Printable View
i am afraid i will be kicked off the forum ~:) ,but i think we should mentioned some historical mistakes and inaccuracies in Totalwar series.
(In units,campaignmap,historical data,and so on )
:book:
The fact is that Totalwar series still remain by far the most historically correct series of games on pc.
:charge:
Hi Seleukos. Why would we kick you off the forums? I feel like a naughty moderator all of a sudden. ~;)
There is a wide variety of opinions about the TW games especially the newer ones. I'm sure the historical inaccuracies of each game have been covered before, but I don't think there has ever been a combined list from all the games. Are there any particular ones that bother you a lot?
.
I doubt anything is fully historical in RTW. :no: In MTW it was midway, with namelists being the most ridiculous, especially in the east. STW, I believe, was the best in terms of historical accuracy.
The trend is downhill. :end:
.
The entire Egyptian faction bugs me the most.
~:eek: :dizzy2: Where can I start? Somebody else do this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
well,
in fact i didnt find the right posts maybe-but they are too much!
I would like to start for example with the Egyptians in RTW:
they are completely wrong!
Their units are like the Pharaoh's era.During Hellenistic period (330-31 BC) Egypt was under Greek occupation,after conquered by the phalanxes of Alexander.
:charge:
So,the Ptolemys-the macedonian rulers descendants of Ptolemeos I ,general of Alexander,organised their army,according to the macedonian style.
Depending on a phalanx and supported by cavalry and auxilia.
In the army, (at least until 217) served only Greeks ,and hellinized barbarians of the East.Native Egyptians were servants and till 217 (Raphia's battle)the y are never mentioned to fight.
But even after that they fight as auxilias,and armoured as greeks not with pharaonic weapons!!
:duel:
The ptolemaic army had elephants,macedonian phalanxes(as phalanx pikemen),companions and so on.
nah, stw wasnt historical accurate at all, it was just a better setting and the mood/feel was right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
There isn't a diverse enough amount of units for each faction in my opinion. There were many more Greek phalanx units and such.
The Egyptians in RTW are a mix of Ptolemaic, Static, Kushite, and New kingdom Egypt. The axemen, archers, and light chariots are new kingdom. The nubian units are Kushite. The heavy chariots and nile spearmen are Static Egyptian. Nile cavalry and the skirmishers/slingers are Ptolemaic. The camel archer and pharaoh's guards appear to be mostly made up. The Ptolemies didn't use Macedonian companion cavalry they used the Cleruch, which was the same thing but with a different name. They were Macedonians given land for service. They did use a Macedonian phalamx made up of Greeks settled in Egypt or mercs. The native Egyptians were considered un reliable. They also used peltasts with javelin spear and shield. Plus elephants, javelin cavalry, Galatian mercs, immitation legions, Cretan merc or Egyptian/Syrian archer or slingers.
The most accurate factions are the Romans, after a fashion. Pre-Marian has archers and they didn't use them. Post Marian the most puuled-out-the-ass units are the cavalry auxilia, and the urber urban cohorts. Yes that's right praetorian cavalry were in fact real.
Historical mistakes in RTW , OK..
1. :stars:
To be continued...
(there are so many , it's no use , but it is a game so...)
RTW, going from memory:
1. One of the bigger aspects that was missing in RTW was the total absence of troops armed with thrusting spears AND throwing spears. Instead RTW had fantasy units like head hurlers and wardogs. Too bad, because it would have been nice to fill out the balance with some melee troops carrying thrusting/throwing spear combos.
2. The whole animation for hoplites is questionable, I've been convinced by others here (and reading, and looking at contemporary depictions) that hoplites indeed fought mainly overhand. Underhand was used, but not as the primary style.
3. And the Macedonian style phalanx animation suffers from not being shown two handed and not being positioned properly. The shield position is an issue as well.
4. Another one that is annoying is that the wrong elephants are used. Large savannah/bush elephants are incorrectly depicted for the two better elephant types. However, both of those should use Indian elephants. The smaller North African forest elephant is depicted for the base elephant unit (correctly.) The forest elephant is the smallest of the three types, with the Indian elephants being in between, and the big bush elephants being the largest but not being trained for warfare.
5. Another thing missing from elephants: the Numidians didn't use towers on them (nor did the Carthaginians most likely, since they also used forest elephants), but did have a rider or two sitting behind the mahout and hurling javelins.
6. Ditto for the British chariots. They should have been javelin hurlers who dismounted to fight--essentially elite mounted infantry champions. Granted, this latter part is hard to program. However, the British archer chariot units are just wrong.
7. Flaming arrows--uggh. Too mobile, used too much by the AI whenever it sees a unit with weak morale. They should be much more problematic, and restricted in employment. Certainly should be unavailable in certain types of weather. Easy to edit out...
8. Archery--big problems. Range is too high and killing power much too great for base level units. And elite units have far too much range. No clear attenuation of accuracy with distance. No lack of line of sight issues that would kill accuracy. They can all fire even when 16+ ranks deep. Weather effects very muted.
9. Vanilla slingers should have a bit more range (while vanilla archers should have less...so both would be similar in range.) Best to adjust velocities in the files too if you change these.
10. Light auxilia are depicted with pila instead of javelins...merely a cosmetic issue.
11. Would have been nice if the Romans had a slightly weaker assortment of hastati/principes at the start. Historically, they adapted during the 2nd Punic war to the gladius. Before that their swords were less effective. The Iberians (Spanish) had better iron and smiths, so the Romans adapted from them. Also, during the time frame of the 1st Punic war and into the second, they perhaps should have a somewhat flatter more oval scutum instead of the larger curved later shields depicted. Also, the Romans were only using a single greave at the time (lead leg.) In all this isn't a huge difference, but the early hastati/principes should have their hands full against Iberian troops who had better swords.
12. The stats of the Iberians don't match their gear...despite having decent protection shown, they've been given almost no armour (less than many barechested/bareheaded units.) And compared to the hastati/principes their swords are not given adequate stats. It is unfortunate, since this is the only sword unit the Carthaginians have, and it is really useless. It is difficult to get to the build level of even Libyan spearmen for many cities early on, so this really weakens the Carthaginian stacks--can't be helping in autocalc for AI vs. AI.
13. Rome should get access to slingers (funditores) , rather than an archer unit prior to the reforms, or at least earlier in the tech tree than the archers (which would be moved back a notch.) Note also my comments about the relative merits of archers/slings in this period.
14. While it isn't a "mistake" per se...an eariler Italian campaign with Samnites, Latin League, Etruscans, Epirotes, etc. could have been very interesting. It would have required greater speculation on unit types, and would have been smaller in scale. But this would have allowed the Romans to field a rather different initial army than the Polybian legion...perhaps even hoplite style, then have a trigger event to adapt.
I can forgive the Egyptian depiction to some extent, the units might not look right time wise, but there are several phalanx units. They also have access to elephants if memory serves. Several of the depictions are pretty decent, except for being out of the timeline. The Egyptian chariots...well, those of course are more of a problem. So anyway, I'll grant some leeway for the Egyptian units, as they at least have some basis (although anachronistic.)
All "barbaric" factions.
While I do agree with the rest of the points made, I consider the "Egyptians" the most unforgivable (by far) blunder in RTW. In comparison, everything else is minor. Of course I'd agree with GC that a revamp of the battle system would serve the game very, very well (I for one was dissapointed by the tiny size of the battlefields, the small enhancement of army sizes from MTW and the unrealistic model of battle).Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
But still, going "historically" (that's what the topic is for, not "how should RTW really be) the New Kingdom Egyptians instead of Ptolemaic Hellenistic Egypt, is by far the greatest historical blunder. All others pale to comparison with that. I find the lumping of the Greek city-states in a single faction annoying as well, and the depiction of "barbarians" is silly at best. Also, the sheer stupidity (well past beyond historical innacuracy) of units like druids, head hurlers, pigz, dogz, flaming pidgeons, horny rhinos, rabid pandas, tigers-on-steroids and... err... ahem... well... sorry, but I had this flash from the past...
Oh, and the three supposed Roman houses are somewhat a-historical. They would have existed, but certainly not in the way they were portrayed in RTW.
That would a completely different game altogether... not TW
That's the thing. People seem to want the TW series to be something it isn't: at its heart it will always remain an accessible take on wargames, and many of the suggested improvements would fundamentally alter that.
That said, some of the historical inaccuracies present in RTW are inexcusable, and it has been shown by such mods as EB and RTR that historical accuracy does not equate a boring game.
.
May I add on top of what has been already said the incorrectness of strategic warfare system based on sieging settlements a la Medieval Europe, which would go best in MTW but is simply anachronistic in antiquity.
.
Mr. Cube. Could you please make me a game?:bow:Quote:
Battles not big enough. They should not only contain way more people, but should be massive affairs--requiring days of manouvering, negiotiating with the opposing general, skirmishing, camps, ect. Formations should be very important, and extremely difficult to change once commited to the battle.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
-> Paradox Games
Precisely. And as long as the TW series stays enjoyable I'll keep playing.
Yup. All that stuff with siege weapons knocking holes in walls is completely out of place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Yes,but maybe i should mention :among the well known games-and the more interesting games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Among those seeking more representative historical games, the titles GC mentioned are well known, and certainly more interesting/accurate in several regards. Age of Rifles is a very old title. CWBR is newer, and has AI that is far ahead of RTW's (night and day difference.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
Perhaps you meant "mainstream" vs. historical.
Anyway,the thread is not about how historically correct is TW ,
but how historically wrong.
The Macedonian Army
There are some inaccuracies.
I cant understand the separation of the cavalry units:the Companions were the heavy cavalry-i dont think there should be "macedonian cavalry" :charge:
who are the Royal pikemen?
Where are the Hypaspists ? (lighter ,but well trained infantry,could form phalanx or fight as peltasts) :knight:
I m not sure if the Cretan archers where used after the Alexander's era.
There could included Agrianes javelinmen(among the best in ancient world)
Macedonian cavalry is the 'lesser' companions more or less. Remember that the Companions were made out of the nobility, the lesser nobility being the rank and file with the higher nobility being closer to the ruler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
If that warrents another unit I don't know, but directly a mistake it is not.
Royal Pikemen is a bad name as these are obviously ment to represent Hypaspists (well they are mentioned in the unit's description after all).
The Hypaspists you want were reformed into the Argyraspids in India, no longer functioning like that. But since Macedonia didn't retain her own corps of Argyaspids in any significant degree it was obviously decided that a Hypaspist unit would be a good compromise.
Cretan Archers were employed by the Cathies in both of the first Punic Wars, and Antiochus III had a contingent of them at Thermopylae and Magnesia.
So in regards to factions the Mecedonias are aboutthe most accurate there are.
I mean Cretan archers in the army of the kingdom of Macedonia,not if they were used in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
As for the hypaspists they were lighter infantry than the phalangites.
The royal pikemen are shown as heavier inf. than the phalanx pikemen in the Game.
I know Companions were Elite.The 1600 who took part in Alexander's campaign couldnt be all near the King.So maybe Elite Companions and companions could be better. And the equipment of "mac.cavalry" doesnt seem to me realistic.
In conclusion ,ok,Macedonians are not as inaccurately presented as the Egyptians (!!),but they could be better.
:knight:
Cretan Archers existed even after Alexander.... There are sources that they existed in the Medieval period also.
MTW was good in historical accuracy, though the units are too general....
RTW was horrible.
STW was acceptable.
Armoured Hoplites = By my count, Corinthian helmets had been dropped as they impaired line of sight and hearing. The Arm. Hoplites should belong in 500 BC. The Hoplite armour had also been decreased somewhat.
Sacred Band Infantry were apparently not armed like they are in either.
Cataphract Camels = According to Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World the Parthians (could be another kingdom) experimented with cataphract camels, but it didn't prove to be effective at all.
Scythian Female Warriors = There is only one mention of them and that was by Herodotus. Apparently they did note exist as depicted in RTW.
True enough, but they did exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
There are also a number of graves of females with war gear like bow/arrows/gorytos, spear, javelin, war knives, and a few times swords. So they did exist individually at least.Quote:
Scythian Female Warriors = There is only one mention of them and that was by Herodotus. Apparently they did note exist as depicted in RTW.
~:confused: What is your point with this? Should Macedonia be denied access to Cretan Archers (mercs)? I'm not certain they were used much by Macedonia as it had access to local archers and slingers, but the option was there, and any king could have taken the choice to hire them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
Unfortunately you presume that the Hypaspits survived as a unit. They did not. The unit was disbanded in India and was from then on gone. Argyraspides and royal guards (for the lack of a better name) took their place. These troops were indeed heavier as now the battles were more and more becoming a pike-shovefest on plains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
And then we are down to a name really. As names goes many units are downright silly, but their function and equipment are good. This is one of those cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
"sacred band" of carthage!!!
They are greek hoplites of the persian war era!! ~:confused: ~:)
Nope, they actually did exist -- just that it is probable that by the beginning of RTW they no longer were employed on the battefield.
That fighting style and basic armour would be historically correct from what I've gathered. The Sacred Band fought in hoplite phalanx with helmets, cuirasses, and large round shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
Hoplite warfare was the standard way for many advanced cultures to fight in the 4th century BC, and into the 3rd. Roman armies were hoplite style in the 5th century and probably throughout most of the 4th century. The game starts in the early 3rd century. The Sacred Band itself was no longer in existence at that time, having been wiped out earlier while fighting in Sicily vs. the Greeks.
i dont disagree with the existance of sacred band unit,and the y way of fighting(almost all the hellenistic world was fighting in phalanxes)
,but for their equipment: corinthian helmets,hoplon shields,linen cuirasses,greek gaiters all put together....they are greeks :knight:
The Carthaginians brought Spartans over to train their army, so it is quite logical, really... just that there are important cosmetic inaccuracies such as the pattern that runs around the border of the shield.
did their trained the carthagenian blacksmiths too ?~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I know this,but this training is refered to the battle tactics and army organisation.
I don't think most would object to changing some of the style to match what is known about Carthaginian troops, but the essentials of the armanent were correct. (Ignoring RTW problems with hoplites in general.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
There was a lot of sharing/purchase of gear from various nations and sources. Carthage was a trade based economy/society. While the Spartan training being referred to (Xanthippus?) came primarily from the 1st Punic War, Carthaginians were fighting in some sort of hoplite phalanx much earlier than that. It was not as drilled and disciplined as it should have been and Xanthippus, a merc was given control to improve them. Of note, however, is that when the army went into combat later against Regulus, the mercenary hoplites (Greeks?) were the ones that were routed, not the Carthaginians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
CA did not develop as many individual models/skins as they probably should have. Some of it might have had to do with limitations in the game engine on the number of units. Overall though, the product seemed rushed, and they probably just didn't have the time to do more differentiation.
Yes, and these battle tactics required these armaments. Suffice to say, the shield pattern, helmet and several other things are incorrect, but on a more general level little can be said of their inaccuracy -- regarding equipment, mind you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
The point really, is that a Carthie noble would most likely have been able to recognize the Sacred Band we see. Sure he could say a lot of things weren't true the same (the helmet in particular) but so is it with basically all units (yes the Romans too).
My favorites:
When the vanilla game begins in 270 BC, Ariminum has almost half the population of Rome. Which is remarkable since the city wasn't founded until 268 BC.
Polybius tells us that in 260 BC the Romans built 100 quinquiremes using a four year old Carthaginian wreck as a model. Yet at the beginning of the game, no port on the game map can even build a trireme.
I'll pass over the pigs and dogs which have almost been pilloried enough by others.
I don't think head hurlers can be adequately appreciated without looking at their stats. CA actually created a weapon type ("head") used only by the head hurlers. The heads have the "armor peircing" attribute. They have a range of 40 meters and each head hurler carries 6 heads. The Olympic record for the shot put is about 23 meters and the shot itself is 16 lbs (7.25 kg) which must be about what a head weighs. I can only assume that the additional range is due to the added torque developed by grasping the head by its hair and whirling it rather than spinning and "pushing" the shot.
Speaking of hair, I couldn't help but notice that all the heads are brunettes. Does anyone know of a mod which substitutes a blonde or perhaps a redhead? Dreadlocks maybe?
On to the various town watch units.
In the Roman case, I'm guessing that these are based on the vigiles, which didn't exist until 6 BC, at the tail end of the vanilla game time frame. The vigiles were formed as a fire brigade and night watch and only (to my knowledge) in the city of Rome itself. Though they became part of the regular army by the time of Septimius Severus, I can find no mention of them ever engaging in combat. The situation elsewhere in Italy is less clear, but I can't find any justification for the Roman town watch unit.
Polybius mentions a Carthaginian citizen militia but describes it as a phalanx, which I take to mean something a bit more formidable than a bunch of un-armored guys with pitchforks. OK, they're supposed to be spears. And Carthage prohibited any other cities under its control from having military forces of their own, so I don't see any basis for the Carthaginian city militia unit.
The greek hoplite militia unit seems plausible but, given that it's "highly_trained" why no armor?
I'd be interested in any information anyone has concerning the historical basis for the town watch units.
My biggest complaint is about the 'barbarians'. Everything about them is silly.
I don't know. I think that, forgetting Egypt and some of the more fanciful units, CA has gotten the basic army line-up correct, even if the barbarians armies are simplisticly represented. What bothers me more is that they lump Iberians, Celts, Germans, Thracians and Scythians together and give an uniform and stereotypical image of them in the descriptive texts and building trees. This is a rather lazy solution, and not at all appropriate for a game that presents itself as historical.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Mind you, even if they had spent more time on a historical background, the fans would probably modded them anyway. And a thin historical justification never bothered anyone much when playing S:TW or M:TW.
marian reforms and lots of units...marian reforms werent till round 80 BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
........
I can't pull quotes off the top of my head, but all the readings I have done indicate that there was no form of town watch or police unit in any Roman city at all until the Empire. Justice and protection were reliant upon actions by the plebs themselves, there was no help provided by the government. Rome itself shouldn't even be ALLOWED to have a garrison before the Imperial period. If cities needed protection from outside forces or suppression of internal turmoil, the local legions would take care of those problems on a temporary basis before returning to the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
This is a difficult point because of what the game calls Marian Reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Marius' most important reform was the elimination of the property requirement for service in the legions, which took place in 107 BC, though reductions in the property requirement had happened several times earlier. In game terms, this has no effect.
Marius also introduced the legionary eagle (replacing the use of several animal standards), but I can't find a good date for this. It would obviously have to be before his death in 86 BC.
In the game, the Marian Reforms change the unit types available to the Roman faction(s). However, it's not clear to me that Marius any direct influence on the change in the composition of the legions. These changes were more likely driven by the settlement of the Social War in 87 BC, which awarded Roman citizenship to virtually all Italians south of the Po. This meant that the men who had served in the alae were now citizens eligible for service in the legions proper. If this is correct, the the date of circa 80 BC for the change in the composition of the legions is right, though of course the transition was probably gradual.
I appreciate your other, more specific comments also. Regarding the hoplite militia, I see your point about the level of training necessary for a functional phalanx. I probably should have simply said that the hoplite militia unit seems reasonable but should have armor. The stiffened linen stuff used by regular hoplites could not have been expensive.
This is my impression as well, and of course I'm aware of the prohibition against any Roman citizen crossing the pomerium in arms. I'd be anxious to have any references if you run across them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
[ EDIT: spelling! ]
Well, I did run across this in the book I'm currently reading (Caesar by Christian Meier):Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
No sources are cited for this section, so I can't point to a first-hand source, but Meier is certainly reputable. I'll go back through some of my other books and post anything I find.Quote:
The Roman commonwealth had not evolved an autonomous state apparatus. Innumerable functions that the modern state has arrogated to itself or evolved over time - and that are no longer feasible without it - were performed by the citizens acting among themselves: they thus had no need of a bureaucracy, a public prosecutor, a police force, a public edution system or a postal service. Even the need for public order was normally met by individuals, assisted by neighbours, clients or slaves.
well yeah atillius
the marian reforms were mostly about the way they were organised
-the payment
-the composition (cohorts etc)
-the aquilifier (eagle)
now legions were loyal to the general instead of the senate a dangerous thing wich proved disastrous as effective later on
I have this (excellent) book also, but it's been several years since I read it. I'll have to check out the section you quoted from.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Thanks Tin Cow.
Yep, the homogenous "barbarian culture" in RTW is indeed silly. Carthage has cultural penalties when they conquer Iberian cities, though they did have lots of contact with them this is understandable. But if Iberia conquers a town on the far away Scythian plains, they have no culture penalties. :san_undecided:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
It's silly that Rome has acces to Praetorian and Urban cohorts, the Praetorians didn't exist until Augustus created them and the Urbans even after later (not sure about the exact dates)
It annoys me that when the Marian reforms hit, you go from a fairly balanced hastati-principes-triarii instantly to supremely trained legionares.
The Legionaires depicted would be fit for the Caesar/Augustus period, but not for the time when the Marian reforms occur in the game. There should be no testudo, no perfectly square shields, and they're too strong compared to the principes you had just a few turns ago. The legionaires got better and better until reaching their peak under Caesar, they didn't just switch from pre-marian units to uber cohorts.
Praetorian cavalry- I'm not sure if they existed, but they're way too powerful. As the faction description (truthfully) suggests, Rome should have strong infantry and limited cavalry. Yet Praetorians are better then the companions of Macedon, wich is ridiculous.
Archery has been mentioned, and I'm going to do it again :san_tongue: . Romans didn't use archers at all until much later, and those they did use were all foreign auxilia. The Greeks used them sparingly. Neither had much respect for archery, because it was looked down upon. Generally only people who couldn't afford true war gear (hoplon and curras, scutum and gladius...) would be pressed into service as skirmishers and archers.
To many bare breasted units! CA seemed to want to create a "barbarian" feel with them, but don't tell me Scythians rode the northern plains with no clothing except pants...especially in the winter.
Germaanse Strijder
I rather disagree on this point, at lest with respect to Greece. While I think this bit of conventional wisdom is overstated and something of a modern focus on only particular evidence for the classical period, it is really out of tune with the Hellenistic (RTW period) Greeks. Cretan archers Rhodian slingers, neo-Cretans, peltasts, Thracians and light infantry of all types figured prominently in Greek armies from the 4th century BC forward.Quote:
Romans didn't use archers at all until much later, and those they did use were all foreign auxilia. The Greeks used them sparingly. Neither had much respect for archery, because it was looked down upon. Generally only people who couldn't afford true war gear (hoplon and curras, scutum and gladius...) would be pressed into service as skirmishers and archers.
GS
i dunno if the peak was under ceasar...but i do know that the "late roman legions" in RTW were used in Hadrian and trajans time way after the end date of RTW so with all due respect they should have been banned or atleast changed.
the early would become normal and befor normal another early should have been made
If they would have left out the lorica-segmentata wearing legionary cohort, the forum would be flooded with posts of "Why do the Roman wear chainmail? Everyone knows they used segmented armour!". In other words: they had to include Imperial Legionaries because that are the Romans everyone knows.I think the oldest known example of Lorica Segmentata dates from Augustus' reign, so it is not entirely out of place, but it would take some time before it was in common use. A worse error is that all legionaries, even the pre-Marian ones, use a square Imperial shield.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Urban cohorts, Praetorian infantry and cavalry were all established by Augustus IIRC, so they are not out of the time-frame. Whether they, or the legionary cohorts for that matter, where as powerful as they are in the game is questionable. I think the game portrays the Romans as they were under the best conditions, which was seldom the case in reality.
As it is, R:TW is more (but not entirely) a popular view of history, as opposed to a historical one.
It was my understanding that the Greek polises only started employing these alternative troops because the "warrior population" of most cities were depleted. I recall someone mentioning that at the peak of Athens power she could field around 14,000 hoplites, and only about 1,000 when Alexander ascended the throne. Ippicrathes did make use of peltasts, because he couldn't rely on his own hoplites to defeat the Spartiates.Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
By what I've read the ball was really put rolling by the Athenians and their allies (based on some earlier experiences) during the Peloponnesian War for the fairly simple reason they had slight difficulties dealing with the Spartans in a straight hoplite clash.
By what I know most armies (that now were organized as such to begin with - hodge-podge barbarian tribal warbands don't really count) of the period covered by RTW actually had a fairly flexible approach to their armies. Oh, their "native" troops tended to have pretty standardized gear and tactics - but everyone was only too happy to supplement them with all sorts of odds and ends in the form of allies, auxiliaries and mercenaries whenever anything of the sort was available (which was most of the time). The Roman legions proper may have had only a lot of heavy infantry, a handful of cavalry plus probably some artillery, as per official specs - but that certainly didn't keep them from scraping together every archer, horseman, javelineer or whatever they could add to the army to help out, and it is difficult to imagine why other armies would act differently. If it's even remotely useful and can help you win the fight, it gets brought along. Basta.
One gets the impression it was in practice pretty much the norm to keep various kinds of support auxiliaries attached to the legions, which is understandable as in their basic configuration they were uncomfortably limited in certain areas (it is no doubt rather easy to find this out in practice in RTW too). The famous case of settling an entire population of Sarmatian auxiliaries in Britain (ie. pretty much to the other side of Europe) would probably be a bit extreme manifestation of this.
Wow you guys are good, I got a headache from all the knoledge I just stored in my head...im going to sleep now.
Thucydides writes that in 426 BC, during the Pelopennesian war, the Athenian commander Demosthenes invaded Aetolia with a force of hoplites and archers. This is before any serious battle losses, certainly nothing like those preceeding the huge Syracusan expedition 11 years later, so employment of archers was clearly not due to a shortage of hoplite manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
Demosthenes suffered defeat and severe casualties at the hands of the Aetolians, who were armed with javelins and avoided contact with the Athenian hoplites. The Athenians were only capable of hurting the Aetolians until the archers ran out of arrows.
Demosthenes apparently learned his lesson: later in the same year he used light-armed troops to spring an ambush on a Peloponnesian force in Amphilochia.
The next year, after besieging the island of Sphacteria with hoplites, he was able to capture it when Cleon brought him a force of peltasts and 400 archers. In the process, the unthinkable happened: almost 300 Spartans were captured, including 120 Spartiates. This shocked the Helllenic world and could only have inspired imitation.
I agree that deployment of light troops seems to have increased during the Peloponnesian war, but I don't think the impetus was the Athenians trying to deal with the Spartans. The Athenians had intended to avoid the Spartan hoplites from the beginning and it's striking that a war lasting 27 years had only two large-scale hoplite battles: Delium (which can almost be classified as an accident) and Mantinea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Also, according to Thucydides, at Delium the Boeotians (Spartan allies) had about 7000 hoplites, 1000 horse, 10,000 "light troops", and 500 peltasts.
Germany. The spearmen can use the phalanx. Now where might I ask would they learn how to do that? And the women with meat cleavers... sorry not happening.
They can do that because Gaius Julius Caesar wrote that the Helvetii tribe fought with long spears in a phalanx like formation.
Germans often used spears and fought in a closer, more cohesive formation than Gauls (or at least the Gauls Ceasar faced), so a phalanx unit is not that far-fetched. The Greeks weren't the only ones who thought of using pointy sticks in a close formation. Also, the phalanx simulates to some extent the shieldwall, which vanilla R:TW is incapable of doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by snevets
German women were present on the battlefield, and would often stop their routing husbands and shame them into fighting again. It is unlikely that they wouldn't have carried some short of weapon. However, the wisdom of turning them into a unit is indeed questionable.
I'll except close spear formations, and I'm not saying that the idea would have to be uniquely greek, however the formation is very specific in the way that it has progressive rows with spears raised, although the formation isn't even accurate for the greeks since they mostly fought overhand in the phalanx.
The game only simulates one phalanx formation and an unit either has it or doesn't. There is no half-phalanx, Greek phalanx or Macedonian phalanx, and it seems a waste of time to incorperate it when a lot of corners where cut wit historical accuracy. As for the overhand speargrip, I understand the developers did try to create it, but couldn't get it to work properly. There was a problem with reaching the opponent, or something. However, more determined modders succeeded in incorperating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by snevets
yeah one phalanx...but the greeks used shieldwall and no phalanx but they still gave hoplites phalanx
That was mainly before the Macedonians, though, AFAIK. I'm not saying post Macedon Greeks relied solely on the Hellenic pike phalanx for their heavy infantry needs, but I've gotten the impression the old hoplite shieldwall more or less got phased out from active service.
There are a number of interesting things in the sections of De Bello Gallico in which Caesar mentions the Helvetian phalanx. Here' some of the text (translation by W. A. MacDevitt):Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
I assume that Caesar identified the formation as a phalanx because of the Helvetians fought "in very close order".Quote:
The Helvetii... after having repulsed our cavalry and formed a phalanx, advanced up to our front line in very close order.
Here's the next paragraph:
I think this is interesting. I've read elsewhere of Sulla doing the same thing. It appears to me that Roman generals fought on foot in the rare cases when they engaged in combat. A general intentionally engaging in combat is trying to raise morale, so he needs to do it on foot, "making the danger of all equal". Roman generals needed a mount to get around the battlefield quickly, but I doubt they went plunging into the enemy on one.Quote:
Caesar, having removed out of sight first his own horse, then those of all, that he might make the danger of all equal, and do away with the hope of flight, after encouraging his men, joined battle.
On to the very next sentence:
This passage explains why the pilum was designed the way it was: even if it doesn't skewer your opponent it can still deprive him of his shield.Quote:
His soldiers, hurling their javelins from the higher ground, easily broke the enemy's phalanx. That being dispersed, they made a charge on them with drawn swords. It was a great hindrance to the Gauls in fighting, that, when several of their bucklers had been by one stroke of the (Roman) javelins pierced through and pinned fast together, as the point of the iron had bent itself, they could neither pluck it out, nor, with their left hand entangled, fight with sufficient ease; so that many, after having long tossed their arm about, chose rather to cast away the buckler from their hand, and to fight with their person unprotected.
It's also interesting that Caesar refers to the Helvetii as Gauls here. Earlier he had mentioned Orgetorix, a former king of the Helvetii, which certainly sounds like a Gallic name not a German one. And in the second paragraph of the work he says the Rhine separates Helvetian territory from that of the Germans. So perhaps the Helvetii picked up the phalanx from their German neighbors across the river.
Much later on, when Caesar is describing the battle against the army of Ariovistus, he clearly associates use of the phalanx with the Germans:
I can only read the the last sentence above as a tribute to the fighting qualities of the Roman legionary.Quote:
But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above.
AFAIK the region known as Helvetia - modern Switzerland - was mostly occupied by Celts around the time, so referring to them as "Gauls" would be quite sensible. Fighting in a "phalanx" would seem to be rather unlike the traditional Celtic way of warfare though, and might have been inspired by their Germanic neighbors not too far to the north (and who probably every now and then fought as mercenaries in Celtic scuffles and vice versa - after all, Caesar was also able to make use of German mercenaries in Gaul wasn't he ?).
Suomalainen friend,
I agree entirely. My point was that the Helvetii were actually Gauls, so the fact that they used the phalanx says nothing about the Germans using it.
The last quotation in my post is the one that's required to infer that it was the "custom" of the Germans to use the phalanx.
yup thats true... the point was that way so you couldnt use yur shield after it was hit with a pilum and it the shaft soft so it could only be thrown once. by the romans ofcourseQuote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
and that last thing of leaping sounds quite alot as the soldiers that jump up and strike the enemy down in RTW move :P