Spears units were found in many, many ancient armies from the ancient Sumerians and Egyptian weaponsto the military of ancient India and Japan, and indeed around the world. The infantry carried longer spears feetand had smaller shields than their Greek counterparts.
Philip V marshalled only half his men and attacked the Roman left, while the Roman right, drove back the yet to be marshalled Macedonian left. With their cavalry and skirmishers committed, the Macedonians took the upper hand and attacked.
The last legion usually provided the rear force, although several recently raised units might occupy this final echelon.
The Swiss first used the halberd in the 14th century but—outreached by Austrian cavalry armed with lances—the Swiss gradually adopted pikes in the later 15th century. On their front were posted Gaulish Roman legion and greek phalanx and Cyrtians from the auxiliary troops brought by Eumenes; Thessalian cavalry were drawn up a short distance beyond the Roman left.
For information on the Maniple or Polybian Legion, you can see my other blog post on the same. Light skirmish troops and heavy cavalry are two good examples. Once the Spartan right had been routed by the Theban left, the remainder of the Spartan line also broke.
The Macedonian phalanx took the concept of cohesive group warfare to another level with the sarissa armed phalangites and under Philip and Alexander, steamrolled every opponent in front of them.
Before the battle of the Caudine Forkswhere the clumsiness of the Roman phalanx was displayed by the Samnites, the Romans had originally employed the phalanx themselves,  but gradually evolved more flexible tactics resulting in the three-line Roman legion of the middle period of the Roman Republic.
As he approached the coast of Asia Minor, tradition claims that he threw his spear from his ship which stuck to the ground and when picking it up, proclaimed the entire land of Asia to be won by the might of the Macedonian spear. Ancient Egyptian infantry were known to have employed similar formations.
For instance, if Othismos were to accurately describe a physical pushing match, it would be logical to state that the deeper phalanx would always win an engagement since the physical strength of individuals would not compensate for even one additional rank on the enemy side. The Romans concentrated on ranged weapons and cavalry at the expense of the heavy infantry.
The whole of the army, both Macedonians and auxiliaries, were assembled there. The phalanx was much more rigid, but overwhelmingly powerful in a frontal assault.
With these they dug trenches, built walls and palisades and constructed assault roads. Both have similar traits to the other variants, and could give us a more general idea of how the other systems would fare against each other.
To make matters worse, they were at a serious disadvantage from the ground, for in following their repulsed enemy down the hill they had left the height for the enemy to make use of in his enveloping movement. The Thessalian cavalry had been in reserve, a little distance from the extreme left, outside the fighting and simply watching it, but when the day began to go against them they were of the greatest use.
Their wooden swords and pila were designed to be twice as heavy as their metal counterparts so that the soldiers could wield a true gladius with ease. Typically a strong vanguard preceded the main body, and included scouts, cavalry and light troops.
Despite its mobility, protective curve, and double straps the circular shape created gaps in the shield wall at both its top and bottom. This battle shows the ingenuity and freedoms allowed to Roman officers to enable them to make a battlefield decision that profoundly influenced the outcome.
An accidental circumstance also helped to confirm their courage: The trumpet then sounded again with the signal for "stand by to march". The prodding could also open up a man to allow a comrade to spear him.“The Roman Army was not only the greatest military machine in the Western world for at least 4 centuries, the Roman Army was the foundation of the Western military tradition.
Roman infantry tactics refers to the theoretical and historical deployment, formation, and maneuvers of the Roman infantry from the start of the Roman Republic to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
The article first presents a short overview of Roman training. WAB Macedonian Phalanx vs. Roman Legion. by Jeff Jonas. Peter Connolly captures the action as the phalanx pins and pushes back the Romans on the level ground.
The Battle between the Ram and the he-Goat. Daniel's Vision of the Ram and the Goat. A Prophetic Study in the Globalist Final Battle for World Domination. The Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion were two of the most revolutionary war tactics created in the ancient warfare era.
The Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion both brought new and more efficient ways of defeating ones enemy by incorporating genius tactical formations.
The Roman legions utilized a more flexible battlefield strategy, with smaller units able to move independently. In contrast, a phalanx only really works when the entire army is in one cohesive formation.Download