Bret Devereaux

You might argue that the Antigonids just suck, but its the explicit testimony of Polybius - hardly a friend to the Antigonids - that they had the best man-for-man quality phalanx around. Which seems supported by how far above their weight they punch vs. Seleucids and Lagids.

At some point, the theory of how flexible an army *could* be has to be tested against how flexible it actually is and the Romans win all of those tests. Which might suggest that getting a legion to work required more command authority delegated and thus more experienced NCOs.

But those tests aren’t exactly scientific because they involve a lot of variables. And only 6 data points? It’s…….a shaky foundation to conclusively say one system trumps another in a vacuum.

But that's the thing, this isn't a war game. The only question at issue is 'who wins in actual battles?' And we know the answer to that question. One victory is a fluke, two is a trend, three is a pattern. Sure, you can caveat each instance...but the Romans still won.

It’s not about caveats, it’s about understanding the complexity of battle and what determines victory. How the battle is determined; the specific dynamics involved are key to whether or not we can draw broad conclusions.

Saying that 3 Roman wins vs two different pike systems = Legion > Phalanx is like saying Carthage > Rome because Hannibal won all the battles in Italy.

First, 4 Roman victories, don't forget Thermopylae (191) and second, it isn't the same at all because those four battles represent the entire sample set. Hannibal subsequently fought other engagements with the Romans, with varying resulted.

Aha! But - why - was that sample set so large?!? Because the Roman - political - system allowed them to survive multiple catastrophic defeats. Philip and Antiochus were undone by a single defeat! Because defeating the king was decisive, but killing consuls earned you more….