Legion vs. Phalanx

[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

[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 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.