089: Antigonid Macedon - Legion and Phalanx

No longer tied up by Hannibal, the vengeful Romans give their undivided attention to Philip V in the Second Macedonian War (200-197 BC). The king manages to hold his own against the Republic until they send the ambitious young commander Titus Quinctius Flamininus, who forces a showdown at Cynoscephalae that will radically change the balance of power in Greece.
Episode Notes:
(hellenisticage...)
Episode Transcript:
(hellenisticage...)
Social Media:
Twitter ( / hellenisticpod )
Facebook ( hellenisticagepodcast/)
Instagram ( / hellenistic_age_podcast )
Twitch ( / hellenisticagepodcast )
Show Merchandise:
Etsy (www.etsy.com/s...)
Redbubble (www.redbubble....)
Donations:
Patreon ( / thehellenisticagepodcast )
Ko-Fi (ko-fi.com/hell...)
Amazon Book Wish List (tinyurl.com/vf...)

[@ilari90]

Just found this channel and it brings to my mind a history of Rome podcast series from other site, might have been the creators own, which after listening through it brought me to find more on CZcams in 2016-17. This is an excellent series and i have almost 90 to go still.

[@ilKhan-Ghost-of-Clan-Mongoose]

more top notch top shelf stuff

[@dallasgreen378]

Keep up the amazing work.

[@LuisAldamiz]

It would take another republic, the Swiss Confederacy, to restore the prestige of the pike... it wasn't a phalanx anymore but a square.

[@DNS-FRANK09]

I'm all caught up 👌👌👌👌😎😎😎😎😎❤️❤️❤️❤️ and it only took like 2 months

[@MegaTang1234]

I think the Victory of the Maniple over the Macedonian Phalanx was basically what happens when superior tactics meets superior strategy.

[@theletterw3875]

Pyrrhus of Epirus had superior tactics against the Romans, beating them twice, but the Romans had superior strategy in manpower reserves. Doesn't seem like there is much of a natural rule about tactics>strategy.

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

Superior tactics or strategy was not necessarily what made rome superior. The most important was manpower in addition to the type of government….Rome could absorb losses and replenish their losses unlike her opponents. If Rome suffered a major defeat in the field her ability to raise another force was a decided advantage and part of being a republic was the duty of the citizens to serve. The Hellenistic kingdoms were set up differently politically….the army was the extension of the ruler and guaranteed that person ability to hold on to power. One major loss for the monarch was enough to bring defeat as their was no guarantee the population would willingly join to serve in service to the king not to mention whatever remained of the monarch’s military forces could not be risked in another battle as they played the much needed role of insuring the monarch was able to stay in power. Secondly, the maniples (the legion organization itself) offered flexibility over the phalanx which proves vital in their confrontations….the military system itself was superior not so much the tactics. Unfortunately, the utilization of the phalanx in connection with cavalry and lighter infantry that Alexander used had changed with the successors. Perhaps we never saw the best of the phalanx system engaged against the structure that the legion offered to truly decide the best military system of its time. Additional thoughts on the phalanx formation …. the phalanx formation depended heavily on its frontal attack by both impact and the momentum achieved from its depth. However, it was strictly a linear formation unlike the legion which included certain weaknesses. It could only move vertically for example not laterally. Second, it required unbroken ground to operate efficiently with the sarissa if the formation should find its left disrupted they were at a distinct disadvantage in hand to hand combat. Roman legionaries of course excelled at close quarters….the sarissa was all but useless if their formation broke down to hand to hand combat…the Roman’s employing better armor, bigger shield, more efficient swords and being trained in their efficient use excelled over what the phalanx infantry was equipped with and trained to do. Lastly, it had vulnerable flanks….the phalanx had no procedure to simply turn to the flank and engage the enemy but rather would have to withdraw and then realign itself to face the flank something of course the enemy would never allow.

[@user-rs3dz4xl1e]

Phalanx lost because it wasn't the same as Alexander's very few cavarly or other units to protect from surrounding and proppbly not as professional plus they fought Romes best Generation plus Romans hd better General plus Greeks continued to betrayed each other and they where wrong