Military History: Which was stronger: Roman Legion or Macedonian Phalanx?

Answer 1

The Legion was capable of manuever and handled broken terrain better than the Phalanx.

Since shock action was the deciding factor in those days, being able to get around a flank or take your opponent while they are in disarray or still getting set up usually decided the battle.

Once better missile weapons became available with the advent of gunpowder, the Phalanx came back into fashion in the form of the Spanish Tercio....with a mix of pikemen and musketmen to dominate European battlefields until manuever warfare and artillery came to maturity....and once again the slow moving Phalanx got hammered into the ground.

Answer 2

The Phalanx was the strongest man to man fighting formation ever devised, and was virtually unbeatable. The advent of weaponry caused the Phalanx to become obsolete. Packed like sardines side to side, a Phalanx would be devastated by catapults flinging flaming tar balls, rocks that would mow through the ranks like a bowling ball through pins, and giant arrows that were fired by giant crossbows, or sarissa, as they were called. These Roman weapons doomed the Phalanx to history. On the other hand, a Roman Legion was made to take advantage of the problems that these weapons caused. Legions were trained to attack as a unit, and fight individually once engaged with the enemy. Essentially, the formidable Roman weapons would cause gaps in the enemy line, the legions would swoop in en-mass and obliterate whoever was in their way. It was almost like a modern day Blitzkrieg, and because these two forces were separated by history, they cannot be compared except to say that, if a Roman Legion met a Macedonian Phalanx during the height of Macedonia, the Legionnaires would have been slaughtered. Had a Phalanx marched onto a Roman Legion battlefield, complete with more modern Roman weapons, the Phalanx would have been slaughtered. Each in their own time, they could not have been beaten. And that's the best one can say about one being better than the other.

Answer 3

I think I'd have to agree that the Roman Legion was a more effective fighting unit than the Macedonian Phalanx.

I believe that when the two units finally clashed, the Roman Legionaires broke ranks, and closed with the Macedonians, and got inside the reach of their pikes. It was a slaughter.

The major weaknesses of the phalanx were the fact that it was rather cumbrous to maneuver, especially over broken terrain, it was not flexible enough to counter light infantry tactics, and the phalanx was totally incapable of defending itself from a flank attack. Alexander the Great proved that himself at the Battle of Chaeronea, where the Theban Scared Band was slaughtered to a man by attacks on flank and rear.

Doc

Answer 4

A Roman Legion was the first true professional army. Unlike the Spartans who were trained to be ruthless and powerful warriors, the Roman armies were structured to the finest details. They incorporated the newest technologies and many different auxiliary troops. Their major strength was in their training and flexibility of formations. A legion did not have to take on one form to be powerful it could mold its shape, and through their training each unit which was broken down much like todays military into sub units which could move independently upon orders.
A Macedonian Phalanx was more powerful in a one on one scenario of equal numbers set in a small arena. A Phalanx by definition is just a massing of men in a long line who are usually armed with spears. The Macedonian spears were much longer then average Greek spears to their time, and known as a Sarisa. However, just as Phalanx's fought throughout Greek history, the formation made it strong, each man protected his left with his shield and used the shield of the man to his right to protect his own right. Unable to maneuver easily all phalanx's clumsily moved forward. The Macedonian under Philip II and Later his son Alexander utilized their powerful cavalry to destroy the strong point of their enemy and the phalanx was used as a shield to hold the enemy at bay while the cavalry won the day. Similar to Hannibals use of his infantry at the battle of Cannae.
My argument/answer would be that the Macedonian Phalanx was More powerful then a Roman Legion, but in a battle and especially in a war, the Roman Legion would be victorious.

Answer 5

The Roman Legion was stronger. The Legions could fight in many different formations (square, mandible (sp?) echelon, wedge, etc) and could effectively switch formations in the middle of battle. While being extremely large, the Legions were nimble and responsive in battle. They carried siege type weapons that could be employed with the troops in the field. Off the battle field, Legions knew how to build fortifications and roads.

The Phalanx, while powerful in formation was vulnerable. If the formation broke, the soldiers would be destroyed. The Macedonians had to be very careful about the terrain that they fought on, flanking maneuvers, etc. They also could not respond quickly to changing tactical situations.

Answer 6

The Roman legion was more flexible. At the battle of Cynoscephalae in (I think) 195 BC it proved more than a match for the phalanx. Nevertheless, Alexander the Great had handled the phalanx much more creatively.

Answer 7

Phalanx is a small fighting force while a Legion was essentially an army unto itself.

sounds like Legion was stronger

Answer 8

Roman legion. They were better at close quarters, and once the phalanx's formation was broken they became too vulnerable.

Answer 9

Roman