NO Point Taking Rome First

[val]

Apparently, this forum is not the only one with this question. In the magazine -¿La Aventura de la Historia-¿ (in English it means The Adventure of History; I think it has a webpage: http://www.elmundo.es/ladh/), number 59, in a dossier about Alexander raised the same issue: -¿The Phalanx facing the LegionIn military history one of the favorites what ifGǪ? Is a possible fight between the AlexanderGÇÖs Macedonian phalanx and the republican roman legion. Maybe the first writer that got distracted with this speculations was no other than Titus Livius (Livy), who in his History of Rome from tits foundation (IX, 17 GÇô 19) already played with the idea of facing Alexander and Rome.. to patriotically conclude that Rome would have won, as its generals were no inferior in courage to the Macedonian; its effectives much more in numbers; their weapons more efficient, and their soldiers more hard working. He even has the boldness to write: -¿his phalanx lack in mobility and was uniform, while the roman army was less uniform, formed by several elements, easy to divide and easy to regroup..-¿ In this, the roman, as Polybius before, forgot the huge importance that the light infantry and the cavalry had had in AlexanderGÇÖs victories, and thought the Macedonian army the characteristics of inflexibility and stiffness that the phalanx degenerated a century and half later, in the II century B.C., when it was defeated by the Romans in Cynocephalus (197 B.C) and Pydna (168 B.C), lacking of the solid support of the cavalry and severe demographic problems.
While Alexander could have raised 24.000 soldiers for the phalanx in 334 B.C, in 197 Philip V could only raise 16.000, and that included retired veterans and adolescents. And still, Plutarch described the terror that invaded the Roman Emilius Paulus at Pydna, when, for the first time he saw the hedgehog of points of the phalanx in action. -¿Valeria

[val]

Apparently, this forum is not the only one with this question. In the magazine -¿La Aventura de la Historia-¿ (in English it means The Adventure of History; I think it has a webpage: http://www.elmundo.es/ladh/), number 59, in a dossier about Alexander raised the same issue: -¿The Phalanx facing the LegionIn military history one of the favorites what ifGǪ? Is a possible fight between the AlexanderGÇÖs Macedonian phalanx and the republican roman legion. Maybe the first writer that got distracted with this speculations was no other than Titus Livius (Livy), who in his History of Rome from tits foundation (IX, 17 GÇô 19) already played with the idea of facing Alexander and Rome.. to patriotically conclude that Rome would have won, as its generals were no inferior in courage to the Macedonian; its effectives much more in numbers; their weapons more efficient, and their soldiers more hard working. He even has the boldness to write: -¿his phalanx lack in mobility and was uniform, while the roman army was less uniform, formed by several elements, easy to divide and easy to regroup..-¿ In this, the roman, as Polybius before, forgot the huge importance that the light infantry and the cavalry had had in AlexanderGÇÖs victories, and thought the Macedonian army the characteristics of inflexibility and stiffness that the phalanx degenerated a century and half later, in the II century B.C., when it was defeated by the Romans in Cynocephalus (197 B.C) and Pydna (168 B.C), lacking of the solid support of the cavalry and severe demographic problems.
While Alexander could have raised 24.000 soldiers for the phalanx in 334 B.C, in 197 Philip V could only raise 16.000, and that included retired veterans and adolescents. And still, Plutarch described the terror that invaded the Roman Emilius Paulus at Pydna, when, for the first time he saw the hedgehog of points of the phalanx in action. -¿Valeria

[Paralus]

G'day Valeria/KennyNot at the barbie yet Kenny GÇô later this Australia Day arvo: seared (rare) Tuna steaks.The history of phalanx vs. legion is littered with the rotting corpses of phalangites. From Cynoscephalae through Pydna and down to Scarhpaea (146) the Romans (and their legions) proved the more potent armament. In between we have yet another Hellenistic monarch, Antiochus III, gambling Sydney or the bush in the last at Flemington on a showdown at Magnesia-by-Sypilos. In a near replay of Ipsus, Antiochus staged a highly successful right wing cavalry charge GÇô a-la Alexander GÇô and, failing to cease the pursuit in time (almost Alexander - Gaugamela), lost contact with the phalanx which GÇô despite a desperate stand GÇô was summarily butchered by the legionaries.Now, it again needs pointing out that these were not Philip's or Alexander's phalangites: no "silver shields" here. That being said, Alexander's plan and reactions at Jhelum (Hydaspes) against Porus' elephants serves to indicate his flexibility. Arriving just in time he rescued his phalanx from its greatest weakness: a break in the files that allowed Indian infantry to presage the gruesome bloodletting of the above massacres.I'm not so sure that either Philip V or Perseus lacked cavalry support. Indeed the lighter infantry did play significant roles in Alexander's victories and these too were present at the above battles. In fact, it appears that Antiochus may have amassed some 70,000 at Magnesia to Rome's (and Pergamum's) 30-35,000. Says as much about the Hellenistic troops as the Romans I'd suggest.And well quoted Valeria: I couldn't for the life of me recall which Roman general referred to the Macedonian phalanx as a "murderous hedgehog" or some similar description. He dealt with it well though: pull it onto uneven, unsuitable terrain, break it up and butcher it.The point I suppose is that Alexander may well have adjusted as at Jhelum, then again, if he'd become separated from his phalanx (and engaged on unhelpful terrain) GÇô as at Issus GÇô the same weaknesses were there to be exploited. The Greek mercenaries at Issus almost did it. That they didnGÇÖt' owes as much to Alexander's arrival as to the fact that the mercenaries most likely carried on GÇô spearing in file- in well trained Greek fashion. Legionaries would have begun the gladius wrought slaughter.Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Valeria/KennyNot at the barbie yet Kenny GÇô later this Australia Day arvo: seared (rare) Tuna steaks.The history of phalanx vs. legion is littered with the rotting corpses of phalangites. From Cynoscephalae through Pydna and down to Scarhpaea (146) the Romans (and their legions) proved the more potent armament. In between we have yet another Hellenistic monarch, Antiochus III, gambling Sydney or the bush in the last at Flemington on a showdown at Magnesia-by-Sypilos. In a near replay of Ipsus, Antiochus staged a highly successful right wing cavalry charge GÇô a-la Alexander GÇô and, failing to cease the pursuit in time (almost Alexander - Gaugamela), lost contact with the phalanx which GÇô despite a desperate stand GÇô was summarily butchered by the legionaries.Now, it again needs pointing out that these were not Philip's or Alexander's phalangites: no "silver shields" here. That being said, Alexander's plan and reactions at Jhelum (Hydaspes) against Porus' elephants serves to indicate his flexibility. Arriving just in time he rescued his phalanx from its greatest weakness: a break in the files that allowed Indian infantry to presage the gruesome bloodletting of the above massacres.I'm not so sure that either Philip V or Perseus lacked cavalry support. Indeed the lighter infantry did play significant roles in Alexander's victories and these too were present at the above battles. In fact, it appears that Antiochus may have amassed some 70,000 at Magnesia to Rome's (and Pergamum's) 30-35,000. Says as much about the Hellenistic troops as the Romans I'd suggest.And well quoted Valeria: I couldn't for the life of me recall which Roman general referred to the Macedonian phalanx as a "murderous hedgehog" or some similar description. He dealt with it well though: pull it onto uneven, unsuitable terrain, break it up and butcher it.The point I suppose is that Alexander may well have adjusted as at Jhelum, then again, if he'd become separated from his phalanx (and engaged on unhelpful terrain) GÇô as at Issus GÇô the same weaknesses were there to be exploited. The Greek mercenaries at Issus almost did it. That they didnGÇÖt' owes as much to Alexander's arrival as to the fact that the mercenaries most likely carried on GÇô spearing in file- in well trained Greek fashion. Legionaries would have begun the gladius wrought slaughter.Paralus.

[kennyxx]

Romans Butcchering Macedonians.Many Roman Armies were butchered by a variety of different foes. Hannibal. Augustus Legions slaughtered in Gaul even Spartacus put a few Roman heads on spears.AS Michael says quite Elequently Alexander had profoundly adapted tactics to accomadate Poros Elephants. I cant recall the Romans doing the same. The Small Roman units would have sufferes worse than the Macedonians solid lond reaching Phalanx.I would argue a desicive factor for Alexander against the Romans were the prospective cavalry .
Alexanders were among the best in history possibly second to the Monguls. The Roman cavalry nothing more than playboys with the cash to afford a horse to watch from. Alexander would scatter Roman Cavalry like flies. Then what becomes of the Roman rear. The Roman armies would become enveloped exactly as Hannibal did at Canea.Finaly Alexander got a fantastic probably the Finest army of the time from his fateher. Through his campaigns he refined and sharpened to to be adaptable and many types of army. And above all Alexander was a master craftsmen and tactician that used it masterly. He was individual genius. Its basically like a Top Gun aircarft pilot giving the controls to a reagular pilot and expecting the same results. Or REmbrant giving his brushes to a student and expecting a master piece. I doubt any of the generals following Alexander had the knowledge or genius to us the Macedonian war maching as Alexander did. Only Caesar would come close . Alexanders still on his tea break and would still find time at That time to squash those Romans. CEnturies later the odds would be more level but at the time of 323bc. For me its a walk in the park.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Romans Butcchering Macedonians.Many Roman Armies were butchered by a variety of different foes. Hannibal. Augustus Legions slaughtered in Gaul even Spartacus put a few Roman heads on spears.AS Michael says quite Elequently Alexander had profoundly adapted tactics to accomadate Poros Elephants. I cant recall the Romans doing the same. The Small Roman units would have sufferes worse than the Macedonians solid lond reaching Phalanx.I would argue a desicive factor for Alexander against the Romans were the prospective cavalry .
Alexanders were among the best in history possibly second to the Monguls. The Roman cavalry nothing more than playboys with the cash to afford a horse to watch from. Alexander would scatter Roman Cavalry like flies. Then what becomes of the Roman rear. The Roman armies would become enveloped exactly as Hannibal did at Canea.Finaly Alexander got a fantastic probably the Finest army of the time from his fateher. Through his campaigns he refined and sharpened to to be adaptable and many types of army. And above all Alexander was a master craftsmen and tactician that used it masterly. He was individual genius. Its basically like a Top Gun aircarft pilot giving the controls to a reagular pilot and expecting the same results. Or REmbrant giving his brushes to a student and expecting a master piece. I doubt any of the generals following Alexander had the knowledge or genius to us the Macedonian war maching as Alexander did. Only Caesar would come close . Alexanders still on his tea break and would still find time at That time to squash those Romans. CEnturies later the odds would be more level but at the time of 323bc. For me its a walk in the park.Kenny

[jan]

Not on the topic, but Kenny,I apologize for revealing last night during American Idol that I think you are really Simon Cowl.

[jan]

Not on the topic, but Kenny,I apologize for revealing last night during American Idol that I think you are really Simon Cowl.

[alejandro]

Dear Valeria, Paralus and Kenny,Hello.Livius says that GÇ£the roman army was less uniform, formed by several elements, easy to divide and easy to regroupGÇ¥.I think that, if anything, Alexander is regarded as a master at combining the different elements of an army (light and heavy infantry and cavalry, skirmishers, archers), as pointed out by Valeria, so I would like to know if this statement is indeed true.In any case, as Paralus says (and gives examples to illustrate it), Alexander was able to adapt and had an army that worked as clockwork thus being able to carry out his plans. But then the examples given (Pydna, Magnesia, etc) happen at least 100 years AFTER Alexander, so they are not good enough as to be used as benchmark, among other things, because the question is whether ALEXANDER, IN THE 300's BC, would have conquered Rome had he attempted it, not if an Hellenistic king could have done it.And here I have to defer to Kenny, as I think Alexander would have prevailed without a doubt. As I argued before, Alexander may lose a battle against the Romans, but it will be a minor defeat due to his ability to make the right tactical decisions, and in the end the Romans will be beaten.All the best,Alejandro

[Paralus]

G'day Alejandro."But then the examples given (Pydna, Magnesia, etc) happen at least 100 years AFTER Alexander, so they are not good enough as to be used as benchmark, among other things, because the question is whether ALEXANDER, IN THE 300's BC, would have conquered Rome had he attempted it, not if an Hellenistic king could have done it."Yes, that is quite correct. As I pointed out, these were not Philip's or Alexander's professionally drilled phalangites. They are though, the only examples we have of the two formations pitted against each other. That is, of course, aside from Pyrrhus' condottiere style campaign c280-76.
In that campaign, Pyrrhus met a Roman consular army three times in the field. The first at Heracleia, the second at Asculum and the last at Beneventum. All three make instructive reading. All three with typical Macedonian armies (apart from the addition of elephants) some forty years after Alexander's death, and so, relatively contiguous.Plutarch describes Heracleia as a bloodbath where the "mastery of the field changed hands six or seven times" (Pyrrhus, 17). The Romans had the better in the cavalry charge and, despite Pyrrhus' elephants, managed to take mastery of the field several times in the face of the phalanx charge. The intriguing fact is the losses recorded for each side: Roman 7,000 (min) 15,000 (highest) and Macedonian at 4,000 to 13,000. Either way, in a indication of what was to come, for a winner those figures speak of unsustainable slaughter.
Asculum is described as a two day arm wrestle. The Romans, on the second day, are described as being at a disadvantage because they could not employ the "feinting and skirmishing tactics they had used on the previous day and were compelled to receive Pyrrhus' (infantry) charge head-on on level ground" (Pyrrhus, 21.) The Romans "hacked away desperately with their swords" and again occasioned large losses among the phalangites, being driven from the field eventually by Pyrrhus' elephants. The Macedonians lost 3505 to the Romans' 6,000 (another account cited by Plutarch puts the total for both sides at 13,000).Continued....

[Paralus]

The common factor here is appalling losses that seemingly had to be sustained to drive a Roman army from the field. I would argue that is due to the fighting style of the legionaries GÇô "feinting and skirmishing" and hacking with their swords GÇô which the Macedonians had not faced before. Once a Roman commander came up with a way to handle the elephants, Pyrrhus was gone at Beneventum.One other pertinent passage from Plutarch: "GǪthe Roman army, by contrast, seemed to be fed, like a spring gushing forth indoors, by a constant stream of recruits, from which they could easily replace their losses" (Pyrrhus, 21)Again, this is not Alexander's Phalanx or his cavalry. But, had he lived, he would have been attacking a Rome not much if any different (aside from its Latin and Samnian wars) to that which Pyrrhus took on. As well, were it to have happened near to the century's end (and Alexander in say
his fifties), it would have been with a totally different army to that which took Persia. Possibly not so different to Pyrrhus'? (except maybe in training.)Paralus

[Paralus]

Not to seem to take-over the thread, but one more Plutarch line is worth the reading. After the battle of Asculum (an ostensible victory for Pyrrhus) Plutarch provides a little more detail over his losses:GÇ£For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward (in offering support).GÇ¥ [Pyrrhus 21. 10]The losses, obviously considerable, also comprised his principal commanders. It is reasonable to assume these losses were occasioned amongst the phalanx and its battalion commanders. Again, the damage able to be wrought by the gladius at close quarters. A form of fighting the Macedonian phalangite was not equipped to engage in.The question comes down to this: how would Alexander have dealt with this totally different form of engagement had he not seen it first?Paralus.

[kennyxx]

Gday MichaelSorry to disagree with you on this. Your underestimating Alexanders all round tactical and military Genius your also underestimating his recon and eye for detail. And definately overestimating the Romans. Just bringing up those engagements a hundred rears later. Is like comparing Napoleons Grand army with Cromwells New Model army. Centuries even decades entail huge changes. My original post asked the question wether Alexander would take the Romans from the start to the end of his career. And the answer is a walkover. He could have even bankrolled its conquest whilst taking it easy. Although as we know with Alexanders battle his person made all the difference. AT that time a walk in the park sorry Michael.Centuries later with the advancement of the Romans and some of its great generals. Army against army it becomes more even. I would guarentee whatever the time Alexander would have studied and known Roman tactics or he would be a second rate commander. And first rate he was.Kenny

[alejandro]

Hi Paralus,As I said before, I donGÇÖt know anything about weaponry and strategy, so I cannot comment on whether one would be superior to another. The examples that you give are good, given the information available. But we are forgetting probably the first encounter between Macedonian- and Roman-style armies, namely, Alexander of EpirosGÇÖ campaign. Now, this campaign was not a success for AoE (among other things because he died!), but as far as I know he made good progress against the opposition and got support from other Italian tribes before his untimely death.And you mentioned that Pyrrhus defeated the Romans twice before they got the best of him. As Kenny said many times, Alexander would have used those victories to build momentum and become an unstoppable force for the Romans. It is true that he wouldnGÇÖt know about the GÇ£feinting and skirmishingGÇ¥ strategy used by the Romans, but Pyrrhus didnGÇÖt either and still he beat them. Even more, Alexander defeated Scythians in their own land (and Cyrus didnGÇÖt) without having previous met them. And I am pretty sure that after the first encounter, the novelty would be gone (as you mentioned, in the two-day battle the RomansGÇÖ advantage was seriously undermined).Finally, and I am not entirely sure of this, but I think that Alexander was already experimenting with a less rigid phalanx. This was about the time spent in India, if I remember well, when the army incorporated many non-Greek/Macedonian people, and it is said that the phalanxGÇÖs first two lines and the latter were indeed composed of Macedonians wielding the traditional sarissa, but then the most of the rest had usually only 3 Macedonians (leaders of row) but the others were mostly Persians, which were not equipped with sarissae but used their own weapons. I donGÇÖt know if this was the deliberate action of Alexander intending a more flexible phalanx or if it was just something he was forced to do due to the lack of Macedonian soldiers, but it sounds as if he was already GÇ£on the right trackGÇ¥ 40 years before Pyrrhus.All the best,Alejandro

[alejandro]

Hi Paralus and Kenny,I have a question for you two. Paralus cited Plutarch saying that GÇ£The Romans had the better in the cavalry charge and, despite Pyrrhus' elephants, managed to take mastery of the field several times in the face of the phalanx chargeGÇ¥, but Kenny said before that the Roman cavalry was basically a joke, composed of useless rich boys. Now I am totally ignorant about this, so I would appreciate your comments on this.Also, related to that matter, could you please tell how similar Alexander's and Pyrrhus' armies really were? Someone mentioned before that the Hellenistic battles were basically tugs-of-war matches between the phalanxes, with little participation of the other elements of the army. Is it truly the case? Analysis would be much different if not only Alexander were a better general than Pyrrhus but if the formerGÇÖs army was also superior to the latterGÇÖs one. And this not to mention the quality of the marshals (many future kings) that accompanied Alexander, together with the invaluable addition of being preceded by the aura of invincibility and all-mightness (?) acquired after acquiring every land on the Eastern basin of the Mediterranean and beyond till India (plus, very likely, Carthage by the time of the encounter with Rome).Thanks in advance.All the best,Alejandro