phalanx vs. legion

From: Steve Lieb <steve_at_...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:37:39 -0500

> Various
> > > > Yes, the roman legionaire shield & gladius was a nasty
> combination in a
> > > > shieldwall. A real macedonian phalanx would eat them for
> breakfast tho,
> > >
> > > Well, not at, say, Kynoskephalai 197 B.C or Pydna 168 B.C,

> > All the mentions I've seen of battles between romans and macedonians
> > seem to tell that the romans had no luck breaking the phalanxes
> unless
> > they managed to lure them into forests, or other unfavorable
> terrain.
> >
>

I'll be happy to discuss this off list with anyone (we're wandering OT here) but the classical Macedonian Phalanx had really no chance against the typical Legion formation, mainly for reasons of tactical flexibility, combined arms, and mobility - either the pre- or post-Marian Legion, IMO. Note that most of the fighting against phalanx-style armies was with pre-Marian troops (using the smaller maniple rather than the cohort) as the basic tactical elemnt, suggesting that mobility/flexibility were the key to defeating phalanx armies, which seems logical when you think that any cavalry support would have been stirrupless.