Posted on May 26, 2016
Is anyone familiar with the power shift from the Macedonians to the Romans?
2.19K
37
33
6
6
0
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.
Posted in these groups: 
Strategy
Ancient History
Strategy Ancient History
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
CPT Joseph K Murdock
I think I want to know all of them as strategy, tactics, politics, and attrition were big factors.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CPT Joseph K Murdock
You are right. The Phalanx was built for straight combat while the legions often attacked the flanks. Hannibal who had won many battles against the Romans lost a war of attrition against him.
(1)
(0)
CPL (Join to see)
Yes sir. By bypassing the "canal" don't have a name for lol. Between Spain and N. Africa and crossing the Alps (was it in the winter?) being cut off from supply. I couldn't imagine the toll of casualties he sustained.
I'm pondering if his Army kept marching to Rome, would the Legions have the time to organize and march north. Or if Hannibal had a Army that was still capable of sacking Rome.
I wish that there were more questions like this on RP. Really gets me motivated.
Also, sir. Do you think the amount of engineering it took for Hannibal to create a campaign of this sort, had a influence on the Legions and how they were able to move quickly?
I'm pondering if his Army kept marching to Rome, would the Legions have the time to organize and march north. Or if Hannibal had a Army that was still capable of sacking Rome.
I wish that there were more questions like this on RP. Really gets me motivated.
Also, sir. Do you think the amount of engineering it took for Hannibal to create a campaign of this sort, had a influence on the Legions and how they were able to move quickly?
(0)
(0)
SFC Josh Billingsley
Makers of Modern Strategy had a great section on Hannibal battling the Romans. You should check it out
(0)
(0)
CPL (Join to see)
SFC Josh Billingsley -
I will check tomorrow if the library is open tomorrow.
Should be a good read. Thanks for the recommendation Sgt.
I will check tomorrow if the library is open tomorrow.
Should be a good read. Thanks for the recommendation Sgt.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT Joseph K Murdock
It would be interesting to see Alexander fight the Romans considering he never lost a battle.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
(1)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
I'm glad it was interest, of course; I was just curious, had you ever delvedminto that whole topic at all or encountered it in that sort of context? I was just wondering, if you might be able to say, I'd figured someone had to be doing such simulations and or analyses for such historical scenarios, one of my army ROTC faculty the PMS of my program before I'd gone USAF instead taught military history, I'd done a paper for him on wargaming from that OR standpoint, I'd actually gotten the 1978 Assoc of the US army / us army ROTC award for military history for it, I got a copy of one of the classic army ww2 historical volumes as a prize with the award on the inside of the front cover, I do still have it, my one claim to fame while in the program, lol, I'd be eager to know any other thoughts you might have whenever convenient, many thanks.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CPT Joseph K Murdock
That was a wonderful narrative. I read of a battle the Macedonians won but they used 20 elephants and cavalry.
(1)
(0)
Nicholas Efstathiou
Have you read anything by Victor Davis Hanson? He does an excellent piece on the battle of Cannae (I think in his book "Carnage and Culture"), he explains how Rome's ability to raise massive numbers of troops and put them through a uniform training program allowed them to prevent Hannibal from obtaining a firm foothold on the Italian peninsula.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Yes that is true... One thing to remember that through out history and time "Nothing lasts forever" not even the mightiest or greatest Empire lasts. That's one of the things that I took out of History and in life.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
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...
(1)
(0)
SSG Pete Fleming
CPT Joseph K Murdock - I love history, worked and lived in Kosovo (one of their neighbors), worked and lived in Macedonia... and my wife is Macedonian (I know her country's history better than she does, haha)
(1)
(0)
CPT Joseph K Murdock
I would love to see that region of the world. Of course I would have to read a book about it first.
(1)
(0)
SSG Pete Fleming
CPT Joseph K Murdock - The Balkans are beautiful... so much history, the irony is, they argue over who's history belongs to who...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The Romans were meaner fighters from what read, and heard on commentaries.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CPT Joseph K Murdock - The Greek hoplites and Macedonian Phalangite both carried short swords in addition to their dorys (Greek short spear 7-9ft) or sarissa (Madcedonian long spear 14-21ft). The weapon was only incidental to the power of their formations. They relied on OTHISMUS "the push" Massive formations crushing each other, the formation that was able to push forward usually caused combatants on the other side to lose their footing. The last few ranks or the following light infantry then dispatched downed men before they could bring their arms to bear. All the while the forward moving force continually increased the ratio of men pushing forward to men resisting the forward push.
Eventually the losing formation literally broke under the pressure. The spear is a poor weapon as an individual facing a formation. Men were cut down as they ran.
The following is a discussion that ignores the role of supporting arms. in this case Greek refers to both Greek and Macedonian. While the Greek and Macedonian Phalanx differed in size, dimension, weapons, and armor, the principles of employment are the very similar.
The Romans, before the Legion Cohort formations developed the maniple phalanx of Hastati (newer greener troops) and Principe (Veteran, combat experienced troops) . The maniple phalanx relied on several factors to destroy the cohesiveness of the Greek Phalanx before a Greek spear point touched a Roman shield. Each soldier carried 3 to-5 (typically 3) Pilum a short throwing spear that was thrown 10-20 meters before contact. The pilum had a tip designed to make a shallow penetration in the greek shield, but not easily removed. Rendering the shield unwieldy. The shaft was softened so that it bent, and was useless for the Greeks to pick up and return volley. Next the maniple phalanx had built in "crush zones" open spaces within large formations, and dense hard points, This allowed the Romans to give ground without losing footing. It also enticed the front of the phalanx to advance at different rates within the same formation, creating localized "flanks". The Romans could easily and quickly change direction in small units to attack those "flanks" while maintaining their ability to either quickly withdraw or advance to restore their line, all the while using their primary weapon, the Gladius (Roman short sword) The mere act of changing weapons was disruptive to the Greek Phalanx. The phalanx is absolutely useless in defending its own "flanks".
Yes I am an ancient combat history nerd. I suggest reading "The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece" (1989). Hanson and "The Histories Book XVIII by Polybius".
Eventually the losing formation literally broke under the pressure. The spear is a poor weapon as an individual facing a formation. Men were cut down as they ran.
The following is a discussion that ignores the role of supporting arms. in this case Greek refers to both Greek and Macedonian. While the Greek and Macedonian Phalanx differed in size, dimension, weapons, and armor, the principles of employment are the very similar.
The Romans, before the Legion Cohort formations developed the maniple phalanx of Hastati (newer greener troops) and Principe (Veteran, combat experienced troops) . The maniple phalanx relied on several factors to destroy the cohesiveness of the Greek Phalanx before a Greek spear point touched a Roman shield. Each soldier carried 3 to-5 (typically 3) Pilum a short throwing spear that was thrown 10-20 meters before contact. The pilum had a tip designed to make a shallow penetration in the greek shield, but not easily removed. Rendering the shield unwieldy. The shaft was softened so that it bent, and was useless for the Greeks to pick up and return volley. Next the maniple phalanx had built in "crush zones" open spaces within large formations, and dense hard points, This allowed the Romans to give ground without losing footing. It also enticed the front of the phalanx to advance at different rates within the same formation, creating localized "flanks". The Romans could easily and quickly change direction in small units to attack those "flanks" while maintaining their ability to either quickly withdraw or advance to restore their line, all the while using their primary weapon, the Gladius (Roman short sword) The mere act of changing weapons was disruptive to the Greek Phalanx. The phalanx is absolutely useless in defending its own "flanks".
Yes I am an ancient combat history nerd. I suggest reading "The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece" (1989). Hanson and "The Histories Book XVIII by Polybius".
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CPT Joseph K Murdock - If you have any other specific question I'll be happy to offer my opinion. But please do not take them as definitive, I am self-educated on this subject but I still read 15-20 books a year on ancient warfare, all cultures and world regions. Many of the books do not agree, even specifically disagree, with each other. I like to find books that advance a specific theory and then find another book that refutes that theory. My interest and "knowledge" drops off sharply starting with the dark ages and does not pick up again until the American Civil War.
I highly suggest you contact professors at the University of Washington History Dept and see what books they recommend on the eras and regions that interest you. I highly recommend the studies on the Huns and Mongols for armor officers, and the Japanese use of Samurai Cavalry Tactics from Shogun era Japan. Guderian supposedly found them the most useful when he was developing the theory of armor tactics within the concept of BlitzKrieg. I cannot remember the title but I will try to find it, but the first exhaustive historical treatise on neutralizing key terrain with Cavalry by- pass was written around 1200 BCE in Japan.
I highly suggest you contact professors at the University of Washington History Dept and see what books they recommend on the eras and regions that interest you. I highly recommend the studies on the Huns and Mongols for armor officers, and the Japanese use of Samurai Cavalry Tactics from Shogun era Japan. Guderian supposedly found them the most useful when he was developing the theory of armor tactics within the concept of BlitzKrieg. I cannot remember the title but I will try to find it, but the first exhaustive historical treatise on neutralizing key terrain with Cavalry by- pass was written around 1200 BCE in Japan.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google