Greek Phalanx Versus Roman Legion

[PoS]

I wanted to compare the two greatest military units in the ancient world, the legion versus the Greek phalanx.


From the Persian Wars all the way to the wars against the Romans, the Greek phalanx was arguably the best fighting formation up until that time- its techniques were simple but effective: put lots of men with heavy shields and armor together in a tight formation, arm them with spears (later on, pikes) and smash their way through the opposition. This formation was so effective that this style of fighting spread throughout the Western world and was the dominant formation for the next few hundred years.

Now the Romans never really invented anything in terms of war. In fact during the early days of Rome, their army was built upon the Etruscan way of fighting, which was the phalanx. But after being defeated a few times by a tough hill tribe called the Samnites- the Romans decided to copy the Samnite way of fighting- their first two ranks got rid of their heavy spears and instead started to use light javelins with which to throw at the enemy before engaging with a small stabbing sword called the gladius (which was either copied from the Iberians or the Celts) and also to stop fighting in close formation and instead use the Samnite way of the checkerboard formation by having space in between you and the one beside you, this way you could fight effectively in uneven terrain and if you were wounded or exhausted, you could retreat backwards behind the front line because of the gaps and the man behind you would then take your place, this allowed the Romans to continuously apply force at the front lines so they kept fighting, like a machine. However, their third ranks, which had their most elite soldiers, still retained the traditional phalanx formation (as a back up) until the Marian reforms hundreds of years later.

Now there were around five battles in which Greek hoplites faced Roman legionnaires- three of these were fought by King Pyrrhus when he attempted to conquer the Italian peninsula. The first two battles he won and the third was inconclusive.

The two other times the Romans faced the Greek phalanx were both won by the legions. In the battle of Pydna, the Romans faced a Macedonian army made of mostly phalanx troops. The Romans faced them on the slope of the mountain the the Macedonians had to fight uphill, in the early stages of the battle the phalanx was actually able to push back the Roman center but lost its cohesion because of the rough terrain, the Romans were able to adjust in time and got around the flanks of the Macedonians as their formation began to break apart and defeated them- however, even though the Macedonians had a cavalry contingent, they never used it and instead fled from the battle so that was one hell of a mistake. In the battle of Magnesia the Romans faced off against the Seleucids and the former was able to achieve tactical surprise and panicked the war elephants of the Seleucids in a surprise attack which drove them into the main Seleucid phalanx and broke its back before they could even react- though it was a great victory there were somewhat extenuating circumstances as to why the Romans were able to defeat the phalanx at that time.

While the two examples obviously demonstrate the versatility of the legion over the phalanx there were a number of reasons why the Greeks were defeated, though not necessarily due to the phalanx itself.

Another possible theory is that of the Carthaginians. While we do know that Hannibal had a mixed army of mercenaries with him when he invaded Italy during the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Punic War, we have no records of what the Carthaginians actually fielded in terms of troops and formations other than scant descriptions of their Celtic, Hispanic mercenaries and Numidian cavalry. Were the Carthaginian troops in fact, using the phalanx to deliver Rome’s greatest defeat at the battle of Cannae? We do know later on in his campaign that after Cannae Hannibal’s troops looted the Roman dead and used their equipment to the point where they became mirror units to the legions they were facing but were Hannibal’s Carthaginian veterans in fact, Hoplites operating in a phalanx? I guess we may never know.


What do you guys/gals think?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Roman legion wins.

Between the much heavier and more sophisticated armor (segmented steel plates) and the much more intense training and professionalism (greek hoplites were citizen soldiers, not professional, full-time soldiers as far as I'm concerned), the Roman legion would decimate the **** out of a hoplite formation IMO.

I think that the biggest issue is the idea that the hoplite is not a dedicated soldier whereas a Roman is. The training/discipline difference seems rather significant.

 

[PoS]

Roman legion wins.

Between the much heavier and more sophisticated armor (segmented steel plates) and the much more intense training and professionalism (greek hoplites were citizen soldiers, not professional, full-time soldiers as far as I'm concerned), the Roman legion would decimate the **** out of a hoplite formation IMO.

I think that the biggest issue is the idea that the hoplite is not a dedicated soldier whereas a Roman is. The training/discipline difference seems rather significant.

Well I would consider Phillip's and Alexander's Macedonians as professional troops as well. Granted, during the battle of Pydna the Macedonians were shadows of their former selves since the time of Alexander but they could have defeated the legion if they deployed their cavalry but they didnt. Just saying its not as cut and dried as you think.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I think this all comes down to the theater of operation. There is plenty of condition where land complications would favor the Greek Phalanx method of fighting, but we cannot discount so many Roman Legion victories in various geographic challenges, against all sorts of opposition military fighting styles, etc. You could argue well that when you had a General all the way down to a front line soldier thinking almost identically from the training, from the experience, and from the simplicity of the fighting style it made it painfully difficult to find a weak point. You could further argue it was not until others, like the various North Europeans on one end and the Middle East nations on the other, adopted the Roman military design that Rome itself started to see problems. Gives you a conclusive argument that since the Romans were only beaten by their own fighting style used by someone else, that the style itself was superior.

 

[Gathomas88]

As you point out in your OP, on an historical basis, the Roman legions ultimately did prove to have the edge over their Greek opponents.

The Legion is simply more flexible, more mobile, and more maneuverable. A phalanx, by way of contrast, while a significantly "harder" target overall, has a very limited range of movement and application in the field. It's also pretty much helpless without heavy cavalry support protecting its flanks.

Don't get me wrong. There are obviously some environments in which a phalanx would be basically unbeatable. On the whole, however, the Roman model was simply more efficient.

 

[PoS]

As you point out in your OP, on an historical basis, the Roman legions ultimately did prove to have the edge over their Greek opponents.

The Legion is simply more flexible, more mobile, and more maneuverable. A phalanx, by way of contrast, while a significantly "harder" target overall, has a very limited range of movement and application in the field. It's also pretty much helpless without heavy cavalry support protecting its flanks.

Don't get me wrong. There are obviously some environments in which a phalanx would be basically unbeatable. On the whole, however, the Roman model was simply more efficient.

I agree with what youre saying- obviously the legion proved to be more versatile in all sorts of terrain but it wasnt exactly invincible either, Hannibal regularly defeated legions sent against him, the one time he did lose in the battle of Zama was when his old allies the Numidians and their awesome cavalry switched sides and went up against him.

 

[ludin]

[FONT=&]I wanted to compare the two greatest military units in the ancient world, the legion versus the Greek phalanx.[/FONT]


[FONT=&]From the Persian Wars all the way to the wars against the Romans, the Greek phalanx was arguably the best fighting formation up until that time- its techniques were simple but effective: put lots of men with heavy shields and armor together in a tight formation, arm them with spears (later on, pikes) and smash their way through the opposition. This formation was so effective that this style of fighting spread throughout the Western world and was the dominant formation for the next few hundred years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&]Now the Romans never really invented anything in terms of war. In fact during the early days of Rome, their army was built upon the Etruscan way of fighting, which was the phalanx. But after being defeated a few times by a tough hill tribe called the Samnites- the Romans decided to copy the Samnite way of fighting- their first two ranks got rid of their heavy spears and instead started to use light javelins with which to throw at the enemy before engaging with a small stabbing sword called the gladius (which was either copied from the Iberians or the Celts) and also to stop fighting in close formation and instead use the Samnite way of the checkerboard formation by having space in between you and the one beside you, this way you could fight effectively in uneven terrain and if you were wounded or exhausted, you could retreat backwards behind the front line because of the gaps and the man behind you would then take your place, this allowed the Romans to continuously apply force at the front lines so they kept fighting, like a machine. However, their third ranks, which had their most elite soldiers, still retained the traditional phalanx formation (as a back up) until the Marian reforms hundreds of years later.[/FONT]


[FONT=&]The two other times the Romans faced the Greek phalanx were both won by the legions. In the battle of Pydna, the Romans faced a Macedonian army made of mostly phalanx troops. The Romans faced them on the slope of the mountain the the Macedonians had to fight uphill, in the early stages of the battle the phalanx was actually able to push back the Roman center but lost its cohesion because of the rough terrain, the Romans were able to adjust in time and got around the flanks of the Macedonians as their formation began to break apart and defeated them- however, even though the Macedonians had a cavalry contingent, they never used it and instead fled from the battle so that was one hell of a mistake. In the battle of Magnesia the Romans faced off against the Seleucids and the former was able to achieve tactical surprise and panicked the war elephants of the Seleucids in a surprise attack which drove them into the main Seleucid phalanx and broke its back before they could even react- though it was a great victory there were somewhat extenuating circumstances as to why the Romans were able to defeat the phalanx at that time.


[/FONT]


[FONT=&]Another possible theory is that of the Carthaginians. While we do know that Hannibal had a mixed army of mercenaries with him when he invaded Italy during the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Punic War, we have no records of what the Carthaginians actually fielded in terms of troops and formations other than scant descriptions of their Celtic, Hispanic mercenaries and Numidian cavalry. Were the Carthaginian troops in fact, using the phalanx to deliver Rome’s greatest defeat at the battle of Cannae? We do know later on in his campaign that after Cannae Hannibal’s troops looted the Roman dead and used their equipment to the point where they became mirror units to the legions they were facing but were Hannibal’s Carthaginian veterans in fact, Hoplites operating in a phalanx? I guess we may never know.[/FONT]


What do you guys/gals think?

I took an ancient history class and had to do a research paper on greek and roman battle tactics.

it was similar to what you described. the phalanx was very strong but it's one bad flaw was that it was not very moveable. if you could flank or get behind it
then you pretty much screwed the phalanx.

the romans legions were way more maneuverable on the battle field as a whole. they would march in staggered squares. the skirmishers would move
between the heavy troops throwing spears at the enemy and then would retreat back covered by those same troops.

That is why the greek phalanx failed to defeat the Roman armies. Rome was very good at adapting and making it better.

they did not have a strong navy but they captured a greek bireme. they added a huge spike to the nose of it. they would get in range of another ship.
let this huge plank fall it would embed itself in the other ship they then march their centurions across and destroy the other ship.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The downside of the phalanx was and always has been it's inflexibility. It's perfectly fine when you're only fighting other Greeks or slaughtering substandard eastern infantry, but it was always remain a formation that is devastating up front while easily out maneuvered on the flanks.

 

[blackjack50]

I wanted to compare the two greatest military units in the ancient world, the legion versus the Greek phalanx.


From the Persian Wars all the way to the wars against the Romans, the Greek phalanx was arguably the best fighting formation up until that time- its techniques were simple but effective: put lots of men with heavy shields and armor together in a tight formation, arm them with spears (later on, pikes) and smash their way through the opposition. This formation was so effective that this style of fighting spread throughout the Western world and was the dominant formation for the next few hundred years.

Now the Romans never really invented anything in terms of war. In fact during the early days of Rome, their army was built upon the Etruscan way of fighting, which was the phalanx. But after being defeated a few times by a tough hill tribe called the Samnites- the Romans decided to copy the Samnite way of fighting- their first two ranks got rid of their heavy spears and instead started to use light javelins with which to throw at the enemy before engaging with a small stabbing sword called the gladius (which was either copied from the Iberians or the Celts) and also to stop fighting in close formation and instead use the Samnite way of the checkerboard formation by having space in between you and the one beside you, this way you could fight effectively in uneven terrain and if you were wounded or exhausted, you could retreat backwards behind the front line because of the gaps and the man behind you would then take your place, this allowed the Romans to continuously apply force at the front lines so they kept fighting, like a machine. However, their third ranks, which had their most elite soldiers, still retained the traditional phalanx formation (as a back up) until the Marian reforms hundreds of years later.

Now there were around five battles in which Greek hoplites faced Roman legionnaires- three of these were fought by King Pyrrhus when he attempted to conquer the Italian peninsula. The first two battles he won and the third was inconclusive.

The two other times the Romans faced the Greek phalanx were both won by the legions. In the battle of Pydna, the Romans faced a Macedonian army made of mostly phalanx troops. The Romans faced them on the slope of the mountain the the Macedonians had to fight uphill, in the early stages of the battle the phalanx was actually able to push back the Roman center but lost its cohesion because of the rough terrain, the Romans were able to adjust in time and got around the flanks of the Macedonians as their formation began to break apart and defeated them- however, even though the Macedonians had a cavalry contingent, they never used it and instead fled from the battle so that was one hell of a mistake. In the battle of Magnesia the Romans faced off against the Seleucids and the former was able to achieve tactical surprise and panicked the war elephants of the Seleucids in a surprise attack which drove them into the main Seleucid phalanx and broke its back before they could even react- though it was a great victory there were somewhat extenuating circumstances as to why the Romans were able to defeat the phalanx at that time.

While the two examples obviously demonstrate the versatility of the legion over the phalanx there were a number of reasons why the Greeks were defeated, though not necessarily due to the phalanx itself.

Another possible theory is that of the Carthaginians. While we do know that Hannibal had a mixed army of mercenaries with him when he invaded Italy during the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Punic War, we have no records of what the Carthaginians actually fielded in terms of troops and formations other than scant descriptions of their Celtic, Hispanic mercenaries and Numidian cavalry. Were the Carthaginian troops in fact, using the phalanx to deliver Rome’s greatest defeat at the battle of Cannae? We do know later on in his campaign that after Cannae Hannibal’s troops looted the Roman dead and used their equipment to the point where they became mirror units to the legions they were facing but were Hannibal’s Carthaginian veterans in fact, Hoplites operating in a phalanx? I guess we may never know.


What do you guys/gals think?

I think the roman army style of combat was superior due to the ability to move. Going straight forward into a phalanx is suicide. Tying them down with javelins in the front and flanking them is murder.

 

[LadyMoonlight]

[FONT=&]I wanted to compare the two greatest military units in the ancient world, the legion versus the Greek phalanx.[/FONT]


[FONT=&]From the Persian Wars all the way to the wars against the Romans, the Greek phalanx was arguably the best fighting formation up until that time- its techniques were simple but effective: put lots of men with heavy shields and armor together in a tight formation, arm them with spears (later on, pikes) and smash their way through the opposition. This formation was so effective that this style of fighting spread throughout the Western world and was the dominant formation for the next few hundred years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&]Now the Romans never really invented anything in terms of war. In fact during the early days of Rome, their army was built upon the Etruscan way of fighting, which was the phalanx. But after being defeated a few times by a tough hill tribe called the Samnites- the Romans decided to copy the Samnite way of fighting- their first two ranks got rid of their heavy spears and instead started to use light javelins with which to throw at the enemy before engaging with a small stabbing sword called the gladius (which was either copied from the Iberians or the Celts) and also to stop fighting in close formation and instead use the Samnite way of the checkerboard formation by having space in between you and the one beside you, this way you could fight effectively in uneven terrain and if you were wounded or exhausted, you could retreat backwards behind the front line because of the gaps and the man behind you would then take your place, this allowed the Romans to continuously apply force at the front lines so they kept fighting, like a machine. However, their third ranks, which had their most elite soldiers, still retained the traditional phalanx formation (as a back up) until the Marian reforms hundreds of years later.[/FONT]

[FONT=&]Now there were around five battles in which Greek hoplites faced Roman legionnaires- three of these were fought by King Pyrrhus when he attempted to conquer the Italian peninsula. The first two battles he won and the third was inconclusive. [/FONT]

[FONT=&]The two other times the Romans faced the Greek phalanx were both won by the legions. In the battle of Pydna, the Romans faced a Macedonian army made of mostly phalanx troops. The Romans faced them on the slope of the mountain the the Macedonians had to fight uphill, in the early stages of the battle the phalanx was actually able to push back the Roman center but lost its cohesion because of the rough terrain, the Romans were able to adjust in time and got around the flanks of the Macedonians as their formation began to break apart and defeated them- however, even though the Macedonians had a cavalry contingent, they never used it and instead fled from the battle so that was one hell of a mistake. In the battle of Magnesia the Romans faced off against the Seleucids and the former was able to achieve tactical surprise and panicked the war elephants of the Seleucids in a surprise attack which drove them into the main Seleucid phalanx and broke its back before they could even react- though it was a great victory there were somewhat extenuating circumstances as to why the Romans were able to defeat the phalanx at that time.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&]While the two examples obviously demonstrate the versatility of the legion over the phalanx there were a number of reasons why the Greeks were defeated, though not necessarily due to the phalanx itself.[/FONT]

[FONT=&]Another possible theory is that of the Carthaginians. While we do know that Hannibal had a mixed army of mercenaries with him when he invaded Italy during the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Punic War, we have no records of what the Carthaginians actually fielded in terms of troops and formations other than scant descriptions of their Celtic, Hispanic mercenaries and Numidian cavalry. Were the Carthaginian troops in fact, using the phalanx to deliver Rome’s greatest defeat at the battle of Cannae? We do know later on in his campaign that after Cannae Hannibal’s troops looted the Roman dead and used their equipment to the point where they became mirror units to the legions they were facing but were Hannibal’s Carthaginian veterans in fact, Hoplites operating in a phalanx? I guess we may never know.[/FONT]


What do you guys/gals think?

Roman Legions.

I don't mean to hijack your thread and I apologise if this is not welcome. Who do you think would have won in a battle between the Roman Legions and the Mongols?

 

[blackjack50]

Roman Legions.

I don't mean to hijack your thread and I apologise if this is not welcome. Who do you think would have won in a battle between the Roman Legions and the Mongols?

The terrain.

That is what would win the battle between those 2. Assuming you had 2 intelligent commanders and rested troops in top form. The Romans would be slaughtered in the open. The Mongols had no chance in uneven or tight ground.

 

[PoS]

Roman Legions.

I don't mean to hijack your thread and I apologise if this is not welcome. Who do you think would have won in a battle between the Roman Legions and the Mongols?

The Mongols- because they were mostly a cavalry army. The Roman legions have always had trouble against cavalry; Hannibal's frequent defeats of the legions happened because he had the Numidians as his allies, when the Numidians turned to the side of Rome he promptly lost. When the Romans fought against the Parthians in Crassus' ill fated attempt to invade them the legions got slaughtered as they ventured out into the desert and the Parthians just circled the legions and fired arrows into them. When the Goths and the Vandals finally succeeded in sacking Rome they were using heavy cavalry which regularly tore through the Roman ranks.

The weakness of the Roman military was their over reliance on the legions, their auxiliary troops like cavalry and archers tended to be poorly trained and led. Towards the end of their empire they even employed barbarians as their cavalry auxiliaries because they were so much better than the equites.

I would think that the Greek phalanx would have scored better against cavalry simply because they had long spears and pikes, on the other hand the phalanx tended to be unwieldy and their flanks and rear were very weak if they fought by themselves- that was why Alexander always had heavy cavalry to guard his flanks, both he and Hannibal always favored combined arms tactics.

 

[HK.227]

For anyone interested, Deadliest Blogger wrote a fairly interesting piece on the subject last year.
The Deadliest Blogger Front Page

 

[longview]

Harry Turtledove has a series of books called the misplaced legion, a good story,
but he goes into a fair amount of detail into Roman tactics and methods.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Now the Romans never really invented anything in terms of war.

Not true at all. ANd the things they invented are very big.

When it comes to formations, their Heavy Infantry is a huge advancement from that of the Greeks.

In the terms of forces, the Greeks were primarily Medium Infantry. Bronze armor and weapons, tight formations with little mobility. Slow communications.

Now the Romans on the other hand were true Heavy Infantry. Iron (or steel) weapons and armor, much more advanced battlefield communications, much higher levels of discipline.

To begin with, the Romans had something the Greeks never had, the Tortuga (or Testudo) formation. Their shields were designed to overlap and create solid walls, allowing them to advance under missile fire with few losses.

This was something the Greeks never developed, and made a huge difference in the Roman ability to advance under fire.

Then you have their mastery of Siege Warfare. Much more then the Greeks, the Romans were master engineers. And the same skills they put into creating the acqueducts and forums and theatres, they also used to create some of the finest siege machines in the world. Rather then just starving a city out, they had the ability to reduce city walls to rubble, or to destroy the city while leaving the walls largely intact.

The OP here is really only hitting on a few items, and not considering the entire capabilities of the Roman military.

 

[PoS]

Not true at all. ANd the things they invented are very big.

When it comes to formations, their Heavy Infantry is a huge advancement from that of the Greeks.

In the terms of forces, the Greeks were primarily Medium Infantry. Bronze armor and weapons, tight formations with little mobility. Slow communications.

Now the Romans on the other hand were true Heavy Infantry. Iron (or steel) weapons and armor, much more advanced battlefield communications, much higher levels of discipline.

To begin with, the Romans had something the Greeks never had, the Tortuga (or Testudo) formation. Their shields were designed to overlap and create solid walls, allowing them to advance under missile fire with few losses.

This was something the Greeks never developed, and made a huge difference in the Roman ability to advance under fire.

Then you have their mastery of Siege Warfare. Much more then the Greeks, the Romans were master engineers. And the same skills they put into creating the acqueducts and forums and theatres, they also used to create some of the finest siege machines in the world. Rather then just starving a city out, they had the ability to reduce city walls to rubble, or to destroy the city while leaving the walls largely intact.

The OP here is really only hitting on a few items, and not considering the entire capabilities of the Roman military.

In regards to the Testudo the Greek phalanxes had a similar formation called the chelone- the Romans also copied a lot of their siege weapons from Hellenistic sources.

And the Romans basically copied the legion fighting style (sword, javelin and manipular formation) from the Samnites.

What enabled Rome to conquer the world was their adaptability, their legions copied what worked and incorporated it into their military.

 

[blackjack50]

In regards to the Testudo the Greek phalanxes had a similar formation called the chelone- the Romans also copied a lot of their siege weapons from Hellenistic sources.

And the Romans basically copied the legion fighting style (sword, javelin and manipular formation) from the Samnites.

What enabled Rome to conquer the world was their adaptability, their legions copied what worked and incorporated it into their military.

That and their dedication I think. Their society was dedicated to the conflict.

 

[Oozlefinch]

In regards to the Testudo the Greek phalanxes had a similar formation called the chelone- the Romans also copied a lot of their siege weapons from Hellenistic sources.

And the Romans basically copied the legion fighting style (sword, javelin and manipular formation) from the Samnites.

What enabled Rome to conquer the world was their adaptability, their legions copied what worked and incorporated it into their military.

"Copied" implies that they simply took it and left it at that. The Romans took things far beyond what any of the nations did before them.

And if you want to take things as simplistically as you are, everybody who made a spear is copying pre-humans because it existed before.

Sorry, for some reason you are really doing nothing but trying to say the Romans did nothing new, and I don't get that.

 

[longview]

I have to say the Roman use of the pilum was kind of unique, in that if fouled the enemy
shields and formations, while not being available to be thrown back.

 

[blackjack50]

Is there anywhere I can look up their tactics? Like known sources on their combat and training techniques. I've never been able to find any good sources on their training and such.

 

[Gathomas88]

It is interesting to note that, while the Hellenic Phalanx did lose out to the Roman Maniple in the Classical Era, it ultimately saw something of a Renaissance in the European Early Modern Era almost one thousand years later. The Spanish Tercio formation, and others like it, were basically a rebirth of the Classical Phalanx, simply blown up to giant proportions, expanded in frontage so that spears were sticking out a 360 degree angle (rather than from the front side alone), and with the shields dropped, but primitive firearms and crossbows added in their place.

To be fair, there were a few attempts to recreate the Roman manipular system as well, and a few troop types with armaments very similar to classical Legionaries were even used in support of Tercio/"Pike and Shot" formations (the 'Coseletes' shown below, for example).

Ultimately, however, these experiments proved to be less than successful. Heavy cavalry and ranged weaponry had simply advanced too much for Roman style tactics to be especially effective anymore.

One Spanish general, IIRC, actually tried to counter-act the deadliness of firearms by giving his troops body sized iron shields to block bullets. The damn things turned out to be too heavy to carry, so the idea had to be abandoned. :lol:

 

[Gathomas88]

It is interesting to note that, while the Hellenic Phalanx did lose out to the Roman Maniple in the Classical Era, it ultimately saw something of a Renaissance in the European Early Modern Era almost one thousand years later. The Spanish Tercio formation, and others like it, were basically a rebirth of the Classical Phalanx, simply blown up to giant proportions, expanded in frontage so that spears were sticking out a 360 degree angle (rather than from the front side alone), and with the shields dropped, but primitive firearms and crossbows added in their place.

View attachment 67185865

To be fair, there were a few attempts to recreate the Roman manipular system as well, and a few troop types with armaments very similar to classical Legionaries were even used in support of Tercio/"Pike and Shot" formations (the 'Coseletes' shown below, for example).

Ultimately, however, these experiments proved to be less than successful. Heavy cavalry and ranged weaponry had simply advanced too much for Roman style tactics to be especially effective anymore.

One Spanish general, IIRC, actually tried to counter-act the deadliness of firearms by giving his troops body sized iron shields to block bullets. The damn things turned out to be too heavy to carry, so the idea had to be abandoned. :lol:

Here's a depiction of a "Pike and Shot" style battle.



It's admittedly a bit lackluster (the real Battle of Rocroi involved well over 40,000 men in total), but it gives you some idea of what things must've been like.

 

[PoS]

"Copied" implies that they simply took it and left it at that. The Romans took things far beyond what any of the nations did before them.

And if you want to take things as simplistically as you are, everybody who made a spear is copying pre-humans because it existed before.

Sorry, for some reason you are really doing nothing but trying to say the Romans did nothing new, and I don't get that.

I think youre too focused on the word "copy" and giving it a negative connotation- I actually admire the Romans for copying and adapting different fighting styles of their enemies and incorporating it into their military- that was one of their strengths. They used the Samnite formation and pilum, took the gladius from either the Celts or Iberians and the shields from the Greeks- they learned from their mistakes and got better.

I have to say the Roman use of the pilum was kind of unique, in that if fouled the enemy
shields and formations, while not being available to be thrown back.

The Romans got that from the Samnites, I was able to talk to the director of the Etruscan Museum in Rome and he gave me a nice short lecture on Roman tactical evolution.

Is there anywhere I can look up their tactics? Like known sources on their combat and training techniques. I've never been able to find any good sources on their training and such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics#Roman_infantry_versus_cavalry

That Wikipedia article is a good start, has some very good summary on what the Roman legions could do.

 

[Oozlefinch]

It is interesting to note that, while the Hellenic Phalanx did lose out to the Roman Maniple in the Classical Era, it ultimately saw something of a Renaissance in the European Early Modern Era almost one thousand years later. The Spanish Tercio formation, and others like it, were basically a rebirth of the Classical Phalanx, simply blown up to giant proportions, expanded in frontage so that spears were sticking out a 360 degree angle (rather than from the front side alone), and with the shields dropped, but primitive firearms and crossbows added in their place.

To be fair, there were a few attempts to recreate the Roman manipular system as well, and a few troop types with armaments very similar to classical Legionaries were even used in support of Tercio/"Pike and Shot" formations (the 'Coseletes' shown below, for example).

Ultimately, however, these experiments proved to be less than successful. Heavy cavalry and ranged weaponry had simply advanced too much for Roman style tactics to be especially effective anymore.

One Spanish general, IIRC, actually tried to counter-act the deadliness of firearms by giving his troops body sized iron shields to block bullets. The damn things turned out to be too heavy to carry, so the idea had to be abandoned. :lol:

Actually, the Pike was both a rediscovery as well as an evolution from the phalanx. And it followed yet another discovery, the stirrup.

During the prime of the Roman Empire, Cavalry was more of an encircling and scouting force, and was not the "shock of impact" force that it became later. That is because the Stirrup did not enter Europe until the 6th to 7th century. It is that invention that allowed the cavalry to become the force it did during the middle ages. Armor got heavier, the back of the saddle got higher, and the spear changed into the lance. It was this change of cavalry to a major assault force that created the recreation of the phalanx as pikemen.

As for as the Romans not needing pike in the same way, once again it goes back to how cavalry in that era was used. Cavalry in that era rarely charged footmen, unless it was to harry retreating forces, generally irregulars and auxiliaries. Trained medium or heavy footmen would retreat in a measured and disciplined way, but irregulars and auxiliaries were not so disciplined, and frequently broke and ran with no discipline at all.

Many things in military history were developed, abandoned, then at a later date rediscovered once again because of other military advances. This ranges from archers and chariots to pikes and body armor. And most times they were rediscovered in a completely different way then they had been before.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Roman Legions.

I don't mean to hijack your thread and I apologise if this is not welcome. Who do you think would have won in a battle between the Roman Legions and the Mongols?

Mongols, any day, every day. The Romans had a very hard time against the horse archers of the Parthians...and the Parthians were but amateurs compared to what the Mongols would one day be.