Macedonian phalanx vs greek phalanx. Eyewitness testimony, as it were.
Macedonian phalanx vs greek phalanx There are, however, some serious differences between the phalanx itself or even the special Macedonian phalanx and the swastika. This is a distinction that comes from the fact that the Greek Phalanx and Macedonian Phalanx are two distinct methods of fighting. The Romans outmaneuvered Macedonian pikemen. The Phalanx was the main military formation used by the Greek and Macedonian. From:, The Histories of Polybius, 2 Vols. This is because the unit was called "peltasts" by Greek historians. The training of medieveal pike formations greatly differed. However, some were convinced that reports of the sarissa’s extreme length must be mistaken, while others struggled to reconcile the testimony of different ancient writers and even resorted to altering the original texts. The entire phalanx was under the command of a strategos or a general, with Philip or Alexander serving as the supreme commander in most significant engagements. 226-230. Phalanxes were The Macedonian Phalanx was a military formation developed by Philip II of Macedon and perfected by his son Alexander the Great, characterized by rows of soldiers armed with long spears called sarissas. It was used by his son Alexander the Great to conquer However, in a phalanx vs phalanx battle, it was all about pressure. totalwar. Any sources? Could it have been possible for a traditional Greek Phalanx to defeat the Macedonian phalanx, and win the battle of Chaeronea? That the Macedonian phalanx had more officers per men and yet very rarely display the sort of tactical adaptability and manoeuvrability that the legions routinely did (eg: at Cynoscephalae, Ilipa, and countless other examples), or even that old-school Greek hoplite phalanxes managed, is surely further evidence that a pike phalanx was clumsy and A scene depicting the Greek phalanx composed of heavily armed hoplite warriors. Firefighters battle subsurface blaze on Mount To understand the evolution of the phalanx, one must first picture the equipment and role of the earlier Greek hoplite. Roman Legion. In its time, this intricately designed method of fighting proved a super weapon, forming the nucleus of armies commanded by some of history’s best military leaders – from Pyrrhus to Alexander the Great. It was a decisive Roman victory and marked the end of the conflict. Machiavelli wrote in Book 2 of his Art of War that "a Macedonian Phalanx was nothing else than a battalion of Swiss is today, who have all their strength and power in their pikes. The oblique phalanx was probably the best from Greek itself A Greek phalanx charging into battle, as peltasts throw spears over the heads of the hoplites. Trireme, a low, narrow, sleek warship, c. It was what distinguished the Macedonians who had defeated the known world from the Greeks and the barbarians. Now around the time when Rome came into conflict with the Hellenic states the depth becomes deeper, but even in it's foundation, the phalanx was formidable in it's depth. A phalanx presents a wall of spear points towards the enemy. Not to mention that there are 1. Like the Greek phalanx, only those in the front ranks wore body armour, with the The macedonian phalanx made the classical phalanx obsolete by 330-340 bce, while the roman legions made the macedonian phalanx obsolete by 170-200 bce. In Greek, a phalanx definition Greek referred to a military unit, a usage that has carried into the present day. In this account taken from Polybius's work the Histories he describes to us in detail some of the reasons why he thinks the Roman legion, was able to defeat For either in following up a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy's reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx. No military commander in history has ever won a battle by himself. Dr Richard Taylor provides an overview of the current state of play in the hoplite debate in all its aspects, from fighting techniques to the social and economic background of the ‘hoplite revolution’, in a form that is accessible for the explicitly focused on discipline. The phalanx (Ancient Greek: φάλαγξ; plural phalanxes or phalanges, φάλαγγες, phalanges) was a rectangular mass military formation, usually composed entirely of heavy infantry armed with spears, pikes, sarissas, or similar pole weapons. It's obvious that Roman maniples were the perfect counter to Phalanx, and the Phalanx was phased out. Roman Manipular System The battle is often seen as a victory for the Roman legion’s flexibility over the Macedonian phalanx’s rigidity. This is often Of all the formations and tactics in military history, few live up to the power and majesty of the Macedonian phalanx. Even still, if you look up the actual battles, many of them were pretty close. Greek phalanx Not accounting for cavalry and other forces would force me to speculate. These longer spears improved the strength of the phalanx by extending the rows of overlapping weapons Greek and Macedonian warfare continued to develop after Mantinea, exemplified by the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BCE where Theban general Epaminondas devised a new tactic using the deep phalanx to destroy the myth of Spartan superiority, and the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE where Alexander the Great employed all the tactical advances developed over the The phalanx (Ancient Greek: φάλαγξ, Modern Greek: φάλαγγα, phālanga; plural phalanxes or phalanges; Ancient and Modern Greek: φάλαγγες, phālanges) is a rectangular mass military formation, usually composed entirely of heavy infantry armed with spears, pikes, sarissas, or similar weapons. However, a detailed analysis has shown that the full pikeman-phalanx must have been a later military innovation which was introduced at the beginning of Antigonus Dōsōn’s reign. 1 says that 8, 10, 12, or 16 are The phalanx formation reached its height of effectiveness in the conquests of Alexander the Great who was able to move large bodies of men very quickly and whose brilliant strategies on the field made skillful use of the formation, but the phalanx steadily declined in use after Alexander's death. Again the phalanx overpowered the front of the legion. Considering that the Persian armies that faced the Macedonian phalanx made extensive use of missile, skirmisher and light troops (especially archers) and thier inability to counter the Macedonian phalanx, I'd like to say no, the Macedonian phalanx was not vurnurable to arrows. The man-made structure was a mixture of different weapon carriers. Most wore at least a helmet and greaves, with only the front ranks wearing metal or linen armour. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately. I posted in that thread a link to comments on the Roman maniple vs. Furthermore, by the time Rome faced Macedon the Macedonian army had become a 1 trick pony; gone were the days of Philip & Alexander's combined arms approach. The phalanx was the sharp end of the sarissa that carved out a new world order, one that would endure long after its creator‘s death. A full Macedonian phalanx could include several taxeis, with the exact number varying depending on the size of the army and the specific requirements of a campaign. A young Athenian noble who fell fighting in the front ranks of the phalanx, c. The soldiers in these WAB Macedonian Phalanx vs. The Battle of Cynoscephalae (Greek: Μάχη τῶν Κυνὸς Κεφαλῶν) was an encounter battle fought in Thessaly in 197 BC between the Roman army, led by Titus Quinctius Flamininus, and the Antigonid dynasty of Macedon, led by Philip V during the Second Macedonian War. The term is particularly (and originally) used to describe the use of this The Roman deployment was rushed, and the line of battle only began to form as combat stabilised. Instead it was a key The Macedonian phalanx is an infantry formation developed by Philip II and used by his son Alexander the Great to conquer the Persian Empire. They could quickly switch between hard forward pushes towards the enemy The roman victory in the battle of Cynoscephalae ( 197 BC ) marked the end of the second macedonian war between Rome and Philip V, king of Macedon. and it has been proven historically that a phalanx is like an egg a hard strong front. The Battle of Pydna (168BC) was a hard-fought set-piece battle. In the foreground, a maniple has exploited a gap in the arrayed pikes of the white shield phalanx. Phalanx Weaknesses The term linothorax is a modern term based on the Greek λινοθώραξ, which means "wearing a breastplate of linen"; A number of ancient Greek and Latin texts from the 6th century BCE to the third century CE mention θώρακες λίνεοι (thorakes lineoi) (Greek) or loricae linteae (Latin) which means 'linen body armour. Though at each time, The Macedonian phalanx was a typical Greek hoplite phalanx until the emergency reforms of Philip II in 359/8 bce; even then, essentially, the only things that changed were the use of a different type of spear, the use of different types of shields, and the greater level of training, which allowed for a greater range of tactical formation. Before this, the phalanx can only have been one of spearmen, although it is probable that the rear ranks Drawing of a full 256-man phalanx formation. Philip introduced the sarissa, a long pike that extended the reach of the phalanx. 5 times as many men in a Macedonian division compared to a In our previous animated historical documentaries, we described the early Roman army, its evolution into the manipular legion and struggle against the Cartha I don't know what the Swiss themselves would think of the comparison, but contemporary writers certainly demonstrate an awareness. The Greeks are probably what you're more familiar with, wielding spears maybe two or three meters in length, fighting as a densely packed mass of men who Re: Makedonian Phalanx vs. Macedonian phalanx: The phalanx of the Ancient Macedonian kingdom and the later Hellenistic successor states was a development of the hoplite phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx was designed as an anvil, but later Hellenistic armies started to use it more and more as their main weapon because of its effectiveness and because their main wars were against other Hellenistic armies and phalanxes (the same motif as in ancient intra-Greek warfare and hoplite battles). 520 BC. The ancient Greek and Roman armies were large and fearsome for their time, yet their warfare tactics and leadership during battle were quite different. The ancient world was filled with powerful and formidable armies that shaped the course of history through their military might. However, what the Romans defeated was the *Macedonian phalanx*, which essentially took the Greek phalanx and put it on steroids: the depth was doubled to 16 men deep (and could go as deep as 32!) ; the 8-12 foot hoplite spears were replaced with 16-20 foot pikes. ". But when the Aetolians charged on the Macedonian flank, the phalanx was crushed. The Macedonian phalanx: the shields are smaller and lighter than with a traditional hoplite phalanx, the sarissa is twice as long as the traditional spears. By Andrew Yamato Emerging in the 7th century BCE from the “dark age” which followed the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization, the Greek hoplite was a new kind of warrior. With its unity broken, the phalanx quickly disintegrated, and the Romans massacred the defenseless army killing perhaps as many as 20,000 (Livy,44. The sarissa was the pike used by the ancient Macedonian army. Greek Warfare: The Macedonian phalanx of Alexander the Great. The Macedonian phalanx used 22 foot pikes. The Romans, more flexible and quicker to deploy, exploited the gaps in the Macedonian Phalanx, aided by the difficult terrain. Roman Legions against Macedonian Phalanx and Carthaginian Phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx is an infantry formation developed by Philip II. The ancient Greek phalanx is one of the most famous military formations in history. The Macedonian phalanx was never intended to be the decisive arm of the army in which it served. by Jeff Jonas. A large body of heavily armored infantry wielding 16 foot sarissae. Actually, as heavy cavalry began to dominate the battlefield, you see a return of heavier spear formations, including the pike. Swiss Pikemen, the Spanish Tercio, and even the Napoleonic square all trace their roots to Greek/Macedonian Hoplite warfare, and the various spear-using societies that preceded even them. With the pike phalanx the first four ranks would lower their pikes. Vegetius, along with Aelian in his account of the Macedonian phalanx, reintroduced military drill to the European armies of the seventeenth century "Military Revolution. By Cheesewiz. The classic phalanx was made up of hoplites, armed with a 3-meter spear (dory), a short sword (xiphos), and a large round shield (hoplon). The bulk of these armies were made up of phalanx exposing their weakness in flexibility and tactical mobility. Illustration by Andrey Karashchuk. Greek style of hoplite warfare. However, modern analysis points to a failure of command on Perseus’ part and the unusual stance of the Companion cavalry , which did not engage the enemy. Eyewitness testimony, as it were. The older Greek hoplite phalanx used shorter spears and was slightly more mobile, on account of the lighter However, the elephants stationed with the phalanx panicked under the arrows and slingshot, and broke their own phalanx, and that was the end of that. Even a minimally equipped and trained phalanx was still a forward moving force to be reckoned with. . This innovative formation allowed for increased reach and striking power, contributing significantly to the success of Alexander's conquests and the subsequent Part of the advantage of the Macedonian phalanx in the era of Phillip and Alexander was the mobility of the phalanx. If the aim of battle is to force the enemy shield wall to give A phalanx is simply the Greek word for "shield wall" and the formations are indistinguishable from the shield walls of other cultures that used similar equipment (e. In contrast to the traditional phalanx, the Macedonian phalanx, which was developed by Philip In all three cases, the phalanx remains ‘Macedonian’ although the sense in which it is so is increasingly attenuated into largely fictive legal categories. Greek Phalanx vs. To say that depths from 4 to 12 were typical would be better than to say that 8 was typical (pp. (14) The Archaic spirit of unity against the barbarian was dead. The Macedonian pike phalanx not only defeated the Greek hoplite phalanxes as The Macedonian phalanx had limited protection from missiles in the form of their long spears, but it's true that it was vulnerable to missile fire. The Macedonian phalanx took the concept of cohesive group warfare to another level with the sarissa armed phalangites and under Philip and Alexander, steamrolled every opponent in front of them. 100 x 20 ft, with three banks ofoars and a crew of 200 Look for details on the Battle of Crannon, fought in 322 BCE, whereby the Greek city-states attempted to break away from Macedonian control after Alexander's death; devoid of the support of other arms which Philip necessitated, it seems that although the more numerous Macedonian phalanx won the battle (the cavalry arms crossed swords seperately), the Macedonian phalanx: Alexander the Great Tactical innovations Historical significance VaiaOriginal! Find study content which were around 18-24 feet, compared to the shorter, 8-12 feet spears of the Greek hoplites. In this thrilling episode, we'll delve into the historic confrontation between the Ro The Macedonian phalanx was a typical Greek hoplite phalanx until the emergency reforms of Philip II in 359/8 bce; even then, essentially, the only things that changed were the use of a different type of spear, the use of different types of shields, and the greater level of training, which allowed for a greater range of tactical formation. Reason being is phalangites were meant to hold the enemy lines in place while heavy horse circled in and smashed the rear or flanks. Broken terrain might be a bit more difficult, but since we're talking about Alexander's phalangites and not the extremely massive unwieldy blocks fielded by the Diadochi, I think they still have a decent shot at it. 28–32. Roman, not Greek, history provided Machiavelli with the model for his Florentine militia. Must have been pretty intimidating. The batt So Greek and later Macedonian phalanx was the king of the battlefield for centuries, but then Romans came, and made it obsolete with their Manipular system. E. This meant the pikes of the rearward ranks would pass by the ranks in front of of them. For example, during the Battle of Ipsus (fought among Alexander's successor states), Seleucus's horse archers devastated the enemy phalanx, causing many to flee. XT November 15, 2004, 11:52pm #14. At Heraclea and Asculum the tried and true Macedonian phalanx faced the Roman maniple that had only been established 40-100 years before. Its precise structure, unity, and unmatched strength made it a dominant force on Macedonian phalanx. The harder you could push your guys into the other guys, the bigger the chance you’d win. Kerux usually signifies a herald who passes on Peter Connolly’s reconstruction of the Chigi Olpe — a Corinthian vase dating to around 650 BCE and often claimed as one of the earliest representations of the phalanx. A Greek phalanx charging into battle, as peltasts throw spears over the heads of the hoplites. This really is the main difference between testudo and phalanx. Macedonian phalanx issue from Polybius which are most informative. This formation allowed for a more flexible and powerful fighting force compared to traditional hoplite tactics, playing a crucial role in Alexander's conquests and the A Greek phalanx charging into battle, as peltasts throw spears over the heads of the hoplites. Over time, phalanx entered the English language, retaining its military connotations, The Macedonian phalanx under King Philip II and Alexander the Great is one of the most famous examples in history. The orthodoxy stresses the early rise of the phalanx (late 8th/ early 7th century BC), its supposed implications U|©ReЦÕ^=$¢²×Ã. Macedonian phalanx vs. The Greek Phalanx typically acted as a single, dense mass, whereas the Romans split themselves into several “maniple” with gaps between them – usually 30-35 maniples per legion. Evelyn S. Public Domain. The Battle of Asculum took place in 279 BC between the Roman Republic under the command of the consuls Publius Decius Mus and Publius Sulpicius Saverrio, and What was the difference between the Greek phalanx and the Macedonian phalanx? There were two differences between the Greek and Macedonian phalanxes. Players quickly learn to flank, use archers to their maximum advantage, and to master the art of the phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx was deeper and more flexible, combining with cavalry and light infantry to form a highly effective combined-arms force. Macedonian Phalanx vs. At the This video tries to illustrate the different versions of equipment, structure and combat spacing used by the macedonian phalanx based armies, following the Roman legion vs Macedonian phalanx (Macedonian wars)Battle of Pydna 168 BC and battle of Cynoscephalae 197 BC Support new videos from Epimetheus on Patreon! In a sense, the Macedonian phalanx symbolized the spread of Hellenistic culture itself. The macedonian phalanx made the classical phalanx obsolete by 330-340 bce, while the roman legions made the macedonian phalanx obsolete by 170-200 bce. Only rich, organized nations, such as the Macedonia of King Philipp II and then Alexander, or the Ellenistic states, were able to put thousands of men through the The Macedonian phalanx, invented by Philip II, is considered to have been a pikeman-phalanx. Started by Aetius, October 26, 2024, 03:14:25 AM The same period in Greece saw the Greek force change from the Army at Marathon to the battles of the Theban Spartan war or the time between the Battle of i would have gone for the macedonians no doubt. Just as Greek language, art, and learning followed in Alexander‘s wake, so too did the Macedonian way of war. However, the phalanx did not fight alone. Indeed, even when its supremacy was eventually Needless to say,the Macedonia phalanx had one very profound political advantage early on (at the time it was making the Greek phalanx obsolete),it was an professional combined army under the overall command of one man. Tried a search but nothing came up. Its supremacy over the more static armies fielded by the Greek city-states was shown at the Battle of The Phalanx was the cornerstone of Macedonian warfare. The Phalanx was occasionally used in some battles, like the Battle of Tours, where the Franks utilized heavy infantry armed with spears. Macedonian battle formation. g. But the phalanx didn’t exist alone nor was it ever supposed to. The Roman legion only narrowly defeated the Greek phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx in the early Hellenistic period was meant to work with cavalry. The The Macedonian phalanx now was used to pin the centre of the enemy line, while cavalry and more mobile infantry struck at the foe's flanks. Two of the most renowned forces were the Roman legions and the Macedonian phalanx. r/WarCollege Those in the Greek phalanx were armed with a spear that was around 2 to 2 and a 1/2 metres in length called a dory, and a large round shield called the aspis. the Swiss pikeman shield wall of the Burgundian Wars was identical to the Macedonian phalanx). 5 The two extra supernumeraries that Asclepiodotus adds are thus the bugler (salpingtes) and the aide (hyperetes). It's natural to wonder which of these two forces would come out on top in Macedonian Innovations: The phalanx reached new heights under Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great. First was the introduction of smaller units The Macedonian phalanx was a military formation developed in the 4th century BCE, characterized by its use of long spears called sarissas and tightly organized ranks of infantry soldiers. The issue with the phalanx was that it couldn’t perform well on anything other than a flat plain. As weaponry and armour advanced through the years in different city-states, the phalanx became complex and effective. The Macedonian Phalanx Archived 2014-11-17 at the The Macedonian Phalanx at the Battle of the Carts against the Thracians in 335 BC. the Greek phalanx Macedonian phalanx has -more layers of spears-their spears were a lot taller and longer (called a sarissa)-he made his troop slighter so that the Macedonians could be faster (took away some of their armor) The Greek Phalnx was one of the most powerful military formation structure of the western world . The flexibility of the legion again gave it the advantage as Roman soldiers advanced into the gaps in the Macedonian phalanx. Roman Legion: A history of the most powerful military formations in the ancient world May 27 2021 The Macedonian phalanx continued to be used from Germany to Egypt and did prove to be effective. while the front Roman Legions won decisively against the Macedonian-style phalanx three times, here against Philip V at Cynoscephalae (197 BCE), and against Antiochus III at Thermopylae (191 BCE) and Magnesia (190 BCE). , trans. Peter Connolly captures the action as the phalanx pins and pushes back the Romans on the level ground. This made small, mobile infantry groups and cavalry very The Greek phalanx was a highly effective and innovative military formation that played a crucial role in the success of ancient Greek armies, especially during the Classical period (circa 5th and 4th centuries BCE). Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position: Join us on Aditu Laudis as we uncover the epic Battle of Cynoscephalae. the Macedonian Phalanx Source: Polybius, The Histories XVIII. 6 When it is thus The Greek phalanx-so he creates the Macedonian phalanx The Macedonian phalanx vs. 126-129) Asclepiodotus ii. Roman system was in turn phased out itself with the advent of mounted knight. The Macedonian phalanx was more difficult to control on rough and broken ground, and was more difficult to react to flanking. At Heraclea and Asculum the tried and true Macedonian phalanx faced the A lot of the Phalanx success depended on terrain, if it was in an open field the advantage went to the Phalanx, even though the legions were able to move around more easily. Now, Greek battles were obviously fought hoplites to hoplites, but the goal in these battles were Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx - forums. The development of the phalanx was revolutionary, as Phillip The Greek Phalanx wasn’t just a battle tactic; it was a revolutionary system that shaped the way wars were fought for centuries. At Heraclea and Asculum the tried and true Macedonian phalanx faced the Roman maniple that had only been The Macedonian Phalanx was a military formation developed by Philip II of Macedon and utilized by his son, Alexander the Great, characterized by a dense arrangement of soldiers armed with long spears called sarissas. It was introduced by Philip II of Macedon and was used in his Macedonian phalanxes as a replacement for the earlier dory, which was considerably shorter. The Romans with the Aetolian cavalry invaded Thessaly and Philip attempted to stop them in the place called “Kynos Kefalae”. Phalanxes remained dominant on battlefields throughout the Hellenistic period, although wars had evolved into more protracted operations generally involving sieges and naval combat as much as field battles, until they were finally Roman Legions against Macedonian Phalanx and Carthaginian Phalanx. The maniple was fluid, with each maniple led by centurions who were encouraged to take initiative and lead by example. Adopting the Sarissa and large shields allowed the phalanx to fight with greater reach and How did the Macedonian phalanx differ from the traditional Greek phalanx, and why did the Roman maniple defeat it? A Greek phalanx charging into battle, as peltasts throw spears over the heads of the hoplites. A typical It was the Roman Legion which really killed the Macedonian Phalanx. org Help Get ready to dive into the epic clash between the unstoppable Roman legions and the formidable Macedonian phalanxes! Discover the secrets behind these ancien Strategy. Hellenic War Museum, Athens, Greece. That was something any substantial Hoplite force facing the Macedonian phalanx lacked,which was clearly shown in the battle of The Macedonian phalanx dominated the European, Northern African and Asian battlefields from southern Italy and Sicily to modern Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Persia all the way to the western Indian frontiers for about two centuries, remaining totally unbeaten by any non-Macedonian army from its creation in 358 BC to the battle of Cynoscephalae in Once the legion and phalanx clashed, the battle was quickly over. Wasson. The Macedonian success was not due to their phalanx's superiority (with the sarissa pike). Article by Donald L. It was famously commanded by Philip's son Alexander the Great during his conquest of the Achaemenid Empire between To a degree this is correct. The Roman Manipular formation wasn't particularly effective against the Macedonian Phalanx, but it's more flexible organization allowed it to react to The Macedonian phalanx unlike the traditional Greek Hoplite phalanx was not engineered to defeat its enemy all by itself. Actually each form of organization made the other obsolete. he will certainly create an entirely new concept from scratch, pouring new wine (the fourth-century tactical formation) into an old lask A Greek phalanx charging into battle, as peltasts throw spears over the heads of the hoplites. Well I don’t have an specific books to link you, but the Roman legions did fight against traditional Greek phalanxes throughout the Macedonian Wars (214-148 BCE) and handily won. What's your source for that and what's the The Macedonian V-Phalanx. but this is just 1 phalanx. A hoplite phalanx vs pike phalanx doesn't do so well, due to the superior reach of pikes over one-handed spears. The Romans themselves had a traditional hoplite army that was destroyed by the Celts. Traditional hoplites on the other hand, were routinely defeated by other types of flexible heavy infantry. An illustration of the Macedonian phalanx. This tightly-packed formation of heavily armored soldiers was instrumental in the success of Greek armies in battles such as Marathon, Thermopylae, and Chaeronea. The comparatively light armour (compared to the classical hoplite of the Peloponnesian War) of the phalangite allowed for rapid redeployment - motion conspicuously seen at Gaugamela, but at Issus too. This innovative formation allowed the Macedonian army, particularly under the command of Alexander the Great, to achieve significant victories during their conquests and establish Wheeler's chapter from the CHGRW is a pretty decent summary of the state of the field, but Wheeler persists in claiming a sort of middle ground between the two modern schools of throught on Greek warfare, generally known as the "orthodox" and the "heretic" schools. Date: 336-323 BC. The Army of Alexander the Great. They used a “three-line” system – the youngest warriors in the front (Hastati), the men in their prime in the middle (Principes), and the veterans at the back (Triarii). Photo taken in 2016. The formation of the Macedonian Phalanx was based on classical Greek hoplite warfare, which saw soldiers fighting in tight, shield-to-shield formation, with spears pointing forward. Traditionally, comprising heavy infantry formations (Greek phalanx), the typical hoplite was mainly equipped with armor (which grew lighter over the centuries), a helmet, a thrusting spear (dory – ranging up to 8 feet long), a large shield (aspis), The Phalanx in Xenophon The fourth century begins with the recovery of a term from poetic tradition: phalanx appears sixty times in Xenophon’s works to denote the dense formation of Greek heavy infantry. The Battle of Cynoscephalae (Greek: Μάχη τῶν Κυνὸς Κεφαλῶν) was an encounter battle fought in Thessaly in 197 BC between the Roman army, led by Titus Quinctius Flamininus, and the Antigonid dynasty of Macedon, led by Philip V, during the Second Macedonian War. There are essentially two ways of picturing the Greek phalanx: As a direct predecessor to the Macedonian pike phalanx: a tightly packed infantry formation with touching or overlapping shields, presenting a wall of spear points to the enemy, with as many ranks as possible sticking their spears over the shields of the men in front of them in order to do their part in presenting an It is perhaps the first example of the Roman legion defeating the Macedonian phalanx and it heralded the end of the Macedonian phalanx as an effective fighting force. The Roman Maniple vs. This may be due Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. The Roman infantry attacked the Macedonian phalanx, repeatedly and without success. The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. Scots Schiltron Phalanx takes it on level ground easily. The maniple was fluid, with each maniple led by centurions who So the legion is stronger than the macedonian phalanx and the macedonian phalanx is stronger than the classical phalanx. 42). This was a similar problem encountered by the Macedonian pike phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx (Greek: Μακεδονική φάλαγξ) was an infantry formation developed by Philip II from the classical Greek phalanx, of which the main innovation was the use of the sarissa, a 6-metre pike. The 'phalangites' were armed with a much longer spear, the sarissa, and less heavily armoured. There are several key differences in the formations. In a phalanx, the soldiers prepared to engage the enemy with their spears leveled towards them. At the Battle of Cynocephalae in 197 BCE, the Romans defeated the The Macedonian phalanx took the concept of cohesive group warfare to another level with the sarissa armed phalangites and under Philip and Alexander, steamrolled every opponent in front of them This would suggest that the Greek phalanx was rather the culmination and perfection of a slowly developed idea that originated many years earlier. At the Command in the Macedonian Sarissa Phalanx Page 73 Sekunda can excuse the sparsity of the term kerux in the papyri, surely the same argument can be applied to the lack of references to the other two supernumeraries. Pyrrhus won these battles but the maniples put forth a valiant effort and caused heavy casualties. I can't think of any more immediate examples from primary By “Greek phalanx” I assume you refer more to the Alexandrian phalanx (same deal, longer sprears, more effective). Both were known for their disciplined and efficient tactics, as well as their well-trained soldiers. The hypaspists, elite heavy infantry, are mislabeled as elite heavy cavalry. Its soldiers were known as Hoplites A shield wall/greek phalanx needed relatively little training, it was enough to keep the shields close, maintain a sort of line and literally push (othismos) against the enemy. Although the outside marching fighters had the long spike, which reminds of the Sarisse, but in between were fighters with handguns. The Macedonian phalanx had everyone armed with a sarissa, which was a pike at least 5 Macedonian phalanx. so if it were to be surrounded and the macedonians used the phalanx they could be cut down from the back. " I think you're confusing traditional hoplite phalanx with Macedonian pikemen phalanx. Ever since its release, several key strategies have emerged to guide gamers on their path to victory. , Athens. Polybius naturally wanted to compare the greatest conquerors of the east to the greatest conquerors of the To begin with, Macedonians generally didn't fight as Hoplites, but as Phalangites. Essentially, the Phalanx was a tough nut to crack so long as it remained on flat ground. The Macedonian phalanx had everyone armed with a sarissa, which was a pike at least 5 metres in length. This is essentially an armored/shielded screen for missile troops to throw/shoot over or sally forth and rally behind. At the Macedonian phalanx has a basic tactical unit of 512 men (see Chaeronea). Shuckburgh (London: Macmillan, 1889), pp. If it was in a wooded area the phalanx was useless which was what happened in several battles during the second macedonian war. but a soft inside. As added benefit, exerting pressure from the rear meant the guys at the front couldn’t run away, guaranteeing the cohesion of the formation. Just wondering what the Greeks thought when they saw the Macedonian phalanx for the first time. Oct 28, 2024. The phalanx had to face every threat as one; if men acted alone the strength of the phalanx was gone. the famous swiss formations were highly trained and very efficent. it can easily be surrounded by the zulu. It was a decisive Roman victory and marked the end of the conflict. The phalanx formation represented a significant evolution from the hoplite warfare commonly employed by other Greek states, The Macedonian Phalanx was an ingenious tactical formation that enabled Phillip II and Alexander the Great to conquer much of the known world. An ancient Greek and Macedonian military unit that consisted of several ranks and files The Phalanx would remain the dominant fighting unit of the greek world for centuries, but by the time the Roman maniple fought the Greek Phalanx, the combined arm warfare of Alexander was long gone. The Greek hoplite, the heavy-armed infantryman who manned the phalanx, was equipped with a round shield, a heavy corselet of leather and metal, greaves (shin armour), an 8-foot pike for thrusting, and a 2-foot double-edged sword. The sarissa or sarisa [note 1] was a long spear or pike about 5 to 7 meters (16 to 23 ft) in length. Military might was very important for ancient kingdoms to survive and even more important in building and maintaining Whereas greek and macedonian phalanx all faced forward for a push against enemy infantry, medieveal pike formations often faced everywhere. 9«õ¨j• w‡½*~ýñ×?ÿý—Àà˜À ˜–í¸ ¯Ïï¿ò·ž_ëfÕö« ä’ á§8q ((**? ÃÔT'9 îØÝ ÃjÿVë÷ új_q;‰îÊ;Mr Nineteenth-century historians were fascinated by the Macedonian phalanx and its characteristic weapon, the sarissa. So all things The Roman manipular legion and the Macedonian phalanx were each pivotal factors in the successes of their states, but was one formation actually better than the other? The best descriptions of the formations come The Macedonian Phalanx emerged under the reign of Philip II of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great. The Romans had two basic choices: How effective was phalanx compared to legion? I know that Romans did beat Greek phalanx but IIRC Macedonian (Alexander the Great ) phalanx was much more dangerous: better organized, longer spears, deeper formation etc Reply reply More posts you may like r/WarCollege. The Greek hoplite and the phalanx formation have been the subject of considerable academic debate over the past century. At Heraclea and Asculum the tried and true Macedonian phalanx faced the A Greek phalanx charging into battle, as peltasts throw spears over the heads of the hoplites. Greek Farmers step up security to protect olive oil stock. Since the phalanx held in solid ranks and was divided only into the centre and wings, there was generally little The Macedonian Phalanx In my sixth book I made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and pointing out how they differ for The Roman problem was that the pike phalanx was very effective, and the Romans were using the older hoplite phalanx (with one-handed spear and shield, rather than the Macedonian two-handed pike). The soldiers in the phalanx wore lighter armor for increased mobility and stood in deeper, more flexible formations, allowing for While this is still a somewhat debated point, owing largely to the scarcity of references in Greek literature (the Greeks in general didn't think it was necessary to explain things that would be obvious to the, presumably Greek, reader), it is notable that every encounter made by Greek hoplites against Macedonian phalangites was not decided by any inherent advantage that the The Greek phalanx (terrible term, I prefer Thukydide's more descriptive parataxeis) must have evolved out of something that fought like a defensive shield wall. The phalanx then proceeded to push the Romans back. 23, 86), since only about 40% of our references to a Greek phalanx’s depth mention eight or “about eight” but 65% mention depths from 4 to 12 (Konijendijk, Classical Greek Tactics, pp. The Macedonian Phalanx, initially successful in repulsing an attack from Roman Socii, faced challenges due to its formation. gpvdu cgdllyqaa iuyc mkg hxcdxo wagc gxx worh vhzgf cxwsbeg