Re: phalanx vs. legion

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:21:37 +0300 (EET DST)

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Steve Lieb wrote:

> 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.

The romans won with combined arms, and often superior manpower. I don't think the roman cohorts and maniples could really stand up to the macedonian phalanx in a classic stand up fight (that is, relying on heavy infantry)


PS. I don't know if this is the right list, but there's definite Gloranthan questions hidden there. The macedonian sarissa phalanxes are obviously the famous Yelmalian Templar phalanxes (only troop that get's the defensive bonus in "Dragon Pass"). I wish I knew more about persian warfare for inspiration on the empire.

Powered by hypermail