Legion vs. Phalanx

[Scipio Germanicus]

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.

[anubis88]

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

[applebreath]

Was the Roman Legion itself a superior force to the Greek's Phalanx?

YES, hands down.

Mainly because the Legion was much more flexible, in terms of mobility, "ideal" combat terrain, formations, and command structure.

[HunGeneral]

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.

[Ludens]

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 ou 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.

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?

BTW: what did he mean with phalanx exactly? The hoplite phalanx or the Macedonian phalanx?

[applebreath]

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?

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".

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

[Ludens]

I can't believe you would add that last post, as a moderator. How is that constructive? I'd actually argue it was destructive.

Asking for evidence is destructive? All I meant to ask was for people not to post single-line replies to the OPs question.

Not sure how many accounts there are of the Hoplite Phalanx vs the Legion.

The battle of Corinth would have seen such a match-up, didn't it? Do we have description of that battle?

[Jebivjetar]

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)

[Parallel Pain]

BTW: what did he mean with phalanx exactly? The hoplite phalanx or the Macedonian phalanx?

Bet you he doesn't know the difference

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.

[Scipio Germanicus]

I thank you for your answers as to my question.

Bet you he doesn't know the difference

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.

[king of thracia]

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.

[king of thracia]

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.

I think my one liners are astoundingly concise and elegant, no?

[antisocialmunky]

Isn't quoting yourself some sort of narcisism?

[Banzai!]

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.

[satalexton]

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...

[Parallel Pain]

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.