Legion vs. Phalanx

[Scipio Germanicus]

Recently we discussed the Romans in my ancient history class and my professor made the comment that the Roman Legion was superior to the Greek Phalanx. So my question is, is he right? Was the Roman Legion itself a superior force to the Greek's Phalanx, or were they reletively equally effective?

And please do not start Rome-bashing. I just want to know wheter either was better than the other. Thank you.

[anubis88]

This is probably the most debated subject on RTW forums... The Legion was superior in certain aspects, which was proven at the Battles of Pydna, Cynoscephalae and Magnesia. However Pyrhhus managed to defeat the Romans, and left Italy undefeated in a battle while he used the Phalanx.
Also, it is debated that the phalanx of late was inefective since the Diadochi didn't use as strong a Cavalry that Alexander did, which is a huge part of the Hammer and Anvil tactic.

Also the phalanx could be used effectivly only on a flat terrain, while the legions could adapt to any form of enviroment

[applebreath]

Was the Roman Legion itself a superior force to the Greek's Phalanx?

YES, hands down.

Mainly because the Legion was much more flexible, in terms of mobility, "ideal" combat terrain, formations, and command structure.

[HunGeneral]

I think there was a long discussion about this and even an attempt of a tournament to decide which was more effective. I would suggest you look that up somewhere (use the "search" function).

In my opinion both were effective - which would prove succesfull in an engagement depended on many factors: leading Generals, terrrain, supporting troops (quality and how there used) and so on.

[king of thracia]

The legion is flexible. Each unit down the individual soldier can fight alone.

The phalanx depends on support. Combined arms doctrine can have its disadvantages.

[Ludens]

I think there was a long discussion about this and even an attempt of a tournament to decide which was more effective. I would suggest ou look that up somewhere (use the "search" function).

In my opinion both were effective - which would prove succesfull in an engagement depended on many factors: leading Generals, terrrain, supporting troops (quality and how there used) and so on.

Very true. It's not quite as simple as one being always better than the other, so could people in this thread please refrain from making blanket statements without supporting arguments?

BTW: what did he mean with phalanx exactly? The hoplite phalanx or the Macedonian phalanx?

[applebreath]

Very true. It's not quite as simple as one being always better than the other, so could people in this thread please refrain from making blanket statements without supporting arguments?

BTW: what did he mean with phalanx exactly? The hoplite phalanx or the Macedonian phalanx?

We should be entitled to state a nondestructive reasonable opinion, with or without "supporting arguments".

The EB forum is empty enough, without forcing us to provide links/evidence to everything we say. Even that supporting evidence would be "relative" and debatable. I can't believe you would add that last post, as a moderator. How is that constructive? I'd actually argue it was destructive.

Within reason, LET US post what we want, where we want, period. Imo, your overstepping your authority/purpose as a moderator.

Of course, under certain circumstances, ANY army can be defeated. Nothing is black and white. But I feel the OP wanted a general assessment, not a circular discussion that leads nowhere, hence a "blanket" statement: The legion-army/cohort-unit was better than a phalanx-army/unit.

-Apple

[Jebivjetar]

I think the best way to resolve this question would be some kind of simulation (experiment) of the fight between phalanx and a legion in real life. I'm not sure if we can test this in virtual fight (even in EB battle) since balance between units is made ad hoc- for the play where each faction have its chances to win in battle. For example: phalanx in most cases is totally impenetrable from the front (even heavy catas-cavalry has big problems with that; missiles have no impact on front of the phalanx either... That's why i think it would be best to make some experiments with that.

(my English is bad, but i hope you can recognize my idea in this)

[Parallel Pain]

BTW: what did he mean with phalanx exactly? The hoplite phalanx or the Macedonian phalanx?

Bet you he doesn't know the difference

I was under the impression that the diadochi phalanx were even stronger frontally than the ones under Alexander due to the increase in pike length.
Also the frequent civil wars cut away at the number of highly trained cavalry so they were sometimes reduced to the role of keeping the enemy cavalry in check.
The Roman system of fielding armies of trained levies and larger manpower reserve also played a roll in bringing down the army of professionals plagued by civil war.


In game I would say that phalanx is better. While less able to maneuver, the phalanx (or any unit)'s ability to turn without breaking order during an engagment is there. Meanwhile the extreme terrain penalty for phalanx in broken or elevated terrain is not there. This pretty much negates the flexibility of the phalanx.
On top of that flexibility requires local commanders of legates down to centurions to take advantage in commanding their unit, moving, attacking, and ordering reserves when they see it. That means a legion is commanded by many, many brains and eyes all over the battlefield that nominally reports to a top general but in reality can issue their own order as they see fit. All "flexible" armies need this command system to take full advantage of its flexibility. While this command system existed in real life, it doesn't exist in game because the player needs to issue all orders personally. This means effective use of a legion (or a non-phalanx army) either needs a lot of pausing or a lot of micro.
And this is seriously problematic for the player(s) when the deciding factor is the micro-intensive cavalry engagement on the flanks, leaving the legions unable to be used to its full potential. On the other hand phalanx could be just ordered forward and then (semi)forgotten.
As the reality of the scarcity of horses and trained cavalry is not in the game (where cavalry can be recruited as long as you have the money, and neither is the scarcity of trained long-range missile troops), the ability of infantry fighting power is also de-emphasized for cavalry.

[Scipio Germanicus]

I thank you for your answers as to my question.

Bet you he doesn't know the difference

For the record, yes I do. Guess I should've specified. I was referring to the Macedonian Phalanx developed by Phillip, which was a deeper formation than the one used in southern Greece (can't think of the exact size off the top of my head) and used spears that were IIRC about 6m (18ft) in length. Because of the longer spears, they had smaller shields that were strapped to their arms so that they could use both hands. Please do not assume ignorance just because I forgot to specify.

[Fluvius Camillus]

If phalanx is mentioned in the forums it is usually meant as the Makedonian Phalanx developed by Philip II of Macedon.

In game I personally find the Makedonian phalanx better than the legion. This goes for the AI, as they are not smart enough to exploit their flexible armies when needed. In MP battles the phalanx also is better in my opinion, the player is usually a lot smarter than the AI, but a seasoned EB Hellenistic veteran makes balanced armies. Able to counter the legions with their own heavy infantry and use cavalry to do great damage. Also phalanx can be engaged and forgotten about in some battles (depending on enemy tactics), leaving you more time to manage the flank infantry and cavalry.

In Real I think it is impossible to say, there are far too many factors that play a role to come to a conclusion which is better. Indivually, the legionairre would be stronger of course, as Roman Virtus testifies, a single sarissa and sword armed man can not counter such a man, who can excell in individual combat.

Also remember that above I describe the Hellenistic balanced composition of the army, in reality this of course was not always possible. Generals had to settle with less, apart from Antiochus III the Great. Who could recruit a huge variety of troops out of his large empire.

Still the following factors can differ so much that a good conclusion cannot be reached:
- The capacities of the commander
- The number/compostion of troops
- The type of terrain (Do not overestimate the phalanx inability of fighting on elevated terrain, Cynosphalae was not flat and the Makedonians could keep formation and drive the Romani back at the first stages of the battle).
- The type of weather can play a minor role
- The level of discipline and the martial power of the soldiers.
- The position the army was in (geographically - like cornered to the sea, or the amount of pay and whether the soldiers were well-fed or starving, defining the morale in the situation).
- The loyalty of the army and ethnicity (Makedonians would be more driven to fight invading Romani than a levied native Egyptian fights in phalanx against the Seleukids).
- Some more which I am unable to come up with at the moment.

One thing is clear, the Romani did defeat the phalanx, in my opinion the battle of Magnesia was the best example, however they could have failed without their Pergamene allies.

Remember it was not only the legions that defeated the phalanx, they also defeated themselves. Would the Hellenes be more a united force against the Romani instead of fighting each other multiple times history might have taken another path. When Romani intervention came the Romani were at the heigth of their power and the Hellenes in decline because of foreign incursions and countless infighting.

That'll be all.

Thank for reading

~Fluvius

[seienchin]

Comparing the Phalangitai armies and the legions against each other is strikingly similar to the german and the french army in WII.
The french (greeks) had some strong defensive formations(phalangitai), better tanks (cavallery) and more aircraft(levy support), but still they were crushingly defeated by the more flexible germans (romans), with better trained units(legions).

Or in other words:
When the seleukid cavallery at magnesia defeated many roman legions the rest still fought and won.
A greek army did just crumble as easy as the persian army crumbled 200years earlier against Alexander, but the romans could still fight on.
Another point is:
In reality a shower of pila did cause many casualties in the phalangitai troops, while they couldnt react to that. Another reason why the phalangitai at pydna had to atack and why phalangitai werent defensive used. Because they could be killed by missiles and javelinnes.

[A Very Super Market]

Comparisons to WWII when dealing with ancient warfare should be left out. More often than not, they are wrong, or extremely debateable, leading to off-topicness.

I for one would bet on Alexander's army led by competent officers, rather than a legion led by equally talented one.

[ARCHIPPOS]

elaborate on the below text ...

Polybius, The Histories, Book XVIII, Chapters 28-32:

"In my sixth book I made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and pointing out how they differ for better or worse from each other. I will now endeavor by a reference to actual facts to fulfil that promise. For since in former times the Macedonian tactics proved themselves by experience capable of conquering those of Asia and Greece; while the Roman tactics sufficed to conquer the nations of Africa and all those of Western Europe; and since in our own day there have been numerous opportunities of comparing the men as well as their tactics, it will be, I think, a useful and worthy task to investigate their differences, and discover why it is that the Romans conquer and carry off the palm from their enemies in the operations of war: that we may not put it all down to Fortune, and congratulate them on their good luck, as the thoughtless of mankind do; but, from a knowledge of the true causes, may give their leaders the tribute of praise and admiration which they deserve.

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae are sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissa projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer:
So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm; And man on man; and waving horse-hair plumes In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed In order: in such serried rank they stood. [Iliad, 13.131]
And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.

With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.

Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also admit. However, let us suppose that such a district has been found. If the enemy decline to come down into it, but traverse the country sacking the towns and territories of the allies, what use will the phalanx be? For if it remains on the ground suited to itself, it will not only fail to benefit its friends, but will be incapable even of preserving itself; for the carriage of provisions will be easily stopped by the enemy, seeing that they are in undisputed possession of the country: while if it quits its proper ground, from the wish to strike a blow, it will be an easy prey to the enemy. Nay, if a general does descend into the plain, and yet does not risk his whole army upon one charge of the phalanx or upon one chance, but maneuvers for a time to avoid coming to close quarters in the engagement, it is easy to learn what will be the result from what the Romans are now actually doing.

For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts. The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming."

hmmmmm, let each man draw his own conclusions...

[Knight of Heaven]

Yes the roman legions, and his tactics, were very adaptive, to any terrain, etc, I belive it will depend very much of the armies, and his compositions, that a roman legion would face. I remember that at magnésia the selucids only had 2 phalanxes with thousand of mens. One composed by natives, and other one would be the SilverShields. the rest of the army would be alot of cav, elephants, and chariots, and other infantries.
Phyrrus would have a diferent army composition then Seleukos when facing romans, asweal diferent eras.

[Parallel Pain]

For the record, yes I do...

Sorry, I should've been more clear (stupid pronouns)

By "he", I was refering to Luden's post which was refering to your prof.

So I was saying "Bet your prof doesn't know the difference"

I mean come on. Who plays EB and doesn't know the difference right?

[Scipio Germanicus]

Sorry, I should've been more clear (stupid pronouns)

By "he", I was refering to Luden's post which was refering to your prof.

So I was saying "Bet your prof doesn't know the difference"

I mean come on. Who plays EB and doesn't know the difference right?

Ok. No harm, no foul.

And especial thanks to ARCHIPPOS for the Polybius. I was wondering if he had written anything on the issue.

[antisocialmunky]

If the tournement showed anything, it was that both are equally good. It was 8 wins for Greece and 7 for Rome. However, at the end of the day, it always came down to how well the cavalry arms did.

Cavalry wins battle :-p Infantry was there just to kinda of make a wall.

[Parallel Pain]

If the tournement showed anything, it was that both are equally good. It was 8 wins for Greece and 7 for Rome. However, at the end of the day, it always came down to how well the cavalry arms did.

Cavalry wins battle :-p Infantry was there just to kinda of make a wall.

Of course in real life a lot of times infantry was the decisive arm while the role of cavalry was to prevent the opposite cavalry from doing anything crazy.

[satalexton]

The Tournaments were hardly a good testament. I'm quite sure in real life people would not run straight into 5 rows of spearsheads, get jabbed and knocked down, and survive to gut the whole phalanx...

[mountaingoat]

not even a spartan?

[Yarema]

The Roman Legion in its form after the battle of Baecula totally outclassed the phalanx. Here are the basic reasons:

1. The phalanx was most effective iphalanx formation, and that required fighting on a flat plain. When fighting in rough terrain, the phalanx lost it's greatest strength. The Legion was also slightly more effective on a flat plain, but it didn't lose as much power in rough terrain as the phalanx did. The legionaries wer quite simply much more versatile and could operate in variuos conditions.
2. The Legion could change formation and march without breaking it faster than the phalanx. The soldiers of the phalanx were slower with their spears, and it was difficult to march fast or run in phalanx formation. This meant that on the battlefield the Roman army march and change formations much faster.
3. The Legionnaries were equally effective when fighting in tight formations as in one on one duels, while the soldiers if phalanx were strong only in formation. The shiled of a Legionnary covered his whole body, from his feet up to his throat, whereas a shield of a phalanx soldier covered his stomach, hischest and his left side. If he would be standing in phalanx formation, his right side would be covered by the shield of another soldier, but when the formation is dispersed, his protection would suffer. Also, the Romans fought with their swords much more than the phalanx soldiers fought with theirs, so the romans had more practise.

Those were the basic reasons for while the Legion was better, to name them all one should write a whole book..

The only hellenic general who managed ti fight the Romans quite effectively was Pyrrhus, but that was before the battle of Baecula, and even Pyrrhus did not defeat the Romans.
The battles of Cynoscehalae, Magnesia or Pydna clearly show the superiority of the Legion over the phalanx. History proves the Legion was better.

[Phalanx300]

As a standalone force the Roman legion is superior(though not easy as mass blocks of pikemen still were effective) but with combined arms the Macedonian Phalanx has more use.

Not sure how many accounts there are of the Hoplite Phalanx vs the Legion.

[Maksimus]

This issues is interesting. I can only say my view thorough the game.
In RTW and EB Pikes dont lose formation and are able to form line at any terrain or elevation which wasnt the case in history. That makse pikes much better than legion.
On the other side Legions were much much more effective ''universal troopers'', and easier to maintain, tho sometime more expensive. In my mod I added bonuses to men and moral to legion's and bonuses for diff terrains that balances this issue a bit more.

[antisocialmunky]

The Tournaments were hardly a good testament. I'm quite sure in real life people would not run straight into 5 rows of spearsheads, get jabbed and knocked down, and survive to gut the whole phalanx...

Well I only did that once.... in the woods.

I'm not going to get involved in this. This has been discussed ad nauseum.

[Ludens]

I can't believe you would add that last post, as a moderator. How is that constructive? I'd actually argue it was destructive.

Asking for evidence is destructive? All I meant to ask was for people not to post single-line replies to the OPs question.

Not sure how many accounts there are of the Hoplite Phalanx vs the Legion.

The battle of Corinth would have seen such a match-up, didn't it? Do we have description of that battle?

[Parallel Pain]

As a standalone force the Roman legion is superior(though not easy as mass blocks of pikemen still were effective) but with combined arms the Macedonian Phalanx has more use.

Combined arms Macedonian Phalanx would surely have more use than a standalone legion, but I would think a Combined arms legion would have more use than a Combined arms Macedonian Phalanx

[king of thracia]

The legion is flexible. Each unit down the individual soldier can fight alone.

The phalanx depends on support. Combined arms doctrine can have its disadvantages.

I think my one liners are astoundingly concise and elegant, no?

[antisocialmunky]

Isn't quoting yourself some sort of narcisism?

[Banzai!]

What has always puzzled me is how to actually kill someone with a sarrisa pike? I can't see how you could deliver a thrust with any kind of force behind it. Can a pike even penetrate chainmail?

I always imagined the phalanx just using its depth to walk over an enemy formation, butt-spiking those unfortunates who have been pushed down. I think I know now why Polybius was so surprised after seeing the gladius in action - yes, real weapons do leave cuts.