Legion vs. Phalanx

[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.

[The General]

I don't think "legion(aries) vs. phalanx" is a fair arguement. Phalanxes were meant to be used in conjuction with other troop types, especially heavy cavalry, and not as the decisive arm. Legionaries were meant to be able to operate much more independantly - not alone though.

By the time Rome and Hellenistic civilizations clashed (apart from the Pyrrhus incident), Rome was a state rising into the status of a superpower whereas Hellenistic civilizations were in decline. At Magnesia, Antiochus lost the battle, and the Pergamese won it, imho. (And using elephants to hold the line between phalanx formations? )

Phalanxes could be devastating, but they required support and a general who knew how to use them. Legionaries were much more flexible and a general had legates and tribunes who could act on their own initiative (like in the final phase at Cynoscephalae).

They were both powerful unit types, and I wouldn't say "X was DEFINITELY better than Z".

[Parallel Pain]

Perhaps not as a fighting unit. In pure fighting there can always be said to depend on ground, generals, support, etc.

However that the legion is flexible enough against the phalanx to select its own battlefield is definately plus for the legion.

All armies need inter-supporting troop types, or combined-arms, to operate to it's maximum efficiency. The Legion is no different. But the fact that it is ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY for the phalanx is definately a minus for it. The idealized support could not be at all times put into the actual battlefield at all times in the required amount.

I think the legion is definately "better" because one got to take into consideration all parts from training, logistics, campaign maneuver, the actual battle, officers, etc.
A system that relies so heavily on unstable variables to get result is not going to be better in the long run against a system that does not, as those variables would balance out.
The fact is that a competent Roman general with minimal support troops could still get results. Meanwhile the phalanx need a good general and lots of support to operate properly.
The legion therefore wins because its system rely less on those very unstable variables (support and quality of the general) to achieve results than the phalanx.
The bigger genius is not one who can use the existing system to beat everyone else who's also using the same system, but someone who can make a new system that will still beat everyone else on the old system after he's gone.

If a phalanx army need a general that knows how to use it to defeat the enemy, while against the same enemy a legion army could win an equally good victory without a general that knows how to use it, then the legion as a military system is definately better.