What I don't get is why he bothered invading Italy at all. It wasn't like he had anything to gain that couldnt have been had by moving into Illyria instead. And his opponent would have been a softer less organized target to boot. And in return they could have gained control of their navy and resources.
First at all. Makedones were not GREEK. They were Hellenic!!!! Second,the defeat of the Makedonians to rome was POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL,As they had not good Leaders and Money to keep a good army. Third: Hellenistic Armies were so Good as the Late Republican ones,the only thing that changes is the tatics and equipment
@eduds6 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@Istojataachatearme Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
Yes by that logic you could say that the Romans didn't change, but by all the evidence i just represented it would be a bit hard.
What do you have to prove that the greeks changed? Thorakitai? Companions? Yes the macedonians did integrate many units in their army but only to help the phalanx!
The phalanx held the enemy in position, while these "light" hoplites rushed the enemy with swords/spears and the companions hit the flanks...
The Hellenistic army revolved around the phalanx Period.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN It doesn't make the army better or worse if it changed. This is just about history.
And no, the books I read say that the pikemen were not used to "pin" an enemy because they had offensive equipment and had a hard time holding someone in place, whilst going on a huge assault was easier.
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
And even if some didn't the phalanx would always be their MAIN force on the battlefield, a severe disadvantage against the Romans.
I can't agree that the greeks and macedonians advanced to get a better fighting unit than the phalanx against the romans. But i can agree that their army was upgraded.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN AFAIK Greeks did indeed change their Hoplites and support units after the death of Alexander several times. The Greeks changed their old fashioned heavy armored Hoplites to new, more flexible units. Like the Thorakitai. Basicly lighter, more flexible Hoplites which were still armed with mail, xyston, javalins and sword and fought like Legionaries. There was a battle of Athen were the Romans won but some couple of this Thorakitai regiments managed to even pull back the Romans.
lol sorry my friend but your basically restating a point that PhyrrusOfEpeiros said to me already and i'll say the same thing to you that i said to him.
@AustGeneral Your wrong though Thorakitai would use spears AND javelins/swords, when the Thorakitai phalanx was in trouble they would pull out the xyston, and in a way fight like Romans, but the heavy hoplon shield meant that even if you had lighter armor you would still tire out from swinging that massive thing around.
The Romans fought as a unit, and used the tower shield to push not swing.
And the gladius was made for stabbing. one stab could kill a lesser armored hoplite like the Thoraitai.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN The thorakitai did not have a hoplon! He was not a hoplite! The thorakitai used spears, javelins and swords and they were heavily armoured. They fought similiarly as the Roman legion, not as the hoplite phalanx.
Just want to add to your Comment that the Thorakitai Javelin was not a common one,it was a Very tipped and Heavy One,similar in effect to the Pilum,but Diferently designed.
@AustGeneral Yes it would be hard to get through the hoplon by stabbing but the Romans managed, if not with the gladius then with pilums which were made for situations just like these, those spears would pierce through shields and in most cases make the shields scrap.
This would spell disaster for a lightly armored hoplite fighting a heavily armored Roman legionare.
The Thorakitai with light armor and a big shield would stand no chance against a heavily armored shield wall like the legionare.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN And what does this have to do with "Greek army never evolved"?
By the way, I'd say that the pilum could pierce the aspis at close ranges (because of the thickness), but in real life if you threw that I doubt it would pierce, because of the shaped of the hoplon (very round. Deflects misiles). On the contrary, many Gaulic and Iberian shields were straight as a plank, thus more easily pierced by something thrown.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Yes i know the roman army also relied on the legion. I know what you're thinking (then why by that logic can't i say that roman army revolved around the legion?) Because The legionaries were the main fighting force, but not the only way to win a battle, after many wars the Romans integrated everything on the battlefield! Archers,auxilia,skirmishers,cavalry,spearmen,artillery,wardogs,Legionaries.
the greeks? Phalanx.Light phalanx.(Thorakitai) archers (sometimes) cavalry.(macedon)
.... lost a lot of battles in their time, add that to the losses suffered against roman legions and it's equaled out or even more so than the Romans.
remember the Romans only started in (roughly) 750 BCE while the hellenistic civilizations can trace their history way back to 1200s and even 1400s (not sure if earlier or later) Greeks/macedonians had a head start and to stay with the same army for hundreds of years a serious drawback.
Yes the tactics changed but the army remained the same.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN So you're saying that (in history) if you have more time = you're going to be better? Doesn't work that way. Also, the reason mainalnd Greece like hoplites, was because battles offered little casualities and men could go back to farms quickly.
And the army remained pretty much the same for Rome too. Come on mate, I admit that Rome did win and won for several good reasons, why can't you agree that the Greek army did evolve and change?
even archeologists and historians agree with strong evidence that the greeks never advanced away from the phalanx because to them it was an incredibly effective fighting unit to barbarians to the north and those to the east!
I bet that if you ask people on youtube for their opinion they will all tell you that sure, the greeks (and macedonians) did UPGRADE their army, they did add some new units, but they all incorporated the phalanx.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Then why, by that logic, can't I state that the Roman army never changed? It always stayed the same.
The army of Greece DID evolve. There is a differance between the words evolve and change, but if you'd ask any historian or archeologist, they'd say that the Greek army DID change after the Pelloponessian war and the reigns of Philip II and Alexander III.
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Because the Roman army before the Marian reforms was comprised mainly (more often than not) of purely infantry with cavalry only acting as skirmishers or scouts. Not just that but the Romans did indeed still use the phalanx in their republican army (rarely not as often).
After the Reforms the Romans began using all forms of soldiers, cavalary (light and heavy) skirmishers (archers and jav.)
Infantry (light,heavy,elites) Artillery (light,heavy) Auxilia, Militia and even wardogs.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN And this is where you destroy your argument. Observe:
Because the Greek army before the reforms of Philip II was comprised purely of infantry with cavalry only acting as scouts. Not just that but the Greeks indeed had lightly armoured, fast moving flexible units (ekdromoi).
After the reforms the Greeks began using all forms of soldiers - cavalry (light and heavy), skirmishers (peltasts and archers), infantry (light, heavy, elite), elephants, mercenaries, militia and even artill.
think about it this way: Imagine the renassance (or however you spell that lol, speaking in fictional terms btw) now imagine england with and army of purely swordsmen, cavalry and archers.
Now imagine France with an army of musketeers, pistol armed cavalrymen (with swords for hand to hand fighting).
The english would have thousands of weapons manufactured for medieval warfare.
But the french suddenly pop up with a new style of fighting!
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Well of course Marian > Greek. I never, ever denied it. I was contesting your proposal, that the greek army never ever never changed/reformed, which is pure bullocks. It DID evolve past the phalanx stage at several points in history, and in some hellenistic armies, they weren't even dependent on the phalanx to win battles.
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros (i hope this doesn't make us youtube enemies i still like your vids dude!) Then just answer me this: did the greek army ever change at the scale of the marian reforms? which is what i said the first time.
Did the greeks ever evolve passed the phalanx (not use it anymore? how could they if they were to fight the romans? the phalanx was proven to be weaker than the legion on several occasions) so did the greeks actually change?
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN A good discussion from time to time can't make enemies, mate. :D
No, they didn't evolve. BUT. Were there legionaires before the Marian reforms? Yes. Were there legionaires after the Marian reforms? Yes. Did they fight in the same way? No (cohorts instead of manipules, just like in Macedonia - taxeis instead of just one line of troops from a city-state). So, in an essence, the Romans never advanced beyond the legion, am I right?
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros No they didn't but the legion did a evolve to a point where it was unbeatable.
The greek phalanx was still weak at the flanks.
So in technical terms the roman legion did not evolve, but it's tactics did change.
(Pilums aside) The testudo, shield wall and overlapping bands of armor and the tower shield made Ceasars legionaries immortals. While the phalanx became history. (Yes they both became history but i mean in the roman times the phalanx became inferior after a while).
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN The Legion was definitly more flexible but im pretty sure that they Hellenistic armies would have been a real threat to the Legions of Rome if the successors of Alexander would have spent enough money into cavalry and not so much into infantery. After Alexanders death the lands of the successors where exhausted and horses were expensive, this led the successors to invest more into infantery since it is way cheaper. The armies of the successors lacked of Alexanders cavalry hammer.
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros that's an understatement... even if rome lost more battles it still became master of the meditarranean (or however u spell that damn word) and macedonian missiles were mercenaries they were not used to greater effect. If anything they were used to the best of their abilities.
Roman archers (after marian reforms) had some armor and better quality equipment and training.
And the 4th point really does not matter the Roman army was more profesional period. lol btw greece/macedon...
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Macedonian misile-men were not only mercenaries (unlike mainland Greece). Actually, mercenaries were a small part, because most misiles were hired from conquered teritories, like Agrianians, Persians, Medians etc.
Rome wasn't more proffessional. If you would compare the two armies in discipline, they would be pretty equal. And my point was that the Macedonian army was the FIRST proffessional army, mate.
Lovely work! Only shame is that in RTW and its mods you can't represent the Macedonian (or greek to that matter) precisely. For example, you had to make the line very thin, while, at it's thinnest, it would 8 men deep. :)
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Yea but actually this was a mod which is very historically accuarte. But Fraps slows the performance so down so that i just can do such small battles. This were no Macedonians but Epirotes btw.
@AustGeneral Well, to be honest, in both the battle of Asculum and Heraclea, and later at Beneventum and in Greece, Pyrrhos fielded many Epeirots and Macedonians alike.
This mod is historiclly accurate for the most part (I know, I play it :) ), but I still can't believe they gave the hetairoi and mollosian agema a two handed xyston, which historically was held in one arm. :(
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros You have some impressive historiy knowledge. Altough i love history i have to admit you know way more about than me but i also have to admit that i don't really care about such details like Ageam or Hetairoi carring a twohanded xyston lance. :)
@PatriotGabe Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
1) Pyrrhus sucked lol he became synonymous with the term "Pyrrhic Victory" the fact that people say he was a "good commander" is... in accurate. He was a Lucky commander.
2) Before you answer my first statement: What if he had faced the Legions of Ceasar and Augustus? Rome gave Pyrrhus a damn good beating in enough battles that they drove him back to Macedonia, and this was all well before the Marian reforms. "Pyrrhic Defeats" is what he'd be synonymous for then. :)
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN I guess he'd lose against reformed legions, but I guess the Hellenistic army would also be reformed by that time, and I cannot tell in what way. Also, I say he was a good commander because he is the ONLY Hellenistic war-leader, who has defeated Rome in 2 battles.
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros DUDE 3000 years the greeks have not changed battle tactics, to say that they would have a reform in their army like the romans is NOT an argument, (no offense) you have no argument the greeks would never beat a reformed roman army.
The few battles that they beat the romans in, they suffered massive casualties, so either pyrrhus was an inefective leader or the greek style of warfare could not challenge the romans effectively either way. GREEKS LOSE. Veni,Vidi,Vici :)
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN I never said he would win. And the Greeks changed their tactics all the time, like the recent reforms of Philip II, then organization reforms by Alexander the Great, then his generals make elephants a superunit etc. So your argument is not valid.
Let's not also forget that Pyrrhus was outnumbered in all battles and in some of them even in worse terrain. Greek warfare could defeat Roman, but it required several circumstances, which was Rome's strength - it was more flexible.
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros lol... we agree on one thing the roman army WAS more flexible. But when i say reform, i say MOVE away from the phalanx it was never going to defeat a Marian Roman Army.
The Seleucids adopted elephants for an extended period of time, Alexander did not.
Philli[p merely made the phalanx stronger, but the phalanx was still a phalanx,
No matter how strong the cavalry if the phalanx could be taken in the flanks then it was done.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Umm, read a book. I didn't say Alexander used elephants, I said his successors did. But he did change the command system and sizes of units, plus he added more flexibility. And the phalanx was not the same. If you compare how they were used, the Macedonian phalanx was VERY differant in use. Philip also made the first proffessional army in history. And Philip didn't merely make the phalanx stronger, mate, he changed it all around. And the Roman army also had its weaknesses, mate.
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros If this wasn't filled with your fans ( myself included, though not a huge fan lol) they would have to agree historically that whatever "reforms" your talking about would never have been sufficient to move the greeks or macedonians from the phalanx.
My argument stands, the greeks NEVER evolved from the phalanx THAT was their downfall the phalanx was easily destroyed in the flanks, while the legion was easily flexible. trust me my argument is more than sufficient dont be blinded
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Dude just to make sure, I have searched al three of those infantry units you named, first of all The Hypaspists WERE STILL SPEARMEN. they could pull out a sword and fight hand to hand but were mainly phalanx.
The Thureophoroi again, mainly (phalanx)but did adopt more readily the use of the sword, when pyhrrus brought them to italy the romans took from them the scutum.
Lastly the Thorakitai WERE again spearmen but heavy storm troops.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Since when spearman = phalangite? There's a differance between the two, mate. The thorakitai, thureophoroi and hypaspists didn't fight in a phalanx formation (which is the thing that defines a phalangite. They didn't fight in either the Macedonian or Greek phalanx, though it is believed that because of the rigurous training Hypaspists could fight in a phalanx, as misile men or as assault infantry.
but for the love of god, PHALANX thats all the greeks used against the romans! (i'll explain it in detail b cuz u obviously dont get what i mean) The greeks would never beat the romans b cuz all they used was phalanx and even if they're so called "great swordsmen" joined in the fight, the greeks AND macedonians were still totally dependent on the phalanx. THEY WOULD NEVER move from it.
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Sorry, but the way you previously stated it I had the understanding that you thought spearman = phalangite. There's a reason the Greeks never went away from the phalanx method of fighting - it worked for them (meaning that they didn't want that many men dead during fighting). But in a sense, Rome never passed the legionaire state too. Camillian, Marian, Polybian and all these other reforms involved keeping the legionaire, just changing gear/recruitment.
Athenians,Spartans,Thessalians,Cretans,Rhodians,EPIROTANS, MACEDONIANS all of them are GREEK! FACE IT! In ancient times Even South Italy and Sicely were GREEK. Even now some people in south Italy speak Greek. History is History and you cannot change it!
Yes But Macedonians spoke ONLY GREEK ....Their main language was GREEK. I speak english but my mother language is GREEK. All the Macedonian names are GREEK ,Macedonians believed GREEK gods.SO Macedonians=GREEKS. Go educate yourselves and cut the bullshit. Ok you dont have history, this does not mean that you can steal others history.
@MegaGUILLERMO23 Seriously, just because you like this game so much it doesn't mean it's the best. I myself played DOW 2 and it's really good but Total War and Battlforge are in my opinion better games.
Everybody has another taste and not only in terms of food, also in terms of games.
@Shellshock1918 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
Well the elephants were in Africa how did the Egyptian king get the elephants to Greece? Because during Hannibals campaigns he brought elephants and it was a very hard operation.
@tuskin4 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@Argjiri: Even saying this sounds hillarious... pyrrhus albanian..?? Albanians didnt even exist then mate..!!! You are fucking slavs...pff... cunt.. Robbing greek history is the easiest solution to ur problems nowadays, isnt it?? daaaamn...
it is not true what you said.Epirus is a region in southern albania,it is not part of greece but they were all pure albanians,and i am from there too,so Phyrus was albanian brave man.he was cousion with alexander the great from his mother.
It is true. But the ancient Greeks who believed that were infuenced by the Athenian orator Demosthenes who was fanatic antimacedonian and wanted Athens to be the strongest Hellenic power. But Macedonians were Greek tribe. Here is some proof :
Alexander to Darius :
"Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury; ... (and) I have been appointed leader of the Greeks ..."
@eXcommunicate1979 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@IchorEpsilon Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
Btw the battles between Pyrrhus of Epirus and Rome were EPIC ! The invincible macedonian phalanx against the flexible and highly trained Roman Legions !
Indeed. Macedonian phalangits were also highly trained. =) Rome got luck since greeks and other successor states of alexander couldn't afford the neccessary cavalry to protect phalanx flanks anymore.
@IchorEpsilon Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@BigBlackBruiser Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
Yes But Macedonians spoke ONLY GREEK ....Their main language was GREEK. I speak english but my mother language is GREEK. All the Macedonian names are GREEK ,Macedonians believed GREEK gods.SO Macedonians=GREEKS. Go educate yourselves and cut the bullshit. Ok you dont have history, this does not mean that you can steal others history.
Athenians,Spartans,Thessalians,Cretans,Rhodians,EPIROTANS, MACEDONIANS all of them are GREEK! FACE IT! In ancient times Even South Italy and Sicely were GREEK. Even now some people in south Italy speak Greek. History is History and you cannot change it!
@DjLMFAO actually you must learn the history better.when IchorEpsilon talks about Sicely i think that he means many greek cities\colonies of Sicely like Syrakoyses(colony of corinth),Apollonia,Notos,Panormos,Leontinoi,Naxos etc...not all Sicilians
@DjLMFAO Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@VitalMusic217 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@debuxman Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
@francoruberto This proves that you don't know anything about what your talking. When Phyrrus fought the romans they already had a superior army which was superior against hellenistic phalanx but phyrrus managed to win this battle because he was a excellent tactician + he fought in the battles to motivate his men and he also died in a fight. The romen won at beneventum because Phyruss army couldn't recover of the two other battles against the romans before. He didn'got support while romans got.
I have seen many videos based on the game and so far this is one of the best. Its clean, camera angle is good. Awesome vid men and thanks for sharing it.
@Strategos300 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
Thanks. ;) You can set if you see flags on the mod Europa barbarorum.
Phyrrus was king of epirus and one of the greatest generals. Epirus was like macedonia highly influenced by greeks. So also Phyrrus himself leaded a army based on phalanx and supported by heavy cavalry.
He managed to defeat the romans several time but had lost very much men with each battle against the romans while the romans always put another new army against Phyrrus until phyrrus had to retreat.
@ARwebshow Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
Brilliant? That can't be said when he went up against Rome.
though in his defense, he had never battled the romans before...
RecoverRedeem 2 days ago
What I don't get is why he bothered invading Italy at all. It wasn't like he had anything to gain that couldnt have been had by moving into Illyria instead. And his opponent would have been a softer less organized target to boot. And in return they could have gained control of their navy and resources.
Lukos0036 3 months ago
First at all. Makedones were not GREEK. They were Hellenic!!!! Second,the defeat of the Makedonians to rome was POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL,As they had not good Leaders and Money to keep a good army. Third: Hellenistic Armies were so Good as the Late Republican ones,the only thing that changes is the tatics and equipment
eduds6 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eduds6 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
@eduds6 HELLENIC IS THE GREEK WORD FOR GREEK...
MPOTSARIS20 1 week ago
It's always nice to see a pike phallanxes in action.
Istojataachatearme 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Istojataachatearme Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
what mod is this??????
memphisdarkwolf 10 months ago
Yes by that logic you could say that the Romans didn't change, but by all the evidence i just represented it would be a bit hard.
What do you have to prove that the greeks changed? Thorakitai? Companions? Yes the macedonians did integrate many units in their army but only to help the phalanx!
The phalanx held the enemy in position, while these "light" hoplites rushed the enemy with swords/spears and the companions hit the flanks...
The Hellenistic army revolved around the phalanx Period.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN It doesn't make the army better or worse if it changed. This is just about history.
And no, the books I read say that the pikemen were not used to "pin" an enemy because they had offensive equipment and had a hard time holding someone in place, whilst going on a huge assault was easier.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
And even if some didn't the phalanx would always be their MAIN force on the battlefield, a severe disadvantage against the Romans.
I can't agree that the greeks and macedonians advanced to get a better fighting unit than the phalanx against the romans. But i can agree that their army was upgraded.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN AFAIK Greeks did indeed change their Hoplites and support units after the death of Alexander several times. The Greeks changed their old fashioned heavy armored Hoplites to new, more flexible units. Like the Thorakitai. Basicly lighter, more flexible Hoplites which were still armed with mail, xyston, javalins and sword and fought like Legionaries. There was a battle of Athen were the Romans won but some couple of this Thorakitai regiments managed to even pull back the Romans.
AustGeneral 1 year ago
@AustGeneral WHAT DON'T U UNDERSTAND?
THEY ALWAYS KEPT THE PHALANX.
lol sorry my friend but your basically restating a point that PhyrrusOfEpeiros said to me already and i'll say the same thing to you that i said to him.
THE GREEKS NEVER ADVANCED BEYOND THE PHALANX.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@AustGeneral Your wrong though Thorakitai would use spears AND javelins/swords, when the Thorakitai phalanx was in trouble they would pull out the xyston, and in a way fight like Romans, but the heavy hoplon shield meant that even if you had lighter armor you would still tire out from swinging that massive thing around.
The Romans fought as a unit, and used the tower shield to push not swing.
And the gladius was made for stabbing. one stab could kill a lesser armored hoplite like the Thoraitai.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN The thorakitai did not have a hoplon! He was not a hoplite! The thorakitai used spears, javelins and swords and they were heavily armoured. They fought similiarly as the Roman legion, not as the hoplite phalanx.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros
Stop argueing with this Troll,he doesnt know Much about history and still putting his word on The same wrong Point.
eduds6 5 months ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros
Just want to add to your Comment that the Thorakitai Javelin was not a common one,it was a Very tipped and Heavy One,similar in effect to the Pilum,but Diferently designed.
eduds6 5 months ago
@AustGeneral Yes it would be hard to get through the hoplon by stabbing but the Romans managed, if not with the gladius then with pilums which were made for situations just like these, those spears would pierce through shields and in most cases make the shields scrap.
This would spell disaster for a lightly armored hoplite fighting a heavily armored Roman legionare.
The Thorakitai with light armor and a big shield would stand no chance against a heavily armored shield wall like the legionare.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN And what does this have to do with "Greek army never evolved"?
By the way, I'd say that the pilum could pierce the aspis at close ranges (because of the thickness), but in real life if you threw that I doubt it would pierce, because of the shaped of the hoplon (very round. Deflects misiles). On the contrary, many Gaulic and Iberian shields were straight as a plank, thus more easily pierced by something thrown.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Yes i know the roman army also relied on the legion. I know what you're thinking (then why by that logic can't i say that roman army revolved around the legion?) Because The legionaries were the main fighting force, but not the only way to win a battle, after many wars the Romans integrated everything on the battlefield! Archers,auxilia,skirmishers,cavalry,spearmen,artillery,wardogs,Legionaries.
the greeks? Phalanx.Light phalanx.(Thorakitai) archers (sometimes) cavalry.(macedon)
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN "Archers,auxilia,skirmishers,cavalry,spearmen,artillery,wardogs,Legionaries."
The Hellenes used archers, mercenaries, skirmishers, cavalry, spearmen, elephants and allies to win battles too. Sooo, why doesn't this count?
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
.... lost a lot of battles in their time, add that to the losses suffered against roman legions and it's equaled out or even more so than the Romans.
remember the Romans only started in (roughly) 750 BCE while the hellenistic civilizations can trace their history way back to 1200s and even 1400s (not sure if earlier or later) Greeks/macedonians had a head start and to stay with the same army for hundreds of years a serious drawback.
Yes the tactics changed but the army remained the same.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN So you're saying that (in history) if you have more time = you're going to be better? Doesn't work that way. Also, the reason mainalnd Greece like hoplites, was because battles offered little casualities and men could go back to farms quickly.
And the army remained pretty much the same for Rome too. Come on mate, I admit that Rome did win and won for several good reasons, why can't you agree that the Greek army did evolve and change?
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros because it didn't!!! lol ASK ANYONE!
even archeologists and historians agree with strong evidence that the greeks never advanced away from the phalanx because to them it was an incredibly effective fighting unit to barbarians to the north and those to the east!
I bet that if you ask people on youtube for their opinion they will all tell you that sure, the greeks (and macedonians) did UPGRADE their army, they did add some new units, but they all incorporated the phalanx.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Then why, by that logic, can't I state that the Roman army never changed? It always stayed the same.
The army of Greece DID evolve. There is a differance between the words evolve and change, but if you'd ask any historian or archeologist, they'd say that the Greek army DID change after the Pelloponessian war and the reigns of Philip II and Alexander III.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Because the Roman army before the Marian reforms was comprised mainly (more often than not) of purely infantry with cavalry only acting as skirmishers or scouts. Not just that but the Romans did indeed still use the phalanx in their republican army (rarely not as often).
After the Reforms the Romans began using all forms of soldiers, cavalary (light and heavy) skirmishers (archers and jav.)
Infantry (light,heavy,elites) Artillery (light,heavy) Auxilia, Militia and even wardogs.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN And this is where you destroy your argument. Observe:
Because the Greek army before the reforms of Philip II was comprised purely of infantry with cavalry only acting as scouts. Not just that but the Greeks indeed had lightly armoured, fast moving flexible units (ekdromoi).
After the reforms the Greeks began using all forms of soldiers - cavalry (light and heavy), skirmishers (peltasts and archers), infantry (light, heavy, elite), elephants, mercenaries, militia and even artill.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Πύρρος _ _ της Ηπείρου Γεια σου Αντωνία, ο Αλκιβιάδης έτοιμος παραγγελίες σας:)
othryoneus 4 months ago
think about it this way: Imagine the renassance (or however you spell that lol, speaking in fictional terms btw) now imagine england with and army of purely swordsmen, cavalry and archers.
Now imagine France with an army of musketeers, pistol armed cavalrymen (with swords for hand to hand fighting).
The english would have thousands of weapons manufactured for medieval warfare.
But the french suddenly pop up with a new style of fighting!
Bye bye england.
So like i said Marian reform>greek army.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Well of course Marian > Greek. I never, ever denied it. I was contesting your proposal, that the greek army never ever never changed/reformed, which is pure bullocks. It DID evolve past the phalanx stage at several points in history, and in some hellenistic armies, they weren't even dependent on the phalanx to win battles.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros (i hope this doesn't make us youtube enemies i still like your vids dude!) Then just answer me this: did the greek army ever change at the scale of the marian reforms? which is what i said the first time.
Did the greeks ever evolve passed the phalanx (not use it anymore? how could they if they were to fight the romans? the phalanx was proven to be weaker than the legion on several occasions) so did the greeks actually change?
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN A good discussion from time to time can't make enemies, mate. :D
No, they didn't evolve. BUT. Were there legionaires before the Marian reforms? Yes. Were there legionaires after the Marian reforms? Yes. Did they fight in the same way? No (cohorts instead of manipules, just like in Macedonia - taxeis instead of just one line of troops from a city-state). So, in an essence, the Romans never advanced beyond the legion, am I right?
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros No they didn't but the legion did a evolve to a point where it was unbeatable.
The greek phalanx was still weak at the flanks.
So in technical terms the roman legion did not evolve, but it's tactics did change.
(Pilums aside) The testudo, shield wall and overlapping bands of armor and the tower shield made Ceasars legionaries immortals. While the phalanx became history. (Yes they both became history but i mean in the roman times the phalanx became inferior after a while).
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN The Legion was definitly more flexible but im pretty sure that they Hellenistic armies would have been a real threat to the Legions of Rome if the successors of Alexander would have spent enough money into cavalry and not so much into infantery. After Alexanders death the lands of the successors where exhausted and horses were expensive, this led the successors to invest more into infantery since it is way cheaper. The armies of the successors lacked of Alexanders cavalry hammer.
AustGeneral 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Well in that sense:
1) The Macedonian phalanx had longer spears.
2) Cavalry was used to greater effect.
3) Missile units were used to greater effect.
4) Macedonians were first in history to have a proffessional army.
The army did not change, but the tactics did.
Also, Rome had a greater manpower than Macedon/Greece, hence it was able to loose more battles.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros that's an understatement... even if rome lost more battles it still became master of the meditarranean (or however u spell that damn word) and macedonian missiles were mercenaries they were not used to greater effect. If anything they were used to the best of their abilities.
Roman archers (after marian reforms) had some armor and better quality equipment and training.
And the 4th point really does not matter the Roman army was more profesional period. lol btw greece/macedon...
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Macedonian misile-men were not only mercenaries (unlike mainland Greece). Actually, mercenaries were a small part, because most misiles were hired from conquered teritories, like Agrianians, Persians, Medians etc.
Rome wasn't more proffessional. If you would compare the two armies in discipline, they would be pretty equal. And my point was that the Macedonian army was the FIRST proffessional army, mate.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
Lovely work! Only shame is that in RTW and its mods you can't represent the Macedonian (or greek to that matter) precisely. For example, you had to make the line very thin, while, at it's thinnest, it would 8 men deep. :)
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Yea but actually this was a mod which is very historically accuarte. But Fraps slows the performance so down so that i just can do such small battles. This were no Macedonians but Epirotes btw.
AustGeneral 1 year ago
@AustGeneral Well, to be honest, in both the battle of Asculum and Heraclea, and later at Beneventum and in Greece, Pyrrhos fielded many Epeirots and Macedonians alike.
This mod is historiclly accurate for the most part (I know, I play it :) ), but I still can't believe they gave the hetairoi and mollosian agema a two handed xyston, which historically was held in one arm. :(
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros You have some impressive historiy knowledge. Altough i love history i have to admit you know way more about than me but i also have to admit that i don't really care about such details like Ageam or Hetairoi carring a twohanded xyston lance. :)
AustGeneral 1 year ago
@AustGeneral :0 Blasphemy! :0
Actually, it's a smart thing - I'm reading terrible stuff like wepon's length, blade size etc. :D
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros im sorry wansnt it refered to as a sarissa?
PatriotGabe 1 year ago
@PatriotGabe A sarissa was an infantry weapon.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PatriotGabe Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Two things:
1) Pyrrhus sucked lol he became synonymous with the term "Pyrrhic Victory" the fact that people say he was a "good commander" is... in accurate. He was a Lucky commander.
2) Before you answer my first statement: What if he had faced the Legions of Ceasar and Augustus? Rome gave Pyrrhus a damn good beating in enough battles that they drove him back to Macedonia, and this was all well before the Marian reforms. "Pyrrhic Defeats" is what he'd be synonymous for then. :)
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN I guess he'd lose against reformed legions, but I guess the Hellenistic army would also be reformed by that time, and I cannot tell in what way. Also, I say he was a good commander because he is the ONLY Hellenistic war-leader, who has defeated Rome in 2 battles.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros DUDE 3000 years the greeks have not changed battle tactics, to say that they would have a reform in their army like the romans is NOT an argument, (no offense) you have no argument the greeks would never beat a reformed roman army.
The few battles that they beat the romans in, they suffered massive casualties, so either pyrrhus was an inefective leader or the greek style of warfare could not challenge the romans effectively either way. GREEKS LOSE. Veni,Vidi,Vici :)
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN I never said he would win. And the Greeks changed their tactics all the time, like the recent reforms of Philip II, then organization reforms by Alexander the Great, then his generals make elephants a superunit etc. So your argument is not valid.
Let's not also forget that Pyrrhus was outnumbered in all battles and in some of them even in worse terrain. Greek warfare could defeat Roman, but it required several circumstances, which was Rome's strength - it was more flexible.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros lol... we agree on one thing the roman army WAS more flexible. But when i say reform, i say MOVE away from the phalanx it was never going to defeat a Marian Roman Army.
The Seleucids adopted elephants for an extended period of time, Alexander did not.
Philli[p merely made the phalanx stronger, but the phalanx was still a phalanx,
No matter how strong the cavalry if the phalanx could be taken in the flanks then it was done.
YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT :) greeks NEVER changed.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Umm, read a book. I didn't say Alexander used elephants, I said his successors did. But he did change the command system and sizes of units, plus he added more flexibility. And the phalanx was not the same. If you compare how they were used, the Macedonian phalanx was VERY differant in use. Philip also made the first proffessional army in history. And Philip didn't merely make the phalanx stronger, mate, he changed it all around. And the Roman army also had its weaknesses, mate.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Also, you have presented no argument, just rants. I said why I think Pyrrhus was a great leader.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros If this wasn't filled with your fans ( myself included, though not a huge fan lol) they would have to agree historically that whatever "reforms" your talking about would never have been sufficient to move the greeks or macedonians from the phalanx.
My argument stands, the greeks NEVER evolved from the phalanx THAT was their downfall the phalanx was easily destroyed in the flanks, while the legion was easily flexible. trust me my argument is more than sufficient dont be blinded
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN What about the Thureophoroi? The Thorakitai? The Hypaspists?
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros Dude just to make sure, I have searched al three of those infantry units you named, first of all The Hypaspists WERE STILL SPEARMEN. they could pull out a sword and fight hand to hand but were mainly phalanx.
The Thureophoroi again, mainly (phalanx)but did adopt more readily the use of the sword, when pyhrrus brought them to italy the romans took from them the scutum.
Lastly the Thorakitai WERE again spearmen but heavy storm troops.
THE GREEKS NEVER ADVANCED PASSED THE PHALANX.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Since when spearman = phalangite? There's a differance between the two, mate. The thorakitai, thureophoroi and hypaspists didn't fight in a phalanx formation (which is the thing that defines a phalangite. They didn't fight in either the Macedonian or Greek phalanx, though it is believed that because of the rigurous training Hypaspists could fight in a phalanx, as misile men or as assault infantry.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@PyrrhosOfEpeiros I KNOW THAT. but you know what i meant!
but for the love of god, PHALANX thats all the greeks used against the romans! (i'll explain it in detail b cuz u obviously dont get what i mean) The greeks would never beat the romans b cuz all they used was phalanx and even if they're so called "great swordsmen" joined in the fight, the greeks AND macedonians were still totally dependent on the phalanx. THEY WOULD NEVER move from it.
Its just too comon for them.
MoRtALGoDTiTaN 1 year ago
@MoRtALGoDTiTaN Sorry, but the way you previously stated it I had the understanding that you thought spearman = phalangite. There's a reason the Greeks never went away from the phalanx method of fighting - it worked for them (meaning that they didn't want that many men dead during fighting). But in a sense, Rome never passed the legionaire state too. Camillian, Marian, Polybian and all these other reforms involved keeping the legionaire, just changing gear/recruitment.
PyrrhosOfEpeiros 1 year ago
@IllyriansBlood
@DjLMFAO
Athenians,Spartans,Thessalians,Cretans,Rhodians,EPIROTANS, MACEDONIANS all of them are GREEK! FACE IT! In ancient times Even South Italy and Sicely were GREEK. Even now some people in south Italy speak Greek. History is History and you cannot change it!
IchorEpsilon 1 year ago
@IchorEpsilon Calm down on the nationalism. You're worse than Plutarch.
dopplesoldners 1 year ago
@IllyriansBlood
Yes But Macedonians spoke ONLY GREEK ....Their main language was GREEK. I speak english but my mother language is GREEK. All the Macedonian names are GREEK ,Macedonians believed GREEK gods.SO Macedonians=GREEKS. Go educate yourselves and cut the bullshit. Ok you dont have history, this does not mean that you can steal others history.
IchorEpsilon 1 year ago
@MegaGUILLERMO23 Seriously, just because you like this game so much it doesn't mean it's the best. I myself played DOW 2 and it's really good but Total War and Battlforge are in my opinion better games.
Everybody has another taste and not only in terms of food, also in terms of games.
AustGeneral 1 year ago
@AustGeneral I love your videos man, i respect you for your taste in history :)
AvengefulAngel 1 year ago
@AvengefulAngel Thanks man! I really appreciate that. I hope to get time for some more videos when holidys come.
AustGeneral 1 year ago
@AustGeneral Np :)
AvengefulAngel 1 year ago
What song is used in this video?
Shellshock1918 1 year ago
@Shellshock1918 The first is part of the music track of the movie 13th Warrior, the second track is from the soundtrack of the game Battleforge.
AustGeneral 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shellshock1918 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
were did Pyrrhus and the Epirons get the elephants from?
tuskin4 2 years ago
@tuskin4 The elephants were from the egyptian king.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
howd he het them there?
tuskin4 2 years ago
Could you please rephrase your question ? Sorry. ^^
AustGeneral 2 years ago
Well the elephants were in Africa how did the Egyptian king get the elephants to Greece? Because during Hannibals campaigns he brought elephants and it was a very hard operation.
tuskin4 2 years ago
@tuskin4 Honestly, i don't this so exactly. Im more interested in the battles itself than things like support.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tuskin4 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
@Argjiri: Even saying this sounds hillarious... pyrrhus albanian..?? Albanians didnt even exist then mate..!!! You are fucking slavs...pff... cunt.. Robbing greek history is the easiest solution to ur problems nowadays, isnt it?? daaaamn...
HellenicPride7 2 years ago
it is not true what you said.Epirus is a region in southern albania,it is not part of greece but they were all pure albanians,and i am from there too,so Phyrus was albanian brave man.he was cousion with alexander the great from his mother.
Argjiri 2 years ago
Epirus and Macedonia were not highly influenced by Greeks. Epirus and Macedonia were both GREEK. They were GREEK KINGDOMS.
IchorEpsilon 2 years ago 22
I heard Macedonians aren't considered true greeks. Especially not by Spartans.
BigBlackBruiser 2 years ago
It is true. But the ancient Greeks who believed that were infuenced by the Athenian orator Demosthenes who was fanatic antimacedonian and wanted Athens to be the strongest Hellenic power. But Macedonians were Greek tribe. Here is some proof :
Alexander to Darius :
"Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury; ... (and) I have been appointed leader of the Greeks ..."
(Arr., Anab. Alex. II, 14, 4)
IchorEpsilon 2 years ago
Herodotos a century earlier described the Makedonians as Doric Greeks... the same major tribe as Spartans.
eXcommunicate1979 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eXcommunicate1979 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IchorEpsilon Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
Btw the battles between Pyrrhus of Epirus and Rome were EPIC ! The invincible macedonian phalanx against the flexible and highly trained Roman Legions !
IchorEpsilon 2 years ago
Indeed. Macedonian phalangits were also highly trained. =) Rome got luck since greeks and other successor states of alexander couldn't afford the neccessary cavalry to protect phalanx flanks anymore.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IchorEpsilon Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigBlackBruiser Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
@IchorEpsilon dorians in south that's Greece others where just peoples who spooked greek like you are spring English
doesn't that make you British?
DjLMFAO 1 year ago
@DjLMFAO
Yes But Macedonians spoke ONLY GREEK ....Their main language was GREEK. I speak english but my mother language is GREEK. All the Macedonian names are GREEK ,Macedonians believed GREEK gods.SO Macedonians=GREEKS. Go educate yourselves and cut the bullshit. Ok you dont have history, this does not mean that you can steal others history.
IchorEpsilon 1 year ago
@DjLMFAO
Athenians,Spartans,Thessalians,Cretans,Rhodians,EPIROTANS, MACEDONIANS all of them are GREEK! FACE IT! In ancient times Even South Italy and Sicely were GREEK. Even now some people in south Italy speak Greek. History is History and you cannot change it!
IchorEpsilon 1 year ago
@IchorEpsilon with geek language you can go till middle east
so do you call them greek as well?
and Sicilians where not greek but slaves of north Africa who where tasked by Romans for they work learn history
DjLMFAO 1 year ago
@DjLMFAO actually you must learn the history better.when IchorEpsilon talks about Sicely i think that he means many greek cities\colonies of Sicely like Syrakoyses(colony of corinth),Apollonia,Notos,Panormos,Leontinoi,Naxos etc...not all Sicilians
extrememark13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DjLMFAO Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
@IchorEpsilon erm the greeks hated the Macedonians neither the greek city states now the macedonians concidered the macedonians to be 'greek'
bloggsie619 9 months ago
@IchorEpsilon
hell yeah, im tired of stupid people trying to be cool by claiming "Macedonian were not greeks"
VitalMusic217 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VitalMusic217 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
Nice battle, and an awesome presentation. How do you make it look like a movie?
debuxman 2 years ago
There is the possibility to enable a video creator in rome total war. If you want to know how then send me a pm.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@debuxman Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
@francoruberto This proves that you don't know anything about what your talking. When Phyrrus fought the romans they already had a superior army which was superior against hellenistic phalanx but phyrrus managed to win this battle because he was a excellent tactician + he fought in the battles to motivate his men and he also died in a fight. The romen won at beneventum because Phyruss army couldn't recover of the two other battles against the romans before. He didn'got support while romans got.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
I have seen many videos based on the game and so far this is one of the best. Its clean, camera angle is good. Awesome vid men and thanks for sharing it.
dfool06 2 years ago
Thanks man. Such criticism motivates. ;)
AustGeneral 2 years ago
is this rome total war-total realism-? because the colors dont look the same and i heard the light cavalry at the beginning shouting in latin...
gavinpop 2 years ago
@gavinpop This is Europa Barbarorum. :)
AustGeneral 2 years ago
I also wonder, how did you remove the the flags?
Strategos300 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strategos300 Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
Favorited....
Strategos300 2 years ago
And btw, this was no idea. The battle really happend and i tried to make it a bit historically. =)
AustGeneral 2 years ago
Beautiful filming. Very nice idea, but, Phyrrus of Epirus...who was he?
Strategos300 2 years ago
Thanks. ;) You can set if you see flags on the mod Europa barbarorum.
Phyrrus was king of epirus and one of the greatest generals. Epirus was like macedonia highly influenced by greeks. So also Phyrrus himself leaded a army based on phalanx and supported by heavy cavalry.
He managed to defeat the romans several time but had lost very much men with each battle against the romans while the romans always put another new army against Phyrrus until phyrrus had to retreat.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
I thought the battle of heracle was the between the romans and the romans
ARwebshow 2 years ago
Mayb there was a battle of heracle between romans too but there was anyway the battle between the epeirotes and romans.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ARwebshow Join anti danhowe group , get more valuable knowledge ! and destroy his account . Because his three videos was removed currently being violent.He is enraged, He is in evil plans against to PrinceofMacedon.
BonsoirDeCatamite 5 months ago
Very impressed well done, looks like something out of a film and a lot of work in the history of the battle.
Dirker1000 2 years ago
Thanks man, i really appreciate this =)
AustGeneral 2 years ago
great job is the 13th warrior theme
romavictor127 2 years ago 5
Verry nice video man. I love it and the descirption is also verry good!
BrasidasI 2 years ago 2
Thanks.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
good music man. is this from the 13 warrior
kinglu1000 2 years ago 2
Thank, and yes the first piece is of 13th warrior, the second one of the the track is from battleforge.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
This is a cool, thanks for uploading and creating.
jaojohnson1 2 years ago 2
Thanks.
AustGeneral 2 years ago
Nice vid:) I am wondering if someone will ever make a movie about Pyrrhus.
rtwfreak 2 years ago
Thanks man. I thought the same and i couldn't believe that there is no video about this great general. ;)
AustGeneral 2 years ago
music from 13'th warrior, nice!
kakhi2008 2 years ago
yes at least the first track :)
AustGeneral 2 years ago
do you filmed this with an program like the cinematic editor for medieval 2?
theblackprinz 2 years ago
Wenn du mit Rome Filme machen willst brauchst du nur bei der exe den Pfad edtieren dann wird eine Art Cinecmativ Editor freigeschaltet :)
AustGeneral 2 years ago
rome ftw
genrealofmacedon 2 years ago
Your name is generalof macedon but you want rome to win ? :P
AustGeneral 2 years ago
good vid
what mod did u use?
BlazenRocker93 2 years ago
Thanks, i used EB
AustGeneral 2 years ago
cool i could never get that mod to work, i play roma surrectum, the one of about 10 mods i have tried to install that actually worked
BlazenRocker93 2 years ago
What a pitty, Eb is just great...And i say this altough i usually don't like and play mods...
AustGeneral 2 years ago
Watch in high quality please. Also feel free to comment and rate :)
AustGeneral 2 years ago