Jump to content
Lupo001

Pike and Shield in RQG

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

the Romans always had a problem with Calvary

Only until they converted to Christianity. đŸ˜‰

Cavalry might be a different story though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Only until they converted to Christianity. đŸ˜‰

Cavalry might be a different story though.

đŸ˜³

Whaddaya want from a Baboon? Ya know how many of us it took to type of the complete works of Shakespeare? ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Joerg said:

To be fair, I cannot picture either Philip or Alexander as fighting in the front rank of a phalanx. Making the best use of the improved Macedonian phalanx (as opposed to the older Spartan/Athenian versions) was what made Macedonia enter the Greek squabbling as a superpower. The Thessalians probably were their equals when it came to horsemanship and horse warriors.

As in most of the ancient world, cavalry were recruited from the nobility, who were rich enough to own at least one horse. No phalangites & no heavy cavalry = no Macedonian victory in Greece or the Persian Empire. Whilst many of the Greeks were using combined arms, to a degree, it was the Macedonians that created a winning combination. For a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

As in most of the ancient world, cavalry were recruited from the nobility, who were rich enough to own at least one horse. No phalangites & no heavy cavalry = no Macedonian victory in Greece or the Persian Empire. Whilst many of the Greeks were using combined arms, to a degree, it was the Macedonians that created a winning combination. For a time.

Most Greek notions of combined arms were the strategic combination of phalanx warfare and naval operations. Apart from possibly the Thermopylae defense and much later Agincourt, I cannot think of any land battle where a side didn't use any skirmishing/missile forces, but those usually cancelled out. Battles in which missile weapons contributed decisively to victory were rare, or combined with a "new" technology or innovative tactics.

Nobles on horseback were common, but them being an effective force was far from guaranteed - the Roman equitates were more of a status class than a positive military contribution through much of the Republic. Good for having an elevated view over the battle. The secret for having an effective cavalry force was morale or discipline - ideally a combination of both. Wannabe champions in no longer heroic battles usually are a weakness rather than a gain, although they could be used for luring the foe out of the planned and prepared positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joerg said:

Most Greek notions of combined arms were the strategic combination of phalanx warfare and naval operations.

The Macedonians were about as Greek as the Thracians, in some degree, especially in material culture (and there's ongoing debate as to whether they spoke a (distant) dialect of Greek or a sufficiently different language for it to be distinct), so the Macedonian application of combined phalanx and shock cavalry were a winning combination that broke the Greek armies, before they were unleashed on the Persians... The Macedonian cavalry were an elite nobility, but also well trained, well organized, and highly disciplined, compared with other cavalry of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×