This argument rests in two camps, Romans = good, Romans = Bad.

In fact, it is not soo simple, the major events that are listed as evidence are all actually defeat.

Yes the phalanx was capable of handling the Romans from the front, in fact I think this is because as a formation is so hard to penetrate. However, given that the phalanx rests on primarily one-dimensional warfare (warfare that only offers simple and clear lines) that Legions added a new dimension of mobility to the infantry arm that was simply too mobile for the phalanx to anticipate.

Take Pydna, unlike Kraxis's statement, the reason the Macedonian phalanx was winning at the start was because Paulus's Legions were only partially formed. However, one they were lured off level ground and onto broken ground, the legions charged the gaps and slaughtered the unwieldy, closely packed phalanx. The result, was 31,000 Macedonians dead too 100-500 Romans. The Romans had 25,000 troops to the Macedonians at the start. As we see, the flexibility of the maniple organisation outweighs is the offensive answer to the defensive nature of the phalanx.