We're going to beat the legions

[Lanista]

I had dinner with Maty the other day (which was ace fun and enlightening) and we discussed the age-old Legion vs Phalanx thing.

 

We established that - basically - the legion was always going to win given the inherent weaknesses of the Greek or Macedonian phalanxes (IE - they only have to break in one place to be totally broken - even if they're on the offensive, greater and lesser reistance up and down the Roman line will cause disruptions of its own accord).

 

But I'm thinking - let's pretend we're in Rome: Total War World.

 

You're an ambitious Greek or Macedonian General. You've heard all about these Romans with their pila and swords and Pyrrhus has made it clear to you that the "old way of war" just won't work against these upstart Italians.

 

You don't have time to ape their training a la Mithridates... and you don't really want to. After all, the Hellenic way of war is better, right? But you know you have to adapt.

 

So - Is there a way for the Classic Greek Phalanx to adapt to face down the legions on equal terms.

 

Same for the Macedonians, circa Philip/Alexander when they were at the height of their power?

 

What would you do to change your aging system to give you a chance.

 

Change their weapons? Change their formation? Or just resign yourself to the fact that your polies will soon be crushed under the hobnailed calligae of Roman oppression?

 

Just one for fun - you've got a chance to alter the facts and use some historical hindsight to swing the balance in your favour!

 

Cheers

 

Russ

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Why not attempt to use Iphicrates type forces ? lighter, much more manoeuvrable than either traditional or macedonian phalanx, tactically efficient, ...

[Lanista]

I don't know - what would Iphicrates do?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

During the pre-alexandrian but post-classical warfare period after the war of the Peloponese he increased slightly spear lenght, lightened armor, replaced the traditionnal hoplite shield by peltast light infantery shield and had his forces trained in manoeuvres and small groups tactics, his force showing itself able to destroy a spartan force of about 600 elite heavy spartan hoplite. It is only later that Philipp II and Alexander would lengthen even more the spears of their men and coalesce them in huge blocks which were supposed to act as an anvil for the cavalry's hammer.

 

An original macedonian phalanx/cavalry mix could also do the trick, since by the time of Pyrrhus the macedonian armies had lost their heavy cavalry complement (especially the western forces, although eastern forces had still enough access to horses to field multithousand horses strong units).

 

Finally one may also think that greeks could hire numbers of scythian or other horse-mounted archers to harmstring the roman forces.

 

But the best way would probably to cut the romans supply without changing one's army too much : a man without food will not be able to fight well fed men, whatever his training or tactics.

[Lanista]

Interesting stuff, Bryaxis. So our Greeks would go down the Iphicrates route. Our Macedonians would just pin the Romans, take the pila and hope the cavalry battle would be won on the flanks and plough into the Romans once their horsemen have been routed?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Yes. The Macedonians would even be able to deflect parts of the pila inside their forest of sarissas .

[Pompieus]

Bryaxis is right isn't he? The classic function of the phalanx under Phillip and Alexander was always to pin the enemy main force while the heavy cavalry, covered on it's flanks by light cavalry and light infantry, broke or flanked the enemy line and struck the decisive blow. Isn't that also what Hannibal did?

 

Of course a lot depends on getting the enemy to fight you on suitable ground, and havinge had time to deploy. This is a function of having superior light troops isn't it?

Edited March 9, 2011 by Pompieus

[Lanista]

So your light troops move in and try be an annoyance whilst you form up your massive phalanx, ready for the real killing to begin.

[caldrail]

I had dinner with Maty the other day (which was ace fun and enlightening) and we discussed the age-old Legion vs Phalanx thing.

 

We established that - basically - the legion was always going to win given the inherent weaknesses of the Greek or Macedonian phalanxes (IE - they only have to break in one place to be totally broken - even if they're on the offensive, greater and lesser reistance up and down the Roman line will cause disruptions of its own accord).

 

But I'm thinking - let's pretend we're in Rome: Total War World.

 

You're an ambitious Greek or Macedonian General. You've heard all about these Romans with their pila and swords and Pyrrhus has made it clear to you that the "old way of war" just won't work against these upstart Italians.

 

You don't have time to ape their training a la Mithridates... and you don't really want to. After all, the Hellenic way of war is better, right? But you know you have to adapt.

 

So - Is there a way for the Classic Greek Phalanx to adapt to face down the legions on equal terms.

Of course there is. In strict terms, you try to tempt the romans into an defile. If they cannot outflank you, the phalanx is at it's most effective.

 

What would you do to change your aging system to give you a chance.

Firstly I would not rely on the phalanx, but instead, try to create a situation where it would function to advantage. My own feeelings would be harry them in the march, launch night raids and so forth, purely as a nuisance factor or perhaps even damage their assets, so that they become tired and despondent. it's a false assumption that the Roman legions were always efficient and deadly. We have sources that describe legions in a poor state of readiness. We know how surly the Roman legionaries could be, how readily their troops could desert if they thought their leader was a fool, or that the gods were against them.

 

Could I assassinate their leader? Bribe their junior commanders?Could I play on their superstitions? Could I use a river to sweep away a portion of their troops before the battle is joined? Could I give them false information and force them to march further over harsher terrain? Could I poison the wells on their route, or introduce sickness? Ensure they could not forage food on the march? Roman legions were good at logistics but only between fixed points. During a march they relied on foraging like everyone else.

 

How about arranging for the Romans to be caught in a phalanx sandwich? Make no mistake, the Romans were sometimes very effective when they dictated how the battle was to be fought. Catch them by suprise and they fold remarkably easily.

 

Change their weapons? Change their formation? Or just resign yourself to the fact that your polies will soon be crushed under the hobnailed calligae of Roman oppression?

Changing weapons is not usually a practible solution. Firstly, where do you get them? How much will it cost? How long will it take? Can your men handle such arms? Are they familiar with the fighting methods and skills a particular weapon involves? Will they feel confident changing weaponry? Formations are often part and parcel of using a style of weaponr and fighting. The two must function together or there's an inherent weakness in your army.

 

Under no circumstances should you just give up. What was the point of going to war if you just give up? If that's the case, then surrender and try to seek terms form the Roman victors.

[Lanista]

This is brilliant stuff, Caldrail.

 

One of the things that we discussed was that the pilum made it really tough for the classical phalanx. Get rid of those shields and the hoplites are in trouble. I thought maybe adapting the formation into some sort of wedge might work (similar to what the Romans did to Boudicca's lot), but an offensive variant of that. But I don't honestly know if that'd be possible.

 

The Macedonian's aren't at such a risk from the javelins, but here (as with the Greeks), the battleline they're facing isn't going to give in and stand firm all the same time. So if my centre is winning, my left drawing and my right dithering, this will cause gaps and the sword wielding Romans pile in and its game over.

 

The phalanx sandwich is a good one - kind of doing a Hannibal on them might be feasible?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

What I'd be curious about is the vulnerability of a classical hoplon shield to a pilum. Tlassical greek heavy shield was much heavier than anything including, I think, the roman scutum. Metal facing, thick wood, ... this might prevent the kind of damages we've seen the macedonian and other peoples suffer from. Macedonian troops had indeed gone to lighter pelte shield, and gauls and other nations also had mostly lighter shields.

[Lanista]

I'll ask over at RAT - they may have a reenactor or two that knows about that, Bryaxis.

[Lanista]

Hi Bryaxis - Matthew Amt, a noted re-enactor who's made tonnes of his own kit says "No, the Classical Greek "hoplon", actually called an aspis, is not special, really. They were no heavier or thicker than a scutum, and the bronze facing was too thin to help much against javelins."

 

Seems that the consensus (of two thus far!) that the engagement will be decided by the quality of the cavalry on the wings.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Thanks for the opinion of Mr Amt. I must say that I still wonder if late-republican pila, with their weakened fixation, might not have an issue going through even the light bronze shielding.

 

But to come back to what you were saying, I'd say both quality and especially quantity of heavy cavalry. Otherwise you might easily find yourself in a Pharsale like situation where the light screen of infantry of Caesar was able to repel the light and medium cavalry of Labienus.

[Kosmo]

This is fun!

Macedonians were the first to show what happens when you break a rigid phalanx line and then launch a fast attack through the gap when at Chaeronea Philip withdrawn a wing and pushed forward the other, fragmenting the Greek line. Of course, the Macedonian line was gone too, but it did not matter because they outmaneuvered the Greeks and pressed on an attack that annihilated them.

 

If I would be a later period Macedonian king facing the legions of the Middle Republic I would not insist on cavalry units. They are expensive, take a lot of time to train and are of limited use in the narrow valleys of Greece where the campaign will be fought. I would have no reason to fear roman cavalry because they would not bring lots in oversees campaign and their Greek allies don't have much. At the same time I know that Hannibal gave some painful lessons to the romans about cavalry so they would be hard to surprise and would know how to defend themselves. Several cavalry units for foraging, scouting, flank protection and pursuit would be enough.

 

The Macedonian army consisted mainly of the sarissa-armed phalanx supported by the excellent light infantry provided by the mountain tribes and Greek mercenaries/allies equipped with spears and narrow Celtic shields (an evolution of Iphicrates-style units). This is not inferior to the armament of the legions that were still of the veliti/hastati/triari type with spears, shields and javelins. Both sides were mainly levy, mercenaries and allies so there was not much standardization of weapons, every soldier brought what he had at home.

 

The main areas of improvement would be the recruiting and training of soldiers and officers, organizational reform of units and sub-units and of corresponding ranks, creating legion-like large, permanent units with several types of soldiers so they are capable of independent action and carrying less important campaigns to give combat experience to the army and a proving ground to the officers.

I would try to fight the battle in a easy defensible position, with the flanks covered like in a valley.

 

I would deploy the army in depth with light infantry in front as skirmishers, or covering the flanks, with a main line of sarissa phalanx and a second line/reserve of more mobile units including cavalry to plug the hole in the phalanx if the romans break it or to pursuit them if they flee. The fact that often Greek and Hellenistic formations lacked reserves is rather an error of leadership then an inherent fault of the phalanx.

But the most important things I would do would be to establish friendly relations with Rome because in the case of a war I'm definitely in trouble, they are relentless and, just in case, to create a strong fortification in a city as far as possible of Rome, but with a good port, in a strategic location that is easy defensible something like ... I don't know... Byzantium?