Duel Thread-Roman tactics vs Greek tactics

[Sun Jetzu]

Hey guys, because I didnt want to make two threads and get a backlashing for it I decided to post these two things on one.
The first is, I was wondering how Roman Tactics can defeat Greek Phalanx tactics. Yea I read somewhere that the Romans defeated the greeks by breaking up their formation on uneven terrain. In game will the phalanx suffer to this problem too? And how can the phalanx overpower the romans, seeing as how historically that didnt happen.
The other thing I wanted to post on an unrelated story, I found this on the internet while looking for female commentators (Dont Ask) lol

Thoguht it was really cool of CA to honor this gamer by immortalizing him in Rome 2 as a character. And I will look out for him.
Hmmmmmmmm Lastley I wanted to know what you guys thought on the mercenaries return? Do you think they should be easy units to break or betray you? Or should they all come with some hardcore experience but be really expensive? I"m looking forward to some awsome veteraned Mercenaries to be honest. So I guess this was a three part thread lmao
Thanks guys!

[Grimbold]

This thread (or part of it) is essentially this http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...xes-why/page17

[Dan113112]

This thread (or part of it) is essentially this http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...xes-why/page17

Pretty much. That thread degenerated pretty fast, though. It has Roman and Greek fanboys all over it claiming some hilarious stuff.

[Grimbold]

Pretty much. That thread degenerated pretty fast, though. It has Roman and Greek fanboys all over it claiming some hilarious stuff.

Which is pretty much what this thread will turn into eventually.

Herp derp puny phalanx can't resist the roman war machine!

No waiyz!! roman scum can't get past the wall of pikes!

[Dan113112]

Which is pretty much what this thread will turn into eventually.

Herp derp puny phalanx can't resist the roman war machine!

No waiyz!! roman scum can't get past the wall of pikes!

I'll say three things. Equipment, training, and. . . location, location, location!

[Grimbold]

I'll say three things. Equipment, training, and. . . location, location, location!

I'll say:

A greek commander who isn't a dumbass
Not letting your phalanx pursue retreating roman soldiers
Win

[Sun Jetzu]

And thats why I just combined everything that I wanted in one so I didnt make three threads instead lol

[Sun Jetzu]

Well I was looking for more tactics combined with cavalry and archers. Plus the uneven ground and blah blah mercenaries blah blah guy who gets to be in rome 2 blah blah blah

[Sir Pignans]

Hmmmmmmmm Lastley I wanted to know what you guys thought on the mercenaries return? Do you think they should be easy units to break or betray you? Or should they all come with some hardcore experience but be really expensive? I"m looking forward to some awsome veteraned Mercenaries to be honest. So I guess this was a three part thread lmao
Thanks guys!

They should be good, effective and disciplined units.

[Dreagon]

Mercenaries should be experienced, effective units. They should should cost more then regular units ofcourse. I hope they will be easier to recruit. I never really used them in the other games because it was such a pain to get mercenaries you wanted. I only used them as emergency garrisons of places I just conquered and wanted to move up fast.

[Sun Jetzu]

I never really used them in the other games because it was such a pain to get mercenaries you wanted. I only used them as emergency garrisons of places I just conquered and wanted to move up fast.

What you never used them, in rome I ran full mercenary armies at one point lmao But then sometimes they would rebel against me Same problem with leaving them to garrison cities, they could just take it if their bored or something lmao

[vietanh797]

It is simple that Roman Legion are a all rounder, you can use that unit in multi tasks which make them ideal to trained and keep. Which also make you easier to order since there is almost nothing they can't do, they just not perfect at anything. Jack of all trades but master of none

Greek system isn't like that, they tend to focus one unit into one respectable skill. Which result as you can see that they have famous unit in almost each area. Tarentum have Light cavalry, Thessaly with cavalry, Thebes and Sparta for Hoplite, Cretan for archer, Rhodes for slinger, Athens for Navy. They also recognised the abilities of some tribes around them like the Macedon(in Greek view they are not Greek) and Scythia(most famous horse tribe in Greek view) with riding skill, Illyrian (they known to Greek as a great mercenary force which considered can stand their ground somehow to Spartan but unreliable ally since they often switch side), Thracian peltast(They forced the Hellenic factions reform and copy the peltast from them).


So to sum up if you have a Great general in each army the Greek will be have more chance to win. If you have a normal general in each army the Roman tend to come out victory, it is just simple that not all general able to bring out the full power of a army contain all specialists.

You can take a look at the Roman army, all the "super" guys won't have a chance to stand in the line since they stand out way too much. That's not ideal for the army that all rounder. In a battle a group of 100 warriors which have the same abilities is easier to control than when they have a few "great warriors"

[Sun Jetzu]

It is simple that Roman Legion are a all rounder, you can use that unit in multi tasks which make them ideal to trained and keep. Which also make you easier to order since there is almost nothing they can't do, they just not perfect at anything. Jack of all trades but master of none

Greek system isn't like that, they tend to focus one unit into one respectable skill. Which result as you can see that they have famous unit in almost each area. Tarentum have Light cavalry, Thessaly with cavalry, Thebes and Sparta for Hoplite, Cretan for archer, Rhodes for slinger, Athens for Navy. They also recognised the abilities of some tribes around them like the Macedon(in Greek view they are not Greek) and Scythia(most famous horse tribe in Greek view) with riding skill, Illyrian (they known to Greek as a great mercenary force which considered can stand their ground somehow to Spartan but unreliable ally since they often switch side), Thracian peltast(They forced the Hellenic factions reform and copy the peltast from them).


So to sum up if you have a Great general in each army the Greek will be have more chance to win. If you have a normal general in each army the Roman tend to come out victory, it is just simple that not all general able to bring out the full power of a army contain all specialists.

You can take a look at the Roman army, all the "super" guys won't have a chance to stand in the line since they stand out way too much. That's not ideal for the army that all rounder. In a battle a group of 100 warriors which have the same abilities is easier to control than when they have a few "great warriors"

this is exactly what I wanted to see when I made this thread, a breakdown by someone who know what theyre talking about, about their different tactics and up bringing. awsome bravo good sir

[Durendalv2]

Awesome story!

As for tactics, the Roman Cohorts were extremely flexible and resilient. The Greek Phalanx (no matter which city), was divided into sub-units like the Romans (in Sparta, multiple Lochos comprised a Mora); the Spartans also had multiple officers (Thucydides mentions that it seemed half the Spartan army was made up of officers).Moreover, they also practiced combined arms since the Peloponnesian Wars (Brasidas perfected it). However, it was deployed rigidly. The well-disciplined Spartans could refuse their line (like they did at Battle of Mantinea in 418 BC, but other than that, their sub-units had limited flexibility. The Legion was more maneuverable, which ultimately is why their tactics were superior. At the Battle of Pydna, the Macedonians (NB: the Royal family was considered Greek), were able to drive off the initial Roman attack, but they ultimately failed because of three things: they lost cohesion of their Phalanx, at close quarters the Legionary could (trained in swordsmanship) was able to hack away, and most importantly, the maneuverability of the Cohorts allowed the Romans to envelop the phalanx.

[Sun Jetzu]

Awesome story!

As for tactics, the Roman Cohorts were extremely flexible and resilient. The Greek Phalanx (no matter which city), was divided into sub-units like the Romans (in Sparta, multiple Lochos comprised a Mora); the Spartans also had multiple officers (Thucydides mentions that it seemed half the Spartan army was made up of officers).Moreover, they also practiced combined arms since the Peloponnesian Wars (Brasidas perfected it). However, it was deployed rigidly. The well-disciplined Spartans could refuse their line (like they did at Battle of Mantinea in 418 BC, but other than that, their sub-units had limited flexibility. The Legion was more maneuverable, which ultimately is why their tactics were superior. At the Battle of Pydna, the Macedonians (NB: the Royal family was considered Greek), were able to drive off the initial Roman attack, but they ultimately failed because of three things: they lost cohesion of their Phalanx, at close quarters the Legionary could (trained in swordsmanship) was able to hack away, and most importantly, the maneuverability of the Cohorts allowed the Romans to envelop the phalanx.

This was an awsome read, are you a historian on the era?

[Dan113112]

Is it just me or is Pydna a prime example of why it isn't always a good idea to have the king commanding the army? Honestly, the king should appoint someone that is more qualified.

[Durendalv2]

Is it just me or is Pydna a prime example of why it isn't always a good idea to have the king commanding the army? Honestly, the king should appoint someone that is more qualified.

The Spartans used Kings, and Caesar was essentially a king (then Augustus latter on). I think he was just an inept commander personally.

This was an awsome read, are you a historian on the era?

No. I'm doing my undergrad Thesis on medieval warfare, with special emphasis on the English Templars.

[Sun Jetzu]

The Spartans used Kings, and Caesar was essentially a king (then Augustus latter on). I think he was just an inept commander personally.
No. I'm doing my undergrad Thesis on medieval warfare, with special emphasis on the English Templars.

I thought Ceasar was the first Emperor? Whats the difference between a king and an emperor?

And nice thats cool, what are you majoring in. I havnt been to college yet but think I would like to learn about ancient cultures or history in general. Right now Documentaries, Wikipedia and Barnes and Noble are my teachers

[ptoss1]

I thought Ceasar was the first Emperor? Whats the difference between a king and an emperor?

And nice thats cool, what are you majoring in. I havnt been to college yet but think I would like to learn about ancient cultures or history in general. Right now Documentaries, Wikipedia and Barnes and Noble are my teachers

Augustus was the first emperor.

[Sun Jetzu]

oh okay, I think I read somewhere that Ceasar was the first Dictator or something?
Now I'm just wondering what the difference between king, emperor and dicator?