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 

AWA145 - Were Philip and Alexander uniquely competent?

Discussions from Ancient Warfare Magazine. Why did early civilisations fight? Who were their Generals? What was life like for the earliest soldiers? Ancient Warfare Magazine will try and answer these questions. Warfare minus two thousand years.

Society & Culture

Personal Journals

History

Philosophy

Places & Travel

In this episode of the  Ancient Warfare Magazine podcast, Murray and Jasper are joined by Stephen DeCasien to discuss rams on ships. Stephen is a PhD candidate at Texas A&M; University studying Nautical Archaeology. His academic interests are Greek and Roman maritime history and archaeology, with a special focus on naval warfare, naval rams, and warships. Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast  

AW301 - Rams

To celebrate the 300th episode of the Ancient Warfare Podcast and Ancient Warfare Answers, Murray answers a curly one, what really happened at the battle of Marathon - Murray has forgotten who asked him this but is a 'big' question nonetheless! Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast  

AWA300 - What really happened at the battle of Marathon?

'A question for Murray, who or what made the decisions about where Roman army units were based or moved around the Empire? I am presuming if it were a vexillation from Hadrian's Wall to York, it would be a local commander's decision, but what if it was a cohort sent from York to Gaul, ie between adjacent provinces? Was that worked out by the military staff of the respective governors? And then what about legions moving from, say, Gaul to Syria for military reasons or even for civil engineering projects? Was there a general staff in Rome comprised of ex-field generals, gnarly old centurions and civil servants, or was it down to the Emperor/Senate (depending on the period) to plan it all?' Thanks for that question Keith.   Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast  

AWA299 - Who or what made the decisions about where Roman army units were based or moved around the Empire?

Sara wonders how negotiations between different armies were practically arranged. For example, with Caesar in Gaul, several times he had some type of meetings with different groups. Such as the Helvetii before he had even established himself in Gaul. How was such a meeting arranged before and after a battle? Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast  

AWA298 - How were ancient negotiations organised?

Murray answers this question set in by Tim.  'I'm wondering why historians generally accept that Mons Graupius was indeed a great victory for Agricola. My understanding is that Tacitus' account is the only written evidence we have, and archaeology has turned up little physical evidence of the battle. Is part of the reason that a great victory would have been too big a lie to pass off,  so there must be some truth to the story? Or was it generally accepted for generals to make their victories more impressive so no one in Rome batted an eye at Tacitus' account?' Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast  

AWA145 - Were Philip and Alexander uniquely competent?

Download our free app to listen on your phone