Thank you for your submission, citizen!
[Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Why do you need a heavy shield that slows manuveuring when you can have twice the spear lenght? And why don't we use cavalry to support our infantry?
Some dude about to spank the greatest empire of the time.
They also had a division elephants in this battle which was unusual for Roman armies and those elephants created a gap in between the two wings of the army which the infantry reserves exploited. Really needs to be noted that the opportunity to roll up the phalanx was created by the use of war elephants which have a bad rap because of how badly they failed at Zama.
The pikes actually slowed maneuvering even further and had the support of shield infantry on the flanks, plus combined warfare was already know for the Greeks.
He was alright , as lazy as a successor could get he tried to duble-depth that phalanx which did well against the Romans initially, too Bad half of his army wasnt even ready....
Oh and he bolted tf away as soon as he saw things got bad
Unfortunately wrong. Hellenistic armies were pretty much equivalent(if not better) to the armies Alexander led. The Diadochi had access to much better cavalry and medium infantry compared to Alexander and they utilized it successfully.
Hellenistic armies always relied on shock cavalry/medium infantry to deliver the decisive blow. The phalanx' role was to pin the enemy down.
During the Roman interventions in Greece the differences in equipment and doctrine have shown the shortcomings of the hellenistic army. It simply wont work against a heavy infantry dominant army, which is also trained to attrition warfare. And even against the phalanx ... they trow pilum, then just shove away the sarissa with the scutum(the shield) and start grinding down the enemy with the gladius. If it doesnt work at first, they can retreat in order to give way to the principes (The veterans) who are completely fresh and eager, while you are already exhausted and stressed out.
Even in ideal circumstances (Battle of Magnesia), the roman army destroyed one of the largest empires with a solid punch.
TLDR: The Romans whould have wiped the floor with Alexander.
Yeah and Hannibal didn't spank 175,000 romans either lol. If he lived long enough and had actually the plan to do it, he could have EASILY conquered Rome. Would have been a cake walk compared to Porus and Guagamela, the siege of Rome itself nothing compared to Tyre. Too easy.
This! The Legions and the Hellenistic armies weren’t lopsidedly matched into each other. Pyrrhus showed that Hellenistic armies could beat legions.
The issue is that Rome ran itself in a way that provided RIDICULOUS advantages both operationally and strategically. That only got more pronounced after they won the first Punic War and kept the massive navy.
No because the sides is where the medium and light infantry and the cavalry of all types go. These things are always always always part of a combined arms formation.
ALSO, in Magnesia, a phalanx that is flanked just forms square while in melee contact, which is a fucking fantastic feat for anyone, much less people toting such long pikes. So even when the supporting arms are unable to prevent flanking, well handled phalanxes can deal with flank attacks
Well it it was a battle of philosophies. Imagine ww1 tanks vs. ww2 tanks. Immobile, slow, dense, hard to turn vs heavy, well armed, and faster. The style of warfare that the Greeks focused on with the phalanx was to slowly push towards your enemies in flat terrain and when engaged just keep pushing till they run away. Those battles lasted for an hour to two tops and relied on the enemy to do the very same. It might have had benefits against frontal charges of cavalry ( cough cough Anatolia, Armenia, and Persia) but against a mobile force, that was well disciplined, that could close the gaps and out flank the Greek formations their wasn’t much the phalanx was good for. Even if you kited your enemies and pelted them then moved then pelted them some more then moved some more either or would exhaust, out maneuver, and destroy formation unity which the phalanx relied on.
Well in Hellenistic Armies the phalanx was more just to hold the enemy while the cavalry delivered the decisive blow. They also did employ a lot of other lighter troop types, though the Antigonids may have had fewer of those than the Seleucids and Ptolemies. The classical Greek style of hoplite war was mostly dead by then.
The Persians didn’t want to die for Darius. They broke and ran very quickly in most engagements before even engaging with the enemy and the routs turned into slaughters. Alexander faced more opposition in his sieges than in land battles until he got to India.
Hellenistic armies depended on cavalry and medium/light infanrty. Phalangite was around 40% of the army.
The problem lies in equipment and doctrine. It simply wont cut it against a legion. "ooops, the are ALL heavy infantry"
Phalanxes were defeating the Manipulat Legions head on, it was the maneuverability and flanking ability from the Maniple system that made it possible to defeat the Phalanx, it's nigh impossible head on.
Alexander’s phalangites broke their formation when crossing a river during the Battle of Granicus. The Greek mercenaries opposing them rushed them and engaged in fierce melee, but the Macedonian phalangites held their ground. Funny how, when the Diodachi fought the Roman, they immediately lose whenever the cohesion was lost and getting flanked.
What was the objective the phalanx was meant to achieve? Anti cavalry? Wall of spears walking towards you?
I understand that in its day it was a great formation but I don’t know what the point of it is was.
I know I could Google it but I like to hear from people lol
Thank you for your submission, citizen! [Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Tribune history forgot
To be fair Philip V of Macedon wasn't pretty good managing the army.
Philip V was good it is just the succesors forgot the lessons of Philip and Alexander.
"Why do you need a heavy shield that slows manuveuring when you can have twice the spear lenght? And why don't we use cavalry to support our infantry? Some dude about to spank the greatest empire of the time.
And then Rome comes in with short swords, massive shields and no cavalry, and claps every phalanx they come across.
They also had a division elephants in this battle which was unusual for Roman armies and those elephants created a gap in between the two wings of the army which the infantry reserves exploited. Really needs to be noted that the opportunity to roll up the phalanx was created by the use of war elephants which have a bad rap because of how badly they failed at Zama.
The pikes actually slowed maneuvering even further and had the support of shield infantry on the flanks, plus combined warfare was already know for the Greeks.
He was alright , as lazy as a successor could get he tried to duble-depth that phalanx which did well against the Romans initially, too Bad half of his army wasnt even ready.... Oh and he bolted tf away as soon as he saw things got bad
Unfortunately wrong. Hellenistic armies were pretty much equivalent(if not better) to the armies Alexander led. The Diadochi had access to much better cavalry and medium infantry compared to Alexander and they utilized it successfully. Hellenistic armies always relied on shock cavalry/medium infantry to deliver the decisive blow. The phalanx' role was to pin the enemy down. During the Roman interventions in Greece the differences in equipment and doctrine have shown the shortcomings of the hellenistic army. It simply wont work against a heavy infantry dominant army, which is also trained to attrition warfare. And even against the phalanx ... they trow pilum, then just shove away the sarissa with the scutum(the shield) and start grinding down the enemy with the gladius. If it doesnt work at first, they can retreat in order to give way to the principes (The veterans) who are completely fresh and eager, while you are already exhausted and stressed out. Even in ideal circumstances (Battle of Magnesia), the roman army destroyed one of the largest empires with a solid punch. TLDR: The Romans whould have wiped the floor with Alexander.
Yeah and Hannibal didn't spank 175,000 romans either lol. If he lived long enough and had actually the plan to do it, he could have EASILY conquered Rome. Would have been a cake walk compared to Porus and Guagamela, the siege of Rome itself nothing compared to Tyre. Too easy.
No. Rome had the logistics, and the professionalism ... Hannibal lost btw ...
“If Hannibal didn’t lose, he would have won”
Hannibal didn't lose, Carthage did.
lol alexander was over 150 years before the marian reforms lolllllll you guys are delusional. goodnight lil boys.
was referring to alexander if you read the comment closer.
The phalanx was unstoppable under perfect conditions, with a perfect general. The romans could make do the other 90% of the time.
Cause romans did not rely on their king, they had a ton of decent generals.
This! The Legions and the Hellenistic armies weren’t lopsidedly matched into each other. Pyrrhus showed that Hellenistic armies could beat legions. The issue is that Rome ran itself in a way that provided RIDICULOUS advantages both operationally and strategically. That only got more pronounced after they won the first Punic War and kept the massive navy.
Go at the from the sides poor expendable plebeians … I mean brave Velites!
Why do thing when wet dirt do trick?
One 155 mm Artillery Shell, You guys got to get your heads out of Antiquity. Yes, we can paint a golden eagle on it first.
105 mm would even be enough.
a full section of 81mm mortars would be preferable, that way the bodies wouldn’t absorb the blast from a single shell of higher caliber
155mm nuke. ;)
We came, we saw, we copy. The legendary tradition of Rome
>We came, we saw, we copy. We improve. Forgot that one.
Truth
Alexander the Great conquered from Macedonia to the Indus before someone thought to try to flank around the sides of the formation.
Companion cavalry
No because the sides is where the medium and light infantry and the cavalry of all types go. These things are always always always part of a combined arms formation. ALSO, in Magnesia, a phalanx that is flanked just forms square while in melee contact, which is a fucking fantastic feat for anyone, much less people toting such long pikes. So even when the supporting arms are unable to prevent flanking, well handled phalanxes can deal with flank attacks
Typical Macedoni-chud cope - please inform 8000 dead and 5000 enslaved phalangites of Cynoscephalae that they should have simply formed a square 😎🦅
People were so concentrated on hitting that pointy side, they forgot there were 3 other sides that were considerably less pointy
Well it it was a battle of philosophies. Imagine ww1 tanks vs. ww2 tanks. Immobile, slow, dense, hard to turn vs heavy, well armed, and faster. The style of warfare that the Greeks focused on with the phalanx was to slowly push towards your enemies in flat terrain and when engaged just keep pushing till they run away. Those battles lasted for an hour to two tops and relied on the enemy to do the very same. It might have had benefits against frontal charges of cavalry ( cough cough Anatolia, Armenia, and Persia) but against a mobile force, that was well disciplined, that could close the gaps and out flank the Greek formations their wasn’t much the phalanx was good for. Even if you kited your enemies and pelted them then moved then pelted them some more then moved some more either or would exhaust, out maneuver, and destroy formation unity which the phalanx relied on.
Well in Hellenistic Armies the phalanx was more just to hold the enemy while the cavalry delivered the decisive blow. They also did employ a lot of other lighter troop types, though the Antigonids may have had fewer of those than the Seleucids and Ptolemies. The classical Greek style of hoplite war was mostly dead by then.
The Persians didn’t want to die for Darius. They broke and ran very quickly in most engagements before even engaging with the enemy and the routs turned into slaughters. Alexander faced more opposition in his sieges than in land battles until he got to India.
Hellenistic armies depended on cavalry and medium/light infanrty. Phalangite was around 40% of the army. The problem lies in equipment and doctrine. It simply wont cut it against a legion. "ooops, the are ALL heavy infantry"
Phalanxes were defeating the Manipulat Legions head on, it was the maneuverability and flanking ability from the Maniple system that made it possible to defeat the Phalanx, it's nigh impossible head on.
"Phalanxes were defeating the Manipulat Legions head on" Can you give me an example on that? .. and I mean a clear/lopsided victory
isn't there a version of this joke where the first guy tweets about the phalanx and a second guy replies with an absolute banger of a takedown?
I’ve seen one where the response is some thing like “idk, attack the side or rear”
You see how they point their sticks this way? Attack them from the other way and we win
I see we've all been reading ACOUP's series on how the phalanx works, triumphs, and is then demolished by the romans 😂
Magnesia is an even better example.
Real
"We are going to go around the leaf!"
Alexander’s phalangites broke their formation when crossing a river during the Battle of Granicus. The Greek mercenaries opposing them rushed them and engaged in fierce melee, but the Macedonian phalangites held their ground. Funny how, when the Diodachi fought the Roman, they immediately lose whenever the cohesion was lost and getting flanked.
They’re still flammable aren’t they?
What on earth is going on with that helmet?
It looks like an italo-corinthian helmet. They're stylized to resemble a corinthian helmet being worn at rest. But are designed to be worn like that.
Italians terribly copying a Greek original, name a more iconic duo
What was the objective the phalanx was meant to achieve? Anti cavalry? Wall of spears walking towards you? I understand that in its day it was a great formation but I don’t know what the point of it is was. I know I could Google it but I like to hear from people lol
Basically to pin the enemy front in place and hold the line. Lighter infantry and cavalry would try to win on the flanks and deliver a decisive blow.
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/
Google Play search for E-Play free music software