Companion Cavalry

[Horatius Cocles]

The fact is they were one of the best, if not the best, cavalry in ancient world. How balanced they should be? I think that they should be overpowered because they were much more stronger than another cavalry in ancient world, and they play a vital role to protect the phalanx flanks and charge the enemy center.

What do you think?

[nomercysniper]

I thought Companions were dying out with Alexander? Or did Macedon use them? (I honestly have no idea, please educate me )

[DogSoldierSPQR]

I thought Companions were dying out with Alexander? Or did Macedon use them? (I honestly have no idea, please educate me )

I think the idea of them was still used. Also, I believe that each of the generals that separated all had their own versions. Don't hold me on that but yeah, I think the concept was still used.

@Horatius Cocles: "They were used by almost all hellenistic kingdoms "Diaochi" (successors of Alexander the Great), sometimes with different names"
Had a feeling that was the case.

You're welcome, mate
Thank you as well, Horatius

[Horatius Cocles]

They were used by almost all hellenistic kingdoms "Diaochi" (successors of Alexander the Great), sometimes with different names.

[nomercysniper]

Cheers guys

In that case yeah i'd like to see them. Not as hard hitting as cataphracts, but more mobile. Possibly equal to some elite sarmation HC.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The fact is they were one of the best, if not the best, cavalry in ancient world. How balanced they should be? I think that they should be overpowered because they were much more stronger than another cavalry in ancient world, and they play a vital role to protect the phalanx flanks and charge the enemy center.

What do you think?

If not wrong the Thessalian cavalry was tought to be the toughest , and was routed by roman cavalry ... not stating that roman cav is superior , but just that its a misconception that romans didn't have a good cavalry .

[Akrotatos]

Off topic removed

[geala]

Maybe they were "the best" in the hands of Alexander (not on an individual level, but as units), but that changed later. R2TW plays in the 3rd c. BC. Hetairoi (companion) cavalry should be "among the best" in the game. Less heavily armored than cataphracts, but more mobile and with more stamina and higher moral. They should be able to do shock attacks and stay in melee a bit. They should be more or less equal to Thessalian cavalry, perhaps a bit better armoured with partly armoured horses. They should also equal the most elite cavalry of the Parthians and the Carthaginians (Hannibal copied Alexander III. and won mostly because his use of cavalry) , but not be better.

[Sommo James]

If not wrong the Thessalian cavalry was tought to be the toughest , and was routed by roman cavalry ... not stating that roman cav is superior , but just that its a misconception that romans didn't have a good cavalry .

Thessalian was light cav, Companions were heavy cav, and if I remember correctly the roman cav. beated the companions serveral times during the macedonian conquest (cinocefale, pydan etc...). Also, the companions were good at charging, but romans were better in melee and they did not allow the companions to retreat and charge againg keeping them in melee.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Thessalian was light cav, Companions were heavy cav, and if I remember correctly the roman cav. beated the companions serveral times during the macedonian conquest (cinocefale, pydan etc...). Also, the companions were good at charging, but romans were better in melee and they did not allow the companions to retreat and charge againg keeping them in melee.

The Macedonian companions were not even utilized in Pydna, for unknown reasons.

The best companion cavalry was arguably the Seleucid, which numbered 2.000 men and was divided in two units, each with a strength of 1,000 men: the Agema and the companions. There were also 6.000 cataphracts which most likely appeared after Antiochus III's campaign against Parthia and Bactria. I'm not sure whether these 6.000 existed previously and how they were armed.

[vietanh797]

If not wrong the Thessalian cavalry was tought to be the toughest , and was routed by roman cavalry ... not stating that roman cav is superior , but just that its a misconception that romans didn't have a good cavalry .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Callinicus

[PROMETHEUS ts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Callinicus

http://www.questia.com/library/10808...cavalry-combat

[neoptolemos]

http://www.questia.com/library/10808...cavalry-combat

Your point Prom?The link you have provided is not a source but a title of a book.

[Horatius Cocles]

Thessalian cavalry and Companion/ Heitairoi cavalry were not the same

[HusKatten]

Macedons trademark will be its pikes and cavalry, but i don't think that any cavalry will be able to beat the Parthian cataphract, which is the trademark of Parthia of course - just like infantry will be Romes trademark.

[Horatius Cocles]

The cataphracts were very powerful for sure, but they were TOO SLOW. The best cavalry should be balanced by attack, mobility and armour (just like a tank ) and thats why the Companion should be the best.

[HusKatten]

The cataphracts were very powerful for sure, but they were TOO SLOW. The best cavalry should be balanced by attack, mobility and armour (just like a tank ) and thats why the Companion should be the best.

They might be better for manouvering and flanking, but i guess that no cavalry will Win a 1v1 versus the cataphract, just like in Rome 1.

[jsully16]

The cataphracts were very powerful for sure, but they were TOO SLOW. The best cavalry should be balanced by attack, mobility and armour (just like a tank ) and thats why the Companion should be the best.

Depends on how you use them.

Companions will be, pound-for-pound, the best cavalry unit for using cavalry tactics. They'll be fast in the battlefield and likely have the highest charge, so the Macedonian trademark hammer and anvil tactic will work best if Companions are the hammer. But Cataphracts will likely be the best unit in the cavalry section. Highest armor, defense, and likely attack ratings. They'll be the strongest unit, but sacrifice a bit of their speed by wearing all that armor. However, pitting Companions vs. Cataphracts should be a win for Cataphracts, unless one is vet'ed up.

I like the balance. Macedon with the phalanx and cavalry and Parthia with the cavalry and horse archers.

[Manu La Canette]

The fact is they were one of the best, if not the best, cavalry in ancient world. How balanced they should be? I think that they should be overpowered because they were much more stronger than another cavalry in ancient world, and they play a vital role to protect the phalanx flanks and charge the enemy center.

What do you think?

'best cavalry of the Ancient world' doesn't mean anything: it would depend of its use, of the men who composed the unit at that time etc. Their strenght was to act along with the infantry (hammer while the phalanx was the anvil), not in their horsmen skills in it-self. If we talk about pure riding skills, well I'm sure Sarmatian or Parthian would have been better.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

It depends really in the way the cavalry was used. Alexanders Companions were propably one of the best medium cavalry, but a huge factor was their moral, because they grew up with their king and knew their merits on the field would lead later to high positions once the empire was formed. Even trained for a long time, they could never be able to compete in case of ridingskill with people which spent their entire life on the back of their horses like the man of several Parthian, Sarmatian or Numidian Units. However this can be equalized with better equipment, esprite des corpes and battle (not riding/life experience)- experience.