Pikes or Legions

**Willowran** · April 19, 2012, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by debux

Simple: there is no phalanx counterpart to Urban Legions.

have you see nmy "impregnable defense" thread? Militia pikes can win vs urbans.

I vote SS Pikes, hands down. They can fight the furthest with the least casaulties, against the most enemies (at least the way i play, they do) And, i'm a huuuuge pike advocater. I'm a little biased, i'll admit.

Also, so far as Machiavelli's book is concerned, the guy (whose name i'm too lazy to find again) was right about what machiavelli said. I have a copy of the book as a word document if anyone wants it.

**TheFoolOnTheHill** · April 19, 2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Willowran

have you see nmy "impregnable defense" thread? Militia pikes can win vs urbans.

Look at the dates

**Willowran** · April 19, 2012, 09:49 PM

oops. I didn't notice...

**Sar1n** · April 25, 2012, 08:34 PM

I'll spark this up a bit again...

In singleplayer, pikes. AI is dumb and will take them head-on.

In multiplayer...if I can't have both, I'll take legionaries, they're more flexible. Phalanx in formation is easy to outrun, out of formation too vulnerable.

**wumpus** · May 23, 2012, 03:32 AM

Well, yes... I've been too used with pikes [hoplites of any of the 3 variants] for years, but lately I've grown to love to have 3 to 4 units of archers behind my pike walls, with a unit or two of light cavalry to chase the enemy down when he turns tail and runs. Of course, with some swordsmen [or axemen] to protect my flanks, because I don't trust too much light cav to do that. But if I had a phallanx with archers behind and legionaires [instead of swordsmen] at the flanks, I guess that would be superb--the light cavs must still be there to chase the fleeing enemy's tails, of course. Hawooh.

**nathanb1296** · June 07, 2012, 10:12 AM

If ur a good general you can use the phalanxs a lot more effectively then legions in my opinion.

**wumpus** · June 07, 2012, 10:53 AM

Yes, noble nathanb1296, but I've been playing RTW and some of its mods using phallangites, hoplites, etc., for some time now to be aware that they move a little bit slower than some of our friends here would like [that's why they prefer legionnaires]. So, if you're a good general, you'd win the encounter but you'd kill less of the enemy's troops than you'd like to when they turn tail and run away [and, the more enemy troops survive the encounter, the more of them would still be around the next time you battle them again.]
But I prefer to use the phallanx a little bit more than I would the legionnaires, even for just the simple reason that I know more how to handle the phallangites/hoplites than I know how to send legionnaires to charge the enemy confident that I would win the encounter. Hawooh.

**wumpus** · June 07, 2012, 10:56 AM

Yes, noble nathanb1296, but I've been playing RTW and some of its mods using phallangites, hoplites, etc., for some time now to be aware that they move a little bit slower than some of our friends here would like [that's why they prefer legionnaires]. So, if you're a good general, you'd win the encounter but you'd kill less of the enemy's troops than you'd like to when they turn tail and run away [and, the more enemy troops survive the encounter, the more of them would still be around the next time you battle them again.]
But I prefer to use the phallanx a little bit more than I would the legionnaires, even for just the simple reason that I know more how to handle the phallangites/hoplites than I know how to send legionnaires to charge the enemy confident that I would win the encounter. Hawooh.

**debux** · June 07, 2012, 09:49 PM

The thing is that RTW represents phalangites really bad. No phalanx in history was capable of making even 45° turns in the midst of battle (I know that the pre-Diadochi phalanxes were very mobile, but I'm pretty sure that no sane commander would disengage his phalangites to move them, as he would have to make them lift their pikes to be able to move effectively, and therefore loosing their only advantage)

In RL I'm pretty sure Legions would be amply superior to phalanxes, just considering on how much easier it is to raise a battle worthy Legion than it is to raise a battle worthy phalanx of the same quality. But in the end, it really depends on how you employ them.

**Mithridates the Great** · June 26, 2012, 10:22 AM

I pressed Pikemen because I am Greek hahaha but if it was a bottom that wrote none I would press it.Ok seriously pikemen have long spears so...if you are smart and don't let legioners shoot you with pila then the battle is yours

**Apollyon** · June 26, 2012, 10:43 AM

Having both as an option is amazing.

It just depends on the type of general you are/what you are using it for. If you are attacking city walls, in dense woodland, or you are just a very offensive minded general the Legion is the way forward. It's versatility is second to none.

If however you're like me and prefer defensive (some would say lazy) strategies the Phalanx is the best option. With the option, I would take a Phalanx anchor with strong cavalry options to be used as the anvil (as Alexander the Great used his army). It's only in the very late stages of the game with TSE that I use a Legion, usually to battle Barbarians in their forests (if they haven't already been wiped out by the Romans).

**I love America** · July 11, 2012, 01:47 AM

I of course would prefer a mix of both, hold the enemy with pikes and then flank with the legions, but if I had to choose one I would have to pick Legions for their flexibility, and ability to easily maneuver, not to mention they are arguably better in close quarters in melee, especially if they can break through the phalanx.

**Willowran** · July 11, 2012, 06:32 AM

Why do so many people like legions? i thought it would be a more even split...

**Trebudude** · October 24, 2012, 08:27 AM

For me I prefer the legions because they are a lot more flexible (tactically) and are also a lot more mobile than their pike men counterparts

Although phalanxes are the toughest force from the front

**Abelus The Honest** · October 31, 2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Sar1n

I'll spark this up a bit again...

In singleplayer, pikes. AI is dumb and will take them head-on.

In multiplayer...if I can't have both, I'll take legionaries, they're more flexible. Phalanx in formation is easy to outrun, out of formation too vulnerable.

Basically this. Single player is dominated by pikemen as enemies will rush headlong into your units which results in either decimation of the enemy unit and routing or severe casualties. However, humans are far more intelligent than the Rome AI and therefore in multiplayer the legions are the better case due to their flexibility.

**Caesar666** · November 05, 2012, 02:58 PM

I'd use pikes to defend your cities and legions to attack other cities

**Ngazi** · November 06, 2012, 01:06 AM

I voted pikes, just my preference.

**St. Imperator** · February 28, 2013, 07:08 PM

I say it's a matter of preference, but it matters on the circumstance too. If you're going offense, then go with the Roman method of legionaries and cavalry. If defensive, then mix the Macedonian styled phalanx with Roman styled legionnaire warfare for flanking, but include archers to stand behind the phalanx line, and a couple of cavalry units to help out your legionaries. I personally prefer legionaries because of their great mobility compared to phalanx.