WI : Philip of Macedon reform his troops to use "Manipular" system

[Yuelang]

So, the Macedonian Sarrissa phalanx and Roman Sword Stabbing manipular legion are both evolve to counter and overpower the older Greek Hoplite Phalanx.

While Roman manipular system actually influenced by Celtic sword wielding elite champions (and mixed with Greek, err Roman discipline), Pike Phalanxes took the arms race further by making a very long spear... with good side about impenetrability and the bad side that it need to be used as combined arms approach. We know that under less capable Generals of the later Diadochi, they practically neglect the other forms of combined arms and rely on phalanxes soo much that they are literally beaten on the flanks by more mobile Roman manipular army...

But why not the other way then?

Suppose that instead of taking the inspiration from Theban Hoplites (who already start to use longet, but still one handed spears), Philip decides to look the other way and improve the "Barbarians" fighting system. Organizing his men to 100-200 men per group, arming them with stabbing enhanced swords, with two or three javelins each, and give them thureos shield (that more or less technically similar with Roman Scuta, just oval shape instead of rectangular). of course, the armor could stay the same as macedonian armor IOTL, that was linothorax and helmet and such...

Note that if you argue about cheaper pikes, that wasny true. Sarrissa making are actually more expensive, especially since they are actually has half metre spearhead and thirty cm bronze buttspike. And every Phalangist also carry sword sidearm anyway, so that must be more expensive than a gladius like sword plus good quality shield...

Yeah, the discipline and troop quality should be no problem because Philip's Phalangists actually manage to be a real quality soldiers, I could imagine that even with swords javelin and shield combo, they could maintain similar quality.

So what about that?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

As far as I'm aware, the Romans did not adopt the manipular system until a few decades after Philip of Macedon's time. The Romans themselves had hoplite-like spearmen until they began fighting the more mobile Samnites whom they adopted the manipular system from. Perhaps if Philip had fought more with the Celtic tribes, maybe he could create something similiar for his Macedonian army?

 

[Velocis]

I'm not sure what POD you would need for this, which might butterfly away a lot, but it would be interesting to see how an army like that fared against the Persians.
__________________
Napolyon Bey Bonaparte's Whiff of Grapeshot: Napolean Bonaparte in the Ottoman Empire

 

[Derek Pullem]

http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates1.html

I think you are referring to Iphikratean peltastes (or hoplites). They were effective but like all compromise troops they were less effective than a combined arms approach of specific troop types (phalanx, cavalry, archers, javelinmen)

The disadvantage of these troops was that if they were outnumbered they could rarely stand against a sustained assault whilst the heavier infantry (hoplites and phalangites) were more able to resist adverse numerical odds.

Generally Rome's strategic advantage was in its ability to raise larger armies than everyone else - which was fine when fighting other city states but less fine when trying to challenge world empires like the Persians.

 

[Russian]

Yeah, the discipline and troop quality should be no problem because Philip's Phalangists actually manage to be a real quality soldiers, I could imagine that even with swords javelin and shield combo, they could maintain similar quality.

So what about that?

From what I've read about Alexander the Great his phalangists they were extremely flexible. And I mean it - surprisingly flexible on any terrain, in the mountains, crossing the river with pikes in the bottom, whatever. It was not worse than the Roman manipular system to say the least.

But that was not the point. The point was that Alexander used to his advantage all arms - cavalry, missile troops, etc.
In my opinion army of Alexander the Great was much more better tactically and strategically than armies of the Roman republic. What for would he need this funny javelin-sword-shield combo?

As it was said the main advantage of Rome was their ability to deliver army after army into the field of battle in place of a previously annihilated Roman army/armies.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Agree with Russian. Philip and Alexander's troops were as flexible as they come. They doubled as phalangites and peltasts whenever they needed to be (hence why they could be highly effective in the mountains) were highly maneuverable. It was only afterward that phalangites became mostly unflexible and static (except for, possibly, the Seleucid Silver Shields, which probably retained the same flexibility as Alexander's phalangites).

As someone else said, Rome's advantage wasn't necessarily in its fighting style as much as it was in its massive manpower. Think of how many times Rome would suffer serious defeats early on in wars.

 

[jahenders]

Agreed with most of that. The Roman model wasn't necessarily superior to the Phillip/Alexander model. What history does generally accept is that the Roman model proved superior to later people using something like Phillip's model. However, that superiority was in large part due to the fact that many of those "successors" weren't really using the whole Phillip model -- they were either using inferior quality phalangites (training, morale, etc) and/or they were using them without proper combined arms support.

If a Roman army came up against Phillip or Alexander in their prime, it's debatable that the Romans would fare well.

That being said, I think it's arguably true that the Roman model had some long term advantages in being easier to sustain than a Phillip model. That, coupled with Roman ability to keep fielding armies, gave them the edge.

Agree with Russian. Philip and Alexander's troops were as flexible as they come. They doubled as phalangites and peltasts whenever they needed to be (hence why they could be highly effective in the mountains) were highly maneuverable. It was only afterward that phalangites became mostly unflexible and static (except for, possibly, the Seleucid Silver Shields, which probably retained the same flexibility as Alexander's phalangites).

As someone else said, Rome's advantage wasn't necessarily in its fighting style as much as it was in its massive manpower. Think of how many times Rome would suffer serious defeats early on in wars.

 

[mrmandias]

The roman model was probably superior for citizen soldiers, but Alexander's was probably more effective with full-time, professional troops.

 

[JJL]

Firstly in terms of Influences on Philip it's almost impossible he'd think of reforming that way,
I think the Romans developed that style whilst fighting the Celtic tribes?

No such tribes were really around in Greece.(possibly the triliballi(?) but I don't know enough about that )

Also the reason he developed from a theban outlook on military is because he was held there during the Theban hegemony as assurance of Macedonia's conduct and such witnessed the training of the Sacred Band ect.

I'm also not sure if he'd have had the same success against Persia.
The Sarissa and use of cavalry as the hammer against the anvil of the Phalanx gave him and advantage against Persian numbers,
With the more Roman method it would be more close formation fighting and would sheer numbers overwhelm him?
the advantage of the sarrisa was it kept the enemy at a longer distant and the first 3-4 rows could be attacking the enemy, who armed with swords only had the first 2 rows active at a time?

All in all arguments can be made for both


The biggest issue with this topic is the armies of Philip and Alexander were vastly superior to the armies used by the Diadochi(Successors),who'd been fighting each other so long and had quite poor generalship and quality by the time Rome came along.
So it's hard to say which strategy was superior because they were never face ot face at their peaks, although if you Look at Pyrrhus of Epirus's relative success after the decline of the Greek side he still achieved some success against Rome. So I think I land on the side Philips tactics were the better suited at the time, and possibly better overall but the decline of Macedonia's Empire means this is hard to verify.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The roman model was probably superior for citizen soldiers, but Alexander's was probably more effective with full-time, professional troops.

This is important because it was also the undoing of the diadochi versus Rome. For the phalanx to be used to its full effectiveness, it has to be a well trained and professional force. You can't afford to lose a lot of men in a battle, because you can't simply equip farmers with a sarissa and shield, and expect them to fight in a disciplined and effective phalanx. Especially if, as the diadochi did, you weren't using the phalanx as it was meant to be used, that is, as the fixing force with flexible infantry on the flanks and heavy cavalry there to obliterate the enemy's cavalry and encircle.

 

[Mongo]

This is important because it was also the undoing of the diadochi versus Rome. For the phalanx to be used to its full effectiveness, it has to be a well trained and professional force. You can't afford to lose a lot of men in a battle, because you can't simply equip farmers with a sarissa and shield, and expect them to fight in a disciplined and effective phalanx. Especially if, as the diadochi did, you weren't using the phalanx as it was meant to be used, that is, as the fixing force with flexible infantry on the flanks and heavy cavalry there to obliterate the enemy's cavalry and encircle.

I don't know about that. Socrates himself supposedly said that combat and weapons training was almost wasted for most of a battle. Even blind men were sometimes expected to fight in the line as hoplites. (Although this is referring to the earlier spear-armed formations, not the Hellenistic sarissa-armed formations.) The only professional infantrymen for most of classical Greek history were the Spartans, the other civic armies were ordinary citizens acting as a militia when called up, and they appear to have still been quite formidable warriors in their own right -- just ask the Persians!

I do see a common objection to the Greek style of fighting in formation with a spear, that the formations are brittle and inflexible, no match for the Roman legions. It is true that they were regularly beaten by the Romans, but keep in mind that these were late Hellenistic phalanxes, greatly inferior to the earlier versions, with much poorer armor and usually poorly led. They were also operating without the significant combined-arms support that earlier sarissa-armed phalanxes expected. I wager that a competently led early-Hellenistic combined-arms force with a sarissa-armed phalanx at its core would usually thrash a late-Republican Roman legionary force of equal size.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I do see a common objection to the Greek style of fighting in formation with a spear, that the formations are brittle and inflexible, no match for the Roman legions. It is true that they were regularly beaten by the Romans, but keep in mind that these were late Hellenistic phalanxes, greatly inferior to the earlier versions, with much poorer armor and usually poorly led. They were also operating without the significant combined-arms support that earlier sarissa-armed phalanxes expected. I wager that a competently led early-Hellenistic combined-arms force with a sarissa-armed phalanx at its core would usually thrash a late-Republican Roman legionary force of equal size.

I completely agree with you here.