Greek and Roman military structures

Two countries with a rich historical record, particularly in antiquity, are the Greeks and the Romans. In their never-ending struggle to rule the areas around them, the two nations frequently came into conflict with one another. These two nations are closely related on an economic, political, and social level as well. However, one of the things that will stick in people's minds about the two countries is their military setups. During the ancient times, the two nations had the best military strategies in the world that looked at the best way to plan disposition and movement of forces and at the same time the best way to plan disposition and movement of forces and at the same time the best way to trick the enemy so that they can win. The Greeks had Athenian Phalanx while the Romans had Legion military structures. Both the Romans and Greek warriors will always be remembered for their ability to make strategies, their power and strength. The numerous battles they had between them and between other opposing nations at an ancient time is something that will remain in the history book. However, both Legion and Athenian Phalanx had some similarities and some major differences. This paper will compare and contrast the Athenian Phalanx and Legion by focusing on how the two military structures were organized, who used serve in the army, the ranks that were in each military and how they were established, the weapons they used, strategies they had, how the units worked and finally look at which army was best among the two basing on real battle among them.

Overview of military organization

Greek Athenian Phalanx

The Greek military was one of the most iconic militaries in history mainly because of the skill, professionalism, and bravery of the Greek warriors. The phalanx was a military formation that took the shape of a rectangle and composed mainly of strong infantry that was armed with sarissas, pikes, and spears. The hoplite phalanx of the classical and archaic period in Greece was organized in such a way that the Greek soldiers would make formation and ranks in close order. The soldiers after that would put their shied close together, and the soldiers who are in the first raw or the first ranks would project their weapons (majorly spears) out over the first raw or the first rank of armors. After that, the Phalanx would present a wall made of shields with many spears outwardly facing the enemy. This tactic made it very hard for the enemies to attack them from the frontal area and it allowed a good number of the soldiers to engage in the war (Rosenstein 292).

For phalanxes to work efficiently, the battle had to take place in an open area since hilly regions, or rough terrains would make it difficult to have a steady line and consequently making it hard for phalanxes to work. Most of the battles between the phalanxes use to take place in a chosen piece of land that would give both armies no excuse for defeat.

When approaching the enemy, the phalanx mostly used a walking pace, but as they get closer to the enemy, their speed would increase but not much significantly. The main reason for the slow-moving approach was to make sure that their formation was maintained. In cases where the structure would be lost as they approached the enemy, the plan would be considered a failure. The only reason for the increased speed when they were nearing the enemy is that they wanted to gain momentum from the first collision. The first collision was critical because if the Phalanx could have a significant impact on their enemy, they would spear the first row of the enemy's army killing many of them due to the impact and the force they presented (Koon 170). In the case where two phalanxes are fighting, the battle usually became a pushing battle as the two sides relied on the same tactic.

The Greek also greatly utilized the “pushing” theory where it was noted that the soldiers behind the initial two ranks did not take part in the spear thrusting but rather they were just involved in just pushing. The success of phalanxes depended majorly on how many numbers they had and the strength to push and later attack. When one side of the phalanx realized that it was being pushed significantly and cannot hold the strength of the other phalanx, they used to flee for safety.

Roman legion

The Romans, on the other hand, had a different military structure with a different organization than that of the Greeks. Their military structure was known as Roman legion and was the largest Roman army that composed of over 5200 men during the imperial times and over 3000 men during the early times. The Roman legion had the centuries as their basic units (Rosenstein 301). By the first century, the Roman legion was composed of about 5000 men (10 cohorts) which were later reduced to nine cohorts with six centuries with 80 men each.

Romans are among the most remembered ancient nations together with Greece, but what incredible about them is that they grew from a village in Italy and became Empire that could compete and defeat all its neighbors. The main reason for this was their military. The Roman legion happened severally throughout the Roman history, and it can be divided into three parts. The first and the second Roman legion, the Pre-Marian legion and lastly the Marin reforms.

The first Legion was initiated by Romulus, the individual who founded Rome. The first Legion had about 3300 men in which there were 300 cavalry and 3000 infantrymen all from the initial tribes in Rome. The Pre-Marian Legion composed of support troops known as Maniple (Crowley 210). This maniple was meant to approach and transverse the rough terrain near Rome with ease. It was laid out in a checkerboard formation. The Marian reforms are what changed the Roman army entirely and what we know from it today. Marian made the Roman military stand out to become an unbreakable force and fully regains the Legion status that conquered many nations around Rome.

Unlike the phalanx of the Greek that was constant throughout their history, the Roman legions were not permanent since they were disbanded and created again hence in the Roman history there are many numbered and named Legions account to about 50 of them (Dando-Collins & Stephen 108). During 107 BC at any particular time, about four consular regions would be present and divided between the two reigning consuls, but when the war broke, more Legions were released. The Republican Legions, however, were composed of imposed men that did everything for themselves including paying for the fighting equipment and hence the Roman army structure was a mirror of the society.

During the 2nd century BC, to get into the Roman army one had to have particular financial qualifications and possess some property and this made Rome have manpower shortages compromising their security. To counter this threat, the consul Gaius Marius made some changes to the military structure by dictating that all property and financial qualification had been lifted. This meant that any citizen regardless of their eligibility was eligible to join the Roman military and this time they would be provided with proper equipment and rewarded handsomely for their services. Consequently, the Roman army became a standing, professional and volunteer army.

The army structure also gave services to the non-Roman citizens and allowed them to join the army as Auxiliaries (auxiliary) so long as they pledged loyalty to the Roman government. The auxiliaries were also rewarded Roman citizenship and given all privileges and rights that came with being a Roman citizen so long as they performed by the dictates of the Roman military. In the entire Roman history, the time of Augustus recorded the highest number of Legions with 50 successions (Echeverría 240)

A Roman Legion much like the Greek Phalanx composed of some cohorts with strong infantry but the Roman Legion was referred to as Legionaries. The legionaries were at all times in the company of two or more divisions of auxiliaries (the non-Roman citizens) who provided Skirmishers, ranged troops and cavalry in the aim of complementing the Roman Legions' strong infantry. The importance of the Auxiliaries to the Roman military can be seen by the way the military system used to recruit them especially during the time of great need. For instance, Legio V Alaudae recruited by Caesar was composed majorly of the non-citizens that are the Auxiliaries.

The size of Roman Legion was never constant and depending on the history and the kind of challenges the Romans faced; they were different numbers. At most historical times, about 300 equities came from the financially stable classes and used to resource the equipment that they needed. The 300 equities worked together with 4200 legionaries in Rome during the Republican period, and they had about ten cohorts. The military could also reach up to 5200 men with a complement of 120 Auxiliaries especially during the imperial period. Additionally, during the imperial time, there were about ten cohorts where the first cohort unlike the Greek phalanx composed of 800 men and the other nine cohorts having about 480 men each (Rosenstein 289).

Weapons

Greek’s Phalanx was so dense that it required them to use special tactics when on the battlefield. One special tactic and lethal weapon the Greeks Phalanx possessed is referred to as “the push of shields” that is “the othismos” (Morillo 95). This tactic involved the soldiers continuously pushing the strong shields they had on the backs of the cohorts or the soldiers in front of them consequently making the Phalanx much stronger and unbreakable. This was one of the most used weapons by the Greeks, and they mainly used it to push their enemies backward to regain control. These tactics sometimes did not always work as it sometimes exposed the soldiers since their shields were in other uses. Additionally, the Greek Phalanxes used spears and pikes when the enemy became stronger. The Greeks were always making walls with their shield and formation constantly keeping the enemy at a distance, but the tactics did not always work as sometimes the enemy would be stronger or use better tactics.

On the other hand, the Roman Legions preferred to have light chain armor so that they could move with ease and quickly. They, however, had remarkably large shields to bar any weapon that was directed at them especially the incoming spears or pikes. The Roman Legion also preferred to have short swords that could easily swing. Majority of the soldiers were a specialist at using the swords as compared to other groups such as the Greeks' Phalanxes. They had invented greatly on swords, and their swords were significantly advanced as of those ancient times (Luttwak 201). Additionally, the Roman Legions used javelins on several occasions especially as they were approaching the enemy. Their javelins were long and easy to through and could cause immediate death if they landed on the enemy. The Romans weapons allowed them to have a better defense advantage when dealing with a short-range threat as compared to the Greeks’ Phalanxes.

Military training and ranks

The early Greek did not have a full time or standing armies. Instead, their military composed of citizens who were called to serve when the battle came. Just like in the Roman Legion, the Greek military was required to avail their armor and weapons and also they had to provide food that they will use battlefield. Since the Greek soldiers did not have everyday training, they were not as professional as a military is required. They also lacked proper training or skills that are required of a solider. However, they believed in their unity and formation that worked for them in great ways. The Greeks also had gymnasia which were schools developed to train teenagers and young boys on how to become skilled and good citizen soldiers (Koon 161). The schools were located in the major town Athens, and only boys used to train. After the training, the young boy would then be posted and given a military duty and rank depending on the skills, they possessed. Any adult up to the age of 60 could be called up to the military when the need arises. Greek's Phalanx believed in training young people, for instance, young Spartan boys at only the age of seven were taken for military training but were allowed to see their families occasionally. The Greeks also had a naval warfare, but it only began at 650 BCE before this they used to carry their troops using ships when going to battles. They had special warship known as triremes that were powered by a long bow and three tiers and had a pointed ram located at the water line (Echeverría 231). The main purpose of the ram was to disable or sink the ships from the approaching enemy.

On the other hand, the Romans and their Legion had a well laid out system of officers that were mainly developed the reforms done by Marian in 104 BC. Ranking in the Legion was divided into lower ranks, centurions, and senior officers. The senior officers composed of imperial legate that is a commander of more than two legions, He was also the governor of the designated province, Legion Legate who was designated one Legion and was the overall leader, Broad Band Tribune which was a tribune selected by the Senate or the emperor for a particular legion, Camp Prefect who majorly commanded a cohort of auxiliaries and Narrow Band Tribunes who were somewhat the administrative officers (Balot 15).

The centurion rank included several ranks with the most senior referred to as spear or Primus pilus and was responsible for leading the first cohort more specifically the first century. Another centurion was Pilus prior who lead the ten first centuries, and lastly, there were Primi ordines, which was senior to all other centurions (Dando-Collins & Stephen 112). At the lower ranks duties, there were the Optio who were appointed by centurions and can be compared to today’s Lieutenant or First Sergent. Second lower rank officers were the Tesserarius who lead each century. Lastly, there were the Decurio and the Decanus who used to command a cavalry.

Major similarities between the Athenian Phalanx and Roman Legion

Both the Roman Legion and Athenian Phalanx have some notable similarities that stand out. Both the Roman Legion and Athenian Phalanx had the ever-recorded military systems during the ancient time. The military was disciplined and determined to achieve whatever either side demanded from them. Both of the military structures had outstanding warriors. The Athenian Phalanx are known to have capable, powerful, skillful warriors who would do anything for the success of the group the same case with the Roman military that was also known to have one of the bravest warriors of the time.

Both the Greek and Roman military had heavy infantry. Before any battle, both groups organized prepared heavy infantry that helped them since they used to send a massive number of troops at one particular time. Another similarity between these two groups is that they both had a remarkable self-esteem that use to motivate them every time they were going to war. The Athenian Phalanx called themselves the ultimate hoplite warriors mainly basing on the amazing things they had accomplished. While on the other hand, the Romans called themselves the gods of war based on the numerous battle they won.

Differences between the Athenian Phalanx and Roman Legion

As much as the Greek and Roman military structures had many similarities, there were some major and notable differences. The Romans were known to be tactical, organized, and spent significant time preparing for the war ahead of them. On the other hand, the Greeks were not a complex army and majorly fought for individual glory, not for the team they were representing.

Who would win a battle between the Roman Legion and the Greek Phalanx?

Both Greek and Roman military structures were great, and it can get very hard to determine who would win a battle between them or in other words, which military structure was best. To determine which group was best, it is important to consider some real-life historical moments. The Greeks won the battle of Heraclea lead by Alexander the Great who invented the formation of Phalanx, but history points out that the reason the Romans lost this battle is that some elephants got involved and the Legion did not know how to fight them. At the end of the second Punic war, the Roman had won the Battle of Zama and Battle of Pydna majorly taking advantage of the rough terrain that the Greeks were not used to (Crowley 200). The Romans also won the Mithridatic war majorly because they had more experienced and professional army as compared to Greeks who moved in a dense mass of individuals. Looking at these real historical aspects, the Roman Legion was indeed superior to Greek Phalanx majorly because the Greek army only worked well at specific places. For example at the land which is plain but when it comes to rough terrain, they will lose due to their formation. However, this does not mean that they were not a strong force during the ancient times.

Conclusion

The Phalanx of the Greek and the Legion of the Rome can be compared and contrasted in many ways. One thing that stands out is that both military structures were incredibly outstanding. In fact, it was the beginning of today’s military formation that we have. The Greeks and the Romans through their Military structures were able to take over and colonize many neighboring nations and creating an unforgettable legacy. Both military structures used war tactics that enabled them to force their enemies to surrender. For any historian who wants to understand why the Greeks and the Romans were so famous and are still famous, they need to understand the military structures that enabled these nations to become such great nations.













Works cited

Balot, Ryan K., ed. A companion to Greek and Roman political thought. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Crowley, Jason. The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite: The Culture of Combat in Classical Athens. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Dando-Collins, Stephen. Legions of Rome: The definitive history of every Roman legion. Hachette UK, 2012.

Echeverría, Fernando. "Hoplite and phalanx in Archaic and Classical Greece: A reassessment." Classical Philology 107.4 (2012): 291-318.

Koon, Sam. "Phalanx and Legion. The „Face “ofPunic War Battle." A companion to the Punic Wars (2011).

Luttwak, Edward N. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third. JHU Press, 2016.

Morillo, Stephen. What is military history?. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Rosenstein, Nathan. "Phalanges in Rome?." New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. Brill, 2010. 289-304.