The Greek’s Phalanx and the Roman’s Legion were both very powerful battle tactics. They were both recognized as one the most powerful battle tactics ever. In fact, it has been debated which tactic is better. The Greek’s Phalanx was powerful on flat land, but much less handy on rough terrain. The Roman’s Legion was a powerful 5,000 man army that would charge the enemy. But whose tactic was better? The Greek Phalanx was a powerful 8 man deep “army.” A Greek Phalanx was very powerful on flat terrain, and very useful against spears and or arrows. A Greek Phalanx was almost useless on rocky terrain, and very exposed to large attacks (Like a Legion), but is able to defend and attack at the same time. The men in the Phalanx can put up their shields and make a shield, or they were able to put their spear heads forward, and defend against oncoming attackers. All together a Greek Phalanx was very useful for fighting/defending against …show more content…
It was made up of 10 cohorts (About 480-500 men each), which there were 4 cohorts in the front lines and the rest in the second and third lines. The Roman Legion was a powerful tactic, as for it destroyed almost every Phalanx tactic known, and it was very good at attack and defense within the Legion(s). The Legion consisted of enough men that it could be helpful on both flat and rocky terrain. It is very open to arrows and flammable items, but defended almost everything else. The Roman Legion was very powerful, but was defenseless to big attacks, such as a war elephant or catapults. The Greek Phalanx was powerful on flat terrain, and better at defense than offense, whilst the Roman Legion was good at rocky and flat terrain, and better at offense. The Roman Legion has beaten (not necessarily the Greek Phalanx) Phalanxes before, and the Phalanxes have beaten a Legion before. They are both better than each other in their own tactical ways, but one is obviously better than the