Phalanx vs Legion : Battle of Cynoscephalae
2018 ж. 9 Сәу.
9 918 271 Рет қаралды
The roman victory in the battle of Cynoscephalae ( 197 BC ) marked the end of the second macedonian war between Rome and Philip V, king of Macedon. The battle is considered one of the best examples of manipular roman legion superiority over the macedonian phalanx in terms of flexibility and combat maneuvering.
The reconstruction of the battle is based on Polybius account from Histories,book 18 , 24-27.
Thank you for watching and please consider support us at / syntagma .
Music credits :
Ross Bugden - Rapture • ♩♫ Epic Music ♪♬ - Rap...
modified versions of
Daniele Tension and Tension Rmk
• DANIELE - Epic Orchest...
• DANIELE Epic Orchestra...
/ d4ni3l3
Vox Populi.... Seeing a lot of comments asked for a voice over, we decided to add VO in our latest video, covering the roman republican legion - kzhead.info/sun/itJwitaIoZWNaZE/bejne.html
awesome!
wtf?!?! people are to lazy to read now a days!?!?
a voice over can do a lot of things for a channel as small as his
true. i think that you can do both certain topics require more of a narrative. others are perfectly fine how they are like this video in my humble opinion
intervene
"Our men are fleeing the field of battle, this is a shameful display"
Shamefur *
Shamefuru dispuray
THIS IS NO WAY FOR A LEADER TO BEHAVE! BUT IN BATTLE, IT IS BEYOND BELIEF!
The man are wavering!
Lmao love this thread
No triangles or rectangles were harmed in the making of this video
I went to school with a triangle once. Guy was an asshole
RIP circles
@@brianlam257 Don't be shapist.
Bunch of trapezoids
The triwngles were paid actors, the rectangle were extras
That one Tribune that decided to take his company and flank - *I am gonna do whats called pro roman move*
The biggest difference for the Romans imo is that the Tribunes and unit commanders had a moderate ability to make a decision like that flank and win entire battles.
@@kingponto1295 That's the whole idea of having them, though, it allows for minor commands and opportunities to be ceased by allowing some fluidity in the ranks. Obviously, they couldn't disobey an order, more so, they'd take an order, and follow it in a different way, if the opportunity strikes, of course.
A shame we don't and probably never will know his name. He should be remembered !
Decentralized command
Clément Godard Surely his name was Scipio. All the best generals were called Scipio.
"The enemies hearts are full of fear and now they flew! Pursue them, And drive them from the battlefield!"
CAVALRY PURSUE!!
Rome total war?
Ahh the goid old total war rome
THE GODS BE PRAISED THE ENEMIES HEARTS ARE FULL OF FEAR AND NOW THEY FLEE
GODS BE PRAISED, THE ENEMY GENERAL IS DEAD! PRESS FOWARD SO THE SPIRIT OF HIS ARMY IS BROKE IN 2
The Romans thought they could just go around that. ... And they did.
Not until they routed the Macedonian left flank.
@@AJ-ud1ui Actually, while they were not even breaking the left flank yet, but running past them to that battle; the manipular system and flexibility the legionaries provided - one saw the opportunity, and quickly charged the right flank and routed them. The point in this video was to demonstrate that because the nature of the legionaries in general, you could more effectively find, and exploit these things rather than having to set up the lines slower, and react to things much better on the fly. Which is why overall; it was still the better system.
ban la nguoi viet nam ak
There was this tribe in Spain who resisted the Romans. The Romans sent the legions after them and they closed themselves up in their fortress and laughed at the Romans saying their fortress was impregnable and they had enough food to last for 10 years, thinking this would make the Romans give up and go away. The Roman commander laughed and said: Then we'll crucify you all in the 11th year. They surrendered the next day.
@Gazbanger More like: they thought back on their years in cold, wet, drizzly England, took one look at colder, wetter, drizzlier AND treeless Scotland and said: "F#@k it....let's just build a wall. They can have it....LOL
- *watches video* - *re-installs Rome II Total War*
LOL SAME HERE!
Haha true story bro.
R U 1 2 What? Who are you debating? Lmao
@@RU-zm7wj kid game??? Lol
@@RU-zm7wj chill fam
Much like Gettysburg, a decisive battle happens almost accidently, when two groups doing scouting/recon run into each other and start fighting, and then draw the rest into the battle. Generals didn't pick the terrain, or the time but were forced into a battle.
Makes a lot of sense actually. Few competent generals would probably risk losing a surely decisive battle by engaging on the overwhelming terms of the enemy, unless they really had to. If everyone is unprepared or in a neutral position, flip a coin. Heads we win, tails we die. Someone's gotta win, might as well be us.
Sometimes they picked the terrain, sometimes they picked the time, sometimes they didn't.
True but Macedon has very clear way to turn it around but there general did nothing at the moment to do so you cannot allow a phalanx to get flanked and the general and the last of his calvary just sat there and let it happen. Rome was lucky Alexander was around at the time
@@jimmymeinhart4265 it was anything but even chance for the greeks. Phalanx is way less usefull on uneaven terrain.
@@colemanwalsh7477 Alexander was just lucky he went East instead of West.
Even at its peak, the Macedonian phalanx was not often used offensively. Alexander, for example, relied on the phalanx to pin the enemy's army in place, while he led the Companion cavalry to making a decisive breakthrough....by the 3rd century the strong (and expensive) cavalry was greatly reduced, leaving everything up to the inflexible infantry.....Rome never really had to face the original phalanx force....
Exactly!
Well, macedonians never met the roman legion on it's apex in the principate era too
@@namelessboar True. but strong cavalry with able commanders can almost always trump infantry....
@@julianmarsh1378 macedonian heavy cavalry was quite lesser effective than kataphraktoi&medieval men-at-arms in its shock tactic at least cause of stirrups absence. p.s. sorry for my english, it's not my native language
I understand that but they had no medieval cavalry to go up against....and if they had, Alexander would have come up with a way to neutralize them....
Thumbs up. If history was taught like this, with the assisting visuals and added life, I think more people would be interested in learning it.
Nightmare of Onyx this isn’t basic history. This is a battle. Many students are interested in wars and battles. It is everything else that might shy people away. History isn’t all warfare.
Oh I'm aware of that. You are talking to someone that's read stuff like Chaucer, Herodotus and the like (really stuff spanning the ages). History's always been a passion of mine, and the reading comes easier to me. I also know that it is not the same way for all people. My point is that it would help those who normally wouldn't be interested if some more life was breathed into it, to make it seem more real than just dusty textbook reading.
History is all about battle. Anybody who tells you it is not is just kidding themself. Every culture on earth has had battle at the centre of its development. Without battle the Roman empire would never have existed.
Best thing History teacher can offer: "Damn dat Phalanx was pretty good, but gettin "charge" in de ass can make any man run fo his booty" :T
No truer words were ever spoken. But I suppose this applies to about every subject doesn't it?
The phalanx of Philip's day was a remnant of a once combination of arms system. Philip and Alexander relied on their superior Companion cavalry for the needed offensive punch; the phalanx was meant to transfix the enemy and prevent him from making necessary field adjustments.
Hmm. I still think that the defeat was largely Phillip's fault. Had he held a defensive position on top of the hill with all of his men, he might have held out. It seems he didn't respect the Roman's enough.
True, I still like the phalanx better
Should have waited for the other half at the foot of the hill.
He made sooo many mistakes! I agree with you
The Macedonian Phalanx is a totally different formation than the Greek Phalanx, common mistake by many...for starters, it is an offensive one while the Greek phalanx is a defensive one, moreover the Macedonian Phalanx needs and even ground to be able to work properly as seen in the battle of Pydna, where the Macedonian phalanx was not even, and the Roman Legionaries just charged through the holes and defeated them!!! Sure, it is a force to be reckoned with, if charged head on, but ultimately the Roman Maniple formation is more versatile and can be adapted pretty quickly to everything that could happen...moreover, the fact that the romans encouraged lower officers to make decisions on their own, greatly increased the adaptability!!! So, Philip V, wasn't at fault, the problem was that the Macedonian Phalanx has a lot of flaws in versatility and adaptability...the only mistake he had made was sending a part of his army to go foraging, but the blame lies with the Macedonian Phalanx formation, because it just takes so long to form
@@hiluminatul6750 Your point is however seriously flawed. First of all, I don't know who you're writing to. I don't see anyone here that says that the Macedonian Phalanx and the Greek Phanalnx are the same. Also, at Pydna, the phalanx pushed needlessly over rough terrain. You made it seem like not being able to operate in uneven ground is horrible. Alexander had Shield Bearers for fighting on uneven ground and covering the flanks, which would have helped win the battle of Pydna. Also, you said that Philip V wasn't at fault. No one sends half of his army foraging when you don't even know the terrain well. That's a blunder, not a minor mistake like you make it seem. Also, he rushed too much. He knew he only had half of his army but abandoned his favorable position. His troops are not losing. So if Philip only sent some light troops to go foraging (which is what normal generals will do), his troops will be evenly matched against the Roman cavalry and light troops. He could then march up the hill with all the infantry and could use the high ground to generate momentum to push the Romans off. The maniple, however flexible and versatile, can not compete with a phalanx attacking downhill. Also, in Philip II and Alexander's reign, the phalanx was paired with the elite Companion Cavalry, the best in the world at that time in a hammer and anvil tactic, which is famous enough to not need a description. Here they were nowhere to be seen either. You made it seem that the not-so-versatile Macedonian phalanx is responsible for the defeat. They did well. It was the general who commanded them to go forage that was in the wrong. That's like the Persian army sending the Immortals to go scouting. Also, the maniple system was replaced by the cohort system in 107 BC. That really puts a dent in your whole argument. The maniple unit was made to be flexible to fight in the Samnite Wars in the mountains.
“The battle is turning in our favour!” Is the best feeling
A battle called "Tête de Chien ", Dog's Head, it's strange.
🇪🇺🇪🇺1982🇪🇺🇪🇺⭐⭐⭐🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷athens greece Europe 🇬🇷🇬🇷20;51🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷 passing the torch of power 🇬🇷➡️🇮🇹➡️🏴➡️🇬🇧➡️🇺🇸➡️👽 evolution of empires passing the torch 🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽
The rigid Phalanx was winning head to head, yet the flexible Legion was able to outmaneuver and shatter their line
Well concluded
Flexible? Rigid? What gave you this idea? Roman "flexible" legionaries did no better when they were flanked at Heraclea or Cannae, and Greek "rigid" phalanxes were able to perform zigzag maneuvers, reverse wheeling manuvers and hollow square maneuvers throughout their history. Heavy infantry are all "rigid". Their ability to maneuver has nothing to do with their weapons, but with the organization and leadership of a particular unit.
Johan Lassen I agree
@@johanlassen6448 Well, you can do whatever conjecture or hypothesis you want. In the end, Roman legions dominated the region and a big chunk of the world for a loong time. "Ah, but if Alexander were alive..." Conjectures. In the end, history is written. Rome won, the legions won, and Phalanxes not. Of course, long pikes (and a lot of formations involving it) are excellent weapons and continued in use for centuries, but again, conjectures.
@@ylfaer Rome* dominated that chunk of the world for a long time. But they themselves abandoned the legionaries. As for the rest of your "argument", it is not based on substance and instead lazily attempts to simply use the outcome as the entire answer while failing to take into account any other factors. I suppose by your logic the Lagg-3 was a better plane than the Bf 109 as well? The Allies won the war after all.
Macedonians: but how?! Our Phalanx! Romans: the future is now old man.
This battle was lost due to a strategic failure and not tactical. If Macedonia reinforcement had formed the line, they would’ve won.
@@sttabers8257 Samurai used guns all the time...
@@scudb5509 if phalanx was so great, romans would have used it in every war. But it is not, once it's flanked, it's done. Roman legions were more versatile and overall better.
JustOssetian So you don’t get flanked, simple as that. Battle strategy always wins everything.
@@scudb5509 easier said than done. Phalanx is of course a great force on the battlefield but it's problem is that it's only effective in a very specific formation and only when its flanks are carefully protected, it's not fast, it can't charge quickly enough and is not versatile, it cannot be used in skirmishes vs light and agile units. Even one small mistake in using phalanx might lead to the ultimate loss of the battle, and that is exactly what happened in the event described in this video. Legions didn't have these weaknesses.
Romans: Go around the phalanx Macedonians: “Wait, that’s illegal!”
Achemenids :- why didn't we think of that
@@sadiqahmed4143 they did think about that lol..the problem was that here Philip was pretty much a shit commander.. Alexander was alaways using support infantry to protect the flanks of the phalanx. Cavalary was also working in tandem with the formation like a hammer and anvil.. Philip had no idea how to use the phalanx.. There is of course the roman formation to consider. While not perfect, it allowed great movement across the battlefield. Overall, this defeat was possible due to Philip stupidity, and roman rezerves and tactical thinking.
@@sadiqahmed4143 well the companions made sure that this wasn't going to happen
Philip V: It's over Romans! I have the high ground! Me: Then why didn't you use it?!
Romans:You underestimate my power! *They actually did it*
That tribune that flanked became instantly rich after the battle
AntPal Is that true?
*ROME IS THE BEST!*
@@CarterMassey I don't know if it's true but it's likely, since his actions had a decisive impact on the battle.
@@DaveLambertITA Yet we do not know his name.
in ancient rome if you disobey someone as higher rank than you it was considered a treason for disobedience even though you fight glorious in battle because roman army was trained in extreme discipline
Animations like these show how minute maneuvers factor into the outcome, marking the difference between A) textbooks and Wikipedia and B) it happening before one's eyes.
Its also a lot of fabrication, guessing, whihc often leads to misstated "facts".
Yeah, though romans were the first one in recorded history that started to record things as precisely as possible, creating what known now as "military science". One of key reasons of military success was their ability to learn. Interesting enough they were reluctant to execute or oppress lost side which had both political effect and the educational. Quite a number of defeated enemies, or even rebels ended up as roman commanders or sources of their side perspective.
as precisely beneficial to the author or commissioner of the writing as possible. :) Now of course we have flawless heros and crazy psychopaths that the heros didnt like.
Yes, Quite awesome that the Romans made these animations instead of writing because we could have misinterpreted how the battles went down with just text.
It's definitely easier to visualize, that's for sure. And yes Roman's were very decent at recording details, but you normally aren't going to read that much detail in general historical textbooks unless you were studying warfare. Historical "facts" are usually pretty close to truth, because not only are there records, but process of elimination of what could have happened only provide us with a couple of likely or less-likely scenarios.
I never knew seeing shapes moving around could be so exciting
RIP all the soldiers who fought and died defending or conquering
They who watched this KZhead video salute you
I'm a year later but thanks for not being that guy like "omg, this side was dumb for not doing xyz" or going "this side good guys this side bad guys" And... R.i.p to the dead
They're lookin us from up there 🤧 (no actually they're dead, they're dust, they're what they weren't before birth: nothing; as we all will be)
@The Anonymous Lemon Prick
The soldiers be like: who asked bro??? It's been ages bruh
Great video. Love the 3D work, really impressive.
thanks man, this matters a lot coming from you :)
Syntagma i do 3d modeling and sculpting as a hobby and love ancient times warriors, I wouldnt mind making a few, but Im not sure if you prefer the minimalistic approach(cubes, sticks etc). Here is a sample of stuff Ive done drive.google.com/file/d/175OPSNrUyEQ4nh3GtNLzlDDDNxGwqSKc/view?usp=drivesdk
Nice work dude.
@@Syntagma you and Epic History TV should collaborate. Its going to be an amazing video asset for history.
@@Syntagma n g7 chi vi abita
A phalanx is extremely effective in head on assaults and holding the line, provided your battle line is longer than your opponents or you can bottleneck them. The legions however require little set up or placement like a phalanx does and are more versatile. But crumble against a strong defence or offense. If a phalanx is flanked or not long enough it can be routed easily.
Yeah the phalanx is very formation dependent- which was exploited with the yet unformed phalanx of Philip, rather immobile and most importantly inflexible. The unability of the phalanx to respond to flanking maneuvers and their increased susceptibility to them due to only being able to fight in one direction was their primary weakness.
Big call saying the legion would crumble under a strong defence or offence. One of the premier qualities of the legion was that it could fight all day.. Romes heavy infantry was literally the best in the world
@@karter969 well looks like the parthians never got that memo
@@kamikaziking I think that’s more of a fault of Crassus, rather than a flaw in the design of the legion. Sure you can cherry pick one loss here and there but look at Rome’s overall win/loss ratio and tell me otherwise
@@karter969 if only they lost in carrahe sure but they lost several times and the wars resulted in a stalemate
The Invention of "King of the Hill" 197 B.C., colorized
Nice!
This was fantastic! I really felt the momentum and flow of the battle. Those sarissa's were something else! They got a psychological factor too! It must have taken quite a bit of work! 👏
That tribune better've gotten a raise if not a promotion for initiative...
MVP
clutched it for the team
Since he is mentioned in the sources, and made it to the history report. We can surely say that he was mentioned to the senate and army leaders.
I think decimatus was only applied if a unit fled the battlefield or showed cowardice since it was a punishment for the entire unit. If the Tribune was not following orders he would be punished, not his soldiers that usually had no idea what the Legate was doing anyways.
As far is i recall, tribunes and centurions were given great freedom on the battlefield on their advances/movement after the inital push, as long as they didn´t retreat. This is to improve the effectivness of the manipeltactis as the commander of the manipels have a better overview of whats happening in front of them and can give their order more easily. But I´m not sure, if thats true, so take it with a grain of salt. AFAIK Invicta said that in his video about the triplex acies, deployed in that time
The phalanx was supposed to work in tandem with the cavalry and the light infantry if Alexander had been the commander in chief the battle might have had a very different outcome
By 197 BC anyone knew the trick. To have a dominant cavalry is not a given, it's not like the others don't know horses.
That's like saying, if they had guns it would be a totally different outcome.
Its hard to stop elephants and heavy infantry all at once even with phalanx
@Onemanarmylol Lol one of the reasons rome abandoned the phalanx was because of its rigid structure coupled with italy's rough terrain. rome's italic neighbors inflicted heavy losses on rome early in its history. it's hard to say which was better because many medieval armies subsequently essentially used phalanxes and found enormous success. many of the persian armies that faced alexander cleared the battlefield of obstacles so their chariots would be more effective, which is honestly the worst thing you can do when facing a phalanx.
@Onemanarmylol Lol Alexander won most battles with a decisive cavalry charge which he personally led, The phalanx is only a good anvil if you have a good hammer.
Loved this video, simple but effective. The musical score is perfect. Superb. Played the video several times, accompanied by that musical score, can’t never get enough! Thanks!
The level of knowledge for this battle proves you have a great understanding! We want more of these type battle videos! 🙏
"The enemy are fleeing for their lives! What a glorious day!"
StopAndListen “The day is ours!”
*Basically any given day in a Roman LEGION*
We need reinforcements. SEND MORE TRIANGLES!
And rectangles too...😂
I get the reference XD
First time I have seen your show...it is absolutely excellent and the graphics bring the battle to life with time for thought about the tactics in use. Well done you !
If anyone's interested, there's a game called "A Legionary's Life" which chronicles this military campaign against Philip of Macedon in it's final third. The battle of Cynoscephalae serves as the game's climax and it's fittingly nearly impossible to "win" against the Macedonian phalanx like you can against the Carthaginian and Macedonian irregulars you face earlier in the game. It's quite a nice historical introduction to both this campaign and the Second Punic War, offering a perspective from a common soldier as well as a strategic narrative.
Charged to the back; a favored tactics that most who play Total War series will be familiar with.
I always charge my winged hussars at the muskets and cannons barrels. What a glorious death they meet.
SHAMEFUR DISPRAY !
''I always charge my winged hussars at the muskets and cannons barrels. What a glorious death they meet'' Iron Maiden made a song about one of your horses being sent to die against a wall of enemy muskets and cannons. It's called The Trooper.
@@lopatou_ovalil7361 corner camping will be your death v me
Flanking/encircling is everything. That and chasing down the rout with light cavalry because I'll be buggered if I am seeing that unit coming back in a later battle
Wow, soldiers back then strongly resembled triangles and quadrilaterals.
It was a different time, back then.
A culture shock indeed.
Back in my day, we soldiers had shapes, we had points! What are soldiers nowadays? A bunch of meatbags.
Took lots of protein and exercise to get a figure like that
yes they were in good shape indeed :D
Great video! Super-helpful visualization of the battle. I've read "Legion versus Phalanx," a book that describes this battle at length, but this is the first time I can visualize the battle clearly.
new to channel, loved it, gave the reasons it happened, the tactics - and the music was properly martial - subbed, hope this channel illuminates more of the battle of ancient history like this!
I craved for months to find a video that explains how a legion and phalanx would bare againest each other.
Same. I've had issues in dealing with the phalanx in Rome 2: Total War. Bait, disrupt, encircle and destroy.
Really ? I love playing against Phalanx unless it's a siege battle. Just throw cheap ass infantry in front of them while the elites go around flanking.
By the time of this engagement, the Macedonian style of warfare had come to dominate the Hellenic world. All the Successor Kingdoms after Alexander the Great followed this format of warfare, with some tweaks here and their for their kingdoms. Head on and with a proper battle line maintained, the Macedonian Phalanx was extremely tough. But once you get around that, or it gets disrupted, there's trouble. In Alexander the Great's day, he had a powerful cavalry force to safeguard those flanks, powerful enough to be the decisive arm of a battle. I think the Successors lost that as they put a heavier emphasis on infantry while for various reasons, they had less and less cavalry that Alexander had.
You hit the nail on the head. Alexander's Companion cavalry in tandem with his Phalanx formations was what made it so formidable on the battlefield.
add me to play rome 2 for those who plays, :|[ApX]|:_Chikifco
I thought I wouldn't like this since it didn't have a voiceover, but the fluid graphics really helped me imagine the battle and how it unfolded. Got a sub and bell from me!
Thanks a lot man :) That's actually what we try to achieve, create a mainly visual story with key moments text to back it up :)
Are you interested in finding a voice actor to narrate some videos though? I'm interested and experienced if you're interested.
The troops on the left side of the battle at 10:13 "Sooooo... We cool?" "Yeah we cool"
My thought about this is that they were mutually threatening each others' positions so that it seemed whoever moved first would lose. Or they were at a stalemate. Or maybe this was just an oversight in the narration, but things like this happen.
This is actually really, really cool. Having the visual aid makes it a lot more engaging and informative than simply reading about the battle and trying (and often failing in my case) to visualise it in your head. Great job on it Syntagma. Would love to see more of these.
Dude I love your page! I also liked how you showed all the animations and showed the placement and timing of those positions while explaining everything.
Really interesting and enlighting video! I would argue however it doesn't so much prove the superiority of Roman tactics vs the Phalanx as show the Phillip was a poor commander (at least here). Who the hell leaves the high ground and attacks with only half their forces?!?!
I agree things would have been different with Alexander in charge. Plus roman seem to have alot more troops vs Macadons. I think open field it would have been different especially since Macadon had better calvary vs romans. At least that what most ppl say romans had awesome infantry but lacked calvary and always relied on infantry and numbers.
The Romans also left half their forces in reserve?
@Hye no, not in Resserve. Reserve is behind battle lines to fill gaps in the main line or counter attack after main lines are committed (this is how Ceaser put Pompai--Popai didn't know he had place about a 1/5th of his army in Reserve and had them flank and counter attack the main lines once the battle was in progress). The Romans deployed in preparation for the arrival of the 2nd half of the Army....and then attacked before the second half was ready. Subtle but significant difference.
@@LittleMacscorner "A military reserve, reserve formation, or simply reserve, is a group of military personnel or units that is initially not committed to a battle by its commander, so that it remains available to address unforeseen situations or exploit sudden opportunities. Such a force may be held back to defend against attack from other enemy forces, to be committed to the existing battle if the enemy exposes a vulnerability, or to serve as relief for troops already fighting." Seems like using the word reserve is perfectly relevant in this discussion. Leaving half his forces in reserve is exactly what Flamininus did.
@Hey I mean, we can argue semantics all you want. Functionally/Doctrinally, they were not reserves. I am a retired officer and I have trained on and executed operation plans. The best way to look at it is from a modern perspective.......the entire roman Army formed a main defensive line prepared to receive attacks along the line. Phillip only attacked half of the line at first. Seeing an opportunity, the Romans transitioned to the offensive on the right flank. It was still a Linear Defense with a transition to the offense without a deployment or commitment of any notably sized reserve forces at the Army level. I'm speaking Doctrine you are speaking semantics.
I've been watching the same thing videos over and over I like them so much. I love the format and everything about it. Please, please, please, make more. And I understand maybe one of the big battles from the gallic war.
Wonderful video! I miss something like that when I was a younger student at the College. Would you have in mind to make some video about Pyrrhus and their campaings in Italy? It would be great!
fantastic presentation well done .far more comprehensive than the "fog of war" you get from reading from a book .
Absolutely amazing and would love more videos showing similar content about tactics.
Fun fact, Cynoscefalae is a Greek word meaning Dog's head. It's a composite word, comprised of the ancient words "Κύνος"= dog and "Κεφαλή" = head.
Excelente!!! buen ilustrado, bien narrado y fondo músical apropiado. Me mantuvo a la expectativa todo el tiempo y aprendí. Gracias. Me suscribo.
Excellent video and superb representation. The flowing 3D presentation allows us to gain a visual understanding of the events and the battle far beyond what pure text or even some pictures would let us.
Unprepared left flank due to foraging mission was the reason he lost that battle...his army was divided aleady at the start of the major engagement..
Technically it was the inflexibility of the Phalanx that was the reason he lost that battle. Neither side expected a confrontation that day due to the horrible weather and terrible ground, and it was pure happen-stance that the scouting parties found each other. He was also too far away from a reasonable supply line and had not yet made it to resupply. Philip needed those men to be foraging as armies don't feed themselves. This is just a 101 lesson on how important logistics are in a military campaign.
@@hastur-thekinginyellow8115 you are both right. But don’t continue a major engagement with half of your men miles away is what he’s saying. He could of called the scouting force back or just held at the top of the ridge not pushed down as fast. In theory he exposed his own flanks by doing so. Not saying they didn’t need food. Just talking about the battle plan itself.
The absolute madlads who decided as light infantry to engage cavalry up a hill.
Must have been a not very gallopable hill. ;)
Seth R.C it was that or get trampled running away
greco-roman cavalry was not the Sarmatian tank type, they didn't even have stirrups
Greetings from Pharsalus (so close to tjst battlefield). The temple of Thetis hasn't been excavated yet, though archaeologists know the exact position. Skotoussa has been excavated for the last few years thanks to Italian archaeologists. Amazing findings so far.
I love your whole animated depiction of the battle -- the formations, the timing, the natural conditions, etc., etc. Really quite a SUPERB job!!
First video I watched. It was inspiring and extremely well done! I consequently subscribed. Thank you.
I remember this battle fro The History of Rome podcast, it is awesome to see now in person!!
Hope the quick thinking tribune got rewarded. Great vid - never would have thought this style could be so gripping!
Wow this was ace! Very well set out and it's amazing the amount of views this video has, it's great to see so many people still care about history.
I'm a history geek and a lover of organised battle tactics. I'm really saddened and feeling sorry that I didn't find your channel earlier. I've been watching battle tactics for years and really, your visual interpretation of the battle was one of the best i've seen so far. To me, modern battle tactics are best interpreted by Eastory and untill now, Kings and generals & Baz battles held the best previous age battle Interpretations. This one was great, I'm looking forward to watch more of your works.
What a great video! It is a relatively simple animation, but intense music makes the whole thing enjoyable learning experience ;)
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
I am honestly impressed with the presentation here. I really hope that more content like this occur in the future. Fantastic work!
I just stumbled on your channel, and I have to compliment you on your animation and general presentation. Keep up the good work, and if you need help with your scripts' grammar, I'd be happy to help. Subbed.
thanks a lot man, welcome to the channel :)
This was epic AND awesome, thank you!
Great job, thanks for the content!
Philipp did not use the macedonian battle strategy as it was supposed to be. The most important body of the army was not the phalanx, but the cavalry. The cavalry was the fast, flexible force that could save the phalanx by striking the enemy's back.
Thessalos In the time of Alexander, but by this point the infantry were cheaper to raise and maintain, therefore they'd superceded cavalry in terms of emphasis.
You are right, but I am talking about the whole battle strategy that went to be inefficient due to inflexibility. The Diadochi made the Phalanx alot heavier and more efficient, but they often forgot about their lack of flexibility. Hypaspists and Hoplites were used to prevent any weaknesses in the main battle line and to strike in gaps. Cavalry had the job to lay the decisive blow while the phalanx holds the enemy's infantry.
Thessalos You're right. I was actually coming back to point out that hoplites usually secured the flanks under Phillip and Alexander, but you beat me to it. Then again, the two armies stumbling into each other as they did, it looks like it came down to whichever side could control the heights and maintain flexibility as the situation developed.
Right, but that exactly is the point. Maintaining flexibility was far more easy for the roman legions. They couldn't break through but when the phalanx pushed the roman infantry into more rough terrain (Pydna) it stood no chance. Let's take the battle of Magnesia as an example. Antiochus cavalry easily beat its roman counterpart (Finally a Greek general who had the cavalry superiority in his battles) and looted the roman camp. Simultaneously his phalanx was receiving strong missile attack and collapsed. Again the mistake of not aiding your bare infantry.
Thessalos um, While the legion was more flexible. At Pydna the Romans won because their right flank allies won over the Macedonian left flank allies. So the phalanx collapsed when it got hit in the flank by Italian heavy infantry and in the back by elephants. At Magnesia the Selucid king did win his flank, but the Selucid horsemen on the other flank collapsed. The Romans and their allies surrounded the phalanx, but it only collapsed after the Romans (greek allies) targeted the elephants that routed and in turn routed the phalanx. So usually the main reason why the Romans won was that they made sure that their allies contributed to the Roman war effort, this made sure that the Roman army was allways properly supported by allies and specialist troops.
"What is best in life?" Conan: "To crush your enemies....to see them driven before you....and to hear the lamentations of their women!"
Naughty boy...🤪🤪
I want to see you in this dark time on a battlefield fighting!? Probaly you shit in the pans and run away! Superhero
Hearing the lamentations of their women is the best part
Great video. I have seen it many times. So simple, but so good. I love brief, well-made videos like this. Who has 20 or 30 minutes to learn what can be shown in 5? Thanks.
Nice video ! I would have appreciated a short explanation of the military and political consequences of the battle. Just like you explained what led to the battle
This was a really great video with some awesome visuals! I have seen this battle portrayed many times but this is something different. It really gives you a sense of how the battle was won with the maniples of Rome versus the phalanx of Phillip. More videos like this please! I can't get enough of later Republican/ early Imperial Roman times!
I urge caution against those who base their assumption of the manipular based Legion's superiority over the Macedonian Phalanx based on the outcome of the Battle of Cynoscephalae *or* Pydna for that matter where both Greek armies were ultimately crushed. In both those battles the true *combined arms* doctrine of Philip and Alexanders Macedonian Phalanx had been been betrayed and hadn't been fully in use since Pyrrhus of Epirus's adventures in Italy and Sicily nearly a century earlier. By the late 3rd Century BC most Greek/Hellenistic use of the so-called Macedonian Phalanx consisted almost entirely of phalangites armed with 18ft. sarrisa pike weapons and were flanked with a cavalry contingent much smaller than the combined numbers in use in Alexander's days. Cavalry used by Philip V or his son Perseus couldn't hold a candle to the lethal hitting power of the Companion Cavalry or that of the Thessalian Cavalry Corps under Parmenion's direction and there was the total lack of attention given to maintaining specialized individual cavalry units such as the Prodromoii & Paeonian squadrons or that of the Odrysian and miscellaneous Thracian and Greek allied or mercenary component parts of the Cavalry in use by Philip and Alexander. Likewise there is scant evidence that later Greek and/or Hellenistic potentates of the Successor Kingdoms put much emphasis on the maintenance of an elite light infantry corps that were vital to both the protection of the main phalangite infantry component part of the army and in working in concert with the cavalry to exploit battlefield vulnerabilities of the enemy that often led to victory. The record is nill with respect to Philip and Perseus's attempt to assign infantry for the purposes of forming a "rear phalanx" which would be vital to the protection of main phalanx core whose vulnerabilities are well known. In fact I don't know if by Philip V's days there was even the existence of the Hypaspists stationed to the right of the phalangites composed of the best most capable men of the regular infantry the king had to offer. Absent these vital cogs in the wheel of the *real* Macedonian Phalanx it's difficult to know with any certainty just which system of fighting was the better. The phalanx that Philip V threw against Rome were poor reproductions of the masterful war machines in use by his ancestors for sure. We only have the battles fought between Pyrrhus and Rome to see an example of a Macedonian Phalanx that remained truer to the integrity of doctrine Philip and Alexander espoused and in two of the three battles the phalanx triumphed, albeit with high losses which I suspect had a lot to do with the sort of numbers they were up against in those encounters. Having said all this I will say that the higher fuctionality of the individual Roman infantrymen over the phalangite probably would lead to higher probability rates of success for this type fighting style yet absent those other important component parts previously mentioned that were part of Philip/Alexander's Macedonian Phalanx it remains difficult to know for sure.
Or it simply was a huge tactical mistake to attack the romans with only half of an already smaller army, so you would get out flanked. I doubt Alexander (or someone like Ceasar or Hannibal) would have made such a mistake.
Well Chris, it was half of Philip's men versus half of the Roman's men, so technically, there isn't a problem with it. The mistake was probably to wait until the men were on top of the hill to put them in formation. If the second corps would have formed before they crested the hill, the Romans wouldn't have seen the disorganized state of their enemy, and hence wouldn't have charged and destroyed it. I understand that's it's very easy to say for us, after the facts, but: Let's imagine that the second phalanx took the time to form out of view of the Romans, before the crest, like I proposed. With the first phalanx pushing the Romans slowly down to defeat, it was up to Flavinius to reverse the situation and that would force him to commit his second corps (or part of it) against the first phalanx, which would leave himself vulnerable to a counter-attack from the now formed Phalanx brought up the crest, and just now being visible to the Romans. At this point, not only is the second phalanx formed, but the second Roman corps is most likely positioned poorly (as it attacks the first Phalanx). Much better chances for a victory. But yeah, easy for me to say...
Jonathan Allard Is there any reason the Roman’s right could charge uphill as a viable offensive option without crippling their attack power? Why does the Macedonian left just arriving the hill ridge have to spend a long time getting into a “battle-ready” state, yet the Romans didn’t? Is it just because the Roman legionnaires are flexible generalist and the Macedonian phalanx a specialized fighting force that can only fight with proper preparation?
The Romans themselves dabbled a bit in phalanx formations, but changed it to what most call the "manipular legions" later on for exactly that reason. They found a phalanx (with short spears) to be too cumbersome for hills and mountains. I bet that would go double for a Macedonian phalanx. Edit: this is not to say a Macedonian phalanx in rough terrain couldnt be effective, but its important to note that Rome wasnt deploying "professional" soldiers before Marius. Everyone was responsible for his own weapons and training, so the lack of drills may explain them giving up on the phalanx.
''Is there any reason the Roman’s right could charge uphill as a viable offensive option without crippling their attack power?'' Yes. ''Why does the Macedonian left just arriving the hill ridge have to spend a long time getting into a “battle-ready” state, yet the Romans didn’t'' Many factors can come into play. Training, Terrain, initial formation type, final formation type, visibility, morale, etc. Also maybe the Romans started to form earlier than the hill phalanx. We don't know. ''Is it just because the Roman legionnaires are flexible generalist and the Macedonian phalanx a specialized fighting force that can only fight with proper preparation?'' JUST because? Probably not, but it is a factor yes.
This makes me want to play Rome: Total War SO BAD!!! Awesome work.
Watching some high level gameplay or just seeing how people go about it online with meta in any game you can see how some just have a different understanding of things. I found out I'm just a grunt focused on the skill of the fight in front of me while others so far back thinking logistics to bleed a person out before they even meet to fight. Not even strats or tactics they way back seeing the value in everything and what they can trade and deny. Learning when the moment to strike or defend is based on economy and making sure to get there first while stuffing all the opportunities they can for the enemy. Resources. Like the simple saying, "an army marches on it's stomach."
8:38 The moment you hold your breath. Love this animation. Thank you for made it! ;)
Must of been incredibly scary to the Roman army, but they succeeded!
Fantastic visuals! The 3d perspective clearly reveals how the terrain influenced the decision making. Just subbed! Keep it coming! 😁
thank you, will do :)
Just subbed! Are you using after effects?
This was superbly put together,I really enjoyed this, great job!
"Phalanx is unbeatable" Romans: Hold my beer.
"Unbeatable with Alexander the Great"
@Ankjok Ming fuck no
@Ankjok Ming When Alexander the great was alive conquering and beating the shit out of everything and everyone Rome had been founded for over 400 years already...they had had all their 7 kings already and they were a republic by then and conquered territories...and still I never heard that Romans dared to mess with Alexander while he was doing his thing...NOBODY DID!...So...NO!
@@yelyharmony2047 lol alexander only conquer east when the roman was conquering east and west sides
@@hipsteryouth3753 Alexander conquered in Africa in Asia and in Europe...Obviously couldn't extend more because he died suddenly and his importance was obviously noted after his death. I don't know how the fuck the cardinal points or directions work in your chicken brain. Let me repeat it for you...ASIA, EUROPE AND AFRICA! In Rome they never depended on one single man...emperor after emperor continued expanding and conquering until one of them decided it was enough!...in Greece only Alexander dared to do that...all the others before and after him were fighting defensively! Study more... you're sounding and looking like a total ignorant!
It’s the greatest battle of triangles and rectangles ever. Love the videos. It reminds me of playing games on the computer that had to be loaded with disc.
Very interesting video, but we also see that the phalanx, if properly assembled, will beat the roman legion in a head to head battle. I think the real determining factor between the two though, is the commander and the terrain.
Although terrain was on Macedon's side, and Philip's actions, from the first commitment for the hill that managed to get him both terrain and first blood to the decision to engage while he had both terrain and morale advantage, were quick and brilliant. The determining factor, in this battle at least, was that the Roman right managed to deploy faster than the Macedonian left, and to thrive in chaos instead of collapsing. One could argue that it was an inherent advantage of the legion over the phalanx. With that I'm not saying the legion was superior; just that this specific context made its qualities shine.
It's probably just the fact that there were a few war elephants on the right, in combination with many soldiers lacking the experience in facing off against such a threat. One could argue that a phalanx is great against a unit of war elephants but you can never overlook the shock value these elephants bring to the table.
yes, if properly assembled, phalanx wins... ...but that takes a LONG time and good commanders don't wait for their enemy to be ready to kill them. Also, historically, the phalanx formation was so complex that when deployed it slowed the soldiers therein to a crawl-like pace. Only the best most disciplined soldiers could move faster than that, and it was still a pain to turn towards a different direction. As a result, Rome found it was simply more efficient and deadly to train their soldiers to be the best... and then just equip them with giant tower shields, because even a giant heavy tower shield is still lighter and easier to wield than a 20-40ft spear. That combined with an assortment of small but deadly weapons such as the gladius (shortsword) and pilum (short throwing spear) meant that Roman legions could hold their own against a phalanx but were still faster and capable of flanking it, as demonstrated here. The almighty phalanx is essentially helpless from behind and had no hope of keeping up with a properly commanded Roman Legion.
The animation is great and so the explanation. But the author misses one thing. Just one little thing. What caused the Macedonians to give up on the left is the charge of... the éléphants.
Both at Cynoscephalae and at Pydna the phalanx was initially successful, since the legion could'nt really broke trough the phalanx head on when it was perfectly deployed. But, as the battles went on, the limits of the phalanx became evident. In the legion, even a single manipole of 200 men was a completely efficient combat unit that could rapidly change its line of fight or take advantages of favourable occasions, while the phalanx needed masses of many thousands to be effective. The legion could orderly and slowly rethreat with very little losses and simply lure the phalanx on uneven terrain like at Pydna, and then storm through the gaps, or outmanuver the phalanx like at Cynoscephalae. For the phalanx instead was to advance or to be slaughtered, there was not a third possibilty. At Cynoscephalae, when they saw the 2000 legionaries appearing at their back, the Phalangites simply raised their sarissas to signal their surrender, because they already knew that the battle was over.
just discovered the channel, beautiful! Your graphics are fantastic. If it could be combined with the individual biographical information for the combatants from invicta and the incremental real time damage hueristics from baz battles I could live in that world! Great work!
It's nice that so many channels use the same music. It makes it feel like many channels feel like one single massive entity.
That is a really good explanation in overview much appreciated, thanks
Subbed rigth now! Awesom video!
The part of warfare that is often missed is the smaller confrontations that lead up to any given battle.
I was gripped from beginning to end! On 75% speed is awesome 🐈⬛ Subbed
This video was so damn well done. Good job.
This is an awesome video!! Worthy of the Time where History Channel was talking about history rather than truckers and aliens. I especially loved the part where you put the increasing political tensions that led to the battle. Wars always happen for a reason and battles are the conclusion of those political tensions.
Re: Political tensions leading to the battle: von Clausewitz famously is quoted as saying that war is diplomacy continued by other means. (/s/ Matt's dad, blame me for complaints, not him)
GREAT! WILL WATCH AGAIN!
for the uninitiated, the Romans knew very well the phalanx formation, because for many years they fought with that formation. it was during the war against the Samnites (an Italic people who lived in central Italy in the mountains) that they discovered the limits of the phalanx formation, so they invented the maniple formation, much more flexible, faster and easier to control. the phalanx was invincible in a head-on collision, but too rigid and it took a long time to get it into formation, so against the Romans the phalanx was doomed to defeat
I can only imagine what it was like to live your life as a royal hostage, great video the music really adds to the storytelling.
Fantastic video, great animations. Amazing!
a simple concept but executed perfectly well done, great work!
12:26: the moment that the training, loyalty and a good commander with courage and vision changes the tide of the battle.
Philip V: "A properly formed phalanx is indestructible!" Flaminius: "I'm 'bout to ruin this guys whole empire..."
This is a good video with excellent use of graphics. However I disagree with the main premise, that the legion was superior to the phalanx. It's like comparing chalk and cheese. In the Roman military philosophy, infantry was everything. Infantry was what won battles. Cavalry was peripheral, and after the annihilation of the Roman cavalry at Cannae, they basically ceased bothering with recruiting native Italian cavalry altogether, instead having the provinces contribute cavalry. By the time of the Marian reforms, cavalry in Roman armies was exclusively comprised of levies from Gallic/Germanic/Numidian origins. By and large, Roman infantry was set up to break through enemy formations and strike decisive blows; the cavalry served as auxiliaries assisting the infantry and mopping up remnant enemy soldiers in the aftermath. Conversely, in the Hellenistic military philosophy, cavalry was everything and the phalanx's only role was to hold the line whilst the cavalry engaged with enemy cavalry, and manoeuvred around to flank the enemy infantry, crushing them into the pikes. Hammer and anvil. The hammer plays the decisive role, the anvil is the passive base on which the hammer strikes. The contrast between the two philosophies can be best seen by comparing how the Diadochs fought at the Battle of Ipsos, against how the Romans fought at Cannae. At Ipsos, the phalanxes led by Lysimachos and Antiogonos were almost irrelevant to the outcome of the battle. The whole issue was decided by Seleukos' blocking Demetrios' cavalry from returning to the field on the Antigonid right flank, whilst on the Antigonid left, the cavalry was routed by the Allied right wing cavalry. With the Allies now holding total cavalry superiority, the Antigonid phalanx surrendered and defected to Seleukos and friends. On the other hand, at Cannae, the Romans attempted to win the battle by breaking through Hannibal's centre in a massive infantry charge. The thought of using their cavalry to negate Hannibal's Numidians and Gallic & Iberian cavalry on each flank didn't even occur to them. When Hellenistic monarchs ceased to invest in cavalry and instead doubled down on phalanxes in a regressive return to Greek tactics of the Classical Period, they destroyed everything Philip and Alexander had built. So, defeat at the hands of the Romans was not because the phalanx was inferior to the legion, but because the phalanx was utilised in a manner which its original creators and finest exponents in Philip and Alexander had never intended for it to be used.
why does your profile has an indian name ?
Because I'm fucking Norwegian, what do you think?
No swearing, please.
Provoganda, well... don't tell it to me
Provoganda I think I can be excused for being annoyed with the fact that the only thing somebody took from my detailed analysis based on my research as a historian, was the fact that I'm Indian. What does my ethnicity have anything to do with the contents of my argument? It was disappointing and irritating to get that response to my professional input. I didn't pursue academia to be asked such riveting questions about my research as "why do you have an Indian name?"
I’m so happy this randomly popped up in my recommendations. You have a new sub.
Same here :)
So cool! I'm curious about the exact military technology used by Rome at this time. Did they use the pilum? Was it gladius or spear? What shaped shields were they using? Lorica hamata or scale? All these things varied through Rome's history and I think that would help me understand this battle even more! Great video!!!
Pilum plus sword, though If I recall correctly, at the time of the Roman-Macedonian wars, Rome didn't have enough standardized gladii (yet), so legionaires were basically told to bring whatever sword they had. The whole 'all legionaires are perfectly equipped the same' came WAY later when Rome was a Europe-spanning imperial power with infinite ressource hax.
Great work with the quality, I really enjoyed this video.
Loved it man, you gained a like and a sub. Keep up the good work!
Most exciting 2200 year old battle I've every watched (!) Riveting (!) Props . . .
Very well done loved the suspense up to the end great penultimate!!! 😃