I am wondering if anyone could give me some help. I am trying to develop a thesis related to the development of the Macedonian phalanx into the Roman legion as the dominate battlefield formation. I can't seem to find a direction to go with it. Does anyone have any insight/suggestions that I can look into how to narrow down this broad topic and give me some direction?

How the Roman legion beat the Phalanx was through its flexibility. The phalanx was the mastery in mass warfare, putting so many weapons in one spot it was thought impossible to defeat. The Roman Legion fought with maneuver warfare, its Jr. leaders where given the freedom to act independently and take the initiative. In the batte (forget the name) where the Legion fought the phalanx, the phalanx looked like it would win until a gap formed on the right wing of the phalanx line (we're talking thousands and thousands of people in what is basically a very long line of phalanx) and the roman Jr. officers where able to maneuver their legions to exploit the oprotunity. Once the gladius and shield where within their effective range on the flanks of the phalanx there was just no way the phalanx could deal. The phalanxes panicked and turned into a rout, the Romans slaughtered as many fleeing Greeks/Macedonians as they could until they finally had to stop from exhaustion.

the best way to understand how roman legion or greek phalax fight....

go play ROme total war

Romans were more flexible in their fighting styles and just adapted to the situation. One on One for a unit of 40 on each side in an open field sunny day right overheard it would be a tough fight for both sides. Roman legions and Macedonian Phalanx rarely fought in these condintions though and there was the choas of battle all around and more units also. Overall though the Roman legions just adapted and found a way to strike at the heart of the phalanx.

Originally Posted by ScottieC

I am wondering if anyone could give me some help. I am trying to develop a thesis related to the development of the Macedonian phalanx into the Roman legion as the dominate battlefield formation. I can't seem to find a direction to go with it. Does anyone have any insight/suggestions that I can look into how to narrow down this broad topic and give me some direction?

I'd go straight to the accounts of Rome vs Macedonia. That gives you any number of examples to work with. The Romans were certainly impressed with the Macedonians even though they lost in the end.

actually Romans learned a lot from the heavy infantry tactic Greeks have when Romans fought those Greek Commercial cities in intalian coasts when Rome was still a small repulic..

I think that battle between Macedonia and Rome was called "the battle of the Cynoscephalae" or "Dog heads".

I just looked it up and the battle I was speaking of in my post was the Battle of Pydna during the 3rd Macedonian War (168bc).

Yeah, the romans knew that without flank guards the Macedonian Phalanx was completly vulnerable, so they hled out agaisnt the Phalanx until there were considerable gaps between the Cavalry and the Phalanx, and cut both off from each other.
With the Macedonian's Sarissa (Long Spear) pointed to the front, The Romans just, well buthchered them from the side

The phalanx was arranged in 7 ranks of men, each pointing his spear ahead of him. The spear was so long that even the men' spears in the 7th rank were way ahead of the men in the first rank.