Legion vs. Phalanx

[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.

[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.

[ShadesWolf]

In general Legion every time. the results spoke for themselves, Rome survived and the Greek world fell, all the off shoots.

In a 1v1 battle were terrain would be used, ie mountain pass, then you could say Phalanx would win, but it might be a one off.

Pyrrhus was an interesting earlier point, and maybe if the Phalanx tactics have evolved they might have worked, im thinking more of the medieval template (Swiss.) Greek warfare had evolved over 1000+ years and met all barriers but with no new, good leaders they seem to have just run out of time.

nice question, thankyou

[Cyclops]

I agree with all the nitpickers.

Legion style armies (based around sword and javelin armed medium/heavy inf) tended to replace phalanx style amies (spear and shjeildwall heavy inf, or dense pike inf/heavy cav) in the EB period just as cavalry dominated armies replaced Legion style armies in the dark ages.

This reflects social and political realities as well as their relative battlefield strength.

The phalanx tradition has two distinct phases, shieldwall (spear), and hammer+anvil (pike). Likewise legions eveolve dramatically, especially in their recruitment basis, so it is not historically valid or even coherent to say "legion>phalanx". Its like saying "hoof>paw", its a decontextualised juxtaposition ignoring the rest of the animal.

PS paw rulz.

[applebreath]

I see no reason why you can't try to compare one unit of foot soldiers to another and then come up with a reasonable opinion about which is "better". Anything less is a cop out.

[Owen Glyndwr]

I see no reason why you can't try to compare one unit of foot soldiers to another and then come up with a reasonable opinion about which is "better". Anything less is a cop out.

I don't really think that would be a very good idea. If you had 100 of the most well trained infantry soldiers go up against, say, 500 untrained infantry soldiers, who do you think would win? Now imagine that the untrained soldiers also had tanks and helicopters at their disposal. Now who do you think would win?

It's the same with this kind of debate. You can't look at a phalanx individually, even at a singular unit, because phalanx tactics relied entirely on the cohesiveness of the military as a whole. In fact, defeating phalanx armies usually came down to isolating individual soldiers or units and eliminating them piecemeal.

As many have said, I believe it is dependent on who is commanding the troops and what resources are available to each side. If it was an Alexander with a sufficiently strong cavalry contingent, I believe the phalanx would have succeeded, hands down. However even an Alexander without the cavalry would be nothing.

In the end, particularly when it comes to ancient warfare, a lot of it comes down to who's in charge.

[seienchin]

There are a lot of people in this forum speaking about pyrrus, but did you know, that only a small part of his army in italy was composed of phalangitai? Thats why he was succesfull against the romans.
Same for the seleucid cavallery at magnesia.

[applebreath]

I don't really think that would be a very good idea. If you had 100 of the most well trained infantry soldiers go up against, say, 500 untrained infantry soldiers, who do you think would win? Now imagine that the untrained soldiers also had tanks and helicopters at their disposal. Now who do you think would win?

I was thinking someone would say this, or something similar at least.

I'd say the "100 of the most well trained infantry" are better, hands down. How you defined their name is what made it easy for me, :P. Each person is different, but when I think to compare "units" of foot soldiers, I take into account numbers, whether one has tanks and the other has sticks, whether one is trained and the other isn't, etc. You have to define your criteria somehow.

Really, even if there was only 100 of the "best" soldiers, I'd still say they were "better" than an unmotivated mob that was 10,000 in size. Given that no other strange factors, like "tanks versus loud-yelling", where part of the comparison.

In the end, particularly when it comes to ancient warfare, a lot of it comes down to who's in charge.

Any army that is completely reliant on a "great" commander, isn't much of an army to me.

-Apple

[Cyclops]

I see no reason why you can't try to compare one unit of foot soldiers to another and then come up with a reasonable opinion about which is "better". Anything less is a cop out.

Beating straw men is a cop out too. The OP does not mention two specific units of infantry, where did that come from? A Phalanx is a (reportedly inflexible) mass spear formation, whereas a legion is a mixed arms division capable of multiple formations (which EB literature mentions including a phalanx of triarii) with administrative and recruting functions. Both vary widely in their charateristics over time, even in the period of Roman-Hellenic conflicts.

A simple analogy is trying to compare soup with dinner.

Your comparison on page one is bold but hardly exhaustive or indisputable, or (I would suggest) entirely coherent. The terms can be productively sharpened to elucidate this interesting juxtaposition.

These discussions are the living blood of history as a discipline and if the OPer wants to learn, here is a suitable opportunity.

[The General]

We should be entitled to state a nondestructive reasonable opinion, with or without "supporting arguments".

No, if you want any credibility to your statement, you need to support it.

If you do not, why should we consider your opinion? Asking for people to state the reasonings behind their claims is hardly destructive - if anything, it's constructive (it's rather hard to argue with someone whose arguements you do not know, no?)

I see no reason why you can't try to compare one unit of foot soldiers to another and then come up with a reasonable opinion about which is "better". Anything less is a cop out.

In my opinion, discussions like these are rather poor, History Channel type oversimplifying infotainment sort of discussions.

"Legion vs. Phalanx"
"Legion vs. Cataphracts"
"Legion vs. Barbarians*"

If Roman, Hellen or Hellenistic military systems are to be compared, then compare the systems (or 'traditions'), not the invidual troop types within those systems.

(*"Barbarian" is such a terrible word when discussing something on a serious level, imho.)

Really, even if there was only 100 of the "best" soldiers, I'd still say they were "better" than an unmotivated mob that was 10,000 in size.

He didn't say "unmotivated", now did he?

Any army that is completely reliant on a "great" commander, isn't much of an army to me.

Hellenistic armies weren't completely reliant on great commanders, but run-down armies of war-exhausted states in decline would've needed a general with some tactical prowess indeed to defeat the armies of a rising superpower.

However, when discussing the issue on a scale like this, it's not really "legion vs. phalanx" now is it? And this is my point.

[applebreath]

I'm going to have to decline to argue any further on this subject. It's pointless in a setting/format as this. Most people will only believe what they already believe. Also, without getting very specific about what we are actually arguing about, it is too easy to get lost on pointless tangents.

I gave my opinion. I also gave my opinion about why there is no reason we shouldn't be able to give our opinion, we are thinking beings after all. I'm moving on.


For those that want more on this subject. There are plenty of articles/posts online, including another in the EB forum, https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100672. For possible books to read, EB also has a nice list, https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698.

-Apple

[Banzai!]

I agree with the general assessment that this sort of thread is pointless.

It is like trying to argue chariot vs cavalry or bow vs gun. I don't think the arrow of time and proof of disuse lie when it says which is better.

[Cyclops]

I agree with the general assessment that this sort of thread is pointless.

It is like trying to argue chariot vs cavalry or bow vs gun. I don't think the arrow of time and proof of disuse lie when it says which is better.

I hope the OP got some value, he seems to think he did.

I think simplistic questions are a great place to start. As young kids we get a snapshot of history ("this is a roman legionary: this is a greek hoplite") so you take it from there.

However sharpening up the definitions is what is called for in this case, and the teacher's answer was not a great bit of history.

[Suraknar]

Sharing a quick opinion :P

I will agree with many here that both have their merits within their own context.

Basically how I see it is that the Phalanx was the ultimate evolution of Spear Wars, and the Legion/Cohort is part of the Sword Wars.

And as history goes usually, it is all a question of circumstance and fashion. When Alexander the Great did his own feats, then all of the sudden everyone started using the Phalanx. It just so happened that when Rome became the new influential top dog in the neighborhood then everyone forgot about the phalanx.

If we do take a look across History however, it can also be argued that the Phalanx outlived the Cohort, when the Pike became once more in later medieval times a weapon of choice, and units fought in the same fashion up to the 17th century.

[Parallel Pain]

No the pikes in the 17th century were often 4 facing instead of 1, and frequently had men armed with swords and bucklers and other such weapons operating in the same unit amongst the pikemen.
The phalanx did not outlive the cohort. The pike outlived the cohort.

And the sword outlived the pike

Besides of which 17th century pike was basically used to protect arquebus from cavalry. Once the bayonet came along it faded back into oblivion

As for arguing chariot vs cavalry and bow vs gun, there isn't even an argument. Chariot is too inflexible. It need a very long path to accelerate, must operate on terrain free of ANY obstruction (even more so than cavalry) is slower and less maneuverable than cavalry. So once horses became large enough for charging purpose chariots faded out.
Guns have more armor penetration power than the bow, can be mass equiped and trained a lot more efficiently than the bow, can be used from cover, and helps in centralization.

[ARCHIPPOS]

Guns have more armor penetration power than the bow, can be mass equiped and trained a lot more efficiently than the bow, can be used from cover, and helps in centralization.

not true ... here's the proof

[Banzai!]

As for arguing chariot vs cavalry and bow vs gun, there isn't even an argument.

Yes that is what I was trying to say.

[vartan]

I've been trying to make sense of these past two pages. So, are you guys saying that the OP shouldn't have posted? or you do not see any reason to compare a legion cohort with a phalanx box? or a legionary with a phalangite? What's the conclusion here?

I don't know too much about these units, but from what I can tell so far, the legion appears to be more versatile/flexible than the phalanx. Head on I'm not sure how each did compared to the other. I'd guess that at the end of the day the legion turned out to be the superior type of military unit as if I'm not mistaken it did outlast the phalanx, did it not? or rather it crushed the phalanx most of the time?

-Vartan

[satalexton]

no, it simply means you cant compare them. It's like comparing the Sherman against the entire German army, it make no real sense.

[Parallel Pain]

Yes, it's hard to compare the Legion, which is a whole military machine, against a phalanx, which is an infantry unit.

However the Roman military machine is superior (I'd say) to the Greek one

[mountaingoat]

i would still like to know on what grounds Sid Meir believes a phalanx unit can defend and defeat a a group of ironclads.

[applebreath]

Yes, it's hard to compare the Legion, which is a whole military machine, against a phalanx, which is an infantry unit.

However the Roman military machine is superior (I'd say) to the Greek one

Although I believe that you can compare a cohort to a phalanx unit and then give your opinion about which is better, comparing the whole "military machines" of both, might be a better way to go. I'd also say the Roman one was the better one.

Besides, comparing military machines is probably what most are thinking when they ask the kind of question that the OP did.

But.. I'm sure others will still argue that you can't even compare the "military machines". Because it would be like comparing an army of ants to a tank division, right? :P

[antisocialmunky]

You can compare the Greek Military Machine to the Roman one. In this repsect Rome's was far superior. They had an almost mechanical ability of putting out large amounts of troops. They had a well trained, well motivated officier corps. They just won the 2nd Punic War. Most of all they were determined to do what they wanted to do.