Roman Legion Against Macedonian Phalanx

[@KingsandGenerals]

It is said, that the Romans and the Macedonians went to war because of this hoodie. True story. bit.ly/2QsEeXS

[@sebasnow100]

Epic

[@SuperPagt]

sources ?

[@phile1832]

@@SwordEncarmine i think that they said they whould this serious until 1453 so yes

[@Hesric]

Damn that is a nice hoodie! Strange... I'm getting a sudden urge to crush rigid phalanxes with the versitale manipilar formation.

[@buckroger6456]

Many great wars were started over hoodies.

[@boxtears]

"Which shall be discussed... NOW." Perfect, no bullshit, just cut straight to the chase. I love it!

[@KingsandGenerals]

:-)

[@chris9473]

@@KingsandGenerals alexander wasnt greek

[@yougetonthathorseyougottar6126]

@@chris9473 could you explain?

[@chris9473]

@@yougetonthathorseyougottar6126 explain what

[@caseyjason-ws3fr]

@Explain why Alexander was not Greek,he wants to know.....why are you asking while you understood the question?😂😂😂😂

[@RexGalilae]

0:38 Literally noone is talking about the pile of salt on Carthage in the map?

[@filippuskarczyk5033]

maybe its just dust

[@C00kiesAplenty]

Carthago delenda est

[@lawsondj1244]

They salted Carthage, so nothing could grow there again. And sold their people into slavery.

[@peterongan9655]

Big OOF

[@EazyIsi]

Dustin Lawson not true they salted carthage, sale was very expensive back in time. They reconstructed carthage in roman style, and carthage became the second largest city in Roman Empire. Anyway ancient romans amd greek were very jealous about wonderful carthage and phoenicians

[@Bladdy105]

Thanks to channels like this renew my profound passion for history, I'm working on becoming a history teacher thank u guys !!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Really happy to hear that! That is an honorable profession, so best of luck to you!

[@Bladdy105]

Absolutely thank u is a profession that's overlooked but I'm planning on implementing all the small details and insight I've learn here to renew the interest of history on the younger generation best of luck to u guys as well cheers !

[@ninjakid09]

Lulul don't do it mate

[@Bladdy105]

@@ninjakid09 I know what I'm signing up for buddy 💪🏽

[@dove3387]

When your channel is so good it starts inspiring people to study history

[@JodenPaoloPeroy]

"... necessitate the Marian Reforms." *heavy breathing*

[@KingsandGenerals]

You know what comes next. :-)

[@chevysuarez7306]

Marian reforms aka the silver age of swords

[@feynstein1004]

@Kings and Generals The fall of the Republic 😢

[@SaucyJack97]

I hope they don't attribute the reforms to Marius alone.

[@worsethanjoerogan8061]

@@SaucyJack97 Knowing this channel they will probably examine in detail the question of whether Marius himself was responsible for many of the innovations. I've heard arguments that he simply codified and made official many trends that were already in progress for decades.

[@MalayArcher]

Mods: Divide et Impera Agrez Hellenic Reskin Petellius' Particle effect For history buffs who are interested in this period, Divide et Impera is a must have mod for ROME II. Note: This is not a sponsored post :') Best wishes, Malay Archer

[@charlesxii2660]

Thank you captain, now fly away

[@LeandroAR]

@@charlesxii2660 Not only is a Capitan, is a General, the Machinima is from him.

[@charlesxii2660]

I didn't know that. Beg your pardon, good capt.

[@mangyminotaur30]

Subscribe to divide et impera or an aspiring centurion will burst through your gaps tonight

[@patryk4198]

what other mods can you reccomend?

[@ΔημήτρηςΗλιάτορας]

Everything is ready.I have just added Greek subtitles.I would like to thank the Kings and Generals community for letting me contribute as much as i can and i wish to continue to help them as much as possible.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thank you!

[@ΔημήτρηςΗλιάτορας]

I would like to promote your channel and your videos in my facebook page.Can i do that?@@KingsandGenerals

[@KingsandGenerals]

Sure!

[@keziahdelaney8174]

To maniple μεταφράζεται ως σπείρα φίλε. Οπότε έχουμε την σπειροειδή λεγεώνα για να το αποδώσω σωστά. Η σπείρα ήταν διαίρεση της λεγεώνας και αποτελούταν από 2 εκατονταρχίες (160 άτομα). Το cohesion σημαίνει συνοχή και όχι πειθαρχία. Είναι η συνοχή της φάλαγγας που είναι το πλεονέκτημα της, όπως θα έπρεπε να ξέρεις. Επίσης μετά από σημεία στίξης αφήνουμε κενό πριν ξεκινήσουμε την καινούργια λέξη. Έτσι θα μετάφραζες σωστά. Συγχάρητήρια για την θέληση σου και την προσπάθεια. Αν κοι οι τύποι αναφέρουν την Μακεδονία ως κάτι το ξεχωριστό από την Ελλάδα αν κατάλαβες καλά ε;

[@SFnader]

ωραιος

[@thebigdrew12]

Alexander's Phalanx, in my opinion, was designed not to stand alone, but rather to act as an anvil for his cavalry's hammer. Thus, while we get a good look at the Roman vs Greek infantry as a unit, we don't get to really see the Greeks deployed as they really should have.

[@ElBandito]

Which is why Alexander used more and more foreign auxilia to bolster his phalangites. Anything from Persian archers, to nomadic horse archers.

[@thebigdrew12]

@@ElBandito Thus one can't really get a good look at the Phalanx vs the Legion. There's just too many variables at play to totally discredit one or another.

[@asasas9146]

Not only cavalry, but also infantry more mobile in the flanks, and i heard that Alexander even had reserves of pikemen.

[@ElBandito]

@@thebigdrew12 Both having equal support, I'd personally choose the legion, as its performance is not severely hampered by terrain.

[@thebigdrew12]

@@ElBandito Nothing against the legion, but I'd roll with the Phalanx. You can't kill what you can't touch.

[@InspectHistory]

Now that's what we call, "Amazing Content" :) Thanks for the videos K&G

[@rayhanasyari513]

Lu ada disemua channel sejarah

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks for watching :-)

[@marcomahardika5133]

Inspect History Ternyata si abang ga cuma nonton channel nya mr ngehek doang wkwkwk

[@julianjosephm]

bikin video juga donk dalam Indonesia, biar orang Indo ga awam sejarah... miris.

[@matthewkuchinski1769]

I argue that the Romans were extremely good at flexibility and maneuver, more so than the Macedonians post-Alexander. The reforms of Alexander and his father Philip had improved the system which had been in play for centuries amongst Greek armies, yet the post-Alexander forces of Macedon seemed to revert back to a less fluid phalanx, one which depended less upon cooperation with missile troops and cavalry and more upon brute force.

[@kebabinii7577]

Lmao, just form noob box at the corner of map dude

[@brianvalero6272]

Ha!

[@enzoalmirante6169]

RTW tactics: works like a charm.

[@sirxander5420]

Honestly the easiest noob tactic to defeat. A noob box is really garbage against an experienced player. Cornercamping is really annoying though

[@therealnoodles7638]

Thats my tactics, won even on very hard mode lmao

[@therealnoodles7638]

@@sirxander5420 yeah if you had a lot of missiles and armour piercing units

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

I've always felt that unnamed Tribune @10:10 fighting at cynoscephalae and winning the battle got a raw deal historically...

[@adib3011]

Alexander vs Julius. Now THAT would be a showdown worth watching.

[@Gauntlet1212]

In the second world war, the germans put equally much emphasis on common officers being able to make quick decisions on their own, it was called "Führung von vorne" - "leading from the front" and is one of the reasons the Wehrmacht was initially so successful. Had to think of that when you mentioned the roman centurions. It shows how advanced roman tactics were.

[@tylerdurden3722]

That's why the centurion was the backbone of the Roman army.

[@richardparker123]

This was also one of Napoleon's main strategies that led him to victory multiple times.

[@kingpizzatheglorious6837]

God I love this channel, you guys make such amazing videos and it's always so inspiring. It makes me want to go do my own research and find out more and more. Thank you for making these videos.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Good :-) There is always more on the way!

[@eXcommunicate1979]

No Hellenistic phalangite wore Corinthian helmets as far as we know. You likely meant Thracian and Phrygian.

[@khankrum1]

I thought they used the Boation helmet.

[@bubblyvava1152]

khankrum1 cavalry did, the helmet the phalangite is wearing in the photo is chalcidian, and they wore mostly phrygian helmets.

[@eXcommunicate1979]

Yeah, rank and file cavalry would wear Boeotian style helmets. Some elite units would've worn any number of hybrid styles, and obviously officers could wear whatever they wanted. Early phalangites would've worn Phrygian (front rankers) and Pilos helmets (mid to rear rankers), while later phalangites wore hybrid Thracian styles. It's all very fluid of course, with no hard cutoff points when this or that helmet stopped or started being worn. But one thing's for sure, unless he was a hipster, no phalangite wore a Corinthian helmet. Pretty much out of use by the early 4th century bc.

[@bythemoonlight]

@Mithridates VI of Pontus persian empire never been "hellenistic". its a western fairly tail. actualy greece is "persianized" 400 year in ottoman control. eastern rome is latin origin, greek language(assimilated by greeks) and pure persian culture. alexander to announce "king of king". mean persian king. persian empire already have "known world". alexander live in bablyon, live like a babylonian. those times mezopotamia is privileged region. greeks in alexanders army less than five percent. phalanx is not greek origin.(like a cataphracts) sümerians discover 4500 b.c. and greek helmet origin assyrian. and then hitites and troy. (only use captains, greeks too) by the way mithridates is persian origin. there is no such thing be a greek. sorry my terrible engish.

[@Makaveli_ml]

The best channel on KZbin, hands down. Thanks for your work!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thank you for watching! :-)

[@soundbombing1076]

6:28 "bronze helmets of many kinds, especially the pileus and corinthian"... correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the most common phalangite head protection was the phrygian/thracian helmet?

[@jhealey48]

nerd

[@caner7013]

In rome 2, yes but in reality idk

[@dieselface1]

The Corinthian helmet was rarely used in this time period so that kind of struck me as strange as well

[@sudalaskas]

@@dieselface1 Yes, Corinthian helmets were not very popular at that time, those were more popular among greek hoplites of older times. Phalanx pikemen used phrygian styled helmets the most

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

Many phalangite helmet designs essentially LOOK like the old corinthian helmets, but they were made to be worn ontop of the head rather than cover the entire face, as in they still had the eye and mouth-slits even tho you couldnt even get the helmet down that low to look through them. Or am i mixing it up and these styles were completely replaced at this point? Oooh wait the phrygian helmets are the ones with the big weird knob on the top, sticking up in the middle right? Yeah they might've stopped using those hellenistic designs all together.

[@Profligateslayer]

Romans: It’s over Greeks! I have the high ground! Greeks: You unde- *gets spear shoved through head*

[@vmro9446]

Greeks allied with Rome destroying the Macedonian kingdom you fucking imbecile

[@Profligateslayer]

VMRO SLOBODAILISMRT Macedonians and Greeks both fall under Hellenic, so an easy mistake could be made you fucking imbecile. Also, not all Greeks allied with Rome you fucking imbecile.

[@Profligateslayer]

VMRO SLOBODAILISMRT y’now, actually, just realized that there was such little difference between them that you could call Macedons (Of the time) Greeks.

[@spartanhokage9968]

@@Profligateslayer Yo just don't listen to this person his whole country is filled with Propaganda making most of them believe that they got connection with both Macedonians (Greeks) and the Bulgarian Kings

[@vmro9446]

fot geo LOL

[@masismasis359]

The sheer amount of detail in this documentary is incredible, HISTORY at its best, thank you very much

[@Kman31ca]

Great video, by far one of the best I have watched. It's pretty amazing just how the pragmatic Romans were in battle 2000 years ago. Very forward thinking, and not hobbled by tradition which still to this day can hobble some of the best militaries. Adopting whatever worked best, even from their hated foes, to giving authority to JR ranks to take the initiative, and how the command system they use is ingenious for their time (Didn't always work that way, mostly due to high command not being up to par). Can't wait for the Marius Reforms vid!

[@doc.rankin577]

Truly the sign of a great military machine. Empowering the lower ranks and allowing them to take the initiative. You'll see this throughout history.

[@KingsandGenerals]

More on that later!

[@stevendern2543]

Thanks Old Top.

[@roryross3878]

That requires a quite sophisticated society willing (and able) to educate and train it's soldiers to a high degree.

[@LordVelari]

The modern American army has this virtue as well. "Chain of command."

[@Sergei_Ivanovich_Mosin]

Only works in a well trained professional army though, which is one major advantage Rome had over most the civilian/mercenary armies of the era.

[@Compcube]

The video is giving too little mention of the wide gap in competency between veteran Roman legionnaires and pikemen drafted by economically hard pressed successor states at the time. Taking your Pydna example, it is extremely difficult for an army, currently losing the engagement, to retreat to a rougher ground without disrupting the unit cohesion (and thereby devolving into a rout) all the while in direct contact with the enemy. The fact that the Romans pulled off this feat shows their high degree of training and veterancy rather than inherent advantage of Roman system. Also, if the Macedonian army at Pydna was at its heyday performance, it would've checked its advance to maintain unit cohesion and acted in concert with its plethora of supporting light/medium infantries (presence of which was critically absent in Pydna) to adapt to the situation. At their hearts, both the Roman and Hellenistic military engines were combined arms system relying on each type of arm to be present in sufficient numbers and to function properly. Hellenistic system broke down not because of inherent weakness of its phalangites (which is just a part of the whole system) but rather because of the regimes' inability to maintain the system at its optimal performance.

[@roryross3878]

I appreciate your analysis, yet I also have an impertinent question: as I novice I have acquired the impression that the Roman "heavy" manipular infantry were surprisingly capable of operating independently, to a degree not possible or even conceivable to those who relied upon the more specialized (and less flexible) phalanx. If so, a lower dependency on "combined-arms operations" (forgive me I've only previously encountered this terminology with WW2 and more modern warfare) would be an outright advantage of the Roman system of warfare. And this has all really only covered actual fighting engagements, if we consider further aspects of organisation, logistics, and impressive construction methods of the Roman military system, the overall relative effectiveness (technology aside) of each basic Roman foot soldier probably outstrips that of all those preceeding and probably most following until the the 20th Century.

[@edwardelric717]

@@roryross3878 complete bullshit. The later Greeks, Macedonians and Romans had very similar logistical support. You can't march an army to India from Greece without competent logistics. The successors kingdoms also had mobile heavy and medium infantry units like the Thorakitai, thereouphoroi, etc. They could act independently and be mobile. The problem was by the time of the First Macedonian war, the ability of the successor kingdoms to recruit, pay and maintain such a complex military had all but ended because they had engaged in constant warfare that wiped out their economy and recruit bases. The Ptolemy's for example had to create Egyptian phalanxs that were were not trained in the Greek systems of war. Same with the Seleucids who ended up recruiting Persians as Greek settlers in the kingdom had been used up in years of wars. The phalanx style of war came back in the late mediaeval ages when societies became more organised and experienced again but even then they were always supported with other infantry types like the lankeshects and crossbow men. And heavy cavalry.

[@SeleucusNicator]

Another amazing video! I love it when people discuss the advantages of the Roman Legion and the Macedonian Phalanx. My history admiring friends and I have talked and argued about it many times in the past. I can't remember where I read it, but someone wrote and made the comparison that the Macedonian Phalanx was a rock and that the Roman Legion was a rubber band. The rock can push as hard as it wants against the rubber band, but the rubber band will stretch and spread itself but never break. Conversely, the rubber band cannot push or overpower the rock on its own. The writer ended the argument by saying the rubber band would use the rock's strength against itself by bending almost to its breaking point before launching the rock into something else to destroy it. Not the best ending, but I think it gets the point across.

[@CRBASF2]

Alexander wasn't successful because of the Macedonian Phalanx, in fact the victories he had was due to it's shock cavalry, the Phalanx was there for one job only, to hold and pin the enemy forces in place and the final blow was always delivered by the Companion Cavalry (like the battle of Issus, Gaugamela). Alexander knew the strengths and weaknesses of the Phalanx (lack of mobility and vulnerable to the flanks), that's why he had Hyspapists (heavy infantry) and skirmishers (peltasts and slingers) to cover its flanks. All of the above was in a way ingored by Alexander's successors, since they focused mainly on the Phalanx, and neglected the cavalry and the rest of the support units that delivered all the victories that Alexander had. In the end of the day what really matters is the level of competence of the commanders, what's the point of having a trained army and have the best gear but if you lead your army into an ambush or let the enemy surround your army?

[@SeleucusNicator]

@@CRBASF2 I was initially a little confused with your reply. I never said Alexander was successful solely because of the Macedonian phalanx. Both the Legion and the Phalanx had supporting forces that enhanced their combat abilities. The Romans had their Italian Allies and later the Auxilia who most notably provided critical cavalry support to the primarily infantry-focused Roman military, while Alexander and the Successor Kingdoms had Agrianians, Cretans, Thessalians, Persians, Medians, Egyptian, and Parthian infantry and cavalry to augment their phalanxes. Also, in the most famous battles where the Legion defeated the Phalanx, (Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna) it wasn't solely the legionnaires alone who decided the battle but Roman allies and tactical mistakes by the opposing Successor king. At Cynoscephalae, it was the powerful charge of twenty war elephants (most likely from the recently defeated Carthage) that broke the unformed left wing of the Macedonian army and gave a sharp-eyed tribune the opening he needed to lead 2,000 legionnaires in a decisive attack on the exposed rear and left flank of the Macedonian phalanx. At Magnesia, it was Eumenes II's decision to send his light infantry to break the charge of the Seleucid chariots and turn them back on their comrades before personally leading the Pergamene cavalry in a charge that broke and routed the Seleucid left wing that proved critical to the Roman victory. And as I mentioned earlier, tactical mistakes on the Successor kings also helped the Romans immensely. Instead of leading his cataphractoi in a charge on the Roman flanks and rear after routing the Roman left wing, Antiochus the Great decided to storm the Roman camp and fatally left his phalanx exposed without leadership or cavalry support. At Pydna, Perseus had a chance to turn the battle in his favor (or at least force a draw) if he committed his cavalry to the battle at any point, but instead he chose to hang back and retreat after his phalangitai had been broken. I consider both the Roman Legion and Macedonian Phalanx to be incredible war machines, and their performance becomes even more impressive when probably supported, but I have to give it to the Roman Legion for having a more flexible command structure and tactical flexibility when fighting in its constituent units. I'm quite familiar with the Polybian Era of the Roman military and the armies of the Successor Kingdoms. I'm also writing a historical fiction novel about the Seleucid Empire in particular so my screen name isn't just for show. :)

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Flexibility comes with it's own weaknesses, such as at Cannae where Hannibal scrunched the Romans together to the point that the legionnaires were crushed by their own formation's compactness, neutralizing the advantages the Romans had in numbers and armament. It would be interesting to know if Hannibal could have won against a phalanx force the same size as Rome's Legions on the same terrain of Cannae.

[@SeleucusNicator]

@@Edax_Royeaux Hannibal is without a doubt one of the greatest generals in history, but I give a fair amount of credit to poor Roman leadership for his victory at Cannae. If Varro had kept as little as a quarter of his army in reserve, he could've easily prevented the double envelopment of his army. Instead, he sent all of his men forward in an attempt to break through the Carthaginian center. He was using his legions and legionnaires as if they were phalanxes and phalangitai and it cost him and the Romans dearly.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@SeleucusNicator ​ True. I think modern military generals read too much into Cannae because it was achieved by the enemy using no tactics at all. However, it is an example of where the Legion's elasticity worked against them. There are very few battles that I can recall where the formation gets molded into a ball and crushed. A phalanx, being a defensive formation, wouldn't have been drawn in on Hannibal's formation very easily because the phalanx was naturally slow, and because the formation is so heavy, it would have been very hard to push it back in an encirclement. If the Romans could have maintained order and had space to maneuver, they conceivably could have just fought it out as if in a primitive square formation.

[@charlesjohnson6777]

I love kings and generals, history marche and baz battles, these detailed battles maps and documentaries are of great value, quality and are always very interesting to watch.

[@bluemartian9]

I love how this and even history documentaries use game footage from Rome 2 Total War to visually depict battles.

[@Pikazilla]

I have always wanted to learn about how Romans and Greeks fought each other and why Rome won.

[@farrukhmir6497]

Took your time making this one K&G..been waiting for this comparison for some time from you guys... job well done tho.

[@AXMENT]

This channel is awesome, and the narrator is just perfect for it.

[@megawackoking]

I was not expecting so much heat in the comments but at least it is about history and not personal attacks. Thank you Kings and Generals for the great content.

[@pixelknight163]

Something to consider: Alexander's Combined Arms Phalanx was flexible in engagements. Not Terrain. And he won a good deal of his military battles by utilizing his companion cavalry. So in order for the Phalanx to succeed against Rome in Greece, they needed good cavalry and flat terrain. They had the latter, lacked the former. which meant the superior roman cavalry (with the help of recently acquired elephants) could drive off the greek cavalry and flank the rear. If Alexander didn't squander his companion cavalry by MARCHING THROUGH A DESERT and other stupid shit like that. And the greeks still utilized skirmishers to help the flanks. Greece may very well have ended the war in a white peace. White peace because the Phalanx has no chance in mountainous, hilly, and forested Italy. Not even Companion Cavalry can destroy an enemy formation when there's trees in the way.

[@tylerdurden3722]

1. Half the Army didn't march through that desert. Alexander split the army in half and the other half went home comfortably by boat. The other half, that did march through the desert included the baggage train. 2. Most, if not all, of those companions would have been dead of old age already. 3. Eumenes once collected all Macedonian individuals that fought with Alexander, and was rewarded with a Silvershield for distinguishing themselves in one of the Alexander's countless battles. These guys were all older than 60 (some of them over 70) when Eumenes did that. And it was a very large number. Indicating that the elite soldiers probably wasn't part of the half that was forced to join Alexander through the desert.

[@Hypogeal-Foundation]

Greece and Anatolia are more Mountainous than Italy.

[@alexathanatos3014]

This is a very good explanatory video. In short: a Greek phalanx formation (whether hoplite or sarissa phalanx) was indeed invincible under ideal conditions (flat ground, frontal assault) as Alexander had in Persia. But the early Roman legion formation (even before the manipular formation) was much more flexible and consisted of professionally drilled soldiers. The Roman military culture had the origins of the Greek phalanx but the system was updated for the mountainous regions of Italy and Greece. As so often happens in history the more refined and modern system replaced the older one.

[@caoilfhionndunbar]

that is not the accepted consensus amongst historians any longer. the actual reason is the Phalanxes implementation; it was designed for combined arms warfare, acting with cavalry and light infantry support. the Hellenistic kingdoms didnt do that, so they could not actually properly take advantage of it. you can see as much by looking at the campaigns of Alexander and his father Philip II, were they were used to great effect. the flexibility position was proposed by Polybius and remained largely unchallenged for two thousand years, but has now been reconsidered as a secondary issue, that would not have been one had the Phalanx been implemented properly.

[@alexathanatos3014]

@@caoilfhionndunbar The Macedonian phalanx was just a continuation of the hoplite phalanx. Greeks almost never used combined arms with their phalanxes because cavalry were too few in numbers and the use of light infantry only became common in the Pelopponesean war. I think you have been playing too many video games like Rome Total war. Reality is very different.

[@caoilfhionndunbar]

@@alexathanatos3014 im literally a historian. the traditional phalanx and the macedonian phalanx are entirely different beasts, thats a foolish comparison, and entirely irrelevent. the Hetairoi, the companion cavalry, were what made the Phalanx so effective in both of their cases. it was a necessary part of making it an effective military formation. this is not just my opinion but the consensus of historians of the period.

[@alexathanatos3014]

@@caoilfhionndunbar Of course you are literally a historian. And i guess i am Alexander the Great, literally... Playing video games will not teach you history. Phalanx means "finger" in Greek and every Greek phalanx since its development had the same usage. Combined arms is a modern idea shown by video games to kids. Ancient Greeks had no such resources, be they Spartans, Thebans, Macedonians or Epirots. They just used what they could. That is some history for you.

[@caoilfhionndunbar]

@@alexathanatos3014 ya, I am. do you want me to show you my degree or something? as for your understanding of history... you seem to think that the ancient Greeks and the Hellenistic kingdoms were the same. they are not. you also seem to think that the phalanx was the same across its history. it was not. the phalanx of the classical and archaic age of the Greeks was an entirely different military formation that bore an entirely different purpose from the Macedonian phalanx that was used throughout the Hellenistic era. infact the classical phalanx was even used as support for the Macedonian phalanx in Philip II's army; being explicitly mentioned in ancient sources as a different type of soldier. the Macedonian military was built upon the combination of the Macedonian phalanx, mobile infantry, and heavy cavalry, which acted to strike the decisive blow against their opponents - this is seen in every record of both Alexander and Philips campaigns, and is also the agreement of those in my field. it was the abandonment of the cavalry and support units by the later Hellenistic kings, especially the Antigonids, that lead to their ineffectiveness against Rome. the idea that Alexander and Philip had "ideal conditions" is utterly stupid. the battles of Issus and Granicus, for example, were fought literally in a river, and upon a rocky slope. both saw the Phalanx used effectively still, because it was not an offensive formation, but one meant to force a favorable position for their cavalry to take advantage of. combined arms warfare is very much a historic phenomenon as well as modern - perhaps look at Graham Wrightsons (A specialist on the subject) book on the subject. even the "Epirots" under Pyrrhus used such strategies in their invasion of Italy. if you really want to learn about this, I suggest looking at the works of Edward Anson on the Sarisa's introduction, and look at the records of Alexanders battles as well as Polybius, Plutarch, and Livy's accounts on the battles between Rome and the Greeks, which should illuminate the actual differences quite well. as it stands, your analysis on why the Greeks were ineffective against Rome is some two millenium out of date (Polybius 18.28-32)

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Give me good supplies and men, I’ll defeat the enemy in 3 days.

[@umaransari9765]

@johny odisho *ahem* Khalid ibn Al Waleed *ahem

[@user-wk4iw8gt8r]

Skenderbeg

[@umaransari9765]

24 correct Probably the most underrated general in History

[@tomtom21194]

THAT FORT IS INPREGNABLE! Gimme 30 goodmen and some rope, i'll impregnate the bitch

[@danielscott15]

At your command, General

[@杨非-c4j]

非常感谢你们出了中文字幕，以往我需要不挺回放来听懂视频语言，感谢。Thank you very much for putting out Chinese subtitles. In the past, Ididn't have to play back to understand video language. Thank you

[@grecko8762]

I have told my friends to donate to channels like this instead of gifts this year - always excited when I see a new Kings & Generals on the list!

[@imandyhi7671]

0:39 thats a pile of salt on Carthage, well played

[@davidrosner6267]

Although both the Roman legions and the Macedonian phalanxes were absolute machines, the Romans valued flexibility, adaptability and initiative while the Macedonians relied on fixed formations supplemented by cavalry and auxiliary troops. This is why the legion prevailed in the end.

[@Warmaker01]

There is something that needs to be brought up about how different the armies of the Successor Kingdoms were compared to Alexander's day. Alexander's armies were a lot more "balanced." Yes, he had lots of Phalangites, but he also had a very powerful cavalry force. Alexander would use his cavalry as the "decisive arm" while the Phalangites pinned the enemy. When you look at the Successor armies, it was very heavy into infantry and the cavalry compliment a pale shadow of the composition of Alexander's day. It was getting to the point where Sarissa length got longer and longer and became an "ancient world meme." Successor strategy looked like it was more about grinding with the Phalanx than shock action with powerful cavalry force. I'm not sure how it came to be where cavalry quantity took a nosedive with the successors. Probably years of infighting among the Successor Kingdoms? Another thing that did not help the Macedonians against the Romans was that Rome was literally hot off the heels of winning the Second Punic War against Carthage, defeating Hannibal. There's periods of history where a power gains a lot of momentum. Macedon could not have picked a worse time to be in conflict with Rome, especially considering the experience of her Legions coming out of that long, massive bloodbath with Carthage. You had the Successor armies dwindling down from the glorious days of Alexander, very different from what they were originally, facing off against the Roman Legions who had finally beat Hannibal and have had SEVENTEEN YEARS of war with Carthage. Lots of men had been on campaign and war experience.

[@BurnellBrownIII]

Intro was fire. Short, simple, intriguing.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks!

[@walishasiraj4280]

the opening classical is so mesmerizing as is everything these guys upload

[@Ppanos423]

How roman legion actually managed to defeat the greek phalanx bugged me for sooo long. I had the general idea but now I learned exactly what happend. You guys are awesome. Keep it up.

[@Kreso301]

Maan I likee K&G videos :D . When I see a new video I'm excited as a very excited person who has a very good reason to be excited, as George from Blackadder would say XD

[@charlethemagne5466]

Not to mention that greece had few able commanders and mostly relied on the sheer icon that the phalanx was, whilst many of the roman troops were either veterans who fought against hannibal and their commanders were more experienced. It was a mix of bad luck and romans being more effective at fighting on rough ground. If the phalanx played more to its strengths and set up at mountain passes where they couldn't be flanked, or just straight up went back to the hoplite model. Im just speculating here, but goes without saying this was a great video.

[@lukezuzga6460]

Can never get enough of K & G's Roman History!!!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks!

[@lukezuzga6460]

Kings and Generals You're welcome.

[@budders9958]

Thanks, been waiting for this discussion on your channel.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks for watching!

[@Dorya9]

Everytime K&G posts a great video like this I always scroll down in the comments seeing the Macedonians and the Greeks arguing. This very much reminds me of 2 great mistakes people make when discussing history. 1. Your modern day concepts don't exactly apply to the ancient world. For example, our idea of a country is not the same as their idea was back then. 2. Time. This was a very, very long time ago and things have changed in each of these places over the course of 2+ millennia.

[@TheApokaliptic]

The argument mostly happens because of the more recent history. Before the Balkan Wars we were by far the majority population of Macedonia (whatever that makes us, I won't mention us by name) and we wanted to liberate it from the Ottoman Empire and turn it into a republic. The Greeks were claiming we are also sort of Greeks and therefore all of Macedonia should belong to the Kingdom of Greece (Serbs and Bulgarians were having the same idea and were "claiming" us too for their kingdoms). After Macedonia got conquered by these kingdoms we started being forcefully assimilated by them and at this point we were still the majority population in all of the parts of Macedonia. The coastal part which got conquered by Greeks had a large Greek minority right at the very coast. Being there since ancient times and they remained largely separate from the majority unlike the newcomers that got largely assimilated into it. It is actually a bit scary how little those Greeks have changed in 2+ millennia, it has a lot to do with them being a decentralized coastal nation, causing them to "stick to their own" a bit more. Since then a lot of the former majority on that part of Macedonia got displaced or killed off and a lot of Greeks have been brought in especially from Turkey. Now all of the people on that side of the border are being referred to as Macedonians by Greeks while the rest of us are being called Slavs, Bulgarians, Fyromians, Skopjans ets. and being not only separated from our history but more importantly from our people, which they subjugated. As for any of the Macedonian Greeks claiming to be Macedonians, they are welcome, some of them probably partially are. And as far as the regional culture and history is being concerned it is exactly that, regional not Macedonian, Greek or otherwise someone's property. Sorry for the long post.

[@anduril38]

One thing I found interesting was a lot of Romes biggest victories over Macedon were contributed heavily by non-Roman units, namely war elephants. The Roman Legion was more flexible, but it was still a brutal engagement against a phalanx army. Seeing how poorly manned Macedon was in its twilight years, it is interesting how things turned out. Eventually of course, the phalanx was overwhelmed by the far superior resources and mobility that Rome possessed.

[@CRBASF2]

Specially how Alexanders successors focused solely on the Phalanx and forgot that its flanks needed to be protected by skirmishers (peltasts, slingers), heavy infantry (hypaspists)

[@acdragonrider]

Not only elephants but their Greek allies. Rhodes, pergamon at magnesia for instance

[@HaloFTW55]

Rome also had more manpower, they can laugh off 10’000 dead and raise another 2 legion to send into the grinder who learned from the defeat of the previous legion.

[@anduril38]

@@CRBASF2 Indeed. Well, they were fighting each other most of the time, so they adapted the phalanx so it could counter their similar rivals. . .which backfired when their bulkier, unwieldy phalanxes came up against the Roman Legion. Ironically Alexander the Great's phalanxes would likely have done much better against Rome with their greater flexibility. (And his incredible cavalry arm...)

[@anduril38]

@@acdragonrider Exactly! I found it fascinating how important non-Roman troops were to their victories over the phalanx.

[@phantomwraith1984]

Legionnaires: **Display great formation flexibility and the ability to adapt rapidly to changing battlefield conditions** Phalanx: "This is beyond sciences!"

[@deepdungeon8465]

Became target practice at Carrhae, Alexander's Phalanx accompanied by combined-arms-tactic units beaten the nomadic horse and heavy cavalry with ease. LMAO

[@pantelisvasileiadis2858]

Very educational! thank you

[@couldbeanybody2508]

FINALLY A VIDEO OF THIS TYPE BY A DECENT RELIABLE CHANNEL

[@sithlord115]

You should do Alexander commanding his phalanx against Julius Caeser and his Legions

[@XP3RTL3G3ND]

Alexander and Caesar. They would have recognized each other’s greatness, combined forces, and ruled the world.

[@samcnut]

What is this, a crossover episode?

[@brettd2308]

Heads up, this video isn't included in the "Armies and Tactics" playlist. When I watch through it, it goes straight from the Rome vs Carthage video to the Marian Reforms video.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Fixed, thank you!

[@mangyminotaur30]

Always enjoyed the sharp visuals, good work as usual lads

[@johnalexandergallego6028]

As a non naturally english speaker, this video is amazingly clear and easy to understand. Thanks for the lessons and keep up with the great work. Subscribed! :D

[@ColonelMustang713]

Although I applaud your effort in creating this video, it must be pointed out that when the Romans faced the Macedonian phalanx, the latter was in its decadent state, many years from its prime, and lacking Alexander's charismatic leadership. Moreover, Alexander's army contained an assortment of other units, including archers, cavalry, light infantry, etc. I strongly feel that, if we had a magical imaginary fight between the Macedonians in their prime, under King Alexander the 3rd, and the Romans in an equal state, the Macedonians would have won. PS: Macedonia is Greek, Alexander was Greek. Proof of that is that Macedonians participated in the Olympic Games, where Filippos, Alexander's father, won the chariot race. Only Greeks were allowed in the ancient Olympic Games, and that rule was enforced most zealously.

[@johns5638]

*applaud

[@ArchaiaHistoria]

Great video! It is quite laughable how bad the phalanx formation could work out. In the Battle of Chaeronea in 336 Philip II would dominate the battlefield in no small part to this wall of pikes against the hoplites. However in 86 BCE at the same place, the general of Mithridates VI, Archelaus, would be absolutely crushed by Sulla because of the stiffness of this very same formation, crippling the Pontic war effort. It seems to always be the case with all traditional military tactics, they always take too long to die off.

[@MrAizatazmi]

coz phalanx formation was there long enough people knows how to counter it

[@HaloFTW55]

The longer a combat doctrine exists, the more time someone have to develop a counter in either a new tactic or/and technology. Just look at how mass Infantry assaults that have historically been the standard fare against massed volley firing, then canister shot, then Skirmisher/Light Infantry, then rifling, then explosive ammo, then guns that fire more than 200 rounds per minute. Now, massed Infantry Assault is borderline if not outright suicidal since we’ve had over 2000-3000 years to develops technology and tactics to counter it.

[@Mike-gz4xn]

The phalanx at this time was much less flexible than the one of Philip II and didn’t have the same support. These newer phalanx were designed to fight other phalanx, thus got too long, unwieldy and less supportive troops. Pyrrhus succeeded time and again but didn’t have the resources or replacement numbers to secure the victories. Additionally the skill of the Roman generals usually outclassed there counterparts.

[@chrisjohnson4666]

If I recall correctly the phalanx of Alexander's era used calvary to protect the flanks and allow for the unit to reposition if attacked on the flanks... The flanks were known from early on to be a phalanx weakest point...

[@Mike-gz4xn]

C and K Early Warning Systems not only that, they also used shield barriers, similar to hoplites and skirmishes.

[@ColinYoungAquaPhoenix]

I'm calling it now; Kings and Generals definitely has ESP. I was doing some personal research on the Legion v Phalanx and literally half an hour after I finish, one of my favorite channels posts a video on that same topic. I refuse to believe this is a coincidence.

[@KingsandGenerals]

We are watching you. :-)

[@dubuyajay9964]

Will you ever speak on how Rome took over Athens and Sparta? Your video on the Roman conquest of "Greece" was very vague on that as it mostly focused on Macedonian Campaigns.

[@elecelec4982]

i like the way these informative videos are presented , no conjecture right to the point.

[@Iceaxehikes]

I automatically liked and subscribed. "Kings and Generals" Dude.. of course.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks!

[@Reactionary_Harkonnen]

It's more like "Rome defeated Greece but Greece conquered Rome."

[@giannispants6648]

Basically both happened

[@jdog7797]

Greece was the seed of Democracy, and Rome was the Wind.

[@nesojelo9944]

Not Greece only Macedonia

[@giannispants6648]

@@nesojelo9944 Macedonia was, is, and it will be greek even though some new nations without history trying to steal the greatness of Greece as about history...because they were lucky to be captured by alexander the great

[@Francys5FS]

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.

[@quahntasy]

Loved that background music. Dem Romans were beasts.

[@eldermoose7938]

these new production values are dope

[@riadbensebti]

god bless you ,without seeing the video i am in total love , thanks so much for this topic

[@d.m.collins1501]

Holy crap, I've been waiting for this video ever since I got obsessed with battles from antiquity. Thanks for addressing the elephant in the room, no Punic intended: "Why and how did the Romans attack the historically proven phalanx formation with intentionally shorter polearms and ever expect to win?" Turns out the phalanx is a flat ground, pitched battle formation that requires your enemy to play nice and not hide behind trees--otherwise the enemy can just get past the tip of that long, long spear and come running for you and your tiny shield. No wonder the Romans found it ineffective against the Gauls, Samnites, and Carthaginians.

[@d.m.collins1501]

Please, PLEASE do more specific battles between Romans and phalanx formations!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Yeah, a few (or all?) battles will be covered in detail.

[@UpcycleElectronics]

It's funny that, on a channel with multiple artists, and a somewhat standardized artistic style I can still tell when I'm watching n'Cogito's work. That takes some serious skill for an artistic signature to show through on intuition alone. I'm not even certain what the intuitive elements I'm picking up on are, but it's certainly there every time. Not to discredit anyone else. This is consistently top notch content. Nice job all ;) -Jake

[@bmr2104]

Wow! Great Video! The legions were so strong! Seems like only cavalry could defeat them, like the battle of Carrhae.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thank you! :-)

[@arawn1061]

@@KingsandGenerals are you going to do The battle of Cannae? Seeing as it is Romes most famous defeat

[@robertkalinic335]

That was because romans didnt have enough fire support.

[@TheChiconspiracy]

Hannibal's Libyan spearmen might have something to say about that...

[@toasterforsale5069]

TheChiconspiracy The marian legions would have something to say as well

[@ScipionLaurentiend]

great video as always,keep it up

[@Red-rl1xx]

Great video as always! Thanks!

[@Epicurus941]

Very good job bro!!! keep going!!! Greetings from Greece!!!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thank you for watching!

[@Epicurus941]

@@KingsandGenerals Ideally, I would also like to make a video for the philosopher Epicurus. The giant of philosophical thinking!!!! And I like it very much that you have Greek subtitles in the case of Greece! :)

[@secretscipio]

Who is gonna win in a battle between Greeks under Alexander the Great vs Romans under Julius Caesar?

[@secretscipio]

@@rjhill122 Unless they are fighting in the middle east, i think caesar is gonna win.

[@jamestang1227]

You're going to need to give more variables like location, weather, state of the army, etc. if you want the answer to be more specific

[@thebigdrew12]

Hmm...honestly, whoever wins the fight will only get a phyrric victory. If I had to bet on one, though, I'd go with Alexander.

[@magnuscoles5010]

@@rjhill122 what about sabutia with 20000 horsemen against Alexander with 20000 of his own men?

[@Armorius2199]

Alex.

[@portugueseeagle8851]

Did anyone else notice that pile of salt at 00:40 where Cartage should be? Very good reference to what happened to the city! Ahahah

[@KingsandGenerals]

;-)

[@shanezhang8277]

Oh aha yeah

[@shanezhang8277]

Yeah but why?

[@tobago3679]

Great video, everything expected and more!!!

[@OsoBlanco17]

Just found your channel and I’m amazed at the quality of the video and content! Subscribed!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Welcome aboard!

[@georgebethanis3157]

A Greek army of the time relied on the hammer (Cavalry) and anvil (Phalanx) tactic to win. The Hellenistic Kingdoms always lost the cavalry engagements to the Romans. This exposed the flanks of the phalanx making it possible to defeat it, and deprived the Greeks of their cavalry, vital to controlling the battlefield. Alexander's father build a well balanced army, with a powerful cavalry corp which would dominate the battlefield and take on the initiative driving the enemy and pin them on to the phalanx. This balance of forces (light & heavy infantry, cavalry) was neglected later on by the successor kings. They were too accustomed in fighting phalanx battles amongst themselves. Finally Romans heavily took advantage of the feuds between the Hellenic States. For example during the Macedonian War, part of southern Greece was allied with Rome against Macedon.

[@michaelbellinger1363]

This is a good case for, “the students became better than the teacher.” Excellent video, I’m a fan of your channel. Well played.

[@SSDTV123]

Ancient Greece is also a very mountainous region, so I never understood why the hoplite and the phalanx even lasted as long as they did

[@robertkalinic335]

I think because phalanx started as militia, its easier to train citizens this way, romans used to fight in same way before copying samnites after they got kicked in their ass too much.

[@johanlassen6448]

Because nobody fought in the mountains. Frankly neither did the Romans, and their formation was not suitable for it either. The whole "the Macedonian phalanx does not work the moment it encounters a tree" is a myth. That is not how the Romans won their battles against the Greeks. They won by the use of more and better cavalry as well as light infantry and other such things. At Cynoscephalae, it was elephants and chance (the fact that Philip V had only time to deploy half his army because the two forces practically ran into each other), at Magnesia, it was cavalry and light infantry (the Roman legionaries had either failed against Seleucid cataphracts or remained passive, while the Pergamese allies broke the Seleucid left and forced the phalanx in a disadvantageous position), at Pydna it was poor coordination and lack of cavalry (Perseus retreated from the field with all his cavalry and left the phalanx to fend for itself - nevertheless it was still pushing the Romans uphill until its lack of cohesion - because it was no longer advancing as a unit since its supreme commander had abandoned it - eventually broke it up and even so it was elephants that broke the phalanx first, not legionarys). Even at battles like Thermopylae (the latter one, not the one vs the Persians), the phalanx broke because Roman light infantry + allied Greek light infantry took the hills and threatened its rear. Now you might say, the Roman formation would have been able to survive under such conditions. And if you did, you would be wrong. When the Romans got flanked at Heraclea, Asculum, Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae they broke and/or got massacred as well. They were no more resistant to getting flanked than anyone.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

They developed the Hoplite phalanx for battles between city-states, that, thus being "real" battles, were largely codified. In those wars you see very few ambushes, almost only pitched battles on flat terrain between fully deployed formations. In those conditions the heavy infantry has an obvious advantage over the light one. With the Persian wars, they realised that formation being very effective vs. the light infantry of the Persians too.

[@eliaspapanikolaou3563]

its indeed a very mountainous area thats why Greek still speak Greek after so many Invesions...

[@sum_andres31]

Brilliant as always... Looking forward for the next one in this series.

[@gianlucaborg195]

This is EPIC Ave K&G, Fortis Fortuna Adiuvat, and you are clearly favored!!! You, “remember, you Are the Sons of Mars” and now I nominate Consuls Kings and Generals to leaded the legions against the enemies, all those in favor say, Aye... AYEEEEEE keep it up, you are reaching new highs !!

[@KingsandGenerals]

We will, thank you!

[@jmctigret]

I tell everybody Merry Christmas, I don’t care if they get offended. Merry Christmas everybody and have a happy New Year!

[@unleashingpotential-psycho9433]

The Roman army were beast.

[@marcn4452]

I like your content, but please stop

[@FunkyAceFR]

It's already hard to not have any major losses with Rome when fighting Phalanxes in Rome 2

[@KingsandGenerals]

Well, Rome 2 is a game and it had to have rigid rules for the battles.

[@abdulrahmansaleem2591]

Thanks for doing the hard work and making this video🙂

[@bilalch83]

This channel is the ultimate rabbit hole 😁

[@geordiejones5618]

Does anyone else think its crazy that for 70 years Rome fought Carthage and Macedonia like innings of a damn baseball game? Fight west, fight east, fight west... no wonder the Byzantines lasted so long. Also does anyone else think if Alexander had survived, Carthage AND Rome would be under his control? The latter later really relied on Egypt to feed everyone.

[@pixelknight163]

Probably not. The Italian Peninsula was incredibly mountainous. It was the main reason why Rome adopted the Manipular System. Alexander would be pretty helpless trying to use his cavalry and phalanx against even the Samnite tribes. The Phalanx is flexible when it comes to engagements. Not terrain. The only way I see him controlling Italy is if he did so politically by playing the tribes against one another and taking it over one by one. Lest they unite against him (Like they did against Rome.) Which is not his way of doing things. As for Carthage, Carthage had the Numidian Cavalry. Which was far superior to ordinary Macedonian Cavalry. So Alexander would have had to rely on his Phalanx to do the most damage instead of his cavalry. Either that, or use his Companion Cavalry to rout them off. Which would turn the war into a war of attrition. One which the Carthaginians would probably lose. But will take a heavy toll on Alexander's Army nevertheless. And that's if Alexander even managed to land on north africa. TL;DR Alexander might have been able to take Carthage. But Italy was an entirely different beast. It's just too mountainous and hilly. There's a reason why early Rome used light cavalry instead of heavy ones.

[@geordiejones5618]

@@pixelknight163 never saw this reply but I think if Alexander took the time to go back and forth with some diplomats to assess the political situations of Carthage, Siciliy and Southern Italy, he would have been able to take them one by one. Carthage's best advantage was its navy and Alexander could have marched from the East while flaring up tensions between them and Syracuse. If one submits you side with them against the other and then take Numidia outright. After that its a matter of real dedication. He would have been stuck in Southern Italy for the rest of his life unless he tried putting pressure on Rome from both the North and South while they lacked the levies they could call on later. By the Punic Wars Rome had too many reserves to challege outright.

[@JamaaLS]

5:15 Alexander would have seen this trap.

[@adittya9002]

blue heeler He did employ superior tactics. He was Alexander the Great not Perseus. Look up maybe any single one of his battles where he improvised on the spot and showed the flexibility of the phalanx and his Companion cavalry.

[@jigglybandito9505]

I don’t understand why the phalanx couldn’t have been more of hybrid unit. Could have implemented a keyhole around the waist so there spear could sit through and carry a bow on your back.

[@tylerdurden3722]

Alexander's army would have had a ton of Hypaspists and elite Peltasts that specialize in that type of terrain. And he would have had horse archers to screen a redeployment. And he would have taken the enemy cavalry out first so his cavalry controls the battlefield He would have had reserves for come what may (usually hoplites as a second line behind the Macedonian phalanx) And most of all. He would have had things prepared and set in motion, for this specific battle, up to 2 years ahead of time. (Mundane things to deceive the enemy...like ordering grain two years ago and arriving at that spot, just in time to make the enemy think he's gonna wait it out in a defencable position.) Other troops arriving from other directions, etc. Alexander's tactics tended to play out in ways where not even his own troops knew the weird movements they were making was part of a greater plan. E.g., Alexander sending cavalry to attack the other flank, just before intentionally causing the enemy to move all cavalry to his side....the cavalry he sent finding no one to fight on that flank they were sent to. Game over for the enemy. His other strength was every battle was a psychological mindgame. Sometimes months in the making. In one battle, Alexander was in quite a pickle surrounded next to a river and outnumbered with the enemy on hills. Alexander responded by commanding his entire army to perform drills right there on the spot. The enemy army witnessed the incredible discipline and organization of the Macedonian army...and broke and ran🤣 .

[@georgekabiris9655]

Happy to see a foreign KZbin channel saying historically accurate that Macedons and Alexander the Great were greek congratulations a like and a subscription is the least I can do to show my appreciation to you . Btw great video as always !

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks!

[@SuperMrHiggins]

Thanks for all the content. Dig the channel

[@danumbert7983]

This is an antiquity lovers nourishment! You guys are absolutely brilliant, keep up the good work!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Happy to hear that, more on the way! :-)

[@tolispaoki295]

Proud to be a Makedonian Proud to be a Greek 🇬🇷💪

[@oakoakk831]

While the Macedonian phalanx were too rigid to fight against Roman Legions, I wonder how a traditional Greek hoplite army would do against the Romans? The hoplites do no use such long spears and would be more flexible than the Macedonian phalanx. Unfortunately as far as I know, by this time the hoplite has gone out of fashion so I am not sure if there is any battle to analyze further

[@TheChiconspiracy]

If you're thinking of the classical Greek hoplite phalanx ala 300, that had been outdated even before Phillip II reformed the Macedonian army. Even at Macedon's rise we see hoplites being replaced with medium infantry (thyreophoroi) that used center grip shields and shorter spears, giving them far greater battlefield flexibility. These are likely the type of troops that killed a whole lot of Romans under Hannibal's command.

[@TheChiconspiracy]

@@aftastosk6016 Phalangites are specifically pikemen, very different from hoplites. Hoplites are defined by their one handed spear and much larger shield designed to be overlapped with those of their neighbors.

[@TheChiconspiracy]

@@aftastosk6016 Then we're talking semantics, and that's problematic when going by the terms used by ancient historians, some of whom would even describe the Roman legionaries as "a phalanx". Or use the same term for "spear" weather it was a 5m pike or tiny one handed javelin, or the same term for sword weather it was a tiny gladius or large two handed word...

[@johanlassen6448]

The Macedonian phalanx was not too rigid to fight the Romans at all. This is just a common myth. There has not been a single battle where the Romans won by virtue of maneuverability, not even at Cynoscephalae or Pydna. The fact is that the Romans won by having better and more cavalry + light infantry, not by what particular style of heavy infantry they used.

[@timurthelamest5630]

Greek hoplites had become significantly lighter armoured to better counter nimble Persian units in various places even before Phillip's reforms. These hoplites however still depended on the phalanx formation which is still much more inflexible conpared to the Roman formations.

[@otgunz3833]

Generaly freedom of desicion making in little formations help winning the battles if your sergeants-squad leads-centurions are WELL EDUCATED AND DICIPLINED. The reason why many armies in history used bulk of soldiers in phalanx, shield wall or massive bayonet changes (like in WW1) is because you want them to be controled easily by nomore then 1 or 2 orders in the chaos of battle. Rome defeated phalanx, elephants, camel cataphracts many times over and over not only because of the equipment and soldier training, but also because of the general education and dicipline of her troops (commander and legioneer alike). When Hunnic horse archers faced the not so well trained, educated, diciplined German-Celtic Roman legions, Huns decimated them as they were more "free" to choose attacks and retreats in their faint attack based mobile warfare. Beautiful to see the victories of intelligent minds and battlefield creativity 👍

[@westsideisdabest7825]

I am so glad I found this channel

[@mahteef]

You, sir, have earned a subscriber

[@KingsandGenerals]

Welcome aboard!

[@TheSecondVersion]

"The leader and general should be in the thick of the fighting, to be glorious like Alexander!" Julius Caesar: "Lol."

[@christermi]

1:52 what about Lycimach and hellenistic thrace ?

[@KingsandGenerals]

We'll get there

[@MrMuhammadPig]

0:37 lol Salt ,Carthago delenda est

[@GIMIJAH]

Thx Boss. Very good Video. Answered my question and you went even further. You are a blessing for all history lovers. Keep going. And god bless you all.

[@constantinexi9667]

As always, your videos fail to disappoint :)

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thank you!