Legion Vs. Phalanx Ii

[Hadrian Caesar]

It seems to me that the last phalanx vs. legion thread was closed without actually concluding that either of the two systems of warfare was superior to the other. So just to end this topic clearly, here's the answer I drew from the information you guys came up with, beginning with the phalanx.

 

The phalanx is nearly invulnerable when attacked from the front, but easily destroyed when assaulted from the flanks or rear. These weaknesses are easily eliminated if the phalanx is so wide that the enemy infantry cannot outflank it without coming into contact with the advancing formation's front. Alexander the Great, for example, partly used this knowledge to achieve his victories. However, the phalanx will meet defeat if it must fight on broken ground, or among thick vegetation. This is why the early Romans abandoned the Greek phalanx for the legion; it simply could not achieve victory over broken ground.

 

All of Alexander's battles were fought on plains where the Macedonian phalanx could not be penetrated due to broken ground, all, that is, except for his final conflict, the battle of the Hydaspes River. I would say that here, Macedon's heavy infantry casualties, although largely caused by the Indian elephants, were mainly due to the fact that the phalanx had had to fight through irremovable vegetation, where many exploitable gaps were made in the formation's front.

 

After the Romans discovered the phalanx's disadvantage, they created a type of infantry which was as effective as possible without requiring a large, cleared out battlefield to defeat an enemy. This was why they were able to conquer so much of Europe, where forest fights were inevitable.

Edited April 8, 2006 by Hadrian Caesar

[Furius Venator]

Not at all. At Granicus and Issus the phalanx had to overcome river obstacles and was thrown into disorder. At Gaugamela the ehelon advance was dislocated creating a gap between units large enough for the Persians to penetrate in some force.

 

The Roman formations were more flexible (sub units of 80 and 160) wheras the smallest Macedonian phalangite unit was approx 500 men (or possibly 1000 at the Roman period). This meant the Romans could 'tease' the phalanx unit into breaking it's solid line by engaging only part of a unit and/or prt of the lineof units was dislocated the Romans could threaten the flanks.

 

The Alexandrian phalangites seem to have coped with disruption of their unit or dislocation of their line better than their latter day successors.

 

The Roman heavy infantry could move faster over rough terrain, especially in open ordergiving battle on open ground, just like the phalanx.

[Hadrian Caesar]

True, but I only mentioned the major problems which the phalangites faced, such as those at the battle of Hydaspes, where the more noticeably rough terrain posed a threat to Alexander's tactics, resulting in heavy Macedonian losses.

Edited April 8, 2006 by Hadrian Caesar

[Germanicus]

I found the below post from Hamilcar Barca in the last Phalanx/Legion thread most compelling :-

 

The Phalanx was not flexible, it was rigid, immovable 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.

 

The last thread was closed as the discussion was getting nowhere....the same will probably happen here....

[Hadrian Caesar]

Yes, you're right; this thread will eventually close, as does every thread. I'm just hoping to resume the topic in three paragraphs, rather than fifty. So far, I seem to have succeeded.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Hadrian Caesar

[Ursus]

It seems to me that the last phalanx vs. legion thread was closed without actually concluding that either of the two systems of warfare was superior to the other.

 

It was closed because

1) it was drifting

2) It's a topic that has been done to death.

 

These X versus Y threads usually are both.

 

In the future please don't start a thread on the exact same topic as a thread that was just closed by a mod. Common sense would seem to suggest that if a thread was closed by the mod, the mod doesn't want it reopened within a few hours.