![]() Each legionary had heavy armor, a good helmet and a solid shield, all suited towards brutal close combat) "make up for" their choice of weapon, but, *again, the only reason they were able to do that is because they had more broadly-applicable soldiers in the Auxilia. They made training (again, specialized towards shock assaults) and equipment (Roman Legionaries tended to be much more heavily equipped than most of their contemporaries. The Romans just brute-forced their way through battles using swords, but the main reason they were able to do so well with their swords is because they were supported by equal numbers of other units equipped with more "standard" weapons. In fact, most sources throughout history say it is the opposite: spears tend to outperform swords in the battleline, and there are several sources throughout history that say just that. That is why in "real life" the sword-armed Legionaries tended to kick ass, not because a sword is so much more effective in pitched battle than a spear. This is something that seemingly-most representations of Roman warfare get incorrect: the Legions were specialists, not generalists, and what they specialized at were heavy shock-based assaults. In battle, the Auxilia would be deployed on the flanks and in the front of the Legion, and be used to pin the enemy in place and wear them down before the heavily-armored fist of the Legionaries came punching through their lines. Spearmen (overwhelmingly so, actually), archers, skirmishers, light and heavy and missile cavalry, pretty much all of Romes soldiers that werent in the "heavy shock infantry" role were made of auxilia. Up to 3/5ths of Romes forces were not Legionaries, but Auxilia, and basically every Legion would generally be accompanied by an equal or greater number of Auxilia units. It is important to note that the Roman legions were able to function as sword-armed heavy infantry (which is usually associated with shock tactics) precisely because almost every other aspect of battle was covered by noncitizen auxilia. This way, if you charge a hoplite phalanx head on with sword infantry, you should expect poor results. Spear unit formations like shieldwall and phalanx should provide a substantial bonus against infantry. Even the most elite cavalry in the game will lose to standard spearmen, so you don’t need Royal Spartans to do that job. They lose to swords of the same level and are overkill in anti-cavalry (not to mention too slow). There’s simply no good reason to invest in high level expensive spear units. High level spear units and the factions (southern Greeks) that rely on them are underpowered. It’s unrealistic and immersion breaking to see Principe carving their way through the front of a hoplite (NOT Sarissae) phalanx. The Romans found it difficult to fight in phalanx formation when advancing over the rough terrain of the hilly country of Samnium. In fact, this is the main reason why the Romans adopted swords over spears following the Samnite Wars. They either have to be flanked, or made to lose cohesion when advancing across rough terrain. Whether it’s a pike or spear phalanx, there are very few examples in history where one is broken from the front. The benefit of the spear, besides costing less and requiring less training to use, is that it’s more effective when fighting in tight formations like a phalanx. In this, the Romans (at least between about 300 BC and 300 AD) were the exception because they favored the stabbing sword (gladius). It’s uncontroversial to say that the vast majority of all heavy infantry armies relied on the spear rather than the sword as a primary weapon. You can try this with Principe and Hoplites (the standard generic kind) and see the results yourself. In most cases, the sword infantry will still win. Put the hoplite in phalanx and hit it from the FRONT with the sword infantry. Take a hoplite unit and a sword/shield unit of the same quality/cost level. EDITED for clarity to separate Real World for In-Game:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |