Who's going to win: phalanx vs. legion?

[econ21]

I remember when MTW first came out there was a great debate on the org on whether knights were underpowered or not. Some folk persuasively argued that charging knights should ride over most infantry apart from pikemen, others like myself liked the balance the way it is the patched game (knights are best used on the flanks).

I wonder if the equivalent debate about RTW will concern pikes vs swords. (I am trying not to think about elephants vs pigs, it's too depressing). It's often been debate which was stronger - a Macedonian style phalanx or a Roman legion. Its seems that in RTW, we will be putting legions up against, if not Alexander's phalanx, then serious bodies of pikemen from Carthage and elsewhere.

Which unit will be most powerful in close combat? Let's leave the pila out of it, and focus on sword/shield vs pike in frontal combat.

If we look at the "combat factors" in MTW as a guide to what will happen in RTW, the edge seems to be with the phalanx:

sword: +3 attack +2 def (for the large sheild)
pike: +1 attack +1 def
with max 4 rank bonus => +3 attack +5 def

So it looks like the pikes will gradually prevail due to superior defence. Sounds ok to me. The phalanx won't simply walkover the legion, but unless they have much better valour troops, the Romans will have to fight clever to break up the phalanx by flanking etc(sounds like there are more opportunities for this in RTW).

What do other people think?

[biguth dickuth]

This debate has taken place more times than i can remember It's interesting, though, that people tend to bring it up again, once in a while.

I generally agree with your points. In a frontal assault the macedonian-type phalanx will most certainly prevail against the legion, even considering the effect that the pila will have on the phalangites. However, due to it's inability of quick maneuvres, the phalanx will be vulnerable at the flanks, unless there is some other force there to protect them.

Therefore, a clever roman commander will try to attack the phalanx from the flank or the rear because this is his only chance to beat it. A clever greek commander, on the other hand, will enforce the flanks of his phalanx with other troops, such as cavalry and light infantry in order to stop any outflanking maneuvre by the enemy. These are, more or less, the basic tactics that two such adversaries will employ.

Historically, the romans managed to beat the greeks in most of the battles between them because they would manage to rout the cavalry and the light troops from the greek flanks and then launch a flanking attack at the phalanx who was in the center of the greek formation. In the cases where they failed to do so, the greeks would usually win.

[The_Emperor]

Well historically the Phalanx lost (The Macedonians against Rome for example), but I think it has more to do with formation and terrain...

The Phalanx was best on flat ground and the Roman troops didn't have to remain as tight in their formations so they had the advantage of being better equipped to fight battles on rough terrain, and battles do not always take place on the flat ground needed for a Phalanx.

I think that on flat ground the Romans would win if they could turn the flank on a Phalanx unit, but if they cannot I'd bet money on the Phalanx grinding into them... In that scenario it could be too close to call, either way it would be bloody.

[Knight_Yellow]

Id say Legion.

More flexible.

Theres too many things required for the phalanx to work perfectly in every battle.

Flat terrain.
Guarded flanks.
No enemy archers.

etc.....

They are a great unit but will be some of the most vulnerable in the game IMO.


Legions on the other hand.... they are a jack of all trades.

[econ21]

I know the historical question is the more substantive and interesting, but I am also curious about the game. I haven't used pikemen in MTW (I tend to languish in the early period), but I am pretty dependent on spearmen for my armies in SP.

I can't help thinking that in the hands of the player, a mixed "combined arms" type army like the Carthaginians will be better than a "jack of all trades" legion-heavy Roman one. The player can look after his flanks and use each specialised unit in its right role.

However, in the hands of the dumber AI, the Roman army may be more formiddable. The player can try to use rock-scissor-paste tactics to dismember a combined arms AI army. But fighting an AI army heavy on legions would be like fighting lots of AUM (or miitia sergeants or Byz infantry) - painful.

[The Wizard]

Please, do remember that the phalanx was an extremely hard formation to maintain on the battlefield, and had a brittle shock function. At least, in its pure form under Alexander the Great.

What the Romans did, essentially, was beat the Macedonian/Hellenistic Greek armies by smashing the cavalry (much weaker forms of the companions of old, since the high quality of breeding had been forsaken by most Successors) and then whatever remained to protect the weak flanks of a phalanx.

Even then, the phalanx was formidable when on the defensive on perfectly flat terrain, but couldn't attack anymore since it needed to engage the enemy infantry right after the companions hit. This left it open to flanking attacks by the Romans, whose main infantry were swordsmen, I believe the principes (the manipular legion does not interest me whatsoever, and therefore there is a large chance that this is the wrong designation to the sword/scutum-wielding Roman infantry that stood at the first order of battle, behind the 'peasantry' that were armed with javelins, pelte-like shield, and an animal skin on their heads), which were much more mobile and versatile. Cohort-based legions had not yet been developed when Rome defeated first the Antigonid dynasty of Macedonia, then the two Greek leagues.

If they are in the game, the best unit to use fighting the Romans for the Macedonians would be the shield bearers, or hypaspists. Highly trained, highly skilled, highly mobile units numbering at 1000 each (there were three under Alexander, and the unit called 'Agema phalangites' that we have seen was one of the three, namely the Royal Shield Bearers), they protected the flanks of the phalanx and were the cornerstone of Alexander's army. They were remniscient of the Spartan hoplites before the Peloponesian Wars, when they didn't wear armor for greater mobility, based on experiences with Thracians and Thessalians. However, in battle, shield bearers were armoured in armor, be that linen cuirasses or bronze breast plates. They were armed with spear, falchata, and hoplon. The Alexandrian Varangian Guard, and no Praetorian is safe. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

The Seleucids' only hope for saviour against the Roman infantry would the articulated phalanx, consisting of the traditional foot companions and complementing that for greater mobility, the argyraspids, or 'silver shields', which went through several stages of 'evolution' over the years, from super-phalanx to imitation cohort. They are the legionaries with the silver shields seen in the movie called 'Rome_TotalWar'. Seleucids had crappy cavalry, since it was especially they that did not keep up the horse breeding, and relied on Indian elephants instead.

Don't ask me what the Ptolemies would have.....



~Wiz

[squippy]

Am I wrong in thinking the Romans credited their success to the manipular legion, which was organised in small enough units that multiple flank attacks against a pike body possible? It seems to me then that the difference will lie in how large the unit size is. Pike units are not quite twice the size of sword units - and the pike formation is quite a deep one. Thus a manipular army with a saw-tooth Roman deployment is perfectly positioned to encircle and destroy each pike block in detail.

[Leet Eriksson]

Well gameplay wise i think,the Legion(post marian?)could easily envelope the Phalanx,even though the phalanx might initially kill a few legionnares it will still get enveloped in the end and routed.Well to get a better idea of what i mean i will refer to Frogbeasteggs unit guide:


Quote[/b] ]Image M12: This picture was taken one second after the swordsmen’s charge hit. As you can see they have wrapped around the spears right flank completely, the left flank is only partially wrapped. The spears are losing their formation because of this pressure and their situation will only get worse as the last few swordsmen reach the battle. This is why you want your swordsmen in long, two rank deep formations.

Check Imgae M12 in the Unit Guide (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=34;t=17054;st=0).

[The_Emperor]

The other problem with a Phalanx is that it cannot turn very quickly to face a new threat... (Unless they want to knock the guys next to them over) Also by running a Phalanx would

So if a Roman commander was to march his army up to meet the Macedonians and then without warning ran a large number of his troops to concentrate on one of the flanks, the Phalanx troops remaining unengaged would have difficulty in responding quickly to meet this threat, and would have to break away from the main line.

If the supporting Cavalry/Elephants on the flanks get overwhelmed by a sheer concentration of strength the entire frontline could then in theory be put at risk.

Anyway I can see a number of people trying out the Legion VS Phalanx when RTW comes out.

[econ21]

I guess my point is this: how many times has the AI successfully turned your flank in MTW? And how many times have you turned it? I suspect as players we may like to command phalanxes despite their fragile flanks but fear AI-controlled legions for their robustness.

[The_Emperor]

Yes and we still have no idea how good the tactical AI is in RTW... we could be in for a challenge, you never know.

[Kommodus]

I do think we can expect to see pike/spear troops being a lot more effective in RTW than they were in MTW. In MTW, there was really only one thing they were truly good at, and that was fixing cavalry charges. They could do other things (like hold a defensive line), but didn't really excel at them. Some things they were truly abysmal at, like taking on swordsmen.

In RTW, I think we'll see pike troops that are skilled in attack as well as in defense. They'll be able to make up entire battle lines that will be able to kill anything effectively. Some will be able to beat swordsmen in a head-on fight. Remember how effectively pikemen could grind away in some of the TC videos, even against Roman legions? The Libyan pikemen in the Battle of Trebia spring to mind.

However, one advantage I think legions will have will be the ability to fight effectively even when their formation is somewhat broken. Whereas a phalanx may get the better of a head-on fight initially, if the swordsmen can get inside the pike hedge and break up the formation, the fight will quickly turn in their favor.

Either way it will be a good fight, and one I'm looking forward to.

[Kraxis]

I see the twoline swordman formation mentioned as a way to defeat the phalanx. That is very much true for MTW, but I doubt it will be very effective in RTW.
And now I'm just speculating...

I believe the range of the pikes will have a decisive edge. The two lines will get rolled over very very fast, breaking the swordunit into smaller parts. The unit might not suffer many losses, but it might rout due to its fragmentation and the quick losses.

A tighter formation might hold itself together better, and in the end get in amongst the pikemen.

But whatever the case, I think pikeman vs swordsman scenarios will be fairly bloody due to the new range of the pikes.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Kommodus @ May 18 2004,17:21)]Remember how effectively pikemen could grind away in some of the TC videos, even against Roman legions? The Libyan pikemen in the Battle of Trebia spring to mind.
Unfortunately I do, and am appalled at its innacuracy regarding the purpose of the foot companions. It is no wonder that the shield bearers returned from retirement in the Successor Wars to show the young foot companions what ass-kicking was all about. Soldiers aging 50 and over routed phalanx after phalanx after phalanx.

Now, by the time of Raphia, maybe it would be true that the phalanx was reduced to a role it was not originally intended to play, namely grinding away in a big huge meatgrinder. It's no wonder that Antiochus the Great's wars depleted the strength of the Seleucids. If the Romans had not attacked, his son Antiochus IV might have consolidated the empire and refilled its man pool. But there was no time for that, and the combined attack of the Romans and Parthians crushed the ailing Seleucids.



~Wiz

[Sir William Wallace]

i am going with phalanx,,, brains vs braun,, it takes a good mind to come up with the phalanx and a huge nerve/courage/bravery to hold it with cav coming right at you,, or just an insane amount of infantry, ( remember braveheart?) so i would give the egde to phalanx, they deserve it

[DemonArchangel]

Ok, let's see..
I'll make an example RTW Army

Century: 80 Roman Legionaries.
Phalanx: Syntagma, 256 men in a 16x16 block.

20 units possible, land is perfectly flat.

Roman Army: 10x Centuries, 4x Praetorian Cavalry, 3x Praetorian Guardsmen, 3x Aux. Alae.

Hellenistic Army: 4x Syntagma, 4x Companion Cavalry, 2x Agema Phalangites, 4x Peltasts, 1x Hypsasists, 3x Greek Bowmen, 1x Thracian Thereuphoroi, 1x Elephants.

1.) The Syntagma start moving forward as the Companions move forward to flank covered by the peltasts and the bowmen. 5 centuries, 2 Cavalry move to engage them.
2.) The Hypsasists and Agema Phalangites move to cover the other flank of the Syntagma.
3.) The Elephants move in, curl around the hypsasists and charge the roman flanks.
4.) The legionaries act quickly, move around the elephant unit and throw pilums into them, routing the elephants, who stampede into the Hypsasists.
5.) The Companions slam into the other Roman Flank, and are quickly engulfed by the Praetorian Cavalry, the Auxilary Alae ride down the peltasts and bowmen with ease.
6. As the Flanks are swept away, the remaining romans engulf the Syntagmas.

[biguth dickuth]

There's too much cavalry (in comparison to the infantry) for a roman army. And why does it have to be praetorian and not some normal roman (crap) cavalry?
Even this way, i think the companions can defeat the praetorian cavalry.

There is also another thing. Why should all the hypaspists be on one flank and all the cavalry on the other? Some cavalry can be on the elephant flank and take advantage of any dissorder that they will create in the roman lines while some hypaspists can be on the other flank and help in repelling the roman cavalry.

The battle you described isn't an example of the most probable scenario but just one scenario out of too many possible ones.

[Oleander Ardens]

I now wonder just how good a elite phalanx and a unit of Elephants could be together against the Romans.

This could become one of the most feared combinations on the battlefield against a enemy heavy in heavy infantry with some cavalry support..

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Oleander Ardens @ May 19 2004,11:13)]I now wonder just how good a elite phalanx and a unit of Elephants could be together against the Romans.

This could become one of the most feared combinations on the battlefield against a enemy heavy in heavy infantry with some cavalry support..
But not all the Successor Factions will have Elephants... Only the Selucids and Egyptians will as I can see it.

(Carthage could possibly be included in this topic as some of their units use the Phalanx. But I serously wonder how many Phalanx units they will be able to field at once in an army... Certainly not as much as the Successor states.)

[Kraxis]

From the gamestar movie it doesn't seem probable that the legionaries will be able to turn the elephants that easy. The elephants are maneuverable, fast and hard hitting. The legionaries won't be able to just step out of the way. Their pila might do some damage, but the elephants might be moving too fast? Who knows... But I suspect that the elephants will trample the legionaries.
If the legionaries can evade the elephants then the Hypaspists can too.

At the very least the companions or other heavy cav that the Seleucids (I'm just picking those) have will be at least as capable as any roman cavalry.

The peltasts and bowmen are covered by the cavalry and should retreat in face of the roman cavalry, possibly help in the cavalry fight that ensues. I have to give that fight to the Seleucids.

The Thracians would be great for attacking the Aux or flanking the legionaries.

As I see it the Seleucids win because their flanks are stronger. But it is really very much too hard to speculate on.

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 19 2004,06:39)]I have to give that fight to the Seleucids.
That's my gut feeling too - the historic Roman army was too dependent on sword armed heavy infantry; a more balanced army composed of more specialist troop types would seem to be more powerful in game terms.

I recall one wargame designer commenting that people were often surprised that the Roman legions in wargames were not as effective as they expected.

I wonder if the historic military dominance of the Romans was due to other things than any superiority of their troop types over their rivals? It could either be "intangible" tactical factors that are hard to model - similar to those that allowed early WW2 German panzer divisions to defeat forces with superior tanks (greater initiative of junior officer, superior tactical training, better communications etc). If so, these might be captured by giving legions higher valour or "soft" factors in their baseline stats.

Or it could be strategic, political, demographic or economic factors - some of which may be trickier to capture within the Total War engine. (e.g. I suspect a legion should be faster and more responsive on the strategic map than, say, a host of German warriors).

[The_Emperor]

Well the Romans were well known for being able to advance rapidly...

Also judging from what we have seen on TC Episodes it does look like those Legions can move and redeploy quite quickly, especially compared to the Phalanx troops.

The Question of the Elephants is an interesting one, but I wonder just how effective they will be... Sure they can stomp heavy inf and help turn the tables on Cav, but they have to be vulnerable to something other than just pigs.

Remains to be seen what.

[econ21]

Emperor: I suspect I will be treating elephants like I currently treat VG, Huscarles, berserkers, high valour kats and royal knights in MTW etc - as "fire all tubes" targets for my missiles. They look guaranteed to cause serious pain to anything in close combat, so you try to avoid them (or tie them up with disposable stuff) and fire every arrow/whatever other ranged stuff you've got at them. I know there seem to be some "cataphract elephants" but as with kats in MTW, if you throw enough at them, eventually they will fall. When deployed by the AI, they should be manageable (and fun), although I admit right now they look rather unbalanced for multiplayer games.

BTW: was it just me, or did the pigs look rather ineffective against the ellies in that clip from E3?

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ May 19 2004,17:30)]Emperor: I suspect I will be treating elephants like I currently treat VG, Huscarles, berserkers, high valour kats and royal knights in MTW etc - as "fire all tubes" targets for my missiles.
Yes, I think so too. Tie them up with some Light inf and then hurl in the missiles... It should be very effective. (especially if the TC Raphia episode is anything to go by)


Quote[/b] ]BTW: was it just me, or did the pigs look rather ineffective against the ellies in that clip from E3?

Actually it only looked that way because once the elephants began their stampede away from the Pigs they hit the rear of the main roman line...

There was another vid (I forget which site it was on) that showed flaming pigs against elephants on open ground and the Elephants were quickly turned once the pigs were let loose.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]But not all the Successor Factions will have Elephants... Only the Selucids and Egyptians will as I can see it.

Well since Epirus is not a minor faction the province of Epirus (if it even exists on the strategic map) should provide access to elephant units. Pyrrhus of Epirus invaded the Italian peninsula and Sicily with dozens of elephants around 280 B.C.

[The Wizard]

The elephants were first used decisively in Hellenistic combat by Seleucus, who had been gifted, IIRC, 200 elephants by a rahja, in the battle of Issus. This battle was the fall of the major player in the Successor Wars of the time, Antigonus ('the One-eyed'). His son, Demetrius, fled to Macedonia and usurped the ruler there (Lysimachus?), starting the Antigonid dynasty of Macedonia. He used elephants as well, after seeing what Seleucus did with them at Issus first-hand.



~Wiz

[Ellesthyan]

Biguth, I somehow had the impression that Roman cavalry was what won most of their wars, while the successor horses were utter _crap_. I think that any Roman cavalry unit should be able to beat any successor cavalry unit head on; The hellens got those frikking elephants to compensate with

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ May 19 2004,16:12)]Biguth, I somehow had the impression that Roman cavalry was what won most of their wars, while the successor horses were utter _crap_. I think that any Roman cavalry unit should be able to beat any successor cavalry unit head on; The hellens got those frikking elephants to compensate with
I have no idea where you got that impression. Roman cavalry was far from the best cavalry, while the successor cavalries were rather good (but in short quantities). Rome never relied on cavalry for its armies, not surprsingly it relied on heavy infantry.

The theory was to use the inherent ferocity of the roman population to roll over the enemy infantry while the roman cavalry protected the flanks. Infantry = offensive, cavalry = defensive. It was just the opposite with the successor forces and even more so with the forces of Alexander.
Remember the real Raphia? It was a perfect example of this, while at the same time a disaster for that system.

[biguth dickuth]

Well, it is true that the cavalry of the successor states had declined in matters of quality and quantity since the time of Alexander but, still, it was far better than the roman.
The romans only started to seriously improve their cavalry when they got to fight eastern peoples like the sarmatians, in the early centuries A.D. and they finally got a really good cavalry around the 7th or 8th century A.D., i think.

In my opinion, the reason why the romans managed to overwhelm so many different peoples was not that the legions were the "uber-troops" or something like that, but things that have already been mentioned in this thread:

Quote[/b] ]It could either be "intangible" tactical factors that are hard to model - similar to those that allowed early WW2 German panzer divisions to defeat forces with superior tanks (greater initiative of junior officer, superior tactical training, better communications etc).
and

Quote[/b] ]Or it could be strategic, political, demographic or economic factors - some of which may be trickier to capture within the Total War engine. (e.g. I suspect a legion should be faster and more responsive on the strategic map than, say, a host of German warriors).

I agree with most of that and i will personally persist on the political, economic and demographic factors. Rome had been burned in the past (e.g. by the gauls) but that didn't bring romans to their knees.
They were a very patriotic and militaristic society with much less freedom (of speech and in general) than a greek citizen and with a very strong sense of profit-making.

All that made them much more determined to fight and win a war by any means, than most of their adversaries.
So, they were very hard to be wiped out. They remind me of a monster of the greek mythology, the "Lernaia Hydra". This was a serpent-like creature with many heads and whenever you'd cut one of those heads, two more would spring in its place. It was finally killed by Hercules, but it seems the greeks had no Hercules at the time to lead them to victory against the romans... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[biguth dickuth]

An add-on to what i wrote previously about roman society being less free than the greek one:
The renowned Cicero once wrote (and he was proud of being a roman for that reason) that a roman comedy-writer could not make fun of high officials and men of high social status in his plays (as there was a death penalty for that) unlike greek comedy-writers who did that all the time.

This example clearly demonstrates that the romans had a very high sense of respect for aristocrats and state officials and a very high sense of duty towrds their own country. That gave their society the ability to endure a lot of catastrofic events without breaking up but, of course, they weren't free people...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ May 19 2004,21:17)]An add-on to what i wrote previously about roman society being less free than the greek one:
The renowned Cicero once wrote (and he was proud of being a roman for that reason) that a roman comedy-writer could not make fun of high officials and men of high social status in his plays (as there was a death penalty for that) unlike greek comedy-writers who did that all the time.

This example clearly demonstrates that the romans had a very high sense of respect for aristocrats and state officials and a very high sense of duty towrds their own country. That gave their society the ability to endure a lot of catastrofic events without breaking up but, of course, they weren't free people...
Yes. Much more of an authoritarian system. Nobility being out of reach of the general population.

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ May 19 2004,20:52)]They were a very patriotic and militaristic society with much less freedom (of speech and in general) than a greek citizen and with a very strong sense of profit-making.
So the analogy might be with, say, the Zulus or the Mongols? Peoples who dominated their neighbours by virtue of their aggression and militarism? The size of the fight in the dog, rather than the size of the dog in the fight.

Of course, all these peoples did bring military innovations, but maybe these were the consequence of their underlying qualities, rather than the fundamental reason for their success?

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ May 20 2004,05:38)]
Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ May 19 2004,20:52)]They were a very patriotic and militaristic society with much less freedom (of speech and in general) than a greek citizen and with a very strong sense of profit-making.
So the analogy might be with, say, the Zulus or the Mongols? Peoples who dominated their neighbours by virtue of their aggression and militarism? The size of the fight in the dog, rather than the size of the dog in the fight.

Of course, all these peoples did bring military innovations, but maybe these were the consequence of their underlying qualities, rather than the fundamental reason for their success?
Now I think I'm getting a little lost here... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

But it is a fact that Rome felt every war after the sack of Rome as a fight for survival. Yes, even against weaker opponents. There were only two outcomes, Rome is conquered or the enemy submits to Roman hegemony. The Punic Wars and the Macedonian Wars were a result of this. Rome could easily have backed off after the first of each of the wars and never have faced them in battle again (ok that is perhaps a little happyfaced). But in each case the opponents bagan to act independently from Rome, and that was not what Rome had intended with its victories.

Add to that the ferocity of the Roman warrior.
The Roman might have priced themselves as a cultivated people in the post Marian times, but prior to that they lived much like the barbarians. Yes not as undeveloped as some, but just as rugged and simplistic. They priced that at the time. And as such the Romans were a people that had just emerged from tribal roots. That carried over into battle as their bloody actions attests to (by that I mean for instace the cutting down of surrendering phalangites).

All that adds up to a most formidable foe in war. One that will fight to the bitter end with warriors that will make you pay

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ May 20 2004,02:52)]Well, it is true that the cavalry of the successor states had declined in matters of quality and quantity since the time of Alexander but, still, it was far better than the roman.
The romans only started to seriously improve their cavalry when they got to fight eastern peoples like the sarmatians, in the early centuries A.D. and they finally got a really good cavalry around the 7th or 8th century A.D., i think.
Nice recent posts.

Anyway, little correction on this.

After the battle of Hadrianopolis (I cannot stop getting heavily annoyed by the beauty of ol' Valens stupidity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif), Romans started doing away with the important role of the Roman infantry, meaning from Italia. To compensate for that, they hired Gothic and later Germanic cavalry, giving these foreign peoples important ranks and responsibilities, making the same mistake as the Persian empire approx. 700-800 years before them, namely ignoring the own people as source of your military machine, and having mercenaries do your dirty work. The Byzantine empire after the death of Basil the Bulgar Slayer made the same mistake.

Anyways, it was then that the Romans gained good heavy cavalry. This was the 'Western' Empire. The East also hired many Goths and Germanic mercenaries, but kept a sizeable core of professional soldiers. The 'Eastern Romans' also created their own heavy cavalry, the clibanarii, after Parthian example, and also hired horse archers like the Avars and Alans, which is one of the reasons why they outlived the 'Western Romans'.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ May 19 2004,12:54)]Well since Epirus is not a minor faction the province of Epirus (if it even exists on the strategic map) should provide access to elephant units. Pyrrhus of Epirus invaded the Italian peninsula and Sicily with dozens of elephants around 280 B.C.
The 30 or 40 elephants of the king of Molosses (Phyrrhos) were a gift (so to say) from his relative the king of Macedonia, along with 4.000 or so pikemen, a gift granted so Phyrrhos would get his arse (and his ambitions for the Antigonid throne) to Magna Graecia. And the Macedonian kingdom has gotten those elephants from Seleukia.

BTW Pyrrhos made short work of each Roman army he met on the battlefield, but in the end the irresponsible locals (Greeks and Italians) and their inability to replenish the losses of the Greek army (unlike the Romans and their allies), didn't let the great Epirote general (one Hannibal considered far better than himself) to crush Rome before it became Rome.


As for the general discussion goes... the loss of the Roman virtue occured after the Romans conquered Greece. The Greek hedonism alone, if not accompanied with the Greek "metro" and personal responsibility (both values unknown in the - truly - more simplistic, paternalistic, dualistic Roman society) is extremely lethal.

Many Roman writers and philosophers have stood against the invasion of the Greek "values" in Rome as they faced the degeneration (?) of the basic simplistic Roman citizen to an avid pleasure-seaker.

In time that brought the degradation of Rome and it's downfall (or, better, it's evolution to something completely different).

Very good posts, Kraxis - Biguth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]Very good posts, Kraxis - Biguth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
The same to you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif


Quote[/b] ]Many Roman writers and philosophers have stood against the invasion of the Greek "values" in Rome as they faced the degeneration (?) of the basic simplistic Roman citizen to an avid pleasure-seaker.

Many roman aristocrats would often send their sons to study philosophy, rhetorics and other arts and sciences in Athens, after greece had been conquered, but would advise them to stick to their traditional roman values and not get carried away by the greek ways of life...

[shingenmitch2]

Simon --

Ur first post in here touched on some very important aspects to Rome's success, and it was not purely about the dominance of the Roman legion. Infact, the Roman legion was defeated on many occasions by many enemies --- Phyrrus, Hannibal, Germans Teutonberg forrest, the Parthians...

You are correct that there are other factors that helped with their success and I hope (but fear they didn't) get modeled into the game.

1. Rome's allied cities gave her an overwhelming manpower advantage over single-city city-states. It allowed her to rebuild destroyed legions over night. Hannibal was beaten primarily through attrition.

2. Mobility -- ur correct that the legions should be able to move on the strategic map faster than a Germanic tribal conglomeration. (though the Parthians should have the best mobility)

3. Siegeworks -- They simply were the best at dimantling fortifications.

4. Engineering -- Once they conquered something, they stayed, building fort systems to protect it. The best road networks in the ancient world also increased the Legion's mobility. Every time (hell, every night) the Legion encamped it created its own mini-fortified town -- very few if any other ancient army could do this.

[The Wizard]

The Parthians were actually extremely bad at extended campaigns - they couldn't stay on campaign because of the feudal structure of the empire, as well as the fact that the King of Kings wanted to get back asap so that he would not have a civil war on his hands.

They were one-battle-wonders, not mighty campaigners like the Sassanians or Mongols.



~Wiz

[shingenmitch2]

Hi Wiz,

yes their supply system was poor and their field works were virtually non-existant. Thus they had trouble with fortified cities, and once took things they had no staying power. However, their armies being virtually all-cav. were extremely mobile.

[The Wizard]

Yes, but they could not carry a campaign for more than a few months. A few battles is all they could do, especially later, when the empire was constantly threatened by foreign powers and internal feuds. It's quite surprising how little distance such a mobile army could cover, when its commanders wanted to get back home asap to keep the crops growing, and the King of Kings wanted to get back asap to keep the court from conspiring against him. The poor saps couldn't even raid.



~Wiz

[hundurinn]

As a die hard fan of Sparta I would want the phalanx unit to win but up close when romans would have broken through the spears they would die quickly. But that doesn't change the fact that my Sacred Band Infantry (think thats right) will destroy Rome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[bighairyman]

If it's a flat plain and with flanks protected, then the Legions gonna get slaughtered http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif

[hundurinn]

Yep on a flat land the Phalanx would beat the Legions but on hills and slopes Legions would win.

[shingenmitch2]

Hundur --

It depends on the type of phalanx.

Frontally the Macedonian pike-phalanx was virtually impenitrable, but if the Romans could get at its flanks, then it will lose.

The traditional Hoplite phalanx (with spears, that the Spartan's used during their dominant years) could very well lose frontally to the Romans. Might be a 50/50 thing. The Hoplite phalanx could turn much more easily than the pike-phalanx to respond to flanking threats, but here too the Romans would still have an advantage.

[hundurinn]

Didn't know that about the Macedonian, thanks for the info. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Rosacrux]

And let us not forget that the Macedonian phalanx was not established to be a "one fits all" type of formation, it was one integral part of the combined arms systems introduced by Philipos and led to perfection by Alexandros:

Sarissa-phalanx as the core, working as a ram, traditional hoplites as multi-purpose infantry, skirmishers (archers and javelineers) to cover the flanks and, well, skirmish, light cavalry to protect the flanks and deal with the enemy skirmishers and heavy cavalry as the spearhead, to deal the decisive blow to the enemies weak point (or strong point, if that was where the leader was located).

Outside of a combined arms system the Macedonian phalanx was vulnerable in more than one ways.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] ]Outside of a combined arms system the Macedonian phalanx was vulnerable in more than one ways.

Indeed and that happened because the Cavalry for the Successor Kingdom's had been in decline ever since Alexander's time. Without that same level of solid Cavalry that was so decisive under Alexander, a great advantage had been lost.

Roman Cavalry did also suck, but then the Romans could always rent good Cavalry from other people if the situation required it. (such as the Numidian Cavalry they bought off to use against Carthage during the Second Punic War)

[Rosacrux]

Absolutely correct, but the Roman legionarie system was truly adopted and put into work as a real "one-fits-all" multi-purpose infantry. That provided them with a great deal of flexibility in all circumstances.

The Roman legion incorporated - in the timeframe we are talking about - light/medium skirmishers (hastati) medium/heavy infantry with skirmishing capabilities (prencipes) and heavy spear infantry (triarii) and with the use of advanced weaponry, tactics and decent commanders, they could realy adopt to any situation. Later the triarii gave up their spears and even later the whole triadic system was rendered obsolete and the "one man for every job" type of legionary we all know too well, emerged.

A monolithical macedonian phalanx can't do that, its purpose is not to fight alone (as it was indeed of the hoplite phalanx) but to operate along other elements of a battle system.

The Romans for instance, never used the cavalry as the spearhead of their armies. Even when they had decent cavalry at their disposal, they would waste it operating in the flanks, to cover the vulnerable spots of infantry and prevent the legio from being encircled.

On the contrary, Philipos and Alexander used their (extremely high quality, nevertheless) heavy cavalry as the decisive factor for the outcome of the battle, like a compact, fast and lethal spearhead that would seek the "heart" of the enemy formation, aim at it and deliver a lethal blow to determine the outcome of the battle.

[shingenmitch2]

Here is some speculation on my part about the Mac cavalry:

One thing is undeniably true, Alexander had an absolutely decisive advantage with his cavalry over virtually all his enemies. The cavalry, not the phalanx was the decisive arm of the Mac army. Alex's cavalry advantage was so pronounced that he would take a relatively small cav. force and (if you believe historians) recklessly charge into the midst of overwhelming numbers of Persian or enemy cavalry and miraculously win. I don't think it was a reckless move. He had a huge advantage and knew it. The advantage was more than just the xyston alone, else the Persian cavalry would simply grab a longer spear.

My personal belief is that the Mac/Thracian cavalry had been in contact with the Sarmatians and were now using the 4-pronged saddle. (or they acquired the saddle from somewhere else) That combined with the Xyston lance (very similar to the Sarmatian Kontos) gave them the heavy cav that the Macedonians (and every other army previously) never had. They could easily wear heavier armor and now do full lance tactics and even fight better with swords or spears when not charging. This meant dominant cavalry. It also meant Alex knew his cav. would destroy Persian cav.

Now, everyone assumes that the Successor state cavalry declined, because it was less effective than in Alexander's day. But what if it wasn't a decline, but instead was the fact that everybody had caught up by that time?

All successor armies would have Alexander's technology, and over time even the enemy's would gain the technology. If everyone has equal cavalry, then the cavalry obviously becomes less dominant. It would appear as a decline. The Successors couldn't do Alex's tactics, because they weren't fighting hopelessly inferior cavalry anymore.

Thus there was more and more reliance upon the phalanx to win the battle, which during Alex's time it was never intended to do.

[Rosacrux]

Not bad for speculations, but some data is wrong:

Sarmatian saddle was not in use in (as far as I know) in the timeframe we are talking about. Neither was the Kontos lance. You might had some right if you were talking about the first century BC (maybe) or the first two centuries AD (definitely), but in that time the cavalry technology of the Sarmatians (the Sauromatae in that timeframe) was definitely much lower than the Greek one.

We have numerous accounts by the contemporary historians about the battle equipment of Alex and his cavalry, and none of those accounts supports your theory about the use of a slightly couched saddle of a kontos-like lance. Also, Alex had no Thracian cavalry in his army, he had Thessalian cavalry (except if you count the Paeones as Thracian but they were not… I think. And they were not shock cavalry, only scouts and skirmishers).

I think the – undeniable, as you notice – superiority of Alexander’s cavalry was due to a number of factors:

- The horse breed of Macedonia (the same were in use in Thessaly) was an extremely good one. Tall warhorses (with the ancient standards, at least) bred and grown for a single purpose (just like their medieval counterparts): carry their master to battle.

- Better equipment, in the form of the xyston lance, the decent thorax and the rest of the standard gear for the elite Macedonian cavalry.

- The superb quality of the riders themselves. The Macedonian “nobility” (landowners) of the semi-feudalic Macedonian society, were just like the Medieval knights, full-time warriors, raised from childhood to fight. They were extremely good riders and extremely good fighters. And as athletic and well-build as any Greek of the time.

- Last but not least, the superb tactics employed by Alexander (or by Philipos). He wouldn’t just blindly charge into the center of the enemy formation, he would coordinate the strike of the cavalry wedge (the Macedonian companions fought in wedge, while the Thessalians used the rhomboid formation) of his companions into any breach that could lead to the location of the enemy leader or the weak-exposed point of the enemy formation. But to achieve that breach and make sure his army will hold together until he gets that breach to charge into, he would use all the resources he had available: the phalanx-ram-wall to pin or distract the main force, and cover the sides. The light and medium cavalry and skirmishers to make sure the flanks of the phalanx were protected and that his companions won’t have to be wasted to fight the enemy cavalry, instead of dealing the decisive blow. And so on.

As for why the decline of the quality of the cavalry occurred, well, it’s quite simple: the Macedonian society was what it was: Rough people, brought up as warriors, in a harsh environment, living off the land, without much to worry about, but surrounded by fearsome enemies (Thracian, Illyrian). The same Macedonian Greek people were “planted” as courtiers and actual nobility in the newly conquered territory – you can’t expect them to be the same. They lost everything that made them the formidable warriors they were. Also, the Macedonian kingdom was not an absolute monarchy, it was more like a feudal monarchy (at least until Philipos) than anything else. On the contrary, the newly conquered territories were organized as traditional oriental despotic monarchies. That would diminish the power of the nobles (=heavy elite cavalry) even more.

The latter has another significance: the successors could not rely to the (rebellious and generally unreliable when it comes to politics) Greek subordinates as their main fighting element. They’d rather rely on their citizen (Greek colonists or natives) that could be controlled much easier. So, the cavalry, albeit present in the diadochoi armies, and of decent quality, was not the basic element of the fighting force, just a supplement. And since the main enemy for the Antigonid kingdom of Macedonia were the other successors, they quickly followed the same road: oriental monarchy, relying more and more to the masses of infantry and not the combination of arms etc. etc.

A cavalry force like the one Alexander commanded would’ve never play a secondary role in all battles fought against the Roman Legions, a military system who’d been extremely vulnerable to massive heavy shock cavalry tactics.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 03 2004,08:06)]And let us not forget that the Macedonian phalanx was not established to be a "one fits all" type of formation, it was one integral part of the combined arms systems introduced by Philipos and led to perfection by Alexandros:

Sarissa-phalanx as the core, working as a ram, traditional hoplites as multi-purpose infantry, skirmishers (archers and javelineers) to cover the flanks and, well, skirmish, light cavalry to protect the flanks and deal with the enemy skirmishers and heavy cavalry as the spearhead, to deal the decisive blow to the enemies weak point (or strong point, if that was where the leader was located).

Outside of a combined arms system the Macedonian phalanx was vulnerable in more than one ways.
You could say that.

However, you could also say that the only task of the Foot Companions was as a follow-up to the companions, making them the core of the army. Robin Lane Fox even goes as far as saying that the Companions were the best cavalry the world has ever known, better than even Chingis Khan's cavalry. I don't agree, but what we can say is that the wedge formation, which they apparently got from the Thracians, combined with great training and bravery, and of course a very brave leader which spurred you on, makes for some very solid shock cavalry. Alexander was very important for the effectiveness of the Companions in each of his battles.

Shield Bearers could be relied on to do just about anything. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

And, from the top of my head, they did have Thracian cavalry from the Thracian regions that Philip had conquered...



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] ]A cavalry force like the one Alexander commanded would’ve never play a secondary role in all battles fought against the Roman Legions, a military system who’d been extremely vulnerable to massive heavy shock cavalry tactics.


Exactly the Romans had been proven to have terrible cavalry, and that was one of the factors that Hannibal was able to use to his advantage with cavalry superiority at almost every encounter with them.

Once the Romans were able to get good Cavalry on their side, Hannibal was in trouble.

[shingenmitch2]

Hi Rose,

What u state certainly is the traditional perspective on it.
It may very well be that the things u state were enough to give Alex the advantage. I just have always felt that there had to be something a bit more for him to be able to handle enemy cavalry in the ratio (at times) of 10:1

There is (as of now) no evidence for that saddle that early, but up until recently there was only scant evidence for the saddle at all. And experts are conflicted as to its origin, etc. So to pose it as postulation isn't too out of the realm of possibility. [hehe, it has also struck me as odd that a people who can construct the Helopolis wouldn't have a decent saddle]

Yes, u are correct about the Thessalians... I was just refering to the strong cavalry tradition of the "horse" Thracians (Ordrisi? off the top of my head) who were in close proximity to Macedonia and were very much like the Scythians. Thus giving the Macs good contact with the eastern horsemen.

The Sauramatians were 6th –4th cent. BC. By the 3rd cent. BC we have the full-blown Sarmatian Roxolani and Aorsi moving west as I recall. Some how they were able to displace the equally adept Scythian cav. So they must have had an advantage too.

But it is true, what I propose is certainly not a well substantiated theory
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 03 2004,09:13)]A cavalry force like the one Alexander commanded would’ve never play a secondary role in all battles fought against the Roman Legions, a military system who’d been extremely vulnerable to massive heavy shock cavalry tactics.
Interesting that you say that. Didn't the Romans fought and won against the Alans (not Parthians - I think in the late Imperial Roman period) who had a very good shock cavalry? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Oleander Ardens]

About the Sarmantian cavalry:

From the beginning of the 4th century some of them were armed with the Akinakes, the Sarmantian longsword, the whip (Naginaka?). Huge lanceheads are found in some Kurgans of the southern Ural, and quivers which are said to be able to hold 300 arrows - a number which seems incredible, perhaps the writer is referring to quantity of arrows of the multiple gorgytos...

I will post the sources once I'm back home http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Hi Oleand

My understanding of the akinakes is that it was originally the Scythian short sword (wedge in shape) that they wore strapped to their thigh. I'm sure that the Sarmatians would have used it as well. Apparently there was a Thracian version of the akinakes that was known for its length. AFAIK the two primary weapons of the Sarmatians was the bow and the kontos (lance). Though I have seen where they were known to use a whip/lasso.

[Oleander Ardens]

Hi Shingen;

In fact the Akinakes was a common type of shortsword in the Indo-iranian cultures to which both the Sarmantian, Persians and Scythian belonged. All of them carried it in the way you described it. A nice combination of persian akinakes in a greaco-scythian case was found in an kurgan near the village Filioppwka near Orenburg in the southern Ural..

There is one instance described where the Scyhtians used the whip with success against their revolting slaves - although it used for psychological effect..

Whips are both depicted on bowls and the remainings of them where often found in the Sarmantian graves...

Cheers

OA

[Red Peasant]

As Rosa has pointed out, the most important factor in Macedonian victories was tactical nous and ingenuity. The morale, equipment, and training of the Companion cavalry was very important, but the aim of battle was usually to insert this strike force into a break in the enemy's front. Philip and Alexander were both masters at this.

In a straight battle between legionaries and a phalanx I personally would back the legionaries every time, but when one adds additional arms such as Companion Cavalry and Infantry and so on, and a commander of Alexander's genius, then the Romans would be in huge trouble and would require very good allies and a general of comparable ingenuity.

On a side note, Pyrrhus was not the first Greek to campaign successfully in Italy from the mainland. Alexander of Molossia did so in the lifetime of his better known namesake, as a subordinate king to the Macedonians. He defeated almost all the southern Italic tribes at the behest of the Greek cities and came to an agreement with the Romans. He could have united the Greeks of Italy into a powerful polity but, as Pyrrhus later found out, they were a back-stabbing lot. One significant effect of his campaigns was to seriously weaken the Samnites, which soon worked to Rome's advantage.

[RollingWave]

I'm not incrediablly well versed in ancient west but I recall that the phalanx (thx to their extremely long and rather heavy pike) had a huge shock factor when they charged strait on...

Would probably guess that they make phalanx beat almost everythign in a straight charge on a open ground... but would suffer tremendeously when terrain or whatever break their formation and when hit on the rear... and have a bit more trouble manuvering than the legion....

[ah_dut]

I believe in optimal conditions an ideal greek army would have kicked riman ass. however, the roman manpower advantage means that they win in the war. greeks may win the battle but not the war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (RollingWave @ June 08 2004,16:26)]I'm not incrediablly well versed in ancient west but I recall that the phalanx (thx to their extremely long and rather heavy pike) had a huge shock factor when they charged strait on...

Would probably guess that they make phalanx beat almost everythign in a straight charge on a open ground... but would suffer tremendeously when terrain or whatever break their formation and when hit on the rear... and have a bit more trouble manuvering than the legion....
Actually, the pure phalanx of Macedonian Foot Companions under Philip and Alexander was a follow-up to a Companion charge...

The Companions would hit a massed unit, strong and fresh. With the aid of their training, bravoure, and formation, they would break it open. At that moment, one or more brigades of Foot Companions would come in to finish the job the Companions started. A basic example of combined arms: a cavalry charge followed up by infantry to maximize the effect.



~Wiz

[Red Peasant]

IMO that's not the case in most of Philip and Alexander's battles. They would try to create the gap first in the enemy's front before committing the Companion Cavalry. For example, at Chaeronea, the Greek allies were entrenched in a strong position. Philip sent forward the phalanx on the right in echelon who then feigned a retreat. This drew out the whole of the inexperienced Athenian hoplite force, which opened a gap between themselves and the more disciplined Thebans on the other flank. Alexander rushed in with the cavalry.....battle won. In this case the phalanx did not engage first but was used to entice the enemy from their position.

However, at Gaugamela, the phalanx engaged the Persians and pinned their centre and left-centre which had already been pulled out of shape in the manoeuvres to counter Alexander's oblique march across their front, and the Persian flanking cavalry was kept busy by allied cavalry and light infantry skirmishers. A gap resulted in the Persian line and Alexander charged in with the companion cavalry.

Alexander did use his Companions as an initial shock force, but only against enemy cavalry. Such was the case at the River Granicus, and at Issus where there was little room for manoeuvre. Darius helped by always adopting a static and symmetrical battle plan with himself in the centre with his best infantry. Issus was close fought because the charge by Alexander's elite cavalry and guard infantry on the right flank opened a gap in his own front into which the Greek mercs of Darius charged. The phalanx was slower moving in order to retain its cohesiveness.

It was the skillful manoeuvring of their forces before contact that usually enabled Philip and Alexander to gain the decisive tactical advantage.

[Rosacrux]

I find myself in complete agreement with what Red Peasant wrote.

Come to think of it, even without knowing the actual account of those battles (the accounts stand with Red Peasants description) but with pure logic: even the medieval knights faced serious restrictions when facing disciplined infantry head on, would you expect Alexander to engage his precious Companions in a cohesive infantry front? That would be such a terrible waste, wouldn't it?

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ June 06 2004,07:48)]On a side note, Pyrrhus was not the first Greek to campaign successfully in Italy from the mainland. Alexander of Molossia did so in the lifetime of his better known namesake, as a subordinate king to the Macedonians. He defeated almost all the southern Italic tribes at the behest of the Greek cities and came to an agreement with the Romans. He could have united the Greeks of Italy into a powerful polity but, as Pyrrhus later found out, they were a back-stabbing lot. One significant effect of his campaigns was to seriously weaken the Samnites, which soon worked to Rome's advantage.
A backstabbing lot indeed. Don't forget also Dionysios of Syracusae, the man who created the short-lived (actually it died with him) empire of Syracusae, encompassing the whole Sicily (save two Carthagenian cities) southern Italy (both Greek and Italic cities) and a good chunck of the Dalmatian coasts and Ionian island.

But his military victories were mainly against the Carthagenian, not Roman. Just shows that even leaders of the magnitude of Pyrrhus and Dionysios couldn't unite the Greeks of Italy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Red Peasant]

Let's not be too hard on the old Greek poleis, Rosacrux. They never could really be united except by more integrated and stronger outside forces, whether Macedonian or Roman. That they lasted so long and so vibrantly was a testament to their inherent strength, importance, and ultimate significance.

They had much more than mere military might and inventiveness to offer to posterity. The democratic and republican spirit, and the concomitant independant ideals of cultural and political theory, which they bequeathed to posterity, were their gift to the modern world.

The 'agonistic' ideal of competition was their natural state and it was this that forged subsquent ideals of rational inquiry and debate. I have no doubt that the world would have been considerably different without them. They were the inspiration for the Renaissance and the rebirth of Europe. Their ideas were fundamental in building modern Europe and the Western way of life.

However, one cannot have liberty without strife, it seems. That is the only sad legacy of their inheritance, but I would rather have that than the alternatives: despotism and slavery (in its broader sense).

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 11 2004,11:02)]... but with pure logic: even the medieval knights faced serious restrictions when facing disciplined infantry head on, would you expect Alexander to engage his precious Companions in a cohesive infantry front? That would be such a terrible waste, wouldn't it?
Yes and when knight actually did try and make large frontal charges against infantry (like Crecy or Courtrai) they had lots of cavalry to try and do the job.

Ancient battles in general had a different infantry/cavalry ratio and the difference in training and equipment (and arrogance?) was smaller.

AFAIK there is not much literary evidence of Alexander using his cavalry for frontal attacks against infantry.


CBR

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Well when they did fight the legions did win but in one of the battles it was due to the phalaenx marching and fighting in broken terrain and the other was after a flank attack. But one on one, even stevens, it could prove really interesting game wise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[ah_dut]

in game, BKB they should do waht's done in community mod, make the phalanx crap at turning but great as a head on meatgrinder. that way, the Roman Sword must use his tactics. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Agreed mate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif