Phalanx V Legion (Best army backbone?)

[Hyeranicus Maximus]

I have been waiting to post this debate that not only I but, many RTW players and historians have been mumbling around about.

Like all great armies of the ancient world a strong and steady backbone is needed to be there as support for sudden shifts in the power struggles of battle. Something that allows a base for a re-group and re-luanch of an attack or defense. However, what unit creates the greatest and most powreful backbone to any army of expansionist aims.

The debate is between the great hellenistic phalanx and the military precision of the Roman Legion. Both, have allowed their generals to reach legendary fame. For example Alexander the Great's Macedonian Phalanx (my choice of an army backbone) or the Cold wall of sheilds and javelins that is the Emperor's first legionaire cohort.

First I will allow some freindly veiws before I give my study.

(i have studied both schools of thought. Through many ancient histories extended essay projects at my college.)

I await your opinions.

LET TOTAL DEBATE BEGIN!!!

[Quintus.JC]

This should be in the Monastery. Are junior members allowed to post threads in the Monastery?

Very interesting topic BTW.

[Martok]

Welcome to the Org, Hyeranicus Maximus! I think you'll discover that both sides of this argument have plenty of proponents here.

This should be in the Monastery. Are junior members allowed to post threads in the Monastery?

No they cannot, since the Monastery is part of the forum's Miscellaneous section. That said, I doubt it'll be long before this thread picks up steam.

[Quintus.JC]

No they cannot, since the Monastery is part of the forum's Miscellaneous section. That said, I doubt it'll be long before this thread picks up steam.

The moderators can move it there, when i was a junior member I post a thread 'favourite Historical battle' in the Colosume, which was first intended to be around RTW but eventually jump to a history discussion, then the moderator moved it to the Monastery. I'm sure this will be a hit in the monastry.

[Raz]

Ok, lets get debating...
Note: It should be, well... noted that I am not too great on the tactics of ancient warfare. At least in Europe...

I personally believe that the Roman legion had both a much greater fighting power and more flexibility over the hellenistic and (dare I say it) unsophisticated phalanx. The legion was not vulnerable in any situation, when on the move or in rough ground, the phalanx was easily crushed when there were gaps in between the soldiers such as when the army was fighting in rough terrain. The legion had plenty of auxillary and cavalry detachments on either flank compared to the phalanx armies that had poor cavalry (hailing from the rough fields of Greece) and few reserves, once their cavalry was destroyed, the phalanx was easily flanked and quickly annihilated. I admit that Rome was not exactly renowned for their cavalry but I can safely say that their equites were better drilled than the hippeis of ancient Greece.

The only times when the Roman legion was completely and utterly annihilated was when the legion was:
a) on unfavourable ground. (lowlands, dense woods)
b) completely outnumbered. (1:4, 1:5 etc.)
c) unprepared, unready or taken by surprise. (usually the cause, ambushes etc.)
d) indisciplined and did not respond to orders (sometimes the cause, but usually much more disastrous when it happened)

I await being flamed...

[pevergreen]

Ingame or out?

[Raz]

What!? I thought it was in history - not ingame. The suggestions for this to be placed in the monestary etc...

[Spartan198]

The main problem with the Macedonian syntagma is that it was a tactically unwieldly monster. The one thing that, IMHO, makes it inferior to the classical Greek phalanx.

A legionary cohort could change direction to face a flank attack in an instant.

[Quintus.JC]

The two decisive battles involving Roman legion (pre-marian) and Macedonian Phalanx were the Battle of Cynoscephalae and the Battle of Pydna. In both battles the Roman maniples out manovured and out fought the inflexible phalanx. Demonstrating the phalanx formation, once upon a time the greatest fighting formation in the world, were now in fact obsolete.

[Jedi Bruno]

I guess that this depends of several things.
Sure, the Romans have defeated Greek phalanxes several times, but you must remember that the Greek Cities were not strong as they were when they fought against the Persian armies.
They also lacked a strong leadership as the Romans had during that period.
And also, as we proved in TW Games, no army can match a well trained phalanx in a narrow place, such as bridges and places like Thermophilas.

[Abokasee]

Phalanx Formations where easily the strongest backbone, but not bthe most versatile, they had many bad points.

-Slow moving to keep in formation
-Buggered if flanked
-Buggered if charged from behind

In other words, not good on a open field unless supported by hand-to-hand combatants (hypaspistai for example)

however when defending a chokepoint (For example a bridge, or the gorge in 300) they where almost undefeatable the only pratical way of killing them is to go on scale to gorge and toss javelins or arrows at them, or swim the river and do the same (Peltast where generally very lightly equipted so they could swim the river with very little difficulty)

The legionaries oF rome however where much more versatile, they had there weak points though:

-Generally low numbers, especially in the early days of rome
-Expensive equipment, further brought down numbers

however unlike the phalanx they could do the following

-Quickly flank a enemy
-If necessary become a substitube skirmisher
-Manouver easily
-Better upclose combat

Phalanxes are literally a back bone, without them alexanders army would collapse like a jenga tower

[Quintus.JC]

I think it's fair to say that Phalanx can't do nil on their own, they always needs supporting troops. Alexander didn't conquer the known world with only Phalangites. Too many restrictions to their movements is a huge weakness, they are slow and have too much trouble going through woodlands and marshes etc. et.

[Jedi Bruno]

One thing sure is that Roman Legions could deal better with missile fire.

[Quintus.JC]

The heavy armoured legionary with their Scutum are excellent at dealing with missile fire, especially in testudo. But the Phalanx formation are rather good at catching arrows when fired upon the front, but when it's fired from the side and back then the Phalanx infantry stand little chance of not being hit, one of the best ways to kill off Spartan hoplites in RTW.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No one will ever be certain. The phalanx format hit its apex under Alexandros, while the legion style didn't do so until after Gaius Marius and L.C. Sulla got done with it. That's more than two centuries apart.

The phalanx style was never at its best when only spearmen were present. The Macedonian form relied on missile troops, flanker infantry, and hard-hitting cavalry to make it work. By itself, the sarissa was not enough of an advantage to be strategically decisive. As noted above, the wall of spears was also hampered by the very thing that made it formidable -- the mass of closely packed spearman packed in shoulder to shoulder. None of the successor lords -- busy as they were with empire redesign -- followed up on Alexanders idea of a mixed phalanx featuring rows of pikemen backed by an equal number of heavy bowmen in unified formations. That could have changed a lot of things.

The legionary style, however, wasn't really perfected until the differing levels of arms/equippage were dropped in favor of a more or less uniform kit. The hastatus-principe-triarius format was adequate to handle a phalanx army and thump them, but got handed a lot more in the way of defeats than did the post-marian legions. The Epirote war and the campaigns of Hannibal clearly demonstrate the weaknesses of a pre-marian legion.

Historically, a competently-led Macedonian format army facing a competently led Pre-Marian Roman army ended up in a bloody stalemate (the famous Pyrrhic "victories").

I guess, for me, the answer is the post-Marian legion because -- even absent all support/ancillary forces -- it could still function effectively and even decisively. A phalanx, without support forces, really can't. Thus I give the edge to the Romaoi.

[Bibbin]

Hi everyone, this is my first post here, I am exited about history!

I never knew about The Battle of Cynoscephalae or the Battle of Pydna. Thanks for the links, Quintus.J.Cicero.

If you were talking about history, a phalanx, if charged from the back couldn't turn around without stabbing their own army in the back. Even if they raised their pikes, they would turn around very slowly.

In RTW, I think a Legionary cohort would be better because they can turn quicker if they were attacked in their back. But still, a phalanx is much more effective at fighting if calvary and horsemen were charging it. A phalanx can not move quickly over the ground on rough terrain but a Legionary cohort can move quickly over the ground.

[Jedi Bruno]

I think the subject here is more about historical battles and strategies. RTW is a terrific game, but we all know that several flaws prevent strategy to be fully used. In a real field of battle, several more factors have influence than just stamina and morale.


About Alexander's tactics, you are right about that. The sarissa was not the sole weapon of his army. His tactic of making archers fire in turns, row after row, made his archer battalions be like a machine gun on a ancient battlefield.

[Quintus.JC]

Actually Alexander didn't deploy a great deal of archers in his army. The majority of his army was made of Pezhetairoi, heavy Macedonian phalanx infantry who were very effective against both cavalry and infantry. They were aided by Companion and other forms of powerful shock cavalry, and the main missile corps were the Peltasts, which normally made more than 20% of Alexander's army. Peltast in RTW are rather weak but Alexander seems to be able to put them to good uses, they were later replaced by the more powerful Thureophoroi, which resembles the characteristics of Heavy peltasts in RTW.