rinuccini 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!)
gaius 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.
gaius marius wrote:Don't forget the Pros and Cons of the Phalanxes and the cohort
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest