How did Romans beat Macedonian phalanx?

Polybius on the Macedonian Wars gets into some of the nitty gritty, but basically the gist is that during the Samnite Wars, the Romans found that their phalanxes were being beaten by the Samnite light infantry and cavalry, who were used to fighting the mountainous terrain of Samnium.

How did the Rome’s phalanx differ from that of the Greeks and Macedonians?

Greek phalanxes were usually single tactical units and phalanxes were good to only single thing going straight forward and annihilating enemies straight forward of them, Roman tactics were more flexible, against phalanx latter era Romans seldomly fought head on.

What advantages did the Roman legion have over the phalanx?

Short arms made it easier for individual soldiers or subunits to turn and change direction. Too, careful articulation, a well-rehearsed command system, and the use of standards—which do not seem to have been carried by Hellenistic armies—made the legion a much more flexible organization than the phalanx.

What made the Macedonian phalanx more effective than the Greek?

Because the Macedonians had light infantry, light calvary and heavy calvary to complement their phalanx, the Macedonian phalanx was designed to hold the enemy, and control space while these more mobile specialized troops destroyed the enemy by flanking or the use of projectile weapons.

Why was the Macedonian phalanx so successful?

From the hardened Illyrians in the west, to the Greek city states to the south, none could match Philip’s disciplined sarissa-wielding infantry. So long as its flanks and rear were protected, the Macedonian phalanx proved unstoppable. A keystone to Philip’s success was his creation and use of the Macedonian phalanx.

What is the only weakness of the phalanx?

The main weakness of the phalanx alway was that its right wing was poorly protected, because hoplites had their shields on their left arm. (The historian Thucydides describes how phalanxes always drift a bit to the right.)

What defeated the phalanx?

At the Battle of Cynocephalae in 197 BCE, the Romans defeated the Greek phalanx easily because the Greeks had failed to guard the flanks of their phalanx and, further, the Greek commanders could not turn the mass of men who comprised the phalanxes quickly enough to counter the strategies of the Roman army and, after …

Why did the phalanx become obsolete?

The decisive arm was the Macedonian heavily cavalry, who exploited gaps or weaknesses in the enemy line, usually to obliterate the enemy command. The Macedonians ended the Greek phalanx by rendering it useless.

Why were Roman soldiers so feared?

One of the reasons why the Roman Legion was so feared was that it was always changing. The Legion was never stuck in past traditions. If they were defeated by an enemy they would quickly reorganize and learn from the defeat in order to come back tenfold.

How many soldiers are in a Macedonian phalanx?

16 men
The phalanx consisted of a line-up of several battalion blocks called syntagmata, each of its 16 files (lochoi) numbering 16 men, for a total of 256 in each unit. Each syntagma was commanded by a syntagmatarch, who – together with his subordinate officers – would form the first row of each block.

Is phalanx obsolete?

It had characteristics of the classical Greek and Hellenistic phalanxes, but was more flexible. It was used against cavalry more than infantry. However, the phalanx did not totally disappear. The phalanx might not have been obsolete at the end of its history.