What went wrong?

*flanks you*

They didn't have the manpower to match the Romans. A single lost battle can destroy your kingdom while the Romans keep shitting out legions of Italians and slaves.

The manpower argument can only be used if you are initially winning and then the enemy overwhelms you.

This was not the case.

Nor it was the usual case with the Romans.

Perseus won an initial battle against Rome but they simply sent for more soldiers. When Perseus lost his first and last battle he simply didn't have any manpower left.

Antiochus III controlled an empire larger then Rome yet made peace after losing precious manpower after his Greek campaign and Magnesia. Rome simply threw legion after legion at their enemies, the Punic wars and Iberian wars prove this above all.

Any disruption to the formation and they are disadvantage to soldiers specialized in very close combat. The Romans had the discipline and organization to disrupt their formation and their legionaries specialized in their own formations which work at very close quarters.

A centurion reputedly threw a standard at the rows of pikes in frustration, this is feasible and may have actually happened, or other things were thrown. It demonstrates 2 things, Roman legionaries were not easily routed, also that the leadership knew exactly what they needed to do and were focused in breaking the formations, those on the flanks or parts of the line with more obstacles would probably find a better way of doing so.

Theoretically a pike formation is impenetrable, however in reality there are many problems that can arise and a more flexible formation like those of the Romans was able to exploit weaknesses in the line.

>The manpower argument can only be used if you are initially winning and then the enemy overwhelms you.
Literally many of the battles between Romans and the Hellenics were like this, bub.

During the days of the early republic, legions were easier to raise than your average Phalangite.

Battles, not wars. Phlaganites almost never actually win battles in the end against Rome, and as fast as Roman mobilization was, they didn't pour in more troops between the beginning and end of battles like Pusan or Cynoscephalae.

>Perseus won an initial battle against Rome but they simply sent for more soldiers.

No, those were largely the same soldiers but with reinforcements.

Perseus did not follow through with his assault, leaving only 2000 Romans dead out of a force of likely 20-25 000, which then later rose to 30ish 000.

This was not about manpower at all.

> Antiochus III controlled an empire larger then Rome yet made peace after losing precious manpower after his Greek campaign and Magnesia. Rome simply threw legion after legion at their enemies, the Punic wars and Iberian wars prove this above all.

Rome literally won every single battle they fought against the Seleucids and won the vast majority of battles in Iberia.

You cannot use the manpower argument there.

Also, the first Punic war was not about manpower either.

> Literally many of the battles between Romans and the Hellenics were like this, bub.

No, they literally weren't.

The Romans did not suffer a single significant defeat from a successor army after Pyrus left Italy.

They butchered their way through them from Cynoscephalae to Zela.

Tbh a movie about the seleucids - roman republic war would be outstanding.

just got outdated

it happens

Pydna. Stupid autocorrect.

It's less a manpower issue and more a 'minimum viable formation' issue. For a phalanx to work it has to be wide and deep, so you need a lot of men just to reach a minimum useful formation. To few and the formation just doesn't work. Legionnaires remain viable troops even in relatively small formations. As a result a roman general can divide his force strategically and tactically to gain advantages that a phalanx can't.

>Also, the first Punic war was not about manpower either.
Not him, but it kind of was. Both sides suffered horrible losses at sea, although quite a bit of that was storm damage as opposed to direct action. The disastrous Roman expedition of 255 lost them more men than Cannae, and their ability to keep raising new forces was quite important.

But the first Punic war was the reverse, it was the Carthaginians who kept losing battles and just sending more troops.

And the Romans kept losing fleets in storms. They're just as dead.

No, the day before Pydna there was a minor battle where Perseus' Thracians won. And my point is that even if Rome lost a battle then they would have simply raised more men.

The Punic wars really about manpowet since Carthage had to rely on mercenaries and that devestating defeats such as Cannae not forcing Rome to seek peace.

> And the Romans kept losing fleets in storms. They're just as dead.

But they also won naval battles and Carthage also lost navies.

Carthage had far more defeats than Rome during that war and they still kept coming, like Rome in the second Punic war.

>No, the day before Pydna there was a minor battle where Perseus' Thracians won.

Yeah, that is what I said.

> And my point is that even if Rome lost a battle then they would have simply raised more men.

Yeah, but they didn't lose any significant amount of men for that to even be the argument, that is the argument.

> The Punic wars really about manpowet since Carthage had to rely on mercenaries and that devestating defeats such as Cannae not forcing Rome to seek peace.

Only the second one.

So I just started learning about Roman history and I just got to the bit where they switched from phalanxes to maniples. While I get that maniples are better for a variety of terrain wouldn't phalanxes still be good for even terrain?

The maniples could literally kite a heavier formation and then wait for other maniples to outflank and overlap before pulling a cannas encirclement all at once, it’s how they subdued Macedonia.

Supporting cavalry fucked up and left them exposed. Every. Fucking. Time .

The standard throwing literally did nothing. Romans never broke a formed pike phalanx from the front.

...

The phalanx was a thing because Greece's major non-greek enemies were cavalry armies. Against infantry of the same skill and discipline, the one kitted as the romans were have a very stark advantage.

Successors thought pikes alon won battles and got their asses handed to them. They forgot that combined arms was always the secret to successful greek warfare

less and less emphasis on peltast and supporting troops
they had the right idea with having hypaspist and the seleukid adopting legion styled infantry but it was much too late

Well y'know greeks can't really be singled out on that matter, I think everyone has had a moment in history where they misunderstood exactly how the predecessors they venerate fought.

The Macedonian Phalanx' was invented by a people set on conquering Greeks, you dolt.

i guess so
people only see out the most featured detail without seeking out the nuances

Yes, the macedonians. You know, greeks, the guy's who had been using similar formations against each other for quite some time.
It makes little sense to us, where doctrine changes after every conflict, but for ancients, shit moved slower. Even when you were beat quite soundly you wouldn't necessarily go back to the drawing board.

Well, y'know, we tend to go starry eyed for these sort of dramatic solutions. Take the US, for example. In the 19th century, it believed in the church of Mahan and that everything would be solved by the navy. Then during WW2 they realized they had it all wrong, and joined the church of latter-day strategic bombing's.

>Yes, the macedonians. You know, greeks
When the Macedonian Phalanx was made, it was up against classical Greek Hoplites. Furthermore,Macedon was considered barbaroi, not Greek back then.

The Macedonians sure didn't see it that way. Imagine being in the court of of Philip II and saying "my king, since we are barbaroi, should we not fight like barbaroi?"

Can some link me to an EDUTAINMENT video of what the fuck happened between the Greeks and the Romans? White people like to claim heritage to both but I have no idea how one "became" the other.

Which are?

Polybius (whose perhaps the only person who survives in antiquity that actually witness and personally led or was apart of battles with the Pike phalanx and other units (including the Romans) describes it well in this extraordinary accurate window into Hellenistic warfare :

>"Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge... With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep...
...Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet... each Roman soldier [against the phalanx] will [be] face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears [when faced against each other in regular formation]...
...what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx?... war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place... there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work..if there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible...what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles...

>The Romans do not,then,attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back.... its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. 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.

>"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. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others."

God you’re dumb. The Romans conquered most of Europe so obviously most of Europe became Roman including the greeks

The Romans rarely fought a battle where the the Phalanx could outdo the Maniple but the Greeks, Macedonians, and Selecuids did it anyway because that is how they fought.

The End.

yeah, I know that but it's like how did the romans become such a strong military? how did they become a city state to an empire? and why do white people claim lineage to both?

...

When you army trumps every army within a
2,000km radius, you keep going until you've met a match or everyone else smartens up. Beyond that, its greatest expansion occurred mostly because soldiers were to get free land, and well you kinda gotta conquer for that.

The reason Rome became so powerful was because they always had someone else to fight be it civilized or barbarian. It helped that everyone hated them

Scale of warfare + Naval warfare

is this the GOAT Pepe?

Literally everyone was using the same kind of infantry tactics, units, and formations due to Alexander's success against the Persians for the next several centuries and the transmission of this to places as far-flung as the Punics in North Africa, Celtic tribes in parts of Gaul and Iberia, other people in what is now Spain and Portugal, the Near East, etc...eventually lead to tactics that would counter it.

Pyrrhus was pretty much the prime example of the weaknesses of Hellenic phalanx warfare. He used it properly and even improved it a little after contact with Romans. But he didn't have manpower to replace his losses (Epirus was tiny and Magna Graecia shits didn't provide him men they promised) and Romans made use of the shitty Italian terrain. If Pyrrhus didn't have ADHD in strategy and had taken over Greece first and then went to liberate Magna Graecia he might have actually defeated Rome.

Pyrrhus is quite literally the poster child for why logistics and strategy are more important that a tactical victory. How to win in the wrong place at the wrong time in the worst way.

What stops a soldier from using somthing like a scutum to just cover his front and marching straight into the formation pushing the pikes aside and start stabbing some greeks ? Since you can´t reach around with long ass spears in a formation like that ? (pic related)

They got BTFO'd by the manipular system.

Are you missing the eight rows of men?

Do you think you can just waltz 7 rows deep and not have any sort of retaliation?

Uneven terrain and an exposed flank are it’s flaws.

> pushing the pikes aside

The pikes stab into your shield and keep it locked though.

Your Microsoft paint scenario has you only going up against a few spears. In a real situation every man would have 10 pikes in his face, good luck “brushing aside” 10 men with 10 pikes all putting their whole bodily effort into holding firm and stabbing you

*, Eumenes and Parmenion

>Romans never broke a formed pike phalanx from the front.
Gaps did appear along the front on broken terrain though. Also after obtaining Numidia the Romans came into the possession of elephants which proved useful in creating gaps at Cynoscephalae. Even if the elephant was killed its large cadaver would pose a significant obstacle to the Macedonian pike formations.

So what? They always managed to maneuver around it, sometimes even with infantry.

>inb4 that was the failure of the cavalry or other assorted lighter troops.

If your precious formation goes to absolutely fucking useless the second it loses its supporting elements, that's a massive flaw on a battlefield where there are certain irreducible levels of chaos.

How do you explain the Swedes?

>Pusan
Post yfw Romans fought as auxiliaries in the hyperwar

Like modern combat is any different.

>lose battle for air supremacy
>lose war

Successors turned the troops designed to protect the flanks into honor guards, then forgot to fill the empty positions.

Korea.

that's my fetish

Why did it never do a comeback? Was it an eventually outdated?

>Why did it never do a comeback?
It did though.

the swiss kinda revived it but their own twist and then pikes where the dominating weapon again for a couple of centuries until it was made completely replaced by proper firearms

it did, once people realized that you can massacre knights with barbed pointy sticks and shoot heavy infantry with point and boom sticks they they quick made a comeback

It was the bayonet that made pikes obsolete. Pikes were used alongside firearms for 150 years.

don't forget landsknechts and even during napolean russian plebs would continue to use em

This: youtube.com/watch?v=3iz1_UwD2Fw

First Swedish population census was declared state secret because their population was so low.

>You know, greeks, the guy's who had been using similar formations against each other for quite some time.
The Macedonian phalanx and the Greek phalanx are two different beasts. It can't be stressed that for most of classical Greece the city states "militaries" were made up of citizens who only rose up when needed for the defense of their community. They did not have a different class of people whose sole purpose was to fight in wars, they were all essentially militiamen. Essentially the Greek phalanx lacked the training of the later Macedonian phalanx and the Greek phalanx was quiet aggressive such as running into battle and losing any cohesion and basically turning into a mob of guys with spears. The Ancient Greeks even had pride in their lack of training and instead touted that courage was all they needed.

In contrast the Macedonians built their military to be geared towards pitched battles and their phalanxes were not made up of levied militiamen but actual professional soldiers.

a phalanx is a phalanx, regardless of troop quality. Even the most well trained of cataphracts will not charge a wall of spears, even if manned by lesbians from lesbos.

see
Actual historians have said that macedonian phalanx require a minimum of 9000 phalangites and work better with far more. The increasingly fragmented successor states didn't have enough citizenry to create phalanxes and also relied on mercenaries and auxiliaries so much that proper military tradition and levying ceased and thus
happened

What is a tercio?

The terrain thing is mostly a meme. Phalanxes worked well on a variety of terrains. At Cynoscephalae the Romans were able to coax the phalanxes apart by retreating and baiting them over uneven terrain thus separating them however a decent commander/well trained troops wouldn't have this problem. The romans were successful for their manpower but primarily their martial society's will to win.

Pyrrhus was an excellent logistician and strategist. He never overextended himself. Hence the fact he retreated without being defeated in battle outright. He did the same against the Macedonians and other Greeks aswell, retreating before giving up his position. What Pyrrhus lacked was proper allied support (which he expected)/levy-pool.

Its pretty well documented that Pikes were obsolete for a long time but where sort of fetishized by commanders and used to hold the line for other actions. Also the bayonet had no effect, it was in the increase in firearm production and thus volume on the battlefield, not bayonets.

>the terrain thing is a meme
>were able to coax the phalanxes apart by retreating and baiting them over uneven terrain

So they used terrain to win, but 'it wouldn't have worked with my fantasy army!'

>Throw pillums at you
>Leave thanks to high mobility

They legitimately would've eaten up Rome if Rome wasn't so autistic. The only reason Pyrrhus' victories were Pyrrhic was because Rome was fucking crazy about not losing. Same thing happened against Hannibal

It had a very narrow range in which it could be deployed.
It was adapted and made far superior under the Roman maniple system

It was because of Pyrrhus that Rome became that autistic. Some old fuck in Rome basically told his peers their behavior was dishonorable and shouldn't negotiate peace.

*cough*Beneventum*cough*

You mean the nation that hired hordes of mercenaries and relied on conscription that nearly destroyed the kingdom each war?

Except no. Magnesia saw the Romans utterly unable to break the unsupported pikes, even after surrounding them. They had to resort to panicking the elephants in the middle of the formation to stop them from simply marching off the field through the roman troops. Had the cavalry not run off like idiots, the battle would have been an utter disaster.

Stopped being relevant once they suffered a major defeat, due to manpower . Exactly what user is talking about.

So, in other words, as soon as the support elements failed, the Phalaganites had to retreat, and couldn't actually manage it, all the while facing an enemy they outnumbered more than 2:1.

Great showing there, absolutely demonstrating the superiority of their system.

See my comment I made quoting Polybius here: Romans did do that, but Roman heavy infantry fought in a formation, that, outside of Testudo (which was often only employed under heavy missile fire) or when bracing for cavalry charges, their men fought 3 away from each other from all sides, whereas the Pike phalanx literally fights near-shoulder to shoulder when it's deployed, and as a result, the average Roman infantry man took up the same space as two Macedonian pikemen in a line when they were both in their standard formation and directly charged each other head on. I excluded the bit in Polybius account (which is in Book 18) he implies (and Livy documents this as well) the Romans did actually try to push against the pikes with their shields or try to cut off their spear-heads with their swords, but it didn't work, as not only would the typical Roman heavy infantryman take up the same amount of space that he would be facing against two pikemen when attacked head-on, but the Phalanx at the time operated with 5 row-lines of pikes being leveled down when deployed, so he would also being facing typically a total of 10 pikes in the amount of space he takes up, to which Polybius says that it's impossible to even attempt to fight against them as one man as each one would be trying to aim to get around your shield or armor and stab your hand if you expose it from your shield in attempt to cut down any of them, and each one would often aim at different points of your body to attack at the same time to make it hard to brace or stop them all at once. Livy further says that the Macedonian pikes could also penetrate Roman shields and armour (which I'm not sure how to trust, because pike phalanxes largely disappeared by his time and Livy wasn't an experiencied soldier who was familiar with the workings of both arms and formations of Roman and Hellenistic armies like Polybius was).

No. Try actually reading about the battle.