How THE ROMANS DESTROYED The PHALANX:

They literally fought only half the Greek army and got siskebap'ed to oblivion from the front of the phalanx before they finally flanked them. All the while the Greek force did not had its usual supporting units on the flanks and rear as they had during Alexander's reign.

Under these conditions and Performance wise that is a straight up Phalanx victory.

did you mispronounce macedonian to get engagement?

The real game changer against a phalanx formation was… Artillery… During the battle of Rocroy. The macedonian phalanx when well managed and protected always had an edge against the roman legion. It just fell out of fashion when Rome conquered Greece eventually.

Let's drop the facts. There was never any "superiority of the legion over the phalanx". Quite the contrary, the phalanx had been developed all along centuries prior precisely to combat against legion-like tactcs. All things equal, the phalanxes crashed easily the legions. And this was what was happening in the battlefields : there is not a single battle between Romans and Greeks where the Roman legionnaires shined. Each and every time they were getting wrecked by the Greek phalanxes and running back and the day was won by… the pro-Roman Greek allies the Romans had always with them or …. by traitors in the anti-Roman side … or …. a combination of both.

If the Roman legions were so good against the phalanxes, the conquest of Greece would take 1-2 maximum 3 years. Instead it took 80 years during which the Romans counted more military defeats than victories. What made it for Romans was the fact that Greece was depopulated and in irreversible decline while them were suffering from overpopulation and eager to spend their men in war. As such they could afford sending troops every year on campaigns while Greeks had no such luxury.

Speaking of troops, the legionaires of the manipular legions were LIGHT troops, not heavy ones!

As for the drawing of the legionnaire with a crossbow, yeah legionnaires were not carrying crossbows to battle, however, contrary to what commentators said here, the crossbow was already known in that era and used, mostly in naval and siege warfare, less so in pitched battles. The earliest crossbows mentioned are the Greek "gastraphetes" used in the later stages of the Peloponnesian war in the late 5th century BC.

Greetings from the homeland of the phalanx mecedon Greece 🇬🇷👋🏼

Its amazing just how inaccurate this short is

The last picture is historically inaccurate. The legionary should be holding an AK.

Greece is mountainous, more so than Italy. Hence in Italy more mobile formations/units became functional.

You didnt mention how deadly thousands of Pila can be

Speak up,can't hear a thing.

The Phalanx worked in those narrow Greek mountain passes where attackers couldn't outflank it. The Romans were not adverse to, as terrain and circumstances dictated, instead forming a SQUARE, moving reinforcements about depending on which direction the enemy attacked from. This was studied by, of all generals, Erich Von Manstein, who deployed his panzers in 1941 and 1942 in what German war correspondents called, the "Mot Pulk", or motorized square, with the tanks leading the charge in the direction of advance, and armored cars and self-propelled artillery guarding the flanks, with motorized infantry in the middle, ready to reinforce where needed.

The phalanx didn't die in a day. It was a series of battles like Cynocephalus. Pydna was just one battle

It didn't die it was still used all the way up to the Victorian era

The historian's blog ACOUP has done in-depth dives into this. TLDR: the phalanx being weaker on uneven terrain is a symptom of a bigger difference in capabilities between the Hellenistic and Roman armies: Roman legions had a lot better organizational command for small unit tactics. The smallest group within a Legion that could independently maneuver was the maniple, which was 120 men. The smallest maneuver unit in a Hellenistic phalanx was the taxeis, which could vary in size but on average was 10x larger, at 1500 men. And that slow, lumbering mass of 1500 men was extremely unwieldy due to the difficulties of moving position after the sarissae were down.

Therefore the Roman maniples could move to take advantage of any opportunity, which in the chaos of battle, is guaranteed to occur at some point. The taxeis of the phalanx would almost always be too late in any contest for such opportunities since it was so much more unwieldy.

Aside from tactical advantages, the Romans also had way more manpower, and could bury their rivals under sheer numbers many times over even if they lost a battle. The Hellenistic armies could not be easily replaced. Rome could afford to keep losing until it won a decisive battle, not that they would lose often anyway, while their enemies had to pray to keep winning against already unlikely odds, because the first defeat is likely the end of the war and their entire empire.

Or just keep the phalanx, but stay on open ground.

plus the javelin that the Romans had that they can throw at them

Shitty channel is shitty.

Either you pluralize all the item or you call them by singular name. Plural: Pila, Scuta, Gladii. Singular: Pilum, Scutum, Gladius

my thoughts

A phalanx couldn't move at the oblique, couldn't stop once it started, and was very bad on unever terrain. The Romans gave up the phalanx when they adopted manipular warfare from the Samnites (fas es et ab hoste doceri)

The Macedonian phalanx and the hoplites do not have the same weaknesses. The Macedonian has a shield strapped to his back = he cannot fight without his spear = he cannot change direction. The hoplite holds his spear with one hand = he tires quickly and is easy to disarm.

This isn't explained well, rocky terrain in one battle did not emd the phalanx

Invicta has a video that is 1000x better than this.

Only to be revived 1000 years later in the form of the pike square.