The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:18 pmFor a change i thought i would say something about The MACEDONIAN ARMY (Pros and Cons)
They were allmost as good as the R
oman Army
They were allmost as good as the R
oman Armylivinghistory.ie
Bringing Irish History to Life
http://new.livinghistory.ie/
The 2nd Best frghting force
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:18 pmRe: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:12 pmHmmm, very interesting, I'll have to think this one over. The Macadonians lacked the social and politital adheasion that we had.
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:20 amhow many Civil wars/wars of succession did the Romans have?
Brendan
Brendan
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:02 pmthe Macadonians had basically the same advantages and disadvantages as the earlier greek armies, great in large formations and on flat ground, in serious trouble if they didn't get to pick the battlefield, or the formations broke up
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:05 pmThat is an excellent point Brenda 
We did have many civil wars, but these wars never had the affect of permanently fracturing 'Romanitas'. Under the Principate, up to the 3rd century at least, the effect of the civil wars never resulted in a disintegration of the empire. Yes, the civil conflicts of the 4th century eventually played thier part in distroying the western empire.
In the case of Macidonia, thier 'empire' only lasted for the reigns of Phillip II and Alexander. It very quickly broke apart after alexander's death.
As I said, you have certainly highlighted a very interesting point, one that I'm now keen to research. Al lot of people ask the question 'Why did the Roman Empire end', I think a more important question would be 'How did the Roman Empire last so long'?
We did have many civil wars, but these wars never had the affect of permanently fracturing 'Romanitas'. Under the Principate, up to the 3rd century at least, the effect of the civil wars never resulted in a disintegration of the empire. Yes, the civil conflicts of the 4th century eventually played thier part in distroying the western empire.In the case of Macidonia, thier 'empire' only lasted for the reigns of Phillip II and Alexander. It very quickly broke apart after alexander's death.
As I said, you have certainly highlighted a very interesting point, one that I'm now keen to research. Al lot of people ask the question 'Why did the Roman Empire end', I think a more important question would be 'How did the Roman Empire last so long'?
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:54 pmAlso the Romans always had plenty of manpower, compared to the Macedonians. Macedonia being basically a poor mountainous region. The Romans had the rich latium area plus the large population of the Campania region taken after the 1st Samnite war which doubled the population. By the time of the Punic wars large areas of Italy were thoughouly romanised which allowed the Romans to survive four major defeats in four years against Hannibal and still have enough men to win the day.
In contrast, the home nation of Macedonia became a bit of a back water a few short years after Alexander setup his empire after a huge Gaul army came rampaging through and smashed the Macedonian army to bits.
Even when the successor to Alexander Pyrrus of Epirus arrived to fight the Romans, after two victories over the Romans he was running out of men while the Romans were still lining up to take him on. (Romans were also incredibly tenacious as a nation: every war being to the death, theirs or yours!)
In contrast, the home nation of Macedonia became a bit of a back water a few short years after Alexander setup his empire after a huge Gaul army came rampaging through and smashed the Macedonian army to bits.
Even when the successor to Alexander Pyrrus of Epirus arrived to fight the Romans, after two victories over the Romans he was running out of men while the Romans were still lining up to take him on. (Romans were also incredibly tenacious as a nation: every war being to the death, theirs or yours!)
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:26 pmrinuccini wrote:Also the Romans always had plenty of manpower, compared to the Macedonians. (Macedonia being basically a poor mountainous region). The Romans had the rich latium area plus the large population of the Campania region taken after the 1st Samnite war which doubled the population. By the time of the Punic wars large areas of Italy were thoughouly romanised which allowed the Romans to survive four major defeats in four years against Hannibal and still have enough men to win the day.
(In contrast, the home nation of Macedonia became a bit of a back water a few short years after Alexander setup his empire after a huge Gaul army came rampaging through and smashed the Macedonian army to bits). Do you have a date of the battle
Even when the successor to Alexander Pyrrus of Epirus arrived to fight the Romans, after two victories over the Romans he was running out of men while the Romans were still lining up to take him on. (Romans were also incredibly tenacious as a nation: every war being to the death, theirs or yours!)
Macedonia was not that poor and it could field an army of about 30,000men at issus and the biggest army was 150,000 men in india . What set it apart from the City-states poleis was Macedonia had not very big Cities (in the Greek sence)so it could not fund a greek Hoplite army(it had no middle-class so it could not draw Hoplites). so what Perdiccas the 3rd and his son Philip the 2nd did was reform his army from the top down and recurt the men of the army not from the cities(that they had) but from peasant's and from herdsmen so in short the army had no ties to the land, they were not farmers so they hady one job been a full time professional soldier.
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:48 pmDon't forget the Pros and Cons of the Phalanxes and the cohort
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:40 amgaius marius wrote:Macedonia was not that poor and it could field an army of about 30,000men at issus and the biggest army was 150,000 men in india . What set it apart from the City-states poleis was Macedonia had not very big Cities (in the Greek sence)so it could not fund a greek Hoplite army(it had no middle-class so it could not draw Hoplites). so what Perdiccas the 3rd and his son Philip the 2nd did was reform his army from the top down and recurt the men of the army not from the cities(that they had) but from peasant's and from herdsmen so in short the army had no ties to the land, they were not farmers so they hady one job been a full time professional soldier.
Macedonia has always been a backwater, it burst onto the world stage for one brief but glorious period then dissapeared again. Not a trading nation of merchants and weathy cities, but hilly country full of peasents, it's presence on the world stage being entirely due to it's fighting men and two brilliant leaders. So...it was pretty poor compared to the city states of Greece.
OK it could field an army of 150,000. But the backbone of the army was Companion cavalry and peasent pikemen making up a very small proportion of that army.......the Romans could field 150,000 Romans!!
Re: The 2nd Best frghting force
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:34 amgaius marius wrote:Don't forget the Pros and Cons of the Phalanxes and the cohort
Not sure how important an arguement this is. When the Romans came up against veteran pikemen led by Pyrrus they were fought to a standstill and were beaten in two out of three battles. When the Romans later faced successor armies at the end of the Punic wars you had veteran legionaries up against conscript pikemen.
Later, just before Marius took charge, the Romans themselves went down to a series of defeats by barbarian hordes such as the teutons and cimbri. Marius' response was not to change tactics and follow the cimbri way of fighting, but to recruit a full time, fully trained army.