Hoplites Vs Legionnares

[Leet Eriksson]

so who would win?both of them where highly trained infantry,and both of them packed a serious punch.

EDIT:ok,just not to confuse anyone were talking about greek hoplites vs legionnares,not in-game but historically.both of them do battle on flat terrain,and both of them have the same numbers.although i would like to see the outcome in-game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

btw since i just started on roman stuff,can someone explain to me what the greeks used in the time period of rome:totalwar?i was wondering becuase in the screenshots of rome:tw i though i saw hoplites,not phalanxs.

[Exile]

hmm..I dont know, but I am looking forward to finding out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif gah, I voted for the Legionnaires - I love ancient Rome.

[Divine Wind]

I dont have a clue who'd win^^ Maybe lets wait for the game (or at least the demo) before we start making posts like this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Ckrisz]

Well, historically the legionnaires won, though the hoplites put up a hell of a good fight.

[The Last Emperor]

I actually feel that the hoplites may win it if they clash head-on w/o flanking. Imagine having to taste those long spears b4 u can do anything at all as a legionaire. But historically the greek lost in the end so i could have already been proven wrong in this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[rasoforos]

since the argument is more or less theoretical ....


if the legion at its best , would fight against hoplites at their best ( spartans or ieros lohos of theves) in a battle with no other external influences , no other units , etc i believe that the hoplites would win quite easilly , they had better trainning since they were trained from childhood , they were fighting next to people they knew from childhood , they knew that to retreat was not an option. The legion was well trained and proffesional but i dont think its individual members were the 'war machines' the spartans were at their peak . so you know what i vote for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Rosacrux]

Just a tad of nitpicking, to keep confusion at minimal: The hellenic hoplites were not armed with "huge pikes" or whatever. They carried a standard 2-meter long spear, one hald wielding (the other hand carried the hoplon, the big, round bronze shield, after which they were named). The pike wielding ones would be the standard Macedonian (adopted by all Greeks after Alex's conquest) phalanx.

So, don't confuse the macedonian phalanx with the hoplite phalanx - two completely different things.

[econ21]

Well, rasoforos may have a point about the training and quality of the individual fighters, I don't know.

But in equipment, I suspect a short sword is a better weapon against infantry than a spear (also, I think it is in MTW).

Against, a pike armed phalanx, I am less sure. In the period of the Swiss pikemen, occaisionally sword and buckler men could get "under" the pikes and butcher the pikemen but it seems the Swiss won more than they lost. So, I think legions would generally need flanking or missiles etc to win comfortably.

They did clash, though, didn't they? At least Macedonians against early Romans? Presumably, the Romans won and decided to stick to their kit, rather than emulate the phalanx for a reason. Maybe a history buff can enlighten us?

[Tempiic]

I assume you mean with hoplites these falanxists used by the greek (and kin) in same period as rise of rome... those with very long pikes rather than the early greek hoplites who used ordinary spears http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

When all circumstances are equal to both sides, Legionares will beat hoplites any time according to stone-paper-scissor principle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

A formation of falanxists (called a falanx) needs to remain in formation to remain effective, each soldier covered by the shield of his neighbour, marching up as one line towards the enemy to crush them under the weight of a hoplite formation. If this formation somehow manages to hit the enemy unit in broken form, it simply cannot use its major advantage.

A legionare (armed with pilums (my latin is too dusty:(), short swords and big shield) turned out to be a very effective counter against a hoplite formation. By throwing the javelins into the approaching hoplite formation, some hoplites will fall, which means that a line of their formation will have a delay to the rest of their unit as they have to walk across the body... Besides that, many of these javelins will pierce through shields making a big part of these shields quite useless to use. This will seriously mess up a falanx formation so that it cannot hit the legion unit lines in one cohesive force it needs to use its strength. Lines will hit later than others.... too many soldiers will not receive the shield support of his neighbour... Standing against them is a cohesive leggionare unit... With shields matching their own... and very short swords... This short sword may seem like a disadvantage but it is far from it... Its small size makes it excellent to use in very close quarter fighting. A falanx in disarrayed form simply has no chance against fierce close quarters
combat.

Course I could have said this better in dutch and by use of pictures http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Teutonic Knight]

What sort of Hoplites are we talking about here? Spartan? Athenian? Early Macedonian?
It depends, some were more highly trained than others...

[Kraxis]

There is a reason they were called Hoplites... they carried Hoplons, those big round shields (they were not made from bronze, too heavy, but from wood with a linnen covering).
Their formation was the Hoplite phalanx.

The other type we are talking about is the Macedon phalanx, a pahlanx where the troops have a small shield slung on their forearm and wield a long pike.

So when we talk about Hoplites it is the Spatans (so that people might understand who we are talking about).

And in a fight against a Legionnaire a Hoplite would not have much of a chance. In formation they would have a much better chance as they would use their shields much like the Legionnares, to protect themselves as well as the guy on thier left, while they would retain an advantage in bodyarmour and reach of weapon (they could better hit the vital head or throat). But the Legion would win simply due to professional training and tactical diversity. The Spatan hoplites were stronger and faster than any opposing them, but most of their training for battle did not include weapons or drilling as it did for the Legionnaires. So the Spartan formation would push back the Romans simply due to greater mass and strength, but their skill with weapons was not as good as the Romans.
It would be an equal fight, but eventually the Romans would have broken the Hoplite formation enough to single them out and thus the Hoplite's equipment would be at a disadvantage.

[David]

What if the hoplites carried both a spear and a sword?

[Kraxis]

David the Hoplites did carry both, but they didn't train much with the sword. Some swords didn't even have a cutting edge, but in essence the sword was quite similar to the gladius, being short and rather thick. The Hoplite sword did differ in the shape as it was curved forwards and that would make it a great slashing weapon, but as said some didn't have a sharp edge. Strange weapon and quite inefficient as such, thus it can be concluded by even the most unknowledgeable people that the Hoplites didn't put much effort into the swords and their training with them. But records supports this view.

But why would a Hoplite use hiw sword when his spear was sufficient (it was pointed at both ends, and didn't break much in hoplite vs hoplite warfare which was the main struggles for the hoplites).

[solypsist]

moved to Monastery

[Tachikaze]

Roman military units were much more mobile and flexible than any Hellenic phalanx. They were an improvement on earlier Hellenic tactics. The key is "no support". A phalanx would be simply a clumsy mass without support troops. The only time a phalanx could be effective by itself was against another lone phalanx. A roman legion was flexible enough to fight without light troop support.

My money would be on the Romans.

[Rosacrux]

Kraxis

Despite some clumsy reenacting attempts who use wood, the truth is that the Greek hoplon was made of Bronze. 100% of it. In my local museum there are dozens of those http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Not to mention that all ancient writers are talking about bronze shields when referring to the hoplon.

[Stormer]

nice topic i voted legionaires there turtle formation would of held out quite well form the short spears till they got close enough

[Red Peasant]

Hmm...Hoplite bronze vs Roman iron? Mis-match.

...and which Roman legionaries are we talking about, they changed considerably in equipment, organisation, and tactics over the centuries.

[Rosacrux]

Hmmm.... Red, the roman scutum was made of wood, enforced with some iron straps. The Greek hoplon was 100% bronze. Of course the Greeks used bronze plate armour too.

As for weapons go, they both had iron.

Your remark is interesting, though: the very early roman legions (monarchy) were using the same gear as Greeks (adopted by the Samnites who have adopted it by the southern Italy Greeks). The legions of the republican era, before Marius reforms, is the typical hastati-prencipe-triarii armed with the oval scutum, javelins at first and an early version of the pilum later (the triarii had spears) with chain mail (lorica hamata) armour. The legions after Marius... well, those are the ones portrayed in Asterix http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Longshanks]

All things being equal, the legionaires win. The Roman system was simply an improvement over the older Greek one. The Romans were much more mobile and versatile, which ultimately is a big advantage over hoplite style troops.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 08 2003,05:12)]Hmmm.... Red, the roman scutum was made of wood, enforced with some iron straps. The Greek hoplon was 100% bronze. Of course the Greeks used bronze plate armour too.

As for weapons go, they both had iron.

Your remark is interesting, though: the very early roman legions (monarchy) were using the same gear as Greeks (adopted by the Samnites who have adopted it by the southern Italy Greeks). The legions of the republican era, before Marius reforms, is the typical hastati-prencipe-triarii armed with the oval scutum, javelins at first and an early version of the pilum later (the triarii had spears) with chain mail (lorica hamata) armour. The legions after Marius... well, those are the ones portrayed in Asterix http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Of course, you're right, the Greeks did use iron, but it was less widespread in usage and generally of inferior quality to the Romans'. I did think that the Greek's spear-tips were of bronze, but they were iron with the only the butt-spike being of bronze. Up until the 5th century they used a longer, approx. 2ft, sword, but then the Spartans adopted a much shorter 1ft blade that became almost standard.

Your statements about shields are quite misleading though. The 'Aspis' (as it was known to the Greeks) was made of wood that by the 5th century was 'faced' with a very thin layer of decorative bronze. Thicker (very heavy) bronze shields that have been found were votive offerings to the gods. The classical Roman 'scutum' was a composite of several layer of wood, leather, and fabric and edged/faced with either iron or brass.

[rasoforos]

i am still not convinced that the legionaires would win. Most of you people underastimate the vast difference in trainning and ideals. A legionaire was not being trained from childhood , and for him retreat WAS an option.Even if the average trainning time at a sword was much less for a spartan than a leggionaire he still he was probably getting more trainning in it because of his total trainning period of many years. Moreover if the extra diversity the legion had was so important then the persians would not be having so much trouble against the practically 'phallanx only' thermopylae Spartan army. From this battle it is obvious that having a lightly armored unit to break through the spears and use swords was not that easy when fighting against the Spartans. Maybe less adequatelly trained phallanxes would break against a proffesional legion but i seriously doubt the legion would have any luck alone against spartans at their peak.