ROYAL PELTASTS flawlessly and effortlessly 3v1ing no problem!

Also interestingly enough Cynosephalae means “dog-head” in Greek because of the rock formations present on the field and yes, the broken terrain caused disorganization in the phalangite formations which cost them the battle

@julian6868

Жыл бұрын

Rip phalangites

it is hard to say if the hilly terrain was the root problem for the pikemen. In alexanders day his pikemen could perform elaborate maneuvres over all terrain - sprinting charges, about faces, splitting at right angles to engage etc. But later Hellenic armies lost this capability as they lengthened their pikes up to 4 metres or so, and enlarged the shield carried by the men, and wore heavier armour. This all combined to turn the once superbly flexible macedonian phalanx(more flexible than Hoplites, as their success demonstrates) into a trundling inflexible behemoth that could only fight under very limited ideal conditions. Training and troop skill is another perhaps more important factor than how suited the pike is to certain terrian, or flexibility. And even then they still gave the legions a heck of a fight.

@jozzieokes3422

Жыл бұрын

Straight facts

At Cynoscephale, the battle escalated when scouting parties on both sides encountered one another at the top of Dog's Head (where Cynoscephelae gets its name). Philip V then employed his cavalry, gaining success, summoning his phalanx to arrive and support him asap. The right half of the phalanx made it to the top roughly the same time as the Roman legion and in the ensuring scrap, the Romans on the left were being pressed back by the phalanx on the right. The problem was that the other half of the phalanx was off foraging, arriving late, allowing the right side of the phalanx that was winning to be outflanked. The phalanx wasn't broken up by the terrain; you are thinking of the Battle of Pydna in 168 B.C. which was another close one that could have gone against Rome. In both cases, the phalanx wasn't the problem. At Cynoscephale in 197 B.C., timing affected the usage of combined arms, and at Pydna, Perseus did not order his cavalry to charge in time to work on concert with the phalanx which was doing good work early. In both cases the phalanx gets remembered as being the inferior system, but in both cases it was the failure of combined arms that gave Rome the victory. People forget that the phalanx can and did win victories over the legions, twice under Pyrrhus and then numerous times under Hannibal who employed the phalanx as part of his army. Anyway, thanks for the videos. I love watching them while I am multi-tasking around the house. Take care bro!

@brainletfag

Жыл бұрын

I think the main argument is in how the phalanx requires far more combined arms and support to shine, requiring skilled commanders and officers to make everything come together. Roman legions on the other hand are far more flexible in their role where they can and have demonstrated to work well even under less than ideal conditions. Under the best commanders respective to each style, perhaps roman legions might not match the phalanx in its peak condition but as Pyrrhus has shown, even under average commanders the legions can still give a skilled commander like him trouble. Its a skill vs formula kind of thing I feel, romans just had a system that allowed for more mistakes, coupled with the good officer corps the legion seems to promote and how quickly rome can reconstitute her legions is why the idea that the phalanx is inferior to the legion holds some truth.

@stronghand9932

Жыл бұрын

@@brainletfag Certainly, some truth. I agree. In the end Rome won, but the reasons are more than just "the legion was better," which would be akin but not identical to saying English cavalry were better than French cavalry at Waterloo because Napoleon lost. Anyway, I was more trying to clarify a couple of errors and elaborate on the commentary made by HeirofCarthage in this particular video regarding what happened in 197 B.C. I appreciate your reply. Thanks!

One interesting thing to me that i never hear of is any damage inflicted by the Roman pila on the Macedonians which in theory should have been effective against the Macedonian soldiers who were a little less well armored than the traditional Greek Hoplite. I do find it hard to believe that Macedonian pikes when raised to the sky and moved in motion from side to side could deflect a Roman javelin but maybe they did? Anyway, yes Macedonian defeats to Rome usually begin with them pushing the Romans back and then losing cohesion on broken terrain, leaving for an easy Roman Victory. Personally I think Alexander's horse archers, Agrianian light infantry and Companion cavalry would have wrecked some of these early Roman era armies.

@LawlTwins

Жыл бұрын

100% regarding Alexander. I wonder if it would go much the same way as Pyrrhus/Hannibal though? Roman army wiped out? Spawns new one. With Alexander's Empire behind him (Pretending he survived), you think it wouldn't be a problem but who knows? Once that initial core of pikes and companion cavalry die off, how easy would it be for Alexander to replace them with elite troops? I mean... Alexander probably would just siege Rome after the first victory or two *COUGH, HANNIBAL, COUGH* but like I said, who knows? It's fun to speculate.

@TheDAWinz

Жыл бұрын

pila weren’t actually thrown often, they were the main weapon and used as a spear. The gladius like most swords throughout history was a sidearm and a backup

you get the battle bit wrong. true for skirmish, philp had formed his phalanx into 4 Units (interestingly romans had also 4 Legions). he had 2 phalanx ready and 2 still forming. he send the 2 ready against 2 legions, the phalanx pushed downhill and the 2 Legions. However the 2 other phalanx entered without cohesion, still forming and Flamminius send his 20 Elephants with actual devastating effect through this 2 Units followed by 2 Legions that destroyed them. That was right wing from roman point of view. on the left wing the 2 phalanx actually started to get upper hand but a Tribun (unknown name) of the 2 right flank Legions gathered around 20 manipel Infantry and charged the rear/flank of the 2 left phalanx. That was their end.

In Cynoscephalae the terrain was actually substantially in the phalangites’ favour; the crucial component of Roman success is that half the Macedonian heavy infantry force was out foraging and was scattered en route to the battlefield by the Roman elephants, enabling the elements of the Roman right wing to turn and support the left, which was being rapidly crushed under the power of a downhill phalangites charge.

In my view, any kind of missile cav that is also good in melee is worth its weight in gold. They can do everything. They can run down skirmishers, kite melee/shock cav with javelins, run down other skirmisher cav, and rearcharge infantry. I always go for the mercenary thracian cavalry as macedon. They are simply more useful than tarantines.

@devanmcghee6123

Жыл бұрын

Just like the galatians riders. They are actually so useful to use bc they can actually be used in so many ways

@randomguy6152

Жыл бұрын

they are some of the best cavalry to use armored Numidians are borderline op imo they decimate enemy cavalry and heavily harass enemy infantry

Love these chess like battles

I think it is this battle where the Macedonian phalangists after realizing their defeat raised their pikes- a well known sign of surrender, but the Romans still kept butchering them . There were texts written about this dishonorable behavior by Greek sources.

Heir I watched you 5 years ago a lot when I first found Rome 2 ended up losing my computer (spilled kool aid on it 😢) finally got a new one and I love that you’re still making videos dude 🔥 so dope

Thank you for the video! No friendly fire on Macedon side - nice!

Agrianian Axeman and the royal peltast on the flank is somewhat historically accurate isn’t it? When I’m playing Macedon I have a pile main line with and overload a flank with Axeman and Shieldbearers to recreate the strike force Alexander would have used. Also can’t forget the Thracian warriors! A charge with Thessalians, followed by Thracian, Shield bearer for stability and cavalry fight plus Agriarians support. My flank looks like the main army lol

@arn1345

Жыл бұрын

Yeah Macedon player had a very flavorful army.

Heir! Here are two books I think you'd enjoy: Soldiers and Ghosts (J.E. Lendon) and The Fall of Carthage (Adrian Goldsworthy). Great narratives, so they're interesting reads, but impeccably researched as well.

Agrianians are my favorite single unit in Macedons roster overall. So much flexibility and often able to beat a hoplite unit one on one in fair conditions.

Love the Heir content on Rome 2 and the older games :)

I think Pre-marian rome is better balanced against the other factions. More fun to play in multiplayer I think.

@jozzieokes3422

Жыл бұрын

Same here

Great vid, I think there were four Roman Macedonian (214-148ishBC) wars in total before Rome overthrew Macedon. Not sure how many battles in total but, The 1st and 2nd battle of Pydna and the Battle of Cynoscephalae. Macedon also sided with the Seleucids during the Seleucid-Roman war during this time period. Not my specialty, I'm a Seleucid guy. 😂 Any Seleucid questions and I'm your man😁

I was curious why doesnt heir play DEI I would think he would like it?

How rome conquered Greece, documentary by the kings and generals history channel, you guys should give it a watch

Thanks for your efforts. Macedon 💪💪💪

Hey heir, what are your PC specs to be able to record and play, I’m assuming, the total war games on max settings?

calling a roman loss now and even if they win rome still loses because rome losing is the default in rome 2 multiplayer