Phalanx Vs. Legions

[Guest Diomedes]

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?

 

 

Spartan males were taken from their families at the age of seven and trained rigourously untill adulthood. Spartan males had to serve a required 35 years, i believe. In response to "only the spear", Rome capitalized on all of Greece's ideas, the gladius can be traced to greek soldiers. Its around 2 to three feet in length, straight bladed and curve-edged, with hilt-guard. (Sword here)Incidentally in the movie Troy, Achilles's sword is remarkable historicly accurate. In my opinion, the Spartans were the best trained warriors ever, much more then the Romans. The Romans fought to conquer, the Spartans lived to fight.

 

Like to bring attention to the battle of Thermopylae. During the Persian war, Xerxes and his troops landed, surprising to the Greeks, and King Leonidas of the Spartans remained from the routing greeks to slow the Persians down. He had 300 men. He held the path from the Persians, slautering all who came, but was betrayed. He and the remainder of his force retreated to a hill, whence the persians attacked again. At the end of the battle every single spartan had died except for one, who was ordered to report what happened. there were 30,000 Persian Casualties.

 

One on one fighting, Spartans will ALWAYS win. Im halfway sure the Persians didnt use phalanxes, and neither did the Romans; the spartans did very well against the persians. Sparta fell before the takeover of Rome, so the two never had a chance to cross spears, but i still put my money on Sparta.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Diomedes

[Virgil61]

...

 

The gladius the Romans adopted wasn't Greek, it was adopted as result of wars against the Iberians (present day Spain). Thermopylae was defended by more than 300 Spartans. There were also around 1000 Thebians and a few thousand greeks from other cities. After the rest of the Greeks had fled or were sent away, the Thebians died alongside the Spartans. I'm not sure that comparing battle with Persians with combat with Romans is particularly convincing.

 

The Romans did use the phalanx at one time in the early Republic later switching to manipular legions and the Persians did--at least at the time of Alexander--have phalanxes from use of mercenaries or territories containing Greek cities in Asia Minor. The individual heroism and quality of the average Spartan notwithstanding, the edge goes to the side that has a a consistengly better tactical approach in applying their primary weapons systems. That edge goes to the Romans, who may or may not have individually bested Spartans but who were certainly no slouches themselves and whose manipular legions were tactically superior unlike the Persians.

 

Since your theoretical is against the 'best' legion I couldn't imagine JC's 13th or veteran legions under Vespasian or Trajan adept at tackling several different types of enemy forces losing, a least consistently, against a Spartan force.

[Arvioustus]

A fact to look about Caesar facing the phalanx, he encouintered German troops using the phalanx and he handled them easily. Perhaps not the match as the macedonians in thir prime but it seems that Caesar found a way to overcome any army. ( but not the politicians)

[Neos Dionysos]

A fact to look about Caesar facing the phalanx, he encouintered German troops using the phalanx and he handled them easily. Perhaps not the match as the macedonians in thir prime but it seems that Caesar found a way to overcome any army. ( but not the politicians)

 

 

The German form is no where near what the phanlanx of Pyhrrus was... and his Epirote version was not even as efficent as that of Alexander's and Philip's... honestly, I feel had Caesar and his legions faced this phalanx they would have been crushed. The dicipline and experience are tenfold if not more than those of the Germans.

[Arvioustus]

Perhaps, but Caesar is really undefeated and I love the undefeated. True he didn`t have much opportunity to go against bow/horsemen but he always had a strategy for victory. Plus I do feel he must have been an amazing trainer of men and much he must of kept secret. Somehow he turned men into fighting machines that beat the odds every time. Do not feel any other General had this ability. Alexander, great strategist to be sure but way too young to know how to train men. Hail Caesar!

[Neos Dionysos]

Perhaps, but Caesar is really undefeated and I love the undefeated. True he didn`t have much opportunity to go against bow/horsemen but he always had a strategy for victory. Plus I do feel he must have been an amazing trainer of men and much he must of kept secret. Somehow he turned men into fighting machines that beat the odds every time. Do not feel any other General had this ability. Alexander, great strategist to be sure but way too young to know how to train men. Hail Caesar!

 

What!? Alexander beat much greater odds than Caesar EVER faced... How can you say Alexander did not know how to train men? His army was perhaps the greatest in the world... Caesar did not have some secret ability to train men... he had an uncanny ability to get the most of his men and to inspire great loyalty, (in his personal legions). If his training was the reason for his success, then the 14th legion, (whom he raised and recruited and hand picked the centurions to train it), would not have been almost anihilated in Gaul.

[Arvioustus]

Perhaps, but Caesar is really undefeated and I love the undefeated. True he didn`t have much opportunity to go against bow/horsemen but he always had a strategy for victory. Plus I do feel he must have been an amazing trainer of men and much he must of kept secret. Somehow he turned men into fighting machines that beat the odds every time. Do not feel any other General had this ability. Alexander, great strategist to be sure but way too young to know how to train men. Hail Caesar!

 

What!? Alexander beat much greater odds than Caesar EVER faced... How can you say Alexander did not know how to train men? His army was perhaps the greatest in the world... Caesar did not have some secret ability to train men... he had an uncanny ability to get the most of his men and to inspire great loyalty, (in his personal legions). If his training was the reason for his success, then the 14th legion, (whom he raised and recruited and hand picked the centurions to train it), would not have been almost anihilated in Gaul.

At Alesia the odds could have been more than 10 to one but in Germania it was even higher! That is why when he crossed the Rhine the tribes fled east in terror while he marched there for 18 days. I think it goes beyond ability to make men fearless...it was training. Fearless men die too when outnumbered by great odds. Caesar had an ability to make men fighting machines, no way a person in their twenties (Alex) can do that.

[Germanicus]

As this thread was inactive for a month and is now degenerating into yet another Alexander/Caesar love affair, it's locked.

[Rameses the Great]

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. The phalnanx were indeed vulnerable from the flank and rear, but the forward was inpenatrable.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The phalanx were practically an unbeatable unit. I don't care if you have well trained legionaries against militia hoplites. If the legionaries can't get throught to them they practically lost. Not to mention Spartan hoplites trained from the age of seven. And not only them it has been reported that Athens also trained their young at a very young age.

 

So take your pick gentleman, I look forward to hearing from you all.

[Lost_Warrior]

Oh, NO! Another dreaded "versus" thread! At least this one is somewhat intelligient.

 

My vote goes for the Roman legions. I'm not a big fan of phalanxes, as they are easily defeated by any good general and not very mobile. The legion formation worked much better and was much more flexible, wheras teh phalanx died out because of it's inflexability and difficulty.

[Gaius Octavius]

Ramses:

How did the Romans ever beat them? Magic? Phyrrus is said to have commented loosely: If I win another battle like this, I'll be ruined.

[Furius Venator]

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. The phalnanx were indeed vulnerable from the flank and rear, but the forward was inpenatrable.

 

How is the phalanx more disciplined? After all a phalanx of Athenian citizen militia was considerably less disciplined than one comprised of Spartiates. The late republican legion was made up of full-time soldiers, they'd have more discipline than Greek militia, though perhaps comparable to Macedonian phalangites.

 

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.

 

Well that's because they fought in a different way. Being different is not the same as being superior.

 

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.

 

I thought Phyrrus did rather well against Rome. I don't recall the Romans having too many problems with Greek states apart from Macedon.

 

And there were no swordsmen in the Greek phalanxes, or those of Macedon. I am not aware that they were added at a later date. I fail to see how it would have improved their efficiency.

 

The phalanx were practically an unbeatable unit. I don't care if you have well trained legionaries against militia hoplites. If the legionaries can't get throught to them they practically lost. Not to mention Spartan hoplites trained from the age of seven. And not only them it has been reported that Athens also trained their young at a very young age.

 

Well now, if the phalanx was so perfect, how is it that it did not triumph over the legions?

 

As a matter of interest, where does it imply that the Athenian hoplites started training young? I grant you the Spartans were an exception but mercenaries apart, the Greek city states fielded armies of part time militia.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Furius Venator

[Segestan]

My vote goes to the phalanx. The Phalanx ;if used with calvary support could crush any foe. Alexander army was so well trained , though small not over 40000 men, but he defeated the Persians and India even though the Indians tribes had gathered an army of 600000 and 5000 elephants. The Romans used elephants to break the phalanx , it was not the legion units that defeated the Phalanx nor was the rough terrain the cause of their final defeat. Perseus was not Alexander nor Antiochus or Seleucas and he could not stop the Charge of the beast that forced a wedge and allowed Roman calvary to force a point. Alexander defeated the Elephant of India by pounding noises , fires and singularly separating them , killing them. The phalanx was over time replaced by the legion because Rome had the organization and size of available man power to conquer the warring Diadochi and Barbarians.

regards,

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

The Romans used elephants to break the phalanx , it was not the legion units that defeated the Phalanx nor was the rough terrain the cause of their final defeat.

 

I kind of question the thought that the Romani used elephants as their main offensive tactic. Can you explicably(in depth) explain this strategy?

 

Anyone care to comment on this too?

Edited April 2, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Rameses the Great]

Ramses:

How did the Romans ever beat them? Magic? Phyrrus is said to have commented loosely: If I win another battle like this, I'll be ruined.

 

 

Note: I did not say the Romans never beat them I said the majority of the battles they did not. The battle of Asculum. If it had not been for the selfish Greek enemies of King Philip V of Macedonia who knew what could have happpened. You have to believe that this had something to do with the Greek downfall. If the Greeks united as the Roman Republic did, there is no doubt in my mind that the history of the world would be changed entirely.

 

 

Well now, if the phalanx was so perfect, how is it that it did not triumph over the legions?

 

As a matter of interest, where does it imply that the Athenian hoplites started training young? I grant you the Spartans were an exception but mercenaries apart, the Greek city states fielded armies of part time militia.

 

 

To answer the first part of your question it was not the legion vs. phalanx that led Greece to their downfall it was unloyalty and self ambition by the Greeks. To answer you second question when an Athenian at that time applied for duties of citizenship they must apply for training at the age of 18 years old. Maybe not as effective as the Spartan hopllite but should have been able to protect its frontier if all the other Greeks had cooperated. Roman legions were all adults who had to be over the height of 5' 7".