Legion vs. Phalanx

**Parallel Pain** · 11-17-2009, 02:28

Originally Posted by Scipio Germanicus

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** · 11-17-2009, 04:06

Originally Posted by Parallel Pain

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** · 11-17-2009, 04:25

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** · 11-17-2009, 05:09

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11-17-2009, 05:26

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** · 11-17-2009, 08:05

not even a spartan?

**Yarema** · 11-17-2009, 10:14

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.

**antisocialmunky** · 11-17-2009, 14:50

Originally Posted by 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...

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

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

**Knight of Heaven** · 11-18-2009, 04:04

Originally Posted by Parallel Pain

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.

Yes and in my late online games, i dont find cav so efective, i saw armies with only 2 cav and a lot of flexible infantry and only 1 or 2 phalanxes win againts a wall of sarissas, and 4, 5 heavy cav.
There is a diference between tactics and battle stratagies.

**satalexton** · 11-18-2009, 04:41

The phalanx is only a powerful tool used in combination with others unit types. I tend to think of the phalanx as a 'lot, powerful but needing support from drags in the long run. Romans are like 'lings, cheap, numerous, disposable, and surprisingly flexible...

**Blxz** · 11-18-2009, 07:09

Originally Posted by satalexton

The phalanx is only a powerful tool used in combination with others unit types. I tend to think of the phalanx as a 'lot, powerful but needing support from drags in the long run. Romans are like 'lings, cheap, numerous, disposable, and surprisingly flexible...

Makes me wonder if comparing the EB time period with starcraft is as irrelevant as comparing it to world war 2. But I CAN see your point. Cheap, a few upgrades and only costing minerals. I find the lack of anti-aircraft in the roman legionaries to be a limitation though.