Cavalry in the Hellenistic Period

[JaNuZ99]

My only issue is that the Roman cavalry gets defeated very easily by the enemy. I think I've won that battle once, and that was only because the AI sent all its cavalry on an unsupported death charge against my infantry lines.

same here my italic calvary is a dissapointment really,but once i was on vh/vh and the AI did the same thing, which was amazing, becuase after the calvary were gone i manged to flank the phaglites and one by one my calvary charged from the back and my infantry held them in the front, no survivors

after the battle a marker with two swords was placed on the location of the battle giving the date, who fought and who won (awesome)

btw what are the exact condition to get those markers? (anybody ever gotten them too)

[Quinn Inuit]

Those markers pop up when one side wins a heroic victory.

Very informative post Quinn Inuit. I agree, most of the authors I've read including Adrian Goldsworthy seem to subscribe to the belief that shock calvary did not exist prior to the introduction of the stirrup. That said, you mave a very compelling arguement and cite all your sources, so I am impressed.

Thanks! It's mostly Sidnell's arguments condensed, but I added some of my own work and sources.

Speaking of Pyrrhus, in the beginning of the campaign when the player faces him, the consular army seems to have too much calvary, at least according to the "guide to creating a proper Roman army" which is included with the mod. In that guide, it recommends equipping a consular army with a unit of Italian calvary, a unit of equites and/or another general's guard unit as a tribune. I'm just wondering, is the guide wrong, or was the roman army that Pyrrhus faced especially strong in calvary?

Actually, they were overstrength in cavalry in that battle. Most armies of the period had 10-12% cav (on average), but that Roman army was 17-18% cav. It was enough that they outnumbered Pyrrhus 3:2 in cavalry.

Hopefully that'll change later. The Roman/Italic cavalry are rather... underwhelming at the moment. What we want is for the Greek cavalry (Molossians and Thessalians amongst them!) to win at the end, but to suffer a lot of damage against the numerically superior Roman/Italics.

I agree completely.

I'm kicking around adding some pre-Polybian Era Romans for the game start, but, because of their limited existence in our time period, it's not a huge priority compared to things like a Basque AOR or a better Caucasus AOR.

[Mogan]

While on the subject of cavalry: I did a multiplayer match today, and it seems like 4 units of Thessalians can vanquish 3 units of Armenian Cataphracts, with 60-75% survivours. They were eventually outflanked and annhilated, but my opponent had 4 times as much cavalry as I had (I only won because of my fully upgraded Spartans were outnumbering his remaining Cataphracts 4:1).

[Caesar Augustus]

same here my italic calvary is a dissapointment really,but once i was on vh/vh and the AI did the same thing, which was amazing, becuase after the calvary were gone i manged to flank the phaglites and one by one my calvary charged from the back and my infantry held them in the front, no survivors

after the battle a marker with two swords was placed on the location of the battle giving the date, who fought and who won (awesome)

btw what are the exact condition to get those markers? (anybody ever gotten them too)

You need to win a heroic victory, which I think is achieved by getting about 80% kills of the opposing force. The screenshot attached to this post is a good example (note how many enemy casualties compared to mine btw!).

You can show how impressed you are by tossing a little rep my way

[JaNuZ99]

You need to win a heroic victory, which I think is achieved by getting about 80% kills of the opposing force. The screenshot attached to this post is a good example (note how many enemy casualties compared to mine btw!).

You can show how impressed you are by tossing a little rep my way

of course i will, and i will further congratulate you and wiping those pesky barbarian scum off the map
and i imagine you killed the enemy generals as well? superb

ah checking the ExRM forum for always ends up with a good read, well i'm off to go watch the new episode of doctor who (the last ep was a cliffhanger)

[Caesar Augustus]

of course i will, and i will further congratulate you and wiping those pesky barbarian scum off the map
and i imagine you killed the enemy generals as well? superb

ah checking the ExRM forum for always ends up with a good read, well i'm off to go watch the new episode of doctor who (the last ep was a cliffhanger)

I figured 42 losses for 1060 kills was a more than acceptable ratio . Not bad for a bunch of new recruits!

I killed about 3 family members in the battle, but the main general got away. My cavalry were too far away when he broke to be able to catch him .

[HLandin]

Nice stats Caesar Augustus. By the way, I haven't figured out how to capture screenshots and save them. Is there some trick?? I've tried the hotkey listed in the game but I still cannot find the pictures.

[Carados]

Hopefully that'll change later. The Roman/Italic cavalry are rather... underwhelming at the moment. What we want is for the Greek cavalry (Molossians and Thessalians amongst them!) to win at the end, but to suffer a lot of damage against the numerically superior Roman/Italics.

[Mogan]

Hopefully that'll change later. The Roman/Italic cavalry are rather... underwhelming at the moment.

I noticed that. I charged the molossians from front, both sides and rear with equites and italics. Guess what, they suffered 7 initial losses, 2 during melee, while my cavalry were outright slaughtered. (3.5.3b)

[Carados]

I've never really been into Doctor Who. Too many versions of him as well. It's like James Bond - the James Bond to me is Pierce Brosnan, no one else.

There are a couple of other conditions going on with the whole heroic victory thing. The size and strength of your own army is critical. I've also seen the little markers disappear from maps as well, so there might be a numerical or even a quality limit to whether these heroic victories appear on the map or not.

While on the subject of cavalry: I did a multiplayer match today, and it seems like 4 units of Thessalians can vanquish 3 units of Armenian Cataphracts, with 60-75% survivours. They were eventually outflanked and annhilated, but my opponent had 4 times as much cavalry as I had (I only won because of my fully upgraded Spartans were outnumbering his remaining Cataphracts 4:1).

Sometimes these things just happen. The charge bonus can be a little lethal because it can reach such heights that armour becomes next to useless. I imagine this to be the case with Cataphracts being charged by other top quality heavy cavalry. Having said that it doesn't then explain why those Molossians suffered so few casualties.

[JaNuZ99]

I've never really been into Doctor Who. Too many versions of him as well. It's like James Bond - the James Bond to me is Pierce Brosnan, no one else..

Well i give you that, there are quite a lot of version of him (11), they were all good, though i will admit the last one,David tenet was awesome and while i had my doubts to the new guy Matt Smith are my favorites (and yes i can say this with the fact that i watched some of the really older versions and i'm not even British! that's my commitment to the series

but anyways i still miss David, he was probably the best doctor ever!

@HLadinhttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114002 this guide will tell you how to take screenshots, though be warned it is filled with sarcasm and i think satire is the correct term.

[Quinn Inuit]

You like Pierce Brosnan better than Sean Connery as Bond? Brosnan was excellent in the role, but I think Connery just owned it.

My wife and I quite like the rebooted Dr. Who. I still think Tom Baker is my favorite Doctor, though.

[HLandin]

Very funny JaNuZ99. I must admit, it did inspire a chuckle or two.

[JaNuZ99]

Very funny JaNuZ99. I must admit, it did inspire a chuckle or two.

i thought you might

[Caesar Augustus]

Yeah, it's got a nice sarcastic tone to it. It was more by fluke than anything else that I discovered you could take screenshots like that.

[Scotus]

Hi everyone - first post for me, though I've been playing ExRM for some time now and am still fighting a Bactrian campaign after 18 months! I cherish my double gold chevron cataphracts too much to stop even though the dates have reset a couple of times and I'm way behind on my versions!

I've heard about not having shock cavalry until the stirrup was invented, but having got a horse and thought about the mechanics, I'm not at all convinced.

For a cavalryman to deliver a shock, there has to be a way of transferring the impact from the rider to the horse (and from the horse to the ground). If you only had stirrups, the impact would tend to push the rider off the back of the horse because the leathers that hold the stirrups are far too flexible. What you need is a good, well-attached, saddle that can restrain the rider: then the impact gets transferred from the rider to the saddle, and from the saddle to the horse, and so on.

I've always assumed that is what horned saddles were for (and from vague memories I think that Roman cavalrymen used them). Stirrups would allow a rider to reach side-to-side more and to stand up on the stirrups - i.e. give a greater range of motion, but if you have a heavy cavalryman with a properly designed saddle (horns, or some other form of cantle - the bit that sticks up at the back) they should be able to deliver a shock without stirrups.

[HLandin]

Excellent Scotus. This is something very rare in academics, actually having first hand experience to help support what might otherwise be mere speculation. Your remarks about the design of the saddle having more to do with shock ability than the stirrup definitely seem to support Quinn Inuit's research. It would make sense, since Numidians, who generally rode bearback, were usually skirmishers, only charging or ridding down a fleeing foe, while cataphracts would probably been saddled.

But this brings a question of my own: in the movie Alexander (Colin Farrell), it shows him (and his companions if I remember correctly) riding bearback, but these companions surely would have been intended for heavy/shock calvary. My question is, is the movie correct in this portrail or would companion calvary have been saddled (and thus more effective as shock calvary)??

[Scotus]

Sorry to disappoint - never seen the film, so can't comment on it - but I would think that unless someone has incredible grip on the horse through their thighs they will just get shoved off the horse if the impact is delivered through a weapon they are holding. If they are fighting more or less stationary, it wouldn't matter so much - which means that the horse just serves to move the rider round the battlefield at speed.

I've often wondered what is meant to happen to the weapon when a cavalryman charges, because I can't see how the cavalryman can hold onto a smooth spear when planting it in someone at a charge. Unless it's designed like a medieval jousting lance (at least, as I've seen them in films where they can be couched), I think the rider would have to let go of the spear otherwise it would get forced out of their hand. That would lessen the impact from the weapon.

Or is the "shock" delivered by the horse. That would take some training of the horse (as with police horses), because they seem pretty nervous creatures to me. From what I've read, some of the moves in the "high school" style of dressage in equestrianism (which the Spanish still do) had their origins in training horses to rear and kick in battle. It also would change the demands on the saddle if the horse is delivering the "shock", because all the rider would need to do is to hang on while the horse absorbs the impact.

Interesting how the style of fighting and technology are all linked: what's to happen to the weapon after the intital charge? is the rider to keep holding onto the weapon? Is it the rider/weapon that delivers the "shock" or the horse itself? and how does the rider stay on the horse after all that!

[Boom S]

Or is the "shock" delivered by the horse. That would take some training of the horse (as with police horses), because they seem pretty nervous creatures to me. From what I've read, some of the moves in the "high school" style of dressage in equestrianism (which the Spanish still do) had their origins in training horses to rear and kick in battle. It also would change the demands on the saddle if the horse is delivering the "shock", because all the rider would need to do is to hang on while the horse absorbs the impact.

Interesting how the style of fighting and technology are all linked: what's to happen to the weapon after the intital charge? is the rider to keep holding onto the weapon? Is it the rider/weapon that delivers the "shock" or the horse itself? and how does the rider stay on the horse after all that!

I think you hit the nail on its head. IMO it's a misconception that thrusting weapons like spears were used as part of the cavalry charge, once embedded in the body of an enemy soldier the spear would be very difficult to dislodge and any attempts to hold on to it would either unseat the rider or seriously injure him. they were rather used as melee weapons using the chaos that a bunch of 500 kg animals coming at you at 45kmph induces in infantry.
I remember reading an article on an early modern era English cavalry sword that made similar points to argue that thrusting weapons were impractical and it was preferable to have cutting swords for melee.

this grip for instance would require the rider to generate the force behind the spear thrust rather than using the speed of the horse itself, because of the angle at which the spear comes down.

[Scotus]

That's pretty much the conclusion I was coming to. The shock would have to come from the impact of a half-tonne horse rather than anything the rider could deliver - as you say, I think the rider would end up seriously hurt if they tried to plant a spear and hang on to it. If the shock is from the horse, then the rider "just" needs to stay on the horse. In the absence of anything else, they could always hold onto the horse's mane (not a flippant suggestion - my daughters were told to do that for jumping if they needed something extra to hold onto).