Which one is stronger ''Legionary VS Phalangist"

[Ariamanesh]

Hello friends Welcome back to another brawling thread. At this time i want to ask you something: 1)Which one is stronger: A unit made of disciplined roman legionaries or a famous fearsome phalangists 2)Another one is did phalangists were good at close combat as their fearsome spear works. 3)How roman legionaries can penetrate a line of phalangists and defeat them.

[HigoChumbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna


There are ********s of sources and discussions on this topic, but that's probably the most famous example of a legionary vs phalanx confrontation.

[Sun Tsu]

In Rome 1, Phalanx is stronger then Urban Cohort, but as an individual soldier i think the Legionary would win...
I tried in Rome 1 to break the phalanx line with a testudo-formation-legion... but it failed... maybe there will be an adjustment to this in ROME 2 ?

Lets hope so :-)

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

This question has been answered a thousand times. A successful phalanx is essentially a wall of spears against ANY type of enemy, but once that wall become no longer (completely) coherent and solid, then the opposition can knock spears aside to reach the spear wielding soldier who is now holding a useless weapon, against an enemy with (in the case of the legionary) a short stabbing weapon perfect for very close quarters.


I'd love for CA to make this a viable tactic If the legionary force can coerce the phalanx onto rough ground - where it is impossible to maintain cohesion and formation - then the legionaries can get in amongst the phalanx and chop their nuts off.
not the nuts part... unless CA have spare time in the mocap studio...

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I agree with Thomas Cochrane. A Phalanx with other combined weapons types like the flankprotection and Cavalry, like the armies of Philipp and Alexander, would probably dominated any republican roman army in an open field battle. The problem is that first the Diadochy Phalanxes were totally diffrent, larger Phalanxes, with less other weapons types, and that the romans defeated them on battlefield which were less ideal for the Phalanxes.

[SirFork]

I agree with Thomas Cochrane. A Phalanx with other combined weapons types like the flankprotection and Cavalry.

This thread is about Legionary vs Phalangist, so why are you adding Cavalry? Adding cavalry open up a whole new strategy probability and opportunities.

In my opinion as long as the phalanx is solid, it's not possible to penetrate it from the front, but if the cohesion is lost the legionnaires could defeat them in close quarters.

[daelin4]

Any well-trained and well-led formation will overcome any other. Pyrrhus actually won enough times against the Romans, but the losses incurred were deemed too great. The training, numbers and capability of the enemy (in his case Rome) also bears a large influence on your success.

Having said that there is also the case where the legion by that time had developed tactics that were merely evolutionarily advanced compared to the phalanx and meant to address it's flaws. Still, that doesn't mean an idiot leading a legion will always win against Alexander, just because the former has legionaries. It is not a "gun vs. spear" sort of matter. All of early Rome's defeats had the matter of combined-arms elements playing a large role (or large presence) in the battles. Hannibal didn't win because he had better or more infantry than the Romans, for example.

[Ariamanesh]

Any well-trained and well-led formation will overcome any other. Pyrrhus actually won enough times against the Romans, but the losses incurred were deemed too great. The training, numbers and capability of the enemy (in his case Rome) also bears a large influence on your success. Having said that there is also the case where the legion by that time had developed tactics that were merely evolutionarily advanced compared to the phalanx and meant to address it's flaws. Still, that doesn't mean an idiot leading a legion will always win against Alexander, just because the former has legionaries. It is not a "gun vs. spear" sort of matter. All of early Rome's defeats had the matter of combined-arms elements playing a large role (or large presence) in the battles. Hannibal didn't win because he had better or more infantry than the Romans, for example.

As a result i think in that case both unit were well trained and disciplined but the strategy of their commanders were different and finally their stamina and morale were a key mater in such long run.

[Eofor]

Neither was stronger because both of them were designed to fulfill different roles on the battlefield.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The legion was proved to be superior to phalanx .
The maniples could manouver quickly and move around flanks of phalanx passing throught spears and cut it to poeces... Even alexander would have had serious problems facing a roman legion especially on its native hilly soils were the whole potential of a spearwall could not be 100%. Operative...

[Hellenes]

The legion was proved to be superior to phalanx .
The maniples could manouver quickly and move around flanks of phalanx passing throught spears and cut it to poeces... Even alexander would have had serious problems facing a roman legion especially on its native hilly soils were the whole potential of a spearwall could not be 100%. Operative...

And then stirrup came around and non pike infantry got raped by the riders and their horses....

[Jepekula]

Well, Romans lost every single battle in the Pyrrhic War. Most of the time Romans did get their asses handed to them by pretty much anyone, though.

But, like most people said, if the phalanx had support and was able to keep order and discipline, it would reign supreme.

[Dan113112]

This question has been answered a thousand times. A successful phalanx is essentially a wall of spears against ANY type of enemy, but once that wall become no longer (completely) coherent and solid, then the opposition can knock spears aside to reach the spear wielding soldier who is now holding a useless weapon, against an enemy with (in the case of the legionary) a short stabbing weapon perfect for very close quarters.


I'd love for CA to make this a viable tactic If the legionary force can coerce the phalanx onto rough ground - where it is impossible to maintain cohesion and formation - then the legionaries can get in amongst the phalanx and chop their nuts off.
not the nuts part... unless CA have spare time in the mocap studio...

Roman swords weren't really that short. 20-24 inches (blade length). The enemy (Greek) xiphos was generally anywhere between 14-24 inches (blade length). Many phalangites from around 270 B.C. weren't as well equipped as Alexander's men were. Phalangites were most probably never trained how to use swords properly because their main weapon was the sarissa.

The legion was proved to be superior to phalanx .
The maniples could manouver quickly and move around flanks of phalanx passing throught spears and cut it to poeces... Even alexander would have had serious problems facing a roman legion especially on its native hilly soils were the whole potential of a spearwall could not be 100%. Operative...

Greek terrain is very hilly just like Italy so your point about terrain isn't completely true. I think overall army formation was the main reason for Greek defeats. It was too static.

I agree with Thomas Cochrane. A Phalanx with other combined weapons types like the flankprotection and Cavalry, like the armies of Philipp and Alexander, would probably dominated any republican roman army in an open field battle. The problem is that first the Diadochy Phalanxes were totally diffrent, larger Phalanxes, with less other weapons types, and that the romans defeated them on battlefield which were less ideal for the Phalanxes.

I think that neither the phalangites or the legionaries should have too much of a defensive/offensive bonus against each other (if any). Their victory or defeat should be more a matter of tactics and unit cohesion.

[HigoChumbo]

This thread is about Legionary vs Phalangist, so why are you adding Cavalry? Adding cavalry open up a whole new strategy probability and opportunities.

In my opinion as long as the phalanx is solid, it's not possible to penetrate it from the front, but if the cohesion is lost the legionnaires could defeat them in close quarters.

Well the phalanx on it's own makes no sense with no flank protection, same as you just can't compare a single legionary fighting a single phalangite. To make a proper comparation, you need first a whole phalanx spear-wall and then flank protection. Otherwise it makes no sense (the more mobile legionaries could just flank the phalanx or repel the spears so easily to get close and personal).

A phalanx or a phalangite on their own make no sense at all, they are almost useless (or at least not special at all) unless they have a good flank protection (be it other units, like cavalry or medium infantry or natural elements as a river or a ridge).


Some could even say that the romans steamrolled lesser enemies but got pretty much beaten by all other major powers, one of their major strenghts was their stuborness to go on and try to overcome difficulties and weaknesses.

Greek terrain is very hilly just like Italy so your point about terrain isn't completely true. I think overall army formation was the main reason for Greek defeats. It was too static.
I think that neither the phalangites or the legionaries should have too much of a defensive/offensive bonus against each other (if any). Their victory or defeat should be more a matter of tactics and unit cohesion.

I completelly agree with everything you said.

[CnConrad]

Well not being the antiquity buff others here are I don't see how a phalanx could stand a chance against a legion.

Romans get 25 yards from the line then each throw their three pilum into the phalanx causing them to drop their shields and cause the spears to waver.

Then charge into the line and shatter it.

[Dan113112]

Well not being the antiquity buff others here are I don't see how a phalanx could stand a chance against a legion.

Romans get 25 yards from the line then each throw their three pilum into the phalanx causing them to drop their shields and cause the spears to waver.

Then charge into the line and shatter it.

Not entirely true. Depends if each pilum hits it's target and the discipline of the phalanx. I've played RTRVII as a Hellenistic faction and I fought the Romans on a custom battle. I made my Hellenistic faction army setup the best I could think of. Then I made the Roman army the best I could think of. I then put the difficulty on VH and I still won. RTR's BAI is pretty good too.

[SirFork]

Well the phalanx on it's own makes no sense with no flank protection, same as you just can't compare a single legionary fighting a single phalangite. To make a proper comparation, you need first a whole phalanx spear-wall and then flank protection. Otherwise it makes no sense (the more mobile legionaries could just flank the phalanx or repel the spears so easily to get close and personal).

Wel isn't the point of this thread to compare only legionnaires and phalangites?

[Dan113112]

Wel isn't the point of this thread to compare only legionnaires and phalangites?

I think the thread is to compare overall formations of both armies.

[Admiral Horthy von Nagybanya]

legionaries, of course! The greeks never won a battle with the romans, so the answer is obvious!

[Dan113112]

legionaries, of course! The greeks never won a battle with the romans, so the answer is obvious!

Wrong. And the mistakes that the Greeks made were mistakes that would have doomed any Roman army.