Phalanx Vs. Legions

[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.

 

The Roman Legion was a self contained unit mostly based upon HI whereas the Macedonian Phx was an organization with the Phx as the holding unit while the HC attacked the flanks. In between they had a flexible unit which could fight in any terrain. In addition to this they had mounted archers, javelin men, archers, slingers, artillery, and other units. Under Alexander and unit commanders they operated in all types of terrain and against all types of mil orgs. Rome had the finest military discipline and would win the war but in battle the unit flexible and HC of the Macedonian army would prevail. Rome when it fought Hannibal only won at Zama when they had a superior cal unit. That was one of the few times they every bothered with cav until forced much later in history. The combined force of the Mac was superior then the HI of Rome

[Germanicus]

Rome had the finest military discipline and would win the war but in battle the unit flexible and HC of the Macedonian army would prevail.

 

This seems an odd statement.

1- It goes against the evidence as mentioned by Hamilcar below:-

 

......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

 

2- If you assume Macedonia is winning the battles - how would Rome be winning the war ?

[eggers]

I wanna clear something up, are we talking about the best possible ancient greek army style against the best possible roman (post marian) style army, or 1 phalanx unit versus 1 roman cohort?

 

If we are talking the best possible ancient greek style army versus best roman cohort style, then it depends on a hell of a lot. Terrain, leadership and soldier quality are probably the most important factors. Remember a phalanx is best on flat, open and undisrupted ground and they are great for holding an enemy in place. An example of the short-fall of the phalanx is often the battle of pydna, where the macedonian phalanx crumbled against the roman legion.

 

Great, but 3 problems with this:

1) The romans were using a pre-marian (early repulican army), which uses different princples and techniques in fighting (slightly, but does effect the outcome, as triarii also fought as a phalanx).

"When the Principes and Hastati of Republican army were rearmed with javelins, the Triarii retained their long spears and scutums and continued to fight as a phalanx."taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarii)

2) initially the macedonians had the upper hand until they pushed the romans onto more rugged ground where the phalanx is less effective, and eventually lost tight formation.

3)Perseus (leading the macedonians) was either a coward, or just a complete moron, having noticed that the battle was going badly due partially to rough ground, just buggered off, with his heavy cavalry, leaving the macedonian phalanx in, well, between a rock and a very bad place!

 

The main problems with the phalanx was that it was very vunerable from the flanks or rear, so the greeks did have light troops to guard against this (and against enemy troops getting into any gaps in the phalanx lines). They also should have used the phalanx to pin an enemy in place, while heavy cavalry moved round the back of the enemy and charge their rear, both perseus (the knob-end) didn't bother to do!

 

"Although the battle (of Pydna) is often considered to be a victory of the Roman legion's flexibility over the phalanx's inflexibility, some argue that the loss was actually due to a failure of command on the part of Perseus. The legion's move into the gaps on the flanks of the phalanx should not have been able to take place, since the Macedonian version of the phalanx had light troops to guard against just such a problem and Perseus had them on the field at the start of the battle. The phalanx had also clearly been doing what it was designed to do, hold the enemy center while the cavalry and other light forces form for a flanking attack. However, this attack never came, and Perseus' splitting of the cavalry to both flanks may have suggested it never could have." (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna)

 

This is not to say the romans had a crap system! in fact it was still an excellent method of fighting, well planned and thought through. I'm just blowing the trumpet of the phalanx slightly because no one else seems to be in here!!!

 

Safe to say, its not just about how flexible or inflexible a system is, is how you use the strengths of that system and hide, or cope with the weaknesses of that system. Remember folks, the roman system eventually fell too, just like the phalanx, except the phalanx was re-born (modified slightly though) during the middle ages by the swiss for example.

Edited December 1, 2005 by eggers

[Felix Marcellus]

I wanna clear something up, are we talking about the best possible ancient greek army style against the best possible roman (post marian) style army, or 1 phalanx unit versus 1 roman cohort?

 

1 phalanx vs 1 cohort is nothing more than a bar room brawl between men with swords and men with spears. The cohort would win because without another unit threatening its flanks or rear the legionnaires could break ranks and swarm the phalangites. And it would end up being just multiple one on one melee fights. Legionairre vs a cumbersome spearmen... I'll take the legionairre any day.

 

If we are talking the best possible ancient greek style army versus best roman cohort style, then it depends on a hell of a lot. Terrain, leadership and soldier quality are probably the most important factors. Remember a phalanx is best on flat, open and undisrupted ground and they are great for holding an enemy in place. An example of the short-fall of the phalanx is often the battle of pydna, where the macedonian phalanx crumbled against the roman legion.

 

Great, but 3 problems with this:

1) The romans were using a pre-marian (early repulican army), which uses different princples and techniques in fighting (slightly, but does effect the outcome, as triarii also fought as a phalanx).

"When the Principes and Hastati of Republican army were rearmed with javelins, the Triarii retained their long spears and scutums and continued to fight as a phalanx."taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarii)

2) initially the macedonians had the upper hand until they pushed the romans onto more rugged ground where the phalanx is less effective, and eventually lost tight formation.

3)Perseus (leading the macedonians) was either a coward, or just a complete moron, having noticed that the battle was going badly due partially to rough ground, just buggered off, with his heavy cavalry, leaving the macedonian phalanx in, well, between a rock and a very bad place!

 

Well, its like homefield advantage. You can say New England won the AFC championship just because they had homefield advantage in the playoffs and that really they're not the best team in the AFC. If you win the championship, you're the best. No ifs ands or buts. So, arguiing the legion only won because of terrain is not feasible either. So, if the phalanx won I could say, they only won because they were on smooth flat terrain. The legion proved itself better than the phalanx in the theater of operations the two types of units had to fight in. There was no flat terrain. It's only speculation a phalanx could've won on flat terrain. We'll never know. If, if, if. "If" didn't happen. The legion proved it is better.

 

The main problems with the phalanx was that it was very vunerable from the flanks or rear, so the greeks did have light troops to guard against this (and against enemy troops getting into any gaps in the phalanx lines). They also should have used the phalanx to pin an enemy in place, while heavy cavalry moved round the back of the enemy and charge their rear, both perseus (the knob-end) didn't bother to do!

 

Unfortunately, we don't have the benefit of knowing what the Roman reaction to Perseus' use of cavalry in the Roman rear would've been. So it's not really fair to say Perseus woulda coulda shoulda won. He definitely could've done some things different, but then so could've the Romans and we'd still be talking about how the phalanx lost.

 

 

This is not to say the romans had a crap system! in fact it was still an excellent method of fighting, well planned and thought through. I'm just blowing the trumpet of the phalanx slightly because no one else seems to be in here!!!

 

I just think that's mainly because the Legion is more fun to talk about. THe phalanx was kind of a boring way to beat your enemy. (minus when it was done by Alexander). It just seems to me there are many more things you can do in the legionnary system. The best comparison I can think of is the difference between watching football and golf. Tiger Woods might win, but it's with a lot less flash than Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison would win with.

 

Safe to say, its not just about how flexible or inflexible a system is, is how you use the strengths of that system and hide, or cope with the weaknesses of that system. Remember folks, the roman system eventually fell too, just like the phalanx, except the phalanx was re-born (modified slightly though) during the middle ages by the swiss for example.

 

I agree with that. But when it comes to phalanx vs legion you can only argue the factors of terrain and leadership so much. Everyone critiques the the phalanx commander and how he could've beat the legion. I find it peculiar that almost every incident the two met, the legion won. So can anyone really say that in all those legions' victories that it was due to terrain and lack of leadership of the phalanx. That would lead me to believe one more thing. Greeks are genetically inferior leaders than Romans. And since I don't believe that, I must believe the "system" is what created the victories.

[eggers]

Ok so starting my lil bit saying "If we are talking the best possible ancient greek style army versus best roman cohort style...etc" was maybe a stupid thing to say, but i was just checking before i rattled one off!

 

i never said the legions of rome won just because of terrain, i was trying to illistrate that nothing is ever as simple as it sounds. To say that the romans purely won because they were more flexible is missing huge chunks of a complicated thing, which is war. There are loads and loads of reasons why wars go the way they go, but yeah the roman system was better. Battle of pydna is alil different from AFC championships tho.

 

"The main problems with the phalanx was that it was very vunerable from the flanks or rear, so the greeks did have light troops to guard against this (and against enemy troops getting into any gaps in the phalanx lines). They also should have used the phalanx to pin an enemy in place, while heavy cavalry moved round the back of the enemy and charge their rear, both perseus (the knob-end) didn't bother to do!"

 

when i said this i was trying (not very well i think) that the phalanx was only one part of the mechanism of greek warfare! When people talk about ancient greek warfare the first thing u think is phalanx. Beside im not very convinced that the early roman army would have coped very well to a cavalry charge. But like you say, he never did it, so we will never know.

 

True the phalanx is very boring, i just like to make ripples. I love roman system, it's coz of the romans i have an interest in history.

 

And yes we can only argue about terrain, weather, leadership and the prostitutes the trooper slept with after so much, but they are not factors to be overlooked! But i didn't think the roman and phalanx systems of war crossed paths very often. I think i got my words mixed up! i wasn't trying to say that the romans had a far superior commanders breed into them, and that the greeks were lazy or anything, i was trying to say, when an opportunity arises, how quick were they to take it! After all, although Paullus claimed victory over the macedonians, he was actually off with the elephants and some cavalry routing the macedonian left (i think it was the left!) while a quick witted captain noticed he was in a postion to flank the macedonian lines, and took matters into his own hands. He ordered his maniple to charge in and shattered a phalanx unit, allow other roman troops to finish the fight quicker and with fewer losses (i think everyone agrees on the outcome was bound to be victory over macedonians anyway!)

[Hadrian Caesar]

I once thought the macedonian phalanx was capable of defeating a Roman legion, but I was wrong. The legion is far superior to any phalanx - as it was meant to be. The thing is, one shouldn't base himself on the mobility of the phalanx - which isn't much different from that of the legion - but rather on the effectiveness of their battle tactics. Therefore, before proceeding to the confrontation between the latter, one must be aware of the advantages each one would have over ordinary infantry...

Phalanx: + Less vulnerable than the enemy, keeping it at a distance.

+ More deadly than the enemy, presenting an impenetrable steel wall of pike points.

In all, that's two points.

Now for the legion: + Throws a pilum, or roman javelin, usually killing or wounding the enemy infantry.

+Should the javelin merely penetrate the shield, its barbed point makes it very difficult to remove, and thereby forces the enemy to drop it.

+Should the javelin hit the ground, its soft iron shaft will bend, rendering it impossible to be thrown back.

The total is three points, unlike the phalanx, which has two.

Now, the phalanx faces off against a legion.

The legion still posesses all the previous advantages, but because it's now fighting the macedonian phalanx, it's wave of javelins will also kill, wound or seriously bugger up the first few rows of pikemen, allowing the legionairs to quickly enter behind the sharp points and make a mess of the phalangites. So this makes the legionairs the only infantry to ever be able to destroy a phalanx from the front.

The phalanx, on the other hand, has lost all its previous advantages, having suffered from the volley of pila and dropped the pikes of its first three rows.

So the legion actually gains an advantage when fighting the phalanx, which gives it four in all, whereas the poor macedonians, who once conquered much of the known world, are absolutely helpless.

[eggers]

I once thought the macedonian phalanx was capable of defeating a Roman legion, but I was wrong. The legion is far superior to any phalanx - as it was meant to be. The thing is, one shouldn't base himself on the mobility of the phalanx - which isn't much different from that of the legion - but rather on the effectiveness of their battle tactics. Therefore, before proceeding to the confrontation between the latter, one must be aware of the advantages each one would have over ordinary infantry...

Phalanx: + Less vulnerable than the enemy, keeping it at a distance.

+ More deadly than the enemy, presenting an impenetrable steel wall of pike points.

In all, that's two points.

Now for the legion: + Throws a pilum, or roman javelin, usually killing or wounding the enemy infantry.

+Should the javelin merely penetrate the shield, its barbed point makes it very difficult to remove, and thereby forces the enemy to drop it.

+Should the javelin hit the ground, its soft iron shaft will bend, rendering it impossible to be thrown back.

The total is three points, unlike the phalanx, which has two.

Now, the phalanx faces off against a legion.

The legion still posesses all the previous advantages, but because it's now fighting the macedonian phalanx, it's wave of javelins will also kill, wound or seriously bugger up the first few rows of pikemen, allowing the legionairs to quickly enter behind the sharp points and make a mess of the phalangites. So this makes the legionairs the only infantry to ever be able to destroy a phalanx from the front.

The phalanx, on the other hand, has lost all its previous advantages, having suffered from the volley of pila and dropped the pikes of its first three rows.

So the legion actually gains an advantage when fighting the phalanx, which gives it four in all, whereas the poor macedonians, who once conquered much of the known world, are absolutely helpless.

well the macedonians did have alexander the great and his amazing heavy cavalry though. And despite the points u pointes out, the roman only truely got that upper hand when they attacked from the flanks. They did have alot of trouble from the front still.

The pila, although well designed and made, had a fatal flaw (until marius) when roman blacksmith had to be very highly skilled. This is because the head was made from iron, and was incredibly difficult to forge correctly. Often the pilum would bend to easily, not doing any damage, or not bend enough, allowing it to be pulled from a shield (i doubt anyone pulled it out of their body, they'd probably be dead or dieing!) Marius fixed this by using wooden pegs which snapped on impact. I don't know if post-marian pila where re-usable after the wooden pegs were replaced, but they were easier (and alot quicker) to make, so i doubt it.

correct me if im wrong people, it's the easiest way to learn.

Edited December 7, 2005 by eggers

[Hadrian Caesar]

Well yes, of course, any phalanx is most vulnerable when attacked at the flanks, but my point is that the romans were the only infantry formation capable of destroying a phalanx from the front, appart, that is, from another phalanx. I have to admit that I didn't know about the flaw of which you speak. I have always read that archaeologists weren't quite sure what made the pilum become useless when thrown back, whether it was the wooden pegs or the bending shaft. I have to look into this.

I once thought the macedonian phalanx was capable of defeating a Roman legion, but I was wrong. The legion is far superior to any phalanx - as it was meant to be. The thing is, one shouldn't base himself on the mobility of the phalanx - which isn't much different from that of the legion - but rather on the effectiveness of their battle tactics. Therefore, before proceeding to the confrontation between the latter, one must be aware of the advantages each one would have over ordinary infantry...

Phalanx: + Less vulnerable than the enemy, keeping it at a distance.

+ More deadly than the enemy, presenting an impenetrable steel wall of pike points.

In all, that's two points.

Now for the legion: + Throws a pilum, or roman javelin, usually killing or wounding the enemy infantry.

+Should the javelin merely penetrate the shield, its barbed point makes it very difficult to remove, and thereby forces the enemy to drop it.

+Should the javelin hit the ground, its soft iron shaft will bend, rendering it impossible to be thrown back.

The total is three points, unlike the phalanx, which has two.

Now, the phalanx faces off against a legion.

The legion still posesses all the previous advantages, but because it's now fighting the macedonian phalanx, it's wave of javelins will also kill, wound or seriously bugger up the first few rows of pikemen, allowing the legionairs to quickly enter behind the sharp points and make a mess of the phalangists. So this makes the legionairs the only infantry to ever be able to destroy a phalanx from the front.

The phalanx, on the other hand, has lost all its previous advantages, having suffered from the volley of pila and dropped the pikes of its first three rows.

So the legion actually gains an advantage when fighting the phalanx, which gives it four in all, whereas the poor macedonians, who once conquered much of the known world, are absolutely helpless.

well the macedonians did have alexander the great and his amazing heavy cavalry though. And despite the points u pointes out, the roman only truely got that upper hand when they attacked from the flanks. They did have alot of trouble from the front still.

The pila, although well designed and made, had a fatal flaw (until marius) when roman blacksmith had to be very highly skilled. This is because the head was made from iron, and was incredibly difficult to forge correctly. Often the pilum would bend to easily, not doing any damage, or not bend enough, allowing it to be pulled from a shield (i doubt anyone pulled it out of their body, they'd probably be dead or dieing!) Marius fixed this by using wooden pegs which snapped on impact. I don't know if post-marian pila where re-usable after the wooden pegs were replaced, but they were easier (and alot quicker) to make, so i doubt it.

correct me if im wrong people, it's the easiest way to learn.

[eggers]

Well yes, of course, any phalanx is most vulnerable when attacked at the flanks, but my point is that the romans were the only infantry formation capable of destroying a phalanx from the front, appart, that is, from another phalanx. I have to admit that I didn't know about the flaw of which you speak. I have always read that archaeologists weren't quite sure what made the pilum become useless when thrown back, whether it was the wooden pegs or the bending shaft. I have to look into this.

Marius introduced wooden pegs to the pilum, and this somewhat improved it's effectiveness. Or so i'm lead to believe, depends what u read and where. At the moment, i'm sure that the pila had some problems with bending at the right time occasionally. Still an very effective weapon, don;t get me wrong, after all if it had too many problems the romans probably would have ditched it. But they didn't so im not sure how often things went wrong.

Let me know what u find, i'm always up for learnin new stuff.

And the spanish learned a technique for attacking a phalanx from the front in the late middle ages, using light infantry with very small shields and light swords.

 

Like i say it depends what u read. I just read somewhere that the ability of the pila to bend was accredited to marius, and didn't actually do it before then. Another web-site says nothing about it's ability to bend and says that the shape of it's head prevented removal, and that marian reforms gave legionaries a heavy and light pila. It gets so confusing sometimes. Lets just agree that legions kicked phalanx ass for the time being until either of us finds out for sure how pila worked.

Edited December 7, 2005 by eggers

[Hadrian Caesar]

Well yes, of course, any phalanx is most vulnerable when attacked at the flanks, but my point is that the romans were the only infantry formation capable of destroying a phalanx from the front, appart, that is, from another phalanx. I have to admit that I didn't know about the flaw of which you speak. I have always read that archaeologists weren't quite sure what made the pilum become useless when thrown back, whether it was the wooden pegs or the bending shaft. I have to look into this.

Marius introduced wooden pegs to the pilum, and this somewhat improved it's effectiveness. Or so i'm lead to believe, depends what u read and where. At the moment, i'm sure that the pila had some problems with bending at the right time occasionally. Still an very effective weapon, don;t get me wrong, after all if it had too many problems the romans probably would have ditched it. But they didn't so im not sure how often things went wrong.

Let me know what u find, i'm always up for learnin new stuff.

And the spanish learned a technique for attacking a phalanx from the front in the late middle ages, using light infantry with very small shields and light swords.

 

Like i say it depends what u read. I just read somewhere that the ability of the pila to bend was accredited to marius, and didn't actually do it before then. Another web-site says nothing about it's ability to bend and says that the shape of it's head prevented removal, and that marian reforms gave legionaries a heavy and light pila. It gets so confusing sometimes. Lets just agree that legions kicked phalanx ass for the time being until either of us finds out for sure how pila worked.

 

Agreed. I heard about that spanish strategy, and frankly, although coming from the mouth of a scholar, it sounds like bs to me; I really doubt that light infantry can smash a pike formation from front. Anyway, we're correct in the sense that the legion really does kick the phalanx's and schiltrom's arse.

[Sextus Roscius]

The spanish are famous for their guerullia tactics (Pompey in spain *cough*) becuase they knew they didn't have the ability to take eastern formations head on. This would explain why spain was juggled between the carthaginians, the romans, the romans against other romans, and then barbarians.

[eggers]

Agreed. I heard about that spanish strategy, and frankly, although coming from the mouth of a scholar, it sounds like bs to me; I really doubt that light infantry can smash a pike formation from front. Anyway, we're correct in the sense that the legion really does kick the phalanx's and schiltrom's arse.

 

I don't know how effective it was, but i know it was one of a few different tactics in an attempt to get through the front of a phalanx.

Edited December 8, 2005 by eggers

[Guest Diomedes]

What a coincidence! im in the process of writing an end of semester paper on the comparison between greek and roman armies!

 

A theoretical situation, to get the cream of the crop:

A contigent of fully trained and srmored Spartans

A contigent of fully loaded Legionaires (or whatever Rome uses as its heavy-hitter)

Flat, grassy land, dry weather.

 

Who would win?

 

 

For unexplicable reasons i am always finding myself biased against the romans, so I would have to say the Spartans.

And while im here, If Greece and Rome waged war at the height of both their power i would have to say Greece would win; if not because of their Spartans, then because of the largest navy the medetaranian has ever seen:

Athens'.

[Virgil61]

What a coincidence! im in the process of writing an end of semester paper on the comparison between greek and roman armies!

 

A theoretical situation, to get the cream of the crop:

A contigent of fully trained and srmored Spartans

A contigent of fully loaded Legionaires (or whatever Rome uses as its heavy-hitter)

Flat, grassy land, dry weather.

 

Who would win?

 

 

For unexplicable reasons i am always finding myself biased against the romans, so I would have to say the Spartans.

And while im here, If Greece and Rome waged war at the height of both their power i would have to say Greece would win; if not because of their Spartans, then because of the largest navy the medetaranian has ever seen:

Athens'.

 

If you think Greece would win I venture that you haven't read the entire thread. I'm not sure there are many instances of a Greek phalanx army beating a Roman manipular or cohort army except Pyrrhus' and we are all well aware of the meaning of a 'Pyrrhic victory'.

 

Greek phalanx armies against Greek phalanx armies often contained none or little cavalry according to a couple of reputable scholars and were real head-butting affairs. Greek phalanx armies against non-Greek armies utilized the phalanx to fix the opponent and cavalry to flank them. The nature of a manipular or cohort legion is that it's inherent flexiblity, initiatives at the cohort/manipular level often resulted in infantry conduct the flanking movements, something a phalanx wasn't able to do with much finesse or if a phlananx line was broken anywhere to exploit it by utilizing their sword drills to slaughter hoplites at close-order fighting. So if your Spartans have no cavalry, are fighting on flat land and have no river/hills to secure their flanks from encirclement, they would have a 'situation' on their hands, to put it mildly.

 

The Carthaginians wrestled control of the western Med sea from a major Greek sea power--Syracuse--became the most powerful Med fleet since Athens and took on the Romans. They responded with the hurculean task of creating a navy from scratch and eventually winning control of the sea from the Carthaginians.

 

Whatever the strength and discipline of the average Spartan, their tactical approach was a one-trick pony that could and would be exploited by a well-trained more flexible tactical array.

[eggers]

Greek phalanx armies against Greek phalanx armies often contained none or little cavalry according to a couple of reputable scholars and were real head-butting affairs. Greek phalanx armies against non-Greek armies utilized the phalanx to fix the opponent and cavalry to flank them. The nature of a manipular or cohort legion is that it's inherent flexiblity, initiatives at the cohort/manipular level often resulted in infantry conduct the flanking movements, something a phalanx wasn't able to do with much finesse or if a phlananx line was broken anywhere to exploit it by utilizing their sword drills to slaughter hoplites at close-order fighting. So if your Spartans have no cavalry, are fighting on flat land and have no river/hills to secure their flanks from encirclement, they would have a 'situation' on their hands, to put it mildly.

 

I'm curious, i'm somewhat aware of the training that romans had to go through when training, and they became very talented in close combat (which is handy, coz thats what they did), but im curious about greek training. Obviously they were trained to use the spear in a phalanx formation, but what close quarter training did they have? I know they had short swords or daggers, but how much training did they get with them? Were they drilled and practice with them? or was their training more to do with spear handling?