Later Macedonian

[Basileus]

Some suggestions on the later Macedonian

First time that I read this list I wonder why are the only ones of the Helenistic era who dosn't have shock cavalry, even the citicens and farmers of the achains league o Atens could field lancer superior cavalry who can crush the elite of the macedonian nobility. As you know the macedonians were the father of the cavalry shock tactic in the western world and even in the time of philip V or perseus their cavalry arms fought quite well in most of the battles: the rigth wing in the battle of cynoscephalos(197), all the cavalry in the battle of Kalinikos (171bc), against other greeks their were superior in all the minor skirmish, actually the cavalry arms not were defeted in this Three big battles (is was the phalanx when it was).
A have read polibius, titus livius, plutarch and others and I could find any sugestions or diferences betwen the later macedonian and the ptolomies or seleucids cavalry tactics: all of then were Helenistic kingdoms whith a monted nobility who emulate Alexander: The king fight with their companion and friend in the royal cavalry scuadron (mostly like alexander did) in the right wing...I don`t know why seuleicid or ptolomies have royal scuadrons of cavalry with lancers and the Agema o "sacred" cavalry of the later macedonian (as titus livius said) are light spear, they weren't heavy skirmish they were proud men who fought with the king hand to hand and not throwing javelins like barbarians or evading.
If we looks at the % of the cavalry in the armies of the macedonians from the time of Philip II to Perseus and ALL other Helenistic Kingdmos they were always some kind of 10% of the total army. Its false that the late macedonian couldn't field enought cuantity of cavalry, Perseus field 4000 cavalry in an army of 40000 men and philip V field 3000 of 23000.

The army should reflect how it did in battle but in game terms The macedonian late cavalry can't stand against the achain or atenian cavalry, or the one of pergame or those of the others greek kingdoms, even the small epirrus or Kirinean greek has beter cavalry, even cartaghe, Rome, or galatians whith allies or elephants or more cuantity of mounted troops can defeat the late macedonian cavalry. Againt HF like galatians, or hoplites, or hastatis the light spear cavalry dont have a chance and are bad choices because you can field phalanx or light horses o medium foot who can do a beter job.
The late macedonian army is a big anvil witout a hammer because dont have legionaries, or shock cavalry, o elephants, charriots, everyone of the other greek kingdoms have some kind of elite pikemen of about 12bases so the "strong" of the army is just 12 more bases of elite pikes?.

Code: Select all

My suggestions:

.Macedonian Cavaly (lancers) or thesalian Cavalry (L.spear).................4-8 bases

.Tracian, Greek, Ilirian or Galatian cavalry................................0-10 bases
(protected or armored cavalry L.spear OR Light horse) 

(about the light horse, Macedonia are surronder by the ilirian, thesalian, an tracians, plus some other greek who were their allies in this time, if someone of the greek could field larger cuantities of light cavalry the macedonian of this time are those)

greetings

[willb]

The later Macedonian list dates from 260 b.c. and reflects the changes in equipment brought back by Pyrrhus from Italy, where Macedonian cavalry replaced the lance with a shield and light spears. See pages 20 to 22 for the change in equipment in the Pyrrhic army list as of 274 b.c.

"Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" has illustrations of the changes in equipment.

The Later Macedonian list does allow up to 6 bases of light horse and you may also use Achaian allies from the Hellenistic Greek list in Immortal Fire which have another 6 bases of light horse.

[nikgaukroger]

"Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" has illustrations of the changes in equipment.

And also notes that the Makedonian cavalry were unhappy at being charged by Roman cavalry (from Livy) - something had changed from the glory days of Alexander

[MadBanker]

The late macedonian army is a big anvil witout a hammer because dont have legionaries, or shock cavalry, o elephants, charriots

You've just pointed out what caused the decline of Macedon and their ultimate loss to the romans: They relied more and more on the phalanx as the decisive offensive arm, where Alexander had before used it in a well oiled combined arms army. This is due most notably to the decline of macedonian cavalry (albeit the shock one).

[DaiSho]

And also notes that the Makedonian cavalry were unhappy at being charged by Roman cavalry (from Livy) - something had changed from the glory days of Alexander

Holy shock cavalry batman. The Romans must have come a long way. I remember reading how the Syracusan cavalry were feared by the Romans. It was one of my pet peeves in earlier incarnations of wargaming that the 'advantage' that the Syracusans had (superior cavalry) seemed to be watered down and you ended up fighting equal in the cavalry battle and well an truly outclassed in the infantry battle (hoplites vs hoplite/legionary mix). Additionally, it seemed that the Romans had MORE cavalry, which didn't seem to equate to history.

I was so happy to see that the contemporaries of my Syracusan cavarly were lots of 'Superior' vs not quite as much 'Average'. At last the Syracusan cavalry are better than somebody!

Ian

[DaiSho]

You've just pointed out what caused the decline of Macedon and their ultimate loss to the romans: They relied more and more on the phalanx as the decisive offensive arm, where Alexander had before used it in a well oiled combined arms army. This is due most notably to the decline of macedonian cavalry (albeit the shock one).

That's an interesting observation. In the few battles I've had against Macedonians the success I've had has been due to the combined arms not being used. The players have feared certain interactions and thus not been able to use the advantages of this army.

[Basileus]

Hi!
This is going to be hard...(and its hard to write in English too )

I know what most (or all) historician said about the "decline" of the later succesor kingdons in matter of their armies but this its not true in my opinion (but is easy to belive because their were defeted badly), cheek the ancient sources or the arqueological evidence: both armies (333ac and 197 or 168bc) have royal cavalry, elite infantry, phalanx, good medium and light foot and light cavalry...the only diference were they commander and the enemy they faced and how they used the convined arms. In magnesia, cynocephalos, pidna they were not defeted because good or bad medium foot or heavy cavalry they were defeted by bad command decision.
As I said in the first topic I dont Know why the later macedonian have the worst cavalry of the Greek world in game term becauce they arent any proof that their royal cavalry were worst than the ones from the ptolomies, achains, pergame or seleucids.
From the ancient authors mostly Titus is the one who tell us about the army, the battle and the units in the 2nd and 3er macedonian wars as well as Polibius (but he didn't write about details of unit as well as titus), we only know that in the Battle of Cynoscephale the cavarly were victorius in the right flank before 20 maniples victories of the left charged the the right phalanx from the rear when it's was fighting from the front (but this was an strange battle with fog with loot of combat against unready soldiers)
In Callinicus in 171 the cavalry and the tracians from the flanks and center charged the romans crushing then quickly with more than 3000 roman looses (livius) who run before the main infantery battle lines clashed each other.
In Pydna the phalanx were massacred by the gladius in uneven terrain in less than 1 hour by they front with more than 20000 macedonian killed (the suporting mediun foot? the cavalry? not. The Phalanx was crushed by they front by the opposite infantry not the enemy cavalry).
In Magnesia, as above, were plenty of suport and specialiced unit to help the seleucid Phalanx, but their commander in their flank leaved then alone persuing enemies to far to their camp.

The late macedonian army is a big anvil witout a hammer because dont have legionaries, or shock cavalry, o elephants, charriots

You've just pointed out what caused the decline of Macedon and their ultimate loss to the romans: They relied more and more on the phalanx as the decisive offensive arm, where Alexander had before used it in a well oiled combined arms army. This is due most notably to the decline of macedonian cavalry (albeit the shock one).

This is the comon opinion (check the armies that the ancient show us: their are well oiled combined arms but without alexander and darius), but the true is that Alexander never fought against the roman as Pyrrus, Perseus or Antiocos did, the true diference were the enemy and who smart the commander were. The convined arms were the trademark of the hellenistic kingdom as well as the hammer and the anvil from Perseus to Alexander. As polibius noted, the macedonian defeat wasn`t because the suport or the cavalry or other suport troop its was because the anvil (the phalanx) could not hold the line against the legion.
Alexander did well against the persian...but we never know if their phalanx could have holded the line against the hastatis before their cavalry can help then...

think about it

[Basileus]

Finaly I got the "armies of the macedonian and punic wars, of Duncan Head", and I know why in Dba, dbm and fog the later macedonian is the only one of the helenistic army without a shock cavalry.
The autor was convinced that the later helenistic army became worst of that of the time of Alexander the great, reason? He said about reduccion in the number of cavarly fielded and adoption of the shield in the cavalry arm.

When he wrothe about the later macedonion he used two sources:

a) the Paulus Aemilus victory monument at Pidna showing a cavalryman with a shield

(rest of images http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... temid,135/ )

As you can see there are a cavalryman with a shield but there are another cavalryman with cloak an no shield. why the autor said "the macedonian seen to have descarted the xystom and reverted to javelin...". why? because he thought rider can not use long xystom and shield? the xystom was used with one or two hands? can a rider hold a shield + 3 javelin + another javelin when he was riding a horse? why the same rider can not carry both shield and xystom?, even that, the true of the monument show us that not all the cavalrymen adopted the shield.
And finally, the use of shield in the cavalry tactic was (since pyrrus time) comon amonst all the greek world not only the antigonid

b) a passage from titus livius about an skirmish battle betwen scouting macedonian and roman forces
This passage of book 31, was betwen two scouting forces: 2 scuadrons of velites +roman cavalry against 400 Trallians, 300 cretans , and same number of cavalry. they weren't involved royal cavalry or the armored one.


So, the sources can be reading in other way, but Duncan was sure of the declining role of the cavalry...before he cheack the sources ...that is why he readed it in that way

[nikgaukroger]

So, the sources can be reading in other way, but Duncan was sure of the declining role of the cavalry...before he cheack the sources ...that is why he readed it in that way

Having the pleasure of knowing Duncan somewhat to say that he approaches any historical information with such preconceived ideas is absolute rubbish, to put it mildly. He is, IMO, one of the best at looking at what is actually written rather than what might be expected or wanted.

[rbodleyscott]

Just one point - why do you think that classifying Later Macedonian cavalry as Armoured, Superior, Light Spear, Swordsmen means they are "worse"? For many roles they are better than if they were Lancers, Swordsmen.

Note also that the lists allow Seleucid and Ptolemaic cavalry to be graded as Average, so that if you think the Macedonians were better, you can grade them as Superior and the Ptolemaic lancer Cavalry as Average, and the Macedonians will be better. A +POA in the impact phase will not compensate for a quality grade difference overall.

Contemporary Roman cavalry are compulsorily graded as Average, and optionally as Protected rather than Armoured (it is doubtful whether they merit Armoured status), so the Macedonian cavalry will be distinctly better than those too.

[marioslaz]

As you can see there are a cavalryman with a shield but there are another cavalryman with cloak an no shield. why the autor said "the macedonian seen to have descarted the xystom and reverted to javelin...". why? because he thought rider can not use long xystom and shield? the xystom was used with one or two hands? can a rider hold a shield + 3 javelin + another javelin when he was riding a horse? why the same rider can not carry both shield and xystom?, even that, the true of the monument show us that not all the cavalrymen adopted the shield.

More, some particular could be artistic details. For example, someone could think to win against a rider without shield was easier than against one with a great round shield, so artist added a shield to make win more glorious.
Something similar happens many more times we think about. For example, when Livio describes Sannita army he writes a legion was armed with silver weapons and one other with golden one. Of course Sanniti didn't own enough silver or gold, but even if they had it, it would be rather stupid since iron it's fairly better . The reason for a such invention? Well, an expert in war matter would say "Romani fought bravely because Sanniti were tough guys", but an ordinary man, and they are majority, would say "Romani won against Sanniti? What an effort! Sanniti were just poor shepherds". If you cover them with precious metal victory becomes more glorious.