- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,570
A great video explaining the tactics and modus operandi of a Roman legion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree,But the very lack of Roman Cavalry was their undoing. They drafted Auxillary troops to act as Cavalry but were not very successful against Horse mounted archers.
Horse archers are overrated IMO; they are never decisive tools of war. Their main purpose was to harass the enemy and force them to loosen their formation (so that they could be attacked in a concentrated assault by heavier forces), and/or to bait the enemy into detaching forces from the main body to pursue the horse archers (again, making the main enemy force more vulnerable to a concentrated assault). However, horse archers themselves can be countered fairly easy by massed formations of foot archers. A good example of this in the Roman context would be the battles fought in the 2nd century C.E. by Arrian (the military commander-cum-classical historian) against the nomadic Alans. Arrian was able to defeat the Alan horse archers by deploying heavy infantry in depth, supported by ample numbers of foot archers. The greater range and firepower of the foot archers compared to the horse archers gave them a clear advantage over the latter. A few centuries earlier, Alexander the Great was also able to defeat the Scythian horse archers at the Battle of Jaxartes (329 B.C.E.) using a similar combined arms approach. Massed formations of crossbowmen can also be used with similar efficacy against horse archers. The Han Chinese were able to triumph over the horse archers of the nomadic Xiongnu confederation thanks largely to their use of drilled corps of crossbowmen. Much later, the Crusaders in the 12th-13th centuries were able to use crossbows with similar, devastating effect against the Arab and Turk horse archers, and their use was key to the initial Crusader military success.But the very lack of Roman Cavalry was their undoing. They drafted Auxillary troops to act as Cavalry but were not very successful against Horse mounted archers.
This thread is meant to be about historical Roman warfare rather than Rome TW (which is anything but historically accurate), but since TW has been mentioned I mind as well as chime in with what I remember of this game. I used to play this game online, where some of the battles got extremely competitive:This reminds me of the days I was addicted to Rome TW. It was the best battle emulator for this period. All horse archer armies were devastating against light armour formations but would run out of ammo against legionaries . Roman equites were no more than light cav fodder, good for running down a fleeing enemy or attrition of other light cav. Legions were easily flanked unless you had Pretorian cav. Cataphracts were the great equalizer for eastern factions. Elephants were an interesting shock weapon, but easily delt with pilla. The Greek phalanx was unstoppable if you couldn't flank them. They had the second best cavalry next to catas. Chariots were a joke by this time. Camel cav was interesting with a smell to scare horses.
Charge bonus is irrelevant. Why would you charge with foot archers? Why would you charge with horse archers, for that matter?Foot archers don't get a charge bonus and wear out easily, although they do give better volleys. Horse archers are quite good at taking them out. The only archers best to disable them are long ranged and armoured. Cata archers will decimate any archer unit. That unit is why I prefer Armenia.
No, charge Urbans into a Spartan phalanx and the Urbans will win. Any player would first unload pila onto the Spartans before charging, which will make the job even easier for the Urbans. A good pila barrage can easily take out 15-20 Spartans out of a total unit of 60, and this is before the Urbans actually engage the Spartans in hand-to-hand combat.Charge urbans into a Spartan formation of phalanx and the Spartans will win. Only in melee will Spartans lose, their moral and double hp makes them tough. Charging infantry into a phalanx still has bad consequences which is why you need to flank them.
Nobody uses pre-Marian units online. If you play Rome, you take Urban cohorts, period. They actually are not that expensive; I don't remember the exact price but I am positive they are much cheaper than Spartans (and much better, too).Greek hoplites can defeat any pre-Marius Romans in phalanx. Put post Marius and armoured and Spartans can do the same. Macedonian cavalry is the best light horse unit in the game, they crush your equites which means it is easy to flank Romans. If you are playing online you won't afford many later units.
All competitive online battles are played on flat grasslands. Obviously, chariots would be useless in a siege battle.Agree with everything else except the chariots. They require wide open spaces to be effective. If they get caught in a mass of troops they are dead. Even desert maps have rock outcrops which will slow them down. Forget a city defence or woods, they are worthless there. Egypt's strongest unit is Pharo's archers which will keep any missile unit at bay and can double for a reserve of melee troop.
I was referring to advantage of horse archers over foot archers. If you have used your infantry reserves and can't break the line, a flank charge by horse archers can defeat them. Once you have used all your arrows there is little reason not to.Charge bonus is irrelevant. Why would you charge with foot archers? Why would you charge with horse archers, for that matter?
I never use cantabrian circle, I run in with several horse units on one archer unit, decimate it and move to the next one or run away if they start to chase me. Foot archers can't outrun cav trying to chase it down, horse archers can. Horse can quickly adjust to a dynamic situation, foot arty cannot. Horse stamina is far greater than foot archer stamina.Foot archers don't wear out more easily. Anyone engaging foot archers with horse archers would use cantabrian circle to minimize casualties, which wears out the horse archers. Without cantabrian circle, horse archers are easy pickings.
I used to play Armenia all the time with 4 cata archer units on my flanks, they are quite effective as they doubled as heavy cav and archers so I could afford it.Nobody uses cataphract archers online. They wear out even even faster than normal horse archers, and once exhausted all you have to do is send your pick of heavy cavalry and/or chariots to chase them down. Regular horse archers are faster and also much more cost-efficient.
You use what you can afford, it depends on the spend limit. Urban cohorts are the most overated unit. 30 of them can't even defeat a fully upgraded town watch.No, charge Urbans into a Spartan phalanx and the Urbans will win. Any player would first unload pila onto the Spartans before charging, which will make the job even easier for the Urbans. A good pila barrage can easily take out 15-20 Spartans out of a total unit of 60, and this is before the Urbans actually engage the Spartans in hand-to-hand combat.
Nobody uses pre-Marian units online. If you play Rome, you take Urban cohorts, period. They actually are not that expensive; I don't remember the exact price but I am positive they are much cheaper than Spartans (and much better, too).
I was talking about cheap entry cav. I can buy two Mac cav for the price of one head hunter and I guarantee two defeats one.Macedonian light cav is good, but not the best. The best light cav are Scythian head-hunters and Egyptian desert cav. Both have armor-piercing capabilities that let them slice through cataphracts like butter.
Don't know what RTW universe you join, but most of the online games I play have woodlands or rocks in them. It is pretty boring to play on a battlefield you can't take advantage of terrain.All competitive online battles are played on flat grasslands. Obviously, chariots would be useless in a siege battle.