How THE ROMANS DESTROYED The PHALANX:
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 січ 2023
- Become a CHANNEL MEMBER! - / @thesocialstreamers
Live on Twitch! - / thesocialstreamers
Join our Discord! - / discord
Help us out on Patreon: / thesocialstreamers
Follow us on Twitter: / thesstreamers
Shoutout to our Patreon Supporters!
Emperor Tier:
Lewis Wright
Matvei Novikov
King Tier:
Blenderman
Crilly
Flyerton99
Ghostwolf567
Henriki2305
iTzHuzzah
JdoW52
Sjalmi
Orginal
Redguard76
ShadowSinger
Duke Tier:
abayer
Aeryka
Arthur Pendragon
ColeZawesome
Cutaline
HoratioNullbuilt
Of The Dragon
Scorpius
Stormblind
Stuart Watson
Thomas Carmichael
Trever101
Zachary Older
Count Tier:
AssBreath
Bobby Bottle Service
Brandon Smith-Darby
danjamrod
Marius
Michael Scott
MisterODark
PrimitiveMorris
Red Star
Søren Ryge
ThatOneGuy
Baron Tier:
choppyrice
Garking
Hachi
Hunkulous
Morgan Jones
Prof_Toad
Professor toad
Tobias Lauge Borgstrøm
Trevor - Ігри
The Roman leginonair with the crossbow just kinda killed the "historical accurate" vibe you were trying to get here
They did have crossbows, but their crossbowmen wouldnt have used that kind of armour.
@@joshithegreat5303you're sure?
@@dr.willow2403 Yes, in the last empire, but as I said they wouldnt look like that and would be in small numbers as city garrisons
@@joshithegreat5303 you mean in late empire? I know for that, but it was almost near the end of the western roman empire.
@@joshithegreat5303 wasn't the macedonian war like half millenium before that?
"The age of the gladius was about to begin."
(Shows a crossbow)
a medieval crossbow
crossbows did exist back then, the greeks invented hand-held crossbows as early as 400-500 BC, but it obviously wasn't a part of the Romans' standards.
@@Northex23 that's a medieval design tho if i'm not mistaken
reminds me of a german soilder with a mp18
@@Northex23 It was the Chinese but ok
Who the hell drew a legionnaire with a crossbow
Some guy that is totally rad
😂😂😂
At this point Julius Caesar looked at Brutus and said, "and you want some of this too, Brutus?" as he shot him with his .45 long colt S&W. revolver
The Romans had .50 Caliber machineguns before the dark ages.
@@meatballs2849 before stabbing him with a light saber
Romans also empowered centurions to make tactical decisions on the battlefield, so any break in those lines could be quickly exploited instead of waiting for orders to come back from the general
It’s funny you mention this because it’s one of the issues that made the Russians do poorly in thier 2022 offensive against Ukraine. Too many units waited for orders from Moscow before moving even though battlefield commanders saw opportunities to push or exploit breakthroughs. It’s definitely not a coincidence that allowing commanders to be flexible and make their own decisions has its merits when the commanders are chosen well.
This also helped Prussia
@EightFootSativa - I think the Macedonians had TWO battles against the Romans. Besides Pytna (167BC?), they fought each other in Kynephala or similar (195BC?): even there, the Roman gladius made the difference in mountainous terrain. The gladius had been improved by the Roman experience in Spain in the second Punic war, with better metal work.
Similar to why Carthage lost in both the Sicilian wars and the Punic wars
@@waleedkhalid7486 considering they fighting whole of nato they did quite well. Also considering the stakes here I'd venture yo guess there is no choice but to have central command. They are fighting in civilian populated areas. The romans fought a small battle outside of cuvikuan areas. A wrong move can only result in local casualties
I've said this in several shorts all by different people already, which is weird, but:
Rome didn't use the sarissa phalanx as implied in the video, they used the "aspis and dory" phalanx from before Phillip's conquest of Greece. We don't even really know if Italics fought in the close, pushing order of classical Greeks or in more open, individualistic ways.
Yeah, its why i made a special effort not to say that the romans used the sarissa, as you said it was Phillip II's invention, Rome had a good 400 years of history before that
Yes they did, the hoplite is litterly made for phalanx warfare.
Also the romans changed onto am open fighting style with the gladius
@@giftzwerg7345 You're confusing terms and dates.
@@Astraben yeah a lot of people simplify really a lot, and get wrong notions because of it. There's a LOT to expand on, get more precise, or correct here...
@@Astraben i am not, we know that the romans copied from the Etruskians, who copied the greeks.
What people fail to understand is that thete is nothing special about the phalanx, its just a close order formation, a static shield wall made of pesants is thus a phalanx, perfekting it is special.
The phalanx now Fights and moves as one! Gaining the upperhand by manuvering inton an advantage Position, like keeping Distance, retreating or closing into brutal close quaters.
If however the unity gets disturbed cohision Breaks down the phalanx is lost against a foe who keeps his cohision!
The roman way of arms allowed for a more open fighting style on whitch the legionary fights and to a small extends moves for himselve, while lacking the Support drom comerades a close order formation gives, he isnt reling on unity and cohision in order to fight.
It’s interesting that the phalanx died but was reborn numerous times in history
From the Saxon shield wall to the age of pike and musket
They can all trace their lineage back to the phalanx and even further if you wanted to
A mass of men with long pointy sticks has historically been very difficult to hit for a mass of men with shorter pointy sticks.
Also the late Roman empire and at the height of the empire the auxiliarys
Funny thing is that the romans brought the phalanx again until they died.
But do not make mistakes: the macedonian phalanx was by far the best one. The saxons surely had a good strategies, but it was still nothing compared to macedonians. Even greek οπλίτες weren't as good as them, in terms of formation.
@@geraltdirivia8278 the Macedonian Phalanx was indeed an upgrade on their Greek cousin but don't underestimate how much their Cavalry played a role in their success
Iirc, greek's phalanx by the time of roman expansion already evolved into a heavier, longer, and less maneuverable version due to decades of competition among phalanx user, so the roman never actually face alexander's era phalanx
Wo alexander's era were more powerful?
@@jmgonzales7701 Yeah, they had cavalry supports and the silver shields which were also placed to protect the flanks.
@@kostasbiker9302 interesting, the greeks were better during alexander's time.
@@jmgonzales7701 That was in Alexanders campaign, but i'd wager similar tactics might have been employed in the mainland.
Phalanx in the core Center and use of combined arms to protect the Flanks cannot be defeated! 😃
The phalanx didnt die it just went out of fashion for a bit it came back invan adapted form with the swiss and spanish. The shield wall was another adaption of the phalanx too.
A shield wall, and the Swiss pikes were very different than the phalanx in form and function.
Facts
Shield wall was totally different than phalanx and so was the Swiss and Spanish phalanx
The pike formation replied heavily in its ranged weapons, as compared to the Macedonians which used cavalry to do the dirty work and maneuver the enemy
As was the Medieval "hedgehog".
The Romans stopped using the phalanx long before the Marian Reforms. They adopted the maniple system during the Samnite Wars in the early republic. The Marian Reforms were in effect after the Punic Wars, and the Romans certainly were not using phalanxes against carthage.
nobody is talking here about the marian reforms
@@MsPysoul your mom gets phalanxed every weekend
Nobody talk about Marians Reforms in the video.
You should add that the Roman's learned the maniple system from the Samnites after suffering defeats using the phalanx themselves. The Roman's ability to learn from their defeats and their enemies is what allowed them to be such a great military.
You scare them off with a phalanx, they will come back with maniples, you overwhelm the maniples, they come back as cohorts.
do more videos like this.
Plz do. I learned something here, AND I was entertained. You're a natural orator, Laith!
Could get a little more into Details.
The Roman once Had classical Phalanx a Kind of shieldwall (No Problem with Mountains) , while in later Periods greeks used the macadon Phalanx which is a Pikewall.
and greek Happens to have some mountains to.
Being a classical hoplite was only affordable for the upper Class.
The reforms introduced this massive shields allowed a much bigger Part of the Population to Join the Army.....
Is that a threat? Because I will.
What was that last picture? Lorica segmentata + crossbow? :D
Well, the Picts had crossbows, and the Romans engaged with them.
The Romans were willing to adopt any USEFUL weapon of opponents...and the Romans had bolt shooting artillery (big crossbow on sme kind of mount.
My interest in Rome covers the German invasions to the war vs Anthony and Cleopatra
So...before segmentata.....and no idea if Rome ever adopted the crossbow....
The weighted darts that later Romans/Byzantines used were cool......but if you use hand-cocking crossbows why use thrown darts....
@@leeshackelford7517 - The picture itself is a mishmash of anachronism. 1st century armor, pre-imperial Gladius and a 15th century crossbow. They could at least try to make it look like a ballista or a polybolos.
@@inisipisTV This is a good criticism and probably what Georg B should have said or perhaps (giving him the benefit of the doubt) wanted to say above.
@@inisipisTV indeed, the renaissance/middle age crossbow in the end of a roman legionnary hurts my eyes...and ofc the segmentata, while most legionnaries during most periods had chainmails...
It’s art for the elder scrolls, so it’s video game art…
Dont forget that the Romans then reverted back to using the Phalanx doctrine themselves later when their military was not about conquering but holding terrain.
So they didn't revert, they just used it at time when it could be useful as they always did wth every other tactic.
Idk about the mountainous terrain thing. Wasn't the phalanx invented in Greece, well-known for being mountainous? I don't doubt it contributed, but I'm not sure it was the main reason.
They usually fought on flat terrain
By mountainous terrain what i should really be saying is broken ground. And yes, the phalanx was invented in Greece but it was used almost exclusively on flat terrain or to hold mountain passes. The Roman army was just significantly more maneuvrable and was able to get where the phalanx wasnt
The vision of the phalange in this video is outdated
(Phalange was very versatile, very organised in the command, and better in fights in general then the legion for the little I learn,
So why Rome win?
Because war isn't a duel between 2 type of unit a lot of the time Rome win thanks to allies who learned to fight against phalange with better general)
The phalanx was developed by the Macedonians. The Greeks, who lived in a mountainous region, relied on hoplites. And one reason the phalanx overcame hoplites was that it was a denser, more organized formation than the hoplite ones.
@@llywrch7116 macedonia is mountanious to.
and the elite troupe of macedonian where hoplite when they conquer greece.
in fact the reason why they create long spear is to make the troop more confident.
ps: because battle in greece was a battle of moral. so if you troop shit on themself to soon you loose.
Original and cool video. By the way, lets point something.
The "phalanx" (the Macedonian phalanx in fact) it's not an army, but just a part of an Hellenistic one. It came supported by cavalry, skirmishers, medium and light infantry and sometimes even elephants and chariots. To defeat a phalanx usually you have to previously defeat the other elements in the army in order to be able to outflank it, because in a frontal, face to face combat, it was invincible.
Another important fact: the Roman legion fought very few battes against a phalanx: Heraclea, Ausculum, Beneventum, Cynoscephalae, Thermopylae, Magnesia, Pydna (1st and 2nd battle of Pydna) and Zela. Of this, only 3 had an usual development: Heraclea, Ausculum and the 1st battle of Pydna (168 BC). In all the other situations, something went unusual during the battle (part of the army was not prepared, got lost, etc). From 3 usual battles, 2 of them were a phalanx victory, one of them in an uneven terrain (Ausculum). So,the stronger point of the Roman legion over the phalanx was not their tactics or battle order, but their manpower. All of the Roman victories over a phalanx ended with the almost inmediate surrender of the enemy Hellenistic power, and it was because the phalanx had a extremely low manpower, because it was composed by the dominant class of the hellenistic kingdoms. To defeat a Hellenistic kingdom, you only needed to beat their phalanx (not the rest of the army) and kill as many as you can in battle in order to force it to surrender.
Yeah, absolutlu true, and you have pointed out an important fact, in early roman history it was not quality of roman armies what gave them victory, it was the numbers.
Carthage and Epirus defeated rome 6 times and 3 times in disater battle for the romans, yet they just raised another army, but it only took one defeat at zama to take out carthage, who was also losing in iberia, but that was a secondary theater.
Other mediterranean powers could not sustain loosing more than 2 battles.
In the early principate i do agree that rome had a quality advantage, but in the republic its not true.
Most of the helenistec powers like the seleucids lost because of their comanders incompetence.
@@joshithegreat5303 Thank you for your answer. Roman numbers and recruitment system were far superior to the Hellenistic one, but it was because they were not an alien culture ruling over a native population, so they can train the conquered assimilated peoples in the exact same fashion as the Roman citizens, allowing them to raise huge numbers of soldiers for their main battle formation. That did not mean Hellenistic commanders were incompetent, and if we take as a example Magnesia, Roman victory was pure luck because of a sudden and unexpected collapse of Seleucid left flank. The Roman plan was basically none, just to get enveloped and massacred in their standard battle formation.
@@armandom.s.1844 If im not wrong magnesia could have been won easilly early on, but the heavy cavalry on the right went to plunder the enemy camp after destroying their counterparts.
And even then, hannibal offered Antiochus to be the commander, but Antiochus III declined, there would be no way for Hannibal to lose that, the hay better and more cav; and had arguably better infantry, bc Antiochus did know how to use the phalanx properly with mobile units of thureophoroi.
@@joshithegreat5303 this is some mistakement. The Seleucid battle plan at Magnesia was, as far as we can see, a good one. Envelop the Roman army with superior cavalry and elephants. The battle was lost because chariots fled, spreading panic through half the army, before infantry was even engaged. If it had followed the usual development, Seleucids would have won easily. Also, Antiochus was one of the best commanders of the era, the only one that combined every Hellenistic battle doctrine (his battle of Panion was a masterpiece), and the first docummented case in History of a commander using offensive flanking infantry reserves. He lost Magnesia for unexpected troop behaviour, and is hard to see a better battle plan, even for Hannibal, in such situation.
Youre righr exept for the Man Power thing, that is bs, rome was simply willing to sacrifice everything for victory.
I think the real problem of the Phalanx lays more in the organizational aspects of warfare.
And that terrain played a huge role in a battlefield. Noticed how the phalanx needs a flat terrain to make use of its interlocking shields. Unsteady and holes and hilly like terrain would not allow the phalanx to hold
If you're interested in ancient Rome you could play more Imperator Rome ;)
That game is terrible
No one likes that game. I am a god damn roman biggest fanboy. Number 1 id say and i couldn't bare a hour with that trash ui and even worst gameplay. Just had no enjoyment. Play total war series. Play any roman game. Play ck2 and eu4 and form Rome. Thats more enjoyable then imperator.
They legits said they abandonned the game.
@@ryannowo5954do you even played it not from just watching it is not terrible but far from perfect either
@@pride2184 tell me you havent played it since release without telling me
The romans were able to beat most historic battle formations and tactics with the implementation of automatic firearms.
Yes , archeologists found plenty of bronze AKs around
Remember, this is not the phalanx of Alexander. Even a group of Augustan Legions would likely lose to that. The ONLY way to slow the Macedonian Armies of Philip and Alexander was Elephants. But, when Pyrrhus used Indian elephants against the Romans, by the 3rd battle, the romans already figured out how to make elephant’s turn and smash into their own lines. I doubt it would take Alexander long to figure that out aswell.
the victories of Alexander the Great was due to his superior Companion cavalry, the damage that the Phalanx can create was more psychological
Id say Alexander's phalanx also had the role of pinning the enemy formation down and allowing the cavalry to far more easily ride them up from the back.
@@Greimor967 simple the phalanx is anvil the cavelry is the hammer. In togethe+ Alexanders tactics genius mind= 💥 victory
@@Greimor967 That's really just a different way of saying psychological damage. By and large ancient soldiers didnt charge each other like madmen, they formed opposing lines with a no man's land in the middle where all the pointy bits were. The point of the macedonian phalanx was to have longer pointy bits so the enemy is stuck there with no way to advance, no one was crazy enough to try to press through the wall of spears. So the 2 opposing blocks of heavy line infantry were mostly sitting there staring each other down, not doing too much actual fighting, while the cavalry and light infantry on the flanks decided the battle.
This obviously relied on having superior flanks to the enemy. And the remnant states that the romans usually faced didnt have a large enough cavalry budget, so they kept getting wrecked.
That, plus the romans actually were crazy enough to go into close quarters against phalangites if their formation was sufficiently disrupted by the terrain. Gotta hand it to them, the romans certainly had a remarkably aggressive and zealous martial culture.
Yep. Phalanx was supposed to be a combined arms force with the Phalangites merely being the anvil, supported by skirmishers and pinning the enemy for the cavalry who were the real killers.
It just so happened most of the 'phalanxes' Rome fought were militias composed almost entirely of pikes, and yet they still suffered heavy casualties in the process. Pyrrhic wars demonstrated that a proper combined arms phalanx could beat Roman Legions in battle. If Rome struggled against such a small power relative to them, imagine what Alexander's army would've done 🤭
I think that not portraying Rome’s legions as red it’s a crime
To be fair, it came back in the form of pikemen
That roman legionnaire with a crossbow is equivalent to seeing the founding fathers of america with M60 machine guns.
What is dead may never die, but rises again harder and stronger. -Pikemen
Pike And Shot era be like "ayy lmao let's bring that back"
"Rock, paper, scissors, Phalanx! Aha! Got you!"
this short is kinda funny because the late Roman empire reintroduced the phalanx. On level-ground, a phalanx is superior to a Legion-style army but once the ground was broken up, the Phalanx-trained soldiers were less combat-effective than a Legionnaire who was trained to fight in many more styles.
Hoplites and Hellenistic phalangites were generally heavy infantry. The equipment difference with Roman heavy infantry was the weapon, not the armour.
Cavalry were prominent in Hellenistic armies following Alexander’s practice but it seems a stretch to say most ancient battles were decided by cavalry.
I wonder what the likes of Pyrrhus or Alexander would've thought of the Spanish Tercios and other pike formations of Medieval times.
*happy ancient Hellenic noises ensue*
hmm but in that battle the greek phalanx actually pushed the romans back with heavy casualties for the romans. it was because the greek left flank hadnt caught up with the right one giving the romans an opportunity to push past the greek right flank and then attack them form the back and sides. If they had the right type of commander they would have won i believe.
FACTS !!! 💯
I think you are talking about the encounter battle of Cynoscephalae. This is the battle of Pydna he is talking about.
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one!
It happened because somebody screwed up. Wars and battles are won or lost by luck and mistakes. You're lucky your opponent made a mistake.
The reason why the Phalanx disappeared during the antiquity is WAY MORE complicated than that! Giving a single reason in a one minute video is totally misleading.
First, we have to understand that the traditional explanations of why the Phalanx formation was unable to beat the Romans come from Polybius. This Greek intellectual influenced the historians until very recently. Despite being "Greek" , he was very pro-Roman, his writings were a tool to justify Roman hegemony in Greece and convince Greeks not to rebel against the legion.
It is him who spread the idea that the legion won because it was a more flexible organisation. For exemple, he said that the Phalanx had to be deployed in a 3km wide and flat field to maneuvre properly. But if we study the unfolding of diverse battles, we see that the Phalanx was extremely maneuverable in rough end tight terrains. Why? Because the Phalanx could easely be divided in smaller formations which gave them a real capacity of adapting in difficult situations. And because the Phalanx formation is way more effective when it is thick and small than spread out in a huge thin line! It is particularly effective during sieges. Plus, the Phalanx armies were very capable in ambushes and small skarmishes.
Also, we should NOT imagine the wars between Rome and the Greek kingdoms as composed of homogeneous armies. Rome was supported in the battlefield by other Greek armies. Those Greek soldiers and generals were used to Phalanx tactics and knew how to fight them. They were living and fighting with Phalanx armies since centuries. And if we observe the unfolding of many battles where Romans faced Phalanx, we see That the Romans won thanks to the friendly Greek armies which knew how to destroy the Phalanx. But the legion never directly faced the Phalanx in a frontal assault and won because because of its maneuverability.
Lastly, we have to keep in mind that a particular formation or type of weapon never seals the fate of an army, many other factors play a role. The weather, logistics, knowledge of terrain, politics, diplomatic relations...
In conclusion, this video repeats an old myth which tend to put aside way more complicated but important factors.
That's what happens is stupid 'shorts' and even full videos like this.
Not to mention that most of the phalanxes Rome fought lacked the 'combined arms' aspects such as skirmishers and cavalry in favour of having more pikes which was especially detrimental since the pikes were supposed to be the anvil for the cavalry.
In this battle was also shown the frontal strength of the phalanx, its sheer weight pushing th romans back. Phalanx was meant to be secured on the flanks by lighter troops as well as cavalry and in the battle of Pydna, other than the Agema Peltasts, they didn't fill the gaps or supported as they should, the noble cavalry officers deserted. It would be unfair to say that phalanx died that day, because troops like the Eastern Roman Chomatenoi, or the Spanish Tercio and many others used to fightin that manner many senturies later
That art at the end goes unreasonably hard
There were so many other aspects of this battle that led to their defeat. It’s actually a really wild story I highly recommend checking animated history’s video on it
Alexander's greatest contribution to Macedonian warfare which his successors inconceivably forgot, were the Silver Shields or hypaspists, elite foot soldiers whose job was to protect the flanks of the phalanx. Alexander's greatest infantry soldiers were in these divisions, which allowed the phalanx squares to be nearly impenetrable. For whatever reasons, none of his successors seemed to understand the need for these troops and their naked phalanxes were defeated as a result.
Hey ! Came upon your shorts completely by chance, and I love your attention to detail when you speak of history. In that spirit, what THE HELL is that crossbow doing in the last picture ?
The crossbow is there to see if anyone is paying attention. :)
Actually the phalanx is a better unit/formation, the thing is that it is way harder to use for the commander. Pikemen were created to fight along more mobile units like agranians or hypaspist, however the diadochi used the phalanx sometimes alone, with little to no support, specially cavalry support.
To make it simpler, the hellenistic army had a higher skill ceilling but was easy to mess it up with it, however the roman model had a very low skill ceilling but was way easier to use, so it was more reliable in incompetent hands.
The phalanx went extinct the same reason the chariot went extinct, impractical and cumbersome. Concerning "skill ceiling" your statement is misleading and exaggerated , the Manipal formation required just as much skill and coordination to direct maneuvers as well as to execute.
@@Lion718 lol, have you forgotten Alexandrian Phalanges? Phalanx can't do shit against more mobile and flexible enemies without Cavalry and Support infantries. Combined-arms-tactics is what makes it unbeatable under Alexander's leadership, it came back later but the chariot doesn't so veryyy huge difference.
@@Lion718 h já j JJ
BS.....name 1 army of ANY of Aexander's generals.......who fought a battle with JUST PIKE.....no elephants, no cavalry, no heavy cavalry, no light cavalry, no auxillia, no psiloi
Name the General and name the battle.
Pike and JUST PIKE......you are FOS
@@leeshackelford7517 huh? What I mean is the 3rd war were the battle took over 150 years after Alexander's Death and Seleucid, Ptolemy, Cassander, Antigonus etc. already died. After this, Macedon relies heavily on Pike with longer reach but resulting in worst lower mobility. They don't even have reliable Cavalry and on the battle of Cynocsephalae *(Third and Last Rome and Macedon war)* they didn't even use their Cavalry and their mobile auxiliary, pushing only the heavy phalanx on uneven terrain that results in losing unit cohesion and does the Romans saw the Gap and massacred the Phalangites. The remaining rulers of this time lacks competency unlike the previous ones.
"the age of the gladius"
We have to make up a new word for this era... it lasted 1000 years
"the age of the phallanx is no more"
Meanwhile phallanx came back in the middle ages and marines in US of A still have drills with pikes
I believe you are mistaken, it was actually the Macedonians who were outnumbered in this battle and tactics along with luck played the largest role in the Roman victory. The Macedonians were actually winning the first part of the battle, it was when the second half of the phalanx returned from foraging that things went to hell. The second half crested the mountain not yet in formation with no distinguished line of any sorts and the Roman commander took full advantage of this.
This is completely wrong. Phalanx were far more flexible than often thought, even in mountains. Their disparition is due to the destruction of the political structures that supported them.
Interesting. Please, elaborate!
@@ibrahimkuyumcu2649
Phalanx in the core Center and use of combined arms to protect the Flanks cannot be defeated! 😃
@@SpartanLeonidas1821 except for when it was
@@whowoulge1256 NOPE…never was! Ive read all the sources 👍 You Lie!
Both phalanx and Roman legions were heavy infantry
That’s why you use the Phalanx as your core Center and use combined arms to protect the Flanks! 😃
I don't think that will help. On broken ground small gaps would appear in the phalanx core. The Romans are flexible enough to take advantage of the gaps. Protecting flanks won't help in this case
@@anirudhhhh That would definitely help, because Alexander always kept Hypaspists & Hoplites in the read as well to close any gaps. Alexander with his combined arms tactics would have steam-rolled the Romans! 👍 Look at what one Little Pyrros did to them ALONE.
@@SpartanLeonidas1821 Even if they could fill in the gaps. I think the gaps would be a little weak.
A centurion using his authority can focus his efforts in those weaker sections.
Also I think Phalanx needing more combined ops to be successful is a demerit (Lot of things need to go right thus a fighting style very demanding of it's general)
I would also imagine there would be difficulties sourcing the sufficient numbers in cavalry/auxiliary troops to support a Phalanx.
I think Romans realized this and stuck with their more flexible and versatile fighting style.
@@anirudhhhh Not weak at all, the lack of support on it’s flanks was it’s only weakness, and we have evidence that the later Hellenistic Generals did not know how to defend them & relied simply on big bulky phalanxes alone. In saying that, the Phalanx from the front always steam rolled everyone, including any Roman Legions in front of them.
Now let’s concentrate. We know that the Roman Cavalry was laughable, so we can easily agree that the Companions along with the Thessalians & other Hellenic Cavalry would dominate them & would own the outer wings. With proper Hypaspits & Hoplites positioned on the Flanks & a line to fill any potential gaps, there would be no way to get through.
It is no wonder that in every single Battle between the Greeks & Romans, there was always incompetence mentioned on the part of the Hellenistic General. Not to mention the fact that the Romans used other Hellenes in every single Battle to their advantage…but that is another story.
The Greeks would also have the advantage in the possible Naval Engagements as well 👍
Don't forget the pilums rendered shields useless with the first throw and then the second throw decimated the lines before the two formations clashed
Nope tis battle was lost primarily because the Greek heavy cavalry didnt took part in the battle and the flanks were totally exposed because the light troops on the sides were obliterated because of the lack of cavalry . The phalanx was overrun on that point of the battle
You aren't completely wrong on this one, the Romans used some of the most co-ordinated battle tactics going as well as having a disciplined non-commission officer class (which only got better with the centuries). A phalanx unit could easily be out manoeuvred and lose cohesion versus a Hastati or Principle unit on rough terrain. That being said, there are some fundamental issues with the argument.
The main one being that the romans still formed in 3 line order, Hastati/velites 1st, principle 2nd and Triarii 3rd. Its the Triarii who were famed for long spears and tight phalanx-like formations.
The other issues with making a statement like this are:
- the Pikemen of the medieval period existed (The famous Swiss or Tercio or Spain for example) or
- the Roman tactic of breaking an enemies centre with infantry (which was all about pushing) or
-The Greek Phalanx was often supported by Auxiliaries (Peltasts, Javlins, slingers or heavy infantry (with short swords) and Cavalry). So it was never standalone. Its job was to pin infantry down.
In Summary:
The Greeks declined because of infighting, the loss of Allies to the Romans and the Roman military officer selection process (tribune and above) as much as the phalanx fall from favour.
Indeed, with the Roman's formations it not only allowed great flexibility and maneuverability, it also allowed the Roman's to have plenty of reserves, the Triarii can also be taken to be paired with the Roman cavalry to help tackle against enemy cavalry.
@Korean Cowboy42 This is true but happened very rarely, it would often fall to the faster, more agile Velites to assist the Cavalry but the Triarii would definitely provide support on the flank, rear and baggage train.
Hi hi hi
The thing that always amazes me is that the Phalanx struggled on mountainous terrain as you point out, yet Greece is so mountainous. The civilized almost always met on a flat plain, but Rome had so many uncooperative barbarians to deal with which is why they gave up on the Phalanx before the hellenic world.
Since 3rd century phalanx was back in fashion in roman legions. This together with roman mobility on battlefield created a brutal combination which held this state for few centuries longer.
It's not better in all cases just better for rough terrain
The battle of cynosephale is also a good exemple of how the romans absolutely curbstomped the macedonian phalanx
Although I knew this story you put it in such a great way. I love that ending; the age of the Gladius begins 🎉😮
Nice to hear that halfway through the video, you finally managed to pronounce Macedonian correctly!
Wtf is that image of Roman soldier with a crossbow, they weren't invented until high medieval times
They were invented a couple centuries BC.
@@anna-flora999 you're thinking of the ballista or scorpio which were used by the romans
@@anna-flora999 yes in ancient china. And accounts that describe ancient greek crossbows shows it looked nothing like anything we would associate with crossbow. Also there's no account of Roman army or in fact any army at all using anything resembling that "classic" type of crossbows until 10th-11th century
@@Imperial_Navy03 no, I'm thinking of the crossbows that ancient Greeks described and the Chinese crossbows dating back to the 200s BC. Although there was a notable lack of documentation about crossbows in Europe in the early medieval period after Rome's fall. My guess is that the technology was either lost or bows had some sort of technological development making them better than crossbows
Albeit the picture used in the video is probably still not accurate, but the technology was there. Just not in mass use
@@maciej1201 mostly true, yes. There's spotty and disputed evidence at best for the Romans in that regard. But that still means that saying that crossbows weren't invented until high medieval times is wrong. They just weren't used on a large scale until then
May-Cee-Donian 😂. Ahhh yes good sir have you recently visited the old country of May-cee-donia?☕
Dont worry i will clown him extensively for that
“Yo stevius, yk we could just walk around that.” “You marcus, you are a genius”
It came back and became popular in the renaissance pike and shot era. I dont think it ever truly went away before that either as someone somewhere where always using pike formations.
The waffle house has found its new host.
The Waffle house has found its new host.
Wtf. I dont remember making this comment.
It would be interesting if modern military started using a version of the phalanx. With composite armor getting lighter and lighter, as well as thinner, it could very well be feasible for everyone in a unit to hold a shield like panel, and stack them in a way that protects everyone from all sides. It could even be engineered to stop level 5 rounds since the armor wouldn’t be right next to your body and the deformation wouldn’t immediately kill you. It actually seems like a good idea the more I think about it. The panels could be modular. Able to be used as a shield or shelter.
Regarding the crossbow Arrian's earlier Ars Tactica, from about 136 AD, mentions 'missiles shot not from a bow but from a machine' and that this machine was used on horseback while in full gallop. It is presumed that this was a crossbow. Not sure a legionair used them, but Romans have been using them since at least 100AD
When the length of the spears shaft was rendered useless by a short, reliable sword
« and we were singing bye bye miss holy Roman pie. Drove my lariat to the chariots but the chariots were gone. Some good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing this’ll be the Kaiser that dies. »
Decent video, the maniple system, along with independent commanders within the maniples made the Romans highly adaptable in combat
When I use to play Rome Total War. I would attack the phalanx head on with the cheap expendable units. Once they committed Id take them from the side and from behind with Calvary. Their casualty's were shall we say extreme.
That's why they had to protect the rear and the extreme either with Cavalry or choosing the terrain for example Alexander the great had a powerful cavalry the Spartans had always in the on extreme a river or a mountain for example because phalanx is weak in the rear.
@@vasileiospapazoglou2362 I've often heard it said that the greeks have a weakness for the resr. Who knew.
Gotta love the mini hand ballista at the end..
I like this kind of UA-camrs. Putting themselves over the images, love it.
I love your sarcasm
It's hard to fight off a Roman with a huge shield and a sword standing next to you when you're holding a 14-foot pole.
it was equally hard to get up to a armored guy with a 14 foot pole when all you have is a shield and sword
I wish the romans better implemented both pikes and swords instead of choosing 1 or the other if they had trained pikes I think the parthians/sassanids + huns woulda had a bit more to deal with
@@randomguy6152 except why would they drop something they've trained and learned and has proved its usefulness in all times.
The huns and eastern factions proved that regardless if you got a long pike protecting you from being attacked by cavalry, you'll just be shot a dozen times until your dead.
The Roman's saw how effective it was during its peak, the phalanx lacked the mobility and maneuverability where if you positioned them wrong your enemy can easily exploit it. The Roman's main winning cards is the Roman legionary, even if they Roman's have a strong cavalry force made up of Germanic and noble barbarian cavalry, they aren't to be used recklessly.
@@koreancowboy42 the roman elite prior to the marian reforms were spearmen, their version of hoplites the triarii, they dropped the spear and went to the sword dnd then by the time of the huns they went back to the spear again, they could have had combined arms rather than choosing 1 or the other imo
Not sure why people didn't use fire more often to break up a phalanx. Even a few small pots full of hot/warm oil being tossed or dropped during a "retreat", add one with a flame. Fire has a phycological like no other. a privative but a effective idea to scatter some troops.
ua-cam.com/video/Wt2JoaQsJ5U/v-deo.html
Perfect example and decisive, but before Pydna in the Third Macedonian War, was the Battle of Cynoscephalae against Macedonians under their King Phillip V in 197 BCE which demonstrated the weaknesses of the Phalanx system.
What Alexander the Great did so well is he was good at using combined arms, yea his phalanx and calvary were amazing but he also had other great units like archers, slingers, skirmishers, field artillery, light calvary, hypaspists(silver shields), phalangites, etc. Also all the recruited soldiers of the armies he took over
The phalanx IS HEAVY INFANTRY. The Romans even used phalanx like formations later on. They didn't have spears.
If I had a time machine, I'd go back and watch this shit go down
I find it fascinating the Roman army went from hoplites to heavy infantry with swords and in the later empire they went back to mainly spearmen.
Song in the back is “Debts and Lessons” - Akira The Don ft. Marcus Aurelius 💪🏼
The phalanx still had its place on a flat open plain even tho' ineffective in hilly & closed terrain. Choosing the "ground" upon which to fight a battle was probably one of the most effective planks of old time battle strategy
Macedonicus performed the perfect feigned retreat, stoically as always. What never fails to depress me is that Plutarch wrote, “It seemed unfair that the conquered Perseus’ children would live while Paulus’ children died. (Yes Scipio Ameilanius is his son, Africanus adopted him though. So his family was left with no son. And if you read lives he wouldn’t attend senate meetings to help teach his children. Him and Labienus are my top 2 Roman’s.
I was wondering this very topic. Thanks mate.
Only to be brought back 1,000 years later with the pike formation
this stuff fascinates me
The best form of the Phalanx and Maniple never met. Also, Pyrrhus beat legions and probably would have continued to do so had he not ran out of money. Hannibal would have probably beaten
legions if given an opportunity to command them.
The phalanx would rise again and be reborn as pike formations which were effective in later history I believe the phalanx could have matched the Roman legion and defeated it if used correctly as it was by the Spartan general xanthippus in the Punic wars. By the time of the Rise of Rome the Hellenistic states were exhausted by constant civil war. They focused too much on the phalanx itself being the main arm of there armies, making them into heavier formations etc Alexander the Great however was more focused on the flexibility of his army using the Phalanx to do no more then pin the enemy down while he used his cavalry and more mobile troops to exploit more weaker points of the enemies formation. If the phalanx was used in combined arms like they were in Alexander’s period maybe they would have giving the Romans a good run for there money. Maybe
The day having a longer pointy stick stopped being advantageous
The phalanx itself was not necessarily the reason for the failure of Hellenic armies against legions.
Much like the legionaries, it is ONE element of a combined army.
When used competently, it wins battles, even in uneven terrain. Alexander the Great deployed it IN rivers (Issus) and it was instrumental to victory (along with light missile troops and cavalry). Pyrrhus also won at Heraclea and Asculum against the legions. If history stopped there would the legion be denigrated as inferior? Hannibal had phalanx formations in his combined army and you would be hard-pressed to argue the failure of the phalanx. When Antiochus III deployed it at Thermopylae, the Romans could not penetrate it, only a maneuver through the passes allowed its position to be compromised. When Antiochus deployed it again at Magnesia, it was the routing of the elephants that broke up the phalanx (in fact the Romans were reluctant to engage it until it had been fragmented by the Seleucid's own elephants). Elephants can break any formation. That's what they do: legion, phalanx, or otherwise.
The phalanx that WAS deployed correctly at Cynoscephale was winning. When it was flanked it was not. Again, it MUST have its flanks covered. It did not. It lost. But what it was doing, it was doing well. Rolling back the Roman left.
At Pydna, the phalanx was left unsupported by its cavalry. That was a huge problem. It also was not governed with restraint. It kept pushing when it could have been commanded to halt and reform while the cavalry could then deliver a decisive charge.
It is also worth mentioning that the phalanx was bloated by the time of the late Hellenic kingdoms. Even longer pikes, and even deeper formations, without sufficient employment of missile troops and cavalry meant that the phalanx became more prone and unweildly.
When used properly, the pike phalanx is an overwhelming force. When used incorrectly, it is subject to defeat. This applies to all military units.
The pikes got ridiculously long as the successor states attempted to beat each other with longer reach. They then went up against the more manoeuvrable Romans and were too cumbersome to adapt swiftly to changing battlefield conditions
THAT AKIRA THE DON IN THE BACKGROUND LETS GOOOO!!! MEANINGWAVE
"I can't remember if I cried when I heard about his ruined fight, but something touched me deep inside the day, the phalanx died..."
This also why terrain of your battle area is very important as well.
I love these history bits you do!!
Bless you young man. Now me history is now stronger!
The heavy Phalanx on the right battlefield was still a dangerous opponent of any army ….medieval armies of German and Swiss armies used them successfully and even suffered in the same way like the Scottish army at the battlefield of Flodden ( wrong boggy battle site ) ……I’ve read that prior to his assassination Julius Ceaser was contemplating invading Parthia to punish them for the Crassus defeat ….anyways he was going to integrate ( probably allied auxiliary units) in the invading army …….not sure what further heavy infantry would of done against the highly mobile horse archers …ld of thought very fast horse lancers would of been needed and a route into Syria away from the desert regions but obviously julius would of known this too ….
Sarissa phalanx is different from a Hoplite phalanx. That’s like saying shield walls went out of fashion. The particular pike and shield formation was outmaneuvered but shield walls and “phalanxes” continued on throughout history
They then decided the Phalanx was not the hill to die on.
Massed pike formations were still being used against cavalry in the 17th century, during the 30 Years War and the English Civil War.
The Roman with crossbow goes hard
The age of gladius crossbow legion combo has arrived lmao
The romans didnt fight shoulder to shoulder at all their sheild designs shows this. The greeks however did do sheild walls. In roman times they favored men with skill using a sword which means they had to have space to swing their sword so most all roman formations had about 3 feet of space between each soilder.
Ah yes the good old “left of the formation” technique
"Knowing their preset population limits, I sent waves and waves of my own peasants at them." - Spiffing Z. Branigan
"Hee hee... Pilum go stabby." - Rome
That last picture is so fucking cursed lol
Getting flanked when you carry a 5m long spear would be a disaster indeed
...and came back, 1000 years later.