Murray tackles this question from Juan; It seems that Phillip/Alexander’s army was almost invincible but afterwards “Macedonian” style armies seem to be a lot more hit and miss (vs. Romans, Indians, Parthians, Celts etc.). Was this because Philip/Alexander’s troops were uniquely competent/trained or were the commanders after Alexander just not as good? I’m mostly thinking about the pike phalanx but if there’s any information on the light infantry or cavalry troops I’d love to learn!
Like the podcast? Why not become a patron?
https://www.patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast
AWA307 - Imitation Legionaries
AWA306 - Did the Romans have an organised Medical Corps?
AWA305 - What was the difference between bronze and iron?
AW304 - Invasion of the Celts
AWA303 - Who were the Thureophoroi?
AWA302 - Why are there less writings on Roman imperial wars?
AW301 - Rams
AWA300 - What really happened at the battle of Marathon?
AWA299 - Who or what made the decisions about where Roman army units were based or moved around the Empire?
AWA298 - How were ancient negotiations organised?
AWA297 - Was Mons Graupius a great victory?
AWA296 - The Praetorian Guard
AW295 - The Challenges of Campaigning
AWA294 - What really happened at the battle of Pydna?
AWA293 - Who were Rome's most remembered enemies?
AWA292 - Who were the Hypaspists?
AWA291 - Who is Muray’s favourite general?
AW290 - A Biography of Thermopylae
AWA289 - Losing well
AWA288 - Taking Position on the Right
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
Irish Songs with Ken Murray
History Obscura
Historycal: Words that Shaped the World
The Rest Is History
Everything Everywhere Daily