Alexander conquered Afghanistan 1000 years before Mohammed was born.
Now imagine an endless amount of Afghani tribesmen with wicker shields charging into that.
Man. Stone cold knowledge smackdown on that one.
Clearly not because he steamrolled through the entire Middle East. But seriously, consider that his army was not only composed of pikemen. There are other types of infantry and cavalry that can protect the flanks.
edit: I said "he" without specifying Alexander the Great but I'm sure most of you figured that out
Man, I love pikes. I wish they were better integrated in Rome 2 total war
That's why you bring 4.
Being retarded had nothing to do with it. It's an incredibly inflexible way to fight battles. There is a reason the Roman legions changed to the maniple system and there is a reason why Greece and Macedonia were conquered by Romans.
Put simply you need incredibly flat ground to fight effectively with hoplites. And even if you found such an area to fight in, there is no reason why an attacking force should meet you while at a clear disadvantage. Even if you did decide to meet the phalanx in battle, you could very easily preoccupy the phalanx line with a fairly small amount of men, while others exploit any gap in the line, any flank. The phalanx only worked because of how rigid and unmoving it was, this is all well and good if youre fighting in a phalanx, against other phalanx, or tribes of barely trained people, but not against a regimented but flexible army.
"The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others."
Unless someone brings a ballista to a pike-fight.
that goes for just about everything
of course, there's no way anyone would think to flank them.
I love the progression of tactics from the ancient era. Hoplites with their spear and shield, were conquered/adapted to a longer spear and small or absent shield with the Macedonians. Then the Romans got even shorter ranged weapons but improved mobility and flexibility.
I see a similar pattern in the War on Terror, we started out with armor that was underdeveloped, by the time Iraq was sucking we were coated in armor reducing our mobility, then in later AFG they switch to plate carriers to minimize the battle load and improve mobility, yet again.
? Rome 2 is very solid at the moment
Macedonia != Sparta
It is the equivalent of saying "Give me liberty or death!" -King George
Sure, providing the Macedonian is retarded and did not do anything to cover his flanks.
War is about power struggle. Tactics and equipment is always changing to surprise the opponent.
He was limited more by logistics and disease hitting his army hard in that region than military setbacks; a defeat he could recover from, but not biowarfare.
My first experience with a siege, about 2 weeks ago, involved 2000 gauls trying to climb up one ladder, while 3 other ladders were left on the ground in their starting positions.
Except the only reason the Romans were so handily able to maneuver on the Macedonian Phalanx is because in later years, commanders neglected to use the world-renowned Macedonian cavalry to cover their flanks.
Historically the Roman order had immense issues dealing with cavalry, and given that Alexander the Great hadn't kicked the bucket and people actually kept up his tactics, history would be nifty to rediscover.
Amazingly powerful formation but tactically inflexible - missile weapons and clever flanking will make short work of it
-Edit- Forgot about the world-famous, all conquering Macedonian Cavalry - fortunately this subreddit proved me wrong with some well-structured examples
"stone cold knowledge"
I'm gonna use that. I dont know where or when... but I'm gonna use that phrase.
It is probably tougher than you would think for protecting against sword slashes, poorly angled spear thrusts, and light projectiles. Although I've never tested it, I would assume you would need a well-placed strong thrust to actually break it using a sword or spear, which is a situation that isn't always available when the enemy is in your face and moving. So it does offer some protection, but much less effective than the Macedonian hoplon shields.
Yeah. They arent human level or anything and you can still use 'cheap' tactics to win but they'll use siege equipment, they'll attack from multiple angles etc.
It's that kind of attitude that gets you a Roman governor.
If I'm correct, Alexander's army crushed the Afghani Tribesmen (Then Bactra) but couldn't go past the Indus valley after the Battle of the Hydpisies against King Porus, which Alexander won but with a heavy causality.
Can the AI effectively perform a siege yet?