Roman legionary, Macedonian phalanx, or Spartan hoplite: Which was the better ancient warrior?

Roman legionaries served in one of the most advanced military systems of the ancient world, improved by experience on different fronts across the empire.

Each soldier carried a short stabbing sword called a gladius, a large curved shield known as a scutum, and wore protective segmented armour known as lorica segmentata, which became common among legionaries in the first to third centuries CE, though it did not replace older armour types like the lorica hamata entirely.

More than any other ancient army, the Roman legions depended on consistent training around standardised equipment which supported evolving tactical organisation that evolved over time.

Training often took place at permanent military installations, including sites such as Vindonissa or Carnuntum, and soldiers routinely carried equipment that weighed between 30 and 40 kilograms. 

In contrast, Macedonian phalangites fought in the powerful formations introduced by Philip II in the fourth century BCE and used by Alexander the Great.

These infantrymen wielded the sarissa, a pike that reached lengths of five to six metres, which was so long that soldiers needed both hands to use it effectively.

The phalanx typically formed in ranks up to sixteen deep. Each soldier carried a small shield strapped to the left forearm, so that the front of the formation could present a thick wall of spearpoints that forced opponents back through weight and reach.

The primary pike was often supported by a short sword, such as a kopis or makhaira, used if the formation broke or the enemy closed the distance. 

Finally, the ancient Greek Spartan hoplites grew up in a rigid military culture that demanded lifelong dedication to warfare.

From the age of seven, boys entered the agoge training system, where they honed their endurance through intense phalanx warfare drills grounded in strict obedience.

Hoplites trained until the age of twenty, at which point they gained full civic rights, including the ability to vote and hold office.

Then, at thirty, they were required to participate in communal messes known as syssitia.

They were armed with a spear called a doru and protected by bronze armour and a large round shield called an aspis. 

They also trained to fight in tight formation, in which Spartan hoplites were considered to be the epitome of the Greek hoplite tradition.

The aspis alone weighed between six and eight kilograms, and a full panoply could weigh more than 25 kilograms. 

Roman legionaries gained their strength from rigorous training routines that encouraged unit cohesion which developed battlefield flexibility.

Their weapons encouraged close-quarters combat, and their gear balanced mobility with protection.

Soldiers drilled in small units called centuries and fought in cohorts that rotated in battle to reduce fatigue, which allowed the Roman army to maintain pressure during extended fighting.

The pilum, a throwing spear with a soft iron shank, bent on impact to stop enemies from using it again and disrupted enemy formations before contact.

However, legionaries operated best as part of a larger system, and their effectiveness declined when removed from formation or support. 

Meanwhile, Macedonian phalangites relied on the strength of their collective formation rather than individual skill.

The sarissa's exceptional length kept enemies at a distance and allowed for a continuous forward push.

When several ranks of soldiers extended their pikes over each other's shoulders, they created a barrier that few armies could penetrate from the front.

However, the same weapon that provided such reach became a hindrance in confined terrain or once the formation broke.

At the Battle of Pydna in 168 BCE, Roman forces exploited uneven ground to disrupt the phalanx, leaving it open to attack.

In those situations, the short backup sword offered minimal protection, and the small shield left them exposed. 

For their part, the Spartan hoplites maintained their advantage through unbreakable discipline and years of preparation for a narrow but effective form of warfare.

The phalanx formation, where men stood shoulder to shoulder with overlapping shields, could push through enemy lines using coordinated movements.

Their bronze armour covered the torso, legs, and head, which gave them significant protection against projectiles and frontal attacks.

However, the formation moved slowly, and the equipment restricted vision and movement, which limited their ability to respond to rapid tactical changes.

After the defeat at Leuctra in 371 BCE, Sparta struggled to maintain its military power, as other Greek states adapted more dynamic tactics. 

Roman legionaries had the clear advantage in individual combat due to specific training in swordsmanship and shield use.

Soldiers practised daily with wooden swords heavier than the real gladius, which improved endurance and striking power.

The short sword was designed for stabbing rather than slashing, which made it highly effective in tight conditions.

Combined with the curved scutum and protective armour, legionaries could both defend and counterattack efficiently, even without support.

Their training included sparring drills and mock combat supervised by experienced centurions, which honed reflexes and built confidence. 

Macedonian phalangites struggled in one-on-one encounters because their primary weapon required space and the support of a unit to operate correctly.

The sarissa proved unwieldy without multiple rows of soldiers holding it in coordination.

Once an opponent closed the distance or forced the phalangite to discard the pike, the soldier had to rely on a short sword, which was used more as a last resort than a main weapon.

The small shield offered limited protection, and there was little room for tactical adjustment. 

Spartan hoplites could hold their own in duels due to their emphasis on physical strength, endurance, and spear use.

The doru, while shorter than the sarissa, could be wielded with one hand and allowed for more freedom of movement.

Hoplites also carried a short sword, typically a xiphos or sometimes a curved kopis, which was used as a backup weapon once the spear broke or was lost.

However, their fighting style depended on support from other hoplites in formation, and their training focused on collective battle rather than individual agility or personal initiative.

This is because drills in the agoge often prioritised obedience and group cohesion over improvisational skill. 

Roman legionaries performed best in battlefield conditions that required flexibility, endurance, and coordination between different unit types.

The manipular and later cohort systems, introduced during the Marian reforms around 107 BCE, allowed commanders to shift troops mid-battle, plug gaps in the line, or rotate fresh soldiers into heavy fighting.

Roman forces also made use of pilum throwing spears to disrupt enemy formations before engaging with the sword.

The consistent structure of the army meant that replacements could be trained and deployed quickly.

At Cynoscephalae in 197 BCE, Roman tactical flexibility allowed them to defeat a Macedonian phalanx by exploiting its rigid formation. 

Macedonian phalangites operated effectively in large-scale engagements when the ground was flat and the flanks were protected.

The phalanx delivered overwhelming force in a forward direction and worked best when they were supported by cavalry and lighter infantry.

During Alexander's campaigns, the Companion Cavalry led by senior officers, including figures such as Hephaestion or Cleitus the Black in specific battles provided rapid flanking attacks while the phalanx pinned enemy forces.

However, once the formation lost cohesion or encountered uneven terrain, the phalangites became easy targets for more manoeuvrable units. 

Interestingly, Spartan hoplites excelled in pitched battles fought on narrow plains, where their close formation stopped attempts to attack their sides.

At Thermopylae in 480 BCE, a small group of Spartans delayed a vastly superior Persian force where they held a narrow pass.

The collective will and stamina of the hoplites allowed them to stand firm against repeated attacks.

However, their numbers were limited, and they lacked cavalry, missile troops, or light infantry, which made them vulnerable in longer campaigns or engagements in unfamiliar conditions.

Their tactics remained relatively unchanged over centuries, which made them less adaptable as warfare evolved. 

Ultimately, Roman legionaries demonstrated superior performance in both personal combat and formation warfare due to their versatile combat performance under a clear command structure.

They adapted to a wide range of enemies and geographical challenges, and their ability to work in both open battle and close-quarters gave them a clear advantage over other ancient warriors. 

However, Macedonian phalangites proved devastating when their formation remained intact and when the terrain supported a steady advance.

Unfortunately, its narrow focus and dependence on conditions reduced its overall reliability. 

Last, but by no means least, Spartan hoplites' battlefield record earned them a fearsome reputation across the Greek world, and their phalanx proved difficult to break in direct combat.

Yet, their rigid military doctrine and resistance to change left them ill-prepared for the evolving nature of warfare in later centuries. 

Among the three, the Roman legionary combined equipment, training, and battlefield flexibility in a way that allowed for long-term military supremacy.

Their success across centuries of conflict, against enemies who used both phalanx and hoplite tactics, confirms their position as the most effective ancient warrior in a wide variety of combat environments.