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?

[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.