![rome total war egypt rome total war egypt](https://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/6/5620/thumb_620x2000/31387.jpg)
However, you may argue that the Greeks have a low statistics general, but no heavy cavalry. For example, while the Macedonian General is quite bad, if you combine him with Macedonian Cavalry, you produce an effective fighting force that is both highly motivated and deadly.
![rome total war egypt rome total war egypt](https://store.feralinteractive.com/images/screenshots/rometwremastered/screen1.jpg)
Your general should NEVER fight another general head on and alone, no matter how good he is. If you're having a one on one fight with the opposing general, then something is wrong with your strategy. The truth: Unless it's a one on one battle, it doesn't matter how good or bad your general is statistics wise. One of the things that puzzles me every time on these unit guides is the person complaining how bad and useless the Greek generals are and how you should never play them.
![rome total war egypt rome total war egypt](https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/6t/ufo8pq0v6f9h.png)
Caesar vs alexander.now that would be interesting.įor more information about the Phalanx versus infantry debate I would recommend that you read The Art of War by Machiavelli it discusses in great depth and detail benefits of Pike Men (phalanx) and Shield bearers (cohorts) and argues the point that the most effective armies are composed of a combination of the two as GRUPI has suggested. THEREFORE.Combined arms phalanx system superior to Maniple Legion, Maniple legion massively superior to phalanx. As such, the phalanxes went into the battle rather unhappy.
![rome total war egypt rome total war egypt](https://cl.buscafs.com/www.levelup.com/public/uploads/images/149827.png)
However, when Pyrrhus did this at Cynoscephelae, the phalangites, used to neat puncture wounds from the Xyston and Sarissa, were horrified by the brutal hacking apart of the bodies by the gladius, both in combat, and when the legionaries performed their usual drill of stabbing the corpses of the enemy as they passed over them, makings sure they were dead. Had cavalry been invvoled, things would have turned out differently, as that would have enable the greeks, macedonians and successor states to counter the legion by using the phalanx for its original purpose, rather than the primary striking arm of the army.Īs an aside, the hellenic way of waging war also put them at a disadvantage against the romans - if a small skirmish was experienced, then burial ceremonies often took place a s a sort of "pep talk", with the bodies open to see. As such, while a formed phalanx presented a formidable obstacle for anyone, once broken open by the pilae, they were virtually dead men. Thereafter, the phalangite was at a sever disadvantage, since, while skilled with his Sarissa, he was much less capable, and less well armoureed, to come close up with his Xiphos. The pilae would be used to disrupt the front of the phalanx, thus allowing the legionary to get in close with his gladius, protected by his tower shield. If this weren't enough, the roman weapons fit was perfect for cracking open the phalanx. The roman maniple, however, was superlatively flexible and versatile, and could comfortable operate against mostly any enemy it came across virtually unsupported, giving it a monstrously wide range of capabilities. Once you get into the successor states, cavalry declined in importance, and they tended to rely on phalanxes by themselves, pluse elephants, massively reducing the capabilities of the army, as the phalanx, while formidable, needs support. This said, it required cavalry to be truly effective - the point of the phalanx wa to act as an "anvil2 for the cavalry's "hammer", which is ALWAYS how Alexander used them (in fact, he used pretty much the same tactic in every battle.screen the left with lights, central phalanx, heavy charge on the right). A group of phalanxes acquired considerable greater flexibility, as the could adopt a number of formations such as wedges, refused flanks, boxes etc, and when the phalangites were well drilled, such as under alexander, the formation of the phalanx itself (the Syntagma) was flexible. By itself, it could pulverise most things in front of it, but was (obviously, and as has been said before) vulnerable to the flanks and rear. The Phalanx, in order to be successful, really had to be use as part of a combined arms force. Alas, I have lost the second one, so can't be more specific :( I recommend reading Warfare in the Ancient world by Brian Todd Carey, and a book which I think is called "Warfare in the classical world", with hoplite's face on the front. Please excuse spelling ffee gives me jittery hands lol.