Roman Legions against Macedonian Phalanx and Carthaginian Phalanx.

[Justin Swanton]

even within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially.  the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.

There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.

I really doubt we can assume that carthaginians are hoplites just because we don't have a specifc statement that they are not.  its not like they were unaware of the other fighting types in evidence around them until they ran into them on the battlefield.

They would adapt only if they personally encountered a new system and realized the need to do so. The Romans were totally unprepared for the pike phalanx even though they would have known of its successes long before Phyrrus landed in Italy.

[Justin Swanton]

In the Battle of the Crimissus, 336BC, the Carthaginian HI are armed as hoplites. Nothing proves they had substantially changed their armament by the time of the 2nd Punic War, so using Occam's Razor one can assume they fought the Romans more-or-less as hoplites at the Trebia and Trasimere.

The problem with that argument is that it is 119 years
The same period in Greece saw the Greek force change from the Army at Marathon to the battles of the Theban Spartan war or the time between the Battle of Chaeronea (Where Philip IInd of Macedon defeated the Greeks) and the Battle of Sellasia. There were changes in the Macedonian army in that period (and the Greeks had also changed in that period as well.)

It is possible that the Carthaginians hadn't changed but I think it would have to be demonstrated, not assumed.

Sure, a lot happened in Greece, principally the revolution of the phalanx that switched from dorys to sarissas, but the Romans never got the memo so no reason to assume the Carthaginians did. It's not like today when revolutions in weaponry and tactics spread all over the planet in a few years.

The Carthaginians did get the memo, they'd fought Romans for over forty years by this point. They'd spent a generation campaigning in Spain.

How many major battles did the Carthaginians fight against legions before Hannibal entered Italy?

[Jim Webster]

even within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially.  the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.

There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.

You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.

[Justin Swanton]

even within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially.  the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.

There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.

You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.

The 1st Punic war seems to have been largely a naval affair. I count 2 major land battles: not enough to evaluate anything. One battle was inconclusive and the other a Carthaginian victory. If anything, that would reinforce the natural inertia to carry on doing as they had always done.

[DBS]

even within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially.  the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.

There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.

You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.

Indeed.

Also, we have no idea really the degree to which the Romans changed during the same time period.  It is often forgotten that we only have a (assumed) reliable description from Polybius of the Roman army from the first half of the Second Century - ie after the 2nd Punic War, the most traumatic and hard fought war in Rome's history.  We are perhaps too quick to assume that it is accurate for the 2nd Punic War, let alone the First Punic, or the Pyrrhic War, or the Telamon campaign, let alone reaching back to the conflicts contemporary with Krimisos.  We do not have any better evidence, so I am not suggesting we ditch the Polybian model, but...

I would also suggest that the forces in the Pelopennesian war and other Greek city state contests were perhaps a bit more two dimensional; like largely fought like.  Yes, there are upsets when lighter troops embarrass hoplites, but that is precisely because the phalanx could not cope reliably with them.

Regarding the Second Punic, there is the question of why the Romans go from losing every battle to winning most of them.  Hannibal is a tactical genius, but...  is it that his troops are far more professional at first?  They actually get better kit over time thanks to their victories.  Is it just that the Romans become more experienced/professional?  Learn better how to cope with Carthaginian field armies?  That the Carthaginians find themselves short of reliable manpower?  Probably all of these.  But it might be foolish to assume that there are necessarily no tactical changes, now lost to us, in those eighteen odd years.  I am very sceptical about the "velites are invented in 211" story, but that is actually an example of a supposed development or evolution which certainly suggests that the Roman skirmisher performance improved significantly.

[Jim Webster]

even within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially.  the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.

There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.

You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.

The 1st Punic war seems to have been largely a naval affair. I count 2 major land battles: not enough to evaluate anything. One battle was inconclusive and the other a Carthaginian victory. If anything, that would reinforce the natural inertia to carry on doing as they had always done.

Battle of Messana in 264 BC
 Battle of Agrigentum in 262 BC
Battle of Thermae in 259BC
siege of Aspis 255BC, not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Battle of Adys 256BC
Battle of the Bagradas River 255 BC
Battle of Panormus 250BC
Siege of Lilybaeum 250–241 BC again not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Fighting at Mount Ercte 247-244BC

Carthaginian forces started fighting in Spain in 236BC and you might say the campaigns finished with the siege of Saguntum in 219 BC

[Justin Swanton]

even within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially.  the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.

There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.

You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.

The 1st Punic war seems to have been largely a naval affair. I count 2 major land battles: not enough to evaluate anything. One battle was inconclusive and the other a Carthaginian victory. If anything, that would reinforce the natural inertia to carry on doing as they had always done.

Battle of Messana in 264 BC
 Battle of Agrigentum in 262 BC
Battle of Thermae in 259BC
siege of Aspis 255BC, not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Battle of Adys 256BC
Battle of the Bagradas River 255 BC
Battle of Panormus 250BC
Siege of Lilybaeum 250–241 BC again not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Fighting at Mount Ercte 247-244BC

Carthaginian forces started fighting in Spain in 236BC and you might say the campaigns finished with the siege of Saguntum in 219 BC

I need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count - it's not at all clear to contemporary observers that Carthage's HI is inferior to Rome's to the extent that Carthage feels the need to adopt Roman kit by the 2nd Punic war.

Messana - Roman victory, OK. Other battles - one a Carth victory, another, defeat caused by routing elephants, a third, Carthaginians deploy on ground bad for their infantry and still manage to drive back the initial Roman assault before being outflanked and defeated.

So 2 Carth victories in total, one unclear result and only one defeat where Carth infantry were outfought by their Roman opposite numbers in a frontal fight (Messana). Hey, everyone has a bad day.

[Mark G]

it's not at all clear to contemporary observers that Carthage's HI is inferior to Rome's to the extent that Carthage feels the need to adopt Roman kit by the 2nd Punic war

Sure, that's pretty much back on thread topic.  Stick with that.

[nikgaukroger]

I came across this - https://acoup.blog/tag/phalanx/ - but gave up after Part II.  Not  a negative comment more my limited attention span.

It is an excellent series and well worth reading; Bret Devereaux is a go to IMO.

[Jim Webster]

I need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count -

Why not, the majority of warfare is 'sieges and scrappy fighting' After all by your figures The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years with at least 11 major battles. But an awful lot of sieges and scrappy fighting.

[Justin Swanton]

I need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count -

Why not, the majority of warfare is 'sieges and scrappy fighting' After all by your figures The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years with at least 11 major battles. But an awful lot of sieges and scrappy fighting.

Because we are comparing different types of HI in situations where they fight each other without any wargame modifiers like walled defences to obscure which is better.

[Jim Webster]

I need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count -

Why not, the majority of warfare is 'sieges and scrappy fighting' After all by your figures The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years with at least 11 major battles. But an awful lot of sieges and scrappy fighting.

Because we are comparing different types of HI in situations where they fight each other without any wargame modifiers like walled defences to obscure which is better.

We are discussing why the Carthaginians might or might not make changes to their army. They weren't interested in wargame modifiers, they were interested in winning wars. So they would be really keen on troop types which made a success of sieges and scrappy fighting, because these appear to be the main sorts of actions out there. Why should they be too worried about major field battles? Especially when you seem to thing there were so few and they were irrelevant?
Indeed in various periods, major battles were shunned because the combatants seemed to feel there was too much of an element of chance in them and commanders were told to avoid them unless the odds were really stacked in their favour

[Prufrock]

I was wondering about the different results between the Roman Legion, Macedonian Phalanx and the Carthaginian Phalanx? Was the Macedonian Phalanx with it Sarrisas too ponderous to fight the Romans successfully with their flexible Legions and was the Carthaginian Phalanx with its Thrusting Spear more flexible and therefore more able to counter the Romans? Was there some fundamental flaw with the Macedonian Phalanx or was it just poor generalship? I know Philip V was no Hannibal. Is this a case of Rock, Scissors, Paper?

If you look at Roman defeats across their encounters with the Macedonian and Carthaginian systems there are three main factors:

1) Something new to deal with. Against Pyrrhus there are the elephants and the phalanx; in Spain the brothers Scipio divide their forces and then encounter Masinissa and his Numidians; against Hannibal they face hardened veterans able to prosecute an envelopment and are greatly inferior in cavalry, in numbers and quality.
 
2) Generalship. The Eddie Jones factor: someone comes along who has been able to study the Roman system, finds a way to upset it, and has time to train men / refine tactics to do so. Xanthippus, Hannibal.   

3) Outflanking. However it is done, Roman defeats are about them being outflanked.

The problem for both systems against Rome though as we all know was Rome's ability to adapt and its vast reserves of manpower and resources. Rome could be caught out, but it always eventually found a way, as they say.

[stevenneate]

Crikey - hasn't this been gone over already? Easier to point to a Slingshot article or have one of you well informed individuals put together a "summary" in Slingshot.

Great discussion, but I don't think it's as simple as "weapon A versus  weapon B" stuff.

A counterpoint might be to ask why the Macedonians were still using pikes at Cynoscephalae and Pydna and the Greeks using pikes at Sellasia when the Pyhrric Wars and Punic Wars had demonstrated that Rome might be onto something? (Apologies to the Greeks as Sellasia predates the 2nd Punic War.)

Not to take it away from the pikes - they did do OK and could have won these battles.  Imagine if the results of Beneventum, Cynoscephalae or Pydna had of been reversed - would Rome have adopted pikes phalanxes as a result? Would they have studied readily available histories of the Diadochi Wars and decided pikes versus pikes was inconclusive and our mounted and lack of horses cannot win? Or did Philip V or Perseus think conservatively that pikes were good enough for my father and my father's father etc, or was a military change just too damn hard (think of how poorly imitation legions performed)?

Questions and more questions. Someone, please write the article for Slingshot?!

[Aetius]

That would be a great article. Glad I resubscribed...