Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "How Did The Romans Beat The Greeks?- Legions Vs Phalanx, Gladius Vs Sarissa" video.

When all the combatants use the same tactic, like in the Wars of the Diadochi, you need something to break the stalemate. That's why they introduced Elephants and Chariots to do the work that Alexander did only with the cavalry.
40
Start moving from a perfectly flat terrain in any direction, and you'll end up in a not perfectly flat one. Your formation can't be so picky. Fact is that the phalanx is not a killing machine. It can advance only slowly, and the sarissas are not accurate. In all the engagement between the phalanx and the developed (not early time) legion, at first the phalanx advanced, because the legion couldn't break through a perfectly formed phalanx, but the legion suffered negligible losses. Then something happened, and at that point the legion adapted and slaughtered the phalangites. The phalanx relies completely in the cavalry to complete the encirclement and inflict real losses to the enemy, but to have a dominant cavalry is not a given.
32
Historically they didn't inflict those casualties. And this has little to do with using the phalanx correctly. The phalangites were not using the sarissas incorrectly. Flat terrains are not so common in Greece. If you can accept battle exclusively in flat terrains, and cannot move from there, you are going to lose anyway. Some centurion (not "the Roman Commander") did so, and, the fact that some centurion did so talks of the fact that they were frustrated, not frightened for the losses. As already said: "In all the engagement between the phalanx and the developed (not early time) legion, at first the phalanx advanced, because the legion couldn't break through a perfectly formed phalanx, but the legion suffered negligible losses. Then something happened, and at that point the legion adapted and slaughtered the phalangites". Fact is tha the phalanx needed TOO MUCH THINGS going its own way. Had the Generals maintained control and kept the Phalanx stationary then the battle would have been inconclusive in the best case, OR the legion would have outflanked the phalanx (you must keep contact with the enemy to prevent it to manuver, and that was important for the phalanx, since the legion was faster and easier to manuver). I've not talked of "Greece". However Rome used a fraction of his forces in the Macedonian wars, and the legionaries at that time were conscripts as well. However, as said, having a cavalry so dominant that it could dispatch the enemy cavalry, then regroup and invest the back of enemy infantry WAS NOT A GIVEN, it was not like the others didn't know the horses. To the roman cavalry was not requested to be so dominant, it was enough for them to keep the other occupied (a goal that you can accomplish even with an inferior cavalry)
21
@Sinvx In both the most famous encounters (Cynoscephalae and Pydna) the cavalry had practically no importance in the outcome of the battle. At Cynoscephalae the legionaries outmanuvered the phalanx, and at Pydna the phalanx lost its cohesion as soon as it ended up on uneven terrain. Had the Macedonians had more other troops than phalangites, the battle could have ended differently? Maybe, But that's not a great advertisement for the phalanx "we could have won if we had less of it". To say that "Romans were not well versed in defeating the Phalanx" is simply not true. They did it with ease (and those were the Republican conscripts. The post-marian reform professionals did it with ridicolous ease). The phalanx was simply not easy to break frontally and as long as it could fight on a flat terrain, but none forced the Romans to face it frontally and on a flat terrain.
11
Dimitris Tsakalos Actually the first Persian war was won by Athens alone, and the second by Athens mainly. The Greeks had never been really "united vs a common enemy" in classic time.
8
Alexander The Great Of Greece The persians invaded Greece until the Isthmus of Corinth, sacking Athens too. The invasion ultimately failed.
5
The Romans ceased to use the phalanx (the oplite phalanx) and began using the maniples during the Samnitic wars (probably borrowing them from the same Samnites). Cause the phalanx could have had a slight advantage in completely flat terrains, but was at a great disadvantage on broken terrains. Since completely flat terrains were much rarer than broken terrains, the choice was obvious.
2
It depends on what "Germans" you are speaking of. In 1st century Arminius, being the commander of the Roman cavalry, simply led Varus legions into a trap, but it had been a "one of". During the migration era, the number of German tribes pushing on the limes was too high to simply repel all of them. The Romans had to decide whom admit, romanize, and use to defend the same limes, and which fight. In the end, however, the same existence of extremely strong Roman armies near the border, that were linked to the same territory (cause much of the soldiers had there their families and tribe of origin), accentuated the separatist tendencies, of the external parts of the empire.
2
Tasos Alexiadis For the contemporaries NOT. Greeks considered Macedonians to be barbarians well before calling Philip II "Philip the barbarian". Macedonians couldn't participate in the Olympic games, because they were not considered Greeks.
1
Herodotus,The Histories, Book V.22; Alexander I of Macedon (ancestor of Alexander the Great') wanted to compete in the games, but the other athletes opposed to it, since the games were for Greeks, and not for barbarians. Alexander was finally allowed to participate, after having "demonstrated" (read: "invented a story that") his dynasty originated from kings of the Greek city of Argos, but that was valid only for him, not for the Macedonians. They were still barbarians. Moreover, Dio Chrysostom (Discourses, 2.23) wrote that Alexander I nickname was "philhellene" ("friend of the Greeks", so not a Greek himself). Still Thrasymachus (On Behalf of the Lariasaeans) called Archelaus, grandson of Alexander I "a barbarian".
1
That's sure, however, to talk about "the Greeks and the Macedonians", in that historical perspective, is legit,
1
juventinos81 As already said that happened WELL BEFORE Philip II. Classic Greeks simply did not considered Macedonians to be Greeks, and that had nothing to do with their manners.
1
juventinos81 had they been prohibited to participate to the Olympic games on the basis of being thessalians,boeotians or elleans? Even citizen of Greek colonies in Africa could participate without problems, but not the Macedonians.
1
juventinos81 Already answered above. Herodotus,The Histories, Book V.22; Alexander I of Macedon (ancestor of Alexander the Great') wanted to compete in the games, but the other athletes opposed to it, since the games were for Greeks, and not for barbarians. Alexander was finally allowed to participate, after having "demonstrated" (read: "invented a story that") his dynasty originated from kings of the Greek city of Argos, so that he was not a Macedon. Are you capable to point out a Macedon athlete that participated to the Olympic games before Philip's conquest of Greece? I don't think so.
1
Sparta, like other cities, allied with Persia too during the war of the Peloponnese. It had never been a problem for the participation to the Olympic games. Are you capable to point out a Macedon athlete that participated to the Olympic games before Philip's conquest of Greece? I don't think so.
1
Contemporary Greeks did not considered any of them to be Greek. As already said, Alexander I had to "demonstrate" of not being a Macedon to participate. Are you capable to point out a Macedon (not someone that pretended to not be one) athlete that participated to the Olympic games before Philip's conquest of Greece? I don't think so.
1
He had to "demonstrate" that his ancestors were not Macedonians but Argives, only then he was permitted to participate. Because classical Greeks considered Argives to be Greeks, and Macedonians not. Sorry, but you are confused. "barbarian" is not an etnicity too, but classical Greeks considered Macedonians barbarians and not Greeks. You have to explain your toughts about etnicities and names to them, not to me. Again. Are you capable to point out a Macedon (not someone that pretended to not be one) athlete that participated to the Olympic games before Philip's conquest of Greece? I don't think so.
1
And classical Greeks considered those "tall men" to not be Greeks. Only the royal family pretended to be Argives, that was not valid for all the Macedonians. You gave me a name I ALREADY mentioned BEFORE and that participated to the games BECAUSE HE "DEMONSTRATED" TO NOT BE A MACEDON. Are you capable to point out a Macedon (not someone that pretended to not be one) athlete that participated to the Olympic games before Philip's conquest of Greece? I don't think so. Are you aware of any athlete from Cyprus, Thesally or Crete that had to demonstrate to not be an Cypriot, a Tessal or a Cretan to participate? BTW Menandros of Thessaly won the Stadion race in 524 BC, Diognetos of Crete won the boxing contest in 488 BC, Herakleides of Cyprus won the Stadion race in 204 BC. Epirotes were considered barbarians as well. The fact that you don't know something doesn''t mean that none does. Athletes of Greek colonies in South Italy participated since 7th century BC, but not Macedons. Because classical Greeks considered them to be barbarians.
1
Alexander had to demonstrate that he was not a Macedon, but an Argive to participate. Had he only been Macedon, he would have not been allowed. Because Macedons were not considered Greeks by classic Greeks. Your guessings on what the Elanodikes knew or not are immaterial here. Data please. Are you capable to point out a Macedon (not someone that pretended to not be one) athlete that participated to the Olympic games before Philip's conquest of Greece? Evidently not. Your guessings about the origins of the Epirotes are immaterial here. Is how thay were considered by classic Greeks that counts. And Macedons were considered non-Greek. Your nationality is immaterial here. To be, or not, a modern Greek doesnt make you an autority in classic Greece.
1
Their base tactic (legion and maniples) was taken form the Samnites, that were not Greeks. At the time of their conquest, the Roman generals were superior to the Greek ones cause they had just ended the Second Punic War, so they had been taught the hard way by Hannibal, that was not Greek.
1
allegedly, in the Battle of Beneventum, the Romans did not surrounded the Phalanx, but, with packed trowing of javelins, they opened gates were the legionaries could enter and fight with the gladii.
1
At Teotoburg they were simply led into a trap by the commander of their Cavalry. When Varus realized to have been betrayed, the battle was already lost.
1
It's obvious that formation fight works better on opern terrain than into a forest, were the trees prevent the maniples to form, but at Teotoburg Arminius continued to give false informations to the Romans for a while after the battle begun (since the legions were stretched for many miles, it were Arminius' men that brought the messages between the cohorts). That way the Germans could simply fight the Roman formations one at a time, being always in clear numerical superiority.
1
More than other, at the time of the conquest of Greece, the Romans had been trained by the greatest of all, Hannibal. The Greek commanders they found there probably looked like amateurs to them.
1
Vikings tend to depict the Norse as a more isolated population than they really were. In reality they had even a land border with the Empire (As Denmark borders whit Germany). Many so called Viking swords had been infact produced in France and Germany.
1
Yes, but Flavius Josephus talked of the professional legionaries of his times. Those that fought the hellenic wars were still citizen-soldiers.
1
Today Pyrrhus is known fot the therm "Pyrrhic victory", because he had one at Ausculum versus the Romans, but at the time he was considered the best general came out of the Wars of the Diadochi, and one of the best ever, even at the level of Alexander. He also wrote several books on the art of war, that deeply influenced later generals (IE Hannibal).
1
Actually Romans raided the Parthian capital twice and made it a client state.
1
Parthian capital was occupied by Trajan in 113, and rided under Marcus Aurelius in 165 and Septimius Severus in 197 (sorry, it was trice, not twice). the Romans installed Parthamaspates of Parthia as a client king.
1
Trajan made Mesopotamia a Roman Province, Adrian judged that the Empire was overstretched, and retird from Mesopotamia and Armenia. Later Parthia become the emperor's favourite punching ball, because they liked to be called "parthicus". Shapur's adventures are very late (during the so called "crisis of third century" for the Roman Empire) and still, thus having captured Valeriano, he was thoroughly beaten by the governor of Syria Septimius Odenathus, that restored all the Roman possessions and stopped his pursue only in front of the walls of the Parthian capital (again) . Odenatus' wife, Zenobia, had been much more a threat for the Empire than Parthia ever was.
1
Sorry, itì's history. Unfortunately the very fact that you keep on calling "persian empire" different political entities demonstrates that you have a "football fan" view of it. The Parthian Empire ceased to exist in 224 AD, replaced by the Sassanid one, that itself was defeated and incorporated in the Arab one in 7th century.
1
Err... no. Parthian empire was not an "iranian kingdom" like Roman Empire was not an "Italian kingdom" or Visigoth kingdom was not a "Spanish kingdom". Iran didn't exist back then. Seeing at history from the perspective of the modern inhabitant that has to support his ancestors vs the ones of someone other is exactly seeing history like a football fan.
1
Were the Greeks that considered the Macedonians "barbarians" (long before caling Philip II of Macedon "Philip the Barbarian"). Macedonians could not compete in the Olympic games.
1