UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Who were the best Ancient Warriors OG?


3/14/13 3:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8010
anthonyMI - "Anthony, what do you know about the Roman legions? "

Quite a bit, anything specific?

The Roman Republic then Empire lasted a long time and they changed a lot over the centuries. What people usually think of was the army that came around after the Marian reforms and lasted through the early imperial era.

The legion was all-citizen, largely a volunteer force except in case of emergencies, was well-paid, and had enlistment terms of 25 years. Each legion consisted of a bit over 5000 men divided into 10 cohorts. The first cohort would be larger than the others and would consist of more veteran soldiers. Most of their time was spent less on fighting and more on building Rome's massive public works projects like roads. After retiring, legionaries would often be used to colonize parts of the Empire to make them more Roman. York is an example of a town that used to be a veteran's colony.

Legion would typically be supported by Auxilia units of non-citizens. Certain regions were known for supplying types of Auxiliaries, such as light cavalry from Numidia and archers from Syria. Upon completion of service, Auxiliaries were granted citizenship.

Well, you asked if I wanted to know something specific - I want to know everything.

Who was Rome's Elite, in other words who were their Rangers/Special Forces/SEALs? From what I understand, Rome had rough equivalents - they had Speculatores, which served a role similar to that of modern day Army Special Forces in that they'd deploy to an area, gather groups of people, train them, then they would strike against their enemy - I also heard that they took Germanic hordesmen and trained them to be, essentially ancient Navy SEALs. They'd perform direct action missions on other Naval forces, for example, they'd swim out to a ship, use grappling hooks to scale the ship, kill everyone on the boat, and then commandeer it. (Supposedly Germans were recruited because the Romans simply were not as athletic as their counterparts, how true is this statement - I don't know). I do know that they had Cavalry, which were essentially like Rangers today.

i posted it before, but Germanicus was considered to be one of the greatest Roman soldiers of all time. Can you name any other bad motherfuckers? Mick mentioned that there was a badass Roman who represented Rome in dozens of one on one fights (think the beginning of Troy, Achilles style) - do you know who he was talking about?

...and a bit of a stupid question, but modern day Italians don't descend from the Romans - they descend from the Germanic hordes that invaded after it fell, correct?

 

3/14/13 4:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26406
just wanted to throw in my name sake

the reiter's were the first cav to use firearms on horse back..mercenaries who protected a lot of kings(personal guard)
3/14/13 4:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8011
sreiter - just wanted to throw in my name sake

the reiter's were the first cav to use firearms on horse back..mercenaries who protected a lot of kings(personal guard)

Tell me more homie

3/14/13 4:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Zed Wayne Zed
98 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/20/11
Posts: 1363
Mongols.
3/14/13 7:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8015

Bump...oh, and Odinson, what did you call them...was it slaves? Tell me, does this guy look like a slave to you?

3/14/13 10:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26407
Lord Nitemare - 
sreiter - just wanted to throw in my name sake

the reiter's were the first cav to use firearms on horse back..mercenaries who protected a lot of kings(personal guard)

Tell me more homie


http://warfare.uphero.com/Renaissance/17_Imperialist.htm

Reiters
'Reiter' means simply 'rider', or cavalry, but in the 16th Century, when German mercenary cavalry were used in great numbers, came especially to signify a mercenary mounted pistolier.
At the outset of our period, the German cavalry, like that of other nations, centred on the man-at-arms with full armour and lance; however, they seem to have been generally inferior to, say, their French counterparts, lacking horse-armour and not being well-protected themselves.
The Emperor Maximilian seems to have founded French style 'Bands d'Ordonnance' in an attempt to improve on this, but apparently they did not survive long. German men-at-arms also seem to have used deep formations, unlike the single rank used elsewhere. This deep column or wedge formation was recommended by a German writer of the 1480s (number of files in each rank, from the front): 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 (with banner), 21; then 20 ranks of 45.
The first German cavalry met in large-scale mercenary service appear around the 1540s, and may represent the lighter 'archer' types who would have supported the men-at-arms. These 'reiters' as hired by Henry VIII wore armoured cavalry on unarmoured horses, with as their main weapon a boar-spear (a broad-bladed spear around eight or nine feet long, usually with a small cross-bar below the blade). The wheel-lock pistol, a German invention, was soon carried in addition to the spear, and by mid-century was displacing it, to produce the typical 'Reiter', who played an important role in warfare to the end of our period, serving in almost all European armies.
Their armour could vary from (in the mid-16th Century) mail shirt or cape, through corselet, often with mail sleeves, to 3/4 armour like that illustrated, with helmets from simple 'iron hat' to closed types (open burgonets or morions the most usual). A Reiter would carry up to three large 'faustrohe' type pistols, two in holsters at the saddle bow, the third sometime thrust perilously into his right boot. Their armour was often blackened (a common anti-rust measure) giving rise to the name 'Schwarz Reiter'. The French, either from their fighting qualities or behaviour off the field, called them 'Diables Noirs'.
Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe Reiters were organised in rather large squadrons of, usually, 300 to. 350 men, and in battle formed in close order blocks of ten to 20 ranks each. As with infantry 'shot', this deep order was primarily to give the rear men time to reload; each rank would ride up to close range of the enemy, fire, and file off to flank and rear to reload, until sufficient damage had been done to allow a ponderous charge to contact at the trot, using thrusting sword and clubbed pistols. They were rather vulnerable to lancers who charged home, partly because a rider with a large and not very gas-tight pistol could not fire straight ahead without injuring, or at least seriously annoying, his horse, so that the rank engaged usually turned side-ways-on to fire, thus getting hit in the flank by the lancers.
Accounts of their fighting prowess vary, but in the French Wars of Religion their efficiency was reported to be such that 'a man could see nothing but fire and steel', and heavy losses in some engagements argue for determination.
As well as pistoliers, Germany in this period produced smaller numbers of mounted arquebusiers, and the Turkish frontier was a useful source of irregular troops. The non-Turkish part of Hungary produced militia, and from 1548 'Hussars' (meaning the 'twentieth' man, one from every 20 having to serve) were found in the Austrian forces, while in the 1530s Austria began to settle Serb and Croat refugees along her Turkish border in return for their service as 'Grenzers' or frontier-troops. Infantry and cavalry from these sources would serve against the Turks but the cavalry seem to have first made an impact in Europe in the 30 Years' War, the infantry not till the 18th Century. In the 16th Century Serbian hussars carried a light Turkish lance, while Hungarians included horse archers but seem to have been primarily armed with the sword, both sabre and the long straight armour-piercing variety.
3/14/13 10:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/14/13 11:00 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26408
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter

Reiters (German: Reiter, or horserider, shortened from the original “Schwarze Reiter”—literally, "black riders" for the colour of their armour) were a type of cavalry, which appeared in the armies of Western Europe in the 16th century in place of the outmoded lance-armed knights, at the same time that cuirassiers and dragoons began to attain typological distinction from other kinds of cavalry. The Reiters raised firearms to the status of primary weapons, as opposed to earlier Western European heavy cavalry which primarily relied upon mêlée weapons.

The Reiters' main weapons were two or more pistols and a sword; most wore helmets and cuirasses and often additional armor for the arms and legs; sometimes they also carried a long cavalry firearm known as an arquebus or a carbine (although this type of horsemen soon became regarded as a separate class of cavalry—the arquebusier or in Britain harquebusier).

In general, the Reiters were expected to be able to engage their opponents both with firearms and sword. In the 16th century and up to about 1620, Reiters often formed up in deep blocks and used their firearms in a caracole attack in the hopes of disordering the enemy infantry before charging home and engaging in hand-to-hand combat. However, enterprising commanders such as Henry IV and Gustavus Adolphus preferred to employ their Reiters and other heavy cavalry in a more aggressive manner, ordering them to press the charge and fire their pistols at point-blank range (especially against well-armored enemies) or use their swords instead. Using either or both of these tactics, Reiters could be incredibly effective when properly employed. A particular case in point is the Battle of Turnhout, where a force of Dutch Reiters under Maurice of Nassau defeated the opposing Spanish cavalry and then successfully engaged the Spanish infantry with a combination of pistol volleys and sword-in-hand charges.

The Reiters mostly consisted of Germans and served in the armies of the German states, Sweden as "raitars", Poland as Polish: "rajtaria", and elsewhere. There were also Reiter regiments in Russia between 1630s and late 17th century (see Regiments of the new order).

In the later 17th century the Reiters gradually merged into generic cavalry regiments and were no longer seen as a distinct class of horseman.
3/14/13 11:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
iluvmma
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/06
Posts: 665
Cool thread. In terms of teamwork, it looks like the Mongols were the most efficient at enemy disposal and the Vikings (Berserkers, in particular) most capable in 1v1 battles.

Of all the ancient forces, the Immortals seem to be the least documented. Anyone have in-depth info on them?
3/15/13 5:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
anthonyMI
62 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/28/08
Posts: 10498
Who was Rome's Elite, in other words who were their Rangers/Special Forces/SEALs? From what I understand, Rome had rough equivalents - they had Speculatores, which served a role similar to that of modern day Army Special Forces in that they'd deploy to an area, gather groups of people, train them, then they would strike against their enemy
The Speculatores were more a mixture of recon and military intelligence than special forces. That kind of role you described would be more similar to the practice of just paying the locals to fight and letting them use their own leadership. I don't know a lot about them and don't think that many people do. While they would likely have been selected by merit, they were spies first and foremost and warriors probably only when necessary.

Emperor Hadrian expanded on the concept and created the Frumentarii, an internal security service that was universally despised.
I do know that they had Cavalry, which were essentially like Rangers today.
Not no much, actually. By the time of the late Republic and seemingly at least by the time of the Julian Civil War, cavalry had largely disappeared from the legions. In earlier time periods, the wealthy Equestrian class made up the cavalry, but as time went on the size of the army grew a lot faster than the size of the Equestrian class. So, citizen cavalry faded out as the former social class that composed it stuck to the officer corps instead of being soldiers. After that, cavalry units were non-citzen auxilia, most commonly recruited from what is now Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
3/15/13 6:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
anthonyMI
62 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/28/08
Posts: 10499
and a bit of a stupid question, but modern day Italians don't descend from the Romans - they descend from the Germanic hordes that invaded after it fell, correct?
Little of both. There wasn't anywhere near as much Germanification of Italy as elsewhere in Europe, though.
3/15/13 7:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8018
sreiter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter

Reiters (German: Reiter, or horserider, shortened from the original “Schwarze Reiter”—literally, "black riders" for the colour of their armour) were a type of cavalry, which appeared in the armies of Western Europe in the 16th century in place of the outmoded lance-armed knights, at the same time that cuirassiers and dragoons began to attain typological distinction from other kinds of cavalry. The Reiters raised firearms to the status of primary weapons, as opposed to earlier Western European heavy cavalry which primarily relied upon mêlée weapons.

The Reiters' main weapons were two or more pistols and a sword; most wore helmets and cuirasses and often additional armor for the arms and legs; sometimes they also carried a long cavalry firearm known as an arquebus or a carbine (although this type of horsemen soon became regarded as a separate class of cavalry—the arquebusier or in Britain harquebusier).

In general, the Reiters were expected to be able to engage their opponents both with firearms and sword. In the 16th century and up to about 1620, Reiters often formed up in deep blocks and used their firearms in a caracole attack in the hopes of disordering the enemy infantry before charging home and engaging in hand-to-hand combat. However, enterprising commanders such as Henry IV and Gustavus Adolphus preferred to employ their Reiters and other heavy cavalry in a more aggressive manner, ordering them to press the charge and fire their pistols at point-blank range (especially against well-armored enemies) or use their swords instead. Using either or both of these tactics, Reiters could be incredibly effective when properly employed. A particular case in point is the Battle of Turnhout, where a force of Dutch Reiters under Maurice of Nassau defeated the opposing Spanish cavalry and then successfully engaged the Spanish infantry with a combination of pistol volleys and sword-in-hand charges.

The Reiters mostly consisted of Germans and served in the armies of the German states, Sweden as "raitars", Poland as Polish: "rajtaria", and elsewhere. There were also Reiter regiments in Russia between 1630s and late 17th century (see Regiments of the new order).

In the later 17th century the Reiters gradually merged into generic cavalry regiments and were no longer seen as a distinct class of horseman.

Great post homie

3/15/13 9:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8019

Bump?

3/15/13 1:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HULC
54 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 4675
Lord Nitemare - 
anthonyMI - "Anthony, what do you know about the Roman legions? "

Quite a bit, anything specific?

The Roman Republic then Empire lasted a long time and they changed a lot over the centuries. What people usually think of was the army that came around after the Marian reforms and lasted through the early imperial era.

The legion was all-citizen, largely a volunteer force except in case of emergencies, was well-paid, and had enlistment terms of 25 years. Each legion consisted of a bit over 5000 men divided into 10 cohorts. The first cohort would be larger than the others and would consist of more veteran soldiers. Most of their time was spent less on fighting and more on building Rome's massive public works projects like roads. After retiring, legionaries would often be used to colonize parts of the Empire to make them more Roman. York is an example of a town that used to be a veteran's colony.

Legion would typically be supported by Auxilia units of non-citizens. Certain regions were known for supplying types of Auxiliaries, such as light cavalry from Numidia and archers from Syria. Upon completion of service, Auxiliaries were granted citizenship.

Well, you asked if I wanted to know something specific - I want to know everything.

Who was Rome's Elite, in other words who were their Rangers/Special Forces/SEALs? From what I understand, Rome had rough equivalents - they had Speculatores, which served a role similar to that of modern day Army Special Forces in that they'd deploy to an area, gather groups of people, train them, then they would strike against their enemy - I also heard that they took Germanic hordesmen and trained them to be, essentially ancient Navy SEALs. They'd perform direct action missions on other Naval forces, for example, they'd swim out to a ship, use grappling hooks to scale the ship, kill everyone on the boat, and then commandeer it. (Supposedly Germans were recruited because the Romans simply were not as athletic as their counterparts, how true is this statement - I don't know). I do know that they had Cavalry, which were essentially like Rangers today.

i posted it before, but Germanicus was considered to be one of the greatest Roman soldiers of all time. Can you name any other bad motherfuckers? Mick mentioned that there was a badass Roman who represented Rome in dozens of one on one fights (think the beginning of Troy, Achilles style) - do you know who he was talking about?

...and a bit of a stupid question, but modern day Italians don't descend from the Romans - they descend from the Germanic hordes that invaded after it fell, correct?

 


Explosives are a massive force multiplier, and without these special forces are essentially irrelevant.

Before reliable guns and explosives became available the elite of any army were simply the best soldiers. What's the point of getting behind enemy lines in a small group if you don't have the explosives to enable you to ambush larger groups or destroy enemy infrastructure? That's why it's pointless trying to compare special forces to ancient armies.
3/15/13 1:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8020
HULC - 
Lord Nitemare - 
anthonyMI - "Anthony, what do you know about the Roman legions? "

Quite a bit, anything specific?

The Roman Republic then Empire lasted a long time and they changed a lot over the centuries. What people usually think of was the army that came around after the Marian reforms and lasted through the early imperial era.

The legion was all-citizen, largely a volunteer force except in case of emergencies, was well-paid, and had enlistment terms of 25 years. Each legion consisted of a bit over 5000 men divided into 10 cohorts. The first cohort would be larger than the others and would consist of more veteran soldiers. Most of their time was spent less on fighting and more on building Rome's massive public works projects like roads. After retiring, legionaries would often be used to colonize parts of the Empire to make them more Roman. York is an example of a town that used to be a veteran's colony.

Legion would typically be supported by Auxilia units of non-citizens. Certain regions were known for supplying types of Auxiliaries, such as light cavalry from Numidia and archers from Syria. Upon completion of service, Auxiliaries were granted citizenship.

Well, you asked if I wanted to know something specific - I want to know everything.

Who was Rome's Elite, in other words who were their Rangers/Special Forces/SEALs? From what I understand, Rome had rough equivalents - they had Speculatores, which served a role similar to that of modern day Army Special Forces in that they'd deploy to an area, gather groups of people, train them, then they would strike against their enemy - I also heard that they took Germanic hordesmen and trained them to be, essentially ancient Navy SEALs. They'd perform direct action missions on other Naval forces, for example, they'd swim out to a ship, use grappling hooks to scale the ship, kill everyone on the boat, and then commandeer it. (Supposedly Germans were recruited because the Romans simply were not as athletic as their counterparts, how true is this statement - I don't know). I do know that they had Cavalry, which were essentially like Rangers today.

i posted it before, but Germanicus was considered to be one of the greatest Roman soldiers of all time. Can you name any other bad motherfuckers? Mick mentioned that there was a badass Roman who represented Rome in dozens of one on one fights (think the beginning of Troy, Achilles style) - do you know who he was talking about?

...and a bit of a stupid question, but modern day Italians don't descend from the Romans - they descend from the Germanic hordes that invaded after it fell, correct?

 


Explosives are a massive force multiplier, and without these special forces are essentially irrelevant.

Before reliable guns and explosives became available the elite of any army were simply the best soldiers. What's the point of getting behind enemy lines in a small group if you don't have the explosives to enable you to ambush larger groups or destroy enemy infrastructure? That's why it's pointless trying to compare special forces to ancient armies.

I should have used the term 'elite'.

 

Keep in mind, I read this shit on History.com a while back.

3/15/13 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
148 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11272

"Explosives are a massive force multiplier, and without these special forces are essentially irrelevant. 


Before reliable guns and explosives became available the elite of any army were simply the best soldiers. What's the point of getting behind enemy lines in a small group if you don't have the explosives to enable you to ambush larger groups or destroy enemy infrastructure? That's why it's pointless trying to compare special forces to ancient armies."

 

While this is a good point, I can rattle off a bunch of examples of guerrila fighting in ancient and medieval warfare. The key to Guerilla Warfare is being able to hit fast, escape and then hide. As Mao said(to paraphrase), swim in the sea of humanity. There have been cavalry units in various armies whose specialty was attacking, retreating and hiding. They wouldn't be able to pull of the shit modern Green Berets/SEALS/SAS/SBS have done but they'd have similar effects. Tying down resources, causing anxiety/fear in the soldiers and officers, fucking with communication and supply lines, etc...

3/15/13 2:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
148 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11273

As for Rome's SOF, they wouldn't have them. If someone did something much better than the Romans, they often just hired them to do it for them. For cavalry, they hired Numidians, Celts,Scythians,etc... over the years. They hired skirmishers who were better at long rage attacking(like Slingers, bowmen,etc..). Rome's strength was its infantry and its logistical skill. There were famous legions but they were famous for being badass units. The Romans inherited the Greek love of infantry combat. Cesar's 10th Legion was famous. Later, after the East/West split, there would be more specialization in units (especially in the East) and you'd see units of Cataphracts, the Varangian Guard,etc... 

3/15/13 2:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
148 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11274

"Alexander's Companion Cavalry was considered the premier horse back unit of the ancient world. It was also probably the first implementation of a shock cavalry in history."

 

Premier? I think the record the Numidians rang up would put them in the same league. The Steppe guys were a different sort of cavalry but their records were pretty impressive. I think Alexander's genius was taking the Greek infantry meatgrinder and combining it with cavalry tactics. Cavalry,skirmishers,etc... were often seen as pussy jobs by other Greeks. And lets not forget Alexander's dad and Pyrrhus(Alexader's cousin, btw) as guys who expanded the role of cavalry. Alexander's cavalry was probably the birthplace of what would become the medieval knight.

3/15/13 2:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Legion
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/3/10
Posts: 82
I'm norwegian so i have to say the Vikings! Phone Post
3/15/13 3:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8021

I don't want to get off topic, and Mick you're the most knowledgable person on the OG (regarding ancient warfare), we all know Alexander is the greatest general of all time but can you explain his skill in combat (obviously as a warrior)? I know he frequently led his Companion Cavalry into combat. The dude wanted to rival Achilles, I'm assuming he had to be a badass fighter.

 

and you could you go into detail as to how badass the companions were, did they have a selection/training process (I'm assuming they had to)? how badass were they in battle? 

...I just recently finished the Warrior Ethos by Steven Pressfield, it's kind of short but it's Steven Pressfield so you know it's going to be awesome. I'd reccomend it to anyone, especially the people on this thread. But he goes into detail as to how Alexander was brought up, how he was raised,and numerous stories of how he came to be - needless to say, My interest is peaked. Can you recommend any books on Alexander?

3/15/13 4:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8023

Mick?

3/15/13 4:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Stubjj844
54 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/10
Posts: 465
This thread is making me want to play Medieval Total War again.
3/15/13 5:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
148 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11277

Alexander was extremely tough. He led from the front and commanded his personal guard/companion cavalry. He was excellent at figuring out the right time to lead a charge and was usually the tip of the wedge.  Most know he was tutored by Aristotle but he had other tutors like Leonidas of Pyrrus whose job it was to teach him to fight. And from when he was 16, his dad would send him out to put down revolts, small incursions,etc.. so he had a lot of small unit fighting experience. Most of his personal unit of companion cavalry were guys he made friends with when being tutored or sent out to put down insurgents/rebels. Alexander got wounded multiple times leading from the front and had a lot of respect from his army because he fought with them,

 

The reason most Greek and later Roman cavalry sucked was because it was made up of Arisotcrats who could afford horses. They'd get routed by cavalrymen from native tribes and other countries where horses werent just for rich guys. And the tribal groups would introduce the Romans to things like stirrups, pants(you'd think that'd be common sense, wearing pants while riding a horse since you sweating/horse sweating= accident waiting to happen but it took the Romans awhile.) and the horned saddle. Until people started using the horned saddle the celts used, the vast majority of cavalry was light cavalry. The horned saddle allowed the user to brace themselves and do, what we consider today, the lanced cavalry charge.  I remember reading about Julius Cesar in Gaul and his (few)Roman cavalrymen were  weirded out by the fact that the Celt/Gaul horsemen could go backwards. Roman horses and Roman cavalrymen couldn't ride that well. They were so shitty that Ceasar hired Gauls to be his cavalry. The Romans would end up lifting pants, the horned saddle and longer,specialized cavalry swords from the Celts. The Avars would later bring stirrups. 

 

The Macedonian Companion Cavalry was 225 horsemen in 8 units, usually formed for the area they were from. They'd be aristocrats mostly since, back then, the selection for cavalry usually consisted of people who could afford to possess multiple horses. They were good though because Macedonians fought a lot. Alexander and his contemporaries had a shitload of combat experience before he went East. The Macedonian Cavalry was formed by Alexander's father, Philip. They weren't exactly heavy cavalry since they didn't have stirrups or a horned saddle so they couldn't just charge an infantry formation . What they'd do is wait for an opening and, when recognized, charge the hole in the opposition infantry line,break the line and turn the formation/slaughter the fleeing infantry. They'd also wait for the infantry to engage and then flank the enemy infantry formation. The response was usually to send your own cavalry to stop them but Alexander's was so good they'd whip yours and then flank/fuck the infantry.  Most cavalry at this time was used for skirmishing, scouting and running down infantry after the line broke. Philip and Alexander combined their modified Macedonian Phalanx with their cavalry to exploit holes the infantry created. The Companion cavalry was one of the few ancient exceptions to the rule that aristocratic cavalrymen sucked.

3/15/13 5:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
lars_schifinkter
24 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/28/10
Posts: 421
Voted up Mick.
3/15/13 5:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8024
MickColins - 

Alexander was extremely tough. He led from the front and commanded his personal guard/companion cavalry. He was excellent at figuring out the right time to lead a charge and was usually the tip of the wedge.  Most know he was tutored by Aristotle but he had other tutors like Leonidas of Pyrrus whose job it was to teach him to fight. And from when he was 16, his dad would send him out to put down revolts, small incursions,etc.. so he had a lot of small unit fighting experience. Most of his personal unit of companion cavalry were guys he made friends with when being tutored or sent out to put down insurgents/rebels. Alexander got wounded multiple times leading from the front and had a lot of respect from his army because he fought with them,

 

The reason most Greek and later Roman cavalry sucked was because it was made up of Arisotcrats who could afford horses. They'd get routed by cavalrymen from native tribes and other countries where horses werent just for rich guys. And the tribal groups would introduce the Romans to things like stirrups, pants(you'd think that'd be common sense, wearing pants while riding a horse since you sweating/horse sweating= accident waiting to happen but it took the Romans awhile.) and the horned saddle. Until people started using the horned saddle the celts used, the vast majority of cavalry was light cavalry. The horned saddle allowed the user to brace themselves and do, what we consider today, the lanced cavalry charge.  I remember reading about Julius Cesar in Gaul and his (few)Roman cavalrymen were  weirded out by the fact that the Celt/Gaul horsemen could go backwards. Roman horses and Roman cavalrymen couldn't ride that well. They were so shitty that Ceasar hired Gauls to be his cavalry. The Romans would end up lifting pants, the horned saddle and longer,specialized cavalry swords from the Celts. The Avars would later bring stirrups. 

 

The Macedonian Companion Cavalry was 225 horsemen in 8 units, usually formed for the area they were from. They'd be aristocrats mostly since, back then, the selection for cavalry usually consisted of people who could afford to possess multiple horses. They were good though because Macedonians fought a lot. Alexander and his contemporaries had a shitload of combat experience before he went East. The Macedonian Cavalry was formed by Alexander's father, Philip. They weren't exactly heavy cavalry since they didn't have stirrups or a horned saddle so they couldn't just charge an infantry formation . What they'd do is wait for an opening and, when recognized, charge the hole in the opposition infantry line,break the line and turn the formation/slaughter the fleeing infantry. They'd also wait for the infantry to engage and then flank the enemy infantry formation. The response was usually to send your own cavalry to stop them but Alexander's was so good they'd whip yours and then flank/fuck the infantry.  Most cavalry at this time was used for skirmishing, scouting and running down infantry after the line broke. Philip and Alexander combined their modified Macedonian Phalanx with their cavalry to exploit holes the infantry created. The Companion cavalry was one of the few ancient exceptions to the rule that aristocratic cavalrymen sucked.


I remember reading a passage where Alexander's army was bitching about travel, that they wanted to go home - that this was all for Alexander. Alexander basically took off his armor and showed everyone his scars, and said to his military that his scars were not for him but for all of them. They basically cheered him on afterwards, and ceased their bitching.

I did not know that Philip sent him out on missions, I did know that he hired numerous trainers for Alexander when he was younger.

I don't know man, but as I said I'm pretty goddamn interested in Alexander, can you recommend any books? Or documentaries?

...and this is an 'odd' question, but Albanians claim Alexander as their own - that's not true is it? If it is, my respect will cease to exist.

3/15/13 5:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
320 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8025

And voted up again


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.