Ancient Armies

how can it be meaning less. just because they get weak at different periods.

How were Greeks more affective then the Romans hahahahhaha.

 It was easy for a few maniples to detach from a legion and attempt a flanking manoeuvre on a formation such as the phlaanx, which is what I believe happened at Cynoscephalae in 197bc when Philip of Macedon's army was decisively defeated.

 I think probably a better example of the superiority of the legion to the phalanx than my previous example of Magnesia.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html

 I don't think anybody can strongly dispute the fact that the legion was overall superior to the phalanx. My example shows the strength of the phalanx when facing an army head on and also its fatal weaknesses.

Yeah, thats because the Romans of the Late Republic were on the offensive and some times you got to lose, but you continue to fight to win and thats whats important. Plus the greeks lost plenty of battles to.

Pardon me Heraclius but your assumption is not true. The Macedonian's army defeat in Cynoscephalae is charged mostly on the poor management of Philip V who commited one serious and decisive mistake, instead of anything else.

In Cynoscephalae, Philip V attacked dissimilar. Meaning while the right Macedonian wing and Centre were together, the left Macedonian wing was still marching as undisciplined divisions.  Romans made use of this gap with result this to be the crucial point of Macedonian defeat.

Macrinus

Marcus Crasses+40 000 roman

Gordian+40 000 roman

Philip Africanus+70 000 roman

Decius

Valerian+40 000 roman

Carus

Julian+60 000 roman

Valens+45 000 roman

VAlentinian

Are name of Great Roman Generals which died in the hand of Goths and Persians

So, dont say that roman were greater than Greeks, and they surely were late

The Highest peak of Greece is 5th century b.c. and Alexander

Highest peak of Rome is 1 b.c.-3 a.d.

There more than 300 years difference

 I don't see what point your trying to make Janissary, that armies get defeated?

 We didnt need you to tell us that, its a simple fact armies lose sometimes, do you want me to list all the Persian defeats? All that'd prove is the undeniable fact that no army is invincable, big deal.

 What do battles against Persia and the Goths have to do in a contest between Romans and Greeks? They have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

 Anyway Valentinian I didnt die in battle nor did Valentinian the II or III, none of the 3 Gordian Emperors were killed by Goths or Persians, who on earth is Philip Africanus? do you mean Philip the Arab? he was killed in battle against Decius anyway. Julian the Apostate was indeed killed in battle, but his army was not destroyed and later on proclaimed Jovian Emperor.

 Valerian was captured through deception by Shapur, Valerian may have even narrowly won the battle of Edessa (highly debatable), however plague ravaged his army and forced him to negotiate with the Persians for peace. Shapur captured him through deceit. Macrinus was an Emperor who was defeated in battle against some guy called Gannys and then executed, neither Goths or Persians executed him.

 Dare I even mention the fact Varus was not a "great" Roman general, Valens was undoubtedly killed at Adrianople along with 2/3 of his army, I again point to the crushing defeat the Goths suffered at Naissus a century earlier as a counter-balance.

 I suggest you get a more accurate list that has some basis in fact or I promise you somebody will tear it to pieces, by the way Carrhae has become a tired example that you use in every single topic like its some astonishing revelation. You cant keep saying the same thing and expecting it to have an impact on the debate.

 I ask again what have battles against Persia and the Goths got to do with battles between the Greeks and Romans and determining superiority?