Archers were relativly rare in (early) roman and greek armies due to their armies (and those of their biggest opponents) being composed mostly out of relativly heavily armoured troops. After all most of early roman history, and most of greek history consisted of them fighting predominantly against various other greek city-states, or states heavily influenced by the greeks like former greek colonies who would primarly field their version of hoplites. So they'd prefer skirmishers with javalins or slingers as those stand a better chance at getting through the armour (and the massive shields). Plus, the bows at the time weren't that powerfull and things like specialised ammunition such as bodkin arrows didn't really show up for a long time. So firing into a testudo or even a phalanx was just kind of pointless. On top of that, both the greeks and romans had quite devestating siege equipment as well as fun anti infantry stuff like a roman scorpion and the greek polybolos. Who needs archers when you got the ancient version of a machine gun. Also, for bonuspoints; the macedonians managed to use their spears as an additional layer of defense against archers while in a phalanx. Volleyfire would essentially get stuck in the forest of spears, thus losing their momentum. Combined with the fact that they wore metal helmets and some halfway decent armor they'd then mostly fell harmlessly to the ground. On the other hand, fire directly from the front would be mostly blocked by their shields. Leaving them overall well protected against arrows as long as they weren't shot in the back or flanks. I'm not sure why the gravitated to the sword so quickly though. That one would be interesting to know.
Hands down the roman military was the nest seen in centuries. The equipment was excellent and the lorica segmanta would stop mutltiple blows while being comparable in weight to chainmail. The shield was also probobably the bestas well.
Pretty much this. The Romans had great armor and weapons, which were mass produced, along with the training and tactics that were adjusted to that equipment. Of course those weren't _always_ perfectly suitable for the situation at hand, and they didn't _always_ win, but then... ...from a certain point on the Romans also had superior strength in numbers because their logistics worked. In many cases they fought battles against smaller and/or badly organized enemies. If you have the strength to send a whole legion (disputed size, something between 3600 and 6000 soldiers) or two, then the chances of someone having the strength to fight you become pretty small.
The singlest biggest advantage the romans had was there organisation and mastery of logistics. Pretty much everything else that made em a great empire they just stole from the greeks. If it weren't for that it would've been more than possible for that the Roman empire would've stumbled on one of the greek states or be crushed by carthage before ever rising to the height of its power.
While we are at it, here are some Youtube channels that have a heavy focus on medieval stuff: I am not ashamed to say that despite an interest in the matter I had some misconceptions stuck in my head, too. Such as the myth of medieval european swords being heavy, Rapiers being light, longbows being able to regularly penetrate armor, Berserkers being crazy dudes, archers firing volleys and quite a few more things. Those channels provided me with either the actual information to prove me wrong, or the inspiration to look up stuff myself, and helped me clear up those misconceptions. Neither of them is always right about everything (although Metatron and Scholagladiatoria are close) but I can recommend all of them. Metatron - A linguist and history nerd, who has a broad spectrum of everything old Greek, Roman, medieval european and renaissance topics as well as some asian stuff. He also sometimes talks about realism of video games or movies. Sometimes ranting a bit but generally high quality. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw Skallagrim - Mostly about weapons, but also quite broad, also talking about video games, movies and more. Has done HEMA for some years. Quite high quality. https://www.youtube.com/user/SkallagrimNilsson Scholagladiatoria - Matt Easton is probably the highest quality of all of these, he collects antique swords, and actually does that as a job now IIRC. Extremely knowledgable about the medieval and renaissance periods. He also leads a HEMA club. https://www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria ThegnThrand - mostly about armor and vikings, but also other stuff. https://www.youtube.com/user/ThegnThrand Lindybeige - Lloyd is... a weird guy. And not knowledgable about all topics he talks about. He's pretty good for the medieval stuff though. He is also a reenactor and does some HEMA. And he is insanely entertaining. https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige Shadiversity - Sometimes I like Shad, sometimes I don't. Lately I often don't, but I'd still like to include him here because sometimes he does cover cool topics. Of all the channels he has the least practical experience and the most opinions and clickbait-ish stuff. I also think that his videos are often a bit sensational and too long for their content, and you should double check what he says a bit more often, compared to the other content creators. https://www.youtube.com/user/shadmbrooks Knyght Errant - An armor expert. Highly recommended if you want to know how armor worked. https://www.youtube.com/user/neosonic66 Honorable mention goes to Today I found out - some interesting videos on there about many many different things, sometimes related to my interests. https://www.youtube.com/user/TodayIFoundOut Do you have other great youtube channels (or other sources) where you get your medieval fix? Please post them here!
Excuse me sir but the leginary was actually originally made in rome, not greece. Hastati, principes, and triarii also roman. Rome jist took the culture they liked. Also the legions destroyed the phalanx.
Well... they did take quite a bit more than just the culture, but you are right in saying that they did invent a lot of stuff themselves, too.
The Romans actually got wrecked by Brennus and his tribe of Celts, the Senones, in the very early stages of Rome’s growth just after the Romans had defeated the Etruscans, long before they ever met Carthage or the Greeks, and Rome only escaped being annexed by the Celts permanently by bribing Brennus and his men with as much gold as they wanted. If Brennus had not been distracted by the promise of riches, Rome would have been snuffed out before it ever became an Empire. Again, what? As far as I can remember Greek phalanxes kicked the Romans’ backsides. It was incendiary pigs that the Romans used to scare Greek War Elephants that won them the wars against the City States.
I think you are referring to Pyrrhus’ invasion of Italy (300 BC or so, cannot look it up now)? Yeah, the Romans din't hold up too badly there (hence those became pyrrhic victories) but the phalanx was pretty effective against the Romans it seems. EDIT: And as far as I recall in later battles the Romans did a lot better, using their mobility against the phalanx, which was not _that_ mobile. EDIT: Ok, looked it up despite being at work.... Just had to. This article has some interesting points: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/legion-vs-phalanx-powerhouse-formation-better.html The battle I recalled was the one against Philipp V. of Macedonia.
Rome took nearly all of their scientific & technological advancements from the various greek states (and occasionally from a barbarian that happened to be good at something ). The only field in which the romans themselfs really excelled compared to their contemporaries was siege warfare and construction techniques. Also, actuall legionaires only really came after the marian reforms. Which was a good 50 years or so after gaining control of Greece, at which point Rome was the only major cultural & scientific superpower in europe. Before the marian reforms the Roman army was rather a mess, relying mostly on the brilliance of individual generals as well as the fact that very few, if any, other major powers could field anywhere near the same amount of troops thanks to their better organisation, logistics as well as just controlling one of the most densely populated areas in the region so they just had more dudes to throw at the enemy. As for the early roman hastati destroying the phalanx. They didn't. In a straight up fight the roman army usually would get murdered. However, unlike the Greeks the Romans were willing to learn instead of rigidly sticking to doctrine so they adapted and did things like flanking the poorly supported rigid phalanx formations. It also helped that the various greek city states were mostly content with letting Rome pick off their rivals one by one instead of providing a single united front. As one huge Alliance they might have pushed Rome back, but individually Rome could take its time and use them as allies to conquer their rivals first. Isn't phyrric victory based on Phyruss' "conquest" of sparta?
A big issue was that the succesor states and city states forgot that the phalanx need to be supported by other troops to cover its flanks. It also didn't help that Greece had repeatedly ripped itself apart with various wars between the city states...
Disagree a bit there. Their logistics were unparalleled, and their armor was well developed, I'd say significantly better than that of their Greek counterparts. Uhhh..... I am not sure anymore now.... I was sure it referred to the Italian battles... EDIT: Wikipedia at least seems to agree. Not sure if that is correct, they did have a lot of cavalry in that last battle tha article mentions, for example, and that was the cavalry's purpose. So something else probably went wrong there.
Oh, and a correction (just read about it): Modern research suggests that Heraclea and Asculum actually weren't pyrrhic victories after all. The Greek did win those without losing that many soldiers.
I was talking purely technological. Logistics doesn't seem very technological, at least not unless you start involving things like game theory or lineair algebra to optimize supply lines and work flows which wasn't really invented back then yet As for their armour. Till the marian reforms their armour wasn't properly standardized and citizen would have to supply their own armour in the same way as greek hoplites. So until those reforms I doubt the roman armour would've been really better outside of maybe their elite Triarii. Some of the greek armies still did it properly or at least attempted to, but if I remember correctly as a whole it started to become a problem. In part this was also due to Greece being slowly drained of resources as the various states kept on going to war with eachother constantly weakening eachother until they could no longer afford field the supporting troops of the needed quality and amount, so instead they relied more and more on heavier phalanxes which were a bit cheaper and massivly powerfull from the front, just terrible when flanked.
I agree that for the most part it wasn't a fair fight. The Greek states were just done by that time. No comparison to Alexander's time. As for technology: We (and with that I mean mostly myself as you do mention the Marian reforms) have to be a bit more precise when we talk about time frames I think. Most of the time when I say "Romans" I am referring to the time after those reforms, while the Roman-Greek wars mostly happened quite some time before that. And I am pretty sure that a Roman legion like the ones who fought in the Gallic wars would have utterly destroyed the Greek phalanx. They were better organized and had much better equipment. And that's also the time in which the technological improvements of the Roman Empire really kicked in IMO.
Comparing Ceasar's legionss with greek city-state era hoplites seems unfair, seeing as there's nearly a century between the two I'm not sure if there are any occasions where what we think of as proper roman legionaires fought against phalanxes though. So not sure if we have anything to base the comparison off. Since if the last phalanxes dissapeared with the conquest of Greece there'd be a 50 year gap at minimum, if not more, depending on which era of legionaire you take. And just the basic progression in metalurgy would probably already give the romans massive advantages in that case. As for that being the time at which their technological improvements really kicked in. I'm not sure to which degree you could claim them as truly Roman at that point. After all, they did control pretty much every major centre of civilization in europe by the time they started conquering Gaul. Calling an invention made by an athenian in 10 bc, or by a phoenician in 35 bc "roman" seems a bit unfair even if techniocly they now all belong to the Roman empire
Yep. That's what I meant. "The Romans" can be pretty different things. Well, we do that with countries today (even today national borders might mean something or not for the purpose of such things), so why not with the Roman Empire... I get your point though, it is a dichotomy that can be argued for or against. Dammit why can't humans be more simple?
At least modern countries usually don't go from 1 city to a continent spanning empire, conquering and incoperating every other civilization along the way. The differences tend to be less extreme Plus, in the case of the romans it's especially weird given their reverence of greek science/philosophy.