History channel - Battle of Cynoscephalae 3/3

[29gmj]

Rome at its prime vs Macedon at its prime is no contest.The Romans would win becaus its System of waging war (logistics etc) was superior

[KingOfSparta123456]

alexanders army would have won because he had light infantry and GOOD cavalry to cover his phalangists

[bleushift]

woow i expected that rome army got totally annihalited.

phalanx formations coming down the hill at you.

with long spears normally wiped any army out.

[zazenzach]

any1 else laugh hysterically at those guys flying because of the elephants :)

[theitalianscotdan]

wait what about their cavalry? surely if the macedon cav had won then it shoulda have had a decent amount left to guard or at least support the left flank

[morningstartep]

roman is ancient history and so does modern Roman i mean Italian. Kiss yr cross now while u still can do it as the muslim is at yr door and u always open it for them to come in and UR modern thinnking of doing good will not be paid coz muslim is one lunatic that will invade u as shown in many ccassion in europe so i say wslcome to ohammad natio italy and that goes to u too POPE. Wake the fuck up

[29gmj]

@morningstartep I agree. Let us not forget that the last vestiges of Rome's Empire Byzantium (the eastern empire) was destroyed by the Moslems.

[KingOfSparta123456]

guys look,my opinion is that the greeks could have won with alexander.he had lighter infantry to protect the flanks of his phalanx,he had heavy cavalry and the most basic,he had a clever mind ; ). to be honest none can tell who would won this battle if it was alexander but we can tell our opinions.

[GeneralBlackNorway]

@KingOfSparta123456 I think the Romans would still win, but I'm not sure if by Alexander's time they would win that battle. Alexander did lose in India, so he could be defeated. The Romans did have the command system and manpower and equipment to win. So I don't think that if it was against Alexander it would do much difference.

[KingOfSparta123456]

@GeneralBlackNorway well.you are not wrong.but alexander had a great mind and he would find a way.I still believe he is possibly the best.

[GeneralBlackNorway]

@KingOfSparta123456 I would not say the best. He was a good leader, but maybe not a brilliant commander. Hannibal on the other hand, was a great commander and beat the Romans over and over and over with pure strategy and tactic. Alexander was a great leader charging with his cavalry on the front when he saw an opening in the enemy defence. His phalanx would fight in line. The Romans had the strong ability to be flexible and attack as they saw fit. I don't think Alex could win the war at least...

[KingOfSparta123456]

@GeneralBlackNorway oh well its a matter of opinion.Hannibal is my favorite general.in my opinion we cant compare 2 generals that lived hundreds or actually thousands of years ago.if they had fought one each other then we can tell who is better but now we cant.i still believe he is great.he was so young and he crashed the persians.he conquered most of the known world.

[GeneralBlackNorway]

@KingOfSparta123456 I know it's opinion, and I think he is great too. I just don't think that he would win the war against the Romans. Maybe he could have won that battle, but we can't know for sure.

[GeneralBlackNorway]

@KingOfSparta123456 However the point is that in open battle casualties is not that made him win against the superior sized force, it was simply the cowardly Persian king who made Alexander win that battle so easily. Alexander's way of fighting is a strong one, however the Roman army was very flexible and would been a harder nut to crack. In my opinion the phalanx would be Alexander's best shot in a battle with the Romans. If he could protect the flanks, he can win.

[KingOfSparta123456]

@GeneralBlackNorway i like having that kind of disqussions but i got a bit tired and i need to go sleep.thanks for the good answers.as i said its a matter of opinion and that also we cant compare generals that never fought one each other.

[29gmj]

@KingOfSparta123456 I am in agreement with you. However Alexander is the exception rather than the rule, my pont is that it would take NOTHING LESS than an A

[29gmj]

@KingOfSparta123456 It would take NOTHING LESS than an Alexander to defeat Rome! Alexander was more the exception rather than the rule, not all Greek generals were of Alexander's caliber. Under a lesser general the odds are in Rome's favour.

[stud20084977]

It's not that clear-cut to say that Alexander was a brilliant general and would have won the battle for the macedonians. What is the key in this discussion is that the art of war had developed in the 120 or so years since the death of Alexander, and while the macedonians where stuck in the old way of fighting, Rome was at the forefront of innovation in Battle Tactics and equipment

[KikuchiyoOrigins]

@stud20084977

That's true, Phillip also made a grave mistake attacking with half his force while the other half was not yet ready. If you would ask me, I would say the moment he decided to do that he lost the battle. Had he waited I think he would have stood a far better chance.

[StrathendrickPiper]

those 2,000 soldiers attacking the rear of the phalanx won the battle

[29gmj]

@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani

Preach it!

[29gmj]

I think Alexnder was a supreme general and I don't think that Flaminius would have won against him. Scipio Africanus or Caesar would have had a (slightly) better chance.

[RecoverRedeem]

@29gmj Honestly? It really doesn't matter, Alexander used the same tactics as Phillip (or rather Phillip used the same tactics as Alexander) the only crucial difference was that Alexander had a few different type of units.

However, the units from Alexanders' time are actually still around during Phillip's time (not the same men) the only problem was that Macedon just didn't have the manpower.

Even during Alexander's time, Macedon wouldn't have the Manpower to take on Rome.

[RecoverRedeem]

@29gmj Another factor would be what they said in this episode: Initiative.

Romans had a very different command system than the Greeks.

Alexander had the ultimate say in army orders - the phalanx could only follow one battle strategy that of Alexander.

Though commanders of those phalanxes could change the battle orders to suit the needs of battle they couldn't really brake off from battle like the 2,000 romans did in Cynoscephalae, they had to follow the plan.

Romans - could do as they saw fit.

[fp470]

@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani The Roman historians only counted the 'Roman' troops. The Auxilliary casualties are not recorded

[BayouBluesMan]

had it been ALEXANDER there ...whole different ballgame

[PBJsandwich100]

@BayouBluesMan Doubtful, the Phillip studied and fought in every aspect that Alexander would of done so.

[bomber1452]

he should have used his cav to push back the flanking romans -_-

[ConsurgoTitanus]

@bomber1452 The cav wouldn't be able to move fast enough, and it was less than 1000 cavalry against 2000+ roman infantry and No he wouldn't be able to move phalangites behind the cavalry to fill the gap that the romans were taking advantage of, why? the phalanx was not very mobile, the romans would brake the cavalry before the phalanxes got there. Legion------------>Phalanx, the Age of Alexander was over, the age of Rome had come.

[lolinpoops]

@bomber1452 your prob thinking about how someone would use cav to deflect a flank in RTW. but in reality people didnt have an overview of the battle and a slight gap in the lines could spell disaster for the entire army just because no one except the people closest would have seen it and reacted fast enough.

[RTWdude]

those guys gotta have strong wrists

[Stratigoz]

No need for Alexander..Greeks needed to be united, but they weren't and they loose..

[poip0i]

if alexander was leading the greeks there would be no contest

[ispaf]

@poip0i It wasn't just that Phillip was lacking as a general. The Macedonian army at Cynoscephalae lacked the advantage in heavy cavalry and reliable non-phalanx melee infantry like the famous hypaspistai of Alexander's army.

[ConsurgoTitanus]

@ispaf either way, the hypaspitai were not good as good as roman heavy infantry and they were more like skirmishers with heavy armor, the legion could move as a coherent unit.

Whatever your take on it, Rome would crush the Macedonian army of Alexander or of any Greek ruler at this time.

[ConsurgoTitanus]

@ispaf Nope, Rome would crush the greeks. phalanx was just inferior to Rome.