Blades seem a little out of place

[Skolhamarr]

answer to that post? And this one

Which mod do you think would make the best Citadel for the Imperial legion. The Heart of Legion military Complex, something that would show the might of empire... I personally think Griffon Fortress mod myself, its beautiful and it has that majestic power that is needed.....

 

The Elder Council mod when reach the Duke of Colovia you should get that citadel, as it commander.... Better reward than the dragon armor ick....

[jaysus]

lol maybe a link would have been enough ;)

 

but i disagree on your perception of a phalanx...

 

the phalanx was seemingly developed around 2.5k bc (as relief fragments from lagash show)

it describes a bunch of men standing in line close together armed with spears (usually many lines deep... the later the deeper)...

the typical greek phalanx is said to have been first used by the spartans around 700bc (ya i just checked that lol) tho i doubt that they truly were the first...

they used spears like u said of approx. 2m or 7ft... (getting longer and longer over time)

and were usually armored in a full bronze suit - hoplites

phillip as poor as he was used just gave em light armor and to neglect that flaw he gave em much longer spears or pikes... the sarissa (5 to 6m or 15-18ft)

 

the athenians and most other greeks did not really rely on archers, slingers, peltasts, light infantry nor cavalry as these units proove most useless vs fully armored hoplites (only during the peleponnesian wars was a battle were light infantry actually smashed hoplites in phalanx formation...i forgot the name tho)...

just with phillip did that change since he used heavy cavalry which as u said attached in flanking maneuvers and could thus penetrate a phalanx

the athenians formed an archer unit after the persian wars though but they never really did somin but drink and mate like all good greeks do

 

if you dont believe me yet take the battle of Leuctra where theben faced sparta and won (the spartans were allegedly too drunk lol)... spartas "elite" on the strong right wing (phalanxes drifted to the right usually due to the will to guard your left buddy with your shield and thus turning a lil - therefore the right wing usually was most important) vs the theben sacred band on the left to counter em... both sides used a phalanx or that setup would have been pointless...

 

what i find kinda interesting about the greeks military is that many of the better units aka the spartans and the sacred band were gays (apart from the usual greek boylove stuff)... the sacred band was especially formed by gay couples.... the idea was to make em fight harder in the face of their lover, seemingly it worked lol (good idea i think... pity it doesnt work aswell with the ladies :/)

its just funky how heavy this contradicts with the usual stereotype of the hetero badass soldier... these were badass gays :D

(still annoys me that this basicly good alexander movie is more like brokebackmountain than troy...)

[XanAlderon]

I agree with everything the people have said here.

 

When I saw the blades armor I was reminded of the Samurai.

[Skolhamarr]

lol maybe a link would have been enough ;)

 

but i disagree on your perception of a phalanx...

 

the phalanx was seemingly developed around 2.5k bc (as relief fragments from lagash show)

it describes a bunch of men standing in line close together armed with spears (usually many lines deep... the later the deeper)...

the typical greek phalanx is said to have been first used by the spartans around 700bc (ya i just checked that lol) tho i doubt that they truly were the first...

they used spears like u said of approx. 2m or 7ft... (getting longer and longer over time)

and were usually armored in a full bronze suit - hoplites

phillip as poor as he was used just gave em light armor and to neglect that flaw he gave em much longer spears or pikes... the sarissa (5 to 6m or 15-18ft)

 

the athenians and most other greeks did not really rely on archers, slingers, peltasts, light infantry nor cavalry as these units proove most useless vs fully armored hoplites (only during the peleponnesian wars was a battle were light infantry actually smashed hoplites in phalanx formation...i forgot the name tho)...

just with phillip did that change since he used heavy cavalry which as u said attached in flanking maneuvers and could thus penetrate a phalanx

the athenians formed an archer unit after the persian wars though but they never really did somin but drink and mate like all good greeks do

 

if you dont believe me yet take the battle of Leuctra where theben faced sparta and won (the spartans were allegedly too drunk lol)... spartas "elite" on the strong right wing (phalanxes drifted to the right usually due to the will to guard your left buddy with your shield and thus turning a lil - therefore the right wing usually was most important) vs the theben sacred band on the left to counter em... both sides used a phalanx or that setup would have been pointless...

 

what i find kinda interesting about the greeks military is that many of the better units aka the spartans and the sacred band were gays (apart from the usual greek boylove stuff)... the sacred band was especially formed by gay couples.... the idea was to make em fight harder in the face of their lover, seemingly it worked lol (good idea i think... pity it doesnt work aswell with the ladies :/)

its just funky how heavy this contradicts with the usual stereotype of the hetero badass soldier... these were badass gays :D

(still annoys me that this basicly good alexander movie is more like brokebackmountain than troy...)

 

 

I will agree with some of that Jaysus... But I think you underestimating the Wealth of Macedonia compared to the Greek city states. Philip conquered the Thrace to east, is very rich in natural resource. The fact still remains that Philip conquered Greece just the same through warfare or bribery. Macedonian Phalanx, is the superior infantry formation during that time period. The fact Philips army was more flexible and not relaying on its infantry alone to do the job. I am not saying that Greek City states were not trained well. In my eyes they were trained a little to well in one fighting formation and were not able to adapted to this phalanx system supported by heavy cavalry. The Greeks never respected Macedonia like the did the Persians. They wrote Macedonia off as barbarians, and thought they were less than the noble Greeks. Never underestimate your enemy., it will lead to your down fall.

[jaysus]

the use of cheaper armor indicates that phillip had more man at hand than he could afford to loose similiar to the roman empire in its beginning

the greek states on the other hand had a military consistent of the more noble members of society namely these who could afford the hoplite armor... this tells us that the greeks indeed had problems strategically if theyd just loose one battle whereas philip could just recruit a new army...

its not so much about monetary wealth anyway in this case (xcept you count in bribes and mercs) but about manpower (not saying money didnt play a role at all)

[Skolhamarr]

Jaysus I will agree to all of those facts... Bribes a play major factor, you have count them into the strategically, even on just manpower. By Philip undermine the Greeks, saved manpower. Playing those state against each other and praying on the city state mentality is key factor. lessing the damage to his own army, and undermining the Greeks....

 

There are many factors how Greek Military failed... But the story could have gone much differently if they were unit front against Philip.

 

Now Jaysus here another question just for fun. Would the Spartans have lasted against a true professional army? Such as Rome.... I do not count Persia as having professional military forces.

[jaysus]

persia nearly only had the immortals as pros the rest were levies...

 

but as to sparta... imo you cant compare the two in any way... 1st sparta was nearly 500yrs before rome... the weapon techniques were outdated... bronze replaced by iron and so on...

 

but lets virtually imagine they both had the same weapons and lived in the same time...

 

the next problem arises... sparta never fielded more than approximately 5000 men, the rest were allies and mostly levies aswell... rome had a standing army of at least ten times that and could easily replace them

 

ok lets virtually imagine they both had equal numbers...

 

sparta would probably have won since their men were trained from birth on whereas the roman troops were much like todays... you join someday and get trained...

 

but what would happen after the battle? rome would just dispatch the next legion whereas sparta would be left with mabye half its strength... sparta might have won the battle but not the war

(in later periods, during the end of the roman empire the situation was different tho as they didnt have enough man anymore due to changes in the military system and too much trouble from everywhere)

 

if the battle would be a siege sparta would loose anyway as they didnt have walls at all whereas rome had quite the mighty walls and nasty siege mashines

 

regarding fighting style

legionares:

a bunch of men in close formation - you let an enemy in and hack him to pieces while your man hold the line or steadily advancing... rinse and repeat till there are no enemies left...

throwing javelins upfront

spartans:

hold the line and shove your pikes tips in the enemies while holding the line or steadily advancing, if one gets through use your sword or the back of your pike (had a tip aswell usually)

the rpoblem here is that none of both armies would actually hurt anyone... roman style was thought to fight "barbarians" in loose formation, the spartan's fighting fixed phalanx units...

the turn of tide could have brought the roman diversity of different units similiar to the persians...

 

regarding moral:

the gay spartans prolly had the advantage over the proffesionals of rome... love is stronger than money i think... (but who knows maybe the romans were all part time gays too... in prechristian times it was more or less common anyway as long as you still had a wife and five kids to keep the folk alive :P)

[Skolhamarr]

we have got off topic, but it has been rather enjoyable off topic....

 

They partly did fight barbarians, but you would have count the other powers in world at the time. Roman military complex was able to overcome so many different nation all use the basic design. Seleucid, Parthian, Macedon, Bactria, Carthage, Greece, just to name major players...

 

Disagree with the element of love, moral aspect of that. Men will do more for the promise of riches and power, regarding to moral. Imagination of common soldier, with promise of riches able to be gained by sacking city. I think about Carthage, what did roman generals promise to those soldiers before they sack it. Or when the Crusaders sack Constantinople,... For love of country, Nationalism, those better tools for moral.. Prechristian after christian, you can buy and sale love

[JannixQuinn]

IMO it should go -

 

Guards - Standard Brownish guard armour. Could update to silver since the brown looks kind of cheap.

Palace Guards - Same as they have.

Blades - The armour used as the reward for service... Imperial Dragon or whatever.

Emperor - Imperial Dragon with a helmet with the brush on top like the horseguard, but white or red or something.

 

They're basically the same, but more decorative as the rank goes up.

[Javalin]

In responce to first post.

 

 

Haven't the blades not being a part of the imperial army? and are only arms of the emporer. as far as I'm aware, the blades don't have any part of the empire, just the emporer.

 

 

 

I'm drunk :(