Around 390 BC, after the burning of Rome, the leaders of the Roman Empire had to develop new tactics to defeat unconventional attackers. The flexible tactics of the Roman Legion defeated the formidable Greek phalanx that until then had dominated the battlefield. The revolutionary effect of the Roman Legion on warfare is not disputed. As Rome sought to expand, she subdued the previously “invincible” Macedonian Phalanx using new tactics and organization against a tried-and-true army formation. These small units were built to travel fast and light, with many of the soldiers possessing skills in several specialties. They were highly successful in conquering armies throughout Europe and Africa, even when outnumbered.
2006-12-01 00:54:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by RK 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
A phalanx is not maneuverable once it starts moving it can't turn. The Roman legions simply opened ranks and let the phalanx's go by and then hit the phalanx at the sides and at the rear.The other tactic was that one or more legions would act as bait once the phalanx charged the bait legions other legions would hit the flanks with cavalry which would break up the phalanx as the spears always pointed in the direction the phalanx was moving.
2006-12-01 06:00:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by brian L 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Roman Legions used similiar tactics and the rectangular shields of the Romans provided better protection than the round shields of the Greeks, especially when used in a Phalanx. By the time of Roman conquest Greece must have been weakened from her losses from the Persian wars and the plague had also ravaged the area,..so Rome did not face the same foe that the Persians had earlier. John
2006-12-01 01:15:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by john k 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
The Greek phalanx was not very maneuverable. It was a very power force moving in a linear direction. The Roman used a loose and more adaptable formation. They could easily flank the phalanx and harrass them with their basic weapon, the javelin. Of course the Greeks were helpless with there long phalanx spears. The phalanx organization broke down and the Greeks were routed.
2006-12-01 01:12:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Treebeard 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
basically to make sparkling, Constantine's conversion to Christianity did no longer effect Islam. additionally it ought to be suggested for the duration of the West's dark Age The East inclusive of Muslims have been of their Enlightenment era. whilst the West entered the Enlightenment era the East fell into the dark a while. and according to threat the path the international took became the suited path to getting have been we are right this moment. regardless of each and every thing regardless of technological progression first needs to be social progression. we'd nonetheless be possessing slaves, and questioning it incredibly is alright to go away youthful women to die interior the chilly. the upward thrust of Christianity (the 1st Christianity in the past it grew to become a money making business enterprise) a minimum of have been given people to start up questioning approximately social subject concerns, which never might have happened decrease than the logistical Romans. nevertheless in spite of this according to threat if Christianity had never entered Rome it does not are transforming into a company and remained organic, even nevertheless thinking the historic previous of the Quakers and the place they ended up, probable no longer.
2016-12-14 10:21:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Numbers and a far more efficiently trained fighting force. Not only that though, the Greeks were suffering internally as well with several state wanting to break away from the union. They were not ready for an all out war with Rome, thus Rome won. War has a habit of working out that way
2006-12-01 00:49:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Johnny T 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
If it was invincible, how did they defeat it?
If the Romans defeated it, then how was it invincible?
For every measure in the military, there is soon a counter-measure to defeat it. This constant back-and-forth has been going on throughout history. Sometimes it takes a bit longer to come up with a counter-measure, but rest assured it will happen.
2006-12-01 03:08:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dave_Stark 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
The downfall of the phalanx was--that it couldn't adjust to flanking movements. Its straight forward attack left its flanks vulnerable. It relied on calvary to protect it, but they weren't always present.
Once an enemy could maneuver around to the sides or rear of the formation, the battle was virtually over.
2006-12-01 01:24:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by amish-robot 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Pure numbers
2006-12-01 00:56:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Francis G 2
·
0⤊
5⤋