Legionary vs hoplite

[dogukan]

Well Rome has conquered Greece that is true. They beat the phalanx formation with their mobile forces.
But what if the Greek armies were made up of older style warriors...the hoplites? With dory, hoplon and cuirasses? Roman way of fighting was pretty similar to this style of fighting except they used swords. Cuirasses could decrease the effectiveness of stabbing attempts with gladius...meanwhile Greek formations could work fine. As far as I know Roman armor wasn't that great either.
(assuming Greek equipment will be up to that date of course)

[jo the greek]

I think roman face hoplite like armies in italy and in Carthaginian wars .

[neoptolemos]

Rome conquered Greece with the help of Greek allies......(i know it is such a contrast.....)

Roman legions weren't so advanced in arms and armor but they had the best organization and battle tactics of the time

[jo the greek]

Rome conquered Greece with the help of Greek allies......(i know it is such a contrast.....)

Roman legions weren't so advanced in arms and armor but they had the best organization and battle tactics of the time

i dont think anyone was better

[dogukan]

Rome conquered Greece with the help of Greek allies......(i know it is such a contrast.....)

Roman legions weren't so advanced in arms and armor but they had the best organization and battle tactics of the time

What I mean is that if the Greeks left the sarissas and went back to old style they could be much more succesfull. Romans could still overwhelm with their numbers maybe but things would be much different.

[Romios]

Rome conquered Greece with the help of Greek allies......(i know it is such a contrast.....)

Contrast?
The Athenians hated the Macedonians. When the roman army defeated the Macedonians, the Athenians melted the golden statues of Phillipos in Athens and turned them into urine boxes.

As far as the hoplite vs legionary thing, i don't think the equipment played such an important role as the strategy and tactics on the battlefield.

[neoptolemos]

What I mean is that if the Greeks left the sarissas and went back to old style they could be much more succesfull. Romans could still overwhelm with their numbers maybe but things would be much different.

The Aetolians who helped Romans did use sarissas?
I don't think so

Again the importance of the Greek allies(Aetolians/epirots) of the Romans against the Macedon was by far the most crucial point in the Greco-Roman wars.

Again Roman also used Greeks against Seleukides

Contrast?
The Athenians hated the Macedonians. When the roman army defeated the Macedonians, the Athenians melted the golden statues of Phillipos in Athens and turned them into urine boxes.

As far as the hoplite vs legionary thing, i don't think the equipment played such an important role as the strategy and tactics on the battlefield.

The Athenian conservatives of the 4th cent maybe but i wouldn't have applied this statement in general.


I strongly believe that legionary vs Hoplite thing is less important than other parameters which are involved in the war

[Nik]

What I mean is that if the Greeks left the sarissas and went back to old style they could be much more succesfull. Romans could still overwhelm with their numbers maybe but things would be much different.

I'm not sure if you mean the classical greek city states or the hellenized world. If we look at the equipment, I
Even classical hoplite quipment varied widely according to the financial means of the wearer. The smallest common demoninator seems to have been the shield, a helmet and a spear, additional equipment like cuirass, linothorax, greaves and swords beeing a plus, not a necessitiy.
Second, hoplite tactics evolved over time.
But the difference between the macedon phalanx and the greek phalanx (and the varying successes they enjoyed) is not (or at least not only) rooted in the quipment.
A salient feature of both is that the tactics required an unbroken line of soldiers, involved in a pushing match against the opposition. Longer spears is merely a plus, but when that line is broken, both a sarissa and a dorylon armed phalanx are in deep trouble. The roman system relied on compact blocks of infantry, which could and did form into lines, but a breakthrough could be compensated by the use of reserves. Furthermore, a the manipular system could adapt in the battle, while the infantry phalanx is basically a fire and forget weapon. When it advances and becomes locked into combat, it either breaks through or gets broken. Reforming a phalanx after an engagement is a highly difficult maneuver.
Furthermore, the greek warfare relied for a long time almost exclusively on the hoplite, skirmishers, archers and cavalry playing a small role. Later reforms in the time of the peleponnesian war (Iphikrates and others) increased the role of the skirmisher, and lightened the quipment of the hoplite in order to make them more maneuverable, though even those reforms weren't enough in the face of the politically fragmented greece locken in eternal warfare.

Besides, the phalanx itself gave a good account of themself against the roman infantry. At Kynoscephalae, the right wing of the phalanx drove the roman left and center back, but opened a gap to the left wing, which an unkown roman officer exploited by taking several reserve maniples and routing the greek left wing.
The failure of the phalanx was rater a case of underuse of skirmishers, reserves and above all cavalry, and not a failling of the phalanx itself.

[Mangalore]

...
A salient feature of both is that the tactics required an unbroken line of soldiers, involved in a pushing match against the opposition. Longer spears is merely a plus, but when that line is broken, both a sarissa and a dorylon armed phalanx are in deep trouble. The roman system relied on compact blocks of infantry, which could and did form into lines, but a breakthrough could be compensated by the use of reserves. Furthermore, a the manipular system could adapt in the battle, while the infantry phalanx is basically a fire and forget weapon.

In the battle of Magnesia the professional phalanx reformed in combat to a defensive formation to withdraw in good order from the battlefield. In Alexander's battles the phalanx is rarely moving in line (parts of it but the Macedons did use a unit based system where certain divisions down to company size could and did operate differently so they obviously were aware of the necessity of adapting the battle formation to necessity)

We always think about the Phalanx as unwieldly and such, but while the standard deployment was this simple advanced and grind the enemy into the ground there seem to me many instances where Hoplites and Phalangites alike were used in very diversive fashion not built on the standard phalanx. It seems like they are reduced to one feature when they were obviously used to cover a bigger array of duties and managed to do so at least in an effective manner.

... Furthermore, the greek warfare relied for a long time almost exclusively on the hoplite, skirmishers, archers and cavalry playing a small role. Later reforms in the time of the peleponnesian war (Iphikrates and others) increased the role of the skirmisher, and lightened the quipment of the hoplite in order to make them more maneuverable, though even those reforms weren't enough in the face of the politically fragmented greece locken in eternal warfare.

Weren't the contemporary Greek and Macedonians to some degree equipped like legionaires in that oval/rectangular shields and more javelins + chainmail came into fashion? The difference was that the Hellenistic system retained specialized units of various types more or less evolved from the Hoplite/Phalangite while the Roman army had a far more standardized system. It might be interesting to consider that the Romans did abandon this standardized scheme for a far more complex unit mix that once again reminds one of the Macedons in its late stages (skirmishers, lance wielding infantry, close quarter infantry, heavy shock cavalry,...) as their empire progressed.

It's strange to assume the Roman legionary system superior when the Romans themselves abandoned it for something more complex and diversive.

[Antigenes]

Weren't the contemporary Greek and Macedonians to some degree equipped like legionaires in that oval/rectangular shields and more javelins + chainmail came into fashion?

Yes, those were the thureophoroi and thorakitai. They were not, as RTW and many Roman historians would have you believe, 'imitation' legionaries. Thureophoroi probably existed before significant contact between the Roman and Hellenistic military systems, thorakitai were a refinement of same based on experiences fighting against the legions.

It's strange to assume the Roman legionary system superior when the Romans themselves abandoned it for something more complex and diversive.

This is kind of what I think, though the Romans never really managed to get Alexander-caliber shock cavalry. If they had, it'd be pretty awesome.

[Shatov]

It's strange to assume the Roman legionary system superior when the Romans themselves abandoned it for something more complex and diversive.

You are saying Marian made the army more complex and Hellenized? He completely dropped the spear from the legionarie's kit, even for the triarii, and got rid of all together the distinctions between Citizens in the army.

[Mangalore]

You are saying Marian made the army more complex and Hellenized? He completely dropped the spear from the legionarie's kit, even for the triarii, and got rid of all together the distinctions between Citizens in the army.

late answer but I was referring to later imperial Rome which had abandoned the legionary system of the Marian reforms for a complex combined arms approach. The typical legionair became one of various tools in the arsenal.

The romans used alot of auxillaries, but the core of their army, down to the end, remained the heavy infantry. The roman military history covers a span of over 1000 years, a little clarification would be good.

Heavy infantry is an extremely vague term and the number of auxillaries in the Roman army was at least 50% of the total fighting force.

Personally I think the valid comparison is given the OP the Roman army after the second Punic up to circa 171 BC (the 3rd Macedonian war). In that case the Roman army was not a formally professional force, and its command not all that impressive.

The Roman citizen army was at its peak there, having been bloodied for 20 years in the war the state of readiness of the Roman army would be extremely high compared to other times.

[Ahlerich]

usually the more modern army beats the older one since the more modern army evolved out of beating armies like the older one. so i vote rome.

how about a thread

english longbowmen versus leopard 2

[jo the greek]

usually the more modern army beats the older one since the more modern army evolved out of beating armies like the older one. so i vote rome.

how about a thread

english longbowmen versus leopard 2

this is nt very wise there wasnt such tech evolvement more like tactics

[Ahlerich]

this is nt very wise there wasnt such tech evolvement more like tactics

i ment successful doctrines/tactics always created a requirement for new doctrines/tactics to to beat them.

in a stale battle maybe phalanx would be better but there wouldnt have been a stale battle because the threat of a phalanx and its streght and weknesses were well known.

[dogukan]

usually the more modern army beats the older one since the more modern army evolved out of beating armies like the older one. so i vote rome.

how about a thread

english longbowmen versus leopard 2

Not really...considering during reneissance, ancient tactics were re-used in a modified way.
And what does tactics have to do with technological changes? I was assuming in this cenerio that Greeks are using modern versions of their weapons and armors.

[Phoebus]

The hoplite phalanx would have fared no better than the sarissa-based one. The only question would be if the foe the Romans faced would skillfully integrate supporting infantry arms (light infantry, missile) and cavalry to field a balanced force.

[Antigenes]

The hoplite phalanx would have fared no better than the sarissa-based one. The only question would be if the foe the Romans faced would skillfully integrate supporting infantry arms (light infantry, missile) and cavalry to field a balanced force.

Yeah, I mostly agree with him. The Hellenistic system of war, incorporating all of the disposable troop types, had the potential to be a more effective combined arms tactical instrument than the Roman legion...it just mostly wasn't used as such, with a few exceptions (as I understand it, Magnesia was an example of good deployment screwed up by Antiochos' poor tactics with regards to his cavalry and chariotry...though the battle itself ought not have been fought).

[jo the greek]

as said before it said that many carthiginian troops of Hannibal fought as hoplites .

[Rhaegar1]

I don't think the biggest reason for the macedonian defeat was not that their phalanx was inferieur to the roman system (not much at least) but more that the macedonians lacked interest of supporting troops. The Macedonian cavalry Alexander used so well to support he's phalanx was just a shadow of it's former self and as far as I know where the light infantry troops not very impressive either.