Printable View
Hi guys.
I am wondering what is you best army composition for all factions.
I am looking for realistic army composition so this means no abusing of slingers and elite troops.
Right now I am most interested in this factions: Carthage, Lusotannan and Gauls but would like to get your opinion on all factions with time.
Thanks.
SPQR: The best composition is in fact the historical line-up
1x Velites (Leves in Camillan times)
1x Accensi (or better local missile)
2x Hastati
2x Principes
1x Triarii (2x in Camillan times)
1x Cavalry or additional FM
1x General
Double this for a full consular army.
Succesor: Should be phalanx heavy:
4x Phalanx (keep together on the field)
2x Flankers (Peltastai, Thureophoroi or better)
1x Missilie or other Aux. (enemies are often other good armoured Greek, so no need to spam missile)
1x General
2x Cavalry (1 light/medium and 1 heavy best)
A full stack should not simply double this but raise the proportion of flankers and other auxiliar.
Can also be used for a late or "European" Carthagian army; may be with only 2 or 3 phalanx and more missile or light cavalry depending on the enemy.
Greek: Basicaly the same but replace phalanx with Classical Hoplites or a Thureophoroi/Peltastai mix. Can also be used for a early or "African" Carthagian army with variations when either fighting Numidians or Ptolemaians.
Eastern: Pontos, Armenia, and to lesser extend Parthia and Baktria. Can also be used with the Seleukids to fight these people
2x FMs or real heavy cavalry (no Asiatikoi Hippeis and the like)
2x Light Cavalry (preferable horse archers)
2x Foot Archers (top would be Syrians or Skythians)
2x Spear (might be phalanx, but doesn't really fit this style of combat; Pantodapoi can do as well)
2x Flankers (sword or axe)
Barbarian: The best the better. Barbarian units usually don't have special roles like phalanx or horse-archers can all replace each other.
That is save for missile and cavalry. Cavalry is not so usefull because your (Barbarian) enemies will use spears in huge numbers and even the best Barbarian cavalry, Brithentin, aren't really battle-tanks.
Archers are very usefull because your enemies will not be well armoured. So have 2 of them in each half stack. Otherwise you should prefer swords over spears because of the boni.
Fighting Romans with them is a different story, because Romans are perfectly equipped to fight Celts and the like....
I've got the Correct hisrical things for Romani and the Maks, which is in my Manual [/shameless plugging]
I kno that Konny made some mock-ups of a decent amount of the facttions usinng some website as a guide. not sure how accurate these are, as I know previously this website hadn't always been enrtirely accurate. Worth a shot though.
How would you set up a fullstack Polybian legion? To my understanding...Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
4x Velites
4x Hastati
4x Principes
2x Triarii
2x Equites Romani
1x General
Now there are three spaces left. Additional missile troops? Cavalry?
Also I'd like to know if the Romans used Pedites and Equites Extraordinarii in Polybian times, or would these units be a "Camillan only" selection? The reason is I want to give my Roman enemies a cheat-legion.
Shockingly cheap, widely available (even as mercenaries) army for almost anyone, because it's primarily Hellenic:
4 x Classical Hoplites
2 x Thureophoroi
2 x Peltastai (optional whether you switch for Thrakians)
2 x Kretan Archers
2 x Gallic Slingers (or anyone else)
2 x Heavy Infantry
2 x Family Members
2 x Light-medium cavalry like Curepos or Illyrian Hippeis
Leaving two slots free for whatever else. If you want a smaller stack, drop one of the hoplites, halve your slingers, archers and cavalry, and ditch the heavy infantry.
They most certainly did use pedites extraordinarii in Polybian times. In the siege of Nova Carthago, it was they who forded the lake, I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
But one unit in a full stack is as many as there should be.
Yes, a true Consular army should have a unit of Pedites and Equites Extraordinarii each:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
2x Velites
2x Accensi (or better local missile)
4x Hastati
4x Principes
2x Triarii
1x Cavalry or additional FM (not more, otherwise you would be fielding to much Roman cavalry)
1x Equites Extraordinarii
1x Pedites Extraordinarii
1x General
In Camillan time you need the additional 2 slots for Triarii. In Polybian times I usually leave them out, that makes the Polybian Legions a bit cheaper and allows to field more of them.
I know it's an old argument, but I really don't agree with these all-Roman setups (especially not in Camillian times), when we have Italian troops on the roster. Post-Second Punic War I can certainly see these as being necessary, but before that I think there are all kinds of reasons to use Samnites, Bruttians, Lucanians and Campanians in the roster, not least to give the army a bit of varietyQuote:
Originally Posted by konny
SPQR cannot recruite Lucanians. Bruttians come as Level 3 regional unit, so not recruitable in Homeland governments. Campanians are part of the cavalry, what leaves it the two Samnite units. So, unless you change a few things, you have to use the "Romans" as both, Legions and Allies.
I agree. The Socii were an important part of the Roman armies, which is why I have 8 units of them in my Camilland and Polybian armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
2 Allied Ranged (with the Velites/leves and accensi)
2 allied Light Infantry (on either side of the Hastati)
2 Allied Heavy Infantry (on the principes flanks)
1 Pedites Extraordinarii (In front of the 2 FM's in Polybian, behind in camillan)
and 2 Allied Cavalry, who go on the wings.
I have 2 faction members to make up for the lack of E. Romani. who are crap anyway, so everyone wins.
Thank you for your answer konny, I always thought that the division of the light infantry in Rorarii, Leves and Accensi came to an end in Polybian times, and thus all light infantry were Velites. :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
It isn't easy to say which types represented real fighters or how these had been armed. For example, "Accensi" might as well have been non-combatants such as messangers or camp workers. As far as I recall, Mommsen, Ranke or some other older author said Velites originally had not been armed but were equipped with weapons that became available during the campaign. That is certainly not true. The equipement or tactical role of Leves and Rorarii seems to be unclear as well. For example, Leves might have fought together Hastati; what would be a unit more like our Rorari.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
After all it is also hard to belive that the Roman army of the Punic Wars fought completly without ranged weapons, save for javelins, when those played an important role in every other army and also, for example, in the later Imperial Legions every soldier was trained in using the sling. The most likely candidates for using slings or bows in the Republican army would have been members of the Rorarii/Accensi/Leves/Velites-class.
In gameplay terms you can (and should!) still recruite Accensi in Polybian times, regardless of the name of the unit.
If you want my oppinion, I think a good army composition for Successor armies would be the following (at least they do a ery good job for me):
General x 1 (GR)
Heavy Cavalry x 2 (HC)
Medium Cavalry x 1 (MC)
Medium Phalangites x 4 (MP)
Elite Phalangites x 2 (EP)
Archers/Slingers x 2 (A/S)
Elite Infantry x 2 (EI)
Flanking Infantry x 3 (FI)
Reserve Troops x 3 (RT)
This is the composition I favour the most when playing as a Successor faction. I deploy my army as follows:
-------------(FI)-(MP)-(MP)-(EP)-(EP)-(MP)-(MP)-(EI-EI)---------------
-----------------------(RT)----(RT)---(RT)-----------------------------
--------(FI)--(HC)---------(A/S)-----------(A/S)---(MC)--(FI)----------
--------(HC)----------------------------------------------(G)----------
I find this quite an effectve composition and I guess it is historical to some degree, mostly due to the facts that I place my elite phalangites in the center of the battle line and my elite infantry on the right wing.
Maion
Dare I?
I suppose someone must:
General
2x Grivpanvar
4x armoured horse archers
8x Parthian or Dahae nobles
Fill with whaterver cheap anvil (if you must) and you have the best Pahlavan army!
For Makedonia: (based on Alexandros's and Phillipos's armies)
1 General
1 Hetairoi
6 Phalanxes (I use 4 Pezhatairoi and Angyrspidai, as this seems the most reasonable, and works best in terms of balance)
1 Toxotoi
1 Hippies Thessalonikoi
1 Akontistai
1 Spendonetai
2 Hetairoi Aspidophoroi
2 Peltasts
1 Hypaspists
2 Allied Infantry (Agarian Assault Infantry, for example)
I' unsure what to fill the extra gap with. Either Peltastae Makedonikoi, or another Hippies Thessalonikoi.
Didn't Hellenistic armies rarely make use of reserves?
Alexander did, for instance at Gaugamela (in that case classic greek hoplites) ,but thats pre-hellenistic.
AFAIK your right as far as hellenistic armies go, with the phalanx as hammer and not anvil anymore, though things like thorakitai and thurephoroi give at least the possibility for reserves.
For reserves, Alexandros did frequently use Agrarians, which, when not used in asssaults on the flanks, were kept in reserve, so they could lob their javelins, which they were famous for doing well, at their enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddler
Thanks for the detailed explanation, konny. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
My Makedonian army is as follows:
1x General
1x Hetairoi
1x Hippeis Thessalikoi
2x (Thraikoi) Prodromoi
1x Argyraspides
4x (Hysteroi) Pezhetairoi
1x Peltastai Makedonikoi
2x Thureophoroi
2x Kuarothoroi
2x Agrianikoi Pelekuphoroi / Thraikioi Rhompaiaphoroi / Cordinau Orca
1x Thraikioi Peltastai
2x Toxotai Kretikoi / Syriakoi / Thureopherontes
I don't think I have to many elites. I don't know whether it's historically correct, but well, historically correct would it be to lose three wars against the Romans. :grin:
Here I've made a diagram.
Black = heavy, grey = light(er), hollow = peltasts and archers, diagonally divided = cavalry, turquois = enemy hordes.
Triangle = phalanx / spear infantry, "swords" = attack infantry, stick = ranged infantry, flag = cavalry, sun = general.
H = Hetairoi, T = Thessalian Horse, P = Prodromoi.
https://img214.imageshack.us/img214/...schlachrp4.jpg
you might find this useful for early Makedonian armies. It can also be adapted for other Diodochi.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._formation.gif
Thanks for the info. Keep it coming still a lot of factions left.
Where are the barbarians fans?
well, we don't actually know what they used, as quite often, they relied on ambushing, or sheer numbers. Likewise, they din't wright anything down, which is a bit of a bugger for finding out how they rolled.Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
just use 20 diferent units and stack them together :smash:
Not quite like that, but it's not far off. when playing as the barbarians, you gotta remember: variety is the spice of life! but I think something like:Quote:
Originally Posted by ||Lz3||
1 General
1 fm
4-5 missile troops (other barbs are basically unarmoured)
6-8 line troops
2 cav (maybe 4)
2-4 reserves
rest fill with elites
for Sauromatae and Saka, you basically have 2 armies: The raid army, and the siege army
Raid:
All horse archers
2 FMs
4-6 Nobles
4-6 Riders
4-6 standard HAs
Siege:
For well, sieging.
2 FMs
4-6 Heavy Infantry
2-3 Lighter Infantry
2-3 Foot Archers
1-2 Nobles
1-2 Riders
1-2 standard HA's.
The basic goal of these guys is to kill as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
I just tend to phalanx heavy, and relatively improvised. though in an AS campaign, i do form armies like this:
1x general
2x cavalry
3x flanking troops
3x assualt troops (e.i guards). they get the most chevs, because they and only they assault cities (yea, I know what your thinking)
7x phalangites (at least one must be superior to the others)
2x archers
2x "optionals". dpending on where I am, that could be slingers, elephants, siege, or anything under the sun (one siege I even lobbed 2 siege weapons-the 1-talenters). i think slingers are the best option, thuogh HA's are good
with the romans, the starting units are simply lumped together, so an legion is 1 unit of each type, with 6 infantry and 1 cavalry. I have 2 of those, plus a general, leaves 5 slots to use on Italian auxilia (no archers, but lots o' slingers)
Well I didn't ask for historical army composition but EB army composition that you find the best.Quote:
well, we don't actually know what they used
For example if I remember correctly reformed Aedui army i used was something along this lines:
2 x Solduros
2 x Golberi Curoas
4 x Bataroas
6 x Batacorii
2 x Sotaroas
1 x Iaosatae
2 x Brihentin
General
A Casse army that I find effective, both in campaign and custom battles.
1 Generals Body Guard
1 Chariot unit (or second general)
7 Semi-Professional Spears (Usually Gaeroas, but regionals such as Cemmeinarn, Silurae Birnai and Vellinica can do just as well)
4 light cavalry (Usually Myrcharn, but use the regionals if you can)
2 Uirodusios
1 Skirmisher (Your preference, I usually use Balroae for their numbers)
1 Rycalawre
3 "Hard hitting" infantry (I usually use the Belgae Milnaht, but if you have the money or need more staying power use Eiras or Calawre. If on a tight budget Teceitos or Botroas)
Most barbarian armies in EB don't have the defence or the staying power to compete in a fair fight against other factions. Although it is possible to make such an army, they generally dont have the numbers or are just to expensive to truely compete. Therefore, I find it easiest to focus on another factor, morale, to win my battles, and this is particulary effective with the Casse.
In the list above the chariots inspire my own units, stopping them from routing, whilst inspiring fear in the enemy. The Uirodusios also add to this fear effect. The Spear units add shear weight of numbers to the assault, again lowering the moral of the enemy. The Skirmishers rush out in front of the spear units to try and absorb as much missile fire as possible. Light Calvary deal with enemy cavalry to the best of their ability, and can be joined by a chariot unit or my reserves if in trouble. The reserves consist of the Rycalawre and the hard hitting infantry. They plug any holes appearing in my line, take advantage of holes in the enemies, or rush around a flank. The Rycalawres champion ability make them particulary good for stabilising faltering battle lines.
Cheers. Into the manual, it goes!Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
I would certainly hope not, since it lacks 3 units I feel are obligatory, considering that he's likely talking of a post second reforms Aedui army judging from the brihentin (otherwise it's still 2). These are the Neitos, Leuce Epos and the Gaesatae. No Time of Soldiers army should go without them, or at least no army for a manual should. Another thing to note is that the Batacorii are only available in the Belgae settlements and southern Britain, so not really viable for an army in southern Gaul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roniniho
But something like...
1x General
1x Heavy Cavalry (Brihentin, Remi Mairepos etc.)
2x Light/Medium Cavalry (Leuce Epos, Taramannos etc.)
3x Missile (iaosatae, sotaroas)
1x Elite Infantry (Solduros, Arjos, Carnutes Cingetos etc.)
3x Heavy Infantry (Gaesatae, Neitos etc.)
4x Medium Infantry (Bataroas, Botroas, K-H Hoplitae etc.)
5x Spearmen (Gaelaiche, Caturiges Gaedann, Noricene Gaecori etc.)
... Perhaps? I don't know. I'm not going after any pre-made setup when I play a Celtic faction, I'm just taking what is available in the area, preferring local units. This is what my Arverni army looks in my current campaign (no reforms):
1x General
2x Leuce Epos
1x Liguriae Epos
3x Iaosatae
1x Gaesatae
3x Botroas
1x Bataroas (fighting in Cisalpine Gaul, these are being faced out)
3x Gaeroas
1x Kluddacorii
2x Caturiges Gaedann
1x Noricene Gaecori
1x Mori Gaesum
I wouldn't say it's the "best army composition", but it's the result of how I play as an Arverni warchief. That's also why I haven't said anything earlier in this thread.
um... interesting... I'm going to sticky this thread... :thinking:
veeeery good ideas so far
Che! here you have your manula! :2thumbsup: :beam:
Ok I have loaded save game to check out my real army composition. I was quite off.
This is how my Kings army looked like.
Galaiche 5
Brihentin 2
LeuceEpos 2
Solduros 2
Beataroas 2
Neitos 3
Iaosatae 1
Sotaroas 2
King/Heir
About Gaesatae.
Well in almost 60 years of game I only trained one unit of this guys.
Before reforms they did serve in my Kings army.
This I think looks nice. Although I would add max up to 1 Gaesatae and max up to 1 iaosatae .Quote:
But something like...
1x General
1x Heavy Cavalry (Brihentin, Remi Mairepos etc.)
2x Light/Medium Cavalry (Leuce Epos, Taramannos etc.)
3x Missile (iaosatae, sotaroas)
1x Elite Infantry (Solduros, Arjos, Carnutes Cingetos etc.)
3x Heavy Infantry (Gaesatae, Neitos etc.)
4x Medium Infantry (Bataroas, Botroas, K-H Hoplitae etc.)
5x Spearmen (Gaelaiche, Caturiges Gaedann, Noricene Gaecori etc.)
Ave!
My roman armies consist of:
5x Hastati - 1st line
3x Princeps - 2nd line
2x Triari - 3rd line or 2nd line flanks
3x Rorarii - 1st or 2nd line flanks
2x Skuda Fat Aexsdzhytae - 0 or 4th line
2x Misthophoroi Toxotai Kretikoi - 0 or 4th line
2x Enoci Curoas or Druhtiz Bastarnisku - 2nd line
1x General - 4th line
Cheers. incidently, what sort of formation did they use, as I can't seem to find any mention of them in Livy or Julius Ceaser's thing on gaul.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Have a balloon. :balloon2:
I agree on the Gaesatae: one unit is all you really need anyway. Limiting the Iaosatae to just one is unnecessary though, as they're not that great any more. I would probably go a 1/2 split anyway, which one I'd have two of would depend on who I'm fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
I wish I could help you there, mate, but I'm far from a historian. I think Thaatu came pretty close to the mark with this illustration, though:Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roniniho
https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/87...tacticskw7.jpg
~;)
They were slightly more organised than that. I mean, the Samnites were only partially 'civilised' (note the quotation marks), but still invented, AFAWK, manipular tactics, and the quincux.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
The gauls also, had 'sections'. Not quite on a level of the Romans or greeks, but less 'EVERYONE, CHARGE', and more 'THOSE PEOPLE IN FUNNY HATS OVER THERE, CHARGE! EVERYONE ELSE DEFEND THIS HILL!'
After all most of these "Barbarian" armies were composed of professional soldiers, at least in their cores. All their commanders would have been experienced officers that knew their trade and were in no way inferior to their Greek and Roman counterparts (just imagine men like Ariovist or Arminius in charge of Antigonos' or Mithradates' army).Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
The armies would have had division of several kinds; divisions by tribe for example are recorded - what would also include division by traditional waeponary and way of combat. There would have also been divisions by troop type or quality. There was a developed chain of command as well as a way to communicate orders.
What they were lacking, and in what they would have been inferior to the Greeks and Romans, was personal discipline. Each individual ranker seemed to be very eager to gain personal fame in a battle. That would have made it difficult for a commander to keep control over his troops once battle was unleahsed.
To make matters even worse, the leaders themselves would have charged ahead of their men into close combat to proof their bravety; and there is hardly anything more useless on a battlefield than a fighting general. A Roman or Greek general watching the show from a distanced point and not busy fighting for his very live would have been more able to give the right command at the right moment.
As ever, Konny always manages to smear the mud of rightness all over the faces of the wrong. Thankyou.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
Before the Peloponnesian war, a Greek general's job also consisted mainly from giving an inspiring speech and leading from the front. This may have had something to do with the fact that hoplite armies didn't allow much in the way of command and control, though (unless they happened to be from Lacedaemon). I imagine this changed when armies became more professional, but Alexander liked to get stuck-in, and most of his successors also felt the need to lead from the front from time to time. According to Goldsworthy, the Romans were special in not expecting their generals to participate in combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
Of course I know they were more organized than that. It was just a (bad) joke. :tired:Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
With a Hoplites army there is in fact not much to general around. Once it was aligned parallel to the enemy there was only way it could move: forward. There had also been no independent divisions or reserves that a general could commit. Reducing it to one sentence: Hoplites didn't need a general at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Alexander is a complete different story: He was leading the assault wing. The phalanx was very much like the Hoplites of old and could look after itself. Alexander on the other hand kept the "hammer" under his close control. So he was able to strike swift, in the right moment and the right direction without beeing hindered by having to use messangers or having an obscured view from somewhere behind the phalanx. Riding ahead of the decisive charge was certainly also something that fitted his character most.
The Romans were of course not the only ones who used to lead a battle from the "general's hill". Hannibal was another example of a general leading from behind.
Wasn't Julius Caesar the exception to the "lead from behind" rule? I remember hearing that he liked to get stuck-in too.
Probably propaganda to gain popularity made up by the man Gaivs Ivlivs himself?
Not really. There were a handful of examples where he took to the field in person, but they were very much the exception, not the rule. Generally when things had gotten really bad (Gergovia, Alesia, Munda). He makes a point in his own commentaries of highlighting his role as director, not participant.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
By his era Roman generals really were spectators, who's job it was to inspire and observe the actions of his men (and punish cowardice), not take part. Generals could still win the spoila opima for killing an enemy king/general, but it was rare. I think Marcellus (before the Second Punic War) was the last Roman general to win it.
I FULLY disagree on these two points.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
Brithentin is an EXELENT cavarly, true is not a cataphract (sp) tank or a Hetaroi lightling, but Brithentin can give and take a beating. They are pretty fast and have a strong charge. Plus they are a pretty cheap for a heavy cavarly.
Besides, u don't send Brithentin (or most other cavarly) to the front of a ready wall of infantry.
Romans are strong and cheap, but they ain't "perfectly equipped" to fight celts. The bigger swords of the Celts have a higher lethality than the gladius, and if against axemen (teceitos, tekastos, Alpine phalax) Romans are F***. Plus Roman cavarly ain't that great, save for Eqvites Extraordinarii (Elite Heavy Cavalry of the Italic Allies).
Now a war winning gallic army has to have the following, Gesatae, axemen, moral-reasing units, and VERY strong cavarly wing.
The strenght of a Gallic army falls in applying the following combination on ur enemies in battle:
(1)Solid front+Scaring units+Cavarly charge= Rout.
(2)Rout+Mass Infantry+Scaring units+Cavarly= Routing cascade.
U want a quick battle as a Gaul, long protracted ones are not good as most of units lack armor.
Also, 1 Gaesate is NOT enough, you need a at least 2.
In fact the charge of Brihentin is weaker than that of Prodomoi. Yes, they aren't Eastern Kataphrakts - and they aren't even Mediterranian standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
The wast majority of Gallic soldiers are unarmoured spearmen; and for fighting those Romans are perfectly equipped. Of course, when "Gallic" armies are made of picked soldiers from outside Gaul, things might be different. And Roman cavalry is far superior to their Celtic opponents. Equites Romani and Campanii should have no difficulties dealing with Leuce Epos, and Extraordinarii are superior to Brihentin in all disciplinces, be it charge, AP secondary weapon or armour.Quote:
Romans are strong and cheap, but they ain't "perfectly equipped" to fight celts. The bigger swords of the Celts have a higher lethality than the gladius, and if against axemen (teceitos, tekastos, Alpine phalax) Romans are F***. Plus Roman cavarly ain't that great, save for Eqvites Extraordinarii (Elite Heavy Cavalry of the Italic Allies).
My Getic "Kings Army"
2x FMs
1x Dacian slingers
1x Dacian Archers
1x Elite Dacian Archers
3x Dacian Skirmishers
1x Elite Dacian Skirmishers
2x Thraikian Spearmen
3x Light Dacian Phalanx
1x Heavy Dacian Phalanx
1x Falxmen
1x Costobocii Axemen
1x Rhomphaiaphoroi
1x Dacian Horse Archers
No idea how historically accurate it is, but it crushes anything the Greeks throw against me. It's a bit bigger than I would usually prefer, but I have more money than I know what to do with.
I'm sure you can squeeze another unit in! If there isn't 20 units in an army, what's the point? If you're after historical accuracy, I'd focus more on the Falxmen, as these were the backbone of the getai tribes.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhughthom
Yeah, I know they used a lot of falxmen but they are just too good! I limit myself to one unit of slingers per stack with all factions, and with the Getai I have given myself a one falxmen per stack limit to give the game some sort of challenge. I also leave the Rhomphaiaphoroi in reserve unless I really need them. The only weakness in the army is a lack of armour. I guess the phalanx wouldn't survive one on one with Hellenic phalanx, but then why would I let them do that when I can throw falxmen, komatai and cavalry at the enemy from behind?
If I remember Goldsworthy correctly, Ceasar didn't actually participate in the fighting. He just went far nearer to the frontline than was expected from a general in order to encourage his men.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
I am not sure what you are trying to say. I merely pointed out that Hellenic generals did join in the fighting, unlike their Roman counterparts. Fair point about Hannibal, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
TRUST THIS GUY!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
he can kick anyone's ass with those frigin brihentins!!
ARG I hate them now just cause of him :p
he always beat the crap out of me when I try to play with romans, hell my frontline just mass routes after his charge...
Brihentins are not weak! but well they dont do that well in mele though :smash:
The difference is that Hellenic generals usually fought leading the tactical reserves. They kept control on the battle until these were committed. In fact another saying is that once a general has committed his last reserves he can't do different than line up with the men. Another point with those Hellenic generals is of course the imitation of Alexander himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
A Germanic general, for example, would have most likely to be found in the first line of the centre of his army, and so he would be leading the first full scale attack on the enemy. After that he would most likely not have been able to control the battle. In fact his subordinates would have had difficulties to even find their general in that chaos. That does not follow that they had been poor generals, it is more that the lads expected their leader to do so.
Another example for commanders leading from behind would be Xerxes and Darios (and with them probably Persian commanders in general).
Alexander didn't use much in the way of reserves. His personal unit may not have been the first to engage, but he definitely didn't wait long to engage either. IIRC most later Hellenic generals were more cautious, but they still wouldn't have the same amount of control and mobility as a Roman general.
His assault wing or the heavy cavalry, plus infantry support, under his personal command was the reserves - in tactical terms. The difference is, of course, that it was usually the only body that did actively attack the enemy, while the centre and the refused wing acted very passive. That's the difference between Alexander and, for example, Napoleon who prefered to attack the enemy with different parts of the army on various spots before committing the reserves.
So shortly after the start of the engagement Alexander would have been somewhere in the enemy lines, and therefore unable to control the greater battle.
The decision took place where he was (not because of his person, but due to the nature of the troops he commanded). The other parts of the line where a static phalanx and a screen on the other wing, neither of which needed any superivsion by the general. That all had to do with the composition of the army and the overall tactics. Hannibal, for example, would have never won Cannae had he commanded the Spanish cavalry in person.