Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The Legion is not even vaguely similar to the phalanx in concept. The Legion is a military unit, such as a company or brigade, while a phalanx was the style of fighting, like Karate and line infantry tactic.
Both Roman and Greek armies HEAVILY employed ranged skirmishers, in the form of velites, and later, auxilary slingers, archers, and javelinmen within the Roman forces. Even the primary infantry force, the Legionarii, held with him 2 throwing spears and a slingshot. And the Greeks are just as famed for their Cretan archers as they are for their phalanxes.
Notice how you only picked the two major forces in Antiquity to focus on heavy infantry to argue that archery is somehow not that effective. The Romans would fight and constantly struggle against Parthia, and later on the Sassanids, as they employed heavy horse archers and cataphracts, which would simply run away from the Roman legionarii if they decided a battle would not be in their favour.