Phalanx Vs. Legions

[WotWotius]

What i want to know is whether a Roman army could beat a Greek army in battle.

 

For instance, could Alexander the Great's force beat Caesar's legions?

 

 

 

[additional edit: topic split from "Greeks versus Romans" in Forum Peregrini]

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Most Alexanderphiles which there are on this forum would say yes. I personally believe that either Caesar's Romans or Byzantiums Romans would beat the crap out of Alexander. The Legion was meant and perfected to beat a Phalanx. How do you think Rome conquered all of Greece and especially Athens and Sparta.

[Pertinax]

look no futher than Pydna 168 BC Third Macedonian War . Legion versus phalanx, gaps in phalanx penetrated massive casualties as Macedonian line disintergrates Roma victor!

[Felix Marcellus]

look no futher than Pydna 168 BC Third Macedonian War . Legion versus phalanx, gaps in phalanx penetrated massive casualties as Macedonian line disintergrates Roma victor!

 

Exactly, you can surf this forum for discussions on this. This subject has been discussed exhaustively in here. BUt Pertinax got you right. Not only can the legion beat the phalanx, it did. King Pyrrhus' phalangites got some legio love too. The battles Pyrrhus did win against Rome were on account of the elephants, not the phalanx. When Rome figured out how to deal with the elephants it was all over for the Greeks.

 

Alexander's phalanx is another question. Under his leadership who knows. This has also been heavily discussed in here somewhere. Great discussions too.

[Sextus Roscius]

Agreed, the legionary was entirely prepared to counter a force of hoplites.

 

Considering greek forces where the most obvious enemy becuase they ocupied Italian soil before Rome became the dominate force of Italy. Charthage also used phalanx in some instances and they were another early enemy.

 

Perhaps this is oart of why Roman soldiers later could not as easily counter the formations of germanic and gualic invaders?

 

Also, it is clear that Alexander was a great strategist, and that is the arguement made by many alexanderphiles but it is clear that the Roman's possesed superior anti-phalanx technology (most notably the pilum) and could, even if out meanuveured, destroy a phlanx if they used the tactics correctly.

[Qvintus]

Agreed, the legionary was entirely prepared to counter a force of hoplites.

 

Considering greek forces where the most obvious enemy becuase they ocupied Italian soil before Rome became the dominate force of Italy. Charthage also used phalanx in some instances and they were another early enemy.

 

Perhaps this is oart of why Roman soldiers later could not as easily counter the formations of germanic and gualic invaders?

 

Also, it is clear that Alexander was a great strategist, and that is the arguement made by many alexanderphiles but it is clear that the Roman's possesed superior anti-phalanx technology (most notably the pilum) and could, even if out meanuveured, destroy a phlanx if they used the tactics correctly.

Ave !!!

I am new here but I dare say that a phalanx in most cases couldnt outmanuver the legions, because the phalanx was so rigid. The phalanx usually just went forward because if they manuvered they qickly got out off formation.

Post scriptum: Sorry about my english, I`m from Sweden

[Guest Rascal]

This battle is often considered to be a victory of the Roman legion's flexibility over the phalanx's inflexibility unfairly.

 

This victory was mainly due to poorly commanded troops on Perseus's name (note, not Alexander hehe). The reason the legion won was they were able to move into the gaps on the flanks of the phalanx which never should have happened because the Macedonian army was not the greek army, they had lighter troops to protect those flanks for that very reason and Perseus had them on the field!.

 

If Alexander was controlling this army they would of won, I am not an 'Alexanderphile' I am just stating what I think is fact, the phalanx was doing its job, it was holding the roman infantry in place, he would of then done his anvil/hammer trick and broken the roman army. This Macedonian army was different to the one he used, they had moved away from what his army was like, they had adopted a more static Greek battle plan. Perseus' splitting of the cavalry to both flanks suggests it never could have.

 

I think this battle is more a show of bad commanders lose battles and good ones win battles.

 

P.S. If anything I am a Godwinsonphile

[pompeius magnus]

A lot of the Phalanx success depended on terrain, if it was in an open field the advantage went to the Phalanx, even though the legions were able to move around more easily. If it was in a wooded area the phalanx was useless which was what happened in several battles during the second macedonian war. I myself am a firm believer in the Legions, but the way the cavalry was used would be a major varaible in the outcome. The Legion was better equipped to turn and face an attack from the back.

[Vespasion]

The Romans ability to adapt formations and strict discipline would of all been contributing factors however; when discussing Caesars legions vs Alexanders army, you not only have to consider the armies but the generals too, although Alexander is a decorated general, the main way he won battles was to flank his opponents phalanxes with his companion cavalry; Caesar veterans from Gaul, i'm sure would be able to adapt their formation to beat this threat and as the legions through two pilums before they engaged thier enemy this would of confused and scattered the phalanx formation allowing the legionaries to attack the exposed flanks of their enemies.

 

By the way as I study Roman warfare; can you tell me the pluaral of phalanx

 

Thanks

 

I apologise that i spelt Vespasian wrong.

Edited November 12, 2005 by Vespasion

[Felix Marcellus]

By the way as I study Roman warfare; can you tell me the pluaral of phalanx

 

Thanks

 

I apologise that i spelt Vespasian wrong.

 

Phalanx is plural for phalanx. If you're talking about the individual soldiers in the phalanx, it would be phalangite (singular) and phalangites (plural)

[Virgil61]

...

Perhaps this is oart of why Roman soldiers later could not as easily counter the formations of germanic and gualic invaders?...

 

My guess is that it had little to do with it. The later Roman legions were a different animal than those of the principate with a larger emphasis on cavalry, Germans and Goths in the ranks and evidence--at least to me -- that the foot soldiers were not as well-trained.

 

The Romans maintained an interest in the phalanx probably due to the fascination with Alexander. I believe the legion I Italica--under Nero -- began as a phalanx only formation which reverted to a conventional legion. Aelianus Tacticus dedicated his drill manual on the phalanx to Hadrian. If I remember correctly Caracalla had at least one phalanx-trained formation (they may have been Greeks). Julian also had a very keen interest in the phalanx, being the a great admirer of Alexander. At the battle of Strasbourg in 357 AD his Roman army may have used modified phalanx-like formations to defeat the Germans.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I believe in any battle, the calvary is the a key factor in beating a phalanx. Being that the phalanx is rigid, you can just send your first primam aciem to meet the phalanx, positon your strong soldiers on the right and your weakest at the center. Then have the calvary spear the enemy on the left side and that way, you have full encirclement. Same tactic was used by Aetius against the Huns, with the exception that he didn't use the calvary much because of terrain(I think).

 

 

Don't know if this is helpful to Vespasion, but in latin phalanx is declined like this:

Singular/Plural

phalanx / phalanges

phalangis / phalangium

phalangi / phalangibus

phalangem / phalanges

phalange / phalangibus

 

Its third declension neuter or feminine, but declined in the feminine anyways. So the plural in latin would be phalanges. ( Note: If you try phalanga, you are wrong because that is a different word from phalanx and phalanga means a roller to move ships/ military engines/ carrying pole.)

Edited November 13, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Hamilcar Barca]

This argument has a way of always evolving into the Caesar vs Alexander debate given that those two commanders represent the best of their nations retrospective generals commanding the best legions/phalanx. It has also been established that Caesar would destroy Alexander. Lets just ignore Cynoscephelae and Pydna for a second, yes if Aemelius Paullus had come up against Alexander, then Alexander probabaly would have won. But this discussion can only be determined by comparing the best of the best. Caesar and Alexander represent such categories but given that the legions were designed to destroy a phalanx, I don't think there can be any doubt over who would win.

[trajen777]

This argument has a way of always evolving into the Caesar vs Alexander debate given that those two commanders represent the best of their nations retrospective generals commanding the best legions/phalanx. It has also been established that Caesar would destroy Alexander. Lets just ignore Cynoscephelae and Pydna for a second, yes if Aemelius Paullus had come up against Alexander, then Alexander probabaly would have won. But this discussion can only be determined by comparing the best of the best. Caesar and Alexander represent such categories but given that the legions were designed to destroy a phalanx, I don't think there can be any doubt over who would win.

 

I think it comes down to leadership and which time frame you are in. If you look at the armies which defeated the Romans over and over again it was based upon the Alexandrian method of Heavy inf and a strong Heavy Cav. These were the methods of Hannibal who was not defeated until Rome revised its method of warfare to have a superior cav arm at Zama.

 

The legion was founded to defeat the Gauls not the Greeks. The Macedonian army was also very flexible until after the death of Alexander. After this the pike length and armor was increased to give a better power push but at the cost of speed and flexibility. In addition the light infantry of Alexander (bow

[Pax Orbis Furius]

Ave!

 

Greece was either a client state or a province of Rome for centuries, of course Roman legions could and did defeat Greek armies. Think of Sulla defeating Mithradates, the Lion of Pontus. Many of the Lions soldiers were Greeks, who seized the moment, expressed their hatred of Roman merchants and nobles, and attempted a rebellion of opportunity. If Greek armies could have defeated Roman armies they would have, the phalanx as a tactical doctrine was out-dated by the time of Scipio Africanus, out-classed by the days of Caesar. By the days of Marcus Aurelius it was defeated by trained, flexible, professional, disciplined Roman armies again and again. Pax

 

Hmmm, that makes 8 posts, 2 more to FREEDOM!