But they were extremely disunited...in Hellas itself. Which spurred an enormous amount of military innovation.
North King said:
Problem is, it isn't more flexible than the full spectrum of Successor units, if properly used (as they were in, say, most of the third century BC). Hellenistic cavalry is automatically superior to anything the Romans can field, right off the bat. Italian cavalry just stinks and isn't worth the mnai you pay for it. That lends itself to an envelopment already. Then, too, Roman missile troops haven't got the variation and flexibility that the Hellenes do. Where the Romans have their velites (with the rorarii and ascensii being largely abandoned by the time they've got any reason to face the Hellenes at all), there are the various arms of the psiloi (giving Hellenic missile troops much better range than the Romans already, along with the akontistai being essentially the same unit as the velites), as well as the famed peltastai that can outdo any Roman missile units in both a skirmishing duel and a hand-to-hand battle. Then, of course, there are the main bodies of infantry themselves. It is true that, on rough ground or in pursuit, a Makedonian phalanx is inferior to a Roman legion, which has the ability to infiltrate between the pikes and carve up the phalanx from the inside. (Which is why, after the Battle of Kynoskephalai, the Makedonians developed their hysteroi pezhetairoi, which were much better armed for hand-to-hand combat, and would have lasted much longer against the Roman legionary.) But on flat ground, the Romans would have been cut to pieces. In addition, the Hellenistic system has several types of infantry (later derided as 'copies' of the legionary by silly games like Rome: Total War, which is basically useless unless heavily modded) which could easily go toe-to-toe with the legionary and were just as flexible: the thureophoroi, thorakitai, and theraspidai. The Makedonians also have their previously mentioned Agrianikoi pelekuphoroi, which have excellent AP axes in addition to armament and armor similar to that of the Romans.
Yes, the obvious response is, 'If the Greeks were so pwnage then why didn't they beat the Romans?' When one looks at the clash between the Hellenistic and Roman states, one immediately notes that there's a short window of time when it was actually something resembling a conflict as opposed to a steamroll: the decades of the 200s and the 190s BC, with perhaps an extension in the case of Makedonia to the Third Makedonian War, which saw an amazing performance by Perseus' military against several Roman armies before the defeat of Pydna. In any event, that leaves us with two specific events in which the Roman tactical system and the Hellenistic tactical system clashed: the battles of Kynoskephalai and Magnesia. At Kynoskephalai, the Roman system was allowed to play to its strengths: fighting on uneven ground against the phalangial units of Philippos V (who in some cases were stupidly forced to fight with their swords, which was not something they were prepared to do very well). It kinda helped that the Romans were using elephants for the one time they make a significant appearance in the Roman military, and that they also beat the Makedonian left wing before it could form up, and then outnumbered the Makedonians two to one and had a dandy flanking position. If somebody competent had been leading the Makedonian army instead of Philippos V - Antigonos Gonatas and Antigonos Doson, his predecessors, come to mind, and his son Perseus was fairly skilled as well - then the tactical error of the left wing's slow formation would have been rectified and the battle likely to have an alternate outcome. The defeat of Magnesia is less obvious to diagnose because of the paucity of sources that agree, but it is generally agreed that again, an uncharacteristic tactical error was made by Antiokhos Megas in sending his cavalry off the field after defeating the allied Roman/Pergamene left-wing cavalry (just like the error of Demetrios Poliorketes at Ipsos), which allowed the Pergamenes to charge into the gap the cavalry left and thus outflank the Seleukid army.
As for the original Hellenic phalanx, it actually might do better than the Makedonian syntagma did in OTL at Kynoskephalai, since it wasn't nearly so rigid. Incorporating Iphikratid hoplitai into the equation, they might actually prove superior to the legion on uneven ground.
If the Makedonians aren't busy trying to fight against the Ptolemaioi in the Aigion (who on several occasions were the only ones sustaining their enemies in Hellas itself), they should have a much better opportunity to exert dominance over the cities themselves. Alexandros and Antipatros proved that so long as it's a one-on-one contest, the Makedonians can come out victorious. A similar comparison can be made with the Thessalians; if they don't have to deal with so many external threats - which, given the relatively lower importance to intervening in Hellas to this timeline's Egypt, they probably won't - then they ought to be able to be supreme in Hellas itself.
Pretty much; 'pezhetairoi', for example, is a lot simpler than 'feudal Makedonian phalangial infantry'.das said:
Would the naval arms race even start in this era without the initial spur of the wars of the Diadochi?
No Ptolemaioi.North King said:
Time for a quick cheat sheet then. If I mention anything else, I'll edit the post here to show you.North King said:
Pezhetairoi = feudal Makedonian phalangial infantry.
Hypaspistai = Makedonian 'royal guard', armed with the same armor as the hoplitai. Serves as a 'link' between cavalry and pezhetairoi.
Hippeis Thessalikoi = Thessalian cavalry, some of the best heavy cavalry in the world, armed with lance.
Prodromoi = Makedonian medium cavalry, better in a melee than the hippeis Thessalikoi and also armed with a lance.
Agrianikoi pelekuphoroi = Assault infantry from Makedonia, armed with axe, sword, and javelins.
Thureophoroi = Medium infantry armed with a spear, some javelins, sword, and thureos shield.
Thorakitai = Heavy infantry version of the thureophoroi.
Theraspidai = Heavy Makedonian elite peltastai.
Peltastai = Skirmishers that fall between light and medium infantry.
Akontistai = Javelinmen.
Toxotai = Archers.
Sphendonetai = Slingers.
Argyraspides = 'Silver Shield' pikemen, elite phalangial infantry of Makedonia (and later Arche Seleukeia).
Rhomphaiaphoroi = Insanely awesome Thraikian heavy infantry, armed with wicked long curved swords and javelins.
Iphikratid hoplitai = Lighter-armed version of hoplitai, fighting with longer spears, with less armor, and less densely packed, and so better able to fight on uneven ground. They have taken the place of regular, 'classical' hoplitai in most of Hellas by the third century BC.
EDIT: As to das' most recent post, I don't think that the Molossians really had the oomph to unite Hellas (Pyrrhos notwithstanding). It's notable that most of the time Pyrrhos had to borrow his troops from the Makedonians or the Seleukids (that's how he invaded Italy after all) and that his only really successful period, the 272 victory in Makedonia, was mostly due to the fact that the main Antigonid armies were away.
