Quote Originally Posted by anubis88
Well, at Magnesia the Seleucid's did have quite a balanced army, and a pretty good general....
QFT. I'd have to stick with the maniple, especially once you hit Augustan times. If the Hellenic states had not bled themselves dry they could definitely have hurt the Romans a lot more as phalanx warfare IS a very viable form but Western Europe is not quite as flat as going eastwards, and the locals tend to favor more unconvential forms of warfare. I believe the Alexander would probably have beaten any period Roman army thrown at him but would have eventually suffered the same fate as Hannibal. And if he didn't and managed to effectively subdue the Romans, well there's always the Iberians, Celts, and Germans, all of whom I don't doubt would gladly have used skirmish warfare to its utmost.
Now, if we're just talking your average legion vs your average phalanx army, with commanders of roughly average skill and knowledge on both sides, I give a coin toss to the battle. It would depend on whose flanks broke first, really. While the Romans may not have had much cavalry, its not like they didn't have any, and they didn't hesitate on using their allies to provide support troops. As long as the cavalry can check the Successor cavalry long enough for infantry to swarm it, then the legion wins in all likelihood. If the Successor cavalry can swiftly defeat the Romans then the phalanx army will win. But a maniple will be able to stand up to a pike push long enough for these things to matter.
Wow, I've rambled on and I'm still not sure whether I've said anything useful.