Phalanx Vs. Legions

[Germanicus]

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

 

And a good post too Pax. I concur entirely with your sentiment here.

 

The legion was founded to defeat the Gauls not the Greeks

 

Quite simply, the Legion was founded to defeat anyone the Romans had, or wanted, a beef with. Leadership, and discipline seem to be the other detirmining factors, but with veteran legions, and a general like Caesar, the outdated, outmoded Phalanx would be not just defeated, but slaughtered. Another thing about Caesars veteran legions....they would have enjoyed it.

[Scipio Africanus]

Its my opinion, which may be wrong I got much to learn, that the Legion has the ability to defeat the phalanx. If only because it was so much more mobile. Of course it depends on leadership.....

[Virgil61]

Quite simply, the Legion was founded to defeat anyone the Romans had, or wanted, a beef with. Leadership, and discipline seem to be the other detirmining factors, but with veteran legions, and a general like Caesar, the outdated, outmoded Phalanx would be not just defeated, but slaughtered. Another thing about Caesars veteran legions....they would have enjoyed it.

 

I agree, the legion was an incredibly flexible organization, especially considering the wide variety of both the terrain it operated in and the enemies it went up against.

 

Let's not forget that most important factor of all that no good army can win without; training. Romans set the standard. They trained constantly, emphasizing forced marches for speed with packs that I believe have been estimated to be around 65-80lbs average--similar to what soldiers carry today. They trained individual soldier sword skills--building covered areas so they could continue year round-- and then unit movement and maneuver. Everything, even discipline comes from it, and it allowed even mediocre commanders to gain victories.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Virgil61

[Vespasion]

This was the case with the early legions however near the end of the roman empire; the troops were ill-disciplined, poorly trained and often no better equiped then their barbarian counterparts for e.g. the foderai infantry of the late empire.

 

Therefore in my oppinion the phalanx would be able to beat the the late armies of the empire; as the troop attacks were not co-ordinated and the troops would more then likely be unable to reach the soldiers in the phalanx

 

So to answer the original questio, in my oppinion;

Yes an early Roman Empire army would beat a phalanx but

a late Roman Army due to the lack of discipline would have been defeated by the phalanx.

[Felix Marcellus]

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

 

I don't think there's anything unfair about it. It wasn't just one battle where the legion bested the phalanx. If you're talking about Cynoscephalae than I would say it was more Roman initiative rather than lack of Macedonian leadership that won that battle. The gap would not have been prevented even by Alexander. The gap formed because the entire phalanx had not yet been formed.

 

The portion of the phalanx that was formed was much more successful against the Romans and held their ground. THe other portion still forming up could not bring the proper combat power to bear and were driven back. Leaders were no doubt still rushing about trying to get the men in line while their soldiers were fighting off the Romans.

 

Hence, the gap forms. Then a Roman officer sees the gap and attacks the flank of the Macedonian right. Disaster.

 

What would Alexander have done different to retrieve the battle? What would his light troops have accomplished against the Roman infantry. What would his horses have accomplished? His horses would've had to vanquish the Roman horse first. By the time that's accomplished the phalanx may very well have begun to cave. Who knows?

 

I guess instead of sending the phalanx up the hill he might sent light troops to hold it while the phalanx finished forming. In which case the Roman infantry wipes out these light troops and completely takes the crest of the hill. Advantage... Rome.

 

He could've sent his cav into the Roman rear as they were ascending in which case they'd have no infantry support and Roman cav and light troops would wipe them out. Advantage.... Rome.

 

I'm sure there are courses of action Alexander might have taken to win the battle. But who knows? You also have to take into account what the Romans would've done to counter it. The leadership they brought to the field that day in my mind proved their worth. They might've given Alexander his first significant defeat.

 

But, back to what I said in the beginning. There was more than one legion vs phalanx battle and the legion came out on top most every time.

[Virgil61]

Yes an early Roman Empire army would beat a phalanx but

a late Roman Army due to the lack of discipline would have been defeated by the phalanx.

 

The phalanx actually existed as an effective force during the legions of the Republic and possibly the Principate. Since the Macedonian-type phalanx wasn't used by enemies of the late empire it was a hypothetical which I didn't address.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say late Roman armies lacked discipline except compared to earlier legions who set much higher standards. Vegetius makes it clear that many men shunned the late legions because of discipline in favor of auxiliaries. One test of discipline is how armies react when the going gets tough on them. Julian's legions were in a difficult position against the Persians but seem to have kept their unit integrity intact throughout. Of course the late legions weren't on par with the earlier ones, there's a lot of evidence showing a definite change in the quality of organizational leadership and training.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Like Germanicus stated, the legion and maniple/cohort system was designed to be highly flexible, capable of defeating any opposing army type. The Phalanx was not flexible, it was rigid, immouvarable and every time the Greeko-Macedonian armies attempted to use it against the Romans they lost, spectaculuary.

 

197 Cynoscephelae

191 Thermopylae

190 Magnesia-ad-Sypium

171 Phalana

168 Pydna

 

= Phalanx annihilated

 

It should be pretty damn obvious that the legion was superior to the phalanx. The Romans adopted whatever was best suited for beating a wide range of army types. If the Phalanx was better than the legion, they would have used it. It should also be noted that the Romans did originaly use a phalanx styled army up until their wars with the Samnites, after which they discovered that the manipular system was far more effective. Arguing that the phalanx was more capable against the legion is absurd as the former was outdated. Thats like trying to say that catapults were more effective than cannon fire.

[Virgil61]

...Like Germanicus stated, the legion and maniple/cohort system was designed to be highly flexible, capable of defeating any opposing army type. The Phalanx was not flexible, it was rigid, immouvarable and every time the Greeko-Macedonian armies attempted to use it against the Romans they lost, spectaculuary...

 

It's ironic that 1500 years later Europeans resurrected the idea of the phalanx modifiying it by making it smaller, faster and a bit more flexible and then gradually adding other weapons into the formation alongside pikes.

[Northern Neil]

The Scottish 'Schiltrom' of the 13th - 15th centuries was the same, a reworking of the Phalanx. Perhaps the English technique (during the 100 years war) of heavily armoured, dismounted men at arms supported by missile fire weakening the enemy prior to impact could be interpreted as a re-working of the legion? Just a thought...

[Sextus Roscius]

The Scottish 'Schiltrom' of the 13th - 15th centuries was the same, a reworking of the Phalanx. Perhaps the English technique (during the 100 years war) of heavily armoured, dismounted men at arms supported by missile fire weakening the enemy prior to impact could be interpreted as a re-working of the legion? Just a thought...

 

Point well take, but it depends on what stage of Roman warfare you refer to. Durring the Late-Republic to Early-Imperial Period soildeirs were not very "heavily armoured" in the sense of full body armor with sheild and 100+ pounds of metal (I beleive legionary gear at that time whiegh in at 80kg or so) but if you refer to the troops of the late-imperial age we see much more heavily armoured troops with chain mail and some times plates over that (weighing in significantly higher than the "metal strip" armour of the early-imperial period) then there might be some connection.

 

The idea of the british soldiers using similar tactics to that of their roman counter parts is that even durring the major transition from roman to mideivel many roman things were kept rather than destroyed. Also, some theories suggest that instead of all citizens pulling out of the island along with the soldiers, they stayed and moved into what is modern day whales and southern britian. This would explain the resemblance of british tactics after the western empire's fall and into the hundred years war. Perhaps the British relized that this formation/tactic was put to good use against the greeks and their celtic brothers (by roman definition) and relized that the same tactics could be adopted to defeat the scottish schiltrom formation as well as french formations in the hundred years war. Good connection but I beleive we have strayed off topic.

[Guest -{BH}-Mezmerizer]

this is a weird post, a legion is a roman infantry unit, while a phalanx is a formation greek and macedonians use to form a frontal battle line. In any case i'll use the word hoplite instead of phalanx.

 

If you describe each individual on a small scale, the legionaire was a more well rounded soldier and better equiped soldier than most hoplites. I say most because some hoplite units included extremely well trained spartans and certain hoplites of different city states were highly equiped and well trained armored hoplites etc...

 

On to the large scale, a hoplite unit that is placed in phalanx formation will be beat by a legion if the legion fights to the phalanx's weakness, if not fought to the weakness the legion will meet a wall of spears. (self explanitory) Victory between an attacking legion and a defensive phalanx depends almost completely on the situation, command ability, support units, etc. Overall it is easier to command a legion in most situations, in some situations a phalanx may be near unbeatable if placed in an un-flankable position against a legion (which will rarely happen against the inteligent commanders of rome. The phalanx's has several advantages in defensive positions, it has the very important ability to withstand cavalry, which towers over all other infantry at the time. Initiative in battle is broken once a gap is created in a phalanx (although very hard to do in certain circumstances). Offensively, a phalanx is ineffective unless the enemy is pinned down,(which would be VERY hard to achieve against the highly maneuverable roman legions)... BUT, if pinned down the legion w/e it is... will die, period.

 

On to the very large scale, a defensive phalanx/hoplite based army will be beat by a legionary army in almost all situations, in most situations, the romans would see that the army is in phalanx formation, so they wont dive into a spear line, they'll look for a gap, or they'll make one themself with a concentrated attack. The key advantage of offense is the choice of time and place of the attack, if the commander judges that he will not win in a assault then he will not assault. Now, if the phalanx was offensive, i could seriously see the romans running from a phalanx if outnumbered in an assault, and while the romans ran they'd b laughin their ass off at the phalanx yellin out "y'all cant catch us, we're the legionaires of SPQR". If the legion was pinned, they would lose, as would anything else at the time.

 

The key thing is, the way history played itself out, is the legion was a better mode of warfare, than the hoplite/phalanx. I personally think that if alexander the great did not die young, the phalanx would've been made more flexible/maneuverable, they would've upgraded their equipment, possibly medium shields like the triari spearmen of rome, and the legionaire style heavy armor (would've been a huge weight along with their 30lb spears...lol), Some of alexander's bloodiest battles occured when a phalanx line was broke or in the process of being broken, when he faced elephants fighting tribes in india, the only thing that kept the macedonian/persian/asian army from breaking is the influence of alexander and his exceptional motivation to his men. Alexander had the resources and an exceptional amount of man-power to make reforms to his military system, and i'm sure if he didn't die, there would've been some spectacular changes to make his army more well rounded, better equiped/trained fighting machine. I think alexander would've ruled the entire world, he would've taken sicily, carthage, and then moved on rome.....tee hee hee hee hee.... and there would've been some big fighting between SPQR, and the phalanxes of alexander!

Edited November 17, 2005 by -{BH}-Mezmerizer

[Sextus Roscius]

I beleive it was the wedge formation that was used to break enemy formations that couldn't be broken by standard means, correct me I'f I'm wrong.

[longbow]

Why was the phalanx so imobile?The English used a kinda phalanx during the civil war and they were anything but imobile.The English used Pikemen and they were arranged in units of a couple of hundred men,they would march in line formation or form squares if cavalry were about,it only takes a couple of seconds to get into square formation and then no one can get at your backs.Infact the english were using these tactics at the time of the red coats too,a Brown Bess musket with a 3ft bayonet on the end is a kinda spear i suppose.All of the Army's parade groud marching today is based on the pikemen's drills from the civil war.

So why were the Greek phalanx's so slow and cumbersome,as i understand it they only used the one tactic,which is to form a long line at the front and wait for the cavalry to get round the enemy and push them onto your sarissa's.I may be wrong though

[Sextus Roscius]

Why was the phalanx so imobile?The English used a kinda phalanx during the civil war and they were anything but imobile.The English used Pikemen and they were arranged in units of a couple of hundred men,they would march in line formation or form squares if cavalry were about,it only takes a couple of seconds to get into square formation and then no one can get at your backs.Infact the english were using these tactics at the time of the red coats too,a Brown Bess musket with a 3ft bayonet on the end is a kinda spear i suppose.All of the Army's parade groud marching today is based on the pikemen's drills from the civil war.

So why were the Greek phalanx's so slow and cumbersome,as i understand it they only used the one tactic,which is to form a long line at the front and wait for the cavalry to get round the enemy and push them onto your sarissa's.I may be wrong though

 

A point well made, but the greeks had to compensate for their sheilds, which were much different. The English Pikeman didn't have as standardized equipment and often didn't fight with sheilds. The formation without sheilds would have allowed for slight changes in angles and direction of the phalanx formation without disrupting the overal defenses. Whereas the greek form of the phalanx used sheilds, which had to be kept in a certain overlaping wall (or simply held depending on era) which they depended on for defense becuase they didn't have the same body armor as the English Pike man later on. So when atempting to change direction of the phalanx these sheilds would have to be lifted up, there by lowering the defensive. They could not do this in battler becuase a opening in the sheild wall would break defenses which were nessacary becuase of the lesser body armor of the standard greek hoplite.

 

All said and done the general would be weary to change position of the phalanx on the line when the formation was ready and marching towards the oponent (in this case roman) that could use any disruption in the order to its advantage with a deadly barrage of pilum and then a charge with the advantage of the broken phalanx. The phalanx would only function effectively against a roman oponent who had no opertunity to use its pilum with which to break up the tight packed formation. This means that the calvary would have to be used in order to keep the romans from their deadly charge, to effectively use the hammer and anvil strategy. This meant that the greek infentry had to be close enough to their roman oponents to have effect while not being damaged by pilum or other projectiles. Hence they added sheilds with which to defend against these projectiles creating the imobility of the phalanx.

[trajen777]

Why was the phalanx so imobile?The English used a kinda phalanx during the civil war and they were anything but imobile.The English used Pikemen and they were arranged in units of a couple of hundred men,they would march in line formation or form squares if cavalry were about,it only takes a couple of seconds to get into square formation and then no one can get at your backs.Infact the english were using these tactics at the time of the red coats too,a Brown Bess musket with a 3ft bayonet on the end is a kinda spear i suppose.All of the Army's parade groud marching today is based on the pikemen's drills from the civil war.

So why were the Greek phalanx's so slow and cumbersome,as i understand it they only used the one tactic,which is to form a long line at the front and wait for the cavalry to get round the enemy and push them onto your sarissa's.I may be wrong though

 

A point well made, but the greeks had to compensate for their sheilds, which were much different. The English Pikeman didn't have as standardized equipment and often didn't fight with sheilds. The formation without sheilds would have allowed for slight changes in angles and direction of the phalanx formation without disrupting the overal defenses. Whereas the greek form of the phalanx used sheilds, which had to be kept in a certain overlaping wall (or simply held depending on era) which they depended on for defense becuase they didn't have the same body armor as the English Pike man later on. So when atempting to change direction of the phalanx these sheilds would have to be lifted up, there by lowering the defensive. They could not do this in battler becuase a opening in the sheild wall would break defenses which were nessacary becuase of the lesser body armor of the standard greek hoplite.

 

All said and done the general would be weary to change position of the phalanx on the line when the formation was ready and marching towards the oponent (in this case roman) that could use any disruption in the order to its advantage with a deadly barrage of pilum and then a charge with the advantage of the broken phalanx. The phalanx would only function effectively against a roman oponent who had no opertunity to use its pilum with which to break up the tight packed formation. This means that the calvary would have to be used in order to keep the romans from their deadly charge, to effectively use the hammer and anvil strategy. This meant that the greek infentry had to be close enough to their roman oponents to have effect while not being damaged by pilum or other projectiles. Hence they added sheilds with which to defend against these projectiles creating the imobility of the phalanx.