Roman legion vs Macedonian phalanx

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! :D
/ epimetheus1776
roman legion, roman legion tactics, macedonian phalanx, Macedonian phalanx tactics, Macedonian phalanx vs roman legion, ancient Macedonian army, ancient roman army, roman army, Roman legionary, rome vs Greece, Rome vs Macedon, roman army weapons, Roman army tactics, Macedonian wars, battle Cynoscephalae, battle of Pydna, republican Roman army, Roman maniple, Roman republic, documentary, ancient Rome documentary, ancient Greece documentary, rome documentary, battle of magnesia, rome selucid empire, Roman empire vs selucid empire, diadochi, ancient,

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Which do you think was cooler and which do you think was more effective? With equal commanders and equal quality and amounts of troops(and supporting troops) which do you think would win?

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Also for the terrain... we can say mostly flat slightly rough terrain which most battles would have been fought on.

[@Dimitrakoulas22]

macedonian army would be more effective if all its units would be combined properly as alexander use to do in every battle..Alexander use to use his cavalry and light infantry more than its heavy infantry and with these gained all his battles...he didn;t wait for his phallanx to defeat the opponent as phillip the 5th did and perseas and antiochus the third...these men made crucial mistakes during the battle showing the weaks of their army and they did not exploit their advantage (antiochus defeated roman cavalry an he did nt support his infantry as alexander use to do )....the greek leaders made mistakes crucial and this gave the romans many easy victories....on the other hand roman leaders against greeks did make somehting extraordinary..they just waited for some mistake or gap on the battlfield to exploit by sending troops or elephants....their legions were more flexible but the phallanx had been used with incorrect way...alexander and his father as well as pyrrhus would never made these mistakes...as for pyrrhus he would have defeate romans if he had more manpower like alexander had or sufficient man support from the italian greeks..istead he use to fought alone with his men and mercenaries

[@Dimitrakoulas22]

don;t forget at the battle of magnesia antiochus lost the battle from his own hands...!

[@Hostility1812]

Whoever can flank the fastest or encircle the other wins.

[@NotUnymous]

well, the romans chose the smarter choice, they won their battles against helen troops with a reason. I'm partwise greek myself, I love the culture they had and think of them of one of the greates ancient ones. As rome might have been a copycat, they still upgraded everything they implemented from other cultures. to have a more mobile and swift responding force with superior agility and versability I guess they will win most of ther encounters with heavy phalanx troops und given circumstances.

[@adeptus2714]

Pyrrhus was the smartest Hellenic tactician since Alexander. Recognising the limitations of the phalanx on rough terrain, he placed units of italians who's looser formations were more flexible between sections of the phalanx, allowing the battle line to bend with the terrain. His combined arms were a match for the Romans, bettered only by their superior manpower.

[@ignacejespers8201]

Hellenic doesn't necessarily mean helene. Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids are considered hellenic even though the largest part of the population wasn't

[@adeptus2714]

@@ignacejespers8201 Fair enough. I wanted to avoid calling Pyrrhus greek but point to generals of the Hellenic world in particular.

[@faniskou]

@@adeptus2714 Why did you want to avoid it though?

[@faniskou]

@@adeptus2714 you generally did the right thing since hellenic is the right word but the ethnicity of pyrrhus ain't disputed as far as i know

[@kkoron7908]

@@adeptus2714 you know hellenic litteraly means greek

[@coltdelarge5317]

I love that mosaic back ground of Rome it's quite beautiful

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Thank you :)

[@adrianrafaelmagana804]

the mocaic background is cool, your confederate picture is the opposite. There is nothing to be proud about in that flag.

[@coltdelarge5317]

Adrian Magaña u shouldn't really care what a stranger has as there profile pic it's my familys heritage and I'm not changing it

[@gizzy2403]

@@adrianrafaelmagana804 u know nothing of honor, & seriously doubt u hav anything 2b proud of!

[@charlesmichaels6648]

@@adrianrafaelmagana804 Begone, Comrade Bozo.....

[@Mike-gz4xn]

The Macedonian phalanx at this time was not nearly as flexible as it was during the time of Alexander the Great. This was due to the successor states fighting each other, and accustom to fighting other pike armies, not diverse armies. Thier sarrisas had grown too long and un wieldy to out reach other sarrisas, and they army did not have the flexibility.

[@jtadros16]

Marlinspike Mate and that was one of the main advantages of the Phalanx. There’s no point of organizing your army in a Phalanx position of you can’t even hit the main uses of it.

[@scottwhitley3392]

Exactly during the the Greeko Roman wars a Phalanx was used on its own, whereas under Alexander it was just one part of the overall strategy. Good example of how this should be used is the Scottish use of Schiltrons against the English army

[@kvarnerinfoTV]

Alexanders aemy was combined arms one. Romans would find it impossible to use such tactics as there would be 0 gaps.

[@patrickcannady2066]

Alexander's Companion Cavalry and Shield Bearers would have devoured a Republican Roman Army. These elite cavalry and infantry units would have eaten the Roman flanks for breakfast and then enveloped the center before lunch. The pikes would keep the enemy in place long enough for the real blow to fall, in a pattern very similar to what befell Porus's Indian Army at Hydaspes or the Roman Army at Cannae. By Philip's time, Macedonian Cavalry was not what it once was, and the emphasis had shifted to winning battles with superior phalanx tactics, discipline, and weapons...which worked for a time against the Seleucids but not against the Romans. The Macedonians lacked the ability to strike a decisive blow quickly, giving the Romans too much time to adapt and recover. In his major land battles in Asia, Alexander never gave his opponents this opportunity.

[@kvarnerinfoTV]

@@patrickcannady2066 Do not underestimate Roman Equites, they were in fact one of the finest cavalry force in the world and they are highly underestimated today.

[@storresfalcon]

Thanks!

[@joseph2000117]

Fantastic art and history from one guy. Damn, keep up the fantastic work

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Thank you!

[@Pikazilla]

fun fact; this new Battle of Thermopylae was a Roman victory because Rome remembered how the Persians outflanked the Spartans with that goat path.

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

Fun fact 2: Both sides outflanked each other at Thermopylae 2.0

[@lunchingtangpua2415]

@@OkurkaBinLadin s

[@Lamada35]

Facinating video bro, the drawings and descriptions of the military strategies of the day are awesome.

[@johnbrdov9925]

As a Macedonian Greek I admire the Roman army's discipline and may I say "calmness" even in the bad situation that they were in. By noticing the phalanx's weakness they managed to turn the battle around and achieved a decisive victory over what appeared as a grim situation for the Romans. I also admire the Macedonian army as they managed to put up a good fight against what was the best army in Europe during that era. On my opinion this was one of the most decisive battles of the ancient times as two of the best armies battles against each other and concluded which power would be dominant. As a Greek, I am proud that we are so called "Romioi" as we adapted and accepted the Roman system. Overall great video and love the attention you put into detail. Have a good one! :)

[@avgvstvs7]

At the time all of navy and more than half of greece was conquered if you are looking for most important ancient wars between 2 powers its easily carthage vs roma

[@Macedonia808BC]

Of course you admire the romans, grikos helped the romans against macedonians. So you are only a greik worm, macedonians have only one name macedonia 🇲🇰☀️

[@georgios3113]

@@Macedonia808BC You are no Macedonian. You are West Bulgarian. You guys have nothing to do with Macedonia and Alexander the Great. You came to the Balkans 1000 years after his death.

[@carlewen-lewis3305]

Great video, as you mentioned later, the Macedonian Phalanx was never meant to be used in isolation, but in concert with other armed branches, cavalry and light infantry. It's specialized, thus requiring other specialized branches to cover its deficiencies to be used to best effect. Furthermore, each branch were dependent on each other to cover their respective deficiencies. Iskander understood that. It very much follows the adage of the "whole being greater than the parts". As an aside, I noticed at the bottom of your video description a string of keywords, I believe it'd be best to place hashtags before the words so that this video will appear if one inputs one of those words in the KZbin search bar.

[@Slaphappy1975]

Worth mentioning that the Roman pila was quite innovative. The shank was made from a soft iron so that the pilum would bend upon impact, rendering it useless afterwards. Also, if it hit a shield, it also bent, rendering the shield useless until the opponent spent precious moments in detaching it during the middle of battle.

[@SevenStarlitLakes]

Thank you for all your hard work! This takes an astounding amount of effort!!

[@skydiesay6019]

Great work man, can’t believe it’s just you alone doing all of this keep it up

[@robertholmstrom7394]

Phalanx vs legion requires a talk about Hannibal. Like Alexander, Hannibal used the phalanx to pin his opponents front and exploited the flanks with superior cavalry. Scipio realized this, and built a superior cavalry arm which allowed him to defeat Hannibal. As someone mentioned, the phalanx reappeared in late medieval warfare, and it stayed around through the musket and pike eta, only fading out in the 18th century.

[@TheChiconspiracy]

I don't think there's evidence that Hannibal used anything like the Macedonian or earlier hoplite phalanx. Hannibal's great victory at Cannae saw him using his elite Libyan spearmen to swiftly close the sides of the trap , rather than put them in the front, and I've seen it suggested they were armed in the fashion of the Theorphoroi with a center grip shield and a short stabbing spear.

[@NanoLT]

Scipio didn't build a superior cavalry force, he just crossed to North Africa where the Carthaginian mercenaries from Iberia and Gaul weren't feasible. I don't think Carthage used phalanxes either.

[@zacharykingston1046]

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[@zacharykingston1046]

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[@MFC343]

@@NanoLT some Carthagian Generals used the phalanx, but not Hannibal. for example Xanthippus a Spartan general was employed by Carthage and beat Rome in the 1st punic war.

[@miniaturesandstuff5209]

Great vid. I love your illustrations, strategic overlay and tactical naration!

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Thanks man! glad you liked it!

[@eliasfrahat7074]

You weapons and legions videos are interesting can you please do a comparison between greek and Persian legions and weapons during their wars

[@EpimetheusHistory]

That would be really interesting...I got some books on the Persian army too :D

[@JamesBond-ns8di]

Epimetheus man you are so awesome you deserve more than 1 000 000 subs

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Thanks James!...James Bond

[@JamesBond-ns8di]

Epimetheus 😂

[@JamesBond-ns8di]

Epimetheus can you do battle of teutenberg forest

[@tortoisegamer5804]

I learnt a lot from this video. I also enjoyed the style in which it was presented. Thank you.

[@jamiemattinson]

Awesome channel great to use as help/support alongside studying for my ancient history degree. Subscribed :)

[@thothofthemorningrisesWthesun]

Bro if teachers would teach classes like this I would literally be locked into every lesson, the animations help so much for bringing the sense full circle

[@Constantine_IA]

Half of the Roman invading army were Greek Allies it was more like a civil war than an invasion...That said the Greek/Macedonian Phalanx wasn’t at its prime and way inferior than its predecessors when Philip II and Alexander the Great were in command it’s like comparing Brazil in the World Cups of 1970 or 1982 with Brazil of today...But even then the Romans said that the charge of the Greek/Macedonian Phalanx was the scariest thing they had ever witnessed.The Greek World accepted the Roman rule and they never revolt against it.After 3-4 Centuries the Eastern Roman Empire became a Greek Empire because Greek culture prevailed...Actually Juvenal famously said that he didn’t recognize this “Greek City” (Rome)anymore Greece became a trend in Imperial Rome and Alexander the Great was worshipped almost as a God.Greco-Roman Civilization the Beauty of Greek Culture and Roman Might&Legal system shaped our Modern World

[@NinjoTerror]

Rome a greek city?

[@-.-..._...-.-]

There was a revolt by the Pontians under Mithradates IV and it again was basically a civil war but yes Greeks were Romans longer than anyone else, almost double the time of those on the Italian peninsula.

[@NewarkBay357]

@@-.-..._...-.- He means that during the Byzantine era the people in Greece and Constantinople referred to themselves as Romans instead of Greeks but did not completely abandon their Greek identity, for example naming their most famous and lethal weapon "GREEK FIRE'"

[@NewarkBay357]

@@qwertyblitz You mean the Persians who had the largest empire in the world until the Greeks under Alexander surpassed it. The Persians were not pushovers but happen to have to face the greatest military mind in history.

[@ΚΑΝΆΛΙΤΗΣΙΣΤΟΡΊΑΣ]

Σωστός

[@FlashPointHx]

Nice video! You're animations are getting more elaborate! The Roman system had flexibility and the potential to adapt to changes on the battlefield - a much better fighting capacity

[@danielhunter8755]

The video description is wrong. It should be Cynoscephalae in 197 BC and Pydna in 168 BC. Might wanna change that. Otherwise great video!

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Thanks Daniel! fixed that typo...I guess that what happens when I write the description at 3:30 in the morning.

[@danielmilewski7659]

awesome vid. thnx

[@lukezuzga6460]

Good work Epimetheus, great explaination on how the Romans were able to defeat the Phalanx. Ive heard other explanations that sounded way to complex and honestly sounded made up.

[@davidpickard7865]

I used this video as a source for a podcaste love you work keep making good videos like these. Also go Rome but Pyrrhus was a boss!!

[@MCorpReview]

It’s possible that the generalship matters too, not jus standard formations. I’m not so sure if Alexander would hv lost

[@Strideo1]

Yes. I very much doubt Alexander would have lost in these battles. The way he used cavalry and skirmishers to support his heavy infantry phalanxes was a huge part of his repeated success.

[@Kaiser.Julius]

He would have lost if he faced Scipio or Caesar

[@phil3392]

The Führer Hell no , Caesar admitted himself that he was inferior to Alexander . And Scipio lost a lot of times against Hannibal before destroying him , when Alexander never lost .

[@MCorpReview]

Philippe Gromitsaris check out the mutiny at opis video by Alex d g. Great speech!

[@Kaiser.Julius]

Philippe Gromitsaris, you know nothing. That episode with Caesar is an anecdote. And even if it was true, that hapenned when Caesar was 30 years old. He started his millitary campaigns at 40 years old. So think for yourself. When Scipio Africanus lost against Hannibal? Kid, you really need to start doing some research before you start talking crazy things on internet. So, as i said, Scipio and Caesar would have defeated Alexander

[@iberius9937]

Your channel, sir, helps to bring ancient history/anthropology to life.

[@ivepesusic8792]

phalanx had a rebirth in evolved form in late middle ages

[@stormbringer2840]

Yep with the pikemen that where necessary to broke the cavalry charge , I think this was more effective this time because the armor is strong enough to be safe ( mostly )from projectile . And roman manipules had a kind of rebirth with spanish tercios .

[@TheChiconspiracy]

@@stormbringer2840 The pikemen weren't just necessary for cavalry, they also steamrolled infantry with shorter weapons. I'm not sure if the maniple is the correct way to look at the Tercio, though the medieval Romans (Byzantines) do mention mobile squares of spearmen that were supported by missile troops and infantry with shorter weapons in their military manuals that might be seen as an influence on the pike squares that would come later.

[@chadreese9501]

Love the channel!!

[@Mike_Honcho_8653]

Great video

[@johnbeechy]

Thanks for the upload

[@nazarromanyshyn4767]

I wonder, hypothetically, what would Alexander do if he managed to invade Italy after his campaign in Persia...

[@shorewall]

I mourn that he died young. I like to think that the Romans would have distinguished themselves as great Warriors under Alexander. With his war machine and tactics, barring acts of luck or God, he would have brought them under the banner, and put them to good use.

[@rowknan9848]

Probably have taken over the tribes there and still died young. He was generally reckless and would likely have been assassinated anyways.

[@greek1237]

@@rowknan9848 Just because they were able to beat the later Macedonian armies, does not mean they would of beaten a Peak Alexander army. I think he would of taken Italy and added it to his empire.

[@rowknan9848]

@@greek1237 I never spoke about that, the question is that if he had gone after Italy during his own era, could he have done it? I answered yes. He would have added the nascent Roman tribe to his empire because they weren't the world power they would have been in the future. Moreover, I said Alexander would die because he was reckless not because the Romans would drive him out. However, a peak Alexandrian army would not have beaten the second organized Roman Military when it was lead by the likes of Caesar, Pompey, or Agrippa. When you look at the battles the four won and how they won them? Alexander the Great always had that element of luck in his victories over inflexible enemies. The most telling is the Battle of Issus where Alexander almost bungled the entire thing and barely saved a battle where he had a vastly better equipped and more organized army. (Even if he didn't have a pure numbers advantage) Caesar for example made some mistakes, like the Siege of Alexandria. But there was never any rash decision. In battle he always made calculated and wise moves in the heat of battle, including when he had such a drastic disadvantage that his single advantage was his own skill like his battle of Pharsalus where he won control of the Roman Republic. While almost no Roman Commander was on the level of Caesar, it shows that when lead properly the Roman Legions heavily outclassed the old Phalanxes and some Roman Generals outclassed Alexandros as a commander.

[@myco9253]

@@rowknan9848 Depends quite a bit I don't see how Caeser would have out strategized a Alexander style Macedonian army of similar size and strength on flat terrain. The only way it would have worked is if the heavy infantry shield bearers lost the flanks to the legions allowing for a flanking maneuver. Even then the pikes would decimate the roman legionaires trying to hold their own battle line. Second, the campanion cavalry was far better than what caeser had access too and would have most likely decimated Caeser's germanic cavalry and than outflanked the legions for good measure. Abusing terrain and other factors such as logistics Caeser would have the advantage but head to head on flat terrain I'd say no. Facing a proper veteran phalanx with heavy infantry and companion cavalry at the flanks on flat terrain is honestly suicide. As a final note the companion cavalry worked liked the legions to some extent. The formation was a triangle and all the other riders would follow the leader, allowing the leaders to spot gaps whicj they could than react to and charge into with great accuracy. The light small pointed cavalry spears allowed for super accurate repeated strikes allowing better staying power and anti cavalry capabilities.

[@primalforlorn]

The phalanx was merely an anvil holding the enemy and the companion cavalry was the one which do most of the damage. The macedonian generals uses the pike phalanx wrongly as a main attacking force which causes their defeats

[@couchpotatoe91]

@@BringDHouseDown Sure, but other than in a pc game, it's likely that people won't throw themselves into the phalanx to get hacked into pieces, so it's probably not the meatgrinder you see in e.g. Rome - Total War. Now, heavily armored cavalry charging into you from behind, driving you right into this wall of spikes though, THAT's an entirely different story!

[@runswithbears3517]

Not completely true. The phalanx was quite capable on its own, pushing and routing enemy lines off the battlefield. Enemy soldiers did not need to "throw themselves into the phalanx" for it to be effective. Simply by virtue of being pushed back by an impenetrable wall of pikes, enemy lines were at risk of falling into chaos and routing, after which they would be cut down on retreat. On the retreat is where most casualties were inflicted. The Romans became very skilled at fighting the phalanx, however, and its capability to push armies off the field was significantly reduced. Also, the idea of the "hammer and anvil" charge is heavily debated by historians. It is argued that these charges only continued if the enemy started to rout before impact, because for horses (and men) to charge into dense formations filled with sharp objects would likely result in a sort of mutual destruction. The situation often portrayed in video games, where formations of cavalry charge into solid formations of infantry, probably didn't occur often (though there are some accounts of it happening), and was probably very bloody for both sides.

[@stein1919]

@@couchpotatoe91 I wonder if the Romans ever tried using their big shields to get past the points and direct the sarissas between the files of soldiers so they could close the gap and stab.

[@couchpotatoe91]

@@stein1919 They almost certainly did, though they'd try to weaken the enemy line with their pila first so it wouldn't be all orderly. I imagine there would be quite a bit of panic if there's pila thrown at a cluster of men at close range with barely any protection. Though even with that the phalanx seemed superior front-against-front judging how even the veteran Roman left was on the backfoot.

[@thecount1374]

the pike must be at least 11 ft long along with a kopis to fight the rkmans perfectly

[@StefanMilo]

Quality video. Adaptability clearly more important than sticking to one idea no matter how good.

[@Strideo1]

Alexander the Great used his cavalry to provide flexibility to his nearly unbreakable phalanxes of infantry. Often times his phalanx formations would pin or occupy enemy infantry or just hold off enemy cavalry and then Alexander's cavalry would flank the enemy for the decisive blow causing disarray.

[@matthewkuchinski1769]

I think that Philip V of Macedon lacked the skills of Alexander, which helped the Romans overcome his armies. After all, Alexander did create a really flexible system for the phalanxes, striving not only for good discipline amongst spear wielding troops but also required extensive hand-to-hand combat knowledge. However, Philip did not partake in these same tactics, losing to the more flexible Roman legions which could detach maniples (later centuries and cohorts) in key tactical situations, thus ensuring them greater odds in achieving ultimate victory.

[@Kaiser.Julius]

Alexander created nothing. It was his father, Philip, who created the macedonian system

[@phil3392]

The Führer He adapted and created even more flexible formations and improved the phalynx by adding special soldiers without long spiers in the borders of the phalynx. And Philip didn't invented anything , he improved an already existing model.

[@Kaiser.Julius]

Philippe Gromitsaris, he did no such things. All Alexander did was to adopt some horse archers

[@phil3392]

@@Kaiser.Julius he ALSO did that .

[@aydnmesuttorun8397]

But horse archers are the cheat units of warfare up until when gumpowder was invented😂

[@sergionofal450]

Excellent analysis. I really enjoy this video, especially the part about the importance of the elephants in defeating the Macedonians. Hannibal used them mostly as a psychological weapon in the invasion of Italy through the Alps; the Romans as an effective weapon capable of inflicting lots of casualties. I didn't know that, until this video. Thanks!

[@shorewall]

Great Video! I had heard about Cynoscephalae before, but not about Pydna. I also like how you mention the role that the combined arms, or perhaps lack of, as well as the presence of elephants, may have played. I have a soft spot in my heart for the Phalanx, especially since pikes make a come back in the Middle ages and beyond. But learning about the existence of Thureophoroi and Thorakitai in Hellenic armies makes me think that the versatile Legionary soldier type was a fit for the time. I will always stan for spears, though, especially since later Rome also went back to them. :)

[@Britishperson131]

A wonderful video. I have been contemplating this scenario for years now and this very much help me visualise the pros and cons of both schools of thought regarding the phalanx and the legio tactics

[@brokenbridge6316]

This was a really informative battle. I've actually known about that battle the Romans had with King Philip. But I had no idea that their had been more battles afterwards. Impressive.

[@marcmichaelheihspsychology]

Amazing vid. Thank you

[@ukaszkowalski725]

Battle o Pydna. Total War Rome 2 I never could win...

[@vegapunk100]

7:25 romans were nuttz 😂

[@terricampbell3179]

dont betrippin threw the fucking standard behind enemy ranks lmao meanwhile an officer is ripping his clothes apart ahaha

[@vegapunk100]

Tyler Campbell i love it, that shows how much determination romans had, that pussyboi macedonian gay king fled the battle

[@Judicial78]

Romans would do all sorts of shit to maintain order and discipline. I would argue that Romans had the most disciplined army to ever exist on this Earth.

[@cheerfulpessimist952]

Imagine standing in your phalanx a few ranks back when suddenly a fucking Roman standard flies through the air straight into your face.

[@AndrewStamelakis]

@@Judicial78 The most disciplined armies were Spartans and Samurai. All others pale in comparison

[@liamcolvin5875]

There are very few videos on this topic. I've always been interested in the time period after the hellenistic age, but before Rome dominated the eastern medditerranean. Amesome video!

[@rafaelllaban4115]

Love the art of your channel man, keep up the good work :^)

[@GaudialisCorvus]

Great video!

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Thanks!

[@EFlatcap]

I think on the question of elephants, they were a useful weapon at least against the phalanx. Arius' accounts of Alexander's conquest into India makes light of the fact that the phalanx often struggled to overcome elephants. They did eventually win in these battles but took high casualties. So under the right leadership the elephant is effective.

[@the_dropbear4392]

Alexander didn't take high casualties in India not compared to some of his other battles

[@matthewtilley7175]

Elephants are a real problem against heavy infantry, they are too tightly packed to maneuvere and can get crushed.

[@dukeman7595]

Very well done thank you.

[@bunzglazing1829]

love the raspy voice changed so suddenly to an actual clear voice we can hear

[@notyourbusiness5795]

That was a really great video

[@emmaavelar2325]

Really like the art in this one!

[@Hostility1812]

Thanks for the enjoyable video

[@noger1234]

An amazing video.I cant exppres just how much i love history and military history. Btw can u possibly make a video on the medieval yeomen class in england or such

[@scottks6sd]

Hi love this video keep it up

[@Szycha8412]

Good work:)

[@kieranlock3070]

Love these vids

[@MrProtopopescovici]

great work

[@eleor18]

I think at the time the romans invaded there was a significant disproportion for the greeks. The silver phallanx(experienced greeks through the wars with seleukid empire) was still alive and protecting the persepolis. I thought for the start that this would be a fictional battle and I would be really glad to see a speculation of the real deal. Good video and some battles that are not mentioned in history for the fall of Greece.

[@tompratz4848]

nicely done....keep at it

[@OfAllThingzFooty]

Great content on this channel, subscribed. If you can, can you do a video on the history of Somalia. I would love that. Keep the great work going

[@michalispolideukis9720]

Same race different names and the blood wars go on .....And PERFECT WORK EPIMITHEUS!!!

[@HVLLOW99]

I love when they tear their own garments it's so dramatic. It's awesome.

[@TheSololobo]

The content and your narration is very engaging, the only area that is lacking is the graphics depicting the battle, I have a hard time following along knowing who's who and while Im trying to figure it out Im missing important details.

[@madox7442]

odyssey brought me here ;) new sub though, classics minor and lovin the vids !

[@davidpickard7865]

Pyrrhus was a amazing general and in my opinion the last great greek general since Alaxander the great

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

Yes, in YOUR opinion. Likely because you ignore non-roman sources. There were plenty of good commanders after Pyrrhus.

[@decanusseverus8773]

I don’t care if one day you remake this video i think that would be great but I also just love this art style especially at 1:50

[@dansmith3343]

Hey guys. And I love your work! Been subbed since wayy back. One day I'll become a patron. There's very little on yt about the hussites or Jan Zizka. I'd love to see you get into pike and musket warfare ( and wagons ) . Also an episode on Phyrrus ( sp? ) keep it up

[@negvey]

thats a nice map for showing the mountains, no one does that, it gives you a nice perspective

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Thanks!

[@longnamenocansayy]

very helpful video. people should emphasize the graphic aspect rather than the audio aspect on youtube. narration is good but a picture says a thousand words

[@IrishPennant0311]

First video of yours I’ve seen. Really good animation and a nice break from RTW2 scenes! I’ve Sub’ed to see more!

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Awesome! Glad you found my channel

[@Makaveli_ml]

If all Hellenic states were united they had a good chance to beat Romans, but they were too busy fighting each other.

[@amazed2341]

Could you make a playlist of your more podcast like videos? Like more than 30 mins etc as they make for great listening

[@johnfilios8759]

To me, the Phalanx could have been better if it had continued to evolve as it did when Alexander modified it from the original Spartan set up. Also in all of these battles generalship is so important. The Macedonians needed more archers and better calvary to compete.

[@AA-Ashley]

Hey guys, I'm new here. It's great to find such accessible history information.

[@ΚΩΣΤΑΣΜΠΕΣΣΑΣ]

ROMANS VS GREEKS , SOUNDS GOOD.

[@FilipMoncrief]

Macedonians were greeks dumbass

[@ΚΩΣΤΑΣΜΠΕΣΣΑΣ]

Macedonians were greeks just like spartans and athenians .

[@NewarkBay357]

@@tinotarantino3483 Why not make an ignorant comment. It keeps your reputation for ignorance in tact.

[@NewarkBay357]

@Phragmochaeta Canicularis How about the Greeks in the Greek Region of Macedonia who still fly the battle flag of Alexander as the Regional State flag of Macedonia. They still consider themselves as being from Macedonia. When I'm asked where my family is from I answer Macedonia and those who ask know I mean the Greek Region of Macedonia.

[@NewarkBay357]

@@ΚΩΣΤΑΣΜΠΕΣΣΑΣ Macedonians and Spartans both hail from the same Greek Dorian tribe. Caranus was the son of Temenus, king of Argos, who in turn was a Heraclid, a descendant of Heracles. Plutarch agrees on the Heraclid lineage of Caranus and argues that Alexander the Great is a descendant of Heracles through Caranus. Temenus, along with Cresphontes and Aristodemus constituted the three Doric leaders who invaded the Mycenean Peloponnese region. Then they proceeded to divide the conquered territories between them. Cresphontes was given Messenia and Sparta; Aristodemus took Laconia, and finally, Temenus was given Argos. Following the death of Temenus, the princes argued about who should be king. One of them, Pheidon, defeated his brothers in battle and took over the kingship. Caranus then decided to find another kingdom of his own, where he could be king. First, however, he went to the Oracle of Delphi to ask Pythia's advice. "You should find your kingdom there, where you will find plenty of game and domestic animals, she advised." Thus Caranus and his entourage moved to the North, in search of suitable land to establish his new kingdom. Finally, he discovered a green valley, with a lot of game and goats, whereupon he thought that the prophecy of Pythia had been fulfilled. Thus he built a city there, which he named Aigai (Αἰγαί), the place my family traces its origins from in present-day Vergina. Vergina is a site of substantial archaeological activity, as numerous important findings have been unearthed at this location.

[@AJKecsk]

That last comment about "greater emphasis on combined arms" in Alexander's day, as opposed to the later Macedonian armies that relied more completely on the phalanx, is spot on and in my opinion a big part of the reason for the failures against the Romans. In Phillip's reforms and Alexander's campaigns, the phalanx was *_not_* meant to be the striking force of the army. Its function was to _pin_ the enemy in place, so the Companion Cavalry could charge into the pinned enemy from the side or rear. The phalanx was not meant to be a primary killing force from the front, but rather functionally indestructible from the front. Its job was to _endure_ as the anvil long enough for cavalry or hypaspists to execute a flanking hit as the hammer on the enemy. The forest of pikes is not particularly good at breaking up a defensive formation of disciplined troops with large shields. Its charge is devastating against routed or fragmented enemy units, but not formed infantry. That's why the combination with shock cavalry is so important.

[@RJALEXANDER777]

Basically the Macedonan army under Alexander behaved in a similar way that Hannibal did at the Battle of Cannae. Use the infantry to fix the enemy's main battle line in place. Use the more flexible elements such as the cavalry to envelop and deliver the killing blow. With their large shields and decent armour, the pike would have otherwise been quite poor at killing Romans by itself. But being enveloped by Companions and Hypaaspists, would have led to a slaughter. I can only imagine how formidable the Alexandrian system would have been if the hypaspits had been replaced by Roman style infantry, using the pilum.

[@AnaxofRhodes]

Great work. Suggestion: gradually phase in your image changes. Right now, the movements are sudden and very jarring.

[@MariosDoumou]

Sarissas (macedons' spears) and in general the army tactics of macedons were effective for open fields.

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

Macedonians tamed Afghanistan. Just saying, buddy...

[@nostear8261]

This helped me with my Rome Total War campaign. Fighting the Romans as Seleucids and I’m having problems. While I’m winning it’s no real victory. Each one is too bloody and they keep landing in Siwa to the point I can’t recruit anyone there any more. I’m gonna try to start adopting the legionaries for my army’s and my pikemen first city garrisons

[@jrobbins707]

I'm a new sub. Hello group.

[@EpimetheusHistory]

Hello

[@jrobbins707]

@@EpimetheusHistory very impressive content sir. I enjoyed it AND learned something. Can't say that about most things I watch.

[@benlex5672]

One thing that made a decisive difference between Alexander's Phalanx and other phalanx is that Alexander's main attacking force was his companion calvary, and he heavily rely on skirmishers, which solves most of the problem the phalanx had with the terrain. Roman also had the problem with weak skirmish and cavalry forces, which they paid a heavy price for centuries later.

[@NewsRedial]

Interesting. I've been looking for a video that explains exactly how the Roman maniple defeated the phalanx. Your maps hurt my eyes though ;) I'm actually curious how the information got communicated throughout the Roman military. So when a commander tried something and it worked then did he send a dispatch describing it to some central source and it was duplicated and made available in libraries for other military men to read? I know Julius Caesar did a huge amount of writing. Also didn't Octavian go to military school with Agrippa when he was a teen? So did they refine military tactics in the field then teach in schools? I don't know how an anecdotal story from the battlefield could filter through but it would be interesting to know the culture.

[@rotopope]

The sudden transition away from batman voice at 4:50 was so jarring, I had to rewatch a few times in order to absorb what was being said.

[@yolo2709]

That was cool!

[@micahhoff6176]

The main problem I see with the Macedonian phalanx is that it took way too long to train troops to properly use a sarissa, which in turn, made creating a standing army very time consuming. One major reason Alexander was so effective in his campaigns was because he had ample prep time to train his troops in phalanx-based combat with pikes, enlarge his disciplined cavalry force, and gather the large amount of skirmishers and archers needed to support the phalanxes. In many cases, nations don't have the luxury of having such large amounts of time to prepare for war. Rome, on the other hand, could more easily produce standing armies via using weaponry that is easier to wield (shorter spears and swords), which in turn, allowed them more time to train in utilizing flexible tactics to counter the pike phalanx. Also, many argue that if Alexander was still alive at that time, he could have conquered Rome. Although that could have definitely been a possibility, that line of thinking in itself reveals another major flaw with armies with a core of pikes. No other Macedonian general was able to successfully win a campaign against Rome, or at least, any significant campaign that turned the tide of any war in their favor. Unless you have the troop management skills of a pentagon super computer (i.e Alexander the Great), than their will most likely be a weaknesses in the pike phalanx that can be exploited by at least mediocre generals with more flexible forces. The skill level it takes to properly use a pike formation and effectively direct supporting skirmisher and cavalry units is extremely high. If you are that one out of a thousand that does have that enormous talent, then you will be virtually unstoppable, but other than that, you will see yourself be beaten by any general worth his salt that possesses more flexible formations of shorter spear and sword infantry, and heaven forbid the spear and sword infantry are backed by javelin and archer support better than your own.

[@oskey5301]

If it would of been Alexander the Great vs the Roman Legions another would of been the outcome.

[@rturae]

If Julius Caesar was in charge, probably not

[@erickbehari6740]

Unfair because at the time of Alexander Rome was still not taken seriously by anyone and was still a tiny republic

[@-.-..._...-.-]

@@rturae Julius Caesar fought what his predecessors had defeated numerous times in the Punic Wars. The Gallic Wars were nothing in comparison to the Punic wars. Julius Caesar is vastly overrated and is only discussed so much because of his detailed life accounts, when it came to a real threat, Scipio Africanus is leagues and bounds better than him. The Punic War generals are what made Rome get from a regional power to the superpower of Europe, those are the generals that matter.

[@Siegeclan34]

@@rturae Julius Caesar was a spoiled brat rich kid who was vastly overrated. He is nowhere near the likes of Alexander, Napoleon, Hannibal or even Scipio.

[@wankawanka3053]

@@-.-..._...-.- yeah like Rome didn't even have a navy back then their victory over carthage was far greater in my opinion

[@kekero540]

The Macedonian phalanx was a system perfected for battle against other Greeks and the Persian empire. But it fails to adapt to varying terrain and can only work at a very specific type of location. The Roman system however had no trouble adapting to almost every type of terrain. The flexibility of it made it a much better tool in the hands of a competent general as it’s versatility was unmatched. While the phalanx was a extremely rigid formation that requires ideal conditions and ample resources. Imo the Roman maniple beats the system.

[@Andreas-ww5eg]

I don't think you're right, since there were many changes to the phalanx and the hellenic world. here are other reasons they lost : 1. The Romans had numerical advantage due to the great number of Allies they had and that's why they could recover from a major defeat like Cannae and the allies usually outnumbered the romans, in this case, Hellenes. (This is for the people that think that only roman troops fought with the Succesors) 2. Most Succesors drawed their men from either Hellenic Colonists (Greek and Macedonian) or from natives and the problem is that the Hellenes were used mainly in the Phalanx and the number of these was very limited and when there was a major defeat, the time to replace them took many years and could take almost a generation to refill the ranks. This was due to the geographic location of the Succesors and natives were also in the phalanx but the succesors didn't used them as much due to the danger of rebellion and so they mainly stayed as auxilliary units. Macedonia had a greater number of Hellenes due to the close distance to Greece but many Macedonians and Greeks parted for new lands in the east and the Galatian invasion did cause many damages in Macedonia and so the number they could raise was also limited to the point that the Macedonians put their macedonian troops in reserve but in case of a major battle, they would be drawed to service again. 3. The phalanx at this time was specialized to face other phalanxes and they were different from Alexander's phalanx since they weren't able to change to different roles in battle as the previous ones like skirmishers or as assault troops in Sieges. The Sarissas were longer than in previous times since there was a military race between the succesors because they wanted to reach the enemy first with longer Sarissas. 4. The phalanxes were getting heavier in these times due to the lengthening of the Sarissas and the heavier equipment that the soldiers had to carry and so the phalanx got slower. IMO, I think that Alexander's phalanx could defeat the romans since it was better drilled and could take on different roles in battle and had no shortages of men than their counterparts.

[@kekero540]

John Saf Organizationally yes Tactically not exactly. They still acted the same and were still versatile. The main difference was unit size a maniple was about 120 men while a century was 80 men.

[@johanlassen6448]

Untrue. The Macedonian phalanx fought from the hills of Dacia to the rivers of Syria to the jungles of India. And it did so successfully. The Roman system had the same problem adapting to terrain as any heavy infantry. Roman flexibility is often misconstructed as referring to an ability to maneuver. Its not true. Roman flexibility came from the tactical flexibility of the checkerboard-formation, which allowed them to switch out formations and slow down an enemy advance.

[@loszhor]

9:57 I always wondered about that.

[@SovereignOfTheSeas]

The Elephant art is so cute!

[@G-Nno]

Imagine how akward it must have been trying to fight pikeman with a small ass sword.

[@IAmCaligvla]

That's why they had the pila to disrupt the enemy, if successful they could get close to the phalanx and the pikes would be rather useless at that distance.

[@zeddicus456]

Alexander’s use of elite skirmishers and cavalry along with decisive action in the battle field made up for inflexibly if the pike phalanx.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

I don't think that it is accurate to simply state that the legion was a superior military system to the phalanx. The Roman legion evolved from a foundation of hoplite phalanx tactics, while its leaders observed the development and utilization of the Macedonian phalanx by the Greek Cities & Epirus, Carthage, Macedon and Seleucia in their development of legion tactics. Moreover, the leaders who did defeat the Phalanx were all facing relatively mediocre commanders, who had knowledge of Hellenistic tactics, whereas when the Phalanx was victorious or capable of stiffened resistance, as under Pyrrhus, Hannibal and Mithridates were quite capably able to offset the "inflexibility" with which the Phalanx is so often labelled, by adapting Roman means and methods into Hellenistic military styles.

[@leronbenari226]

The legion is superior for 4 main reasons. 1: Terrian The phalanx is utter garbage in woodland, mountains, or alot of Terrian that isn't flat.The phalanx is also extremely vulnerable to ambushes. 2: Flexability A legion can fight anywhere. On city walls, Inside cities, on ships, etc while a phalanx can only fight on a feild. 3. Speed and skirmishes The phalanx was very slow which means they are slow to respond to changes in the battle. Even if They could respond they were not maneuverable enough. Their speed ment that legionaries could pelt them while pikes could not. 4: Hammer and Anvil The phalanxes main job is too hold the infantry in place and have the cavalry smash from behind. This is not possible with the Romans as they had an elite spear equipped third line that could stop any charge. What is stopping the romans from splitting their army and flaking the stiff phalanx.

[@carlewen-lewis3305]

The Macedonian Phalanx was never meant to be used in isolation, but in concert with other armed branches, cavalry and light infantry. It's specialized, thus requiring other specialized branches to cover its deficiencies to be used to best effect. Each branch were thus dependent on each other to cover their respective deficiencies. It very much follows the adage of the "whole being greater than the parts".

[@TheSamuraijim87]

Leron Benari 1. See the campaigns of Hannibal, Pyrrhus and Alexander for the extreme extent of terrain which the Phalanx was victorious within. 2. Again, see the aforementioned campaigns for clear evidence that you have entirely misjudged the facts. 3. Speed - entirely wrong. The Phalanx was extremely fast on the march, and half of Alexander's victories were due to his arriving too soon. Pyrrhus was always able to move and deploy quickly. Hannibal made the terrain of western Europe look like a joke. Skirmishing - wrong again. The phalanx had immensely capable infantry peltast skirmishing capabilities and could replicate this in cavalry too. Phalanx based armies pulled of Lake Trasimene, history's greatest ambush. They pulled off the battle at Cannae, the double envelopement of a "superior" Roman army. 4. Hellenistic warfare was far more than simply a matter of "hammer" and "anvil". Stating that is a gross oversimplification of history.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

Carl Ewen-Lewis couldn't agree more.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

Leron Benari 1. When was the Phalanx ever ambushed? The Romans have clear superiority in this count i am afraid. 3. Regarding Speed - why is it then that every single commander who successfully fought with the Phalanx was able to adapt the formation in the moment to the needs of the situation? Even defeats like Cynocephalae show tremendous value in combined arms and what can be accomplished by properly reacting to the developments of the battle, terrain and the moment.

[@longnamenocansayy]

you may be able to explore the subject of generalship in another video. what is a good general, why was alexander such a great general?

[@iamplay797]

he wasnt his armies was just more advance then anything in the world at the time

[@imperatorvictix.444]

Roman cohorts annoyed the hell out of the Hellenes. The large, clunky blocks of the Phalanx could not manuever like the cohorts, especially on uneven or forested terrain. Not to mention the Romans fielded loyal equites, auxiliary troops of diversity that supported the heavy infantry lead by brilliant commanders while the Hellenes were fractured, depleted from civil wars with each other. Hellenes also started trying to copy the Roman methods, but it was too little too late. I think that alone makes Rome the victor, although if the Hellenes had not been all killing eachother before, during and after the Republic began invading from the west, and had Alexander not died so young leading to its decay, the Romans would have had a snowballs chance in hell against the Greek city states, Empires.

[@davidpickard7865]

used video for a podcast great work keep making good stuff go Rome

[@kirilibarvalos554]

I love the fact that such a small country developed such a big empire and at least one part of Macedonia became an independent state.

[@proudhellene5874]

? What do you mean Macedonia is still a part of Greece it never become an indepented state

[@rowknan9848]

People keep saying Alexander this, and Alexander that. But while he is indisputably a great general of history, he is not among the likes of Hannibal, Belisarius, and Julius Caesar in my humble opinion. He made many blunders, and many of his victories should be more attributed to his superior forces than his tactical prowess. While his phalanx was superior, and he did use combined arms forced, that does not negate the advantages of the Roman forces of any era. The Roman Forces would still be more flexible and more responsive to their commander due to superior organization. The Phalanx can be supplemented and it’s weaknesses can be addressed. But that does not mean that they are nonexistent, and does not mean that they focus on a form of warfare that would be required to defeat Roman military doctrine.

[@huntera123]

The elephant is apparently too intelligent to be a good weapon system in general, but in limited roles certainly made a tremendous difference.

[@mihajlo961x]

For a one-man show, I say kudos!

[@Bash069]

Can you do a video about the history of the spartans? Because after the peloponesian wars I can’t really find anything on them they seemed to stop existing how did they fight against alexander the great? Or the romans? Did they become less militaristic?

[@the_dropbear4392]

They didn't fight against Alexander, by that point they had lost all there power. They didn't fight Rome, but did fight there greek allies

[@landonbrackez3425]

So the Macedonian phalanx is stronger, but is not at all flexible and easily exploitable. The Roman legion would be less strong, but less likely to make a mistake and could carry on longer battles. Although I love the phalanx, I have to say the legion in most cases is a better unit

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

Okay, for whom? Better for whom? How would you form legionnairy army in the kingdom of Macedon? The limits of legionnairy organization were fully seen at Carrhae, combined arms force (it was never phalanx alone) of Greeks never suffered such embarassing defeat against easterners as did Romans at Carrhae.