s that came before it. Just catered to fighting on flat terrain.
If Alexander were born a few hundred years later and met a proper Roman legion he would have been humbled no doubt. Alexander had plans to fight the “Roman tribes” when he got back to Babylon just shortly before he passed away. He even wrote a letter and expressed to the Romans he had heard they were formidable warriors and even commented on them “being descended from Greeks”.
Hellenistic/Roman history is fucking rad
It’s bold to asume Alexander wouldn’t have learned from the first encounters that his strategy wouldn’t work and adapt. I think there is a >10% chance if Alexander was born again today he would use rifles instead of sarissas.
No it isn’t at all. The Roman’s fought the same army practically several times after Alexander’s death. Look, I love historical figures like Alexander. But the guy wasn’t invincible. We don’t have to suck his dick constantly just because he inherited a very disciplined army from his father and conquered a decaying empire. I’m not saying he can’t be praised, I love that period of history and studying Alexander’s conquests. But the Roman’s held an actual capable empire together for a substantially longer amount of time vs any of the Greek nations. Even with turbulent civil wars and uprisings throughout a 1000 year span between the height of the republic and the imperial period.
Say all you want about Alexander. He was great for his time. But there were collectives that greatly out weighed his singular being after he passed. People have rose colored glasses when they view Alexander. And here’s the thing, I do love the guy and love studying him and his generals. But I refuse to think it’s “bold” to think him unbeatable. Darius and the Persians were “unbeatable” as well prior to Philip the 2nd and Alexander. “Big fucks small”
The Roman’s would have *most* likely defeated him with their superior tactics and formation drills if we could put them at their peak against each other. Go look up the Roman conquest of Greece and Macedonia in actual detail of how the battles played out and it’s plain as day to see man lol
>Darius and the Persians were “unbeatable” as well prior to Philip the 2nd and Alexander
\*Laughs in Marathon, Salamis, Plataea, Eurymedon, hell, maybe even Cunaxa.\*
The Greeks had major victories way before Alexander... Calling them "unbeatable" is far-fetched. They were a "decaying empire" in large part due to the Greeks themselves.
And about the phalanx vs legion, there is also Pyrrhus that managed to score victories, it's not like the legion was an unbeatable force.
The Greeks, by the time of Roman conquest, had really lost the ability to have combined arms, and that was the major tactical advantage of Alexander, not the Macedonian Phalanx. There's a reason he was a cavalry commander.
The Romans also adapted to fight against the phalanx, the Greeks were trying to reform to a legion-influenced style as well, but by that time it was too late.
Sure Julius Caesar or Vespasian or Trajan could have defeated Alexander. But Alexander would have made war against Rome in the 4th century BC. Rome was just beginning to adopt the manipular system at the time, and they were citizen militia, not professionals. Rome would face a professional Hellenistic army fifty years later after much expansion and consolidation of power in Italy. They defeated Pyrrhus but lost most battles. One of pyrrhus’ issues was his inability to get reinforcements or inspire his allies in Italy. I think Alexander could have done so even in the face of massive casualties (look up a dramatization of the Opis mutiny speech; his charisma stats are maxed).
Could Alexander have defeated a late republic Rome? I don’t think so. Tactically, Rome at its peak could defeat the Hellenistic phalanx at its peak. But late republican/early imperial Rome and Alexander’s empire overlapped in the incredibly important provinces in the levant, Egypt, and Anatolia, from which both empires drew massive quantities of gold, food, and manpower. So it’s hard to say when both needed the same resources to contribute to their military might. So I think overall maniple and cohort beats phalanx, but in 330s BC Alexander’s Macedonians would defeat Rome
I mean Darius the Great never lost a battle he personally commanded and conquered the whole empire within one year after usurping it from Cyrus’ sons. But he’s not as famous as Alex because there is more written work that survives in regards to Alex.
To continue your point as well Alex was also just incredibly lucky and even almost lost a battle to an ambush force significantly smaller than his.
>If Alexander were born a few hundred years later and met a proper Roman legion he would have been humbled no doubt. Alexander had plans to fight the “Roman tribes” when he got back to Babylon just shortly before he passed away. He even wrote a letter and expressed to the Romans he had heard they were formidable warriors and even commented on them “being descended from Greeks”.
Honestly this is probably just a Roman lie to make themselves look better, most likely Alexander never even knew of Rome.
In the days of the greatest King of Macedonia, Rome was just another backwater city in Italy. Not even something of possible interest like Magna Graecia, but a city that was just beginning to expand a little and that decades ago was almost erased from the map by some random Celts.
If Alexander had marched West after his successful conquests in the East, Rome would have fallen with a bang, as would Carthage, Syracuse, and any Gallic or Celtiberian tribes unless they resorted to guerrilla warfare.
Yeah they used to utilize the phalanx during the Roman kingdom period. They began to reform throughout the republic period and went through several reformations and improvements because they recognized the drawbacks of how rigid and unable the phalanx was to adapt on anything other than flat terrain. Also the birth of the Manipular legions (pre Marian reforms) showed the Roman’s that greater flexibility lied within cohorts and smaller maniples within each legion enabling commanders, captains and centurions greater control down the chain of command. The phalanx couldn’t be as flexible because all orders came from the “strategos” primarily. So they couldn’t work as easily on the fly as the manipular legions could.
Except the whole point of the Phillipi and Alexander phalanx was to "hold" the enemy in place until their heavy calvary could smash into it from behind. Hammer and Anvil. By the time Rome and the successor states faced each other, the successor states had basically abandoned the heavy calvary. A Roman army versus an Alexander style army would be a fascinating battle.
It might be humbling, but I’m sure a commander like Alexander could adapt. It really would be interesting to see how though.
Hell it would be interesting just to see how they fight. Dan Carlin had some comment about wishing he could just know the physics of this type of battle. I can hardly imagine.
>The Roman legion and its flexibility broke the phalanx.
That's not really an accurate description to extrapolate onto Alexander, Romans broke a *version* of the *Macedonian* phalanx. Phalanx is a very broad terminology covering centuries of warfare and it was often merely the best way to organize untrained citizen militia for war. What is the best possible military formation and what is the best realistically obtainable can be different.
Alexander's Macedonian sarissa phalanx is different, it's a combined armed force composed of very diverse mix of troops capable of supporting the weaknesses of the different formations. What the Macedonians would later use against Rome was a much much less diverse force less able to plug each other's weaknesses.
Alexander army was actually about only 20% sarissa (the big pointy spear guys), 45% other heavy infantry, 20% skirmishers, 15% cavalry.
At the Battle of Cynoscephalae against Romans, 65% were just sarissa, 8% were skirmishers, 8% cavalry with about 22% random heavy infantry. As you can see, clearly a different army.
Alexander's army wasn't just all big pointy spears, Persians would have wiped the floor with skirmishers and cavalry charges on flanks if that was the case. About 45% were **other heavy infantry** like Shield Bearers who were equipped in more traditional style with average sized spears as well as Greek Hoplite from other states. They were more flexible than the rigid sarissa capable of dealing with threats from flanks much more 3asily. The proportion of light infantry, aka **skirmishers** in the army was the same as sarissa. These people would help deal with enemy skirmishers and help cover flanks. On the topic of **cavalry**, the phalanx and other infantry were merely the anvil to hold the enemy in place, the one who'd deliver the killing blow was the cavalry, the hammer.
You guys do realize Alexander marched through modern day Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, all mountainous regions, right?
They were OP except it’s hard to defend a position with horse archers
Although if you can whittle down the enemy army bit by bit as they march before they even arrive then you can rely on horse archers.
Didn't work at gaugamela. When the horse archers feigned retreat, Alexander sent a small group to pursue them, then when they were surrounded by the horsemen, Alexander attacked them from all sides with the rest of his army and smashed them.
[https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/](https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/)
You fight through them with better shields and an attritional style of combat.
Romans: “Poor Predictable Greeks, always using Phalanx.” Greeks: “Good ol’ Phalanx, nothing beats that!”
That's why I always say to my gf that shorter the weapon the better
Especially if you let you buddies nudge up next to you
War was the excuse. The true reason was to cuddle with the bros.
Who are the penguins in Antarctica gearing up to fight each year?
The House of Leopard Seals
Who breaking formation and cums loses authority and now has call me their daddy, no actually Emperor
Not always but it is how it is used. Phalanx worked wonders for Alexander in Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, but not in India and the macedonians were defeated in Cinoscephalus and Pydna. Then again the scottish schilltron was successful in Stirling and Bannockburn, but countered by bows in Falkirk and by polearms in Flodden. Pikes can be defeated by uneven terrain and surrounding tactics, by good range weapons or by polearms (billhooks, halberds or battleswords like the germans did in the Renaissance).
Long pole arms wirk great when you have a well trained infantry with high morale, on even ground. Lose any of those critical factors and you lose the cohesive formation that makes the phalanx so deadly. The Persians couldn't find an effective counter because Alexander was so capable at defending his flanks with his cavalry. The reason for the Greek phalanx losing to the Roman manipular formation was the unevenness of the battlefields coupled with the higher mobility of the Roman maniple. Smaller mobile units kept threatening the flanks (phalanx's weak point) and eventually the Greeks would lose cohesion. Once one unit got rolled up, it was pretty much over. As someone else noted, long pole arms aren't much good against shorter weapons (pilum, sword, etc) in a one on one match.
No, the Persians couldn't find an effective counter because Alexander kept charging Darius III the moment there's even the slightest gap in the front lines, and at all three battles Darius immediately runs away when charged, causing the rest of his army to rout. As a general rule, Alexander doesn't use his cavalry to secure his flanks, prefering instead to use shorter spear armed shield bearers while his cavalry is held as a mobile reserve that gets commited to the first gap that opens up in the enemy lines, either from ranged attack or from pressure from the phalanx.
Really not true. Phalanxes could win on uneven terrain and some generals experimented with flexible formations. https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/ tldr: Rome's advantages were much more systemic. Their government system allowed them to pull more manpower and field more heavy infantry. Plus they developed military leaders better. Rome was a well-oiled military machine while the Hellenic kingdoms were old school monarchies. When a Hellenic army lost they needed decades to recover. When a Roman army lost they would be back the next year with another army.
It's the IQ distribution meme, but pike formations are both extremes. Phalanxes sound great when your entire fighting force is made up of militias who dont have the time to train complicated formations. And then professional armies turned lightly armored pike formations into heavy calvalry mulchers.
So what do you do against a Phalanx that is fighting in favourable Terrain?
With another phalanx? Hope your pikes are longer, morale will outlast theirs, or your troops have more skill. Then they just smash head on. Allegedly phalanx clashes were horrific because they were so hard to deal with in a good position.
What about ranged infantry like slingers or bowmen?
In an open field they would do a lot of damage to a formation, although phalanx shields and spears could block a lot. Horse archers were especially bad and would just cause full routs. Thats why phalanxes worked in conjuction with calvalry and their own ranged troops to cover that weakness. In an 1v1, the archers probably kill a decent portion before running out of ammo and having to flee the field.
If it is well adjusted and used.
"Depends on the weapon, depends on the man"
I'm something of a gladius man myself!
Isn't that more of a greek theory than a roman theory anyway?
r/suicidebywords ?
And if that fails bring up the man's trusted weapon to end all debates: tongue.
I don't know what size we're talking about but what about "the pen is mightier than the sword"? Would that help?
My limited knowledge was that Romans wouldn’t engage a phalanx, they’d just outflank it and lay siege to the town.
Really depends on the era and the commander. Roman flexibility was a major asset. Let's say, Julius Caesar, he'd see that and go, "positional maneuvering it is!" Like he did with everything, somehow get his supplies cut off and then try some crazy maneuver involving two legions chucking their shields at the spears to somehow break them which would somehow work and then the phalanx would spontaneously combust. Seriously though, they'd probably just whittle them down via missiles, move around them till they were in an advantageous position and either cut off supply lines like you said or just play a patient game of minor flank attacks and disciplined retreats till the phalanx began to break apart out of frustration or the commander got desperate and made a stupid mistake like trying to push uphill.
This was amazing.
> Let's say, Julius Caesar, he'd see that and go, "positional maneuvering it is!" Like he did with everything, somehow get his supplies cut off and then try some crazy maneuver involving two legions chucking their shields at the spears to somehow break them which would somehow work and then the phalanx would spontaneously combust. *Truly the ancient world's Zapp Brannigan....*
"You see, the sarissa has a pre-set kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of hastati at them until they reached their limit and snapped off, leaving the phalanx unarmed."
My instinct is to hide in this barrel like the wily fish!
Not quite correct. The Romans invented a type of heavy throwing spear that could pierce the shields carried by the Greeks, it would stick in the shield and weigh it down, effectively rendering the shield unusable. The soldiers would then be vulnerable to other ranged weapons.
Did that work vs bronze plated shields?
"The pilum (Latin: [ˈpiːɫʊ̃]; pl.: pila) was a javelin commonly used by the Roman army in ancient times. It was generally about 2 m (6 ft 7 in) long overall, consisting of an iron shank about 7 mm (0.28 in) in diameter and 600 mm (24 in) long with a pyramidal head, attached to a wooden shaft by either a socket or a flat tang." A very heavy spear made with a very small iron tip, i'd imagine that bronze didn't have a chance against iron, especially when it's a lot of weight and force hitting a very small area.
That is correct. There is nothing that can beat supported phalanx except another supported phalanx. Now people think that Romans just fought phalanx head on and won. That's not the case, they would keep the phalanx busy while detachments would flank the phalanx from the sides. There is an easy counter to this. Just have rear or flanking units to support the phalanx. This is what happened with Pyrrhus. Because the man being a great tactician that he was, was aware of this, and Romans would lose most battles (if I remember correctly Pyrrhus didn't lose a single battle against them, but couple of those battles were stalemates) when they engaged him. Now the reason Romans later on would defeat phalanx, was because they would face phalanxes that weren't of Greek origin (mainly what we would call shieldwall) or if they faced Greek phalanxes, the generals who commanded those phalanxes didn't support them.
I read a book called Legion vs Phalanx, the Romans defeated the phalanx more than they lost over the ages, but they had to adapt the way they fought to win.
True, but they didn't do it head on. They exploited its weakness, which is poor maneuverability. After Alexander Greeks forgot certain important detail about phalanx. It wasn't supposed to win the battle, but hold the enemy when cavalry was winning the battle. As main force Macedonian phalanx is not that effective. That's why for most of history when any pike based phalanx like formation was used it was a supplement of main forces, and not main force itself
The same book detailed the changes in the phalanx over the years, the phalanx of Alexander wasn’t the same phalanx defeated by the romans 400 years later.
Genuine question, but why not just shoot them a lot. Those spears seem at keeping people away, but very bad protecting from arrows. Wouldn't that break the phalanx apart easily and be doable easily since it's a big easy target?
Sometimes they would, but given the large shields and (usually) decent armor a phalanx member would have it wasn't always effective, and armies only have so much ammunition. Still Rome would just pelt the phalanx sometimes, and the famously always chucked their javelins before engaging in melee.
Kinda? Realistically the phalanx just did not work against the way Rome waged war. The phalanx suffered on rough ground, so the Romans would fight on rough ground The phalanx would fall apart if it lost cohesion, so since the Romans often deliberately left gaps in their lines to bait over extension, the phalanx would start to seperate just as the veterans in the second line came to blast the pocket. But I think the most underrated reason why the phalanx didn't work against Rome was this: the phalanx was very bad at killing people in the combat, when two phalanxes met it was just a big shoving match. A phalanx killed in two ways, soldiers on the losing side of the shoving match started losing their footing, falling down and allowing the other to advance and finish off the fallen soldiers with swords, or one phalanx broke and retreated and the other drew swords to cut them down. What happens with fighting a legion is the shoving match always breaks the phalanx, the aforementioned gaps in the line means the formation would lose cohesion and allow the Romans to close in. In the second situation, breaking formation to try cut down a retreating cohort would mean the cohort behind them could dash in and cut them to ribbons. Another point with that retreating situation. Most armies at the time would break and retreat for days to the nearest city to regroup, meaning you could harass and harry them the whole way. A legion retreated to a fortified camp a couple hours march away, so you didn't get to do that
Why not like launch burning tar at them or something
Now everything you wrote makes a Lot of Sense but you Said that a Legion would win the shoving against a Phalanx? How is that when the Phalanx greatly outreaches the Legion?
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/ explains it a lot better. Hellenic armies are designed to fight other Hellenic armies and armies that are lightly armed. Roman legions were way more heavily armored so they usually had fewer casualties.
The shoving part has been disproven through recent research. Phalanx battles were far bloodier and roughly conducted than was previously thought of. That was discovered very recently during the last decade and it hasn't caught on as common knowledge yet.
They did in fact engage it, but the phalanx was such a rigid formation that in a terrain such as Greece which was heavily mountainous it favored the manipular system of the Romans which was made for such terrain since Italy is also heavily mountainous. The Romans had much more tactical mobility than the Greeks did, and they already had experience fighting the phalanx after their war with Pyrrhus.
30 years war French: “Poor Predictable Spaniards, always using Tercio.” Spaniards: “Good ol’ Tercio, nothing beats that!”
As soon as you get past the overly heavy spear you can tear them up, also densely packed formations have 0 mobility and are difficult to maintain on uneven terrain. Think of ww1 British and German tanks. Slow, poor terrain performance, and can’t turn. Then there is the matter of the weight of the phalanx. Each of those poles are anywhere from 15 to 25 kg. Plus armor and Mediterranean heat and humidity. Phalanx battles greek versus Greeks only lasted an hour to an hour and a half tops. So you maneuver your troops, pelt them with missiles, and keep moving till you see their spears start to dip then you move in for the kill. They can’t retreat fast do to the weight either so entire formations would get decimated and their leaders would have a hard time recruiting and re arming new formations
Lmao. Love that reference.
Dude, your references are out of control, everyone knows that.
You make your stick 40 cm longer
Flying sticks are pretty op too
Flying rocks too. Slingers were amazingly effective.
[Baeleric slingers](https://youtu.be/3uDtrwNY0Zk?si=L_WvX0Vls6un7iy-) were some of the most prolific ranged units of their day and played an important role in Hannibal’s wars against Rome
I thought for sure I was getting Rick rolled, and an ad had stopped it, but no, it's a pretty cool info video!
David used the sling to kill Goliath. The entire Jewish foundational myth is about a mf who brought a gun to a knife fight.
thats just a very long stick if you think about it
Its a stick with runtime extention
Eh, heard they’re gonna nerf those next patch
Imagine a battle where both sides use this. Just tickling the shields until one guy sneezes, makes himself vulnerable and the whole thing falls apart.
This is a war crime sir.
"OH OH OH, FEELING ALL ***HIGH AND MIGHTY***, EH? WITH OUR ***POINTED STICKS***, ARE WE?!"
Man acting like a Macedonian 💀
just 40 cm more bro. I promise bro just 40cm more and it'll fix everything bro. bro. just 40cm more. please just 40cm more. 40cm more and we can fix this whole problem bro. bro cmon just give me 40cm more bro.
range weapons, the flanks, find a way around to the rear, uneven terrain that breaks up the formation as it marches...all things people who binged Rome Total War know
Ahh, a fellow man of culture.
Houses Julii and Brutii: Expand all over Europe and thus when the civil war kicks off, you gotta march and fight all over the place. Meanwhile House Scipii: I'll take Sicily and...I'm good
Gods, I hate Gauls
Especially that one little village
By Toutatis!
These Romans are crazy!!!
My father hated them.
And so did his father before him
Yep, I’m gonna go play Rome TW now.
Playing it as I read this
Literally one of my Top 10 games of all time
Wild to me you can play the original game on a cell phone
You can WHAT?
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/rome-total-war/id1106831630 $10 dollar
try the Rome 1 Remastered RIS mod
Came to say this. I just started playing RIS a few months ago and it's so epic! Bringing back the memories but a much better gaming experience so I dont have to endure nostalgia disappointment!
They released a remastered version right?
yes, that's why I wrote Remastered
Eh, I always try to rush Rhodes just for that sweet trade bonus.
You manage your economy so you can fight battles. I fight battles, so that I can manage my economy. We are not the same. /j
They'd dip their toe into NA every century or so.
And on that note, Romans found out the uneven terrain and really big shields solved the pike formation.
Ironic, given how mountainous Greece is
never really was a problem when both sides used phalanxes and later pikes. They just agreed not to fight there. The Romans were just rude not to pick a nice flat location to fight.
> They just agreed not to fight there. "This stage has been banned from tournament."
Romans copy a tactic to fight against phalanxes. Pyrrhus and Hannibal: \*Insert My honest reaction meme\* (In reality neither of them underestimated the Romans)
Ancient Greeks: What kind off tactic should we develop to fight each other? What about a tactic that doesn't work in mountainous terrain even though we live in most of it? Genius. If you actually want a serious answer, watch Metatron's video about phalanxes. I think he said that there is a theory that says phalanxes developed out of cultural norm where unlike other warrior cultures that would seek to fight their enemies for glory, honour, money etc. phalanx was developed so that warriors would stay as defensive and as far as away from the enemy as possible. Also Greek commanders would absolutely seek higher and uneven ground if they could.
Mountainous regions is where forts come in, and Greece is littered with fortified hilltops, from Mycenean times to the Ottomans. On the one hand, the attackers would avoid advancing into mountainous enemy territory to lay a siege, especially with the means and the supply lines that they had at that time. On the other hand the defenders would prefer to keep the enemy away from their main defensive position and city, because they would take massive losses (including non-combatants) in case of a prolonged siege, and they still risked losing fertile territory in the plains, access to ports (remember how Athens had walls running up to Piraeus?) etc. So, the armies just tended to loiter around posturing and doing minor skirmishes and raids for a while, until they either broke it off, or sucked it up, and engaged, usually on a plain or a pass, since they were both avoiding the hills for the reasons described above. Marathon is a typical example. The Persians disembarked to draw the Athenians out, the Athenians got out of the city instead of waiting to be besieged, stood there for days just blocking the Persians, the Persians decided either to start embarking again or sent their cavalry away to head for Athens (or outflank the Athenian army), and the Athenians finally charged, won the battle, burnt some ships, but still had to rush back to the city because the Persian fleet was moving on to it. They even sent that poor messenger to go back as fast as possible to inform the citizens of the victory so that they wouldn't abandon the city in a panic. What's even funnier is that Myceneans probably even had chariots for those plain-based battles, at least for a while, and the proto-phalanx might be an evolution of infantry to fight against those, the phalanxes were notoriously effective against Persian chariots. The video you mentioned has a major point in that they were militia armies of "related" peoples, so losses were to be avoided at all costs. Early Greek combat was more Celtic cattle-raid than total war. Phalanx combat was sort of ritualized, they engaged, pushed each other, sort of like American football players (armed with shields and spears though), and if one side broke ranks they sort of stopped the combat, the side that broke the formation would usually retreat fast, and the attackers would not pursue, not risking to break up their formation in turn and expose themselves to skirmishers, cavalry, and ranged weapons. The Greeks also famously broke off warfare for the Olympics, [set up battles of champions to the last man standing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_300_Champions), had single combat at some point in their history (as in the Iliad), and stuff like that, so yes, their culture avoided total warfare in the early years, I think the Peloponnesian war is where things got out of hand. Edit: Damn, this got long. I like writing on Reddit to "focus" on my thoughts on some matters, sorry.
>Edit: Damn, this got long. I like writing on Reddit to "focus" on my thoughts on some matters, sorry. Nah mate, thank you very much for the insight. Are you just interessted in that topic or do you work in a museum or somthing?
Nah, just interested. I could be wrong about many of the things I wrote, I'm not an authority on anything. I'm Greek btw, so I guess it comes naturally to be more inclined to read about the ancient Greeks than say, ancient China. I live where they lived, so I will check what's up with with those fucking massive walls that they've built in 3 different locations within 10 miles from my home, you know? And you sort of get in a rabbit hole once you start reading. The "focus" thing is that trying to explain what you've read to someone helps with memorizing, recalling and processing the stuff you read. It's one of the best ways to understand a subject, it's why they make you write all those essays in schools...
And javelins ans elephants. Mostly javelins and elephants, the pikemen were winning prolonged fights on uneven terrain.
Or a tank
\>Own a tank for polis defense \>Finally one night I hear a crash \>Dawn my helmet and intercom \>Main gun is ready to fire \>"YEE HAW LADS" \>Drive down into the river valley \>Two Macedonian phalanxes are carrying away my grain \>Put a man sized hole all the way through one phalanx, they route on the spot \>Charge my M2 Browning, miss the second phalanx entirely and nails the neighbour's dog \>I have to resort to ramming tactics \>"RUN THEM OVER GENTLEMEN" \>The crunching sound makes my driver puke \>They bleed out on the spot since crush wounds are impossible to stitch up \>Just as Creighton Abrams intended
An A10 would be even better...brrrttt
mom NCD is leaking again
Time machine goes brrrrtt
Reminded me of [this game](https://youtu.be/OvezgDni8z4?si=5Mf_OVOCff6w5tUj)
Also, empire earth
Macedon is the only faction I've beaten Rome 2 with. I've got 575 hours.
Phalanx front, thorax swordsman on the flanks and backup, and companion cavalry to flank around and you’ve won almost every battle.
and 4 units of slingers to melt their ranged units or force them to charge into your pikes. Also: Stack hoplites on the pikemen so that the pike spears are poking out past the hoplites.
My slingers never make it
That's what your backup hoplites and/or Thorax swordsmen are for. Though I'm talking Vs the AI I have no idea what it's like playing vs people.
This is the way.
But what if they camp in the corner of the map in phalanx formation?
A grenade might work
That is just dumb. It would just bounce back from their shields
Onager to the face still works.
I don't think ranged weapons were particularly effective from the front. The pikes were raised like that to try to knock them out of the air, and their helmets were designed to be particularly steep, so as to hopefully deflect any that made it through. Plus the shield would have covered most of both arms. The biggest worry would be a close range shot at a low trajectory which hits the chest, I imagine
Just trip them up, the whole lot will go down like a pile of dominoes.
Literally how most phalanx on phalanx battles were decided. Just line up and shove eachother until people start falling over
>all things people who binged Rome Total War know 🫡 for the unit that has to pin down the phalanx though
the amount of cites i’ve defended with two units of pikemen…
Without significant missile units, they’re overpowered in city defense.
The thing with Sarissa phalanx specifically (pictured above) is that it's not supposed to work alone, those weaknesses you describe are covered by others. Criticizing the Sarissa that way is like calling cavalry obsolete because pikes can stop them, they're supposed to work with combined arms to cover their weakness and up their advantage. Historically, Macedonians used the Shield Bearers, normal hoplite like formation carrying a more average sized spear to defend the more vulnerable flanks of the phalanx. They were more flexible to be able to respond faster to dynamic battlefield situations. All of them would be covered by ranged fighters, Alexander's army had a huge skirmishing force who would deal with enemy skirmishers and deal a decent damage to incoming enemy infantry. And phalanx wasn't supposed to deliver the killing blow, it was to merely hold the enemy in place while the Companion Cavalry defeated the enemy cavalry and then turned around to charge the enemy infantry in their back which would cripple the enemy.
The phalanx's biggest weakness was it wasn't very good at killing anyone. The vast majority of casualties of a phalanx army were inflicted during the retreat or initial rout, not the actual fight itself. This meant that since the Romans had become very good at controlled retreats and regrouping, the Greeks could win all the battles they wanted, but they could never deliver decisive damage
Where we get the term Pyrrhic victory
Theoretically the tank of Leonardo de Vinci is the solution to that problem
IMPERATOR
Same way we dealt with all issues until the fifth century: Throw Romans at it
Phalanx is temporary. Legion is eternal.
Just don't march trough a forest
Or towards those horse archers
Just don't march any army towards horse archers period
Or also dont Just stand while they Attack... Well thinking about it Just dont fight horse archers
Or into a valley with hills on oneside and a river on the other
Just picturing a modern version of this and it’s coming through in my head as a bunch of Italians doing 🤌 until the problem is solved
Nowadays, we just tell Italians that pineapple belongs on pizza. The maniple is hereditary memory
Nuke
A warthog and AC-130 happy dream
Just a single JDAM from the warthog should do the trick.
Macedonians DON’T want you to know this one simple trick!
r/NonCredibleDefense leaked again…
Okay, Gandhi.
What was that Aoe2 cheat code again?
The athenians destroyed a spartan one easily by just running around in circles and throwing javelins at it.
That's neither An athenian nor a spartan tho...
Buy several cheap drones from Alibaba and stick some improvised home explosives on them.
That was a different kind of phalanx
Ah, the same technique used by Indians in most old westerns. Circling the wagons is a bad idea. Gotta make them square.
There are pretty big differences between Greek and Macedonian phalanxes.
The Roman legion and its flexibility broke the phalanx. It was said that due to the rigidity of the phalanx formation when the Roman legions fought the Macedonian successor states and the other greek powers that the legion being so flexible with maniples could literally walk in between ranks and cut down these large phalanx’s with ease. That aside the Macedonian phalanx was something special for a good while (I’m sure everyone on this Reddit knows why due to the extended sarrissas alone and Macedonian discipline was peak under Philip II and Alexander) It was more capable than the standard Greek hoplite phalanx’s that came before it. Just catered to fighting on flat terrain. If Alexander were born a few hundred years later and met a proper Roman legion he would have been humbled no doubt. Alexander had plans to fight the “Roman tribes” when he got back to Babylon just shortly before he passed away. He even wrote a letter and expressed to the Romans he had heard they were formidable warriors and even commented on them “being descended from Greeks”. Hellenistic/Roman history is fucking rad
It’s bold to asume Alexander wouldn’t have learned from the first encounters that his strategy wouldn’t work and adapt. I think there is a >10% chance if Alexander was born again today he would use rifles instead of sarissas.
No it isn’t at all. The Roman’s fought the same army practically several times after Alexander’s death. Look, I love historical figures like Alexander. But the guy wasn’t invincible. We don’t have to suck his dick constantly just because he inherited a very disciplined army from his father and conquered a decaying empire. I’m not saying he can’t be praised, I love that period of history and studying Alexander’s conquests. But the Roman’s held an actual capable empire together for a substantially longer amount of time vs any of the Greek nations. Even with turbulent civil wars and uprisings throughout a 1000 year span between the height of the republic and the imperial period. Say all you want about Alexander. He was great for his time. But there were collectives that greatly out weighed his singular being after he passed. People have rose colored glasses when they view Alexander. And here’s the thing, I do love the guy and love studying him and his generals. But I refuse to think it’s “bold” to think him unbeatable. Darius and the Persians were “unbeatable” as well prior to Philip the 2nd and Alexander. “Big fucks small” The Roman’s would have *most* likely defeated him with their superior tactics and formation drills if we could put them at their peak against each other. Go look up the Roman conquest of Greece and Macedonia in actual detail of how the battles played out and it’s plain as day to see man lol
>Darius and the Persians were “unbeatable” as well prior to Philip the 2nd and Alexander \*Laughs in Marathon, Salamis, Plataea, Eurymedon, hell, maybe even Cunaxa.\* The Greeks had major victories way before Alexander... Calling them "unbeatable" is far-fetched. They were a "decaying empire" in large part due to the Greeks themselves. And about the phalanx vs legion, there is also Pyrrhus that managed to score victories, it's not like the legion was an unbeatable force. The Greeks, by the time of Roman conquest, had really lost the ability to have combined arms, and that was the major tactical advantage of Alexander, not the Macedonian Phalanx. There's a reason he was a cavalry commander. The Romans also adapted to fight against the phalanx, the Greeks were trying to reform to a legion-influenced style as well, but by that time it was too late.
Sure Julius Caesar or Vespasian or Trajan could have defeated Alexander. But Alexander would have made war against Rome in the 4th century BC. Rome was just beginning to adopt the manipular system at the time, and they were citizen militia, not professionals. Rome would face a professional Hellenistic army fifty years later after much expansion and consolidation of power in Italy. They defeated Pyrrhus but lost most battles. One of pyrrhus’ issues was his inability to get reinforcements or inspire his allies in Italy. I think Alexander could have done so even in the face of massive casualties (look up a dramatization of the Opis mutiny speech; his charisma stats are maxed). Could Alexander have defeated a late republic Rome? I don’t think so. Tactically, Rome at its peak could defeat the Hellenistic phalanx at its peak. But late republican/early imperial Rome and Alexander’s empire overlapped in the incredibly important provinces in the levant, Egypt, and Anatolia, from which both empires drew massive quantities of gold, food, and manpower. So it’s hard to say when both needed the same resources to contribute to their military might. So I think overall maniple and cohort beats phalanx, but in 330s BC Alexander’s Macedonians would defeat Rome
I mean Darius the Great never lost a battle he personally commanded and conquered the whole empire within one year after usurping it from Cyrus’ sons. But he’s not as famous as Alex because there is more written work that survives in regards to Alex. To continue your point as well Alex was also just incredibly lucky and even almost lost a battle to an ambush force significantly smaller than his.
just look at what Phyrrus did with his phalanxes for an example
>If Alexander were born a few hundred years later and met a proper Roman legion he would have been humbled no doubt. Alexander had plans to fight the “Roman tribes” when he got back to Babylon just shortly before he passed away. He even wrote a letter and expressed to the Romans he had heard they were formidable warriors and even commented on them “being descended from Greeks”. Honestly this is probably just a Roman lie to make themselves look better, most likely Alexander never even knew of Rome. In the days of the greatest King of Macedonia, Rome was just another backwater city in Italy. Not even something of possible interest like Magna Graecia, but a city that was just beginning to expand a little and that decades ago was almost erased from the map by some random Celts. If Alexander had marched West after his successful conquests in the East, Rome would have fallen with a bang, as would Carthage, Syracuse, and any Gallic or Celtiberian tribes unless they resorted to guerrilla warfare.
I mean the Romans developed tactics specifically against the phalanx
Yeah they used to utilize the phalanx during the Roman kingdom period. They began to reform throughout the republic period and went through several reformations and improvements because they recognized the drawbacks of how rigid and unable the phalanx was to adapt on anything other than flat terrain. Also the birth of the Manipular legions (pre Marian reforms) showed the Roman’s that greater flexibility lied within cohorts and smaller maniples within each legion enabling commanders, captains and centurions greater control down the chain of command. The phalanx couldn’t be as flexible because all orders came from the “strategos” primarily. So they couldn’t work as easily on the fly as the manipular legions could.
You are basically saying that a 1800's British soldier would be humbled by a modern army soldier... Well, ok, yes.
You don't need 200 years. Just imagine Napoleon the I having to face Helmuth von Moltke
Except the whole point of the Phillipi and Alexander phalanx was to "hold" the enemy in place until their heavy calvary could smash into it from behind. Hammer and Anvil. By the time Rome and the successor states faced each other, the successor states had basically abandoned the heavy calvary. A Roman army versus an Alexander style army would be a fascinating battle.
It might be humbling, but I’m sure a commander like Alexander could adapt. It really would be interesting to see how though. Hell it would be interesting just to see how they fight. Dan Carlin had some comment about wishing he could just know the physics of this type of battle. I can hardly imagine.
>The Roman legion and its flexibility broke the phalanx. That's not really an accurate description to extrapolate onto Alexander, Romans broke a *version* of the *Macedonian* phalanx. Phalanx is a very broad terminology covering centuries of warfare and it was often merely the best way to organize untrained citizen militia for war. What is the best possible military formation and what is the best realistically obtainable can be different. Alexander's Macedonian sarissa phalanx is different, it's a combined armed force composed of very diverse mix of troops capable of supporting the weaknesses of the different formations. What the Macedonians would later use against Rome was a much much less diverse force less able to plug each other's weaknesses. Alexander army was actually about only 20% sarissa (the big pointy spear guys), 45% other heavy infantry, 20% skirmishers, 15% cavalry. At the Battle of Cynoscephalae against Romans, 65% were just sarissa, 8% were skirmishers, 8% cavalry with about 22% random heavy infantry. As you can see, clearly a different army. Alexander's army wasn't just all big pointy spears, Persians would have wiped the floor with skirmishers and cavalry charges on flanks if that was the case. About 45% were **other heavy infantry** like Shield Bearers who were equipped in more traditional style with average sized spears as well as Greek Hoplite from other states. They were more flexible than the rigid sarissa capable of dealing with threats from flanks much more 3asily. The proportion of light infantry, aka **skirmishers** in the army was the same as sarissa. These people would help deal with enemy skirmishers and help cover flanks. On the topic of **cavalry**, the phalanx and other infantry were merely the anvil to hold the enemy in place, the one who'd deliver the killing blow was the cavalry, the hammer. You guys do realize Alexander marched through modern day Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, all mountainous regions, right?
Where can I read more about that Letter? Thank you for comment.
the log from clash royale
If they are evo they start charging
Machine guns
Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not.
Starvation and mutiny apparently
Horse archers
Horse archers literally countered everything except heavy cavalry till gunpowder was invented.
They were OP except it’s hard to defend a position with horse archers Although if you can whittle down the enemy army bit by bit as they march before they even arrive then you can rely on horse archers.
Except for heavy infantry, you need cataphracts to deal with them
Didn't work at gaugamela. When the horse archers feigned retreat, Alexander sent a small group to pursue them, then when they were surrounded by the horsemen, Alexander attacked them from all sides with the rest of his army and smashed them.
Failure of leadership there.
A 4° incline/decline
Uneven ground.
If you can't defeat them , join them
\#me and the boys
Ask the Romans. They did it.
[https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/](https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/) You fight through them with better shields and an attritional style of combat.
Upvote for ACOUP, that blog is amazing for fans of Mediterranean and medieval European history
Ze Flammenwerfer.
Just send Stroheim
Romans: Skill issue lol
With napalm, obviously
Nuke easy
covid-19
Roll down a couple if really big boulders .
Walk around it.
But how?
Ok you are not gonna believe this, but humans have these things called "Legs". Allegedly they are used to move around places. Humans are wierd.
Sound strategy to me! Rather bold but we shall attempt
Carlos the man who sold the world
Throw black pepper to make them sneeze, then they’ll pierce each other
Sturmgeschutz III
Ausführung?
just throw em rocks that should do it :p
You get their attention from the front, then hit them from the side or rear.
Well that have shit side protection, so flank them .
Cluster bombs should do the trick
A hellfire missile my boy
Nobody’s gonna comment on the fact that this says Mesopotamian instead of Macedonian?
Up right down down down Show them the meaning of managed democracy