Macedonian phalanx to the Roman legion

S

ScottieC

New Member
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.
 
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.
 
ScottieC said:
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?
Click to expand...
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".
 
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.
 
HI
I AM NEW MEMBER BUT I AM FROM GREECE.SO LET ME SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I THINK ABOUT .WHEN KING PYRUS(FROM THE GREEK KINGDOM OF EPIRUS) FIGHT AGAINST ROMAN EMPIRE HE USED ,MAINLY,THE FORM OF MECEDONIAN PHALANX (WITH SOME LITTLE DIFFERENCES).THE RESULT IS THAT HE NEVER LOOSE A SINGLE BATTLE.IF A FIND A REALETED LINK ABOUT THIS KING I WILL POST HERE.THANKS FOR THE HOST
 
antonpsarri said:
HI
I AM NEW MEMBER BUT I AM FROM GREECE.SO LET ME SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I THINK ABOUT .WHEN KING PYRUS(FROM THE GREEK KINGDOM OF EPIRUS) FIGHT AGAINST ROMAN EMPIRE HE USED ,MAINLY,THE FORM OF MECEDONIAN PHALANX (WITH SOME LITTLE DIFFERENCES).THE RESULT IS THAT HE NEVER LOOSE A SINGLE BATTLE.IF A FIND A REALETED LINK ABOUT THIS KING I WILL POST HERE.THANKS FOR THE HOST
Click to expand...
Please turn off your caps lock and keep your finger off the shift key. Thank you.
 
As others have mentioned, the Roman legions were designed for flexibility.

Originally, the legions were designed for warfare in Italy. Italy, in many cases, has very uneven terrain. On this terrain, the phalanx would not operate with any type of efficiency. On the other hand, Greece, and areas in Asia Minor had large open areas, which enabled large masses of infantry to operate effectively, especially using cavalry on the wings. Phalanxes were easier to command, since troops were tightly packed, and operated mostly straight ahead.

The early Roman republican legions operated in three basic lines -
  • The Hastati were the lightest armed of the three lines. They carried a lightweight version of the pilum, and a short sword to engage in close fighting. They were lightly armored, if any, and were the youngest, least experienced.
  • The Principes were the in the next order. They were the primary infantry. They carried two pila, wore armor, and carried the "Spanish" sword.
  • The last were the Triarii. They were the most experienced and carried a heavier spear, designed for thrusting.
A latin phrase "ad triarios redisse" has survived. It translates as "To the third line", meaning a desperate situation.

The republican legions also had a number of Velites (very lightly armed), dispersed along the line at the area of most need.

The legions could operate on most any type of open ground. By design, the junior officers could operate with a bit of flexibility, giving them the ability to fill gaps, or take advantages of enemy weaknesses not seen from the legions' commanders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top