Phalangites VS Legionnaires

[bangell99]

I'm somewhat puzzled as to how legionnaires managed to fight against phalangites. I'm not talking on the scale of tactical manouvres and the like; I know that phalanxes were vulnerable from the flanks and were often destroyed that way. What I mean is how on earth did the individual legionnaires who faced the phalanx head-on manage to survive? The phalangites had massive sarissas, and up to five ranks' worth sticking out the front of their formation. How did the legionnaires get through those pikes to attack with their short, stabbing swords? Yes, you can break up the formation with missiles, but I'm at a loss as to how such engagements proceeded.

Could anyone help me to answer my question, and point me to some good books/resources on the topic? Furthermore, could anyone direct me to resources concerning how hoplites fought against non-hoplite adversaries? (I'd be quite interested to see what scholars like Victor Davis Hanson, who favour the "othismos" model of hoplite combat, seem to think occurred when the hoplites tried to use their mass shove against non-hoplite opponents. Any books that explore that would be good.)

Thank you very much in advance.

[ChargerFlanker]

I'm somewhat puzzled as to how legionnaires managed to fight against phalangites. I'm not talking on the scale of tactical manouvres and the like; I know that phalanxes were vulnerable from the flanks and were often destroyed that way. What I mean is how on earth did the individual legionnaires who faced the phalanx head-on manage to survive? The phalangites had massive sarissas, and up to five ranks' worth sticking out the front of their formation. How did the legionnaires get through those pikes to attack with their short, stabbing swords? Yes, you can break up the formation with missiles, but I'm at a loss as to how such engagements proceeded.

The Romans would struggle from the front against the Phalangites. Theoretically, a stationary phalanx on level ground is nearly invulnerable from the front (without special weapons or missiles)

The force from the sarissa would eventually penetrate Roman armour, and as you said, there were many spear points. Some Romans tried to beat the Sarrisa aside or pull them down, but this was not really effective. However, on the other hand, the phalangites did not "massacre" the legionnaires.

At Pydna, the Roman army would slowly wear the Phalangites down through a variety of methods. The slightly rough ground, the initial pila barrage, the stiff Roman resistance, and the ever increasing amount of dead bodies meant that the phalanx lost cohesion as it advanced. This meant by the time the left flank collapsed, the centre was already crumbling. Without good cohesion, the Romans would smack the Phalangite with the shield and stab him with the Gladius

[medievaldude]

pila arent really effective agaisnt a phalanx as noted by the writers of the day

[c00ki3]

To my understanding, the legionnaires really didn't go head first into them, but if they did it was just so they could out flank them.

No general would be stupid enough to go charging into a hedgehog of spikes.

[medievaldude]

Many battles between Roman-republican armies and Hellenistic armies still in full-use of the Macedonian phalanx. Had the phalanx Systagma, Speira, Phalangarchia and Taxeis outflanked-maneuvered, most cases the phalanx would still stand firm, if the case of being hit in the rear, a good amount of allies routing, formation disruption were the main killers.. after all the roman Tribune or any roman formation was more flexible that the unit was giving a good amount of independence ( to find weak points, outflank, once in a while engage enemy sort of ting), equality and training.

the Macedonian Wars was one good example small cohorts good easily find their way around the mountain passes/terrain simply with their freedom to act and formation.

[ChargerFlanker]

pila arent really effective agaisnt a phalanx as noted by the writers of the day

The pila wouldn't outright destroy a phalanx, but wouldn't it help disrupt the cohesion of the phalanx?

And can I see a link/quote from your source, as I realise this is a good opportunity to refine my knowledge.

[Condottiere 40K]

Depends on leadership, training and support; I'd say that the Romans would have lost against Alexander, who seems to have understood both his army, his enemy and the terrain at an almost instinctual level.

A pike formation is like a bulldozer, which usually doesn't stop until it confronts another bulldozer; break it's cohesion, and against the Roman century which like close quarter fighting, it becomes a slaughter. Another factor could just be endurance, because carrying around a 21 foot spear (and possibly armour and shield) has got to be more exhausting than two javelins.

[medievaldude]

The pila wouldn't outright destroy a phalanx, but wouldn't it help disrupt the cohesion of the phalanx?

And can I see a link/quote from your source, as I realise this is a good opportunity to refine my knowledge.

It's not really exact i read it off of a man that does alot of Ancient battles...I also did read it off of one of the Authors of the day but that was a year ago

[ChargerFlanker]

It's not really exact i read it off of a man that does alot of Ancient battles...I also did read it off of one of the Authors of the day but that was a year ago

Well in any case, you point is valid (you are very knowledgeable about history)

I still think that from the frontally, the engagement would be pretty much a stalemate.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Well in any case, you point is valid (you are very knowledgeable about history)

I still think that from the frontally, the engagement would be pretty much a stalemate.

A stalemate? Judging from the descriptions of Plutarch on the battle of Pydna it is hardly a stalemate. I'd rather say it's just a gradual slaughter of the first Legionary lines.

As for pilla and arrows, it was believed that the phalanx could defend thanks to the raised sarissas of the middle and last lines but this has been debunked lately. Some researches and simple reenactments which can be probably be found on youtube as well have shown that the arrows or pilla were not stopped by them. However, judging from the fact that the phalanx was 16 ranks long, it is doubtful if the pilla would have done enough damage to break the Macedonian line. Another Macedonian would have just taken the place of his dead counterpart in front of him.



As you see in the pretty accurate image, the first 5 lines keep the sarissas low, aiming at the head or neck of the enemy. They are practically unapproachable as a warrior who tries to approach it faces 5 (!) weapons in front of him at the same time. And it's not like the sarissas are static. Thanks to the fact that the small shield is attached on the arm of the phalangite, he is free to use the sarissa with both hands and is at least able to move it and strike with force in front of him.

[.L.]

They could have easily beat the greeks with terrain, the phalanx is near useless on uneven, hilly rocky terrain.

[medievaldude]

They could have easily beat the greeks with terrain, the phalanx is near useless on uneven, hilly rocky terrain.

Yet again one forgets the phalanx's capability. In truth a well drilled phalanx of Philip II's saw too many battles of uneven,hilly even mountainous terrain. Whom Alexander was gain possession of in his examples such as the Thracian Campaign, The campaigns to finish off the Persians in the more easter rim example Battle of the Uxian Defile, The Indian campaigns and so forth. But that of the Hellenistic say from some time after the diadochi wars the phalanx saw the dawn of the replaceables no more of the more flexible original Macdonian phalanx... But still very effective as long as there be good commanders.

[ChargerFlanker]

A stalemate? Judging from the descriptions of Plutarch on the battle of Pydna it is hardly a stalemate. I'd rather say it's just a gradual slaughter of the first Legionary lines.

Well I don't believe either side would break any time soon. (The Romans would definitely struggle with the phalanx from the front though, apparently Paullus was doubtful of victory coming from the centre) I sort of agree with you on the second and third sentences, as at that battle, the Macedonians were advancing uphill until more Roman soldiers reinforced the centre.

As for the rest of the post, I agree with much of it, and good information

[Legatus_Aemilius]

Legionaries had large shields, scutum, to protect them.
I'm sure that they could actually tire out the phalanx soldiers while at the same time slowly retreating backwards , to the point where the phalanxite soldiers are exhausted, then this cohort which has been occupying the phalanx retreats, and then the fresh reserve cohorts waiting in the back go in close for the kill.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Since I've studied the Hellenistic Era I must say that I'm kinda confused. For example as I mentioned, in the battle of Pydna the Legionaries of the first ranks were gradually slaughtered and the rest retreated, waiting for the phalanx to break its ranks due to bad terrain. However, in the Battle of Heraclea, it seems that the battle was balanced from the start and the phalanx was greatly pressured by the legionaries. I don't understand how did they manage that.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I'm somewhat puzzled as to how legionnaires managed to fight against phalangites. I'm not talking on the scale of tactical manouvres and the like; I know that phalanxes were vulnerable from the flanks and were often destroyed that way. What I mean is how on earth did the individual legionnaires who faced the phalanx head-on manage to survive? The phalangites had massive sarissas, and up to five ranks' worth sticking out the front of their formation. How did the legionnaires get through those pikes to attack with their short, stabbing swords? Yes, you can break up the formation with missiles, but I'm at a loss as to how such engagements proceeded.

Could anyone help me to answer my question, and point me to some good books/resources on the topic? Furthermore, could anyone direct me to resources concerning how hoplites fought against non-hoplite adversaries? (I'd be quite interested to see what scholars like Victor Davis Hanson, who favour the "othismos" model of hoplite combat, seem to think occurred when the hoplites tried to use their mass shove against non-hoplite opponents. Any books that explore that would be good.)

Thank you very much in advance.

You need to read Polybius.

Polybius, being a former Greek general, and writing history on the theme of how Rome came to dominate the Hellenistic world as a lesson to other Greeks, dug into the Phalanx vs. Legion issue extensively.

...the Romans do not engage the Phalanx with all their Legions drawn up in a line parallel to the former; but some divisions of them lie behind in reserve, while others are engaged.

[bangell99]

Since I've studied the Hellenistic Era I must say that I'm kinda confused. For example as I mentioned, in the battle of Pydna the Legionaries of the first ranks were gradually slaughtered and the rest retreated, waiting for the phalanx to break its ranks due to bad terrain. However, in the Battle of Heraclea, it seems that the battle was balanced from the start and the phalanx was greatly pressured by the legionaries. I don't understand how did they manage that.

Yes, that's precisely what confuses me too. From what I've read so far in this thread, it would seem that either the legionnaires made no progress, and there was simply a stalemate, or the legionnaires were gradually slaughtered. It must have been pretty terrifying being a legionary assigned to hold the enemy phalanx in place - not being able to kill your enemy, and just hoping their pikes don't get you...

[Primo]

Yes, that's precisely what confuses me too. From what I've read so far in this thread, it would seem that either the legionnaires made no progress, and there was simply a stalemate, or the legionnaires were gradually slaughtered. It must have been pretty terrifying being a legionary assigned to hold the enemy phalanx in place - not being able to kill your enemy, and just hoping their pikes don't get you...

I don´t think it actually was that way. The Romans had their large shields, and if they would have made a wall with those shields the pikes would actually be quite ineffective. Additionally, thrusting with a pike and then withdraw it again isn´t exactly a slow process - Hitting the pike with the Gladius should, if it doesn´t destroy it, at least render it useless. So if they fight that way neither side has big losses - and when both sides are tired, and many of the pikes are destroyed, a fresh cohort would charge in to destroy the enemy.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I don´t think it actually was that way. The Romans had their large shields, and if they would have made a wall with those shields the pikes would actually be quite ineffective. Additionally, thrusting with a pike and then withdraw it again isn´t exactly a slow process - Hitting the pike with the Gladius should, if it doesn´t destroy it, at least render it useless. So if they fight that way neither side has big losses - and when both sides are tired, and many of the pikes are destroyed, a fresh cohort would charge in to destroy the enemy.

That's not the case. The Macedonian sarissa was made by a certain type of wood (don't remember the exact tree but I'll try to find it) that was very thick and strong. After all, in later eras, when the phalanx became even more massive, the sarissas length was increased and sometimes reached the length of 6,40 meters. It would have been impossible for such a long pike not to break due to its own weight if it wasn't so thick and strong. The sarissa shouldn't be confused with the hoplite spear which was normal to break during battle and that's the reason the hoplites also had swords and were especially trained in sword-fighting. On the contrary, it was very rare for a sarissa to break with a small sword like glaudius unless you had an axe. Therefore the phalangites would rarely use their swords.

[.L.]

Your all forgetting that it would be VERY hard to wield a huge spear one handed. It wouldn't be that hard to make them draw swords. Their shields would have a 3 feet diameter, try using that AND a 5 meter long spear with one hand each.