Is anyone familiar with the power shift from the Macedonians to the Romans?

2016-05-26T17:39:13-04:00

I do realize the tactics were similar but yet different. I think the Macedonians gave a good fight, but became isolated as the Romans made significant strides in the number of allies. This is of interest to me.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 26 at 2016 5:41 PM

2016-05-26T17:41:41-04:00

The Romans were meaner fighters from what read, and heard on commentaries.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made May 26 at 2016 5:51 PM

2016-05-26T17:51:47-04:00

Macedonia has a confusing history. They were a tribe of their own, they were part of the Greek empire, they conquered Greece (Alexander), they were again part of the Greek empire. Fell to the Romans, were absorbed into the Byzantine Empire (when the Church split). Conquered by the Turks, conquered by the Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbians, taken by Yugoslavia, occupied by the Albanians, occupied by the Germans, reclaimed by Yugoslavia, gained independence and hasn't been much since... But the then comes the debate, the Modern day nation of Macedonia is technology north of Alexander's Macedonia.

At the height of their short lived power they stretched to India... but now they are smaller than some of our Eastern states (the entire population is smaller than Metro St Louis). However the area of modern day Macedonia was conquered by King Phillip (Alexander's daddy). Ethnically the are more Slavic and Bulgarian than Macedonia, but they are that as well (according to DNA)... so as I said confusing...

Response by Maj John Bell made May 26 at 2016 6:06 PM

2016-05-26T18:06:00-04:00

I love this question. This is hands down the most exciting question I've seen on Rallypoint. No I am not being sarcastic. If I lived in Seattle, or if you lived near Central Lake Michigan, you'd be invited for BBQ TONIGHT!!!

Are you speaking in terms of Grand National Strategy, Strategy, Operations, Tactics, techniques, technology, or professional soldiers vs citizen soldiers? Any one of which would take a long book to give an "adequate" explanation that would be subject to great debate.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 6:50 PM

2016-05-26T18:50:06-04:00

From what I understand. Phalanx formation only works in when there is a large army formation, and only in a forward attack/defense. The Romans developed a military that could easily adapt to what is in front of them. The standard cohort was armed with a short sword known as the Gladius and a sheild.

I think it bowels down to iron vs bronze. Overall.

Beyond that, not entirely sure. Just started looking into Hannibal and the Romans in the Second Punic War.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 26 at 2016 7:48 PM

2016-05-26T19:48:12-04:00

Macedonia (Greece) and Rome were the two major powers left in the Mediterranean after the Persia and Carthage were taken out of the equation. Macedonia ascendency began to slip after the death of Alexander and the splitting up of his conquered territories. Roman further subverted Macedonian power by making allies with the nations in the region.

On the battlefield, the Macedonian Phalanx and the Roman Legion were both very effective formations, each with varied strengths and weaknesses. On an open field, head to head, a phalanx will plow right over a legion. However, in broken terrain, where maintaining rigid formations is hindered, a legion's ability to use small unit maneuvering and individual leadership is a huge advantage.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 8:50 PM

2016-05-26T20:50:02-04:00

I know that Romans defeated many great Armies and they were able to perfect different army's stratigies and battle tactics. Just like with the coming of America we were able to learn and adapt from other countries mistakes and battlefield tactics.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 8:51 PM

2016-05-26T20:51:18-04:00

I love questions like this about Ancient History.

Response by Nicholas Efstathiou made May 26 at 2016 8:55 PM

2016-05-26T20:55:03-04:00

Tactically speaking, there were a great many similarities. The major shift in tactical ability, however, came about through the Roman use of cavalry. When the phalanxes met on the field, it was essentially a giant rugby scrum. Everyone pushed. The Macedonians, with their extremely long spears, had a tremendous advantage. In one battle (and I cannot remember which, I'm afraid) a Roman cavalry officer saw an advantage to turn the flank of the Macedonians. This was an extremely unusual tactic for that time. Cavalrymen tended to be the poor cousin to the infantry. The new ability Rome had to negate the power of the Macedonian phalanx through rapid flanking movements helped Rome assert dominance on the field of battle. And, if you're looking for more information on how Rome developed a warrior elite mentality there is an excellent work concerning both Rome and Greece by J.E. Lendon. The title of the book is "Soldiers and Ghosts." I hope that helps.

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made May 27 at 2016 2:12 AM

2016-05-27T02:12:37-04:00

http://dssresources.com/papers/features/dunnigan/dunnigan05282004.html I found this matter reading what was here, I've always had an interest in the application of such operations research (OR) techniques to mathematical wargaming of ancient battles, I just thought you all might find this a somewhat different perspective that might not often be encountered or considered in reflecting on such topics, hope was of interest , would be eager for any thoughts, enjoy, many thanks.

The Operations Research Revolution Rolls On, To Where?

Operations research (OR) is the use of quantitative techniques (statistics, etc.) to solve problems and help leaders make decisions. OR has been around for centuries, but in the decade before World War II it came to be recognized as a distinct discipline. Operations research was used extensively during World War II to solve numerous problems; everything from how best to use radar or hunt submarines to running factories and getting supplies to...

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made May 27 at 2016 2:14 AM

2016-05-27T02:14:17-04:00

Sorry for spelling errors this tablet is temperamental, I'd meant I'd found the article after reading the discussions here, of course, many thanks.