How where the Romans able to kick the shit out of the successor states so effectively?
>>572268
Successor states had bigger fish to fry (each other).
Also Alexander's Classic Macedonian Army wasnt used no more. It was mostly mercenaries and levies.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D31
>Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also admit.
>>572268
one part of is was that all the successor states did not want to rely on their non-greek populace for their armies, preferring to draw them from Greek colonists. This kept their armies much smaller then you would expect.
Another part is that the whole Macedonian style of warfare was incredibly effective and pretty much unmatcched at the time - as long as you have the institutionla knowledge and training to properly support it - i.e. know how to effectively coordinate the various parts of it in a battle to cover eachothers weaknesses and play to eachothers strenghts. most of the successor states gradually lost this, as old knowledge was lost and training standards began to relax.
The most interesting explanation I've read is that in 100 years since Alexander average sarissa grew from 5m to 6-7m, since successor armies mostly fought each other and the longest pike always wins. So by the time Romans came sarissa became too heavy and unwieldy to be used effectively.
>>572314
Did the greek generals also have something to do with it? They seemed to fuck up at Pydna and Magnesia.
>>572423
Centuries of not having any serious opposition but people that thought exactly like them and fought exactly like them may not have been great for breeding intelligent, flexible generals.
Let's just say they were not on the same level of skill as the Diadochi.
>>572280
Why the fuck did a nation whose homeland was full of mountains and hills developed a battle formation that worked only on flat, bare land?
>>572453
>Why the fuck did a nation whose homeland was full of mountains and hills developed a battle formation that worked only on flat, bare land?
Macedon is a flatland.
Macedonians come from Macedon.
>>572453
One theory is that the hoplite phalanx was originally invented to defend narrow mountain passes against invaders. If you can force your enemy to face you head on, a thick wall of spears and shields is a good tactic.
After that, using a bigger spear then your enemy, to spike him before he spikes you, is just a good step.
>>572453
Because Philip fought mostly against traditional Greek phalanx and it had the same problems but was weaker.
>>572453
battle formation to hold bottlenecks between mountains
>>572449
Guess that explains why Antiochus the Great fell flat on his face against Rome.
>>572495
This is unlikely, considering the main Macedonian tactic was hummer-and-anvil and it required a lot of open space on flanks for cavalry.
>>572504
the original Hoplites were meant to exploit bottlenecks. Macedonian terrain was more open then (most of) the rest of Greece, so they adapted the concept to suit their needs.
The biggest change of the Macedonians compared to the standard Greek style of warfare was the heavy use of cavalry. Useless in the mountains and hills along the Greek coast, great on open terrein to catch phalanxes in the side or run down skirmishers.
>>572513
stop calling phalangites hoplites, it triggers my autism
thanks
>>572513
And once Alexander dropped dead everyone forgot about cavalry and relied entirely on phalanxes which eventually fucked them over. Fucking Pyrrhus was one of the few who adapted the style instead of stubbornly getting fucked.
>>572502
You just wanted to post this picture, right anon?
I don't blame you though.
>>572554
You dumb fucking idiot, do you know how much cav the successorstates used? Antiochus III had around 8000 heavily armed cataphracts at Magnesia.
>>572268
Rome was chosen by the Gods to rule the world
>>572333
also because the Diadochi couldn't be arsed to train cavalry worth a shit
>>572268
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iz1_UwD2Fw
>>572573
Twg made some of the best his memes
>>572884
DO YOU GUYS EVEN KNOW ANYTHING? The Successor states had the best cavalry of all antique settled nations. The Seleukids themselves had three thousand heavy cavalry which had elite status and then they had the settlers to call upon whom provided even more cavalry. Fucking romaboo inbreds.
>>573131
Apparently not good enough, since they, you know, lost.
>>572573
I dont get at all, why Pontus is "defending" Antiochus II?
>>573574
The cavalry always seemed to fuck them over, at Pydna they refused to follow orders and at Magnesia they attacked the baggage train while the infantry were being butchered.
>>572535
You do know they'd have called themselves hoplites, right?
>>575998
>butchered
Actually, their infantry were winning when they left the field.
And, had they not had elephants in the formation, likely would have been able to march off the field intact-after losing both flanks, the phalanxes formed squares started marching off the field. the Romans weren't able to break it.
Eunemes, however, shot the shit out the elephants, and they snapped. Inside the squares.
Which they proceeded ot tear apart in their rage.
Also, the cavalry leaving wasn't even THAT big a deal. Less than ideal and stupid, but not a battle losing move.
Had it just been Romans and Italian auxiliaries forming the cavalry wing, the Romans would have lost both of their flanks, and then been ground out of existence against the pikes.
The knowledge that their baggage was being plundred (and servants, slave,s and women raped and killed) would likely have combined ot cause a rout.
However, they had an allied pergamese army wiht them, and pergmaese auxiliaries of their own, along with other Hellenic cavalry.
Take them away-or stop the Seleucids from fucking around with stupid fucking chariots-and the romans likely would have lost the battle.
are there any battles when romans got decisively btfo by pike phalanxes??
>>576128
not a single one
Pyrrhus did beat them though but they hardly got btfo.
>>572462
>Macedon is a flatland.
Yeah looks flat as fuck.
>>576126
i dont give a shit
hoplites used spears over or underhand with a large overlapping shield
phalangites were using sarissas with small shield
>>576374
Hoplite is a greek word, and the greeks didn't hold it to mean what you claim it means. Learn how language works.
The term you want is "classical hoplite", because as is, your definition actually excludes many later forms of hoplites, and even the archaic hoplites.
>>572904
>not even mentioning the camillan polybian and marian reforms
>not mentioning the velites
overall not bad though
>>576390
> camillan polybian and marian reforms
> Rome 2 game mechanics is history now
The only intentional "reform" was marian one, before that there was a slow process of adaptation and adoption. You can talk about "Polybian Legion" meaning "Roman army according to Polybius", but not about "Polybian reform". "Camilian reform" makes no sense at all, Roman army in 390s-380s was a typical (hoplite?) levy army, as it was a century before. If anything, you can mention Servius Reform, but it's a legendary stuff.
>>576429
One of my professors insisted that the archaic greek phalanx did not exist during the reign of servius and the bit about them being armed as hoplites never happened despite what Livy wrote
>>576461
>never happened despite what Livy wrote
This is true for the most part of the first decade though.
>>576371
Anything worth defending in those hills? exclude the christian monasteries.
>>575998
In other words, they had poorly trained cavalry
>>572314
This. Roman military manpower was more or less inexhaustible next to that of the Successor states.
>>572423
Roman's fucked up a lot of times. Against gauls, carthaginians, greeks. The difference is Rome could afford defeats. The greeks could not. Pyrrhus campaign against Rome was a taste of things to come and a pre-cursor of Roman dominance over the mediteranean. Even tho he was succesfull in his battles, the Romans would not yield.
There were battles in the Macedonian wars that the Macedonians won. But they were not decisive for aforementioned reasons, and we know very little about them today because of, you guessed it, the Victors write history.
>>572453
>Why the fuck did a nation whose homeland was full of mountains and hills developed a battle formation that worked only on flat, bare land?
The Pezheitaroi of Philip II and Alexander's campaign were trained in a multitude of fighting styles;
They were trained in pankration,
They were skilled in mountain warfare,
They were engaged when taking walls at sieges,
They could form up in other formations.
Robin Lane Fox writes that when the Macedonian campaign reached Bactria and Sogdia, they abandoned the Sarissa.
Most likely, Hydaspes was not fought with the Sarissa at all, but rather they fought as spearmen in something that would more resemble a traditional phalanx.
The Macedonian phalanx was used when the terrain suited it. When it wasn't, they would equip themselves differently. It's likely that the sarissa could be divided in two, because of it's length, which means you could actually get a decent sized spear out of a sarissa as well.
They also always wore their swords, with which they fought sieges and mountain warfare.
The idea of a Pezheitaroi as a phalangite - and only a phalangite - is not true to Alexander's army.
>>576900
> when the Macedonian campaign reached Bactria and Sogdia, they abandoned the Sarissa.
I wonder, why? What was so different about Bactria and Sigdia, comparing to Iran?
>>576913
>I wonder, why? What was so different about Bactria and Sigdia, comparing to Iran?
First off, it could very well have been their experiences in Persia that made them abandon the Sarissa.
Second off, Iran isn't as mountaineous as Bactria was. They spent much of their time in Bactria hunting guerrillas through mountain ranges.
It should be noted that they didn't plan on abandoning the Sarissa forever. Alexander had 30,000 persian soldiers drilled in the Macedonian manner, including the Sarissa. Towards the end of his campaign, he may very well have had upwards of 100,000 - 150,000 men in his marching army ALONE (excluding the various garrisons) - including 50,000 - 60,000 Pezhetairoi of mixed origins.
>>576540
The cityes that are in the plains after the mountains?
Also i dubt that 300 years before christ there were a lot of christian monastery
