Hoplites Vs Legionnares [Archive]

Tempiic

02-07-2003, 16:05

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

02-07-2003, 16:11

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

Kraxis

02-07-2003, 16:44

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

02-07-2003, 17:59

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

Kraxis

02-07-2003, 18:59

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

02-07-2003, 20:26

moved to Monastery

Tachikaze

02-07-2003, 20:47

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

02-07-2003, 21:12

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

02-07-2003, 21:29

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

02-08-2003, 00:23

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

02-08-2003, 07:12

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

Longshanks

02-08-2003, 11:28

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

02-08-2003, 12:07

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

02-08-2003, 14:36

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.

Catiline

02-08-2003, 18:18

It's wrong to suggest that all hoplites were trained from childhood, at least anymore than the roman legions (we seem to be referring to Republican ones here) were. Most Greek states fielded part time militias in very ritualised battles, mostly glorified crop raids that didn't necessarily involve the actual destruction of crops. The spartans are an evident exception to this rule, with some of the Cretan cities having similar constitutions. To maintain their military prowess the Spartans had to completely focus their society on an ever dwindling number of homoioi. Fundamentally most hoplites were farmers whose wealth qualified them to serve in the phalanx largely by virtue of being able to afford the kit.

The reason hte Macedonian phalanx was beaten by the Roamns was it's lack of tactical flexibility and the fact that the Successor kingdoms neglected the Heavy cavalry that Alexander used as the hammer to the phalanx's anvil. it's true that in a full frontal assault it was very hard to inflict a defeat on a phalanx, whether Macedonian or hoplite. But to restrict the legions to that is to rob them of their key capabilites as much as tying one of their hands behind their back.

The term hoplon is a modern invention, named after the hoplite rather than vice versa. The Greek sources use the term aspis.

Catiline

02-08-2003, 18:21

As for thermopylae that simply a demonstation of the importance of terrain. any ancient army would have had trouble taking that passs, be it manned by Spartans or not. THis isn't to be little their achievement in holding the pass that long against overwhelming numbers, but 300 Spartans aren't an army, they're a sacrifice.

Rosacrux

02-08-2003, 18:58

Aspis is the general term for shield, in use even in the Mycenean era. Hoplon was used by the ancient Greeks to describe the particular large, bronze shield the hoplites used It's not a modern term, that is what they called the particular design.

BAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

Catiline

02-08-2003, 19:15

It's not, you know, hoplon isn't used once in any ancient literature. THe Greeks did indeed use the terms aspis for shields in general, but they did not use the term hoplon for this specific type of shield, it's a modern construct.

Red Peasant

02-08-2003, 19:34

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 08 2003,16:58)]Aspis is the general term for shield, in use even in the Mycenean era. Hoplon was used by the ancient Greeks to describe the particular large, bronze shield the hoplites used It's not a modern term, that is what they called the particular design.

BAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Believe what you like mate, don't be so touchy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Red Peasant

02-08-2003, 19:40

... and I agree 100% with everything Cat said in his last few posts re: tactics, shields etc.

In fact, by the great classical era of the 5th century most Greek Hoplites didn't even wear bronze breastplates, they wore the 'Linothorax' type of armour, which was basically a composite of many layers of linen that were glued together...it was quite effective apparently, a bit like modern fabric body-armours.

Red Peasant

02-08-2003, 19:52

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 08 2003,16:58)]Aspis is the general term for shield, in use even in the Mycenean era. BAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Mycenaean? What are your sources for this bold statement? As far as I know Mycenaean sources scarcely exist, apart from 'Linear B' clay tablets which are just admin docs. You surely can't mean Homer That is 8th century BC (though possibly 9th century) and is accepted as generally reflecting that era (the 'Geometric' or 'Archaic' period of Greek history) in a socio-military context.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-08-2003, 20:52

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ Feb. 08 2003,11:21)]... but 300 Spartans aren't an army, they're a sacrifice.
Just like to point out, that there were roughly 7,000 Hellenic troops at Thermopylae defending the pass. Of these there were 300 Spartans, but they were not all.

But when the Persians were told of the pass through the mountains, they naturally took it and bypassed the Thespians who were defending it. Most of the Greeks got away, except for the Spartans and the Thebans.

The Thebans were actually conspiring with Xerxes at the time and so moved themselves to a hill away from the Spartans. The Thebans were not harmed by the Persians as they moved in to attack and finally destroy the 300 Spartans.

If you see the pass at Thermopylae, you will understand that 300 Spartans could have held it for years, but it was not just them who sent advance parties to defend the pass.

Catiline

02-08-2003, 21:05

You're right the force at Thermopylae was 6-7000. I thought there were around 700 thespians at Thermopylae, apart from 300 Spartans and 400 Thebans who hadn't exactly volunteered, and who deserted, possibly a few Mycenaeans as well, in pretty much their last contribution to history, the rest of the Greeks having retreated.

I thought it was the Phocians who were bypassed, largely because they weren't just there to hold the pass itself but also to block the route to Phocis.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-08-2003, 21:19

Thought it was the Thespians, but not 100% sure.

And on recollection, the Myceneans sent a whopping 80 men.

Never underestimate the power of Mycene http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

redrooster

02-08-2003, 21:56

ceteris paribus
The hoplite phalanx. That is if they were able to hold their nerves and cohesion after the pilum volley, they would win the melee thereafter because i would imagine that they have a more solid and compact formation then that of legionaries.

Longshanks

02-08-2003, 21:59

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Feb. 08 2003,07:36)]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 hoplites were trained from childhood like the Spartans, I still think that all things being equal they are defeated by Rome.

The Gauls and Germans trained their warriors from childhood also, but that didn't stop them from getting their clocks cleaned in the vast majority of their battles against Rome.

The Japanese in in the first half of the 20th century had a warrior culture, given a military education from childhood, raised on the values of Bushido, and performing military training until adulthood. That didn't prevent them from getting beat by American infantry on most occaisions, even when they had numerical superiority.

In the long run, having better warriors isn't as important has having better organisation and tactics, which is where the Roman legions are superior to hoplites.

Red Peasant

02-08-2003, 22:10

Quote[/b] (redrooster @ Feb. 08 2003,19:56)]legionaires.
Why would they want to fight the French? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Rosacrux

02-08-2003, 22:41

Red Peasant - Catiline

I ain't touchy, it's just a thing I've studied way too long, and I get really upset when I read the most common misconceptions about the hoplite warfare reproduced over and over.

Linothorax was in use in some parts of Greece in the classical age, but it was only in the times of the Pelloponesian war the Greek hoplite abandoned completely the bronze armour, in exchange for the linothorax or - in many cases - no armour at all, thus making the phalanx much more mobile, even though now they depended only to their hoplon for defence.

Other than that... when you come to Athens, I'd be delighted to give you a detailed tour on the various findings about the hoplites and the classical era warfare in general.

As for Mycenean goes, there are many inscriptions talking about the warring equipment of the Myceneans. In some of those the words we meet in Homers work "fasganon" (a sort of sword) "sakkos" (an extremely large shield) and "aspis" (standard shield) have been identified (among many others) - I shall dig into my library to find the related article and post the official sources, to keep you guys happy.

Catiline

02-09-2003, 02:42

Risacrux - I'm sure I speak for myself aswell as RP is saying we're not having a go, just trying to establish the closest we can to historical truth. They did indeed by the time of the Peloponnesian war rely largely on what is now called the hoplon as defence.

rasoforos

02-09-2003, 06:39

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ Feb. 08 2003,11:21)]As for thermopylae that simply a demonstation of the importance of terrain. any ancient army would have had trouble taking that passs, be it manned by Spartans or not. THis isn't to be little their achievement in holding the pass that long against overwhelming numbers, but 300 Spartans aren't an army, they're a sacrifice.
In the beggining we talked about legionnaires at their peak and hoplites at their peak , thats why i used the spartans for my example.

The 300 spartans give us a good example of how strong the phallanx was in head to head combat ( something like our example) , in their case the head to head combat was enforced by the terrain as you say. I agree that any army would have trouble passing for A WHILE but the persians were practically sending a multitude of soldiers against it for hours and hours and it wouldnt break , even when the phallanx was surrounded and broken the hoplites fought for hours more and demonstrated suberb hand to hand combat abilities which shows they were not only 'phallanx line' trained afterall, to my oppinion this shows a) the superb stamina and abilities of the spartans b)that lighty armoured troops with swords would not easilly penetrate the spear lines ( as it was supported by some)

Quote[/b] ] Even if the hoplites were trained from childhood like the Spartans, I still think that all things being equal they are defeated by Rome.

The Gauls and Germans trained their warriors from childhood also, but that didn't stop them from getting their clocks cleaned in the vast majority of their battles against Rome.

In the long run, having better warriors isn't as important has having better organisation and tactics, which is where the Roman legions are superior to hoplites.

I do not consider drinking a lot and then charging almost naked against a legion as a trainning from childhood. We are comparring two tactical and organised systems. the gauls and germans do not fit the equation.

As to the 'better' organisation and tactics , where do you base that? Is there a better organised phallanx than the one that will not retreat and where the person next to you is like a brother to you? The roman legion never reached this level of organisation.

Longshanks

02-09-2003, 07:58

Quote[/b] ]I do not consider drinking a lot and then charging almost naked against a legion as a trainning from childhood. We are comparring two tactical and organised systems. the gauls and germans do not fit the equation.

The Gallic and Germanic warriors did train from childhood, and it did not just involve drinking beer before a battle. Unlike the average Greek(the Spartans weren't average) or Roman, Gallic and Germanic men were raised from birth also as warriors. That wasn't true for the more civilized Greeks and Romans.

I realize that we are comparing two different tactical and organizational systems, but it was you who stated that:

Most of you people underastimate the vast difference in trainning and ideals. A legionaire was not being trained from childhood

In response to that, I was pointing out that being trained from childhood was not being underestimated...as tactics and organization are much more important.

Quote[/b] ]As to the 'better' organisation and tactics , where do you base that? Is there a better organised phallanx than the one that will not retreat and where the person next to you is like a brother to you? The roman legion never reached this level of organisation.

I base that on the flexibility of the legion. A legion could be broken down into cohorts, centuries, and maniples which were capable of operating independantly from each other and the legion.The basic maneuver element for a phalanx was the phalanx. The basic maneuver element for the legion was the cohort. Also a phalanx was really only capable of attacking to its front, unlike the legion. The effectiveness of a phalanx was also somewhat limited on uneven ground, where it is harder to maintain formation and stay in alignment.

The rigidity of the phalanx meant that its commander was much more limited tactically than a commander who was in command of a legion. The commander of a legion could maneuver individual cohorts from the rear of a legion to attack the flanks or rear of a phalanx. If the commander of a legion managed to do this, the phalanx was doomed. A phalanx did not have this capability, and that is why I believe the Roman organization of their armies was superior.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-09-2003, 11:17

Although I wish the hoplites would win I fear that they would not.

If you read Thucydides' book, The History of the Peloponnesian War, you find me a record of an army matching that of 3 legions.

3 legions = roughly 18,000 men. This was common practice in a full Roman army. A Greek army consisted of the regular troops who always signed up for the army, and then extra citizen volunteers(Athens), or in the Spartan case, the regular army. By the end of the Pelop. War the Spartan army(hoplites) was roughly 700.

700 against 18,000...You do the math, and thats only 1 Roman Army.

Unless all the Greek states joined together under one ruler (Like Alexander) who fielded an army of roughly 35,000 at the beginning of his campaign East, they would have no chance against the Romans. Weight of numbers would finally prevail.

Yes the Spartans might never run away, but that would mean that they would die quicker because the Romans wouldn't have to chase them and kill them.

redrooster

02-09-2003, 11:33

Although more rigid, the phalanx isn't just a tight block of men, it could have been reorganised to face potential out-flanking manuevuers. For example it could set men on the flank bending backwards to deny enemy the flank and it could have a mobile reserve ready to plug any gap or delay a flanking force. While the center of the phalanx free from distraction would march on the center of the roman lines forcing a headon clash with the legions manuevuerbility possibly negated. The phalanx to help themselves in this clash could possibly be formed in the theban oblique order(Epaminondas) with one side of the formation double stacked and with the weaken side of the formation bending backwards to deny early battle and the strong side battering through the enemy front.
Well by now we have already added so many variables to a very much less then straight forward question. perhaps the starter of the thread could have added some controls to this question, but that would have made discussions very sterile. so.....

Rosacrux

02-09-2003, 11:34

I think you are underestimating the numbers of the armies the Greek city states could field.

After the peloponessian war ended, another war between Greek city-states (with the intervention of the almighty Persian empire too) was fought. In this war, the Spartans were able to field an army of roughly 15.000 Spartan hoplites (the largest in their history) and also another 18.000 Peloponessian allies. Plus they had manned a 80-trireme warfleet.

In the same timeframe Athens could field only 12.000-13.000 hoplites (the Peloponesian war and the limos had taken away a great deal of the Athenian manpower), while the allies of Athens altogether (Thebes included) could field about 25.000 hoplites.

There was one battle (can't remember the name right now... I'll have to look it up later) where the both sides fielded an all-hoplite army of 45.000. That battle was the hoplite clash with the greatest death toll, both in percentage of the involved and in numbers (circa 5.500 of the Thebes-Athens alliance and 3.500 of the Peloponessian, the impressive thing being that only 15 of the fallen were Spartans).

redrooster

02-09-2003, 11:55

Quote[/b] (Toda Nebuchadnezzar @ Feb. 09 2003,04:17)]Although I wish the hoplites would win I fear that they would not.

If you read Thucydides' book, The History of the Peloponnesian War, you find me a record of an army matching that of 3 legions.

3 legions = roughly 18,000 men. This was common practice in a full Roman army. A Greek army consisted of the regular troops who always signed up for the army, and then extra citizen volunteers(Athens), or in the Spartan case, the regular army. By the end of the Pelop. War the Spartan army(hoplites) was roughly 700.

700 against 18,000...You do the math, and thats only 1 Roman Army.

Unless all the Greek states joined together under one ruler (Like Alexander) who fielded an army of roughly 35,000 at the beginning of his campaign East, they would have no chance against the Romans. Weight of numbers would finally prevail.

Yes the Spartans might never run away, but that would mean that they would die quicker because the Romans wouldn't have to chase them and kill them.
I'm sorry, i thought we were comparing combat systems and not numbers. and if we bring up which side could field more men then Rome would overwhelm rocky little greece. IMO, before we actually compare, some assumptions must be made. e.g. Both sides have rough equal number of man, both side made up of your usual citzen soldiers( that means none spartan for the greeks and pre-marius for the romans), both side with same amount of training, meeting on a flat grass plain on a bright and sunny day. Then perhaps we can concentrate on the battle systems and visual;ize a clash between the two.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-09-2003, 14:10

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 09 2003,04:34)]I think you are underestimating the numbers of the armies the Greek city states could field.

After the peloponessian war ended, another war between Greek city-states (with the intervention of the almighty Persian empire too) was fought. In this war, the Spartans were able to field an army of roughly 15.000 Spartan hoplites (the largest in their history) and also another 18.000 Peloponessian allies. Plus they had manned a 80-trireme warfleet.
Its a nice thought but unfortunately that is wrong.

If the Spartans could field such an army, then they would not have sued for peace when only 150 of their hoplites were trapped on the small island of Sphacteria.

Tell me the name of the war/battle you seem to think occurred, and I can safely say that the army will not be made up of hoplites.

There will be roughly 700 Spartan hoplites, and a few from this list:
Cretan Archers
Light infantry from Arkadia
Allied hoplites
Cavalry
Perioikoi
helots

Not only did the Pelop. War cause the fall of Sparta, but it also removed almost all its main fighting force.

from 10,000 hoplites at its prime, to 700 at its decline, Sparta was a small but very effective fighting force.

If you read Thucydides, or find out about the Pelop War, you will hear about Sparta amassing a huge army every year at the Isthmus of Corinth. This was infact an army made up of all the allies who could make it there safely to help them.
------------------------------------------------------------
But anyway, back to the main subject, tell me if you mean a Spartan hoplite phalanx or a Theban hoplite phalanx. There are differences.

The Theban phalanx against a Roman Legion would have a far better chance because of its ability to smash through lines like a hammer breaking glass. The Theban phalanx had 50 rows where as the Spartan phalanx had 12 rows.

Just want to know which one you mean.

Stormer

02-09-2003, 15:33

hmm i tohught spartian warriors were the best as from birth all they new was fighting how could a civislation base don fighting lose http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

redrooster

02-09-2003, 16:02

Quote[/b] (Toda Nebuchadnezzar @ Feb. 09 2003,07:10)]------------------------------------------------------------
But anyway, back to the main subject, tell me if you mean a Spartan hoplite phalanx or a Theban hoplite phalanx. There are differences.

The Theban phalanx against a Roman Legion would have a far better chance because of its ability to smash through lines like a hammer breaking glass. The Theban phalanx had 50 rows where as the Spartan phalanx had 12 rows.

Just want to know which one you mean.
in essence there would be no difference between a regular theban hoplite(unless we are talking about the sacred band) as compared to that of any other city except for the fact that one side of the theban formation is especially deep(up to 50 rows as you mentioned) so as to hammer through the enemy while the other side would be formed as per usual of 8 to 12 rows and it would be bent backwards to delay contact with the enemy until the hammering (or perhaps a better word would be "scrum") on the other side is well on the way. And if i'm not wrong, the sacred band was to anchor the weaker flank while the heavier side is hammering their way thru and trying to turn the enemy.
anyway, adding Theban tactics and deployment to the equation would add flavour to the discussion but perhaps violate the assumption of ceteris paribus needed for a comparitive(and therefore boring) study.
so for a good comparision, we should face of a hoplite formation from a nameless city against a roman formation of no particular distinction. (the Goat just equalized&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Red Peasant

02-09-2003, 16:08

Quote[/b] (redrooster @ Feb. 09 2003,09:33)]Although more rigid, the phalanx isn't just a tight block of men, it could have been reorganised to face potential out-flanking manuevuers. For example it could set men on the flank bending backwards to deny enemy the flank and it could have a mobile reserve ready to plug any gap or delay a flanking force. While the center of the phalanx free from distraction would march on the center of the roman lines forcing a headon clash with the legions manuevuerbility possibly negated. The phalanx to help themselves in this clash could possibly be formed in the theban oblique order(Epaminondas) with one side of the formation double stacked and with the weaken side of the formation bending backwards to deny early battle and the strong side battering through the enemy front.
Well by now we have already added so many variables to a very much less then straight forward question. perhaps the starter of the thread could have added some controls to this question, but that would have made discussions very sterile. so.....
"Oi, you Roman chaps, stop fighting while we do some pretty phalanx manoeuvres" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I know you mention cavalry reserves and protection for the phalanx flanks, but, despite disparaging remarks about the abilities of later Hellenistic/Greek generals, they did use cavalry and phalanx flank guards against the Romans, with little success. The problem, IMO, is that the phalanx would necessarily have to halt to effect such manoeuvres and a loss of its momentum would be fatal against the Roman infantryman. A 23ft pole can't just be waved about with reckless abandon, and when you've got hundreds of them, well, formation manoeuvres would be a complex nightmare to accomplish....certainly not something to be recommended in the heat of battle I'd presume.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-09-2003, 16:20

This is true.Hhhmmm

Question: Would a phalanx's spear, go through a Roman enbossed shield at a full run? If so would it then squer(sp?) the Roman behind the shield going through his armour? Would it also go through him into the next rank of soldiers?

If not then they would do little damage. The first rank of hoplites would get stuck on the first rank of legionaries, who would die. Then they would have no spear to use against the next rank. They could use their swords yeah, true but previously I have seen people saying that their swords didn't even have a sharp edge. What the hell sorta use is that go be then??? Also they would take sever casualties from the legionaries throwing their pilums. If your telling me that a hoplite can hold a 23foot spear in one arm/hand and a shield in the other, and manage to fight effectively then I will believe you. But obviously they didnt, so here you are Mr. H.Oplite, running along with your best mate almost tripping over, trying to reach the enemy while trying to balance this flippin' long spear in both hands at a certain angle, and suddenly ol' reliable Mr. L.Egionary throws his short javelin looking thing straight at you. Well what you gonna do, drop your spear and try to catch the javelin? Trip yourself up and hope it hits that bastard behind you who beat you at cards the night before? Or hope to the Gods, you have the ability to make yourself invisible so the javelin passes straight through you?

A phalanx would have a b*tch of a time trying to fight against a Legion.

redrooster

02-09-2003, 16:30

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Feb. 09 2003,09:08)]"Oi, you Roman chaps, stop fighting while we do some pretty phalanx manoeuvres" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I know you mention cavalry reserves and protection for the phalanx flanks, but, despite disparaging remarks about the abilities of later Hellenistic/Greek generals, they did use cavalry and phalanx flank guards against the Romans, with little success. The problem, IMO, is that the phalanx would necessarily have to halt to effect such manoeuvres and a loss of its momentum would be fatal against the Roman infantryman. A 23ft pole can't just be waved about with reckless abandon, and when you've got hundreds of them, well, formation manoeuvres would be a complex nightmare to accomplish....certainly not something to be recommended in the heat of battle I'd presume.
denying the enemy your flank you would have to be properly deployed in the first place and avoid too much manuevuer So, no you do not have to parley with the romans for a timeout to move.
and since when did the 23ft pole come in, i thought we were talking about hellenic phalanxes and not the macedonian sarrisa phalanx.
and if complex manuevuers were not accomplished, i would had imagined Phillip having difficulties even getting out of macedonia.
And Toda, a phalangite did not hold his sarrissa with one arm but with both. His shield is hang on his arm or neck and it is not a greek hoplon but a smaller shield.

Red Peasant

02-09-2003, 16:40

Well, Toda, we're getting a tad OT with the old Legion vs Phalanx topic, mate. It is now being posited that maybe the Romans weren't up to fighting against city-state hoplites of the c.6th to 5th century period.

As for what you say, I can't recall any instance in the sources were they comment on any effectiveness of the Roman javelin/pilum on the phalanx (though I may be wrong here). The matter always seemed to be settled at close-quarters with the legionary cohorts initially being pushed back by the phalanx, sometimes for a considerable distance. Therefore, for the phalanx to maintain its effectiveness thus far it cannot have been too greatly discomfited by the missiles.

Red Peasant

02-09-2003, 17:09

Quote[/b] (redrooster @ Feb. 09 2003,14:30)]...and since when did the 23ft pole come in, i thought we were talking about hellenic phalanxes and not the macedonian sarrisa phalanx.
and if complex manuevuers were not accomplished, i would had imagined Phillip having difficulties even getting out of macedonia.
And Toda, a phalangite did not hold his sarrissa with one arm but with both. His shield is hang on his arm or neck and it is not a greek hoplon but a smaller shield.
Fair point, cross-purposes here on my part. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I think it is difficult to assess a meeting of hoplite and Roman legionary on the kind of tactical level you mention, because there ain't much evidence. The only possible examples would be:

1. almost totally undocumented i.e. the early conflicts that Rome would have fought against the communities of Magna Graecia in Italy (powerful and rich communities, many of them established since the mid to late 8th century BC). A struggle in which she emerged as the victor.

2. the 3rd to 1st century wars in mainland Greece against a series of enemies e.g. Aetolians, Achaeans, Spartans, Locrians, etc, many of whom never seemed to have adopted the Macedonian 'sarissa'. And the Roman legionary element of these armies were usually quite modest in size for these campaigns. How analogous were these Greeks to their 5th century forebears? It is difficult to tell, but they always lost.

The one thing that strikes me as analogous between the 'old' and the 'Macedonian' phalanxes was their dependence on momentum, they were effectively a big push to try and either push the enemy back so as to completely disorder it, or to punch through it as you describe with Epaminondas' Thebans. This was fine in theory, IMO, until they met the Roman legionary cohort whose tactical ethos wasn't necessarily wholly based on this 'scrum' mentality. (Though they could get a rush of blood to the head, as at Cannae http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ). I will make no more mention of cavalry and such because this is supposed to be purely about the relative effectiveness of the infantry against each other, so your mention of cavalry reserves and such for the hoplites would be a bit unfair on the Roman legionaries in this hypothetical context.

Of course, a lot depends on the commanding general, the morale, the terrain etc etc so it will always be a debatable point....but, as you can tell, I tend to the Romans all things being equal.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-09-2003, 17:15

I see your point RP. Perhaps I am going into irrespective details.

Naturally also, I am mixing Roman legions from the Republic, against hoplites from the 5th century B.C.

But to be honest if these two military units did clash (republic legion - 5th. cent. phalanx) the Legion would surely rip through the phalanx with the pilums as they came close enough. This leave massive gaps in the ranks that were only 8-12 deep. Surely they could then when the phalanx moved within range with its 23foot sarrissa? knock the weapon out of the way making it useless or cut the end of it off with their short swords?

It must have been pretty hard to weild a sarrissa that long effectively. Could the Roman not just grab onto the other end of it and cut the point off. This would then make the weapon useless?

Maybe I'm again going OT with this, but still you have to think about everything to get the final answer.

Red Peasant

02-09-2003, 17:52

I think you may disagree with me Toda, but I generally think that too much importance is attached to the Roman pilum as a battlefield winner. It was very useful in that it gave the Roman legion a short-range missile capability it could employ in lieu of any other: hence, another example of the overall flexibility of the legion. The Macedonians had come up against many more effective and supported missile troops than the Romans and had won, so I can't see the pilum as being a decisive factor.

In adapting to a formidable opposition like the Macedonian Phalanx the legionaries would not have been able to discharge their 'pilae' at the run, as 'seems' (Roman tactics are still hotly debated http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) to have been the usual practice. Hence, there was a reduction in effectiveness and the silence in the sources on their usage (though always remembering the old dictum: silence is not proof of absence) seems to support this.

I think, IMO, that in their first encounters with the phalanx the Romans had tried to resist it (possibly in Pyrrhus' campaigns) and they had suffered their only defeats, though inflicting heavy casualties on the Greeks. They learned that it was better to give ground and absorb the shock of the phalanx's initial momentum, to act as a kind of gradual brake, only IMO of course.

The 'traditional' hoplite was different in that he had a much shorter spear of some 8ft (though it could be up to 12ft) that was thrust overhead, over the shields of the enemy when hoplite formations clashed. There is no representation of it being wielded as a levelled weapon in Greek art (though this doesn't mean it didn't happen). The principal clash seems to have been the push of shield upon shield as the formations tried to shove each other back. As Rooster says in a previous post, the Thebans dispensed with this by loading up their formation to give it more weight and momentum and it helped that the Spartans disastrously thinned their ranks out....they could not absorb the shock. However, a Roman legion can.....give ground.

The advantage that a 5thc hoplite would have over a Macedonian phalangist against a Roman opponent is that at least he had a decent shield and armour as well as a sword, but they were primarily polearm troops, not swordsmen. A phalangist was no match for a legionary in CQB, however.

redrooster

02-09-2003, 18:05

Sorry, what i meant as mobile reserve was not mounted soldiers but mobile in the sense that they could move to support where needed, maybe i should have left the word "mobile" out.
Ok back to this "hypothetical" construct, IMO the pilum volley could be important(although the fact is prob only the first and at most the second line could offload their pila before the clash and the effect could be minimal against the amount of armour a hoplite could have on), casualties caused by the pilum would be minimal but the important point is that would it be able to slow the hoplite march and also break the hoplite formation and nerves. If not the deeply formed hoplite could possibly bowl over the looser legion formation and on the other hand, the legionaire could possibly break the hoplite line and would possess the advantage because without doubt the gladius would be a superior melee weapon compared to the hoplite's spear that is held overhead trying to thrust at the face and neck. And yes roman tactics are debated on multiple levels and the point i always wondered was that whether the roman would break thru and start stabbing ala "gladiator" or would they maintain their shield wall. Honestly, my head would say the legion would come out tops but my heart says it could very well go the other way easily and not be a forgone conclusion as so many would assume

And Toda, have you ever chopped anything with an axe. To chop down a tree with the girth of an average forearm would have taken sevaral minutes, further more you have to alternate the angle of your stroke to chip away the wood. So imagine rows of phalanx holding their sarissas steady as the legionaires held the other end and try to chop the spear point off with a short sword. And you don't think it is possible to hold a sarissa up long enough to be effective, the persian empire would beg to differ.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-09-2003, 18:06

I cede my points and agree with RP. I See The Light

I understand what your getting at now. Cheers mate. Cleared up my mind.

Red Peasant

02-09-2003, 18:45

Quote[/b] (Toda Nebuchadnezzar @ Feb. 09 2003,16:06)]I cede my points and agree with RP. I See The Light

I understand what your getting at now. Cheers mate. Cleared up my mind.
I'm not necessarily right mate (some will say I am wrong, and with strong arguments), it's a big area of debate in ancient history/military circles...and boy, can those professors bitch and fight over stuff like this This forum is the height of formality and civility in comparison.

I'm glad that I'm still just another undergrad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Red Peasant

02-09-2003, 19:05

Quote[/b] (redrooster @ Feb. 09 2003,16:05)]And yes roman tactics are debated on multiple levels and the point i always wondered was that whether the roman would break thru and start stabbing ala "gladiator" or would they maintain their shield wall.
Polybius gives a very detailed desription of how a legionary normally functioned in a unit, and it is the looser formation that he describes, one that gives enough space to wield a sword and shield effectively.

However, I think, IMO, that the Romans could pack-up behind a shieldwall as the need arose....as it did, especially against cavalry. It would not have taken much thought to adapt to circumstances, and in some cases it would have been a natural reaction, especially when they're equipped with nice big body-shields. In fact, if you consider it, it must have taken some training at least to get the legionaries not to pack-up close as an instincive reaction to battlefield conditions.

Longshanks

02-09-2003, 22:19

Has anyone here read the accounts of the battle of Cynoscephalae? It desribes how Flaminus while engaging a phalanx to the front, led 20 maniples of triarii from his legion over a hillside, around the Macedonian flank and attacked them from the rear.

It highlighted the weakness of the phalanx. It simply did not have the flexibility to react to what the Romans were doing.

Granted, it was a Macedonian phalanx. But IMO a Macedonian phalanx was better suited for facing a legion than the older, hellenic style phalanx. The older phalanx style was no more maneuverable or flexible than a Macedonian phalanx, and it had shorter spears. At least the Macedonian phalanx was better suited for keeping the Romans at bay from the front. The last thing you'd want is for the Romans to get in close for sword work.

Hakonarson

02-10-2003, 00:05

Legionnares vs Hoplites?? Legionnares of course - their firearms wil always win the day - and I hear they even have tanks now - machineguns would rip the hoplites to bits from 100m or more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Legionaries, on the other hand, would ahve to fight.

But they would probabl ywin - they did historically after all.

the Roman republic evolved from a kingdom, and their army was iniitialy hoplite based.

They adopted the Pilum from Etruscan influences - the Etruscans were also hoplite based but invented the Pilum as a partial replacement.

Most other Italian foes were more javelin-tribesmen types rather than hoplites, but Carthaginian Mercenary infantry were vaguely hoplite-ish, and Syracusan armies weer hoplite based too - all were of course ultimately defeated by the Romans.

there's some things about hoplites that seem to have gotten lost in teh discussion too - while hoplites fought in phalanxes, not all phalanxes included hoplites - specifically the Macedonian phalanxes at Cynocephalae and Pydna, the Seleucid ones at Magnesia, and the Pontic ones beated by Sulla consisted of men armed with pikes and equipped with relatively small shields - these men aer often called phalangites.

They weer NOT hoplites in any way shape or form and teh discussion shuoldn't be including them - there are other threads for that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Another point - by the time most Legionnaries weer equipped with Pila they also had iron armour and swrods - on a purely technical level this would give them a significant advantage over bronze or linen armoured, or even unarmoured, Hoplites.

BlackWatch McKenna

02-10-2003, 00:55

"harumph" to Hark.

I think the tech and tactical developments would be just too much: 400 years of tech advance is a high hurdle, indeed.

However, an interesting battle would be the early early Republican Romans vs. a contemporary Selucid Army.

~Army Frontage: about equal
~Cavalry: Selucid
~Up Front Hitting Power: Selucid
~Resiliance: Romans

That would be a good one.

~BW

P.S. The scythe chariots and elephants below would be seen in your local neighborhood Selucid Army

Longshanks

02-10-2003, 06:58

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 09 2003,17:05)]there's some things about hoplites that seem to have gotten lost in teh discussion too - while hoplites fought in phalanxes, not all phalanxes included hoplites - specifically the Macedonian phalanxes at Cynocephalae and Pydna, the Seleucid ones at Magnesia, and the Pontic ones beated by Sulla consisted of men armed with pikes and equipped with relatively small shields - these men aer often called phalangites.

They weer NOT hoplites in any way shape or form and teh discussion shuoldn't be including them - there are other threads for that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Was a phalanx that was filled with hoplites anymore flexible than one that is filled with phalangites?

No. A phalanx was still a phalanx and it still had the same tactical limitations.

I believe it is relevant for that reason.

Red Peasant

02-10-2003, 17:05

Quote[/b] (BlackWatch McKenna @ Feb. 09 2003,22:55)]P.S. The scythe chariots and elephants below would be seen in your local neighborhood Selucid Army
The strange thing is, is that it's difficult to 'pigeon-hole' these things e.g. I think it was at Cynoscephelae that it was the Romans who used elephants. Their main use seems to have been in the rout as Macedonians tried to escape via the beaches, only to be driven ashore by the Roman allied ships and then crushed on the sands by the war elepants. Not nice.

Hakonarson

02-12-2003, 00:07

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 09 2003,23:58)]Was a phalanx that was filled with hoplites anymore flexible than one that is filled with phalangites?

No. A phalanx was still a phalanx and it still had the same tactical limitations.

I believe it is relevant for that reason.
In that case an infantryman is an infantry man and whether you call his formation a phalanx or a sheild wall you might's well include them all in the discussion too.

So let's compare Athenian Hoplite Phalanxe's to Anglo-Saxon huscarl shield walls while we're at it

The people fighting in and agaisnt the troops at the time thought they weer different, and they actually knew moer about it than we do now

So I think it's only reasonable to note the differences and realise that the differences the ancients noted weer probably rather important

Any close order infantry foramtion resembles any otehr one - you might's well say a legion formed into a phalanx, while Greek hoplites were effectively formed as maniples side by side - the effect is the same

Appart from such pointless similarities there were major equipment differencs between hoplites and phalangites that made them rather different in how they operated and their apparent effectiveness on the battlefield.

Also organisationally and tactically - "Macedonian" phalanxes (ie those of pikemen) were organised into tactical units that could operate and manouvre on their own on a battlefield. Unlike hoplite phalanxes Macedonian ones could and did do things like split in half (front and rear), regularly operate in formations other than straight lines (refused flanks, crescents), double their frontage (ie have the rear half move into the gaps betwen files in the front half) - manouvres very few Hoplite phalanxes were capable of.

Many generals didn't use them in this manner of course, but that's not the fault of the phalanx itself

So no they were NOT the same, and so I believe your point to be irrelevant.

Rosacrux

02-12-2003, 08:56

Very good call Hakonarson. And I think one cannot emphasize enough that it was of the outmost importance who commanded the phalanx ("macedonian" phalanx) and with what sort of troops it was cooperating.

Once more: Unlike legion (where the generic run-of-the-mill legionary was the king of the day) the phalanx was not just the wall of pikes. It was also the heavy cavalry (the "hammer to the phalanxes anvil" as someone here has, very succesfuly, described it) the light cavalry, medium infantry (in the case of Alexander's force, we don't know excactly what their armament and role in battle was), the light infantry (skirmishers, archers, slingers, javelinmen etc.) the methods to combine all of those troops etc. etc.

Alexander marched eastwards with 30.000+ men. Of those, only 12.000 where pezeteri (foot companions) - phalangites in other words. Roughly 1/3 of the Greek army was phalanx.

Longshanks

02-12-2003, 09:13

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 11 2003,17:07)]
Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 09 2003,23:58)]Was a phalanx that was filled with hoplites anymore flexible than one that is filled with phalangites?

No. A phalanx was still a phalanx and it still had the same tactical limitations.

I believe it is relevant for that reason.
In that case an infantryman is an infantry man and whether you call his formation a phalanx or a sheild wall you might's well include them all in the discussion too.

So let's compare Athenian Hoplite Phalanxe's to Anglo-Saxon huscarl shield walls while we're at it

The people fighting in and agaisnt the troops at the time thought they weer different, and they actually knew moer about it than we do now

So I think it's only reasonable to note the differences and realise that the differences the ancients noted weer probably rather important

Any close order infantry foramtion resembles any otehr one - you might's well say a legion formed into a phalanx, while Greek hoplites were effectively formed as maniples side by side - the effect is the same

Appart from such pointless similarities there were major equipment differencs between hoplites and phalangites that made them rather different in how they operated and their apparent effectiveness on the battlefield.

Also organisationally and tactically - "Macedonian" phalanxes (ie those of pikemen) were organised into tactical units that could operate and manouvre on their own on a battlefield. Unlike hoplite phalanxes Macedonian ones could and did do things like split in half (front and rear), regularly operate in formations other than straight lines (refused flanks, crescents), double their frontage (ie have the rear half move into the gaps betwen files in the front half) - manouvres very few Hoplite phalanxes were capable of.

Many generals didn't use them in this manner of course, but that's not the fault of the phalanx itself

So no they were NOT the same, and so I believe your point to be irrelevant.
You missed the point Hakonarson. A legionary is ultimately superior to a hoplite because of the superiority of the legion. It was more flexible amd maneuvreable than a phalanx.

Whether its a hoplite phalanx or a phalangite phalanx, its still cannot match the flexibility of the legion. Equipment differences weren't going to make up for that glaring weakness, in fact..they didn't.

Red Peasant

02-12-2003, 15:01

What I find amusing is that people keep making up special tactics, adaptations, and variations on the basic hoplite phalanx (or Macedonian phalanx) in order to counter the Roman legion. This is tantamount to admitting that the legionary organisation and tactics are superior in the first place, otherwise why bother to waste ingenuity on such exercises? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Sainika

02-12-2003, 16:07

There is no clear answer whether legionnares or hoplites win. When Rome invaded Macedonian lands in first battles greek army won easily. Legionnares couldn't stand up against phalanx. But then in CynosCephalos (I don't remember the right name of that place) roman legions had beated phalanx. The key to win with phalanx was plain terrain with no hills, because phalanx order did not break, and frontal attack is unbreakable. Romans at Cynos... used crossed terrain and managed to break phalanx order. Once it was breaken the defeat was inevitable. Greek hoplite with a very long spear was an easy target for roman legionnaire...That happened to greeks at Cynos...After that the mighty of greek phalanx dissapeared and Macedonia was conquered by Romans.
Greek tactics using phalanx had a lot of advantages, but only on plain terrain. Romans used wisely this disadvantage of greek phalanx and won at the end.

Red Peasant

02-12-2003, 16:16

Quote[/b] (Sainika @ Feb. 12 2003,14:07)]There is no clear answer whether legionnares or hoplites win. When Rome invaded Macedonian lands in first battles greek army won easily. Legionnares couldn't stand up against phalanx. But then in CynosCephalos (I don't remember the right name of that place) roman legions had beated phalanx. The key to win with phalanx was plain terrain with no hills, because phalanx order did not break, and frontal attack is unbreakable. Romans at Cynos... used crossed terrain and managed to break phalanx order. Once it was breaken the defeat was inevitable. Greek hoplite with a very long spear was an easy target for roman legionnaire...That happened to greeks at Cynos...After that the mighty of greek phalanx dissapeared and Macedonia was conquered by Romans.
Greek tactics using phalanx had a lot of advantages, but only on plain terrain. Romans used wisely this disadvantage of greek phalanx and won at the end.
At the risk of repeating myself, a smaller Roman army defeated veteran phalanxes at Magnesia (who were supported by more and better cavalry) in c.190. Antiochus the Great levelled and prepared the ground especially to facilitate the phalanx. The Romans defeated them on varying types of terrain.

Hakonarson

02-13-2003, 02:56

You folks do realise that contemporary authors refered to Greek cavalry as operating in a phalanx too don't you?

the use of the term phalanx to denote a troop type is misleading - all troops except skirmishers operated in a phanx - the term jsut meant "solid" or "strong" or something similar.

that said -

Quote ]You missed the point Hakonarson. A legionary is ultimately superior to a hoplite because of the superiority of the legion. It was more flexible amd maneuvreable than a phalanx.

Whether its a hoplite phalanx or a phalangite phalanx, its still cannot match the flexibility of the legion. Equipment differences weren't going to make up for that glaring weakness, in fact..they didn't.

[/b]

Huh?

I can point you to several battles where Hoplite phalanxes changed front to hit the flank of an enemy in exactly the same fashion as part of a legio did at Chaerona. (eg Mantinea)

Appart from Chaerona and Zama there are precious few examples of legions actually doing anything in a battle except lining up opposite the other guy and pressing forward - exactly as most phalanxes did - whether hoplite, phalangite or anything else

For example there's no evidence of any legion having ever used rank replacement in a battle - at Zama Scipio (a noted great general ) specifically did not use his 2nd line to replace his first - instead his tired 1st line contracted and the 2nd line formed on it's flanks - something that Hoplite didn't do for sure, because the standard Hoplite formation was a single line.

There are numerous references to phalanxes making major manouvres in battle - Hannibal's African Mercenaries striking the flanks of the Legions (where was the tactical flexibility there??) at Cannae is a famous example.

It was commanders that made manouvres - not troops. A legion with an incompetant commander was a phalanx incapable of manouvre, while Phalanxes under Alexander the Great could manouvre like British Foot Guards trooping the colours

Quote ]At the risk of repeating myself, a smaller Roman army defeated veteran phalanxes at Magnesia (who were supported by more and better cavalry) in c.190. Antiochus the Great levelled and prepared the ground especially to facilitate the phalanx. The Romans defeated them on varying types of terrain.
[/b]

The Roman Right wing (of Greek troops under a Greek General&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif defeated the troops opposite it by driving back the scythed chariots and camelry there and attacking the cavalry behind them while they were disordered.

These Greek troops may actually have included a force of Achiain Phalangites (ie a phalanx&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif according to some stuff I've read in the last few days on a couple of ancient military history mailing lists.

with this flank guard defeated Greek skirmishers swarmed all over the flanks of the phalanx while the elephants posted in the middle of the Seleucid phalanx were panicked by showers of missile from Roman light troops.

The panicking elephants completely screwed any chance the Phalanx had of fighting any sort of dedent battle.

No-one knows why antiochus (the Seleucid King) set up his elephants as he did - he doubled the depth of his pahalnx to 32 men (usually 16) and put elephants in the gaps - it was the only time anythign like it had ever been done and was against any and all tactical principles of the time.

In this case it was stil the commanders that weer important - Antiochus for stupidity in his setup, and Eumenes for tactical excellence.

Red Peasant

02-13-2003, 16:25

You miss the point Hako, the Greeks/Hellenes had to adapt special tactics to try and protect the phalanx from the legion....an admission of basic inferiority as infantry. Seems pretty clear to me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Hakonarson

02-14-2003, 00:29

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Feb. 13 2003,09:25)]You miss the point Hako, the Greeks/Hellenes had to adapt special tactics to try and protect the phalanx from the legion....an admission of basic inferiority as infantry. Seems pretty clear to me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
What special tactics were those?

AxelThorn

02-20-2003, 16:24

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Feb. 07 2003,06:02)]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.
Legionaires had better weapons, better tactics, and, a legion had archers, cavalry, spearmen, also catapults. The core of the legion consisted of a goup of hardened men, that were using javelins as the first wave, and then come in hand to hand combat.

Even if you think of the Hoplites as the guys that hold Xerses, think also this. They wear heavy armour, around 35kg, and the persan infantry only cloath and leather. If you want to know, the hoplites could have been beaten without such a great amount of loses by the persans, if the Imortals would have stayed in their horses and poured arrows on them. Only thing that made this posible was his need of reaching Athens before baricades beeing raised in the city.

PS: I have voted with the legionnares, because they have beaten the dacs after two bloady wars. And the dacs were a hard clash to chose.

AxelThorn

02-20-2003, 16:28

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Feb. 09 2003,12:09)]
Quote[/b] (redrooster @ Feb. 09 2003,14:30)]...and since when did the 23ft pole come in, i thought we were talking about hellenic phalanxes and not the macedonian sarrisa phalanx.
and if complex manuevuers were not accomplished, i would had imagined Phillip having difficulties even getting out of macedonia.
And Toda, a phalangite did not hold his sarrissa with one arm but with both. His shield is hang on his arm or neck and it is not a greek hoplon but a smaller shield.
Fair point, cross-purposes here on my part. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I think it is difficult to assess a meeting of hoplite and Roman legionary on the kind of tactical level you mention, because there ain't much evidence. The only possible examples would be:

1. almost totally undocumented i.e. the early conflicts that Rome would have fought against the communities of Magna Graecia in Italy (powerful and rich communities, many of them established since the mid to late 8th century BC). A struggle in which she emerged as the victor.

2. the 3rd to 1st century wars in mainland Greece against a series of enemies e.g. Aetolians, Achaeans, Spartans, Locrians, etc, many of whom never seemed to have adopted the Macedonian 'sarissa'. And the Roman legionary element of these armies were usually quite modest in size for these campaigns. How analogous were these Greeks to their 5th century forebears? It is difficult to tell, but they always lost.

The one thing that strikes me as analogous between the 'old' and the 'Macedonian' phalanxes was their dependence on momentum, they were effectively a big push to try and either push the enemy back so as to completely disorder it, or to punch through it as you describe with Epaminondas' Thebans. This was fine in theory, IMO, until they met the Roman legionary cohort whose tactical ethos wasn't necessarily wholly based on this 'scrum' mentality. (Though they could get a rush of blood to the head, as at Cannae http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ). I will make no more mention of cavalry and such because this is supposed to be purely about the relative effectiveness of the infantry against each other, so your mention of cavalry reserves and such for the hoplites would be a bit unfair on the Roman legionaries in this hypothetical context.

Of course, a lot depends on the commanding general, the morale, the terrain etc etc so it will always be a debatable point....but, as you can tell, I tend to the Romans all things being equal.
You should say tha Epaminonda won because he had swithced the way an army alinied for battle. See Pierre Vidal-Naquet in "Black Hunter". It is also moast relevant for this topic, because it present the hoplites in their power and decay.

Hakonarson

02-20-2003, 22:47

Quote[/b] (AxelThorn @ Feb. 20 2003,09:24)]Legionaires had better weapons, better tactics, and, a legion had archers, cavalry, spearmen, also catapults. The core of the legion consisted of a goup of hardened men, that were using javelins as the first wave, and then come in hand to hand combat.

Even if you think of the Hoplites as the guys that hold Xerses, think also this. They wear heavy armour, around 35kg, and the persan infantry only cloath and leather. If you want to know, the hoplites could have been beaten without such a great amount of loses by the persans, if the Imortals would have stayed in their horses and poured arrows on them. Only thing that made this posible was his need of reaching Athens before baricades beeing raised in the city.

PS: I have voted with the legionnares, because they have beaten the dacs after two bloady wars. And the dacs were a hard clash to chose.
Legions did not include archers until quite late in the scheme of things - some tiem after 200AD, nor did they include artillery until approximately 0AD.

the presence of cavalry is irrelevant, because the question is for HOPLITES vs Legionaries, not for a phalanx vs a legion.

Hoplite armour weiged maybe 35 lbs - 15 kg, not 35 kg, and Persian Immortals weer NOT horse archers so there was no question of them "staying on their horses" They were infantry and stood little or no chance in hand-to-hand with hoplites becase:

1/ they fought in close ranks so could not run away/skirmish, and
2/ only 1 man in 10 seesm to have carried a spear and shield - ie the front rank did - while hte remainder were archers who shot from behind the cover of the front rank. the Persians called this system "sparabara"

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Feb. 07 2003,06:02)]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.

Many Greeks fought in hoplite phalanxes well into the 3rd century BC.

However teh "standard" troop type for Greece seems to have become the Thureophoroi - exactly how these chaps fought is a point of argument still. They appear to have been more flexible than traditional hoplites, and they carrid the Thureos - a long shield apparently modelled on the Gallic shield, no armour and a long spear. A sub-set of armoured thureophoroi were known as Thorakitai - they seem to have worn mail armour after contact with Rome began (mail being introduced to Greece from such contact).

My personal belief is that the Thureophoroi/Thorakitai were basically cheap hoplites fighting in close order, but they were better equipped to also operate in more difficult terrain than hoplites - their shield was handier, their equipment lighter.

Somewhere I have dates for when the major states "officially" changed their troop types.

Sparta retained hoplites and went directly from them to pikemen about 225 BC, most other states adopted increasing numbers of Thureophoroi through the 200's, then adopted pikement some time about the same as the Spartans, plus or minus a decade or 2.

Hakonarson

02-21-2003, 04:38

Something I forgot to mention of course was that the core of the legions were NOT "hardened" men.

the legions were recruited annually and often consisted of extremely inexperienced men. It wasn't until the 2nd Punic War that they started to stay under arms for years at a time, and it wasn't until much later (Marius's time circa 105 BC??) that they actually became fully professional.

Hoplites typically served under very similar conditions - being called to arms annually, and normally returning home at the end of the campaigning season. Mercenaries became an exception to this - they were often paid off over winter but would be available again the next year whereas a citizen hoplite might only actually serve once every few years unless a major war was occuring - this was essentially the same pattern of service that a Roman or Latin could expect.

Stefan the Berserker

03-05-2003, 12:04

Legionaires would win, because they have diffrent Troop types and more formation possebilities.

Hopiltes -> Phalanx of Spearmen.

Legions -> Variable Formations of Spearmen, Spearchuckers and Swordsmen.

The greatest advance was the Roman way of Conscription. They could rise Armies with impressive size

Hakonarson

03-06-2003, 03:35

Oh good grief - that's like sayign hte English will always defeat the French because the French are all knights and hte English have all sorts of things like longbows and vickers Machineguns.......well it covers a 500 yr period for the English in much the same way that you've covered a 500 yr period for the Romans

The Question was not about formations - it was about troops - as few as 1 of each.

Like everything else in history these troops came in all sorts of shapes and sizes - in the Punic wars there were even two LEGIONS formed from criminal and equiped with GALLIC arms and armour captured at Telamon in 225BC - how would THEY fare against SPARTAN Hoplites?

the ex-slaves were every bit as much legionaries as anynoe else ever was.......and very comparable to say the Helots equipped as Hoplites by the Spartans on a number of occasions.

redrooster

03-06-2003, 07:29

if they fought each other often enough the constant loser will eventually adapt and beat the other. no tactic combat system is invulnerable to obselence.

Papewaio

03-06-2003, 13:42

Just review history and take a look at the maps of who conqured who, then also note how long it took the spartans to be conqured and note if it was because of military or economic problems.

Rosacrux

03-06-2003, 15:47

Hmm... the Romans didn't quite "conquered" Greece, we Greeks did all the dirty work for them... We managed to cripple any chance we had, fighting with eachother, until the bitter end.

Greece was mostly subordinated with political means. The Romans played the old "divide and rule" game very effectively with the Greeks, throwing the Aetolian Greeks against the Macedonian Greeks, the Achaean Greeks againsta the Aetolian Greeks, the Macedonian Greeks against everybody else and so on...

When things came down to who shall rule the place, half Greece has already submitted and the rest had only a handfull of troops and they were fighting eachother.

So, this had nothing to do with the "superior" military system, but with the much more effective political-social system of Rome. And the superior Roman knowledge - after centuries of offensive warfare - on how to handle foreign affairs and how to play the imperialistic game right.

Longshanks

03-09-2003, 07:55

I still think Greece would have fell even if they were united, same as the Gauls, Britons, Dacians ect.

The Roman military was the undisputed heayweight champ of the day. At its height it pound for pound noone was a match. I don't think any of the above peoples ultimately stand a chance without also having military reform.

Leet Eriksson

03-09-2003, 17:03

At last i found the lost thread i have been searching for

anyways,the romans would win eventually.their tactics involved slinging their pilum at the enemy when they were within 20 yards of them,and then engage them hand to hand with their swords(the gladius).they are disiciplined and tuanting them never worked,hmmm speaking of taunting nice idea,gotta post it on the coloseum http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson

04-03-2003, 04:47

Early Romans WERE hoplites - and Greek tactics under good commanders weer jsut as flexible as the vaunted legion - indeed there are examples of hopliet and pike phalanxes wheeling onto the flanks of enemy during and before battle.

Hakonarson

04-03-2003, 04:49

Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Mar. 06 2003,06:42)]Just review history and take a look at the maps of who conqured who, then also note how long it took the spartans to be conqured and note if it was because of military or economic problems.
It was because of Social problems - not military or political - although if yuo can't imagine anything other than those two then let's call it political.

Spartan society produced an ever decreasing number of the highest ruling class - it was easy to get chucked out of, but almost impossible to get back into.

kataphraktoi

04-03-2003, 06:02

What Hoplites and Legionaires u guys talkin bout?

What period???

Trajanic legionaires and Hellenic hoplites (Alexander the Great)?

Who was more likely to adapt tactics according to terrain circumstance?

Who had better training, a full time professional training?

Quality of commanders?

Better equipment and morale?

Acronym

04-04-2003, 10:00

On a note about romans using their swords to chop the tips of spears, I thought the gladius was a stabbing weapon, with a blunt edge, the tip being sharp. Imaging having to fight your way through 5 rows of spears, then you have the chance to kill a greek, but also have to avoid 5 or so spears jabbing at you. And most battles were fought on somewhat flat terrain(greek generals made sure of this).

I think romans really relied on the hellenistic's poor use of the phalanx(spears too long and used as a battering ram), because if used right, they were extremely effective at holding an enemy at bay.

lonewolf371

04-10-2003, 06:08

Legonnairies all the way. There is actually a large instance of a Republican Roman legion going up against a phalanx (not Greek, mind you, it was Helvitii). The Romans simply tossed a bunch of pilums into the phalanx. The pilum was made so that part of it was weak and bent on impact, making it difficult to pull out in a time of peace and impossible in the heat of battle. The entire phalanx simply broke up and then the Romans drew their short swords and force the phalanx into surrender. A similar instance would have happened with the Greeks. The Roman army was lead by Julius Caesar, although it had adopted the late-Republican Age formation of the Cohort.

I don't care what you say, carrying a 3 foot diameter piece of bronze is impossible. It's like carrying a chair on your arm, you could not keep it in an up-held position for long. Generally, shields of the era, especially the Romans, were made predominately of wood with a solid little ball-type thing of metal in the center, along with a solid metal coating around the edge to hold the wood together.

Possibly the main point of interest is the flexibility of the basic formations. The Roman Manipular legions relied on flexibility in a three-line formation consisting of a base unit of 4,500 (3,000 heavy infantry, 300 cavalry) soldiers. The three lines were seperated into different maniples (10 maniples per line). Each maniple was 40 men wide and 3 men deep, consisting of 2 centuries (centuries were 60 men each). However the last line of the heaviest spearmen (triarii) were only 60 men each, 10 wide and 6 deep. With a line of velites, or skirmishers in front to withdraw later. From here on, the legion was based on experience. The newest soldiers, or Hastati, were the front line and first closed in throwing pilums before engaging. The second line, or princepes, threw their own pilum over the Hastati and closed any gaps, much like a checkerboard. The heavy triarii acted as a reserve force of opportunity. In a similar manner it could be withdrawn, with each succeeding line covering the retreat of the other. 150 cavalry were deployed on each side of the legion to protect from that which devasted the phalanx so easily: a flank attack. The maniple was designed for flexibility, whilst the phalanx was designed for raw power all directed towards the front. In this fashion a phalanx could be routed easier as it was much more vulnerable to flank attacks and gaps, which a maniple was perfect to exploit. Romans all the way.

Galestrum

04-10-2003, 12:55

history says the legion

lonewolf371

04-10-2003, 22:36

Well, history doesn't exaclty prove that the legion would have won, only that the leaders of it did. Greece was taken either by diplomacy or there are no major battles that I know of that took place there.

cugel

04-11-2003, 00:11

"As for what you say, I can't recall any instance in the sources were they comment on any effectiveness of the Roman javelin/pilum on the phalanx (though I may be wrong here). The matter always seemed to be settled at close-quarters with the legionary cohorts initially being pushed back by the phalanx, sometimes for a considerable distance. Therefore, for the phalanx to maintain its effectiveness thus far it cannot have been too greatly discomfited by the missiles."

The thing you're ignoring is that there's more than 1 cohort The phalanx can only face in one direction. You can read Hans Delbruck Warfare in Antiquity among other sources about the reason for the effectiveness of the Phalanx (the main one is the forward pressure from the deep structure of the rows). That's why they press forward. All things being equal, when two lines meet, the side with the deeper structure will push back the other. But in our case, this leaves the other Roman cohorts free to manuever to the sides of the Phalanx. Refusing the flank can only be done so far, without sacrificing the impetus of the phalanx, which is it's main strength.

For this reason, while the cohort directly facing the phalanx might be pushed back for quite a ways, the Legion will easily win the battle by flanking the Phalanx. (We're assuming that each side has equal numbers). The Legion simply has more maneuver elements. The Hoplites can't easily respond to a threat to their flank or rear without breaking their formation and if broken they would have no chance at all (against the short swords of the Romans in hand to hand combat).

Hakonarson

04-11-2003, 04:22

the Gladius is apparently very nicely balanced for slashing/cutting as well as stabbing.

the smallest unit of the classical Macedonian phalanx was 256 men - 16 files x 16 ranks - it was every boit as manouvreable as a maniple.

Hoplite phalanxes were generally not organised into sub-units at all apaprt from the different contingents provided by seperate cities, but even then there are numerous examples of them wheeling onto the exposed flanks of enemy in a deliberate fashion.

The advantage that the 3-line formation of the legion had was in providing extra sub-units in reserve.

At Cynocephalae for example an unknown Roman Tribune wheeled 20 maniples out of the rear line to attack the Macedonians in the rear. Of course the Romans were jsut as exposed to being hit in the rear themselves, but the Macedonians had no spar esub-units to be able to do it.

but that says abosolutely nothing about the qualities of the troops - just the formations they fought in.

Of course when the hoplite phalanx was at its height the Roman legion was nothing much more than a hoplite phalanx that fouoght in a single line too........

There is an account of Pila agaisnt Macedonian pahalnxes somewhere - it might be Livy writing about Pydna - IIRC he says hte Macedonian shields were so closely locked that they made no impression whatsoever.

Galestrum

04-11-2003, 05:12

Quote[/b] ]Well, history doesn't exaclty prove that the legion would have won, only that the leaders of it did. Greece was taken either by diplomacy or there are no major battles that I know of that took place there.

Battles of Pydna & Cynoscephalae were both battles won by Roman Legions over the Phalanx which lead to Greece coming under roman authority.

Another note, Rome was not averse at all to accepting new or different forms of anything into their culture, if they found something useful they made it roman, in fact romes armies were phalanxes early on.

If Rome thought the phalanx was better, they would have used it - they were not afraid of new, or in the case of the phalanx old ideas which they had used.

lonewolf371

04-11-2003, 05:26

Well, the formation is the main thing in question. Both units were almost equally armed, with the Legionairries slightly lighter armed, although there was almost no difference between the triarii and the Greek phalanxes save that they used different shields. A Roman Maniple was much more manovourable than a phalanx, even one as small as you described. Each Roman soldier had a square yard to stand on and another square yard between him and the soldier next to him, so the Maniple could easily move around obsticles. Something as simple as a tree or large rock could easily mess up an entire phalanx, it barely did anything to a maniple. The phalanx relied upon protection by interlocking shields, so if they were broken apart or the shields were removed from the equation the phalanx was practically doomed. A pilum if thrown well enough could penetrate the thin coating of bronze on an aspis and then have its shaft bent, making the shield unusable. It could even sometimes penetrate through two shields, at which point the two soldiers having their shields stuck together would both have to abandon them. Unfortunately, the phalanx could not utilize this manouver as their spears were their main weapon, and chucking it away in favor of a badly designed short-sword was folly. The side-arms the Greeks used were only for use in case of emergancy, aka should the Hoplite lose his spear he would have to draw his sword. The gladius was brilliantly designed, especially for close-combat with shields, as it was short and thus not bulky, allowing for easy stabbing manouvers. One using a larger sword would not only have a harder time using his shield but also would find it less effective in a close-knit melee, where getting a good slash through all the nearby soldiers and shields was extremely difficult. There was a pretty good damn reason why the Romans developed the manipular legion and stopped using the phalanx legion. All of a phalanx's power was directed right in front of it, whereas with a maniple it could be directed where-ever the general pleased. I believe that the Manipular legion was in use during the conquering of Greece, before the Cohortal legion. Please don't mistake formations with the different time periods. I used Cohortal legion in the example with Caesar because by that time it had been developed, but Greece was already conquered.

lonewolf371

04-11-2003, 05:28

Part of the phalanx was retained in the Manipular triarii, however when the Cohort evolved the entire army was based on simple Legionairries, although the Cohortal Legion was much more subject to change than a Manipular Legion.

Galestrum

04-11-2003, 05:36

Im just stating the facts that we know and i was answering your question about when and where a legion defeated a phalanx.

When people start making comparisons about who would win IF such and such etc, it merely becomes a pointless exercise in opinion.

lonewolf371

04-11-2003, 22:34

I'm both trying to throw some criticism at the idea that the legion would automatically beat the phalanx yet support the legion at the same time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Point taken, legion wins. A formation that can't efficiently march around a tree has got to lose.

kataphraktoi

04-16-2003, 17:51

Facts are facts Roman did conquer Greece, even if the Greeks did the dirty work, the ROmans still conquered them in their internal spoofery. Unlike Pergamum Greece did put up resistance got beaten and had no option but to accept ROman supervision. Note the word supervision, it was onyl when the Greeks decided to shoot their foot again while under Roman supervision the ROmans decided to put an end to the fighting by ruling Greece directly as a province.

Argue all you want Greece was conquered eventually and in all finality.

If Greece wasn;t conquered how the hell did it come under direct Roman rule. It was a matter of realising superior Roman military force and facing the fact that Cynosophalae saw the end of Phalanx dominance.

ANy tried to throw a pilum yet???

Does it hurt?

Hakonarson

04-23-2003, 01:54

Facts are that the conquest of Greece had nothign at all to do with phalanxes, let alone Hoplites.

The conquest of greece was a political conquest, and like almost all conquests the actual weapons used were irrelevant - it was a matter of political and social will - the Greeks were "conquered" because they wanted to be Roman - as did many ppls in those days - more than they wanted to be Maedonian.

lonewolf371

04-23-2003, 04:32

Both are rated equally on the coolness factor, but Medieval kniights are even higher due to the fact that they express the one thing Medieval peasants love... shinyness.

Nonetheless, a legion would still have won. It's tactics were much like those of cavalry at the time versus phalanxes, breaking them up with arrows and hit-and-run. The phalanx required two things: that the enemy was in front of them and that the phalanx was maintained. Both of these the legion was able to disrupt and destroy, after which a bath of blood would be spilled.

BTW, I think that we're all refering to the commonly-thought of Trajanic legionaire of Imperial Rome, as per time frame I'm refering more to the Manipular and Cohortal legions of the Punic Wars, Marius, and Caesar.

Hakonarson

04-27-2003, 01:18

Actualy the legion never did break up a phalanx frontally, nor did it's hail of missiles have any effect.

At Pydna we are specifically told that the hail of pila had no effect whatsoever on the close locked shields of the phalangites (not hoplites), and it was the ground that broke up the front of hte phalanx, not any action on hte part of hte Romans (except for being pushed back).

Facts are:

1/ No Roman legion ever defeated a phalanx head on unless the legion had help from something outside itself. Generally whenevre it was a head on fight the legion was losing until somethign else happened.

2/ Pike phalanxes under Phyrus DID break legions on several occasions.

3/ The Carthaginian phalanx was similar to a hoplite one, and was broken at Zama only when the Roman cavalry charged it in the rear.

Longshanks

04-27-2003, 16:57

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ April 26 2003,19:18)]Facts are:

1/ No Roman legion ever defeated a phalanx head on unless the legion had help from something outside itself. Generally whenevre it was a head on fight the legion was losing until somethign else happened.

2/ Pike phalanxes under Phyrus DID break legions on several occasions.

3/ The Carthaginian phalanx was similar to a hoplite one, and was broken at Zama only when the Roman cavalry charged it in the rear.
The Roman legion's strength against the phalanx was not head on, it was in its flexibility. A legion could give ground to a phalanx while hitting it on the flanks. At that point a phalanx was doomed. A legion could adequately defend itself if attacked from any direction, a phalanx could not.

Leet Eriksson

04-30-2003, 22:19

interesting,this thread exceded 100 posts,am i happy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Hakonarson

05-01-2003, 01:01

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ April 27 2003,10:57)]The Roman legion's strength against the phalanx was not head on, it was in its flexibility. A legion could give ground to a phalanx while hitting it on the flanks. At that point a phalanx was doomed. A legion could adequately defend itself if attacked from any direction, a phalanx could not.
Your last point is patently untrue - Legions could and did colapse when hit in the flank and rear jsut like everyone else did throughout history - check Cannae, Adrianople.

The parade ground flexibility of the legion was probably pointless in combat, since all heavy infantry apparently tended to become a mass of soldiery anyway.

There are more example of pahalanxes turning onto peoples flanks than there are of legions doing it.

LordMonarch

05-07-2003, 00:11

The legionarres beat the hoplites hands down, as Longshanks pointed out well the Romans had greater military flexability. Look who won in history?

Hakonarson

05-07-2003, 05:09

Quote[/b] (LordMonarch @ May 06 2003,18:11)]The legionarres beat the hoplites hands down, as Longshanks pointed out well the Romans had greater military flexability. Look who won in history?
Who historically won in hoplite vs legion fights?

Well it's about even really, with the score at 0-0 since they never fought each other

Ktonos

05-07-2003, 06:28

Well, there is no great battle between Hoplite Phalanx and Legions. There is the battle of Pidna with Macedonian phalanx vs Legion. There Perseas led his army through the river and swaped the light and heavy infantry of the Roman legions. No legionnare managed to come close enough to thrust his spear or swing his sword. Most of them where killed 4-6 meters away from their opponents as a pike would strike them at the height of head or torso. The rest of them were propably trambled from the phalangites. But inevitably the Greeks spreaded their forces as they advanced further into the Roman positions. Then the Romans came into the phalanxs ranks hand to hand against the Greek phalangites and their armor and long swords where far superior than the greek shorts swords and small shields.

Perseas needed his cavalry to support the phalanx sides but then a situation identical to the one at Braveheart movie occured. Perseas had given many privilages to common people in order to gather those 40.000 phallangites. This was not liked by the aristocracy who believed that Romans would protects their birthrights. The cavalry ,witch was 100% nobles, withdrew the battle. Phallangites were helpless during their hand to hand fight and the battle was lost.

There is no way a Macedonian phalanx alone to win a legion. It has no flexibility and its vulnerbal at its flanks and the men that consists it have medicre melee abilities and weapons. A hoplite phallanx is something different. Hoplites would have a great advadance at the initial head on clash, as the macedonian phallanx, but when it would come to hand to hand fight they would have a much better lack than the Mac.Phlx. They were trained and equipted for melee fight.

Crimson Castle

05-09-2003, 17:21

Has anyone mentioned the Hoplite's various types of helmets yet? Some of them, the Corinthiean, looked cool and completely protected the user's head but it made communication too hard. Has anyone compared them to the Roman equipment yet?

Ktonos

05-10-2003, 06:34

There are over 30 hoplite helmet types. The Corinthian is the most typical one. It restricted hearing but not enough to prevent them listen to the commanders orders. But their vision was sigficantly restricted and many of the hoplites fought with their helmet pulled back. The Romans had a more practical open faced helmet with sockets for ears.

Hippolyte

05-18-2003, 16:59

First off, great thread. It's good to see such passion defended with examples.

Here's my two cents. There are a host of superb points on this thread. The fact that, truly, hoplites never met legionaries being one of the most pithy. The legionaries did, however, meet and, through some hard fought lessons, come to dissect Hellenistic armies including phalangites, like they eventually came to dismember what would be known as Greece. There is no question that even at Magnesia, the strength and sheer immovability of the phalangites is obvious. But the Greeks, after Alexander, and the Successors had largely come to rely on the phalangites as a holding force while the leader led picked cavalry in key charges against problem/vulnerable areas. Alexander at Gaugamela illustrates this quite nicely in 331 (and we should be mindful of Parmenio's incredible defense of the left flank). Keeping this in mind, it is impossible to divorce cavalry from the Hellenistic way of war. And this becomes, once again, obvious at Magnesia in 190. Antiochus's cavalry smashed through the Roman legion on the left and poured through the breach to assault the Roman camp (instead of crushing the unprotected rear) but were driven off by another Roman underling. On the Roman right and center, things were better. The legionaries were applying even pressure upon the phalangites, though this in itself MAY not have proved to be decisive. As some others have noted it was, instead, not a frontal attack that defeated Antiochus and his phalangites, but the attack of Roman cavalry upon the phalangites' flank and rear.
I'm sure that soldiers in that period sensed that the ascendency of Rome was on the horizon. The Romans DID ultimately master the balance between infantry, cavalry and missile weapons. Roman weapons were always developed in order to take into account other weapon systems (one contributor has mentioned the soft tips of the thrown pilum that became utterly impossible to remove from wood, while those that did not become lodged were so bent as to be of little use to their opponents--this incredible resolve to absolutely disallowing the enemy any advantage distinguishes the Romans). And when it came down to it, the perfection of the Spanish short sword in close, hand-to-hand, pitched battles coupled with that incredible Roman tenacity and resolve to not only defeat their opponents but utterly annihilate them (something only seen periodically in the actions of the bloothirsty Alexander) set them appart from their contemporaries. At the Roman victory of Cynoscephalae, the Greek pikemen expected quarter when they held up their pikes in surrender. The Romans, possessed by that steady battle rage so characteristic of their armies, continued to slaughter their opponents unitil restrained. It is this attitude that probably proved most disastrous for Rome's enemies. Romans saw Carthage as a potential threat so it was destroyed. The Macedonians possessed a navy capable of landing forces upon Italy--a threat intolerable. Thus Greece was defeated piecemeal and pacified.
It has also been mentioned how the Romans benefitted from a more intuitive and adaptable organizing approach. Smaller units and better, more intensive training, has ALWAYS meant better officers; and it is these officers who would historically make such a big difference. The Greeks had the Syntagma of 256 men; the Romans developed the more flexible century (80 men), maniple (2 centuries), cohort (3 maniples), and legion (10 cohorts). On an organizational level, no opponent came even close to being as felxible and standardized. This all enabled the Romans to have the reserve if needed; something painfully rare amongst Hellenistic armies.

While it is true that phalangites did indeed often prove to be quite resistant and, when commanded by a good and imaginative leader, had the capacity to disrupt and even, rarely, defeat legionares, time was on Rome's side. In the end there can be little comparison between legionary and hoplite as they never truly met. But if the superiority of Rome over Alexander's successors is any indication, and I do believe it is, then we must concede that history quite obviously favoured the legionary, in all his resolve, determination, numbers, adapatability, ferocity, weaponry and organization.

Rosacrux

01-19-2004, 08:10

One more thing people tend not to talk about (I don't remember if I've brought this up before but... here it goes):

The hoplite (as an individual) was the free citizen of a democratic (more or less) city-state, fighting primarly defensive wars to protect his home and beloved ones and the democracy he was raised in.

The legionairre started off in the same manner (and we are talking about early republic, when legionairres were fighting defensive wars - in the same timeframe they were equipped more or less like the Greek hoplites) but soon - as Rome started to dominate it's neighbours - evolved into a semi-professional (and later fully professional) warring machine, bound to fight offensive wars predominately, without any moral status whatsoever.

So, there is a huge philosophical and moral gap between those two warriors. True, hoplite phalanx and legion never met in a large-scale battle. But the moral superiority of the hoplite, who was the offspring of the first democracy on this planet, suggests that we might look at another scope before judging based merely on the military merits and the outcome of the respective fights.

TheSilverKnight

01-20-2004, 03:37

Legionnaires would win, by far. Why? because they're armoured, they have swords, and shields. Hoplites tossed spears. Pretty clear there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Sir Moody

01-21-2004, 11:35

Quote[/b] ]Legionnaires would win, by far. Why? because they're armoured, they have swords, and shields. Hoplites tossed spears. Pretty clear there
huh??? Hoplites were heavily armoured, they had shields, and used long spears

anyway back to the main topic
a rather large point that should be raised was at the time of Rome's Rise the Hellenic area was in decline - they were at the end of their days their millitary was not as wel ltrained or well maintained as it had been and lacked the Cavalry numbers for the tactics which Alexander employed - where as Rome was at its peak with well trained well disaplined armies who were flexable enough to use any number of tactics

had Romans clashed against the Hellenic world at its peak it would have been a far more interesting experiance

The_Emperor

01-21-2004, 15:03

Legionnares would win in most situations in my view.

The Phalanx formations used by Hoplites are better on open flat ground where they can easily hold their formation, but in war you cannot fight always on your most favorable terrain.

The Legionnares on the other hand had great flexibility in battle and were just as effective fighting in unfavorable terrain because of their equipment, however I think that in a head on encounter with a Phalanx and without the ability to outflank and disrupt the formation the Romans could lose.

Quote[/b] ]had Romans clashed against the Hellenic world at its peak it would have been a far more interesting experiance

Indeed it would have because we all know how bad Roman Cavalry was, with Alexander's Companion Cavalry flanking it could be a different conclusion altogether.

Ultimately the tactics used by Alexander resembled the "Sword and shield", with Hoplites fixing the enemy as the "shield" and Cavalry as the Striking "Sword". When Alexander's horse breeding wasn't kept up by his successors the strength of the Hellenic army greatly diminished, leaving Hoplites potentially a lot more vulnerable on the battlefield.

Leet Eriksson

01-22-2004, 02:23

Wow my thread is still alive...

Just a minor comment,seeing as how the later imperial legionnare became alot more mobile it would'nt be hard to encircle a hoplite phalanx and defeat it.

but republican,thats a different story...any comments?

Rosacrux

01-22-2004, 11:23

Just taking two military systems out of their historical, social and political context, pitching them in a fictional fight and speculating on "who would win", might be fun but it is a rather counterproductive way of putting things.

Speculating "if Republican Rome and Hellenistic world at it’s peak (or Classical Greece) would clash, who would win", would be far more productive methinks...

A brilliant military system alone is not a guarantee of winning anything besides some glory and the recognition for bravery and vigor.

A couple of historical examples: The WWII Wehrmacht I consider to be the top military system of the past few centuries and the 5th century Spartan Hoplites the top military system of the antiquity.

What did they do in their respective timeframe?

Well, the Germans managed to gang up the whole planet against them and despite their initial success, they consequently lost the war blatantly. And despite them having a much better - quality wise - army than the allies didn’t help didly.

And Sparta didn't manage to expand it's hegemony outside Peloponese because of the inwards orientation of their society and loathing of anything new and modernizing.

So, a great military system alone doesn't work. Rome's legions wouldn't have conquered Hellas if the Hellenic world wasn't in decline and divided into dozens of fractions fighting each other. At kynoskephalai, for instance, it was the Greek allies that saved the day for the legion, despite the alleged legion supremacy vs the pike phalanx. And most of those Greek allies were either pike phalangites themselves or some sort of lightly equipped peltast.

|OCS|Virus

01-23-2004, 06:52

The Roman Legionares would win, historicly this already happened, unless i got my facts mixed up but i dont think i did. The greeks and romans were at war for a long time, although the greeks were not totaly wiped out by romans the legionare is simply superior to the Phalanx. the spears they used to fight with were designed for a longer range fighting and once the romans did manage to get passed the first few {and they usualy did} they would have no problem cutting through there defences.

Parmenio

01-24-2004, 15:43

In a one on one combat, a legionary has the advantage mainly for two reasons:

(1) He's a trained swordsman with a pilum as a sidearm, where as a hoplite is a trained spearman with a sword as a sidearm.

(2) The hoplon shield is odd. It attaches onto the forearm near the elbow and has to be held close to the body, with almost half of the shield not covering the holder at all. (It's quite probably a deliberate design to force the bearer to keep in close formation on the battlefield.)
A scutum shield is held in the hand like most shields and can be projected or punched forward, and can cover the bearer more effectively in individual combat.

In ordered formation combat, the hoplites have a very strong defense and can keep pushing forward relentlessly. In this instance the legionaries formation while having a similar shield wall has the disadvantage since the spear gives the hoplites greater reach.

The effective of disorder on both troops types has a different effect. The legionaries retain greater combat effectiveness compared to their hoplite opponents.

All things being equal, hoplites slowly win. However it is the prerogative of good generals to make sure all things are most certainly not equal on the battlefield, and legionaries offer better all round flexibility.

Aurelian

01-31-2004, 08:14

This is not a hypothetical question. Hoplites and Legionaires did fight during Rome's wars of expansion in Italy.

Roman armies used hoplite tactics and equipment themselves as early as the 6th or 5th centuries B.C. Traditionally, the Romans learned hoplite warfare from their Etruscan neighbors (and overlords). The Etruscans probably learned hoplite warfare from the Southern Italian Greek colonies with which they traded.

Roman legionary tactics evolved from those of the Greek hoplite phalanx. The more flexible Roman manipular formation was supposedly adopted from their Samnite enemies around 300 B.C. The Samnites were a highland people from the areas to the east of Latium. Over the course of three long wars, the Romans learned that the traditional hoplite formations were too rigid to effectively deal with the more mobile Samnites (especially on broken ground). The Roman adoption of manipular tactics was probably closely followed by an abandonment of the hoplon shield - which had evolved specifically to fulfill the needs of a close order phalanx.

The use of mail, the early legionary tall oblong shield, and even some early helmet styles appear to have been adopted from Celtic styles. The use of javelins by Rome's heavy infantry may again have been derived from Samnite practice.

After Rome abandoned the hoplite system, it continued to face Etruscan, Southern Greek, and Sicilian opponents who still fought in the traditional hoplite phalanx. Due to his equipment, the Roman legionary would have had an advantage over a hoplite opponent in a skirmish. His shield was more maneuverable and less tiring to wield, and a group of legionaries would probably have been able to make good use of their javelins before their opponents closed.

However, the main advantage the legionary had was tactical. The hoplite fought in a single rigid formation. If the hoplite line broke, the battle was finished. The Roman manipular system on the other hand fought in a series of lines. Each line of maniples in turn would throw its javelins and charge in an attempt to break the enemy. If repulsed, the maniples would simply retire behind the next line. The final Roman reserve, the Triarii, fought in phalanx style. The flexibility of this system meant that the Romans could respond more readily to the natural ebb and flow of men in combat. The constant presence of reserves and the ability to breathe their men during battle gave an army of legionaries a huge morale advantage over hoplite opponents. As a result, the morale of a hoplite army usually broke before that of a legion. I believe that Livy has some good descriptions of battles where legions fought hoplites.

Carthaginian armies appreciated this Roman advantage and adapted their tactics so that they could fight in multiple lines as well. Hellenistic pike armies were particularly vulnerable to Roman legionaires because they could not adopt a multiple line formation, and because their formation was too easily disrupted by terrain or the stress of combat.