That would also mean legionary cohorts should have more men than phalangite units.
I understand you want to make a distinction between professionals and part-time fighters, but "warrior" is not the right word. Professional soldiers are sometimes called warriors. And consider the etymology of the word: why should the term warrior be applied to levies but not those who make their living from war?
Those people who are farmers (traders, artisans, craftsmen...) first and fighters second do not go to battle for loot. They are mostly there to protect their homeland. It's the soldiers and the warrior castes that care most about fame and the spoils of war, because warfare is what they owe their status to (and because the pay of the rank-and-file has always stunk).
What you describe is correct for skirmisher levies, but I doubt that close-order levies, such as hoplites and lugoae, would abandon their formation and engage in a series of duels. Rather, they would do what frightened men of all times have done and stand closely together. The resultant wall of shields would have offered them more protection. Yes, their formations would have been simple and there would have been no "squad tactics", but it definitely wasn't a series of duels.
Bookmarks