Which is the best between legion and phalanx

1500 years later the Spanish would return to the Roman legionaire to defeat

the Swiss pike blocks which were very similar to Macedonian phalanx.  The

Spanish used what were call "sword and buckler men"  equipped with a

sword, steel body armour similar to that worn by the legionaire and a small

round steel shield (buckler) .  TheS&B men would literally dove under the

leveled pikes and slash at the pikemen to create gaps.  The swordsman

knowm as rodelaros played an important part in the conquest of Mexico

by Cortes.  Swordsman composed about 20 % of the Spanish formations

or colannas of about 1000-1500 men from the end of the 15th to the mid 16th

cent when it was replaced by the tercio .  The tercio was 3 x the colanna (4000

4500 men) and composed of equal parts musket and pikemen.   

True.  It is interesting to note that later on, people using the Macedonian phalanx began to armor their phalangites much as the hoplites had been armed(save for that they kept and lengthened the sarissa), and thusy, they took away the greatest arm of the Macedonian phalanx.

The majority of the time, the engagements between the two were mainly just pushing contest.

Actually, phalanx means more "file" or "rank", depending of what way you use it. That is my understanding of the term. Yiannis, you are a native Greek speaker, yes?

As for Hoplites vs Mac phalanx, I think the longest reach of the sarissaes (up to 6 meters) would give them a decisive advantage over the hoplite phalanx. After Philipos and Alexander all Greeks adopted the Mac phalanx, anyway.

 So regarding to the thread already posted, we all have lot to say about Legion against Macedonian phalanx.

 What about Macedonians versus Hoplites.  There're lot of documents, share your view.

I also believe that the Roman army has proven superior that GrecoMacedonian phalanxes.

But it was also ecually vounerable in flank attacks. Hanibal destroyed the Romans at Cannae by flanking them.

Maceconian phalanx was primarilly defensive. Greek phalanx was both (it had to be since the Greeks had very limited cavalry) and Roman was primarily offensive assisted by its flexibility.

The manipular legion was extremely strong, but it has showed a clear weakness in rugged and unfriendly terrain (Varus's expedition into Teutonburg comes in mind) and against a combined light-heavy cavalry force (the most prominent example being the annihilation of Crasus's legions).

OTOH, the manipular legion never met any of the phalanxes, nor the Macedonian or the hoplite phalanx. So, we can only speculate (and I hate this, anyway).

But for arguments sake, a few thoughts: The Macedonian phalanx as conceived by Philip and led to perfection by Alexandros, was a combined arms system (equal proportions of light, heavy and missile infantry, light, heavy and missile cavalry). For it to show it's strength, it needed very good leadership, because the coordination of the various elements and the perfect timing of the decisive moves (for instance the companion cavalry charges, who usually defined the outcome of the battle) where extremely difficult tasks.

But if led by a superior military mind, and provided ample high-quality troops were available (especially high quality heavy cavalry, the "hammer" of the Macedonian phalanx) the Macedonian phalanx was unstoppable by any type of troops fielded until the late middle ages I believe, with the possible exception of massed steppe horse archers.

The manipular legion didn't require so high standards of generalship, was baised upon training and discipline (so high quality troops were always available) and on battlefield was equally effective in rugh and flat terrain.

The Macedonian phalanx devolved during time and the one the Romans faced was nothing like Philip or Alexandros had - it was just pikemen (phalangites) with a little medium cavalry support and mediocre (at best) leadership.