Quote Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios View Post
What you say about Legionaries being much harder trained is false and innacurate. Pezhetairoi, for once, were trained in phalanx warfare as well as hand-to-hand combat. They were even taught Pankration, and anyone with some knowledge of this will know that a Pankratistes is lethal in close combat. I think the secret to the Romaioi's victories was not so much the fact that they were exceptionally better in hand-to-hand combat (even though they probably recieved more rigorous training in that field due to the fact that sword combat was their primary funtion in the battlefield), but because they had reserves. Ever tried fighting after wielding a pike and shoving it back and foth after an hour?

Maion
Ever tried fighting for hours with a sword? It is no less exhaustive in my experience and as you know I have experience with long spears as well as swords- in fact sword is if anything more exhausting.
There is probably little difference in the rigour of the phalangite or legionaire training. In fact I imagine it to be very similar as they were both elite levies. But the emphasis I would think is different, the legionaire would train mostly with Pilae and Gladius Hispanensis with some unarmed probably added whereas the Phalangite would train Sarrisae (sp?) mostly and some sword and pancration. However, the Phalangite sword was not as effective as the GH and the legionaire would be better at it cause his emphasis was on it, while Phalangite was on sarrisae. Just like an artellerist or tanker today has had basic infantry training, but are no match for a trained infantry soldier and the latter cannot really drive a tank. The comparison is not totally analogous, but I think you know what I mean.

Thus when the character of an engagement would change from the Phalangite's terms to the legionaire's, the latter would of course mostly prevail. So when the Phalanx lost cohesion and it went to sword distance instead, the Romans had an advantage.