We\'re going to beat the legions...

[Lanista]

Hi - This is a discussion we're having over on UNRV, but I thought some of the Hellenphiles here would be interested...

I had dinner with Philip Matyszak the other day (which was ace fun and enlightening) and we discussed the age-old Legion vs Phalanx thing.

We established that - basically - the legion was always going to win given the inherent weaknesses of the Greek or Macedonian phalanxes (IE - they only have to break in one place to be totally broken - even if they're on the offensive, greater and lesser reistance up and down the Roman line will cause disruptions of its own accord).

But I'm thinking - let's pretend we're in Rome: Total War World.

You're an ambitious Greek or Macedonian General. You've heard all about these Romans with their pila and swords and Pyrrhus has made it clear to you that the "old way of war" just won't work against these upstart Italians.

You don't have time to ape their training a la Mithridates... and you don't really want to. After all, the Hellenic way of war is better, right? But you know you have to adapt.

So - Is there a way for the Classic Greek Phalanx to adapt to face down the legions on equal terms.

Same for the Macedonians, circa Philip/Alexander when they were at the height of their power?

What would you do to change your aging system to give you a chance.

Change their weapons? Change their formation? Or just resign yourself to the fact that your polies will soon be crushed under the hobnailed calligae of Roman oppression?

Just one for fun - you've got a chance to alter the facts and use some historical hindsight to swing the balance in your favour!

Cheers

Russ

There's been some quite interesting hypotheses, one in particular I thought some of the re-enactors on here might have a feeling on...

What I'd be curious about is the vulnerability of a classical hoplon shield to a pilum. Tlassical greek heavy shield was much heavier than anything including, I think, the roman scutum. Metal facing, thick wood, ... this might prevent the kind of damages we've seen the macedonian and other peoples suffer from. Macedonian troops had indeed gone to lighter pelte shield, and gauls and other nations also had mostly lighter shields.

The full thread is here

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12680

if you'd like to take a look.

[Matthew Amt]

Oh, boy, another one of these! What is it about the Romans that still has everyone so hateful and terrified of them that they are STILL looking for ways to beat them after 2 millennia? Kinda sad. I shouldn't even get mixed up in these discussions, but there are a few misconceptions to clear up.

For starters, the phalanx DID beat legions on several occasions. Pyrrhus beat them every time, he just took a lot of casualties doing so. Later, at Cynocephalae and Pydna, the phalanx pushed the Romans back like a bulldozer, and darn near won both times. Maybe just better or quicker use of cavalry or lighter infantry might have done the trick, but it might just have been luck!

No, the Classical Greek "hoplon", actually called an aspis, is not special, really. They were no heavier or thicker than a scutum, and the bronze facing was too thin to help much against javelins. Not all shields of that sort had a bronze facing, anyway.

One of the contributors suggested harrying attacks on the march, night attacks, cutting supply lines, etc. Several problems with that. If your army knows where the enemy is, and you are within striking distance, you are now maneuvering for a full-scale battle. It could happen today. The last thing you want to do is scatter your most mobile and elite troops for small-scale attacks! If you do not keep your army together, you might all be squashed like bugs. Remember, there is no rapid long-distance communication, no way to tell what's on the other side of a ridge without going up and looking, and it's very easy to get lost in unfamiliar territory and either miss the enemy or not be able to get back to your army. Same thing with night attacks--unless you go all-out, you might just be exhausting your own troops. Men have to sleep! Supply convoys were typically defended, so again you would have to attack with substantial force to be sure of having any effect. And since the Romans had supplies for a couple weeks right there with their legions, they might still have plenty of time to locate and engage your main force. Even "guerrilla" activity is not a sure thing, since we know the Romans were just as good at that as anyone else. Particularly since if they were not in their own territory they didn't have to worry about defending homes or crops, or drag along families or heavy baggage, so they could move very quickly, and strike and retire at will.

The problem is that most of the weaknesses that people want to exploit are even worse for a non-Roman army. Everyone knew the potential advantages and dangers of raids, night attacks, etc. So the Romans put a lot of thought into establishing regular procedures to minimize the dangers of necessary operations, so that even a mediocre general wouldn't get tripped up by leaving his marching flanks uncovered or letting his forage parties get slaughtered.

Oh, you may also want to establish a time frame! The Roman army of 300 BC was very different from that of 50 AD.

I just have a feeling this is going to turn into "Vikings versus ninjas"...

Vale,

Matthew

[Lanista]

This is great stuff, thanks Matthew - of all people, you'd know about the weight of an aspis! But yes...I guess it is a bit ninja vs viking.

I think the point of this one is not the old legion vs phalanx one. We know what happened there, this was more of a hypothetical one (after about six beers, it has to be said).

I should have mention-time frame, but we didn't have one...lets say an early manipular legion? I think that's a fairer comparison than an all conquering 1st Century Military Death Machine.

It was interesting talking to Maty and, as I say, one of the things that came up was the fact that its difficult for solid block phalanx even if its doing well - some legionaries will stand and fight, others will back off a little, some more so... and so even as you're going forward, your line is getting disrupted.

I felt that the hoplites might actually fair a little better against the legions than macedonian phalanx.

But yes, the point of it all was not "who would have won," cos I think that's been done to death in this forum and others *lol*

It really was more of a hypothetical one: Pyhrrus had come home shaking his head and complaining about these Italians. In this scenario, the Italians are now going to repay the favour... as I say, we're essentially playing "Rome: Total War" - but trying to make it real (even though that's a massive oxymoron).

The Romans are coming - you in Southern Hellas haven't yet converted to the barbarian way of fighting with those long spears...you get up close to your enemies and face them eye to eye. But even you realise that you're going to have change something.

In Macedon, you're confident, but that Pyhrrus has put some doubt in your mind...you might have to make some changes too.

So - this isn't a phalanx is better than legion or vice versa... its just a bit of fun, really. What would you do, with the benefit of a bit of hindsight.

Admins - should this be moved to the gaming forum maybe?

[PMBardunias]

Admins - should this be moved to the gaming forum maybe?

I think it is fine here.

As matt noted, the aspis is actually weaker over its broad face than a scutum, so no benefit there. As far as I can recall, the closest thing to a conflict between a hoplite force and a force armed in the manner of the Romans would be the clash of Roman hoplites against the Samnites and Italiots.

You can pick and choose elements from other battles to try to reconstruct what could occur- the overlapping shields of the Gauls facing Ceasar as proxy for hoplites in synaspismos, etc.- but the differences in those battles are far greater than the similarities.

Part of the problem with such a comparison is that both hoplites and sarissaphoroi were very vulnerable to envelopment but niether was expected to defend against envelopment on their own. Thus any battle with Romans will really be decided by the cavalry on the wings.

[rrgg]

Would there be any way to get the Romans to waste their pila or reduce the weapon's effectiveness? For instance rushing them before they get a chance to throw or positioning your troops on high ground?

[Lanista]

Thanks, Paul.

RRGG: I don't know. This is basically what we were talking about - what would the Greeks and the Macedonians do - given a bit of our own historical hindsight - to make a more even fight of it. What could be addressed in their respective formations to give them a better chance?

The pila - to me - seems to be a super-weapon against a Greek/Macedonian formation. But as the boys have pointed out - battles between Macedon and Rome were pretty close run things, indicating that the rolling momentum of a phalanx works.

As I say, my idea was (for the hoplites) would be to try a series of wedge formations...like a serrated knife and try to punch into a Roman line (this might work really well against the maniples). The dory is shorted than the pike and you're armed with a sword as well... But I don't know, it was just an idea.

I guess that's the fun of it though!

cheers

Russ

[PMBardunias]

As I say, my idea was (for the hoplites) would be to try a series of wedge formations

I'd be wary of that. Hoplites did not form wedges for a good reason- too many exposed right sides presented to the enemy line that the aspis could not be brought around to protect. You may read of "Embolons" as wedges in hoplite battle, but this is surely a misinterpretation of the word.

In my opinion breaking through the roman line would be no problem, the hoplite was designed to force back enemy formations and break lines. Even if the Romans got past the hedge of spears, no mass of men ever fought better close-in than hoplites in othismos, and the gladius has nothing on the "laconian" short sword in the press.

Unfortunately the hoplites would find the same problem sarissaphoroi did. The Romans would simply give ground in front of them at some points along the line and stand firm at others. The hoplites they must either rip their own battle line in fragments based on individual units or simply stand and watch the Romans retreat in front of them and throw things.

If they break the line the Romans exploit the gaps, while if they don't they can never exploit an advantage properly.

Pila do not penetrate shields better than arrows, but the shield fouling effect might be more of a problem if they do penetrate.

Overall, I think in the right setting hoplites win. I don't think the Romans could force Thermopylae for example without a liberal use of ballista. Then again, I think Vikings beat the crap out of ninjas as well.

[Lanista]

Ninja for the win, Paul ;-)

[Quintius Clavus]

Mentioning Thermopylae: The Romans did not attempt to force Thermopylae; they went around, using the same goat paths used earlier against the Spartans. (Mithradatic Wars of the 1st Century BC)

[PMBardunias]

The Romans did not attempt to force Thermopylae; they went around, using the same goat paths used earlier against the Spartans.

Yea, that's the problem with making a stand at the most famously flanked position in all of history :-D

I know of a few other instances where the Romans simply marched around a position where earlier hellenistic armies fought- Sellasia for example. I don't know enough about Romans to know if this stems from having a more versatile and lighter army or perhaps their road building skills, but it does seem to be a trend.

Then again, they may have read a lot of Greek history and learned from the mistakes of others at the same sites.

Ninja for the win, Paul

Maybe at night I can't get past the foot and a half height advantage for the Viking. The poor ninja would need a naginata just to reach him. Perhaps one of those Ikko-Ikki warrior monks...

[hoplite14gr]

I believe I have covered a great deal on the subject details here:

https://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/inde...Itemid=102

the point is that it was not only the phalanx vs legion.
There were two military systems. The Romans used their system well while the Greels abused it. At the time there were on Greek leaders of Themistocles or Alexander caliber.

Purros misused his army so was Phlip V and Perseas. Antioxos was a joke as a general and the Achean League was defeated piecemeal in 146. And Mithridates was a Luxuriously armed mob! In the first and second century B.C. the Romas were an ARMY! And armies win over mobs!

as for the details: Atrax and and Thermopylae 191 BC (1st stage) proved that a phalnx with covered flanks would stampede over the legion. The Romans were smart to regonize that and never fight in a terrain favoring their opponets or devise tactics to turn the flank - They also did not face Alexander!
Kind regards

[Paralus]

I believe I have covered a great deal on the subject details here:

https://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/inde...Itemid=102

the point is that it was not only the phalanx vs legion.
There were two military systems. The Romans used their system well while the Greels abused it. At the time there were on Greek leaders of Themistocles or Alexander caliber.

The point, in your article, with respect to the Greeks' social woes at the time of the conflicts against Rome was well made. The enthusiasm within the Peloponnese for Kleomenes III was such that it frightened the bejesus out of Polybios' hero Aratus. So much so he backtracked on a generation of anti-Macedonian work.

Outside of Philopoemen, Aratus ranks as a Polybian "idol". It must have irked the Megalopoitan severely that such a fine upstanding Greek, when it really mattered, displayed that which defined the all too general Greek view: my state and position above others.

Combined action in the interest of the whole was almost always subvented by action in the interest of the one.

Purros misused his army so was Phlip V and Perseas.

Pyyrhos found himself propelled and cornered by events he sought to profit from. He likely fought when he did not want to (for lack of allies) at Heralceia when there wound up being no choice.

Pyyrhos and his adventure in Italy is very often used as an example in the debate over phalanx and legion. Indeed both your article and Ross Cowan's refer to his battles in those terms. Although Pyyrhos was defeated in his final battle (on seemingly unsuitable ground) the previous two battles are, in strict terms, defeats in the field for Rome. What is also very often forgotten is that Pyyrhos' battle array is no classical Macedonian phalanx. We do not know how many Epirote phalangites made up this phalanx but the numbers cannot be the bulk of the figures we are given. Polybios (18.28.10) tells us that "Pyrrhus, again, availed himself not only of the arms, but also of the troops of Italy, placing a maniple of Italians and a company of his own phalanx alternately, in his battles against the Romans." Polybios uses speiran and so is clearly indicating alternate syntagma (units/maniples/cohorts) of troops. This may have been for purely tactical reasons but I'd suspect is has as much - if not more - to do with filling out the phalanx; a phalanx in which those "armed and trained in the Macedonian fashion" likely did not predominate. Unless the "hoplois" of the Italians included sarisas.

Antioxos was a joke as a general and the Achean League was defeated piecemeal in 146.

I think that's a little harsh on poor old Antiochus III and one likely needs to be careful of Polybios' presentation of the dissention and falling apart of the Achaean League.

[Lanista]

Again, thanks all for the fascinating points of view on this one.

[hoplite14gr]

Ok

Greek colonies in the West had "lost their will to survive". They were already submitting to the Italians before the Romans appear. In many case welcomed them.
Plus a deep phalanx front leaves its flanks exposed to the extended legion.
Romans were no fools to get engaged in a shoving match when they had an opportunity to outflank the opposition!

I might be a bit harsh on Pyrrus in Beneventum with allies such but his army was in battle lines with cavalry and elefants mainly used to plug the gaps.
Great Alec would have the infantry in the center, he would crush Roman cavalry in the flank and made short work of the Romans. Finally he would have given Rome the Thebes/Tyros treatment so that he would not face the problem again! Hannibal in Cannae proved that this could work - he forgot to raze Rome and he paid for this in the end!
Antiochos might have a poor excuse because of the Aetolians in Thermopylae but Magnesia proves that he was a joke of a general!

The Roman leaders understood their armies limitation and used their forces to good effect. Their opponents had poor leadership with a poor understanding of their military system. The effect of good leadership and understanding one's system was demonstrated at...Cahhrae (This damned horse-archers!).

The Greeks in the Hellenistic failed to show a general who completely understood what was to be done to the point that antiochus made Hannibal an admiral!

On the contrary the Romans in general demonstrated more common sense!

Kind regards

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I thought we already beat you several times... Please reread Polybios xD

M.VIB.M.