History channel - Battle of Cynoscephalae 3/3

During the march there was a heavy rainstorm, and the morning after there was a fog over the hills and fields separating both camps. Despite this, Philip resumed his march, and his troops became confused and disoriented. Philip then sent a small force to take the Cynoscephalae hills. Flamininus, still unaware of Philip's location, sent out some cavalry and light infantry to reconnoiter, which engaged Philip's troops on the hills. The battle on the hills grew fierce and Flamininus sent 500 cavalry and 2,000 infantry as reinforcements, mostly Aetolians, forcing Philip's men to withdraw further up the hill. Philip now sent more men into the melee, his Macedonian and Thessalian horse, who drove the Romans down the hill, until the Aetolian cavalry stabilized the situation. Philip, though reluctant to send his phalanx into the broken, hilly terrain eventually ordered an assault with 8,000 men when he heard of the Roman retreat. Flamininus positioned his troops on the field as well. He left his right wing in reserve, with his elephants in front, and personally led the left wing against Philip. Meanwhile Philip's phalanx had reached the summit, and after joining with their light troops and cavalry which he placed on his right wing, Philip had his phalanx charge down the hill into the oncoming legionaries. As the Roman left was slowly being driven back, Flamininus took command of his right and ordered an assault there.

Philip's right wing was now on higher ground than the Roman left, and was at first successful against them. His left wing and center, made up of another 8,000 phalangites, however were still disorganized and in marching formation, so they had not even formed the phalanx yet, and as Flamininus sent his elephants charging into them, they routed. After breaking through, one of the Roman tribunes took twenty maniples (a smaller division of the legion) and attacked the Macedonian right wing from behind. The Macedonians were unable to reposition themselves as quickly as the Roman maniples. Now surrounded by both wings of the Roman legion, they suffered heavy casualties and fled.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• THE
• GREAT
• ALESSANDRO
• MAGNO
• PHILIPPOS
• PHILIP
• FILIPPOS
• FILIP
• POLYBIUS
• ROME
• ROMANS

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[GeneralBlackNorway]

@KingOfSparta123456 Well that's kind of what I said. His Phalanxes would fight as any phalanxes would. Though much creed to how he dealt with the chariots by running to the side and peppering them with javelins. However practically what he did was to hold the line while skirmishing with his cavalry until he saw an opening and charged right at the Persian king. The king flees and so did his army. Usually it's during pursuit that most casualties are made.

[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.

[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 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]

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

[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.