Legion vs. Phalanx

[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 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.