Phalanx Vs. Legions

[Virgil61]

In my opinion I prefer the Greek phalanx. Don't get me wrong eventually the Roman legionaries would take over the world but the phalnanx is a remarkable unit. I know what some of you may say, the legion is heavily armoured and more versitile. The fact is the Greek phalanx is more disciplined and concentrated...

 

On close inspection the phalanx is less disciplined actually. The ability of a legion to adopt different formations and tactics is a sign of both better discipline and training not less. It's easy to teach a large group of men how to stay a large formation marching for example, I've done it. It takes more time, effort and discipline to get them to respond to a myriad of formations and commands. It takes even more time than that to teach individual sword-skills typical of a Roman soldier. Legion training is much more resource intense.

 

The phalanx isn't so remarkable really, it's the perfect citizen-soldier army. No complex formations to learn, simple effort and on flat ground it's perfect, but it's also a one-trick pony. Unfortunately the world isn't all flat and it's vulnerable to the simplest tactic of them all--fix and flank.

 

Alexander the great took over the world with phlananx. A solid spear wall is not easily broken through. It is one of the only units at that time that time that was not going to be broken by but force. In order to defeat a phalanx you must outmaneuver it. This is not the same with a legionay cohort. The hoplites did not need heavy armour like the cohorts all they needed was a speer and shield to protect from missiles.

 

No, Alexander took over the world with the phalanx and excellent cavalry acting as the flanking arm. And outmaneuvering is it's weakness, it relies on the enemy to be static in their approach, it can't respond to quick changes on the battlefield. As long as they're in front of you that's great.

 

The Romans had trouble dealing with Greece. Remember with the exception of the careless King Phyrrus the Greek states defeated Rome in the majority of battles. Once the phalanx gets going forward there is no way to repel them. There were swordsman in between the phalanx formation to keep opposition out of the spear wall.

 

There's more to Pyrrus than just Pyrrus. He was hired by the Greek cities of southern Italy who had been having serious difficulty with the Romans, presumably using the phalanx themselves. I'm not sure where you get the Greek states defeating the Romans in a 'majority of battles' but the defeat of Macedonia and its phalanx army put a stop to any speculation.

 

The Illyrians used phalanxes as well as the Seleucids and both were defeated by legion formations as well. I've never read having swordsman between the phalanx formations as being any sort of standard practice. You have the Illyrians, Phillip's Macedonians, Antiochus' Seleucids, Perseus' Macedonians, the Greek revolts and the Italian Greeks as examples, all using phalanxes and beaten by the legion system in the end (which is all that matters).

 

One can make all the excuses one wants to about 'careless' generals or Greek complicity and so on but in the end it's the constant application of a flexible legion system against a slow-moving and static phalanx that wins the day.

[Virgil61]

...Roman legions were all adults who had to be over the height of 5' 7".

 

There's no evidence of a height requirement in the legions of the Republic. Polybius, who spent a lot of ink on the matter of Roman citizen recruitment and organization never mentions it. Archeological evidence shows that the Roman soldiers were shorter on average than 5'7".

Edited April 2, 2006 by Virgil61

[caldrail]

The average roman was 5'4", and legionaries were expected to be taller. Nero put a unit together from men 6' or taller, which means most of those were probably of celtic origin such as gauls or germans who'd had a better diet in childhood.

Edited April 2, 2006 by caldrail

[Rameses the Great]

The question of the matter is that the phalanx was invincible from the front. And for me taht is pretty amazing. The later standard for the Roman soldier was 5'7" after the Roman army had trouble recruiting. If the Greeks had enough cavalry they could easily beat the legion in a head to head collision no problem. The problem is that was not the case in most battles. For those that say, "if the phalanx were so great why didn't they outlast the legion." Simply answered it DID! When the Roman empire died so did its legion. Phalanx on the other hand was used again for many years and in many nations. The Egyptians used spearman known as the nile spearman and pharao's guards. Oh and did I mention similar to the Spartans these units are meant to fight to the death! Legions having great moral could not even do that. Records of how at the Battle of Strickland when the Scotish fought the British, these long piked swords were part of the reason. The legion did show some weakness and that was heavy cavalry of whick Greece did not have much of. The Parthians known for this made the Romans run for their life and iflicted upon them heavy casualties. Just think of it this way if you are protecting a narrow bridge I'd like to see some legions trying to cross it with a solid line of spears. In that case there is only one way that the legions could go and trust me it did not work out well.

[LEG X EQ]

@Rameses the Great

 

Its nonsense to compare the results of the Greeks in their prime with the results of the Romans in their prime. What matters is the direct comparison. And the balkans and menor asia were overrun by the Romans. So where were the great phalanx of yours there fighting their heart out? Why did the greeks needed the Romans to help them against the Ligures in southern france, if the were so great? why did the greeks call the Romans for help against the Macedons?? Why was phyrros deafetd although he had the Magna Grecia and certain Italic tribes (lucanii and Brutii) that assisted him? Why were the greeks so scared of the northern tribes that they need to buffer themselves south of the Macedons, and the Romans conquerred Gallia with an ease??

 

So the greeks are far behind in terms military success compared to the Romans. The Romans invaded all of greece and that alone just proves the domination of the Roman Legions over the greek phalanx.

[Virgil61]

The question of the matter is that the phalanx was invincible from the front.

 

Unfortunately for the phalanx, the Romans ignored the 'question of the matter'.

 

The later standard for the Roman soldier was 5'7" after the Roman army had trouble recruiting. If the Greeks had enough cavalry they could easily beat the legion in a head to head collision no problem. The problem is that was not the case in most battles.

 

Bit of a problem for the Greeks since Romans generally fielded a more combined-arms array w/auxiliary cavalry in support of legions.

 

For those that say, "if the phalanx were so great why didn't they outlast the legion." Simply answered it DID! When the Roman empire died so did its legion. Phalanx on the other hand was used again for many years and in many nations. The Egyptians used spearman known as the nile spearman and pharao's guards. Oh and did I mention similar to the Spartans these units are meant to fight to the death! Legions having great moral could not even do that. Records of how at the Battle of Strickland when the Scotish fought the British, these long piked swords were part of the reason.

 

Of course the phalanx outlasted the legion, phalanxes are inherently easier to train while legions are more resource intensive. The question isn't how soon the phalanxes appeared again but how long it took for the more complex and sophisticated organizational structure of legions to reappear in some manner or other. I doubt that one population of around 20,000 with cultural idiosyncracies such as the Spartans is relevant in comparing phalanx to legion.

 

The legion did show some weakness and that was heavy cavalry of whick Greece did not have much of. The Parthians known for this made the Romans run for their life and iflicted upon them heavy casualties...

 

Legions generally held up well vis-a-vis cavalry as they adopted the shield-wall effect of the phalanx using the pilum during these attacks. Flexibility, again it's strength. Except for Carrhae, the Parthian myth of cavalry superiority has been disproven so often on this board that you'd be advised to use the search function. Sometimes I think we need a Parthian vs Roman FAQ on the Gloria Exercitas forum to correct this fallacy and avoid going over old ground again and again and again.

[Pertinax]

Virgil is most pertinent on the "re-invention " of the phalanx at various times and within various economic/social capabilities, Wallace's "schiltorn" was a pike phalanx re-imagined to give irregulars some adhesive coherence in fighting the English. Virgil's point about the non-sophistication of the phalanx is illustrated by its employment in the rapid retraining of a group of men still given to fighting in a macho Celtic/Pictish "display" culture.

[Furius Venator]

Whilst I agree with Virgil regarding the comparative ease with which spearmen (as opposed to pikemen) can be trained, I really must take issue with the notion that the Scots who followe Wallace or Bruce were given to fighting in a Celtic tribal way. That might have been true of the highland allies but the sturdy Scot spearman was typically a lowland peasant or burgher whose culture was mainly Anglo-Saxon based, albeit with Celtic and to an extent Norman and Flemish influence. The spear 'phalanx' had been the weapon of the Scottish lowlands for centuries before Wallace and there appears to have been no retaraining of the highlanders, who would likely have distained lowland techniques anyway (they fought very much as allies rather than subjects).

[Rameses the Great]

Look I'll take Spartan hoplites over Urban Roman cohorts any day like I said Greece itself was not united. As the saying goes a nation divided cannot stand. If the Roman legions conquered such great lands why did it take so long to conquer Gaul. Vercengetorix several times destroyed legionary cohorts. Rome was never able to maintain a strong foothold in Britain. The legion was hard to accompany with troops. You need a supporting line in order to go into battle. The phalanx does not need that however. Like in the battle of Cannae is a perfect example. Hannible having his best units on the side known as Libyan spearman and sacred band hoplites. When the legions attacked the center the phalanx closed in and annihalted the legions. This is proof how 70,000 legions lost to a couple of phalanx units and good accompanying cavalry, with Celtic troops. This proved that good management of troops were vital for an army to win. The cavalry closed the remaining gap to insure the victory. Rome did not have better legions that beat the phalanx, they had better generals and overall quality of troops. Sadly the Greeks did not. If they had some form of axeman or something like this , they would have faired much better. And just for the record if you want to compare the prime of Greece to the prime of Rome, compare Julius Caeser to Alexander the Great. But that of course is another topic.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I'm really sick of this thread, for the love of...Ursus...I beg you to close it.

 

I find it disgusting at how so much arrogance is strongly exhibited in this thread.

 

I don't mind this discussion, but its turned into like an attack on each other's ego of who is prime overlord.

Edited April 2, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Furius Venator]

Oh come now. Caesar had political reasons for prolonging his stay in Gaul. In fact the initial conquest was over by 56. There were then some rebellions of which Vercingetorix's was the most serious. Apart from the destruction of a recruit legion under peculiar circumstances (a complete failure of judgement on the part of the commander) and the setback at Gergovia which was largely due to indiscipline, the Gauls achieved little (beyond putting up a courageous fight).

 

Urban cohorts were not elite troops in a fighting sense.

 

I agree that the Spartans, in their heyday were superlative but if we take a legion and supporting auxiliaries and compare it to a force of Spartans and their helots and allies, the legion is far more balanced as a fighting unit. I'm sure the gallant Spartans would remain on the field fighting to the bitter end after their allies had been routed but you can't take a single, unique force and say 'all hoplites could have been this good if only...'.

 

If you're looking for proper phalanx versus Roman battles then the Macedonian wars and the wars of Phyrrus are really all there is. Hannibal did not have many spearmen and Cannae is not a typical battle.

 

What you want to do is ask yourself WHY the Romans had a better quality of troops.

[LEG X EQ]

@Rameses TG

 

I dont think the Gallic wars took that long, even if you count the Helvetii and Ariovistus. So the Romans did the best job in the gallic wars as one could have done. In Alesia, final battle. 280.000 Gauls vs. 55.000 Romans and the Romans won.

As For UK, the romans had a stronghold, they managed the Boudicca revolt just fine in my opinion. Now, there i would have been surprised how the greeks would have managed.

 

And the Romans learned from every defeeat. Cannae lost, Zama won. The whole 2nd Punic war, Rome was devided and they won the war. The Italic tribes and Greeks that took care of hannibals troops were all punished later on. Rome won the 2. Punic War. The greeks couldnt even defeat the carthagians in sicily.

 

The Greeks were overrun by the Romans, Historic fact. End of story.

 

( Rome was a Government, not an ethnicity or Tribe. This government united Italic, Cisalpine Gauls, Ligures, Etruscans and Venetics. This union of warriors formed a mighty force that was hard to be stoped.) Caesar had a large amount of Cisalpine Gauls in his army at the conquest of Gallia.(Senonii, Insubres, Cenomani, Urobii etc) and cut threw gallia like a hot blade threw butter. Also the germanic warlord Ariovistus was not a problem.

Edited April 2, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[Ursus]

I don't mind this discussion, but its turned into like an attack on each other's ego of who is prime overlord.

 

 

Egos? Around here? I hadn't noticed.

 

I'll close the thread simply because it's starting to drift. Scottish pikemen? Did any of you actually read the Senatus Consultatem on the top of the forum?