I’ve been playing a lot of Total War: Rome lately and wanted to put up some things for sort of a ‘debate light’ on the historical comparison of different unit types and army mixes both in the ancient world up to Medeval (pre-gunpowder) armies. I thought it might be fun to talk about them, to compare and contrast and to ask ‘what if’ type questions.
So, how did the Roman Legions compare to the Greek Phalanx formations (or to other armies in the ancient world)? Say there was a comparable number of troops, and whatever standard mix of ‘support’ type troops was common to either side (archers, cavalry, etc)…which would be better, using the standard tactical doctorine of each side? I seem to recall vaguely from my history that Roman Legions once squared off against Macedonian Phalanx formations with the Roman’s coming off better…but that this pretty much hinged more on generalship and flanking than on a direct comparison as to which army was better re:Weapons and doctorine (sorry, the battles name escapes me atm…I’ll look it up later if anyone feels they need to know).
From using the Total War tactical battle field simulator (not the most historically accurate measurment by any means :)) I’ve noticed that the Legions can’t really compete with a numerically similar Phalanx army (if properly supported by ‘support’ type units), at least not in a straight up head to head type fight (basically the Phalanx army was very vulnerable to flanking movements…thats how I beat them with the Legions). Its made me curious if this is historically accurate or just a quirk of the game…after all, the Romans never adopted pike type formations (afaik) as part of their military make up, relying on the Legions with short sword and tower shield to be the backbone of their formations.
Its also made me curious as to why, after the fall of the Western half of the Roman empire, no European army (that I know of) re-adopted a Legion structured military. I know that many powers DID re-adpopt a Phalanx style army (like the Spanish tercios(sp?)), but no one ever brought back the Legions…why?
This leads me to my final question…how did European armies of the Middle Ages (pre-gunpowder) compare to the armies of the ancient world like Rome? Would the Romans (or the Greeks) have been able to compete militarily with the ‘standard’ European formations (numbers and such being equal), or would they have been outclassed…and why?
I know its a rambling OP…I wrote it little bits at a time when I had a free moment at work. Appologies and all that…hopefully its clear enough to get a few responses…just for fun.
As mentioned, the Romans did indeed fight phalanx-based forces. Well, they fought pretty much everything.
To be fair and for starters, let’s define the things we’re dealing with.
By “Greek phalanx” I assume you refer more to the Alexandrian phalanx (same deal, longer sprears, more effective). A tightly linked unit with high shields carrying long pikes, keeping the enemy at a distance. Calvary charges were suicide against them, and infantry couldn’t get in to do damage. The main drawbacks were (initially) lack of mobility, but this was later corrected. The basic format was in use for over 2000 years.
The Roman legions fouhgt several different ways. Notably, their main approach was very similar to a phalanx (tightly held wall of shields), only they used throwing spears in addition to their defenses, and broke out into shortswords combat once the initial melee started.
Now, putting the two units against each other, we have to know the goals. The phalanx probably wouldn’t be able to take a position from entrenched Roman legions, but the Romans would have a hard time taking the phalanx. In the open field, the legion would flank the phalanx, or ignore it altogether and concentrate on the “support” troops.
As I recall ,they also developed ways of deflecting the long phalanx spears, and once they got to close combat, the Romans would have slaughtered the phalanx.
That is my understanding. It is probably covered with gaping holes that someone like Tamerlane will come along and fill in.
Damn, I was just thinking about opening a similar thread.
When I’ve gone up against phalanxes, they didn’t seem to be that tough. They are extremely slow and creep around the battlefield. My more mobile peltast-type troops hit them with missiles, then fix them with some light infantry, then pound them from behind with cavalry. The other fun thing is if you’ve got some artillery. It is a thing of beauty to drop some giant flaming rocks on a hoplite formation.
Maybe it was just the poor generalship on the other side though…individual phalanxes would wander around, and I was able to concentrate my troops against one at a time.
Actually, I believe that was the biggest innovation of the Macedonians…ditch heavy hoplite armor, and just give everyone a reaaaaaly long spear and a reaaaaaly big shield. Then they can run circles around the armored hoplites.
I suppose the problem with reinventing the Roman legion was the supremacy of heavy cavalry. A phalanx/tercio is invulnerable to heavy cavalry, but a legion isn’t. So you reinvent the phalanx to counter armored knights with stirrups, but by the time people start to get around to developing an equivalent of the legion to counter to the tercio you’ve already got gunpowder and cannons. The cannons blow the tercio apart. So they have to disperse into lines, so they’re vulnerable to cavalry again. But the guns blow away the horses, so that’s OK. And eventually firepower gets so heavy that formations are useless, everyone has to take cover.
Yes, I noticed that too. However, if the Phalanx holds the line its much more difficult, and regiment for regiment in a straight up fight it seems the Phalanx can wax the Legion troops pretty easily (in the game that is). I win by NOT forming a proper battle line, but by misdirection and stringing out the battle…essentially what you are saying by having individual regiments wander off and then destroying them with swift units that can flank. I have to figure though in the REAL world it wasn’t this easy. Or maybe it was…thats why I started the thread to find out!
Actually I was unaware that Alexander had significantly upgraded the greek hoplite model. I thought his big innovation was cavalry. However, the rest of what you say is what I was getting at…i.e. “A tightly linked unit with high shields carrying long pikes, keeping the enemy at a distance” using a long pike, a large round shield, helmet and a few other bits of armor for protection.
I’m envisioning a set piece battle. Obviously there are tactical terrain advantages that would play in (i.e. the Phalanx wouldn’t be as effective on uneven terrain where the Legion would have an advantage, the Phalanx would do better on a flat plain, etc). So, in a set piece battle, numbers being roughly equal, which side would have an advantage due simple to weapons composition and tactical doctorine? Feel free to expand on that all you like…thats exactly what I want.
I hope he wanders in for one of his great multipage posts. Not only does he know a lot about this kind of stuff, he’s played the game as well.
Actually the Romans started out using the Greek Phalanx and then moved on to the more familiar legion structure we’ve all come to know and love. The legion system allowed for men to be put into smaller more manuverable groups called centuria (which oddly enough consisted of about 80 men typically). A legion could perform more sophisticated coordinated manuvers compared to a phalanx.
It took an immense amount of resources to maintain a Roman army. You have to train them, equip them, support them, and pay them. I don’t think anybody in western Europe had the infrastructure to support a legion army.
The turning point of the battle came when the Romans used their reserve to attack the Phalanx from behind. This panicked the Macedonian lines, and the Romans won an overwhelming victory.
Y’know, I could have sworn this was recently covered in GQ, but I can’t seem to be able to find the exact thread I was looking for. I did find this post I made on a weaponry thread:
But here you go, xtisme, while searching I turned up this earlier thread that started out about MtW and ended up with me being schooled on the topic of wedges :
As I understood it the legion’s superiority lay in the better maneuverability, it was more versatile and better adapted to fight under varied condition. A phalanx is a mass of men, a legion can be stretched, bend, encircle the enemy etc. A phalanx or hoplite army once on the move goes forward and that pretty much that, with a well trained legion you can have fairly complicated manuveres, improvise and adapt to the circumstances.
The Romans did face phalanx formation. One roman general doing so in Macedonia expressed his absolute terror when doing so. Thought the phalanxes the romans faced were probably not of the same quality as those led by Alexander (or led by a man of the same genius). Also Alexanders strategy with the phalanx made good use of cavalery. The phalanx didn’t act alone.
The legion became obsolete when heavy cavalery came alone. It always had some problems re. cavalery, as example the Parthians whom destroyed a few legions in their time.
I think it was Phillip, Alexander’s father, who should have the honour of creating the phalanx. The hoplites were heavily armed and carried a heavy shiled. The phalanx carried next to no armor and relied solely on their long pike.
Heavy infantry beats heavy cavalry, but is beaten by light infantry (archers) and light cavalry (horse archers).
Heavy cavalry beats light infantry, but is beaten by heavy infantry and light cavalry.
Light infantry beats heavy infantry and light cavalry, but is beaten by heavy cavalry.
Light cavarly beats heavy infantry and heavy cavalry, but is beaten by light infantry.
During the medieval period effective heavy infantry mostly disappeared. Which is why heavy cavalry knights were regarded as the queen of the battlefield. Introduce disciplined pike formations, and the knights get killed. So you have crossbowmen and musketeers and cannons to kill the pikemen, and you have to have your own pikemen to protect the standoff weapons from cavalry. At that point there is apparantly no use for cavalry…except you keep it around to exploit areas where the heavy infantry isn’t so heavy anymore.
Doesn’t the OP confuse tactical formation with a military organizational unit? A phalanx is a formation; a legion is a military organizational unit. As some of the other posters have commented, a legion could assume a variety of tactical formations. Or have I missed the point?
I posted in that thread a link to comments on the Roman maniple vs. Macedonian phalanx issue from Polybius which are most informative. Eyewitness testimony, as it were.
I’m using ‘Legion’ loosely. Thats why I put in the caviots about ‘support’ troops and left tactical formations up to individual posters to comment about. Also, I’m no historian, just someone who is interested in history and plays a battlefield simulator game.
Hah! I’ve won a number of such encounters :p! ( though I usually try to refrain from such as well - actually those Spartan Hoplites are superior in straight ahead engagements ).
Of course that probably has a good deal to do with how overpowered the Roman units are in that game ;).
Yep, I feel pretty confident attacking when I’m not outnumbered by more than 2 to 1. But often the big enemy armies are padded out with peasants, warbands, militia, and other very low end units. These seem to be to be almost worse than useless, because they invariably panic when hit by a cavalry charge, and that panic spreads to nearby units. Plus the enemy generals don’t seem to realize that peasants can’t hold a section of line. Take out the peasants and the enemy formation is a shambles.
Oh, and I find the egyptian chariots to be ludicrously overpowered. I sent a small unit of heavy cavalry against ONE chariot, and he killed them all!
I think it has a lot to do with how the AI uses phalanxes. It should really line them all up shoulder to shoulder in the centre and then keep the wings well covered with peltasts/cavaly/whatever, and then advance with all phalanxes abreast of each other. But it doesn’t, it moves each phalanx unit individually, which enables one to hit exposed flanks very easily. Pity, really. I must confess, though, I’ve really been struck by how unwieldy those pike formations actually are.
I’d say some of the above is highly debateable, probably because these terms are so imprecise. Just as an example a horde of medieval Irish kern, light infantry by most definitions, aren’t necessarily going to be very effective against a swarm of Turkish horse-archers - for that matter neither are a lot of foot-archers ( they are in the Total War games only when screened and firing, but light calvary can still run them down ). Were Roman legionaires “heavy”? They certainly got routed by calvary more than once.
I suppose the terms are pretty vague, since “light cavalry” can just mean lightly armed and armored cavalry, not horse archers, same with light infantry.
But then we’d have 6 categories, not four, and the whole construct breaks down. But I contend that it is reality that is incorrect, since the theory is so nice.
