09-27-2006, 10:44 AM
Quote:NeoSpartan:19bd72qr Wrote:and the Succesor (macedon & Seleunid Emp sp) inability to protect the flanks or reinforce the gaps in the phalanx.Indeed, but the successors were unable to use Alexander's combined arms, phalanx, cavalry and light troops...
Bang on! The Romans were fortunate that they encountered the Greeks when they had gone down a tactical dead-end. It isn't true that the Phalanx couldn't manoeuvre, except in the case of the late Hellenstic phalanx, which was the one the Romans had the good fortune to encounter. Somebody said the Romans beat Pyrrhus - this is not true, either, they simply made his victory more expensive than he could afford, hence the term "Pyrrhic Victory". He turned his attention elsewhere. The Romans, who often suffered defeats themselves, tended, in such circumstances, to sit back until they could afford to repudiate their peace treaties and have another go.
In summary, the Romans can't touch the Macedonian Phalanx if it is properly supported (either by man-made defences, restrictive terrain or the other arms) and they probably couldn't have touched the Classical Phalanx, either. And for anyone sounding off about how the Greeks need special circumstances to win, let's just remember how often the Romans got beaten when they couldn't force a battle on their own terms.
(J. Caesar, "I came, I saw, I got my backside kicked by guerillas following a scorched-earth policy, I tried again the following year with more men, I got the same result, I moped off home and lied about it." ) :wink:
