Legion vs. Phalanx

[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

[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