Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 112

Thread: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

  1. #1
    Slydessertfox's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A
    Posts
    2,918

    Default Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    So this gets thrown around a lot without really being put up to scrutiny, and I feel it's an incorrect assumption. The argument that the phalanx was inferior to the legion naturally, is one that stems from the incredibly Pro-Roman Polybius. He was obviously heavily biased, but since I think going down that route to prove that the phalanx was not as inferior as believed would not be necessary.


    Anyway, I have never completely bought into the narrative that the Macedonian pike phalanx was necessarily "inferior" to the Roman Legions, although it certainly was less flexible and adaptable. Pyrrhus was able to defeat the legions with his phalanx (and crucially, he valued the importance of cavalry), despite his losses. Still, this was not an evenly numbered battle on neutral terrain, so it is hard to take anything away from this of the superiority of either force.




    At both Cynoscephylae (spelling?) and Pydna, the phalanxes were caught on terrain that was highly unfavorable to that style of warfare (and which would have been unfavorable for ANY close order battle line). This is in part due to the inferior generalship of both Phillip and Perseus, of which I will return to later. At the first of these battles, the Romans nevertheless had a hard time before they managed to turn the Macedonian phalanx and attack it in the flank, which is telling.








    However, it should be remembered that the pike phalanx was only one part of the Philip/Alexander combination of strike and shock tactics and its role was to play the anvil to the other components' (cavalry and allied/light infantry) hammer. They were only supposed to hold the enemy in check, while the main striking component did their work. This didn't happen when the Antigonid Kings (Philip V and Perseus) opposed the Romans. According to some historians, it was because Macedonian cavalry had deteriorated in quality since Alexander (or because they had reverted to the skirmishing role that Greeks gave to cavalry) as opposed to playing the role of shock troops that Philip and Alexander had designed for them. Regardless, the key here was that the main striking components that made the Macedonian army so formiddable, were clearly lacking. The flanks were thus also as a result, not secure, which jeopardized the whole point of the phalanx to begin with.


    Yet this cannot be explained for all the encounters. At Thermopylae, Antiochus III had been forced into defending the pass at a huge disadvantage in numbers, due to a miscalculation on his part on how the Romans would react to his invasion. Even then, the phalanx was completely successful in holding the Romans off, and it was only when the flying column lead by Cato skirted around the moutain pass and surprised the Aetolians forcing them to flee from their role of protecting said passes, that Antiochus was forced to execute a hasty withdraw before being completely encircled.


    Antiochus however, used the phalanx exactly as intended during most of his other campaigns, including Magnesia. The cataphract cavalry was used as the heavy cavalry striking force, while the phalanx was to play the anvil. Antiochus was able to completely obliderate a whole flank of the Romans with his cavalry strike, but failed to capitalize on it and wrap up the Roman flank. It was his poor use of the scythe chariots on the other flank, and terrible placement of elephants that caused his cavalry on said wing and phalanx (which was holding their own) to become scattered and displaced by the panic of the elephants and chariots. Even then, the phalanx managed an orderly and fighting withdrawal, and the battle was not a complete walkover.


    The phalanx, when used correctly at Magnesia proved to be more than a match for the Roman legions and it was only through screw ups in deployment and executed (i.e. not turning his cavalry to wrap up the Roman flank) the Roman army was not annihilated.


    Another gross simplification - or even a mistake - is to state that the Macedonian phalanx was widely adopted and employed across the Mediterranean but that, as a modified version of the earlier hoplite phalanx, it was fatally flawed because it was rigid.


    The first part of the statement is incorrect. Neither Carthage, nor Syracuse, for instance, seem to have ever adopted a Macedonian pike-style phalanx. The Spartans and the Achaian Ligue did, but only during the second half of the third century. Instead, they stuck to a hoplite style phalanx. It seems that it was with such an order of battle that Hannibal was able to smash the Romans repeatedly before being defeated by them at Zama. It is also with a hoplite phalanx that Xanthippos, the Spartan mercenary general, destroyed the Roman legions of Regulus at Bagradas in 255 BCE. The point here is that statements to the effect that the Roman organization was so superior simply do not stand up to the facts.


    Second, it should also be remembered that the Roman order of battle was itself an evolution from the hoplite phalanx. Originally, the term legion meant a levy of troops, not a specific type of organization.


    Third, warfare during the Hellenistic period was more innovative that what is often suggested. For instance, and as the Romans were themselves making their hoplite-style army evolve, Greek and Hellenistic states also made a number of experiences (increasing role of light infantry such as peltasts, introduction of the thureoi, a medium infantry type between a hoplite and a peltast) that were all targeted to introduce more flexibility in the line of battle.


    Even the statement that a pike phalanx was more complex to operate and therefore needed, on average, a more talented general than for a legion needs discussing. It is however a bit of a simplification (and even a caricature or a Pro-Roman stereotype) to oppose the rigid phalanx to the flexible legion. The main difference between these two evolutions from the hoplitic phalanx seems to be that while the Macedonian pike phalanx became a core part of an integrated battle force, along with shock cavalry and skirmishing light cavalry and infantry, the Romans still put all the emphasis on heavy infantry. While the Hellenistic system was more sophisticated, it was also more difficult to handle in a fully effective way.






    Another gross simplification - or even a mistake - is to state that the Macedonian phalanx was widely adopted and employed across the Mediterranean but that, as a modified version of the earlier hoplite phalanx, it was fatally flawed because it was rigid.


    The first part of the statement is incorrect. Neither Carthage, nor Syracuse, for instance, seem to have ever adopted a Macedonian pike-style phalanx. The Spartans and the Achaian Ligue did, but only during the second half of the third century. Instead, they stuck to a hoplite style phalanx. It seems that it was with such an order of battle that Hannibal was able to smash the Romans repeatedly before being defeated by them at Zama. It is also with a hoplite phalanx that Xanthippos, the Spartan mercenary general, destroyed the Roman legions of Regulus at Bagradas in 255 BCE. The point here is that statements to the effect that the Roman organization was so superior simply do not stand up to the facts.


    Second, it should also be remembered that the Roman order of battle was itself an evolution from the hoplite phalanx. Originally, the term legion meant a levy of troops, not a specific type of organization.


    Third, warfare during the Hellenistic period was more innovative that what is often suggested. For instance, and as the Romans were themselves making their hoplite-style army evolve, Greek and Hellenistic states also made a number of experiences (increasing role of light infantry such as peltasts, introduction of the thureoi, a medium infantry type between a hoplite and a peltast) that were all targeted to introduce more flexibility in the line of battle.


    Even the statement that a pike phalanx was more complex to operate and therefore needed, on average, a more talented general than for a legion needs discussing. It is however a bit of a simplification (and even a caricature or a Pro-Roman stereotype) to oppose the rigid phalanx to the flexible legion. The main difference between these two evolutions from the hoplitic phalanx seems to be that while the Macedonian pike phalanx became a core part of an integrated battle force, along with shock cavalry and skirmishing light cavalry and infantry, the Romans still put all the emphasis on heavy infantry. While the Hellenistic system was more sophisticated, it was also more difficult to handle in a fully effective way.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    If 50,000 Roman Legionaires fought 50,000 Phalangites, the Legion would win. The Phalanx needed combined arms to win.(cavalry, light infantry, hoplites.) If Alexander didn't use his hoplites and Cavalry at Gagumela the Persians would have destroyed them in a flanking manuver. Its all about the Cavalry. Macedonians were capable of beating horse archer armies as shown in Jaxartes.

    Roman cavalry matched the Theselean cavalry pretty well at Heraclea until the the elephants routed them. The Legion and the Phlananx stalemated at that battle. The Legion outnumbered was pushed back(not: they were outnumbered) at Cynocephele and Pydna but outflanked them.

    Due to the lack of well trained horses and lack of Macedonian nobility, the Companion cavalry was no longer in the shape of Alexander. Perseus chose not to engage on the right, while the left routed to the Roman elephants.

    Hannibal's technically didn't fight Phalanx style. His Libyan Infantry was mixed with Iberians and Gauls and later picked up Roman equipment. Even the Greeks abandoned the Hoplite system for the Heavy Pealtasts(Theuros shields)

    Roman/Italian cavalry also due to the lack of horses in the Italian penisula often never fielded a quanitiative cavalry force. This is clearly shown in Hannibal's campaigns, as Hannibal had more cavalry. So they recruited from their provinces and mainly an emphasis on light cavalry like the Gauls and Numidians. This made them incredibly outmatched by the superior Parthian cavalry.

    Anyway its all about the Combined arms and Tactics that wins.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    The Phalanx is an amazing system...

    If fighting on fairly level terrain. If fighting as part of a combined arms force. If commanded by a General like Hannibal or Alexander, who can use a diverse range of units effectively together to achieve victory. If your opponent cannot negate your supporting elements. All these ifs are the downfall of the Phalanx, Pike or Hoplite.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    The Romans definetley learned Combined arms tactics from Alexander too. Arrian's Array on the Alans assumes how young aristocrats are trained in the arts of war such as swordfighting and reading histories and riding horses and may have learned some Combined arms tactics. Alexander's art of war was probally very popular.

    Pompey had a citizen cavalry force along with Eastern Greek tactics copied for the Selucids I believed at Pharspahlus. Roman earlier recruited Pergamese cavalry at Magnesia and that is what routed the Selucid left. As for archers/and light infantry, if your read Arrian by the time of 2nd century Rome fielded a substantial ammount of light infantry and archers. Over 32 archers regiments have been stationed in the East, probally to correct their mistakes at Cahrae.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    Battle of Heraclea- the Phalanx did not defeat the Legion...they stalemated. Pyhruss' cavalry was losing to the Roman cavalry. Pyhruss, elephants turned the tide.
    Battle of Asculum-The Phalanx pushed back Roman allied Legion and 1st Legion on the flanks but the Legion pushed Back the Phyric center. Phyruss sent his cavalry and light infantry around, but was intercepted by Roman cavalry.
    On the second day thanks to the Elephants, Phyruss won the day.
    Battle of Cynocephele and Pydna-The Legion beat the Phalanx, but a lot of work was done by Elephants. It was the manuverablity of the Legions that made breakthoughs.


    Battle of Magnesia- The Battle is debated. We don't know if Antichos was pursing too long or that the camp attack was suppose to be decisive. According to Livy, the Roman Legions on the left routed to the center were the camp was. Infantry runs slower than cavalry so Antichos probally had to get through a mob of routing Romans, anyway the mass mob finally regrouped themselves after their camp leader regrouped them.

    As for the Legion vs Phalanx-Appian write how the Selcuid phalanx formed squares. The Roman Legions threw javelins at them and used their Greek allied archers to pummel them with arrows. The Phalanx retreated with heavy causalties causing them to run into their own elephants.

    Anyway it was the Roman Allied Archers and slingers that caused the Sythed chariots to run amok slamming into their own elephants. Eugemes leading the 2,000 Roman cavalry and 800 Pergamese cavalry saw that and charged, routing the Selucid left. Then the Phalanx formed squares, at that was when the battle between infantry started. Then Antichous charged.

    What if Antichous did do the right thing? We don't know. The Roman cavalry flanked them first , not Antichous. If they both hammer and anviled at the same time, I am putting my bets on the Romans since Phalanx fought in single line while the Tripple aplex can withstand a cavalry charge in the rear better(note: at Cannae, they were bunched) The Phalanx can form square yes, but then the Romans can withdraw making the hammer and anvil, just a hammer.
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; November 05, 2013 at 07:07 PM.

  6. #6
    necronox's Avatar ▬▬ι═══════- -═══════ιι▬
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    it's not really a comparable point, it was two different system of fighting, it like trying to compare apples and oranges.


  7. #7

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    This thread should be renamed "Was the Roman style of Warfare really superior to the Greek style"? The Legion itself is obviously better than Phanlanx alone. There is no way the Phalanx could beat the Legion without superior Cavalry or light infantry.

  8. #8
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    The hoplite phalanx was a succesful systemthat produced a well protected frontline that could push forwards: out of formation they were still pretty heavily armoured spearmen, so not hopeless. The pike phalanx improved this at the cost of some fexibility: out of formation they'd be pretty exposed.

    The legion as mentioned is more of a combined arms formation with pretty good flexibility. Phalanx based forces typically lost to Legions unless lead by genii. That may be because the Roman system delivered the right leaders and the right forces to the right points. They even managed to feed Hannibal enough legionaires to choke him.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #9

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    I don't think the Hoplite Phalanx was mobile at all. They got annihilated by the Athenian javelin men in one battle. When Romans used the Hoplite Phalanx they got smashed by Samnites and Gaul. Anyway the Greek system after Phillip the II focuses on combined arms warfare with different troops types. The Roman system focuses on hybrid type troops, the Legionaire is a combination of a swordsmen, a spearmen, and a skirmisher. Republican Roman cavalry would mainly be Italic cavalry and they fought similar to the Greek style, these men just like the Companions were hard to come by and got outmanuved by Hannibal. Principate Roman cavalry was mainly medium cavalry like Dragoons, carrying a short lance, a longsword and javelins with few units of Contarii lancers which didn't appear till the 2nd century.
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; November 06, 2013 at 12:27 AM.

  10. #10
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    There were reasons why Legion reversed back to shieldwall/phalanx after 3rd Century...
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  11. #11

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    There were reasons why Legion reversed back to shieldwall/phalanx after 3rd Century...
    3rd Century? More like mid-4th century. Not really. Cohorts tended to be a mixture of weapons and no way ordered in the same way as a Phalanx. If you look at Aurelian's or Constantine's campaigns, Legions often attacked very offensively rather than locking their shields. The Shieldwall tactic was mainly to absorb loses and probally not well documented till the Battle of Stasbourg. Shieldwalls are common formations not a "phalanx". Summerians, Gauls, Germans, Vikings, and Saxons used it.
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; November 06, 2013 at 12:35 AM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    Byzantine Tactics are similar to Greek tactics of Phillip II, however their infantry is less offensive preferring to absorb and then let the cavalry do the work. Basil II I believed improved quality of infantry. The Republican Roman triple Aplex was dropped in favor of a single line mostly similar to Hannibal's Cannae tactic. The Byzantine shield is kinda reminisant of the Roman one. Roman formations like the "Wedge" Testudo and "Orb" are used. Byzantine cavalry is kinda like Greek cavalry favoring hammer and anvil, but more based on Late Roman system, copied from Parthian, Sarmatian and Sassanid tactics.

  13. #13
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    3rd Century? More like mid-4th century. Not really. Cohorts tended to be a mixture of weapons and no way ordered in the same way as a Phalanx. If you look at Aurelian's or Constantine's campaigns, Legions often attacked very offensively rather than locking their shields. The Shieldwall tactic was mainly to absorb loses and probally not well documented till the Battle of Stasbourg. Shieldwalls are common formations not a "phalanx". Summerians, Gauls, Germans, Vikings, and Saxons used it.
    The idea that shieldwall/phalanx means immobile is completely false; Xenophon had described phalanx charge aggressively during Battle of Cunaxa and during drill - both suggest Greek phalanx could in fact move and charge well if the units were drilled properly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  14. #14

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    The looser Legion system is obviously better for offense. The Shieldwall to absorb causalties for defense. Locking shield means the formation is more likely to get flanked. There is a reason the Greeks adopted the Heavy Pealtasts system based on the Celtic shield. This can form shiedwall, and go Legion style. Legions of the Principate fought mainly loosly but according to Arrian, when facing cavalry kinda like a phalanx against the Iranian Cataphracts. Different tactics for different pursposes. But this threat is comparing the Roman Legion vs. the Macedonian Phalanx(Sarrisa) vs the Hoplites(with Hoplon shield)

  15. #15

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    The idea that the Romans "had poorer cavalry and light infantry" is flawed, just like "the phalanx sucks" is. yes, Romans had less of them sometimes but the idea of them being poor or less regarded is just wrong.

    Yes Roman armies at the time of Caesar and Crassus would have a bit more infantry focus with the decline the Equestrian order, levies on mass, the lack of horses, and growing barbaric allies(made for cheaper and quanitive cavalry). Most Roman armies were infantry at the late republic.

    Roman and Italian cavalry seemed to match up to Phyruss cavalry just fine. In Spain they were not significantly overmatched by the Carthaginian cavalry. They did have less though, as horses were more expensive in Italy. They were able to defeat the Numidian cavalry at Rhone River. Hannibal beat them due to the fact of superior numbers and better tactics rather than actual troop skill.

    The idea that the commanders poorly regarded their cavalry is flawed as well. Varro and Pallus both mounted on the wings at Cannae to command both cavalry wings, rather than dismount like Caesar.

    Roman/Italian cavalry did pretty well at Magnesia routing the Selucid left flank.(they had allied 800 Pergamese cavalry)

    At Telamon, both Consuls mounted and led the cavalry to charge driving the Gallic cavalry off the hill.

    Most Roman cavalry from 60s BC-100 AD would be mainly foreigners either Auxilaries or Foderetii but led by Romans like Labienus, Antony, and Publius Crassus. (Pomey had Roman citizen cavalry)

    Mercenary cavalry were probally less in quality compared to the ealier cavalry. The standardization of the Auxilia by Cladius probally increased it a bit. Although the cavalry was mainly recruited in the provinces as Auxilia, Roman citizens could still serve and was common after 100 AD. To site an example - there is a dedicatory inscription from Britain, dating to the reign of Hadrian, that lists thirteen auxiliary cavalry regiments. Of the thirteen, three are designated as civium Romanum - literally, Roman citizens. Similarly-designated units, both infantry and cavalry, are attested across the Empire. By the time of 2nd century, units of Contarii appeared, which were units designed for shock charge like previous Italic cavalry and by the time of 3rd century cavalry was citizenized fully, and Gallienus made a elite corp.

    As for light infantry/archers. They routed the elephants at Zama. Caesar understood their importance in his African campaign, deploying them behind a screen of Legionaires at Thapsus. Bassus used slingers to defeat the Parthians in 3 major battles. Rome had a substantial number of archers in Arrian's account and their archeological findings.
    Sure they were "foreign" but isn't Macedonian light infantry foreign as well? (Cretan archers, Agrianes, Persian horse archers(non Macedonian))

    Anyway both Romans and Greeks due to their lack of horses, mass leving of infantry units, and lack of nobility(Equites and Macedonians to provide Companion cavalry) made them a more infantry-mercenary cavalry based force. Anyway the copied from Eastern tactics such as the Selucids using horse archers and Cataphracts. Rome too by the 2nd century copied their Sarmatian style Auxilaires.
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; November 06, 2013 at 01:38 AM.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    The phalanx (in either hoplites or pikemen form) was neither better nor worse than the legion. This is why it has resurfaced several times after Magnesia up until the 17th century.

    What did happen was a phenomenon having to do with how the human brain operates.

    A valid scientific way to test if phalanx would be better than the legion would be to run exactly 1112 battles pitting only phalanxes against legions (no cavalry, no archers, no slingers, etc) and see how many times one formation defeats the other.

    What would come out even if we run such a statistically valid experiment would depend on the actual score. The margin of error in that case would be 3% and the confidence level in the result would be 95%.

    So if say the legion pawns the phalanx 900 times out of 1112 then we would conclude that 80.93% of the time +/- 3% a legion would defeat a phalanx and we would be right 95% of the time. That means that a phalanx, unsupported by auxiliary troops would still be able to defeat a legion also unsupported by auxiliaries about 20% of the time.

    However if the legion wins only 565 battles out of 1112 then we would conclude that actually each formation has a 50% chance of winning (since the difference between 565 and 556 - the exact 50% - is within the margin of error).

    In the actual history there weren't even 100 battles where legions and phalanxes were pitted against each other on the same flat terrain and without any auxiliaries. Therefore no truly valid conclusion can be drawn from what we have, since the sample is too small.

    But the human brain looks for clear cut answers where none exist. So because the Romans won at Magnesia, Pydna and Cynochephales and because after Magnesia there was no other Great Power around the Mediterranean who successfully employed phalanxes against the Romans, the brains of the contemporary military commanders and authors jumped to the conclusion the phalanx was inferior.

    Had a Roman commander at Magnesia been more like Alexander the Great, the conclusion might have been different and we might have seen the Roman armies developing mixed formations, with, pikemen, swordsmen and missile troops, Spanish Tercios style.

    Why somebody like Alexander the Great? Because instead of concluding his pike phalanxes were superior to the Persian combined arms approach, he created his own version of combined arms. Lacking the opportunity to test such formations in battle, his idea got lost until the 16th century when the Spaniards decided to form the tercios.

    So to sum things up: the conclusion the phalanxes were inferior to the legions was drawn hastily based on a very small (in statistical terms) number of battles, by some people who didn't think outside the box, like Alexander the Great or Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba did.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  17. #17
    Akrotatos's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    Most of the identical arguments made in every phalanx vs legion debate are ridiculous.


    a) From wiki: "In the middle of the Republic, legions were composed of the following units: Equites, Velites, Heavy infantry (hastati, principes, triarii)

    So in other words, all these threads compare a unit type (phalanx) against a complete combined-arms army. The correct comparison would be Roman vs Hellenistic army.

    b) In every single battle where Romans and phalanx met, the battle was NOT decided by the legionary heavy infantry. The only exception was at Pydna where Perseus just unleashed the phalanx upon a hill and chilled with his cavalry on the wings. Philip would roll on his grave.

    In Cynoscephalae the left wing was unformed and got attacked by freaking elephants and routed. Then the Romans attacked the rest from the flanks. I don't think there are many examples of a Roman army winning with half their army routed and the rest attacked from the side.

    In Magnesia, the battle was decided purely by cavalry. The phalanx withdrew in good order but was encircled and assaulted on all sides until the elephants panicked.

    On the other side, the battles won against the Romans are the same, Pyhrrus never relied solely on the phalanx to win the day. All was decided by the other forces, elephants and cavalry.




    So yeah.....
    Gems of TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    News flash but groups like al-Qaeda or Taliban are not Islamist.

  18. #18
    AngryTitusPullo's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    13,018

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    I think it's more of the combined usage of pilums and swords.

    200 legionaries vs 200 phalangites for example. Without the usage of pilums it's hard to get the legionaries to get close to the phalangites which if they tried they will get impaled easily enough but pilas thrown before attack will surely disrupt the phalangites formation and will let the legionaries get easily closer. Holding long sticks with small shiels surely will make a large formation practically immobile.


    CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVI
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
    Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook

  19. #19

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    Legion had several advantages over Phalanx that were not mentioned here. First one (and probably most important) was the decentralized command structure. With Greek armies, General was leading the army from the front, so he relied on plan setup before battle and his commanders to follow it during battle. With Roman Legions, each commander could adjust the tactics on the fly, taking the advantage of his more flexible units. Maniples led by Centurions were allowed to seize the opportunity when they saw it without having to ask supreme commander for order (Greeks usually sent a messenger to General asking for approval, which took time - mind you, this was the case also with Alexander)

    Second big advantage legions had, was in its ability to fight in (almost) any terrain. Phalanx was not able to fight effectively in broken terrain, yet such terrain was everywhere.. If you are defender and you need to stop enemy army (legions) with your Phalanxes, and you set your battle line on a flat terrain, what will stop Legions from bypassing/ignoring you and continue towards your cities? This ability gave Legions ability to dictate where the fight will be fought.

    Third advantage was from the fighting style. Roman way of fighting was more open, with soldier able to fight in small units or even in single combat if needed. Their weapons allowed them to be quite adaptable to any threats. Hellenistic Rules recognized this quite well, and after Pydna, they reformed their armies on Roman model. They still kept some infantry as Pikemen, anyway 70-75% of Infantry was rearmed and trained in Roman way of fighting.

    Overall, Legion structure was much more superior to anything else. Average Roman Generals were usually able to defeat good enemy Generals, or fight them into stalemate. Excellent Generals like Scipio Africanus, Marius or Caesar were able to destroy any opposition they faced. And enemies recognized this fact. Hannibal rearmed his elite core units with Roman weapons, he even tried to use Triple Acies tactics at Zama and he would probably won that battle if he was not facing Scipio Africanus. (Zama is often called Waterloo of ancient times)

  20. #20

    Default Re: Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

    There were no such things like battles between phalanxes and legions. There were battles between Hellenistic and Roman armies supported by their allied and auxiliary units.

    Without considering the combined arms environment we end up speculating on things that never happened

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •