Macedonian Phalanx beats Roman Legion?

In 168 BC Consul L. Aemilius Paulus lead his Legions against the armies of Perseus King of Macedonia in the Battle of Pydna...
When the battle started Macedonian Phanlanx attacked so fiercely tha the Roman army began to flee and Aemilius Paulus got so scared and was thinking of retreat...
However the Roman Legions were saved by Cavalry Tribune Cornelius Nasika who broke away from Aemilius Paulus and attacked to the Macedonian flank...
Macedonians retreated and Perseus was captured and transfered to Rome... ending that way the Kingdom of Macedonia which was turned into a Roman province...
WI Aemilius Paulus retreated and Nasika got killed early or didnt managed to surround Macedonians with his Cavalry? Macedonians emerged victorius and bought time to raise a larger army and beat Romans again...
Could Macedonia be a counterweight to Rome after their victory at Pydna?
 
IIRC part of the trouble with the Macedonian phalanx is that hardly anyone after Alexander used it properly.

When developed by Phillip, it was part of a combined arms symphony- the phalangites would pin the enemy in place allowing the Macedonian heavy cavalry to smash down on the flanks.

However, during the Hellenic period, the cavalry got relegated to a side role and battle tactics dropped into a pushing contest between two masses of infantry ala the original Greek hoplites.

When the Romans turned up the upshot was that the Hellenistic powers were pitting exceedingly unmanouverable, unsupported and overspecialised heavy infantry against flexible, heavily armoured and generalist heavy infantry. The latter won. You'll note from your summary that the phalangites managed to push back the Roman infantry but were easilly outflanked and scattered by the Roman cavalry (and also note that Roman cavalry, unlike that of Macedon, was never particularly known for it's quality). Without an effective cavalry arm to counter enemy cavalry and charge home down the flanks the phalanx is just too inflexible a formation.

Perhaps you need to find a way to resurrect effective Macedonian cavalry.
 
Actually in the battle of Pydna Perseus used the same tactic as aAlexander used to do... Phalanx attacked massively and the only thing Aemilius Paulus saw was a big line of huge spears coming running towards him and this got him scared...
However Perseus made a crucial mistake... he delayed his cavalry attack and gave time to Cavalry Tribune C. Nasika to break away from Consul's army and smash Macedonian's flank... Phalangites were shocked and retreated in disaray...
Perseus could beat the Romans in their own game...
 
Actually in the battle of Pydna Perseus used the same tactic as aAlexander used to do... Phalanx attacked massively and the only thing Aemilius Paulus saw was a big line of huge spears coming running towards him and this got him scared...
However Perseus made a crucial mistake... he delayed his cavalry attack and gave time to Cavalry Tribune C. Nasika to break away from Consul's army and smash Macedonian's flank... Phalangites were shocked and retreated in disaray...
Perseus could beat the Romans in their own game...

Ah then, fair enough- I suppose it would be doable if the Macedonian cavalry gets it's act together and charges at the right time.

The other Roman advantage was that they could generally absorb defeats and reinforce their armies- what were Macedonian logistics like?
 
Perseus had 44000 men of which 21000 where phalangites and 4000 horsemen...
Aemilius Paulus had 38000 men and 4000 horsemen...
As soon as the phalanx engaged in Battle an d pushed Romans back the ground became uneven and lost its cohesion... Paulus ordered immediate attack on the gaps that were created and at the same time Cornelius Nasika attacked Macedonian flank causing phalangites to flee... while Perseus instead of moving his cavlary towards Nasika he fled to the right wing of his army...
 

Typo

Banned
The later Hellenistic powers had a infantry:Cavalry ratio of almost 10:1. While Alexander had something like 4:1. Hannibal had something like 6:1.

I can't see Macedonia as a counterweight to Rome. This isn't the Macedonia of Philip and Alexander. It's population and power has been depleted, ironically, due to Alexander's conquests. Lots of people went on to settle in Syria and Egypt. One of the main reasons that the role of cavalry fell in the Hellenistic armies was because the lack of horses. If you want a Hellenistic counterweight to Rome, the Seleucid Empire is probably a better choice.​
 
The later Hellenistic powers had a infantry:Cavalry ratio of almost 10:1. While Alexander had something like 4:1. Hannibal had something like 6:1.

I can't see Macedonia as a counterweight to Rome. This isn't the Macedonia of Philip and Alexander. It's population and power has been depleted, ironically, due to Alexander's conquests. Lots of people went on to settle in Syria and Egypt. One of the main reasons that the role of cavalry fell in the Hellenistic armies was because the lack of horses. If you want a Hellenistic counterweight to Rome, the Seleucid Empire is probably a better choice.​

IMO Macedonia CAN be a proper counterweight to Rome, but it needs to begin at it much sooner. I believe seleucusVII has a timeline here that posits exactly that - starting with Demetrios the Besieger, who ITTL actually manages to reclaim some (although not all) of Macedon's empire.

Basically Macedon that has a string of better leaders and is overall more sensible starting with, say, early IIIrd century BC CAN become a Hellenistic counterweight to Rome. But it does need to start early - Perseus is too late for that. A century before then, anything is possible.
 
A Macedonia that fully supports Pyrhus?

He only had Epirus to draw from, while in a conflict with Antigonus Gonatas of Mecedonia.

Double his initial army and the Romans get clobbered.
 

Typo

Banned
Phyrrus actually had a chance to gain the Macedon throne, and probably Greece as well, but he choose to attack Rome instead.
 
After a supposed defeat of Paulus in Macedonia (if Perseus cavalry attacked in time) how possible is for Rome to attemp another campaign to conquer Macedonia? If Perseus allied himself in time with Egypt and/or the Seleucids he would be unstoppable...
 
After a supposed defeat of Paulus in Macedonia (if Perseus cavalry attacked in time) how possible is for Rome to attemp another campaign to conquer Macedonia? If Perseus allied himself in time with Egypt and/or the Seleucids he would be unstoppable...

Macedon by then is a spent power, incapable of doing much. Neither the Egyptians nor the Seleucids have the power projection capability to take the war to Italy, although the Seleucids have an outside chance of doing so. Still, logistics will require them to take their time doing it, by which point the Romans will be back with another army. And even if Perseus were to ally with one of the powers of the day, they would not let him get too strong. It may simply delay Roman conquest of Greece at best, and replace the Romans with another power at worst.

Not saying that it is impossible for Perseus to stage a major Macedonian comeback, but by then it is becoming increasingly unlikely - not quite Sealion territory, but getting closer and closer to it. And the Romans would have had no problem coming back with another army within a year or two - the Republic of the time had immense ability to shrug off military defeats and raise new armies to replace the ones lost before.
 
A strong Macedonia defeating Roman armies could buy some time for rest of Greek cities too to defend their realms against Rome...
Cities like Corinth (who could use her position as a trade centre) could flourish following a Roman defeat...
However on the other hand some wars could occur between Greek cities and weak them significantly before Rome arrives a second time... (Ironically in this scenario they can repeat what they did to Pergamus... act as heirs of late Archons/Kings or as arbitrators between claimants... This could lead to bloodless occupation of Greece)
 
A strong Macedonia defeating Roman armies could buy some time for rest of Greek cities too to defend their realms against Rome...
Cities like Corinth (who could use her position as a trade centre) could flourish following a Roman defeat...
However on the other hand some wars could occur between Greek cities and weak them significantly before Rome arrives a second time... (Ironically in this scenario they can repeat what they did to Pergamus... act as heirs of late Archons/Kings or as arbitrators between claimants... This could lead to bloodless occupation of Greece)

The thing is, the Greeks were anything but a unitary state. They were a bunch of kingdoms, republics, and everything in between that shared the common language, the common religion, and not much else. In other words, they hated and feared each other as much if not more than they hated the Romans. In fact, scratch that - they hated each other far more than they cared about faraway Rome, who, to them, was less of a danger than Macedon.

And I doubt the Romans would be defeated so thoroughly that they would not be back next year or so. It would take much more than a simple defeat of expeditionary force for the Romans not to be back, and Macedonian victory will give them ample pretext to do so.
 
Bright day
What did the Roman armz at the time actuallz looked like?

I am asking, the triarii, were armed with pikes, were thez not?
 
Pydna or no Pydna, Macedon was fated to lose. Macedon post-Alexander had zero chance to be a world power. The only Antigonid who could've made a difference was Philip V, and that was only because of Hannibal in Italy, but Philip even botched that. In consequence, he was stuck in Greece fighting a war he never should've, while Hannibal sat on his ass after Cannae, waiting in vain for Philip to appear.

Seleucid Asia could have become a counterweight to Rome, for it had sufficient wealth and manpower (above all, in cavalry) to stop Rome from crossing over into Asia, but for the Great King Antiochus' follies that prematurely ruined the kingdom.

Egypt was the most ideal location for a Hellenistic counterweight, but for some reason, Egypt had been known as the Broken Reed since the New Kingdom, and the Ptolemies did not disappoint either. They, like their Egyptian and Persian predecessors, ran the country into political oblivion and thus was of no consequence after Queen Arsinoe died.
 
I agree that Macedonia stood no chance against Rome.

  • The Macedonian phalanx needed a leader like Phillip II or Alexander to make it truly effective.
  • Macedonia was too warn out after Alexander and the wars of his successers. Remember Greece had never truly been unified.
  • The Roman legion allowed for initiative to be taken on the battlefield. Individual commanders could make quick decisions to take advantage of opportunities that arose.
  • The phalanx was like a steamroller in that once it started moving, that was it, and if it lost its cohesion, it would be undone.
 
I agree that Macedonia stood no chance against Rome.

  • The Macedonian phalanx needed a leader like Phillip II or Alexander to make it truly effective.
  • Macedonia was too warn out after Alexander and the wars of his successers. Remember Greece had never truly been unified.
  • The Roman legion allowed for initiative to be taken on the battlefield. Individual commanders could make quick decisions to take advantage of opportunities that arose.
  • The phalanx was like a steamroller in that once it started moving, that was it, and if it lost its cohesion, it would be undone.

Totally agree with all these statements... these were the very reasons that Perseus lost in Pydna... He would have won the day but he delayed his cavalry attack, his phalanx lost cohession and he gave time to C. Nasika to take initiative and smash his flank with his Roman cavalry... (ironically Roman cavalry was inferior to Greek at the time)
 
I think it'd be a one time victory, and then Rome would come roaring back. The Romans developed a perfectly good strategy against the phalanx.... first, a couple of volleys of their weighted javelins would disrupt the phalanx ranks, as the javelins would stick in the shields and drag them down. Second, the big shields and stabbing blades carried by the legions were ideal for dealing with what was effectively a pike formation... the shields turn aside the pikes, and once they're inside the formation, the swords of the legionaires makes short work of the phalanx soldiers. Centuries later, the Swiss pikemen ran into the same problem against sword and buckler men....
 
Top