Legion vs. Phalanx

[antisocialmunky]

If the tournement showed anything, it was that both are equally good. It was 8 wins for Greece and 7 for Rome. However, at the end of the day, it always came down to how well the cavalry arms did.

Cavalry wins battle :-p Infantry was there just to kinda of make a wall.

[Parallel Pain]

If the tournement showed anything, it was that both are equally good. It was 8 wins for Greece and 7 for Rome. However, at the end of the day, it always came down to how well the cavalry arms did.

Cavalry wins battle :-p Infantry was there just to kinda of make a wall.

Of course in real life a lot of times infantry was the decisive arm while the role of cavalry was to prevent the opposite cavalry from doing anything crazy.

[satalexton]

The Tournaments were hardly a good testament. I'm quite sure in real life people would not run straight into 5 rows of spearsheads, get jabbed and knocked down, and survive to gut the whole phalanx...

[mountaingoat]

not even a spartan?

[Yarema]

The Roman Legion in its form after the battle of Baecula totally outclassed the phalanx. Here are the basic reasons:

1. The phalanx was most effective iphalanx formation, and that required fighting on a flat plain. When fighting in rough terrain, the phalanx lost it's greatest strength. The Legion was also slightly more effective on a flat plain, but it didn't lose as much power in rough terrain as the phalanx did. The legionaries wer quite simply much more versatile and could operate in variuos conditions.
2. The Legion could change formation and march without breaking it faster than the phalanx. The soldiers of the phalanx were slower with their spears, and it was difficult to march fast or run in phalanx formation. This meant that on the battlefield the Roman army march and change formations much faster.
3. The Legionnaries were equally effective when fighting in tight formations as in one on one duels, while the soldiers if phalanx were strong only in formation. The shiled of a Legionnary covered his whole body, from his feet up to his throat, whereas a shield of a phalanx soldier covered his stomach, hischest and his left side. If he would be standing in phalanx formation, his right side would be covered by the shield of another soldier, but when the formation is dispersed, his protection would suffer. Also, the Romans fought with their swords much more than the phalanx soldiers fought with theirs, so the romans had more practise.

Those were the basic reasons for while the Legion was better, to name them all one should write a whole book..

The only hellenic general who managed ti fight the Romans quite effectively was Pyrrhus, but that was before the battle of Baecula, and even Pyrrhus did not defeat the Romans.
The battles of Cynoscehalae, Magnesia or Pydna clearly show the superiority of the Legion over the phalanx. History proves the Legion was better.

[Phalanx300]

As a standalone force the Roman legion is superior(though not easy as mass blocks of pikemen still were effective) but with combined arms the Macedonian Phalanx has more use.

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

[Maksimus]

This issues is interesting. I can only say my view thorough the game.
In RTW and EB Pikes dont lose formation and are able to form line at any terrain or elevation which wasnt the case in history. That makse pikes much better than legion.
On the other side Legions were much much more effective ''universal troopers'', and easier to maintain, tho sometime more expensive. In my mod I added bonuses to men and moral to legion's and bonuses for diff terrains that balances this issue a bit more.

[Parallel Pain]

As a standalone force the Roman legion is superior(though not easy as mass blocks of pikemen still were effective) but with combined arms the Macedonian Phalanx has more use.

Combined arms Macedonian Phalanx would surely have more use than a standalone legion, but I would think a Combined arms legion would have more use than a Combined arms Macedonian Phalanx

[antisocialmunky]

The Tournaments were hardly a good testament. I'm quite sure in real life people would not run straight into 5 rows of spearsheads, get jabbed and knocked down, and survive to gut the whole phalanx...

Well I only did that once.... in the woods.

I'm not going to get involved in this. This has been discussed ad nauseum.

[Knight of Heaven]

Of course in real life a lot of times infantry was the decisive arm while the role of cavalry was to prevent the opposite cavalry from doing anything crazy.

Yes and in my late online games, i dont find cav so efective, i saw armies with only 2 cav and a lot of flexible infantry and only 1 or 2 phalanxes win againts a wall of sarissas, and 4, 5 heavy cav.
There is a diference between tactics and battle stratagies.

[satalexton]

The phalanx is only a powerful tool used in combination with others unit types. I tend to think of the phalanx as a 'lot, powerful but needing support from drags in the long run. Romans are like 'lings, cheap, numerous, disposable, and surprisingly flexible...

[Blxz]

The phalanx is only a powerful tool used in combination with others unit types. I tend to think of the phalanx as a 'lot, powerful but needing support from drags in the long run. Romans are like 'lings, cheap, numerous, disposable, and surprisingly flexible...

Makes me wonder if comparing the EB time period with starcraft is as irrelevant as comparing it to world war 2. But I CAN see your point. Cheap, a few upgrades and only costing minerals. I find the lack of anti-aircraft in the roman legionaries to be a limitation though.

[Ludens]

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.

Which seems odd, as Hellenic cavalry would have used the equally nasty kopis and falcata swords. Yes, you can kill someone with a sarissa, just as you can kill someone with a shorter spear. A sarissa is less wieldy, but don't underestimate what a trained man could do with them. IIRC foot mentioned that 17th century pikemen were trained to slash their opponent's throat at long-distance. That does not mean it was a common battlefield-tactic, but it could be done.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't think anyone is really sure as to casualty numbers when fighting against just the phalanx. Probably most of the casualties were taken during the routing of one side as usual. I don't know about variations in Sarissa heads but the Swiss Pikes in the late Medieval period carried dozens of different types of heads for slashing and such so its quite possible that the Macedonians might have innovated some.

As to function... well against heavy infantry, I don't think death by sarissa was an large problem. If you look at battles with phalanxes against conventional heavy infantry(ie Hoplites), then you see that the phalanx ended up in some sort of pushing match which could go either way. The hoplites were combat effective until they had a xyston up shoved up their butts. Similarly, the Romans retained unit cohesion and where literally pushed off the battlefield or down a mountain.

To this end as well as other reasons, I would say that the primary use of the phalanx was as ground control. To take and hold ground and make it impossible to take back. This forces the enemy to exhaust itself by beating their heads on your spikes for no good reason until the cavalry shows up and breaks them. Then you have the psychological component that also plays into this. Most people would instinctly retreating the face of pikes. With the exception of Hoplite pushing forces, the phalanx usually was the one who was gaining ground.

This also makes sense as to why Pyrrhus arranged his battle lines the way he did with regular heavy infantry between phalanx blocks. Not only did this allow the phalanx to operate in broken terrain but it allows each block to be able to go at somewhat their own pace and makes the line less rigid. To this end, you could use a phalanx as a breakthrough unit to push through a point in the enemy line without it outrunning the rest of the phalanx line, getting surrounded and destroyed like the Romans managed to do one time and the Thebans did to the Spartans that one time.

We actually did this a couple time in MP where we would push a phalanx completely through a thin hoplite line or something. Then we take phalanx off and pour a ton of reserve infantry through the breach.