Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 69

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    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?

  2. #2
    in constant inner turmoil Member biguth dickuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    thessalia
    Posts
    344

    Default

    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.





    And death shall have no dominion...

  3. #3
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    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.
    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  4. #4
    Member Member Knight_Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    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.

    British Army: be the best

  5. #5
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    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.




  6. #6
    Tovenaar Senior Member The Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,348

    Default

    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.

    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
    "It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."

    Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul

  7. #7

    Default

    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.
    "We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong

  8. #8
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default

    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 Originally Posted by [b
    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.
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  9. #9
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    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.



    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  10. #10
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    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.
    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  12. #12
    Mafia Hunter Member Kommodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    In a top-secret lab planning world domination
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    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.
    If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward. -Jack Handey

  13. #13
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    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.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  14. #14
    Tovenaar Senior Member The Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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
    "It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."

    Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul

  15. #15
    Guardian of Scotland Member Sir William Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    117

    Default

    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
    Formerly Maximus Aurelius

  16. #16
    (Insert innuendo here) Member Balloon Bomber Champion DemonArchangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C
    Posts
    3,277

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    China is not a world power. China is the world, and it's surrounded by a ring of tiny and short-lived civilisations like the Americas, Europeans, Mongols, Moghuls, Indians, Franks, Romans, Japanese, Koreans.

  17. #17
    in constant inner turmoil Member biguth dickuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    thessalia
    Posts
    344

    Default

    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.





    And death shall have no dominion...

  18. #18
    Member Member Oleander Ardens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    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..



    "Silent enim leges inter arma - For among arms, the laws fall mute"
    Cicero, Pro Milone

  19. #19
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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.)



    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  20. #20
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    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.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  21. #21
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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).

  22. #22
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    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.
    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  23. #23
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    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?

  24. #24
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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 Originally Posted by [b
    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.
    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  25. #25
    Swarthylicious Member Spino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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.
    "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" - Theodore Roosevelt

    Idealism is masturbation, but unlike real masturbation idealism actually makes one blind. - Fragony

    Though Adrian did a brilliant job of defending the great man that is Hugo Chavez, I decided to post this anyway.. - JAG (who else?)

  26. #26
    Tovenaar Senior Member The Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,348

    Default

    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
    "It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."

    Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul

  27. #27
    Flying Dutchman Member Ellesthyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Holland, Den Haag
    Posts
    327

    Default

    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
    A.E.I.O.U.

    Austria Est Imperare Orbi Universo
    Austria is destined to rule the world.

    (Or, as the Prussians interpretated it:
    Austria Erit In Orbe Ultima
    Austria will one day be lowest in the world.)

    Österreich über alles!

  28. #28
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  29. #29
    in constant inner turmoil Member biguth dickuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    thessalia
    Posts
    344

    Default

    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 Originally Posted by [b
    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 Originally Posted by [b
    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...





    And death shall have no dominion...

  30. #30
    in constant inner turmoil Member biguth dickuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    thessalia
    Posts
    344

    Default

    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...


    And death shall have no dominion...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO