The Roman leginonair with the crossbow just kinda killed the "historical accurate" vibe you were trying to get here

"The age of the gladius was about to begin." (Shows a crossbow)

Who the hell drew a legionnaire with a crossbow

Romans also empowered centurions to make tactical decisions on the battlefield, so any break in those lines could be quickly exploited instead of waiting for orders to come back from the general

I've said this in several shorts all by different people already, which is weird, but: Rome didn't use the sarissa phalanx as implied in the video, they used the "aspis and dory" phalanx from before Phillip's conquest of Greece. We don't even really know if Italics fought in the close, pushing order of classical Greeks or in more open, individualistic ways.

Alexander's greatest contribution to Macedonian warfare which his successors inconceivably forgot, were the Silver Shields or hypaspists, elite foot soldiers whose job was to protect the flanks of the phalanx. Alexander's greatest infantry soldiers were in these divisions, which allowed the phalanx squares to be nearly impenetrable. For whatever reasons, none of his successors seemed to understand the need for these troops and their naked phalanxes were defeated as a result.

It’s interesting that the phalanx died but was reborn numerous times in history From the Saxon shield wall to the age of pike and musket They can all trace their lineage back to the phalanx and even further if you wanted to

The phalanx didnt die it just went out of fashion for a bit it came back invan adapted form with the swiss and spanish. The shield wall was another adaption of the phalanx too.

this short is kinda funny because the late Roman empire reintroduced the phalanx. On level-ground, a phalanx is superior to a Legion-style army but once the ground was broken up, the Phalanx-trained soldiers were less combat-effective than a Legionnaire who was trained to fight in many more styles.

You should add that the Roman's learned the maniple system from the Samnites after suffering defeats using the phalanx themselves. The Roman's ability to learn from their defeats and their enemies is what allowed them to be such a great military.

Iirc, greek's phalanx by the time of roman expansion already evolved into a heavier, longer, and less maneuverable version due to decades of competition among phalanx user, so the roman never actually face alexander's era phalanx

The Romans stopped using the phalanx long before the Marian Reforms. They adopted the maniple system during the Samnite Wars in the early republic. The Marian Reforms were in effect after the Punic Wars, and the Romans certainly were not using phalanxes against carthage.

I believe you are mistaken, it was actually the Macedonians who were outnumbered in this battle and tactics along with luck played the largest role in the Roman victory. The Macedonians were actually winning the first part of the battle, it was when the second half of the phalanx returned from foraging that things went to hell. The second half crested the mountain not yet in formation with no distinguished line of any sorts and the Roman commander took full advantage of this.

Dont forget that the Romans then reverted back to using the Phalanx doctrine themselves later when their military was not about conquering but holding terrain.

That roman legionnaire with a crossbow is equivalent to seeing the founding fathers of america with M60 machine guns.

do more videos like this.

The romans were able to beat most historic battle formations and tactics with the implementation of automatic firearms.

What was that last picture? Lorica segmentata + crossbow? :D

the victories of Alexander the Great was due to his superior Companion cavalry, the damage that the Phalanx can create was more psychological

I think the real problem of the Phalanx lays more in the organizational aspects of warfare.

Original and cool video. By the way, lets point something. The "phalanx" (the Macedonian phalanx in fact) it's not an army, but just a part of an Hellenistic one. It came supported by cavalry, skirmishers, medium and light infantry and sometimes even elephants and chariots. To defeat a phalanx usually you have to previously defeat the other elements in the army in order to be able to outflank it, because in a frontal, face to face combat, it was invincible. Another important fact: the Roman legion fought very few battes against a phalanx: Heraclea, Ausculum, Beneventum, Cynoscephalae, Thermopylae, Magnesia, Pydna (1st and 2nd battle of Pydna) and Zela. Of this, only 3 had an usual development: Heraclea, Ausculum and the 1st battle of Pydna (168 BC). In all the other situations, something went unusual during the battle (part of the army was not prepared, got lost, etc). From 3 usual battles, 2 of them were a phalanx victory, one of them in an uneven terrain (Ausculum). So,the stronger point of the Roman legion over the phalanx was not their tactics or battle order, but their manpower. All of the Roman victories over a phalanx ended with the almost inmediate surrender of the enemy Hellenistic power, and it was because the phalanx had a extremely low manpower, because it was composed by the dominant class of the hellenistic kingdoms. To defeat a Hellenistic kingdom, you only needed to beat their phalanx (not the rest of the army) and kill as many as you can in battle in order to force it to surrender.

hmm but in that battle the greek phalanx actually pushed the romans back with heavy casualties for the romans. it was because the greek left flank hadnt caught up with the right one giving the romans an opportunity to push past the greek right flank and then attack them form the back and sides. If they had the right type of commander they would have won i believe.

I think that not portraying Rome’s legions as red it’s a crime

If you're interested in ancient Rome you could play more Imperator Rome ;)

What is dead may never die, but rises again harder and stronger. -Pikemen

Idk about the mountainous terrain thing. Wasn't the phalanx invented in Greece, well-known for being mountainous? I don't doubt it contributed, but I'm not sure it was the main reason.

To be fair, it came back in the form of pikemen

In this battle was also shown the frontal strength of the phalanx, its sheer weight pushing th romans back. Phalanx was meant to be secured on the flanks by lighter troops as well as cavalry and in the battle of Pydna, other than the Agema Peltasts, they didn't fill the gaps or supported as they should, the noble cavalry officers deserted. It would be unfair to say that phalanx died that day, because troops like the Eastern Roman Chomatenoi, or the Spanish Tercio and many others used to fightin that manner many senturies later

Pike And Shot era be like "ayy lmao let's bring that back"

Actually the phalanx is a better unit/formation, the thing is that it is way harder to use for the commander. Pikemen were created to fight along more mobile units like agranians or hypaspist, however the diadochi used the phalanx sometimes alone, with little to no support, specially cavalry support. To make it simpler, the hellenistic army had a higher skill ceilling but was easy to mess it up with it, however the roman model had a very low skill ceilling but was way easier to use, so it was more reliable in incompetent hands.

It happened because somebody screwed up. Wars and battles are won or lost by luck and mistakes. You're lucky your opponent made a mistake.

The thing that always amazes me is that the Phalanx struggled on mountainous terrain as you point out, yet Greece is so mountainous. The civilized almost always met on a flat plain, but Rome had so many uncooperative barbarians to deal with which is why they gave up on the Phalanx before the hellenic world.

Remember, this is not the phalanx of Alexander. Even a group of Augustan Legions would likely lose to that. The ONLY way to slow the Macedonian Armies of Philip and Alexander was Elephants. But, when Pyrrhus used Indian elephants against the Romans, by the 3rd battle, the romans already figured out how to make elephant’s turn and smash into their own lines. I doubt it would take Alexander long to figure that out aswell.

I wonder what the likes of Pyrrhus or Alexander would've thought of the Spanish Tercios and other pike formations of Medieval times.

Since 3rd century phalanx was back in fashion in roman legions. This together with roman mobility on battlefield created a brutal combination which held this state for few centuries longer.

“Yo stevius, yk we could just walk around that.” “You marcus, you are a genius”

Hey ! Came upon your shorts completely by chance, and I love your attention to detail when you speak of history. In that spirit, what THE HELL is that crossbow doing in the last picture ?

You aren't completely wrong on this one, the Romans used some of the most co-ordinated battle tactics going as well as having a disciplined non-commission officer class (which only got better with the centuries). A phalanx unit could easily be out manoeuvred and lose cohesion versus a Hastati or Principle unit on rough terrain. That being said, there are some fundamental issues with the argument. The main one being that the romans still formed in 3 line order, Hastati/velites 1st, principle 2nd and Triarii 3rd. Its the Triarii who were famed for long spears and tight phalanx-like formations. The other issues with making a statement like this are: - the Pikemen of the medieval period existed (The famous Swiss or Tercio or Spain for example) or - the Roman tactic of breaking an enemies centre with infantry (which was all about pushing) or -The Greek Phalanx was often supported by Auxiliaries (Peltasts, Javlins, slingers or heavy infantry (with short swords) and Cavalry). So it was never standalone. Its job was to pin infantry down. In Summary: The Greeks declined because of infighting, the loss of Allies to the Romans and the Roman military officer selection process (tribune and above) as much as the phalanx fall from favour.

"the age of the gladius" We have to make up a new word for this era... it lasted 1000 years

Don't forget the pilums rendered shields useless with the first throw and then the second throw decimated the lines before the two formations clashed

That art at the end goes unreasonably hard

A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one!

Hoplites and Hellenistic phalangites were generally heavy infantry. The equipment difference with Roman heavy infantry was the weapon, not the armour. Cavalry were prominent in Hellenistic armies following Alexander’s practice but it seems a stretch to say most ancient battles were decided by cavalry.

"the age of the phallanx is no more" Meanwhile phallanx came back in the middle ages and marines in US of A still have drills with pikes

Nope tis battle was lost primarily because the Greek heavy cavalry didnt took part in the battle and the flanks were totally exposed because the light troops on the sides were obliterated because of the lack of cavalry . The phalanx was overrun on that point of the battle

This is completely wrong. Phalanx were far more flexible than often thought, even in mountains. Their disparition is due to the destruction of the political structures that supported them.

There were so many other aspects of this battle that led to their defeat. It’s actually a really wild story I highly recommend checking animated history’s video on it

Nice to hear that halfway through the video, you finally managed to pronounce Macedonian correctly!

The battle of cynosephale is also a good exemple of how the romans absolutely curbstomped the macedonian phalanx

The reason why the Phalanx disappeared during the antiquity is WAY MORE complicated than that! Giving a single reason in a one minute video is totally misleading. First, we have to understand that the traditional explanations of why the Phalanx formation was unable to beat the Romans come from Polybius. This Greek intellectual influenced the historians until very recently. Despite being "Greek" , he was very pro-Roman, his writings were a tool to justify Roman hegemony in Greece and convince Greeks not to rebel against the legion. It is him who spread the idea that the legion won because it was a more flexible organisation. For exemple, he said that the Phalanx had to be deployed in a 3km wide and flat field to maneuvre properly. But if we study the unfolding of diverse battles, we see that the Phalanx was extremely maneuverable in rough end tight terrains. Why? Because the Phalanx could easely be divided in smaller formations which gave them a real capacity of adapting in difficult situations. And because the Phalanx formation is way more effective when it is thick and small than spread out in a huge thin line! It is particularly effective during sieges. Plus, the Phalanx armies were very capable in ambushes and small skarmishes. Also, we should NOT imagine the wars between Rome and the Greek kingdoms as composed of homogeneous armies. Rome was supported in the battlefield by other Greek armies. Those Greek soldiers and generals were used to Phalanx tactics and knew how to fight them. They were living and fighting with Phalanx armies since centuries. And if we observe the unfolding of many battles where Romans faced Phalanx, we see That the Romans won thanks to the friendly Greek armies which knew how to destroy the Phalanx. But the legion never directly faced the Phalanx in a frontal assault and won because because of its maneuverability. Lastly, we have to keep in mind that a particular formation or type of weapon never seals the fate of an army, many other factors play a role. The weather, logistics, knowledge of terrain, politics, diplomatic relations... In conclusion, this video repeats an old myth which tend to put aside way more complicated but important factors.

That’s why you use the Phalanx as your core Center and use combined arms to protect the Flanks! 😃

It would be interesting if modern military started using a version of the phalanx. With composite armor getting lighter and lighter, as well as thinner, it could very well be feasible for everyone in a unit to hold a shield like panel, and stack them in a way that protects everyone from all sides. It could even be engineered to stop level 5 rounds since the armor wouldn’t be right next to your body and the deformation wouldn’t immediately kill you. It actually seems like a good idea the more I think about it. The panels could be modular. Able to be used as a shield or shelter.

It's not better in all cases just better for rough terrain

May-Cee-Donian 😂. Ahhh yes good sir have you recently visited the old country of May-cee-donia?☕

It came back and became popular in the renaissance pike and shot era. I dont think it ever truly went away before that either as someone somewhere where always using pike formations.

« and we were singing bye bye miss holy Roman pie. Drove my lariat to the chariots but the chariots were gone. Some good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing this’ll be the Kaiser that dies. »

Wtf is that image of Roman soldier with a crossbow, they weren't invented until high medieval times

The waffle house has found its new host.

Imagine a game/simulator where you can choose terrain, and army composition, to the individual loadout of every soldier, choose their positions and even size of the army. yeah, setting up 1200 men would take alot of time, but we could test out ancient warfare

Syracuse : hold on i have The POWER OF THE SUN 😂

The swiss mercenary, the landsknecht, and even the tercio continued the phalanx style of warfare beyond middle ages.

I like this kind of KZfaqrs. Putting themselves over the images, love it.

When the length of the spears shaft was rendered useless by a short, reliable sword

The phalanx itself was not necessarily the reason for the failure of Hellenic armies against legions. Much like the legionaries, it is ONE element of a combined army. When used competently, it wins battles, even in uneven terrain. Alexander the Great deployed it IN rivers (Issus) and it was instrumental to victory (along with light missile troops and cavalry). Pyrrhus also won at Heraclea and Asculum against the legions. If history stopped there would the legion be denigrated as inferior? Hannibal had phalanx formations in his combined army and you would be hard-pressed to argue the failure of the phalanx. When Antiochus III deployed it at Thermopylae, the Romans could not penetrate it, only a maneuver through the passes allowed its position to be compromised. When Antiochus deployed it again at Magnesia, it was the routing of the elephants that broke up the phalanx (in fact the Romans were reluctant to engage it until it had been fragmented by the Seleucid's own elephants). Elephants can break any formation. That's what they do: legion, phalanx, or otherwise. The phalanx that WAS deployed correctly at Cynoscephale was winning. When it was flanked it was not. Again, it MUST have its flanks covered. It did not. It lost. But what it was doing, it was doing well. Rolling back the Roman left. At Pydna, the phalanx was left unsupported by its cavalry. That was a huge problem. It also was not governed with restraint. It kept pushing when it could have been commanded to halt and reform while the cavalry could then deliver a decisive charge. It is also worth mentioning that the phalanx was bloated by the time of the late Hellenic kingdoms. Even longer pikes, and even deeper formations, without sufficient employment of missile troops and cavalry meant that the phalanx became more prone and unweildly. When used properly, the pike phalanx is an overwhelming force. When used incorrectly, it is subject to defeat. This applies to all military units.

Regarding the crossbow Arrian's earlier Ars Tactica, from about 136 AD, mentions 'missiles shot not from a bow but from a machine' and that this machine was used on horseback while in full gallop. It is presumed that this was a crossbow. Not sure a legionair used them, but Romans have been using them since at least 100AD

One issue with that, the Romans did not invent the gladius. The gladius was a Celtic invention, which likely "ended the age of the phalanx" when the Romans met the gladius in Hispania, or Gallia.

I find it fascinating the Roman army went from hoplites to heavy infantry with swords and in the later empire they went back to mainly spearmen.

The romans didnt fight shoulder to shoulder at all their sheild designs shows this. The greeks however did do sheild walls. In roman times they favored men with skill using a sword which means they had to have space to swing their sword so most all roman formations had about 3 feet of space between each soilder.

Although I knew this story you put it in such a great way. I love that ending; the age of the Gladius begins 🎉😮

The phalanx IS HEAVY INFANTRY. The Romans even used phalanx like formations later on. They didn't have spears.

In the late 16th century, Prince Maurice of Orange and his cohort Willem Lodewijk and half brother Frederick Henry were inspired by Roman legions, and divided the Dutch army into smaller companies (vendel), effectively inventing Line Infantry. The combined Anglo-Dutch Army implemented Line Infantry at the Battle of Nieuwpoort in 1600, defeating the Spanish Tercios. Large square formations since began to fade as line formations eventually took over European armies. The Dutch would go on to gain their independence by winning the Eighty Years War against the Spanish; the Swedes under Gustavus Adolf used these in the Thirty Years War; more notably, Napoleon Bonaparte capitalised on the manoeuvrability of smaller companies (he called "corps") which won him the victories that turned him into the legend we know today.

Decent video, the maniple system, along with independent commanders within the maniples made the Romans highly adaptable in combat

The best form of the Phalanx and Maniple never met. Also, Pyrrhus beat legions and probably would have continued to do so had he not ran out of money. Hannibal would have probably beaten legions if given an opportunity to command them.

What Alexander the Great did so well is he was good at using combined arms, yea his phalanx and calvary were amazing but he also had other great units like archers, slingers, skirmishers, field artillery, light calvary, hypaspists(silver shields), phalangites, etc. Also all the recruited soldiers of the armies he took over

The phalanx didn't die, it was still widely used by armies from the east (as they compliment cavalry armies very bloody well). Also, Rome ends up reusing phalanx later on as well. The only reason Phalanx lost is the over dependency of the greek states to phalanx, phalanx is complimented by a very diverse army, such as light infantry, archers, cavalry and more. But by this time, Greek states relied mostly only on phalanx which gave them a disadvantage against the diverse army of rome (Let's also not forget the romans also used phalanx and greek mercenaries during the war). Even though the greeks are already in a declining state, romans found themselves losing to phalanx and their best solution to beat it is to literally just run away from it until they break formation trying to chase them.

"Knowing their preset population limits, I sent waves and waves of my own peasants at them." - Spiffing Z. Branigan

So the issue here is the reason the phalanx failed here is actually because they didn't take terrain into account. If they hadn't kept pursuing the romans into terrain that hurt their formation they could have won that battle.

Macedonicus performed the perfect feigned retreat, stoically as always. What never fails to depress me is that Plutarch wrote, “It seemed unfair that the conquered Perseus’ children would live while Paulus’ children died. (Yes Scipio Ameilanius is his son, Africanus adopted him though. So his family was left with no son. And if you read lives he wouldn’t attend senate meetings to help teach his children. Him and Labienus are my top 2 Roman’s.

The day having a longer pointy stick stopped being advantageous

If I had a time machine, I'd go back and watch this shit go down

Zama, 202 BC Cynoscephalae, 197 BC Magnesia, 190 BC This is the Mid-Republic’s great trilogy for Rome to become the number one power in the Mediterranean. Pydna, 168 BC Carthage, 146 BC Corinth, 146 BC These battles just finished them off.

It's hard to fight off a Roman with a huge shield and a sword standing next to you when you're holding a 14-foot pole.

Skirmishers and Archers kind of shred Phalanx formations.

"Hee hee... Pilum go stabby." - Rome

The phalanx still had its place on a flat open plain even tho' ineffective in hilly & closed terrain. Choosing the "ground" upon which to fight a battle was probably one of the most effective planks of old time battle strategy

Ah yes the good old “left of the formation” technique

Legionaires used crossbows because firearms was reserved for centurions and artillery for Emperors.

I thought Bruce Venture was into Roman History 😅

The rise of the Roman Republic, legionaries were the basis of the army years before Augustus came to power

I know valleys are a thing but I think it’s funny and ironic that the phalanx developed in Greece, one of the most mountainous places I can think of

The age of gladius crossbow legion combo has arrived lmao

Only to be brought back 1,000 years later with the pike formation

When I use to play Rome Total War. I would attack the phalanx head on with the cheap expendable units. Once they committed Id take them from the side and from behind with Calvary. Their casualty's were shall we say extreme.

Not the age of the Gladius, the Romans kept using the spear. The spear was the ultimate weapon until the invention of guns.

Getting flanked when you carry a 5m long spear would be a disaster indeed

Well, no wonder the Roman army was so effective, they had crossbows 1600 years before anyone else.

Meanwhile, the Greeks had the worst of both worlds: Spears too short to be effective against the Macedonian phalanx, maintained by an army of glory-seeking individualist farmers.

I mean, by the time of the Pyrrhic and Macedonian wars, the Sarissa Phalanx was no longer being used in Macedonia as it was intended. The Macedonian war machine depended on variety, with its core being the Sarissa pikemen. By the time of Pyrrhus of Epirus, the Cavalry and ranged units had been greatly reduced in favour of wider lines. The Macedonian phalanx had been dying for over a century before it’s eventual death in this battle.

"She's saying there's something wrong with the Phalange." "Sir there is no Phalange." "OH MY GOD THERES NO PHALANGE!?!?!?!?"

"I can't remember if I cried when I heard about his ruined fight, but something touched me deep inside the day, the phalanx died..."