Комментарии:
I was wondering this very topic. Thanks mate.
ОтветитьRome used shock and charge warfare, which used ranged weaponry to break enemy formation and then used their cohesive unit to punch into a weakened enemy line. The Romans would lose a great many soldiers to the Greek phalanx and would lose against King Pyrrhus on several occasions, but it was at great cost to his own forces. The Romans had much higher replacement rates for soldiers and won on sheer numbers and exploitation of Greek fighting tradition.
ОтветитьRepublic* small change
ОтветитьThe phalanx “died” I think 18th century pikeman would like to have a word with you
ОтветитьGlad this came up. I was just thinking about the romans
ОтветитьThe phalanx was “okay” in mountainous terrain, I say this because like Italy Greece is largely a mountainous country, and due to such, was a tactic that was meant to be largely balanced in all forms of terrain that Greece has
Ответить3rd macedonian war was during the republic, not empire... ffs
ОтветитьRomans had the capacity to adapt. They copied tactics and weapons from their enemies in order to be stronger. This give them an advantage over other powers of the era.
ОтветитьThis was during the republic not the empire actually
ОтветитьA phalanx is GREAT in a mountain environment. Its a defensive formation that was never really mobile except for going forward. Hoplites, who were basically the precursors to the soliders in the phalanx were effective in this terrain. Why tf is there a Roman with a crossbow lmao.
ОтветитьSo they went from being an army of heavy infantry into an army of heavy infantry?
ОтветитьHoplite you meant?
ОтветитьThe only reason the Roman legion beat a Phalanx is due to the ground they were fighting on. Un even terrain on a hill makes keeping a Phalanx formation that much harder.... it's not that the legion is a better fighting style, it just functions better in diverse environment meaning they can engage a enemy formation in just about any terrain where as a greek Phalanx heavily relied on the enemy engaging in a face to face engagement .
The Roman beating the Phalanx is more about the battlefield then the formation of fighting itself. The best fighting force can be dismantled if they engage in unfavorable terrain, look at veitnam, look at Naploen invading Russia in the winter. Both times the "loser" had the best fighting force on the planet but when engaged in a unfavorable conditions then even the best fighting force in the world can be routed/defeat/killed/destroyed.
One fighting style isn't better then the other, it's about how they are employed. The man who lost Greece to the Roman didn't employ the Phalanx to it maximum effect due to the terrain alone , really quite that simple
Hoplites and Hellenistic phalangites were generally heavy infantry. The equipment difference with Roman heavy infantry was the weapon, not the armour.
Cavalry were prominent in Hellenistic armies following Alexander’s practice but it seems a stretch to say most ancient battles were decided by cavalry.
Dont think phyrrus contributed to it as much as romes concuest of greece around 125 bc. Rome could as you say outmanouver greks.
Ответить...and came back, 1000 years later.
ОтветитьMacedonian phalanx I say this because the phalanx never died and is still used today, look at riot police tactics. The word simply means a close group of people such as a shield wall for example. Others have also mentioned Swiss pikes as a great example too. The thing is essentially it's a shield wall with long weapons. It's the best formation given the weapon type.
Romans also used it. Tight interlocking shields to allow them to get close and use their weapons.
I'd say it really died when ranged weapons which could pierce armour / shields became prominent since a square blob of men is now a terrible strategy and so we moved to lines of men optimised for shooting and far less deep
Epirus was Greek, Hellenic, like the Macedonians, so I will let you get away with calling the Pike phalanx, Macedonian, but note its Skopje, not north Macedonia!
ОтветитьPhalanx only go front, legions go any ways no more to explain maneuver destroy phalanx
ОтветитьPhalanx formation died
A brief period in history of the pile and short warfare
Age of the Phalanx had already died by 200 BC.
In 168 BC was given the final blow.
The issue here is that they were not the Spartans.
ОтветитьIt just take one bush or a huge boulder to break up a formation
ОтветитьDecent video, the maniple system, along with independent commanders within the maniples made the Romans highly adaptable in combat
ОтветитьLearn accurate history like this to avoid becoming a stupid leftist.
ОтветитьI mean look at him hes like 20, what do you expect from a 20yro YT “expert”.
ОтветитьJust remember all roads lead to Rome
ОтветитьThis guy googled some shit then made a script and recorded himself with images from searching google "Rome fighters"
ОтветитьPogu
ОтветитьWhy don’t any of u ever mention Hannibal ppl should know his tru story he definitely had a part in times fall
ОтветитьNice to hear that halfway through the video, you finally managed to pronounce Macedonian correctly!
ОтветитьThis is such a tired lie. Yeah right the maniple destroyed shield walls and spear formations. Despite the fact that they are an adapted shield wall heavy infantry. Sure they incorporated some skirmishing, that’s not necessarily new either. The only thing that doomed the phalanx was a failure to adapt to shifting combined arms warfare. Get an original idea stop sucking at the teat of dogma.
Also Romans had spear units (yes with shields too). Shocked pikachu face
Granted they weren’t the same as Alexander’s phalanxes, but still quite similar to older Greek ones just with different shields.
Anyone who has played Rome Total War knows how to defeat the « phalanx » 👀
ОтветитьThe battle of cinnecefalos
ОтветитьPhalanx😢
ОтветитьI think maybe evem the bigger change is the difference in the political landscape. During the height of the greek city states, and arguably the height of the phalax, often wars were decided with one big battle between armies, not really long campaign. But with the rise of bigger empires, this changed dramatically
ОтветитьGreece and the Balkan areas are very mountain based lol.....
ОтветитьY’all really trippin about the crossbow legionnaire… it’s fucking fanfic with a small inaccuracy calm yourself
ОтветитьWtf was that last picture? A crossbow used by an “imperial” Roman. That armor was not used during the latter parts of the Roman army. The earliest forms of crossbows are seen in the 800 a.d.s but even then, they were barely used.
ОтветитьBut the scots used it at falkirk. So didnt die then.
ОтветитьOk but what about the Left and Right flank of the Formation?
Did they use cavalry for the flanks?
You're leaving out a lot man, like all the good bits. Macedonian phalanx failed in that instance because Macedonian and Greek successors to Alexander's empire gradually stopped using combined arms. Pike companion squares in Philip's and Alexander's armies were flanked by all kinds of support units, from peltasts to elite hoplites armed with the traditional shorter spear. Cavalry was used to hammer from the back units that were stuck fighting the impenetrable phalanx wall. Macedonian army at Pydna was not the same army that Alexander fielded. The phalanx also had a tremendously successful comeback in the form of the pike square, used to lethal effect by the Swiss, the Spanish, and the Portuguese.
ОтветитьNot sure what the crossbow thing was about 😂
ОтветитьTo be blunt people he’s referring to the age that’s all…also alot of what you all say is true 🎉🎉 yes
ОтветитьI thought the Pilum killed it?
ОтветитьWell the final battle of the Romans against the Macedonians was a fluke. The Macedonians split their camp in half to forage for food. And only fought with half the army and actually fought well. If not for that we might of had a different Greece
ОтветитьThat roman legionnaire with a crossbow is equivalent to seeing the founding fathers of america with M60 machine guns.
ОтветитьI played total war nf i picked the Macedonians and when I'm in a field fighting the Romans i thought i can win a face to face fight like any other else but soon my phalanx has been destroyed by the romans when they fought and i saw that their shield is too wide and hard that the spear of the phalanx got destroyed when they tried to stab it luckily my companions (cavalry) win the side battle that i managed to turn the battle around
ОтветитьInventing the phalanx gave the greeks world power…the fall of it ended the greek era
Ответитьya'll are dumb, romans had crossbows bro.. (better known as the maniballista but practically the same as a crossbow)
Ответить