Legion vs. Phalanx

[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.

[Fluvius Camillus]

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

~Fluvius

[seienchin]

Comparing the Phalangitai armies and the legions against each other is strikingly similar to the german and the french army in WII.
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).

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.

[Parallel Pain]

For the record, yes I do...

Sorry, I should've been more clear (stupid pronouns)

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?

[Scipio Germanicus]

Sorry, I should've been more clear (stupid pronouns)

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?

Ok. No harm, no foul.

And especial thanks to ARCHIPPOS for the Polybius. I was wondering if he had written anything on the issue.