Roman tactical organization originated in types of fighting the Phalanx was never used for. In simplistic terms the Greeks & others used a lighter armed soldier for fighting in terrain the phalanx was unsuitable for. Auxillarys covering the flanks of the phalanx are one example. They had to be lighter when the phalanx flanks were anchored on hills, swamps, woods ect... The light formations were also used for the small prelimnary battles, or the 'mop up' campaign after the main battle. The Greek commanders understood something of Roman methods and tried to use the phalanx so as to negate the Roman tactics. This was no different than the same effort of the Roman commanders, or any other leader. Some are always more sucessfull than others in this. Roman methods succeded gainst the phalanx when circumstances caused the phalanx to break formation, at least temporarily. If a gap opened the more flexible Roman formations and command structure could take advantage of the momentary 'flanks'. Looking back over my lecture notes it appears the 'maniple' (finger) was the primary formation of that era. The legions were usually divided in to five of these. If I'm reading this correctly the cohort did not become a true battle unit untill after the Greeks were conquored. As you say the Romans also were able to man & field armys more efffciently than the Greeks.

IIRC, the Macedonians used their massed pike infantry formation on the Romans at the battle of Pidna in 168 BC. The Roman soldiers at first were forced backwards but they rapidly improvised by retreating to uneven ground and organized successful counter attacks into the gaps in the Macedonian formation caused by the unevenness. Pidna was essentially the end of The kingdom of Macedonia.

Actually, the earliest known Roman military used phalanxes. The legions were invented and perfected over a considerable time, although they were present by the middle era of the Republic. Phalanxes were composed of heavy spearmen; in the later days, pikemen. They were very heavy shock formations, but they were never very manueverable. Basically, they were good at moving forward and that's it. They had severe trouble changing direction. They couldn't do so quickly, and they tended to fall apart if they tried. Or, if enemy formations appeared at their sides, or, especially,at their rears. They began as formations used by citizen-militaries. That is, by organizations which did not train full time. In some later cases, they were used by professional armies. Paradigmatically, by the Macedonians. But, they were never as flexible as phalanxes. Legions were more like medium infantry. Lighter than phalanxes in several senses. They tended, all things equal, to carry somewhat lighter armor. Their hand weapons were not nearly as long or heavy. But, they were far more flexible; more manueverable. They could operate on notably more rugged ground than phalanxes. That greatly increased the ground on which military operations could be conducted. When a phalanx hit rugged ground, it disintegrated. That meant phalanxes were more restricted in the ground they could traverse. Legionaries carried throwing spears. It was standard. That gave legions standoff weapons on an organic basis. Phalanxes needed auxilliary formations to achieve a comparable capability. When legions faced phalanxes, they had several advantages. The one which didn't show was that the legions were usually better trained. In addition, the legion had their stand off javelins, so they could begin the engagment with a heavy barrage outside the range of the phalanx's spears. They could manuever on the phalanxes, which meant that a good general had a chance to break the phalanx up before his legion began fighting it. And, even coming straight at a phalanx, a barrage of pila to encumber the phalanxes shield, ducking under the long, heavy spears, and the legionaries were at the hoplites throats, inside their weapons' reach, with the hoplites encumbered with each others' weapons.

That matches what I've been told in school. From my lecture notes: The Manipular Legion (Maniple approx 2000 men or 20% of a legion) was developed for battle in the hilly terrain of Italy. Often it was impossible to mass the entire legion/phalanx on the open ground available, so commanders found that allowing independant sub units the legion could effectively manuver around bits of terrain that would disrupt a single mass. This was a refinement of how phalanx commanders sometimes used their light auxillarys on the flanks. If I'm reading the dates correctly the manipular Legion had developed either just before or during the early days of the Roman Republic. Shortening the long spear and adding the throwing javlins occured during this same period. Also note that the Roman soldiers begain carrying several javlins. Several light throwing spears, and a short heavier model for charging with. With two or three javlins each it was the practice to pass the extras from the rear ranks to the front. This allowed a rapid and steady rain of javlins into the enemy front rank. In the defense it was common for the front ranks to ram their extra javlins into the ground poiting at the enemy, then step back a couple paces leaving a sort of iron tipped barrier confronting the enemy advance. If the Legion was well prepared extra wood stakes would be cut for this purpose as well. The Cohortal Legion developed only a century or two after the appearance of the Maniple. The cohort gave the maniple commander the same advantage the maniple gave the legion commander. This change occured before the end of the Punic wars. Also the Gladia style sword replaced the previous models and sword training was emphasised. As CJH wrote the tactics were to throw the javlins. Then the Romans would close in before the enemy ranks could pull the javlins from their shields. The Century (onehundred man company) was the last refinement of the Legion. It emerged in the late Republican era. The Century was both usefull for additional battlefield flexibility, and for policing bandits, pirates, or counter insurrgency. One major item not yet mentioned was the artillery. The Romans learned something of catapults from the Greeks and refined those leassons. Every Legion was accompanied by a artillery group of mobile catapults for field battles.

I think a better comparison would be the Roman legion against the armies of Phillip or Alexander. They were anchored by the phalanx, but they integrated light infantry and cavalry into a cohesive and flexible whole. It was a well balanced force. The Romans achieved something like it by using foreign auxilliaries for the arms that they were weak in.

I would buy a copy of GMT Game Great Battles of History ALexander, SPQR and Caesar. These are designed by hall of famers Mark Herman and Richard Berg, and dissect in excellent detail (with wonderfully pithy commentary and research), the strengths and weaknessed of both systems. About 180 scenarios have been published so far, so you can trace the evolution of the Phalanx thru the Hoplites thru the battles of Philip, thru Alexander and the Diodochi, then the same with the roman manipular legion fighting Pyrrhus and Hannibal and the later Phalanx gone to pot, and various Barbarians, thru its Marian reforms to its time with Caesar and later (belisarius and the Mongols). Definitely the Great Battles of History! here's the link: swhitebull

Typical Greek armies always had light infantry attached. Not integrated into hoplite formations, but used, generally, as skirmishers. Certain areas appeared to specialize in certain weapons. Crete produced sling men for centuries. Cavalry was unusual in Greek fighting before the era of Macedonian ascendancy. The area we now think of as "Greece" was exceptionally poor land, and horses were so expensive to keep and so unusual that the Greek root for the word horse is actually used in Greek names and generally understood as denoting a wealthy or aristocratic background in ancient times. What the Macedonians perfected was the combination of extra-heavy phalanxes with cavalry. In this they stood apart. Their use of light skirmisher was, as mentioned, typical. Indeed, the Romans did the same thing. But, neither considered these light troops however armed - slings, javelins or bows - as primary fighting elements. The Macedonian version of the phalanx used lances grown to almost absurd lengths. 12 feet and more. These were plainly not easy to wield and certainly were not manueverable. What the Phillip and Alexander did was to creat a really heavy based of operations; sort of mobile forts, which could serve as anvils to their cavalry's hammers. Phalanxes had mobility problems even in their lighter, Greek forms. The Macedonian versions benefited from being professional rather than militia, but given their weapons, they couldn't have been very manueverable. The cavalry was the manuever element. Get the infantry onto favorable ground, point it at the enemy, and use the cavalry to either force the other side to turn, in which case the phalanx could move forward, or hit the enemy from the side or rear, with the infantry following up when the enemy was confused. Or, sit the phalanx in one spot and let usually lighter armed enemies try to penetrate arguably the heaviest infantry formation every. But, this organization wasn't optimized for fighting legions. It was great against the sort of Near Eastern militaries the Greeks already dominated in the preceding years. Less well trained enemies were dogmeat. Lighter armed enemies, ditto. Against legions, however, the mobility issues as well as the general unwieldiness of the Macedonian lance were exposed. Getting an eight or nine foot spear to follow an agile legionary as he tried to close was already difficult. It worked best when the phalanx could put several ranks of spears on each forward rank. Working with significantly longer Macedonian lances was worse. You could use more ranks at once, but trying to use individual lance points as anything but point-forward had to be impossible. I recall a summary of the meeting of the Macedonian armies and the Roman armies as "Duck under the lance points and Rome conquered the Greek world". The Macedonian cavalry was good, but limited. They were basically light lancers or swordmen, which was not an optimal configuration. They didn't have stirrups, which meant that they couldn't couch their lances, so they couldn't work as heavy cavalry. And, they never had any great numbers of horse archers, so they needed to close with their opponents to fight them. The nasty secret of fighting cavalry was that if you had long weapons and the discipline to hold your formation under charge, you could generally win easily. Horses don't like to run into ranks of pointy metal. They like running into showers of javelins still less. A heavy lancer, whose weapon could reach past a medium length pilum had a chance to do damage. So did a horse archer. A medium cavalry man, who had to get close enough to stab with a spear or, worse, a sword, would have serious trouble charging the front of an intact formation. And, unlike a phalanx, a legion had considerable ability to turn while maintaining it's unit cohesion.

The specifics of legionary organization, and of the weaponry carried varied, considerably over the centuries between their first appearance and the late Empire. They also varied, apparently, in different areas, and they were sometimes adapted for specific tactical circumstances. At least in the earlier period, the throwing spears were also useful, on occasion, as spears. At some times, there were distinct weapons, some lighter javelins, some heavier. The earlier swords were adapted from the typical Greek style of sword. Fairly long and heavy. ("Spatha", IIRC.) The spanish style gladius came late in the Republic. It was a style better suited for fighting in a coherent legionary formation, since it's considerably shorter reach made it easier to use when their was a man to either side. One of the problems the Germans and Celtic infantry often had meeting legions was that their long swords tended to be impossible to swing in melees. Men would press in too closely for long edged weapons to swing side to side. The pattern of use of gladius was stabbing. Out and back, a style suited for work in close quarters. IIRC, some contemporary descriptions of legions in action spoke of them as giant stabbing machines.

"some contemporary descriptions of legions in action spoke of them as giant stabbing machines." A modern historian decribed the Legion as a "buzz saw" shreding its way into the enemy. "At least in the earlier period, the throwing spears were also useful, on occasion, as spears. At some times, there were distinct weapons, some lighter javelins, some heavier." Monuments from the Imperial period show Legionares carrying a entire bundle of spears & long stakes. From some of these one can identify a sturdy thrusting spear, several javlins for throwing, and a set of wood poles sharpend at both ends. The latter were used to create defense barriers around overnight camps, or on the battlefield.

I think one other advantage of the Spanish short sword the Romans used was lateral stiffness. I have read that the Gauls would attack in a great rush and shout on the Roman front rank. The Romans would be almost unnerved by this experience but would typically stand up to the assault. At contact, the Gaullic warriors would make a violent downward cut with their long cutting swords onto the top edges of the Roman shields. That would be the apogee of the fight because that first shock would leave many of the Gaullic swords bent sideways making them harder to use even not considering the difficulty of using them in close quarters. I have read the term "maniple" arose from its use as the term "handful". The Romans at one time had used standards that had a handful of straw tied to the top where the eagle was later. The formation of the same name started as the group that guided on that standard. However, maniple applied to more than one group of men. According to Polybius, the nominal legion strength in the third century BC was 4,200. This was comprised of ten maniples of 420 soldiers each. But each of these could be said to have one maniple of triari, one maniple of principes and one of hastati. There also were the velites which may have been called a maniple also. The censor determined the economic class of Roman citizens and one consequence of this was the classifying of infantry as velites, hastati, principes and triari. These classes were better distinguished by age with the velite light infantry being late teens, the hastati being 20 somethings, principes being 30 somethings and triari being in their forties. The numbers in a maniple of these were 120, 120, 120 and 60 respectively. The velites carried something called targets on their arms and javalins (pila). I believe they carried some sort of sword. They would run forward through the ranks to a point between the two opposing armies, hurl their javalins, and then quickly return through the ranks. The hastati through triari were heavey infantry with the hastati in front, then the principes and then the triari in the rear. The two front ranks spelled each other during a battle as required. Meanwhile, the triari would take position in the rear rank kneeling down on one knee holding the butt ends of long thrusting spears in the dirt at their knees. The spears would point forward. According to Polybius, there was a Roman saying - "down to the triari" - which meant being down to your last resources. If things got really tough, the triari would fight in front. Each maniple had at least one centurion. Each legion had 300 cavalry. The cavalry was composed of a wealthier class than infantry. Everybody supplied their own gear and horses. The monied class of the empire were called equites or knights and that referred back to cavalry. The legions would be composed into two consular armies, one for each consul. Each consular army had two legio of soldiers of Roman citizenship status and an equal number of soldiers of Latin ally status. The Latin allies brought double the cavalry. In addition there could be auxillia. The praetor or commanding general (typically a consul) would have a loyal following of non-Romans (I believe they were Latin allies) with him as a body guard. In all, a consular army would have a strength of about 20,000. In times of emergency, the consular armies would be double strength each being 40,000. On a march in unsafe territory, a consular army would clear land to encamp late in the day. Every new campsite would be laid out the exact same way. Every soldier would sleep in the exact same part of the camp without deviation. A consular army camp was laid out in a square about 700 yards on a side.