No matter how many times I learn about it or read of it in novels, the Battle of Cynoscephalae never fails to fascinate me. If Nikanor formed up the left wing in time, Philip would've won a stunning victory. And if the Unknown Tribune hadn't taken command of those maniples, the battle still could've ended as a Close/Pyrrhic victory for Philip or a costly draw for both sides. Moments like that, where different choices could've let to vastly different outcomes, are why I love learning about history and why I love writing historical fiction centered on "What if?" scenarios.
I don't think Phillip winning at Cynoscephalae would have changed much in the grand scheme. Romans weren't in the business of taking defeats lying down. They would have retreated, rebuilt their armies with the knowledge gained in their defeat, and marched straight back into Greece.
Yeah, it's almost been the categorized norm for the early roman conquest. One specific thing thanks to their generals and overall legionary system. They were able to outwit and outsmart them in one certain field, which gave the them the decisive victory. Comments aside, great video Kings and Generals!
Could've been a Tribune of the Plebs but the Romans probably erased it from their history because it would make the plebs too powerful. Thats just a theory tho.
Ahhh, "Cynoscephalae", literally meaning "heads of dog", definitely one of the best names ever given to a battle. Also a pretty good ancient Greek slur.
5:39 The Roman senate asked the people to vote for war but they rejected this demand. 6:09 While the Roman military prepared for war... A textbook example of how democratic the Roman republic was 😅
Of course Republic and Democracy aren’t the same thing, but the Republic did organise elections to appear more democratic. Res publica means ‘public affair’.
Your channel is great for learning not only history but English as well. You use a lot of fancy words that I don't know and have to look them up. It's nice that you use subtitles which makes it a lot easier.
Well alexander did have his eyes on the west after his Indian campaign was over. Rome might have never risen to become what it became! History is full of « what if »
@@psi_blade200 Not only for protection. His cavalry is the one he used to win the battle not his phalanx. His phalanx is just to fix the enemy infantry while his companion on the right will charge at the enemy's own cavalry, rout them and then turn inward to attack the fixed enemy's infantry in the center.
@@ivkekosovo There's not a single culture that didn't integrate elements from neighboring cultures.Your point is what?That Greece doesn't have a history of its own?Greeks are "hardly Greeks..?,are you suggesting that there's A SINGLE nation out there with "clean" and untouched DNA wise?It's funny because you picked THE MOST influential culture in history for your argument.
Of course Macedonians were Greeks, people. This needs to be cleared at this point. They spoke Greek and had the Greek culture. Not only that, but the name "Macedon" itself is Greek, meaning "tall" in old Greek. That is all. Macedonia has always been one of the Greek states, as Alexander himself said.
It always amazes me how you are able to produce such fascinating, in depth videos at a remarkable pace. This channel has swiftly become my favourite on all of TH-cam.
Fun fact: The Aetolians were harshly criticized for their alliance to Rome. Thrasycrates tells the Aetolians that they and their alliance to Rome are disgraceful, for the treaty turns over free Greeks "to the shameful violence and lawlessness of barbarians". Thrasycrates also says that when the war with Hannibal is over, the Romans will turn their strength against Greece (on the pretext of helping the Aetolians but really to subjugate her). After the treaty, Philip continued to be a very active general, he continued to build up the economy and disregarded many of the treaty terms. It is said that when the Thessalians complained to Rome about Philip's campaigns he allegedly said "My sun has not set yet". In the first Roman- Seleucid war Hannibal said that the deciding factor of the war will be who Philip will choose to support. Following Antiochus' invasion of Greece, Antiochus saw all the rotten bodies and bleached bones from the thousands left unburied after Cynoscephalae and gave them a proper burial while calling himself "the Protector of the Greeks", Philip felt humiliated by this and decided to support the Romans.
Later the Romans condoned him the tribute and released his son, in exchange of the support he gave them vs. Antiochus III. He remained a respected figure among the Romans, that decades later even conied a denarius sporting his image (pretty rare for Romans, that usually disliked kings).
@@neutronalchemist3241 Neutron Alchemist they released the son to increase strife between the king and his sons. The released son (Demetrius) had become very pro-Roman and putting him on the throne meant total dependence on Rome. That's why Philip had him assassinated and put Perseus on the throne (the act of killing his son totally broke him emotionally). But I do agree that the Romans were never too invested in having all treaty conditions met. eg. Antiochus and the Seleucids were not allowed to have elephants, recruit soldiers in Asia Minor or have a powerful navy, however they did all three and Rome did nothing to stop them.
@@ahamedihamiyun5927 Because they expelled them. Lather the thing caused several diplomatic problems to the Roman ambassadors, since a Roman wasn't supposed to show too much respect to a king. One of the things for which Scipio was frowned upon in Rome was that he showed too much familiarity with foreign kings.
@@swaminathanbalakrishnan5182 or more probably he was remembered but we lost the original sources that name him, unfortunately only a small part of classical literature survived
I really enjoy watching your videos from time to time. And i have to mention, that the use of the strategic map and well picked videoclips of rome 2 to the commentary gives a good understanding and feeling to the viewer how things actually went off or even might have felt for the battle parties. That excellent work deserves the highest of respect. Very well done.
Those videos are so intriguing. I used to hate history, as it was very dry and boring back in school. Now several years into university, quite lost, I find these random stories from the past really appealing. The narration and illustrations make it very pleasant and exciting to watch. I think, I'm starting to understand that all structures that surround us and govern our lives are a result of a very huge and confusing evolutionary process, which I do not comprehend at all, which is history. And all we can do to understand who we are as a species, and why we do what we do, is finding evidence of what happened and why and make a sensible story out of it. Keep up the good work and keep fascinating me, please!
@ 2:33 "This ignited a devasting revolt which detatched all of Upper Egypt from the regime in Alexandria". All the while the screen shows Lower Egypt in flames and Upper Egypt missing....
Alexander knew the weaknesses of the phallanx and he was great at covering them. Phillip, although good commander, did not cover the weaknesses of the phallanx. Alexander of course was not only great in covering the weaknesses, but one thing that I have read was how well he managed and covered the known to him and existing since the beginning weaknesses. ( there is no perfect thing)
@@innosanto I believe he did after the conquest of Persia having met armies with different units in bactria and india. It was more Philip's phalanx developed to beat Greek hoplites and beat Persian troops. Macedon held firm to the phalanx while other Alexander successor states developed different formations to deal with the different unit types they met on their boarders while keeping strong phalanxes
Rex Adebayo The problem with this battle is that the Romans were an unmatched heavy infantry force on a pitched field battle, philip's 5000 strong supporting infantry stood no chance against the 36,000 heavy legionnaires. Even had the left flank broke, the massive remaining contingent of the Roman army would have overwhelmed the phalanx. Alexander conquered half the globe because he had flexibility and momentum, The Romans conquered twofold this because they outdid him.
@@thisaccountnameiscompletel8949 no most of the Alexanderian successor states kept the exact same military units and tactics mostly with a few new unit types thrown in. The phalanx had its day, the Roman's knew all they had to do was out flank them or draw them onto uneven terrain. The phalanx could only move forward.
I disagree, the macadonian army was very similar to the army of Alexander a core body of pikes supported by skirmishers and hoplite formations with cavalry on the wings, and they done there job on the right but the Roman manipular system was made for this kind of fighting on bad terrain that's why the Roman right was in formation and able to route the macadonian left because the phalanx is clunky and not good for fighting in rough terrain thus they were routed and the Romans collapsed on the macadonian right and won.
Rome had just come off victory after 17 bloody years of the Second Punic war. Surely there was no shortage of soldiers and commanders with ample military experience. The Legions were in service all over the place... The Italian and Iberian peninsulas, North Africa, etc. I mean... They had to overcome Hannibal to win that war. This wasn't the Roman Republic army from before that started conflicts with poor experience, needing time on campaign to even beproficient. At the time of the Macedonian Wars, it was the opposite. There comes a point in time with rising empires of a period of unstoppable momentum. The Roman Republic after the Second Punic War was in that stage.
Winning the second punic war was like winning WW2 for America,they stopped being a local power and launched their imperialistic ambitions. After being so close to be destroyed forever they had no choice but crush the surrounding kingdoms like a juggernaut. What don't kill it makes you stronger
Gotta say, I love your recent few video format. The more detailed/focus look into the army composition gives a better scale (as in how many were there and what types) of the armies but the old format where you literally just put the numbers side-by-side is much better in terms of ratio/comparison. Still, this just proves you lot making improvements constantly... which is awesome :D
"Inflexible." Don't take Polybius at face value. Phillip's problem was the lack of combined arms employed in the battle. In other words, he didn't employ the Alexandrian system to its fullest. There is more to Alexander than the Macedonian phalanx.
@@Stratigoz the hellenistic states were 99.9% of the time fighting each other, making your conclusion a useless one. As for Rome, they just got out of a war that they had to endure for years and were still capable of jumping to the next one. Veteran legions were too tough to beat. The phalanx was almost obsolete therefore not as effective.
I've just played "A Legionary's Life" and one of campaigns that you as a Legionary could enlist was the second Macedonian war. All the time watching this video I imagined my guy as a part of the Principes who managed to kill many and survive the war, eventually making it into Triarii during third punic war... This video is a fucking masterpiece. Every single video always fascinates me. Also, I literally closed my eyes when the slaughter of surrendering phalangites happened... Even when playing a Legionary's life I couldn't get myself to kill them. I was a centurio prior and managed to stop my legionaries and save hundreds of phalangites... This is really sad to see when thousands of phalangites surrender and get slaughtered
great vídeo!!!! love it. this is now my favorite kings and generals vídeo. thank you very much. that presentation of the types of troops was beatifuly done
Another extremely excellent video, Kings & Generals. It amazing how actually close Philip V was to winning that battle and possibly the war. Question is there going to be any more docs on any of the Crusades?
In the game "A Legionary´s life" on Steam i fought in the battle of Cynoscephalae on the Left Flank (I was a Centurio Prior in the line of the Principes and a Veteran of the Second Punic War were i Fought in Hispania and Africa). I tought we were doomed as I saw the Units coming from behind the Macedonians because I Imagined them to be there Reinforcements at first but then I realised that they are roman and we Slaughterd the Enemies. We didn´t understand that they had surrendered so we just ravaged on. I went on to be triarii in another war and then I lived happily ever after with my Familiy. The Game is quite good by the way!
I love seeing clashes such as this, especially when much of the history you see talks of how the Phalanx, as horribly inflexible as it was, was "no match" for the Manipular Legions.
@mr_ anheuser I mean its not like Greece was independent under the original Macedonian Empire. They were conquered by Phillip and after Alexander died, the first thing they did was rebel. Later on they may have been relativly independent once again, but as small as they were, they often ended up being a playball for the big Macedonian 3 to some extent.
theZeitos Greece was always under the dominance of a particular Greek state and therefore always eager to rebel. Spartan and Athenian Cold War followed by Theban, Macedonian and Epirotic Hegemony. If you are implying that Macedon was a foreigner this is no longer supported even in the (Slavic) North Macedonia.
@@nickrabbitson1821 I am not implying that and I see no reason why I should. What I am saying is that it doesnt matter to the Greek states if the invader/master is greek or not. You said it yourself. They rebelled against many times against other greeks, who tried to dominate them. And it should also be considered, that not being a true foreigner and not being treated like a foreigner are two different things. As far as I know the greeks despised the Macedonians at the time and barely recognized them as true greeks. Probably happenstance from the fact, that (in ancient greek terms) they lived so far up north. This mindset should also be considered as part of the context, when watching back at such times. So saying the Greek states lost their independence, when Rome was taking over, doesnt really consider, that most of them had little to no independence in the first place. It doesnt matter, that it were other greeks who took it of them.
So awesome you guys are getting into this. Nobody talks about how greek fell under roman influence. The clash between legion and phalanx must've been epic.
I'm Matthew Settle. Now with new video games technology we could see the battle like never before the fast number of soldiers, the troop formation, how the battle was fought, and how it was won. get the view the general wish they had, in Decisive battle.
Another top-shelf production lads, thank you ! Also, I can almost hear Devin saying : "House Ordos" "Warning, worm sign" and "Radar Deactivated". Damn. I'm old...
@@Toto-95 exactly, the balance of power works only in a specific region, when an outside force is applied to the gear, it crumbles, and always a force will be applied to it in some point.
Great vid, best one I have seen on this battle. But please put a scale on the battle maps, like 1 mile/kilometer. Thanks in anticipation, and thanks for the vid.
Most of the animations are estimations, especially for ancient battles. So putting a scale on them would be even more missleading about their accuracy.
I just saw something like that under another comment. You are kinda not right, considering that both Pergamon and Rhodes became Roman allies for quite some time and could continue to exist for I dont know how many years. The Antigonids and Seleucids would have taken their independence right then and there. They never really had a choice and did what they had to, to stay afloat. I have no idea how Rhodes finaly fell to the romans, but Pergamon only became roman land, after the last king gifted it to them.
@@thezeitos469 Rhodes was annexed by Cassius as a punishment for their unwillingness to pick a side in his war against the 2nd Triumvirate. And after they won Marc Anthony and Octavian were like "well, it's Roman territory now anyway *shrug*"
Knew a fair number of details of this battle. But it was nice seeing what this channel had to say about it. And it was quite a lovely video. My thanks to those who made this video a reality.
@@Armorius2199 No a phalanx is a rectangular mass military formation used by hoplites, sarissa pikemen, and even modern day riot control squads. So you can have a unit of hoplites in a phalanx formation etc.
@@kristiannicholson5893 And the Phalangites, a unit, made up of individual sarissa pikemen; using the phalanx formation; it's namesake. IE: A battle unit. Which has been transliterated to be "phalanx" in many contexts correctly. And sometimes not.
@@adrianbundy3249 Phalangites is not a unit either, it's the plural form of phalanx and translates literally to: multiple phalanx. So multiple units of sarissa pikemen arranged into phalanx formation become phalangites. Multiple units of athenian hoplites arranged into phalanx formation also become phalangites.
@Citizen Hoplite Greek became common language for the Roman elite (and for the elite only) only AFTER the conquest of Greece. The only thing Latin and Greek have in common is that both derived from Indo-European. Latin is no closer to Greek than to Celtic and Germanic.
Great job mates and I would love to see if the left flake formed up b4 being attacked. Also, hats off to the unnamed soldier that was smart or charismatic enough to turn the 2500 troops around to secure the beating!
That first loss didn’t even make sense never did, how do you the best defensive position and loose.... like bro tighten up smh Alexander’s disappointed in his successors
The phalanx is only really good in the direction it's facing, if they get flanked the troops are essentially defenseless. That's why the Macadonians fled the minute they thought a flank was possible.
@@SudoKnightlyNonsense they are only defenseless when said flanks are not supported by 7,000 cavalry, 9,000 peltasts and 3,000 hypaspists like alexanders.
SudoKnightlyNonsense Alexander’s phalanx was highly Maneuverable but I get what your saying. The fact is tho is they didn’t get spooked they would have won that engagement
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That's the real key issue, Alexander knew and acknowledged the weaknesses of the Phalanx: he worked around these weaknesses. A number of his successors, on the other hand, relied on the "invincible" Phalanx a bit too much or simply didn't put as many efforts into supporting the flanks or adapting to situations as Alexander did. It's similar to one of the major Roman Doctors who revolutionized the medical industry, he came up with brilliant innovations and the doctor's successors made little to no effort to innovate themselves. There's also the nature of the Macedonians of the time, they seem to have become a lot more fickle at this point: as evidenced to how often they deserted or switched sides before the Roman wars.
@@alexandros735 Absolutely, it could easily be argued that the quality of Macedonians had declined since Alexander's death: as they seem to have become much more fickle since then. If that reserve force had moved to guard the rear of the Phalanx then they probably would have been able to hold.
A divided Greek world fighting amongst each other stood no chance against Rome. What a shame how Alexander's empire pretty much fractured upon his death.
As an Italian I love my Roman ancestors but it would have been cool to see a greek empire surviving in the east and then creating many hellenic kingdoms for modern day to see. Like how rome fell but later latin nations like italy, spain, france, portugal, romania were able to form. Like that, but in the east with Hellenistic nations.
I'm wondering if that 700 dead for Roman casualties is correct? How could they lose so little not only during the heavy skirmish but the advance of the enemy infantry? Historically it IS true, that most casualties occur when an army routes, but this just seems absurd.
The legion was retreating under pressure, but never broke the formation, while the phalanx could only advance slowly, so the Romans were suffering negligible losses. In the subsequent battle of Pydna too the legion retreated at first, and the losses had been even lighter. Probably at Cynoscephalae much of the losses for the Romans had been in the initial clash between skirmishers.
Much of the losses in ancient battles happened after one of the formations broke, in the ensuing pursuit of the fleeing soldiers. The legion was retreating under pressure, but never broke the formation, so it was suffering negligible losses.
@@neutronalchemist3241 You see, that was the case with traditional greco-macedonian warfare. The legions were different - they could be severely bloodied in battle, but could make a much better retreat (not always).
@@swaminathanbalakrishnan5182 That's why, even without the clever move of the unknown tribune, or even had Nicator got his act straight, the result of the battle was not a given. Thanks to the possibility of switching lines, legionaries could fight for long (in many battles we saw them initially retreating, or holding the line, and later turning tables thanks to superior stamina) and, keeping on retreating, sooner or later they would have found broken terrain that was favourable to them.
The battle is inevitable, but victory hangs in the balance. No one has come here to die for them, they're standing among nations. We face those proud Romans the Brutii, they are worthy enemies but enemies none the less
Love these videos, but I think you should give a credit to the Divide et Impera Rome 2 team. This mod for TW is the reason your battle depictions look so good.
That unknown roman tribune is a fucking genius. Everytime one flank in one of your videos pushes way ahead, I'm internally screaming "TURN AROUND YOU CAN EASILY HIT THEM FROM THE BACK NOW", seems like that guy knew what's up :D
@@arturoroldan4839 The reason Hellenistic forces fared so poorly is that the composition deteriorated considerably from the optimum it had been under Phillip II and Alexander, but the model itself was not actually inferior when used properly for instance, Pyrrhus managed to consistently match and defeat the Roman's manipular model despite a sub optimal army from a comparatively impoverished state, but lost his war because the Romans and Carthaginians allied to defeat him and he did not have the resources of Alexanders empire.
Why? Bulgarians beat-up the Greko-Romans mostly and make them pay tribute for peace, steal the population and convert them to even more Bulgarians. Nothing interesting here.
If the Greeks were united like Mongols, the Romans wouldn't stand a chance. This is one of the lessons we learn from history's old proverb "Together we stand.United we fall...."
@@adamgorz9679 the Romans would have lost easily against a unified Hellenic Greek remember if it wasn't for the Greek allies the Romans would have lost earlier
Ahamedi Hamiyun The Romans would have just returned with a larger army and win. Besides, with “what if” scenarios we can also say that if United Greece faced early Imperial Rome or Julius Caesar, they would have been steamrolled.
6:30 That seems like a strange decision by Antiochus. It seems to me that the Seleucids had the most to gain (by swallowing up Egypt) and the least to lose because Rome was so far away and would need to get through Macedon first, which he could intervene in or not as he wished - it's not like the Antigonids were actually their friends.
Not that Phalanx doesn't work, it just needs upgrades. The Swiss later on also use the Phalanx-like formation and gain many victories because they combine many other weapons like halberd to the formation giving it more flexibility and add more strategies, etc. Learned about the swiss from this channel, too.
Join the Roman Legion bit.ly/2kRVWX8 or the Macedonian Phalanx bit.ly/2la3ODp
Kings and Generals Roman legion, make my ancestors proud.
Dunno if I can hold a gladius but I got the spirit
I respect Alexander the great the might of Rome’s military Strategies is for me
There’s not many good history Channel but kings and generals have been one of the top most
Favourite one so far and can you do a story on Leonidas I
Yess pls do one on the sikh empire pls
@@archenema6792 Was about to post the same thing.
No matter how many times I learn about it or read of it in novels, the Battle of Cynoscephalae never fails to fascinate me. If Nikanor formed up the left wing in time, Philip would've won a stunning victory. And if the Unknown Tribune hadn't taken command of those maniples, the battle still could've ended as a Close/Pyrrhic victory for Philip or a costly draw for both sides.
Moments like that, where different choices could've let to vastly different outcomes, are why I love learning about history and why I love writing historical fiction centered on "What if?" scenarios.
I don't think Phillip winning at Cynoscephalae would have changed much in the grand scheme. Romans weren't in the business of taking defeats lying down. They would have retreated, rebuilt their armies with the knowledge gained in their defeat, and marched straight back into Greece.
Yeah, it's almost been the categorized norm for the early roman conquest. One specific thing thanks to their generals and overall legionary system. They were able to outwit and outsmart them in one certain field, which gave the them the decisive victory.
Comments aside, great video Kings and Generals!
Yep indeed, but I have question how did you manage to comment 7 hours ago if the video was uploaded minutes ago?
@@juanthegreat3954 He most likely got to watch the video premiere
@@juanthegreat3954 He's a patron, hence he gets to see the videos before everyone else who's not :)
"Uknown Roman Tribune" : The real MVP here.
Yes. And he pulled out with units of The Triarii, the best soldiers of Rome.
@@mikeh7917 Res ad Triarios rediit
Could've been a Tribune of the Plebs but the Romans probably erased it from their history because it would make the plebs too powerful. Thats just a theory tho.
It couldn't have been, it was illegal for a Tribune of the Plebs to leave Rome during their term iirc
As always.
Ahhh, "Cynoscephalae", literally meaning "heads of dog", definitely one of the best names ever given to a battle. Also a pretty good ancient Greek slur.
I never understood why they always change the Greek "K" into a C in English. Kynoskephalae sounds cooler to me. Same goes with Makedon.
Funnily enough, this is probably due to Roman influence after their victory, where "c" makes a "k" sound in classical Latin
@@MrArgy333 Yes its MaKedonia not Macedonia.
@@htrland Yeah. Romans replaced K with C in their writings since they had the same sound in classical Latin.
Romans said they ran into a tribe of dog heads. There was also a saint Christopher who was a dog man. Just found out about these guys today
I love how you guys started to look into the compisition of the opposing sides before each battle , I always wanted you to do this
@@audiosurfarchive ''THIS'' ?
@@audiosurfarchive oh , ok
Yes me too. And especially here where the two legendary war machines of ancient times met.
Note, however, the mistake with the elephants - he said 200 but the subtitles (correctly) say 20. @12:20
That Unknown Tribune is the most well known Unknown of Roman history.
5:39 The Roman senate asked the people to vote for war but they rejected this demand.
6:09 While the Roman military prepared for war...
A textbook example of how democratic the Roman republic was 😅
@@saint_matthias then why have a republic if it isnt a democracy?
@@arawn1061 republic is not democraty for example the north korea is a republic
Of course Republic and Democracy aren’t the same thing, but the Republic did organise elections to appear more democratic. Res publica means ‘public affair’.
Similarly, many modern countries that call themselves ‘democracies’ aren’t democratic in the slightest.
@@tylerb9877 Your dad is a lie
Your channel is great for learning not only history but English as well. You use a lot of fancy words that I don't know and have to look them up. It's nice that you use subtitles which makes it a lot easier.
Wholesome ahaha
Phillip: "Yea I'm gonna win this battle"
Unnamed Roman Tribune: *"I'm about to end this man's whole career"*
Normally, I don`t give likes for this type of comments but today I˙m gonna make an exception.
This is the most epic Cynoscephalae documentary I've ever watched.
If Alexander would see he would weep, if the dead can weep.
RTW intro cutscene anyone?
@Argyrus 47 ...But perhaps a new Alexander will pick up the sword, make the world a better place... perhaps!
Alexander wouldn't have allowed rome to rise this far
Well alexander did have his eyes on the west after his Indian campaign was over. Rome might have never risen to become what it became! History is full of « what if »
This why ALEXANDER phalanx wing always protect by cavalry
@@psi_blade200 Not only for protection. His cavalry is the one he used to win the battle not his phalanx. His phalanx is just to fix the enemy infantry while his companion on the right will charge at the enemy's own cavalry, rout them and then turn inward to attack the fixed enemy's infantry in the center.
I like any period. But Ancient History series are the ones that make me really love this channel
A Greek is his own worst enemy .
@@ivkekosovo of course,you know lol...another butthurt Albanian i suppose?
Yes,plus Turks,Persians etc.A LOT of enemies
@@ivkekosovo Then please, galaxybrain, do enlighten us as to who these HELLENIC, Greek speaking people 'really' were...
@@ivkekosovo There's not a single culture that didn't integrate elements from neighboring cultures.Your point is what?That Greece doesn't have a history of its own?Greeks are "hardly Greeks..?,are you suggesting that there's A SINGLE nation out there with "clean" and untouched DNA wise?It's funny because you picked THE MOST influential culture in history for your argument.
Of course Macedonians were Greeks, people. This needs to be cleared at this point. They spoke Greek and had the Greek culture. Not only that, but the name "Macedon" itself is Greek, meaning "tall" in old Greek. That is all. Macedonia has always been one of the Greek states, as Alexander himself said.
Your videos are excellent. I will be using them for homeschooling as a launching point in our history classes. You and your team do a great job!
Thank you for watching :)
Your videos are usually really well done, but this one... out of the park. I love how you guys did the breakdown of the opposing forces!
Petellius Cerialis Cheers Petellius :)
It always amazes me how you are able to produce such fascinating, in depth videos at a remarkable pace. This channel has swiftly become my favourite on all of TH-cam.
Fun fact, Agema in Greek means small team or part or a group. So, Agema Peltast means a group pf Peltasts, usually the size of a brigade
I'm pretty sure that during the time of Philip II and Alexander the Great that peltasts were actually a group of elite infantry
Agema means those who lead. Comes from άγω which means "to lead". The Agema were the best soldiers of the army.
@@deskouk1773 Agreed!
@@deskouk1773 indeed, i said agema means a small group of soldiers in modern Greek. Its meaning has changed since the Alexandrian era
Fun fact: The Aetolians were harshly criticized for their alliance to Rome. Thrasycrates tells the Aetolians that they and their alliance to Rome are disgraceful, for the treaty turns over free Greeks "to the shameful violence and lawlessness of barbarians".
Thrasycrates also says that when the war with Hannibal is over, the Romans will turn their strength against Greece (on the pretext of helping the Aetolians but really to subjugate her).
After the treaty, Philip continued to be a very active general, he continued to build up the economy and disregarded many of the treaty terms. It is said that when the Thessalians complained to Rome about Philip's campaigns he allegedly said "My sun has not set yet". In the first Roman- Seleucid war Hannibal said that the deciding factor of the war will be who Philip will choose to support.
Following Antiochus' invasion of Greece, Antiochus saw all the rotten bodies and bleached bones from the thousands left unburied after Cynoscephalae and gave them a proper burial while calling himself "the Protector of the Greeks", Philip felt humiliated by this and decided to support the Romans.
Later the Romans condoned him the tribute and released his son, in exchange of the support he gave them vs. Antiochus III. He remained a respected figure among the Romans, that decades later even conied a denarius sporting his image (pretty rare for Romans, that usually disliked kings).
@@neutronalchemist3241 why they dislike kings ?
@@neutronalchemist3241 Neutron Alchemist they released the son to increase strife between the king and his sons.
The released son (Demetrius) had become very pro-Roman and putting him on the throne meant total dependence on Rome.
That's why Philip had him assassinated and put Perseus on the throne (the act of killing his son totally broke him emotionally).
But I do agree that the Romans were never too invested in having all treaty conditions met. eg. Antiochus and the Seleucids were not allowed to have elephants, recruit soldiers in Asia Minor or have a powerful navy, however they did all three and Rome did nothing to stop them.
@@ahamedihamiyun5927 they didn't dislike kings ruling over other nations. They disliked Rome having kings as Rome was a Republic.
@@ahamedihamiyun5927 Because they expelled them. Lather the thing caused several diplomatic problems to the Roman ambassadors, since a Roman wasn't supposed to show too much respect to a king. One of the things for which Scipio was frowned upon in Rome was that he showed too much familiarity with foreign kings.
I feel like we should at least remember that tribune's name considering his flanking maneuver changed history...
His name was Shmoopicus Longinutsus
its a safe bet to assume you are actually only alive today because of the actions of that unnamed man.
He must have been killed in the next few years/battles, else he would have been remembered.
@@swaminathanbalakrishnan5182 or more probably he was remembered but we lost the original sources that name him, unfortunately only a small part of classical literature survived
Plebians don't get recorded. Except in the glory of Rome
I've been waiting for this battle for weeks! And all of you did magnificent work portraying the entire situation. Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
I really enjoy watching your videos from time to time. And i have to mention, that the use of the strategic map and well picked videoclips of rome 2 to the commentary gives a good understanding and feeling to the viewer how things actually went off or even might have felt for the battle parties. That excellent work deserves the highest of respect. Very well done.
17:22 A brief yet powerful space time bubble appears in the midst of battle, a bad omen!!
Those videos are so intriguing. I used to hate history, as it was very dry and boring back in school. Now several years into university, quite lost, I find these random stories from the past really appealing. The narration and illustrations make it very pleasant and exciting to watch. I think, I'm starting to understand that all structures that surround us and govern our lives are a result of a very huge and confusing evolutionary process, which I do not comprehend at all, which is history. And all we can do to understand who we are as a species, and why we do what we do, is finding evidence of what happened and why and make a sensible story out of it. Keep up the good work and keep fascinating me, please!
Well done guys. I literally had goosebumps while watching this video. I love the early Roman expansions and I am excited for the coming videos ;)
Happy to hear that - more on the way :-)
This battle is one of my favorite battle in Roman Republic story!!! Well done!!!
Brilliant as always! Love the more intuitive approach the Romans had about warfare. They were great at many things, which made them very adaptable.
I just LOVE the Romans! Thanks for existing and for making such good videos. This is for sure one of my favorite channels!!!
@ 2:33 "This ignited a devasting revolt which detatched all of Upper Egypt from the regime in Alexandria".
All the while the screen shows Lower Egypt in flames and Upper Egypt missing....
That's because the Egyptians called the southern portion of Egypt upper Egypt and the northern portion lower Egypt
That wasn't Alexander's Phalanx. Alexander's phalanx always had mixed troops to meet every king of situation and to guard its flanks.
Alexander knew the weaknesses of the phallanx and he was great at covering them. Phillip, although good commander, did not cover the weaknesses of the phallanx. Alexander of course was not only great in covering the weaknesses, but one thing that I have read was how well he managed and covered the known to him and existing since the beginning weaknesses. ( there is no perfect thing)
@@innosanto I believe he did after the conquest of Persia having met armies with different units in bactria and india. It was more Philip's phalanx developed to beat Greek hoplites and beat Persian troops. Macedon held firm to the phalanx while other Alexander successor states developed different formations to deal with the different unit types they met on their boarders while keeping strong phalanxes
Rex Adebayo The problem with this battle is that the Romans were an unmatched heavy infantry force on a pitched field battle, philip's 5000 strong supporting infantry stood no chance against the 36,000 heavy legionnaires. Even had the left flank broke, the massive remaining contingent of the Roman army would have overwhelmed the phalanx.
Alexander conquered half the globe because he had flexibility and momentum,
The Romans conquered twofold this because they outdid him.
@@thisaccountnameiscompletel8949 no most of the Alexanderian successor states kept the exact same military units and tactics mostly with a few new unit types thrown in. The phalanx had its day, the Roman's knew all they had to do was out flank them or draw them onto uneven terrain. The phalanx could only move forward.
I disagree, the macadonian army was very similar to the army of Alexander a core body of pikes supported by skirmishers and hoplite formations with cavalry on the wings, and they done there job on the right but the Roman manipular system was made for this kind of fighting on bad terrain that's why the Roman right was in formation and able to route the macadonian left because the phalanx is clunky and not good for fighting in rough terrain thus they were routed and the Romans collapsed on the macadonian right and won.
Dealing with Rome at this point of time is like messing with a hornet's nest.
Rome had just come off victory after 17 bloody years of the Second Punic war. Surely there was no shortage of soldiers and commanders with ample military experience. The Legions were in service all over the place... The Italian and Iberian peninsulas, North Africa, etc. I mean... They had to overcome Hannibal to win that war.
This wasn't the Roman Republic army from before that started conflicts with poor experience, needing time on campaign to even beproficient. At the time of the Macedonian Wars, it was the opposite.
There comes a point in time with rising empires of a period of unstoppable momentum. The Roman Republic after the Second Punic War was in that stage.
More like messing with a meat grinder. Hamburgers anyone?
Winning the second punic war was like winning WW2 for America,they stopped being a local power and launched their imperialistic ambitions. After being so close to be destroyed forever they had no choice but crush the surrounding kingdoms like a juggernaut. What don't kill it makes you stronger
Gotta say, I love your recent few video format. The more detailed/focus look into the army composition gives a better scale (as in how many were there and what types) of the armies but the old format where you literally just put the numbers side-by-side is much better in terms of ratio/comparison. Still, this just proves you lot making improvements constantly... which is awesome :D
Been waitin for this! Thanks for having this wonderful vid!
Will you do a video about the Battle of Corinth (146 BCE)?
Last time i was this early brennus was still sieging rome
bruh
Amazing content, and the Macedonian wars are one of my favorites from the Roman republic.
The quality of your videos sky-rocketed !
"Inflexible." Don't take Polybius at face value. Phillip's problem was the lack of combined arms employed in the battle. In other words, he didn't employ the Alexandrian system to its fullest. There is more to Alexander than the Macedonian phalanx.
The music that starts @16:45 my God what it is, those trumpets and percussion are immense as they hit crescendo! 0_0
>Kings and Generals: Uploads
>Watcher : *happiness noises!*
Thank you for all the best lectures of history that is put in vidoes!
Oh how history would be changed with a different outcome in this battle
In the sense that there would have been another one. Romans didn't sue for peace to Pyrrhus and Hannibal, they wouldn't had to Philip V.
@@neutronalchemist3241 agreed.
Macedon still wouldn’t survive rome always had that infinite legion cheat
@@Stratigoz the hellenistic states were 99.9% of the time fighting each other, making your conclusion a useless one. As for Rome, they just got out of a war that they had to endure for years and were still capable of jumping to the next one. Veteran legions were too tough to beat. The phalanx was almost obsolete therefore not as effective.
A Greek Epirot actually showed around the Romans to get to the flank in the first of the two battles actually. Anyway lots of stuff happened.
I've just played "A Legionary's Life" and one of campaigns that you as a Legionary could enlist was the second Macedonian war. All the time watching this video I imagined my guy as a part of the Principes who managed to kill many and survive the war, eventually making it into Triarii during third punic war...
This video is a fucking masterpiece. Every single video always fascinates me.
Also, I literally closed my eyes when the slaughter of surrendering phalangites happened...
Even when playing a Legionary's life I couldn't get myself to kill them. I was a centurio prior and managed to stop my legionaries and save hundreds of phalangites... This is really sad to see when thousands of phalangites surrender and get slaughtered
Such a shame that the name of that man was lost forever. His quick thinking led to the destruction of the Macedonian right.
Just read Ben Kane’s Falling Sword novel...now a video of the events?! Thanks K&G!
it is CYNOS CEPHALE. two words,
ΚΥΝΟΣ ΚΕΦΑΛΕΣ
Κυνός Κεφαλές
nice work, all your videos are amazing.
great vídeo!!!! love it. this is now my favorite kings and generals vídeo. thank you very much. that presentation of the types of troops was beatifuly done
Thanks for watching!
Another extremely excellent video, Kings & Generals. It amazing how actually close Philip V was to winning that battle and possibly the war. Question is there going to be any more docs on any of the Crusades?
Thanks! Yep!
Well done! Once more, a lot of context that I had not seen in any previous books or docus that I had read/seen on this battle/war.
In the game "A Legionary´s life" on Steam i fought in the battle of Cynoscephalae on the Left Flank (I was a Centurio Prior in the line of the Principes and a Veteran of the Second Punic War were i Fought in Hispania and Africa). I tought we were doomed as I saw the Units coming from behind the Macedonians because I Imagined them to be there Reinforcements at first but then I realised that they are roman and we Slaughterd the Enemies. We didn´t understand that they had surrendered so we just ravaged on. I went on to be triarii in another war and then I lived happily ever after with my Familiy. The Game is quite good by the way!
Thanks for this info. Gonna check it out
@@ひろゆき二十一 Can only recommend!
@@ひろゆき二十一 Can only recommend. Such a small Game and at the beginning it can be frustrating but it gets easier with time. Had a lot of Fun with it.
I love seeing clashes such as this, especially when much of the history you see talks of how the Phalanx, as horribly inflexible as it was, was "no match" for the Manipular Legions.
Yay Macedonian wars are back been looking forward to this :D
The music during the climax was really nice and played at the right time.
Greece (the region) lost a mistress (Macedon), and gained a master (Rome).
That's a poetic way of putting it!
Conquered, they conquered.
@mr_ anheuser I mean its not like Greece was independent under the original Macedonian Empire. They were conquered by Phillip and after Alexander died, the first thing they did was rebel.
Later on they may have been relativly independent once again, but as small as they were, they often ended up being a playball for the big Macedonian 3 to some extent.
theZeitos Greece was always under the dominance of a particular Greek state and therefore always eager to rebel. Spartan and Athenian Cold War followed by Theban, Macedonian and Epirotic Hegemony. If you are implying that Macedon was a foreigner this is no longer supported even in the (Slavic) North Macedonia.
@@nickrabbitson1821 I am not implying that and I see no reason why I should.
What I am saying is that it doesnt matter to the Greek states if the invader/master is greek or not. You said it yourself. They rebelled against many times against other greeks, who tried to dominate them.
And it should also be considered, that not being a true foreigner and not being treated like a foreigner are two different things. As far as I know the greeks despised the Macedonians at the time and barely recognized them as true greeks. Probably happenstance from the fact, that (in ancient greek terms) they lived so far up north. This mindset should also be considered as part of the context, when watching back at such times.
So saying the Greek states lost their independence, when Rome was taking over, doesnt really consider, that most of them had little to no independence in the first place. It doesnt matter, that it were other greeks who took it of them.
Now this is THE REAL HISTORY CHANNEL.
Appreciate the praise!
One of my favorite channels. 👌
So awesome you guys are getting into this. Nobody talks about how greek fell under roman influence. The clash between legion and phalanx must've been epic.
The maps in this channel were hugly improved
The graphics are amazing what a fantastic video!!! And great storytelling I mean history telling
I'm Matthew Settle.
Now with new video games technology we could see the battle like never before
the fast number of soldiers, the troop formation, how the battle was fought, and how it was won.
get the view the general wish they had, in Decisive battle.
*nostalgia flashback intensifies*
Another top-shelf production lads, thank you !
Also, I can almost hear Devin saying :
"House Ordos"
"Warning, worm sign"
and "Radar Deactivated".
Damn. I'm old...
“Balance of power” almost never works...
You mean, it works.
Riiiight up until it just doesn't.
It does.
But no one ever heard in news: "Today is yet another day, these countries are not at war with each other."
@@Toto-95 exactly, the balance of power works only in a specific region, when an outside force is applied to the gear, it crumbles, and always a force will be applied to it in some point.
XVictoryX well at that point it’s not really a balance because of the extra force anyway right?
@@TheScopeGlint that was exactly what i said, at the moment the extra force takes its place, the role gear crumbles, meaning, the balance is broken.
Too many ads? Doesn't matter, Macedonian wars. Thumbs up
Great vid, best one I have seen on this battle. But please put a scale on the battle maps, like 1 mile/kilometer. Thanks in anticipation, and thanks for the vid.
Most of the animations are estimations, especially for ancient battles. So putting a scale on them would be even more missleading about their accuracy.
@@gabortoth5061 sorry I don't agree.
A mega video on the 19's Chinese Civil War would be a complete blessing
You mean the Taiping war? Yeah, it would be epic. Or one on the Sino-French war.
5:03 they couldn't be more wrong.
I just saw something like that under another comment.
You are kinda not right, considering that both Pergamon and Rhodes became Roman allies for quite some time and could continue to exist for I dont know how many years. The Antigonids and Seleucids would have taken their independence right then and there. They never really had a choice and did what they had to, to stay afloat.
I have no idea how Rhodes finaly fell to the romans, but Pergamon only became roman land, after the last king gifted it to them.
@@thezeitos469 Rhodes was annexed by Cassius as a punishment for their unwillingness to pick a side in his war against the 2nd Triumvirate. And after they won Marc Anthony and Octavian were like "well, it's Roman territory now anyway *shrug*"
Knew a fair number of details of this battle. But it was nice seeing what this channel had to say about it. And it was quite a lovely video. My thanks to those who made this video a reality.
Phalanx will always be the best unit in my Heart!!!
its a battle formation not a unit
@@ronank2432 No its a set of individuals equipped with set of item that make them distinct from other sets of individuals.
@@Armorius2199 No a phalanx is a rectangular mass military formation used by hoplites, sarissa pikemen, and even modern day riot control squads. So you can have a unit of hoplites in a phalanx formation etc.
@@kristiannicholson5893 And the Phalangites, a unit, made up of individual sarissa pikemen; using the phalanx formation; it's namesake.
IE: A battle unit. Which has been transliterated to be "phalanx" in many contexts correctly. And sometimes not.
@@adrianbundy3249 Phalangites is not a unit either, it's the plural form of phalanx and translates literally to: multiple phalanx. So multiple units of sarissa pikemen arranged into phalanx formation become phalangites. Multiple units of athenian hoplites arranged into phalanx formation also become phalangites.
I love how so many youtubers use Total War footage for this stuff
Roman centurion to another roman centurion: "How do you spell 'Cynoscephalae'?"
Roman Centurion #2: "I don't know, it's all Greek to me."
Wasnt this a joke?
@Citizen Hoplite Greek became common language for the Roman elite (and for the elite only) only AFTER the conquest of Greece.
The only thing Latin and Greek have in common is that both derived from Indo-European. Latin is no closer to Greek than to Celtic and Germanic.
@Citizen Hoplite Sorry, you are not entitled to give lessons to anyone. Nor someone is interested in your fairy-tales.
Great job mates and I would love to see if the left flake formed up b4 being attacked. Also, hats off to the unnamed soldier that was smart or charismatic enough to turn the 2500 troops around to secure the beating!
I really have to drop down the Iron to watch this one...
Every time i watch one of your videos makes me wanna play a specific era total war game i follow you since your first release keep up
I love this channel. TY for all your work!!!
That first loss didn’t even make sense never did, how do you the best defensive position and loose.... like bro tighten up smh Alexander’s disappointed in his successors
The phalanx is only really good in the direction it's facing, if they get flanked the troops are essentially defenseless. That's why the Macadonians fled the minute they thought a flank was possible.
@@SudoKnightlyNonsense they are only defenseless when said flanks are not supported by 7,000 cavalry, 9,000 peltasts and 3,000 hypaspists like alexanders.
SudoKnightlyNonsense Alexander’s phalanx was highly Maneuverable but I get what your saying. The fact is tho is they didn’t get spooked they would have won that engagement
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That's the real key issue, Alexander knew and acknowledged the weaknesses of the Phalanx: he worked around these weaknesses. A number of his successors, on the other hand, relied on the "invincible" Phalanx a bit too much or simply didn't put as many efforts into supporting the flanks or adapting to situations as Alexander did. It's similar to one of the major Roman Doctors who revolutionized the medical industry, he came up with brilliant innovations and the doctor's successors made little to no effort to innovate themselves. There's also the nature of the Macedonians of the time, they seem to have become a lot more fickle at this point: as evidenced to how often they deserted or switched sides before the Roman wars.
@@alexandros735 Absolutely, it could easily be argued that the quality of Macedonians had declined since Alexander's death: as they seem to have become much more fickle since then. If that reserve force had moved to guard the rear of the Phalanx then they probably would have been able to hold.
Nice history video with clearly explaining 👍
Thanks!
A divided Greek world fighting amongst each other stood no chance against Rome. What a shame how Alexander's empire pretty much fractured upon his death.
As an Italian I love my Roman ancestors but it would have been cool to see a greek empire surviving in the east and then creating many hellenic kingdoms for modern day to see. Like how rome fell but later latin nations like italy, spain, france, portugal, romania were able to form. Like that, but in the east with Hellenistic nations.
The helenic tribes always fought against Macedonia
Right on time, I was about to make tea. Now I can learn while enjoy a nice cup
I'm wondering if that 700 dead for Roman casualties is correct? How could they lose so little not only during the heavy skirmish but the advance of the enemy infantry? Historically it IS true, that most casualties occur when an army routes, but this just seems absurd.
Probably casualty and killed or two different meaning. One is dead the other probably injured to the point where they cant continue fighting.
The legion was retreating under pressure, but never broke the formation, while the phalanx could only advance slowly, so the Romans were suffering negligible losses.
In the subsequent battle of Pydna too the legion retreated at first, and the losses had been even lighter. Probably at Cynoscephalae much of the losses for the Romans had been in the initial clash between skirmishers.
I think these 700 were all legionnaires. The allied and skirmishers casually I believe were not taken into account for the 700 number.
Liking before even watching because you know that quality be THAT good 👌🏽
20:12 only 700 men in that carnage? Must be Plutarch writing.
Much of the losses in ancient battles happened after one of the formations broke, in the ensuing pursuit of the fleeing soldiers. The legion was retreating under pressure, but never broke the formation, so it was suffering negligible losses.
@@neutronalchemist3241 You see, that was the case with traditional greco-macedonian warfare. The legions were different - they could be severely bloodied in battle, but could make a much better retreat (not always).
@@swaminathanbalakrishnan5182 That's why, even without the clever move of the unknown tribune, or even had Nicator got his act straight, the result of the battle was not a given. Thanks to the possibility of switching lines, legionaries could fight for long (in many battles we saw them initially retreating, or holding the line, and later turning tables thanks to superior stamina) and, keeping on retreating, sooner or later they would have found broken terrain that was favourable to them.
Another great video to start my morning right 😁
12:28 Wiki says 20 war elephants, somebody`s lying.
A typo on our end, we are sorry.
@@KingsandGenerals Thats o.k., your channel is awesome btw.
The battle is inevitable, but victory hangs in the balance. No one has come here to die for them, they're standing among nations. We face those proud Romans the Brutii, they are worthy enemies but enemies none the less
2:35 that's lower Egypt, no?
Yep but confusing
Nope
Love these videos, but I think you should give a credit to the Divide et Impera Rome 2 team. This mod for TW is the reason your battle depictions look so good.
Romans vs Greeks. And the winner is...the Greek speaking world!!! Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes ....
Macedon, not Greeks!
Romans knew that the Greeks had won culturally, some of them didn’t like that but most of them were fascinated by it
That unknown roman tribune is a fucking genius. Everytime one flank in one of your videos pushes way ahead, I'm internally screaming "TURN AROUND YOU CAN EASILY HIT THEM FROM THE BACK NOW", seems like that guy knew what's up :D
Legionaries vs. Phalanx who would win?
@
Austin Hornbeck
I put a heavy emphasis on the Legionaries
Doesn't "Metatron" cover all those types of match-ups?
The legions won pretty easily
In an open battle probably the phalanx but in this case it was a ridge so the phalanx suffered cuz of their inflexibility
@@arturoroldan4839 The reason Hellenistic forces fared so poorly is that the composition deteriorated considerably from the optimum it had been under Phillip II and Alexander, but the model itself was not actually inferior when used properly for instance, Pyrrhus managed to consistently match and defeat the Roman's manipular model despite a sub optimal army from a comparatively impoverished state, but lost his war because the Romans and Carthaginians allied to defeat him and he did not have the resources of Alexanders empire.
Amazing video. Thank you. I love ancient history!
More greek stuff! You make my blood boil(in a good way). Also cover more of Byzantine - Bulgarian wars.
Why? Bulgarians beat-up the Greko-Romans mostly and make them pay tribute for peace, steal the population and convert them to even more Bulgarians. Nothing interesting here.
great video,and series!!in my humble opinion,I think you should do one,on Gaius Marius.
If the Greeks were united like Mongols, the Romans wouldn't stand a chance. This is one of the lessons we learn from history's old proverb "Together we stand.United we fall...."
@@adamgorz9679 the Romans would have lost easily against a unified Hellenic Greek remember if it wasn't for the Greek allies the Romans would have lost earlier
Ahamedi Hamiyun
The Romans would have just returned with a larger army and win. Besides, with “what if” scenarios we can also say that if United Greece faced early Imperial Rome or Julius Caesar, they would have been steamrolled.
@@adamgorz9679 Philip and Alexander were Greeks as well
6:30 That seems like a strange decision by Antiochus. It seems to me that the Seleucids had the most to gain (by swallowing up Egypt) and the least to lose because Rome was so far away and would need to get through Macedon first, which he could intervene in or not as he wished - it's not like the Antigonids were actually their friends.
Carthage and Macedon:exist*
Romans: I'm about to end this man's whole carrer
You guys are the best.
Thank you!
@@KingsandGenerals I had a really shitty day. You brightened it a lot, as always when you upload. Thank you guys for that.
@@justme6094 I don't know what ails you, but, it does get better. In any case, we will be here uploading stuff and are always happy to talk history
@@KingsandGenerals I really appreciate your kind response.
Do the greco Italian war of 1940!!
I have already watched so many videos about this... oh well, time to watch another one!
Remember this battle from Rome Total War :)
Thanks kings and generals just an hour ago i was watching the previews videoof series
"The battle was over, and the legion had triumphed over Alexander's phalanx."
Not likely. Alexander had mixed troops with his phalanx. He knew the weaknesses of the phalanx too well and brilliantly covered it’s weaknesses.
Not that Phalanx doesn't work, it just needs upgrades. The Swiss later on also use the Phalanx-like formation and gain many victories because they combine many other weapons like halberd to the formation giving it more flexibility and add more strategies, etc.
Learned about the swiss from this channel, too.