Printable View
Recently we discussed the Romans in my ancient history class and my professor made the comment that the Roman Legion was superior to the Greek Phalanx. So my question is, is he right? Was the Roman Legion itself a superior force to the Greek's Phalanx, or were they reletively equally effective?
And please do not start Rome-bashing. I just want to know wheter either was better than the other. Thank you.
This is probably the most debated subject on RTW forums... The Legion was superior in certain aspects, which was proven at the Battles of Pydna, Cynoscephalae and Magnesia. However Pyrhhus managed to defeat the Romans, and left Italy undefeated in a battle while he used the Phalanx.
Also, it is debated that the phalanx of late was inefective since the Diadochi didn't use as strong a Cavalry that Alexander did, which is a huge part of the Hammer and Anvil tactic.
Also the phalanx could be used effectivly only on a flat terrain, while the legions could adapt to any form of enviroment
YES, hands down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scipio Germanicus
Mainly because the Legion was much more flexible, in terms of mobility, "ideal" combat terrain, formations, and command structure.
I think there was a long discussion about this and even an attempt of a tournament to decide which was more effective. I would suggest you look that up somewhere (use the "search" function).
In my opinion both were effective - which would prove succesfull in an engagement depended on many factors: leading Generals, terrrain, supporting troops (quality and how there used) and so on.
The legion is flexible. Each unit down the individual soldier can fight alone.
The phalanx depends on support. Combined arms doctrine can have its disadvantages.
Very true. It's not quite as simple as one being always better than the other, so could people in this thread please refrain from making blanket statements without supporting arguments?Quote:
Originally Posted by HunGeneral
BTW: what did he mean with phalanx exactly? The hoplite phalanx or the Macedonian phalanx?
We should be entitled to state a nondestructive reasonable opinion, with or without "supporting arguments".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The EB forum is empty enough, without forcing us to provide links/evidence to everything we say. Even that supporting evidence would be "relative" and debatable. I can't believe you would add that last post, as a moderator. How is that constructive? I'd actually argue it was destructive.
Within reason, LET US post what we want, where we want, period. Imo, your overstepping your authority/purpose as a moderator.
Of course, under certain circumstances, ANY army can be defeated. Nothing is black and white. But I feel the OP wanted a general assessment, not a circular discussion that leads nowhere, hence a "blanket" statement: The legion-army/cohort-unit was better than a phalanx-army/unit.
-Apple
I think the best way to resolve this question would be some kind of simulation (experiment) of the fight between phalanx and a legion in real life. I'm not sure if we can test this in virtual fight (even in EB battle) since balance between units is made ad hoc- for the play where each faction have its chances to win in battle. For example: phalanx in most cases is totally impenetrable from the front (even heavy catas-cavalry has big problems with that; missiles have no impact on front of the phalanx either... That's why i think it would be best to make some experiments with that.
(my English is bad, but i hope you can recognize my idea in this) :yes:
Bet you he doesn't know the differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I was under the impression that the diadochi phalanx were even stronger frontally than the ones under Alexander due to the increase in pike length.
Also the frequent civil wars cut away at the number of highly trained cavalry so they were sometimes reduced to the role of keeping the enemy cavalry in check.
The Roman system of fielding armies of trained levies and larger manpower reserve also played a roll in bringing down the army of professionals plagued by civil war.
In game I would say that phalanx is better. While less able to maneuver, the phalanx (or any unit)'s ability to turn without breaking order during an engagment is there. Meanwhile the extreme terrain penalty for phalanx in broken or elevated terrain is not there. This pretty much negates the flexibility of the phalanx.
On top of that flexibility requires local commanders of legates down to centurions to take advantage in commanding their unit, moving, attacking, and ordering reserves when they see it. That means a legion is commanded by many, many brains and eyes all over the battlefield that nominally reports to a top general but in reality can issue their own order as they see fit. All "flexible" armies need this command system to take full advantage of its flexibility. While this command system existed in real life, it doesn't exist in game because the player needs to issue all orders personally. This means effective use of a legion (or a non-phalanx army) either needs a lot of pausing or a lot of micro.
And this is seriously problematic for the player(s) when the deciding factor is the micro-intensive cavalry engagement on the flanks, leaving the legions unable to be used to its full potential. On the other hand phalanx could be just ordered forward and then (semi)forgotten.
As the reality of the scarcity of horses and trained cavalry is not in the game (where cavalry can be recruited as long as you have the money, and neither is the scarcity of trained long-range missile troops), the ability of infantry fighting power is also de-emphasized for cavalry.
I thank you for your answers as to my question.
For the record, yes I do. Guess I should've specified. I was referring to the Macedonian Phalanx developed by Phillip, which was a deeper formation than the one used in southern Greece (can't think of the exact size off the top of my head) and used spears that were IIRC about 6m (18ft) in length. Because of the longer spears, they had smaller shields that were strapped to their arms so that they could use both hands. Please do not assume ignorance just because I forgot to specify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
If phalanx is mentioned in the forums it is usually meant as the Makedonian Phalanx developed by Philip II of Macedon.
In game I personally find the Makedonian phalanx better than the legion. This goes for the AI, as they are not smart enough to exploit their flexible armies when needed. In MP battles the phalanx also is better in my opinion, the player is usually a lot smarter than the AI, but a seasoned EB Hellenistic veteran makes balanced armies. Able to counter the legions with their own heavy infantry and use cavalry to do great damage. Also phalanx can be engaged and forgotten about in some battles (depending on enemy tactics), leaving you more time to manage the flank infantry and cavalry.
In Real I think it is impossible to say, there are far too many factors that play a role to come to a conclusion which is better. Indivually, the legionairre would be stronger of course, as Roman Virtus testifies, a single sarissa and sword armed man can not counter such a man, who can excell in individual combat.
Also remember that above I describe the Hellenistic balanced composition of the army, in reality this of course was not always possible. Generals had to settle with less, apart from Antiochus III the Great. Who could recruit a huge variety of troops out of his large empire.
Still the following factors can differ so much that a good conclusion cannot be reached:
- The capacities of the commander
- The number/compostion of troops
- The type of terrain (Do not overestimate the phalanx inability of fighting on elevated terrain, Cynosphalae was not flat and the Makedonians could keep formation and drive the Romani back at the first stages of the battle).
- The type of weather can play a minor role
- The level of discipline and the martial power of the soldiers.
- The position the army was in (geographically - like cornered to the sea, or the amount of pay and whether the soldiers were well-fed or starving, defining the morale in the situation).
- The loyalty of the army and ethnicity (Makedonians would be more driven to fight invading Romani than a levied native Egyptian fights in phalanx against the Seleukids).
- Some more which I am unable to come up with at the moment.
One thing is clear, the Romani did defeat the phalanx, in my opinion the battle of Magnesia was the best example, however they could have failed without their Pergamene allies.
Remember it was not only the legions that defeated the phalanx, they also defeated themselves. Would the Hellenes be more a united force against the Romani instead of fighting each other multiple times history might have taken another path. When Romani intervention came the Romani were at the heigth of their power and the Hellenes in decline because of foreign incursions and countless infighting.
That'll be all.
Thank for reading~D
~Fluvius
Comparing the Phalangitai armies and the legions against each other is strikingly similar to the german and the french army in WII. :duel:
The french (greeks) had some strong defensive formations(phalangitai), better tanks (cavallery) and more aircraft(levy support), but still they were crushingly defeated by the more flexible germans (romans), with better trained units(legions). :singer: :singer:
Or in other words:
When the seleukid cavallery at magnesia defeated many roman legions the rest still fought and won.
A greek army did just crumble as easy as the persian army crumbled 200years earlier against Alexander, but the romans could still fight on.
Another point is:
In reality a shower of pila did cause many casualties in the phalangitai troops, while they couldnt react to that. Another reason why the phalangitai at pydna had to atack and why phalangitai werent defensive used. Because they could be killed by missiles and javelinnes.
Comparisons to WWII when dealing with ancient warfare should be left out. More often than not, they are wrong, or extremely debateable, leading to off-topicness.
I for one would bet on Alexander's army led by competent officers, rather than a legion led by equally talented one.
elaborate on the below text ...
Polybius, The Histories, Book XVIII, Chapters 28-32:
"In my sixth book I made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and pointing out how they differ for better or worse from each other. I will now endeavor by a reference to actual facts to fulfil that promise. For since in former times the Macedonian tactics proved themselves by experience capable of conquering those of Asia and Greece; while the Roman tactics sufficed to conquer the nations of Africa and all those of Western Europe; and since in our own day there have been numerous opportunities of comparing the men as well as their tactics, it will be, I think, a useful and worthy task to investigate their differences, and discover why it is that the Romans conquer and carry off the palm from their enemies in the operations of war: that we may not put it all down to Fortune, and congratulate them on their good luck, as the thoughtless of mankind do; but, from a knowledge of the true causes, may give their leaders the tribute of praise and admiration which they deserve.
Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae are sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissa projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer:
So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm; And man on man; and waving horse-hair plumes In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed In order: in such serried rank they stood. [Iliad, 13.131]
And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.
With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.
Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.
Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also admit. However, let us suppose that such a district has been found. If the enemy decline to come down into it, but traverse the country sacking the towns and territories of the allies, what use will the phalanx be? For if it remains on the ground suited to itself, it will not only fail to benefit its friends, but will be incapable even of preserving itself; for the carriage of provisions will be easily stopped by the enemy, seeing that they are in undisputed possession of the country: while if it quits its proper ground, from the wish to strike a blow, it will be an easy prey to the enemy. Nay, if a general does descend into the plain, and yet does not risk his whole army upon one charge of the phalanx or upon one chance, but maneuvers for a time to avoid coming to close quarters in the engagement, it is easy to learn what will be the result from what the Romans are now actually doing.
For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts. The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.
The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.
I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming."
hmmmmm, let each man draw his own conclusions...
Yes the roman legions, and his tactics, were very adaptive, to any terrain, etc, I belive it will depend very much of the armies, and his compositions, that a roman legion would face. I remember that at magnésia the selucids only had 2 phalanxes with thousand of mens. One composed by natives, and other one would be the SilverShields. the rest of the army would be alot of cav, elephants, and chariots, and other infantries.
Phyrrus would have a diferent army composition then Seleukos when facing romans, asweal diferent eras.
Sorry, I should've been more clear (stupid pronouns)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scipio Germanicus
By "he", I was refering to Luden's post which was refering to your prof.
So I was saying "Bet your prof doesn't know the difference"
I mean come on. Who plays EB and doesn't know the difference right?:beam:
Ok. No harm, no foul. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
And especial thanks to ARCHIPPOS for the Polybius. I was wondering if he had written anything on the issue.
If the tournement showed anything, it was that both are equally good. It was 8 wins for Greece and 7 for Rome. However, at the end of the day, it always came down to how well the cavalry arms did.
Cavalry wins battle :-p Infantry was there just to kinda of make a wall.
Of course in real life a lot of times infantry was the decisive arm while the role of cavalry was to prevent the opposite cavalry from doing anything crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
The Tournaments were hardly a good testament. I'm quite sure in real life people would not run straight into 5 rows of spearsheads, get jabbed and knocked down, and survive to gut the whole phalanx...
not even a spartan?
The Roman Legion in its form after the battle of Baecula totally outclassed the phalanx. Here are the basic reasons:
1. The phalanx was most effective iphalanx formation, and that required fighting on a flat plain. When fighting in rough terrain, the phalanx lost it's greatest strength. The Legion was also slightly more effective on a flat plain, but it didn't lose as much power in rough terrain as the phalanx did. The legionaries wer quite simply much more versatile and could operate in variuos conditions.
2. The Legion could change formation and march without breaking it faster than the phalanx. The soldiers of the phalanx were slower with their spears, and it was difficult to march fast or run in phalanx formation. This meant that on the battlefield the Roman army march and change formations much faster.
3. The Legionnaries were equally effective when fighting in tight formations as in one on one duels, while the soldiers if phalanx were strong only in formation. The shiled of a Legionnary covered his whole body, from his feet up to his throat, whereas a shield of a phalanx soldier covered his stomach, hischest and his left side. If he would be standing in phalanx formation, his right side would be covered by the shield of another soldier, but when the formation is dispersed, his protection would suffer. Also, the Romans fought with their swords much more than the phalanx soldiers fought with theirs, so the romans had more practise.
Those were the basic reasons for while the Legion was better, to name them all one should write a whole book..
The only hellenic general who managed ti fight the Romans quite effectively was Pyrrhus, but that was before the battle of Baecula, and even Pyrrhus did not defeat the Romans.
The battles of Cynoscehalae, Magnesia or Pydna clearly show the superiority of the Legion over the phalanx. History proves the Legion was better.
As a standalone force the Roman legion is superior(though not easy as mass blocks of pikemen still were effective) but with combined arms the Macedonian Phalanx has more use.
Not sure how many accounts there are of the Hoplite Phalanx vs the Legion.
This issues is interesting. I can only say my view thorough the game.
In RTW and EB Pikes dont lose formation and are able to form line at any terrain or elevation which wasnt the case in history. That makse pikes much better than legion.
On the other side Legions were much much more effective ''universal troopers'', and easier to maintain, tho sometime more expensive. In my mod I added bonuses to men and moral to legion's and bonuses for diff terrains that balances this issue a bit more.
Well I only did that once.... in the woods.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
I'm not going to get involved in this. This has been discussed ad nauseum.
:dizzy2: Asking for evidence is destructive? All I meant to ask was for people not to post single-line replies to the OPs question.Quote:
Originally Posted by applebreath
The battle of Corinth would have seen such a match-up, didn't it? Do we have description of that battle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
Combined arms Macedonian Phalanx would surely have more use than a standalone legion, but I would think a Combined arms legion would have more use than a Combined arms Macedonian PhalanxQuote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
I think my one liners are astoundingly concise and elegant, no? :beam::smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by king of thracia
Isn't quoting yourself some sort of narcisism?
What has always puzzled me is how to actually kill someone with a sarrisa pike? I can't see how you could deliver a thrust with any kind of force behind it. Can a pike even penetrate chainmail?
I always imagined the phalanx just using its depth to walk over an enemy formation, butt-spiking those unfortunates who have been pushed down. I think I know now why Polybius was so surprised after seeing the gladius in action - yes, real weapons do leave cuts.
I'm sure the sheer brutality of 'push of pike' done by the swiss would be a good indicator of the lethality of the sarrisae...
The greatest advantage of pike is it's great reach, and the greatest advantage of a pike formation is to use that great reach to form an (almost) impenetrable wall of spear points. Then it doesn't really matter if you can't deliver as big a wound to the enemy when the enemy can't even attack you.
Then again in a pike-on-pike engagement where the pikes are of equal length there were casualties and there were instances of thinner ranks holding deeper ranks for a long time and even winning, so at the very least the pike can do damage and the formation did not purely rely on weight of the push.
Yes and in my late online games, i dont find cav so efective, i saw armies with only 2 cav and a lot of flexible infantry and only 1 or 2 phalanxes win againts a wall of sarissas, and 4, 5 heavy cav.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
There is a diference between tactics and battle stratagies.
The phalanx is only a powerful tool used in combination with others unit types. I tend to think of the phalanx as a 'lot, powerful but needing support from drags in the long run. Romans are like 'lings, cheap, numerous, disposable, and surprisingly flexible...
Makes me wonder if comparing the EB time period with starcraft is as irrelevant as comparing it to world war 2. But I CAN see your point. Cheap, a few upgrades and only costing minerals. I find the lack of anti-aircraft in the roman legionaries to be a limitation though.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
Which seems odd, as Hellenic cavalry would have used the equally nasty kopis and falcata swords. Yes, you can kill someone with a sarissa, just as you can kill someone with a shorter spear. A sarissa is less wieldy, but don't underestimate what a trained man could do with them. IIRC foot mentioned that 17th century pikemen were trained to slash their opponent's throat at long-distance. That does not mean it was a common battlefield-tactic, but it could be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banzai!
I don't think anyone is really sure as to casualty numbers when fighting against just the phalanx. Probably most of the casualties were taken during the routing of one side as usual. I don't know about variations in Sarissa heads but the Swiss Pikes in the late Medieval period carried dozens of different types of heads for slashing and such so its quite possible that the Macedonians might have innovated some.
As to function... well against heavy infantry, I don't think death by sarissa was an large problem. If you look at battles with phalanxes against conventional heavy infantry(ie Hoplites), then you see that the phalanx ended up in some sort of pushing match which could go either way. The hoplites were combat effective until they had a xyston up shoved up their butts. Similarly, the Romans retained unit cohesion and where literally pushed off the battlefield or down a mountain.
To this end as well as other reasons, I would say that the primary use of the phalanx was as ground control. To take and hold ground and make it impossible to take back. This forces the enemy to exhaust itself by beating their heads on your spikes for no good reason until the cavalry shows up and breaks them. Then you have the psychological component that also plays into this. Most people would instinctly retreating the face of pikes. With the exception of Hoplite pushing forces, the phalanx usually was the one who was gaining ground.
This also makes sense as to why Pyrrhus arranged his battle lines the way he did with regular heavy infantry between phalanx blocks. Not only did this allow the phalanx to operate in broken terrain but it allows each block to be able to go at somewhat their own pace and makes the line less rigid. To this end, you could use a phalanx as a breakthrough unit to push through a point in the enemy line without it outrunning the rest of the phalanx line, getting surrounded and destroyed like the Romans managed to do one time and the Thebans did to the Spartans that one time.
We actually did this a couple time in MP where we would push a phalanx completely through a thin hoplite line or something. Then we take phalanx off and pour a ton of reserve infantry through the breach.
I don't think "legion(aries) vs. phalanx" is a fair arguement. Phalanxes were meant to be used in conjuction with other troop types, especially heavy cavalry, and not as the decisive arm. Legionaries were meant to be able to operate much more independantly - not alone though.
By the time Rome and Hellenistic civilizations clashed (apart from the Pyrrhus incident), Rome was a state rising into the status of a superpower whereas Hellenistic civilizations were in decline. At Magnesia, Antiochus lost the battle, and the Pergamese won it, imho. (And using elephants to hold the line between phalanx formations? :inquisitive:)
Phalanxes could be devastating, but they required support and a general who knew how to use them. Legionaries were much more flexible and a general had legates and tribunes who could act on their own initiative (like in the final phase at Cynoscephalae).
They were both powerful unit types, and I wouldn't say "X was DEFINITELY better than Z".
Perhaps not as a fighting unit. In pure fighting there can always be said to depend on ground, generals, support, etc.
However that the legion is flexible enough against the phalanx to select its own battlefield is definately plus for the legion.
All armies need inter-supporting troop types, or combined-arms, to operate to it's maximum efficiency. The Legion is no different. But the fact that it is ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY for the phalanx is definately a minus for it. The idealized support could not be at all times put into the actual battlefield at all times in the required amount.
I think the legion is definately "better" because one got to take into consideration all parts from training, logistics, campaign maneuver, the actual battle, officers, etc.
A system that relies so heavily on unstable variables to get result is not going to be better in the long run against a system that does not, as those variables would balance out.
The fact is that a competent Roman general with minimal support troops could still get results. Meanwhile the phalanx need a good general and lots of support to operate properly.
The legion therefore wins because its system rely less on those very unstable variables (support and quality of the general) to achieve results than the phalanx.
The bigger genius is not one who can use the existing system to beat everyone else who's also using the same system, but someone who can make a new system that will still beat everyone else on the old system after he's gone.
If a phalanx army need a general that knows how to use it to defeat the enemy, while against the same enemy a legion army could win an equally good victory without a general that knows how to use it, then the legion as a military system is definately better.
In general Legion every time. the results spoke for themselves, Rome survived and the Greek world fell, all the off shoots.
In a 1v1 battle were terrain would be used, ie mountain pass, then you could say Phalanx would win, but it might be a one off.
Pyrrhus was an interesting earlier point, and maybe if the Phalanx tactics have evolved they might have worked, im thinking more of the medieval template (Swiss.) Greek warfare had evolved over 1000+ years and met all barriers but with no new, good leaders they seem to have just run out of time.
nice question, thankyou
I agree with all the nitpickers.
Legion style armies (based around sword and javelin armed medium/heavy inf) tended to replace phalanx style amies (spear and shjeildwall heavy inf, or dense pike inf/heavy cav) in the EB period just as cavalry dominated armies replaced Legion style armies in the dark ages.
This reflects social and political realities as well as their relative battlefield strength.
The phalanx tradition has two distinct phases, shieldwall (spear), and hammer+anvil (pike). Likewise legions eveolve dramatically, especially in their recruitment basis, so it is not historically valid or even coherent to say "legion>phalanx". Its like saying "hoof>paw", its a decontextualised juxtaposition ignoring the rest of the animal.
PS paw rulz.
I see no reason why you can't try to compare one unit of foot soldiers to another and then come up with a reasonable opinion about which is "better". Anything less is a cop out.
I don't really think that would be a very good idea. If you had 100 of the most well trained infantry soldiers go up against, say, 500 untrained infantry soldiers, who do you think would win? Now imagine that the untrained soldiers also had tanks and helicopters at their disposal. Now who do you think would win?Quote:
Originally Posted by applebreath
It's the same with this kind of debate. You can't look at a phalanx individually, even at a singular unit, because phalanx tactics relied entirely on the cohesiveness of the military as a whole. In fact, defeating phalanx armies usually came down to isolating individual soldiers or units and eliminating them piecemeal.
As many have said, I believe it is dependent on who is commanding the troops and what resources are available to each side. If it was an Alexander with a sufficiently strong cavalry contingent, I believe the phalanx would have succeeded, hands down. However even an Alexander without the cavalry would be nothing.
In the end, particularly when it comes to ancient warfare, a lot of it comes down to who's in charge.
There are a lot of people in this forum speaking about pyrrus, but did you know, that only a small part of his army in italy was composed of phalangitai? Thats why he was succesfull against the romans.
Same for the seleucid cavallery at magnesia. :book:
I was thinking someone would say this, or something similar at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr
I'd say the "100 of the most well trained infantry" are better, hands down. How you defined their name is what made it easy for me, :P. Each person is different, but when I think to compare "units" of foot soldiers, I take into account numbers, whether one has tanks and the other has sticks, whether one is trained and the other isn't, etc. You have to define your criteria somehow.
Really, even if there was only 100 of the "best" soldiers, I'd still say they were "better" than an unmotivated mob that was 10,000 in size. Given that no other strange factors, like "tanks versus loud-yelling", where part of the comparison.
Any army that is completely reliant on a "great" commander, isn't much of an army to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr
-Apple
Beating straw men is a cop out too. The OP does not mention two specific units of infantry, where did that come from? A Phalanx is a (reportedly inflexible) mass spear formation, whereas a legion is a mixed arms division capable of multiple formations (which EB literature mentions including a phalanx of triarii) with administrative and recruting functions. Both vary widely in their charateristics over time, even in the period of Roman-Hellenic conflicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by applebreath
A simple analogy is trying to compare soup with dinner.
Your comparison on page one is bold but hardly exhaustive or indisputable, or (I would suggest) entirely coherent. The terms can be productively sharpened to elucidate this interesting juxtaposition.
These discussions are the living blood of history as a discipline and if the OPer wants to learn, here is a suitable opportunity.
No, if you want any credibility to your statement, you need to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by applebreath
If you do not, why should we consider your opinion? Asking for people to state the reasonings behind their claims is hardly destructive - if anything, it's constructive (it's rather hard to argue with someone whose arguements you do not know, no?)
In my opinion, discussions like these are rather poor, History Channel type oversimplifying infotainment sort of discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by applebreath
"Legion vs. Phalanx"
"Legion vs. Cataphracts"
"Legion vs. Barbarians*"
If Roman, Hellen or Hellenistic military systems are to be compared, then compare the systems (or 'traditions'), not the invidual troop types within those systems.
(*"Barbarian" is such a terrible word when discussing something on a serious level, imho.)
He didn't say "unmotivated", now did he?Quote:
Originally Posted by applebreath
Hellenistic armies weren't completely reliant on great commanders, but run-down armies of war-exhausted states in decline would've needed a general with some tactical prowess indeed to defeat the armies of a rising superpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by applebreath
However, when discussing the issue on a scale like this, it's not really "legion vs. phalanx" now is it? And this is my point.
I'm going to have to decline to argue any further on this subject. It's pointless in a setting/format as this. Most people will only believe what they already believe. Also, without getting very specific about what we are actually arguing about, it is too easy to get lost on pointless tangents.
I gave my opinion. I also gave my opinion about why there is no reason we shouldn't be able to give our opinion, we are thinking beings after all. I'm moving on.
For those that want more on this subject. There are plenty of articles/posts online, including another in the EB forum, https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100672. For possible books to read, EB also has a nice list, https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698.
-Apple
I agree with the general assessment that this sort of thread is pointless.
It is like trying to argue chariot vs cavalry or bow vs gun. I don't think the arrow of time and proof of disuse lie when it says which is better.
I hope the OP got some value, he seems to think he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banzai!
I think simplistic questions are a great place to start. As young kids we get a snapshot of history ("this is a roman legionary: this is a greek hoplite") so you take it from there.
However sharpening up the definitions is what is called for in this case, and the teacher's answer was not a great bit of history.
Sharing a quick opinion :P
I will agree with many here that both have their merits within their own context.
Basically how I see it is that the Phalanx was the ultimate evolution of Spear Wars, and the Legion/Cohort is part of the Sword Wars.
And as history goes usually, it is all a question of circumstance and fashion. When Alexander the Great did his own feats, then all of the sudden everyone started using the Phalanx. It just so happened that when Rome became the new influential top dog in the neighborhood then everyone forgot about the phalanx.
If we do take a look across History however, it can also be argued that the Phalanx outlived the Cohort, when the Pike became once more in later medieval times a weapon of choice, and units fought in the same fashion up to the 17th century.
No the pikes in the 17th century were often 4 facing instead of 1, and frequently had men armed with swords and bucklers and other such weapons operating in the same unit amongst the pikemen.
The phalanx did not outlive the cohort. The pike outlived the cohort.
And the sword outlived the pike
Besides of which 17th century pike was basically used to protect arquebus from cavalry. Once the bayonet came along it faded back into oblivion
As for arguing chariot vs cavalry and bow vs gun, there isn't even an argument. Chariot is too inflexible. It need a very long path to accelerate, must operate on terrain free of ANY obstruction (even more so than cavalry) is slower and less maneuverable than cavalry. So once horses became large enough for charging purpose chariots faded out.
Guns have more armor penetration power than the bow, can be mass equiped and trained a lot more efficiently than the bow, can be used from cover, and helps in centralization.
not true ... here's the proof :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Yes that is what I was trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
I've been trying to make sense of these past two pages. So, are you guys saying that the OP shouldn't have posted? or you do not see any reason to compare a legion cohort with a phalanx box? or a legionary with a phalangite? What's the conclusion here?
I don't know too much about these units, but from what I can tell so far, the legion appears to be more versatile/flexible than the phalanx. Head on I'm not sure how each did compared to the other. I'd guess that at the end of the day the legion turned out to be the superior type of military unit as if I'm not mistaken it did outlast the phalanx, did it not? or rather it crushed the phalanx most of the time?
-Vartan
no, it simply means you cant compare them. It's like comparing the Sherman against the entire German army, it make no real sense.
Yes, it's hard to compare the Legion, which is a whole military machine, against a phalanx, which is an infantry unit.
However the Roman military machine is superior (I'd say) to the Greek one
i would still like to know on what grounds Sid Meir believes a phalanx unit can defend and defeat a a group of ironclads.
Although I believe that you can compare a cohort to a phalanx unit and then give your opinion about which is better, comparing the whole "military machines" of both, might be a better way to go. I'd also say the Roman one was the better one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Besides, comparing military machines is probably what most are thinking when they ask the kind of question that the OP did.
But.. I'm sure others will still argue that you can't even compare the "military machines". Because it would be like comparing an army of ants to a tank division, right? :P
You can compare the Greek Military Machine to the Roman one. In this repsect Rome's was far superior. They had an almost mechanical ability of putting out large amounts of troops. They had a well trained, well motivated officier corps. They just won the 2nd Punic War. Most of all they were determined to do what they wanted to do.
Exactly. So what's everyone on about, saying this comparison can't be made, that comparison can't be made? Come on people! I don't understand why you can't compare two systems, two machines, or if individual units in the game, why you can't compare 120 legionaries to 122 phalangites.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
well you can compare 120 legionaries to 122 phalangites but such comparisons would be like focusing on the trees and missing the forest... the idea is that the phallanx was part of a two fold doctrine encorporating static (pike infantry) and dynamic (heavy cavalry) elements... In Alexander's mind phallanx was never supposed to fight and win on its own... so instead you should concentrate on studying doctrines/tactics/strategies not mere material ... (for example in WW II France had in overal better material than Germany but because their doctrine and moral was inferior they lost).Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Also i would like to say that moral and will are major determining factors as well... one could arguably say that Greeks might have morally declined losing their "warlike/competitive" edge over their western competitors... (such examples are very often in history)
study ...
... Medes < Persians < Greeks [Sparta<Athens<Thebes<Macedonia] < Romans < Western Barbarians
etc etc etc... notice the shift of power from the center to the periphery ??? this shift is linked with social and military innovations , vitality ,competitive edge or mere "will for power".
This topic is the most beaten to death ever. Legion is probably better, simply being more flexible, plus the average troop quality was simply superior.
In the macedonian wars The romans had the veterans of teh wars against hannibal, in africa, and ibéria, that would count for something im sure, since it was the maniples, on their own that win the battle against Philipe the consul Flaminius couldnt order 20 maniples to flank and atack the main phalanx on the right Philip army. It was a centurion, the historians didnt even know his name.Quote:
Originally Posted by -42-
its nice documentary :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3w6pXqekm4&NR=1