Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Tartışma Kuralları ve Yönergeleri
Bu iletiyi bildir
They were also well trained but no match for the tightly phalanxed elite spartans or against the army of Alexander and the long sarissas.
And as to your earlier comment about using Roman tactics, it is more than tactics.
First, Immortals lacked the heavy armour and heavy shields of the legionaries. Their armour was more 'medium' class, and their shields, when used, were definitely 'light'. Compared to Roman super heavy infantry, Immortals were nothing. Simply adopting Roman battle tactics would not have enabled the Immortals to overcome the hoplite phalanx, let alone a Macedonian phalanx.
Second, since the Immortals alone numbered only 10,000 (not quite two full-strength legions) their numbers were insufficient to make them an effective conquering force on their own. They were used as Persia's elite of the elite, not as an army unto themselves.
Third, many in the Immortals were relatives (and, it was said, lovers) of the Great King. Thus many in their ranks were very near and dear to him. The Immortals were rarely allowed to take many casualties before being withdrawn from combat, lest a precious royal cousin or lover be slain.
Finally, the very nature of Ancient Near-Eastern warfare rendered such powers vulnerable to Western powers. In the Ancient Near-East, light infantry and chariots were the mainstay of any army, with medium infantry forming the elite core. Heavy infantry and cavalry were relatively rare. Contrast this to the predominantly heavy infantry armies of the Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans. In such a match up, the heavy infantry armies are at a ridiculous advantage, which is one of the major reasons why Ancient Near-Eastern powers were often soundly defeated by much smaller Western armies. It was not until long after the fall of Achaemenid Persia (arguably the last Ancient Near-Eastern power) that Near-Eastern warfare would adapt enough to effectively resist the heavy infantry armies of the West.
What enabled the Romans to defeat the phalanx was their unique (for the time) ability to make heavy infantry formations flexible. For the Greeks, flexibility came at the cost of troop quality (more flexible hoplite formations were typically medium or light troops, and would still be crushed by the Roman super heavy infantry). The phalanx, while heavy enough to go toe-to-toe with the legions, was not flexible enough, until far too late. Philip V of Macedon, and especially his son Perseus, experimented with more flexible heavy phalanx formations. And it actually worked for a time. Their reforms enabled Perseus to win nearly every battle in his war with Rome until Pydna, where he was captured and his army utterly crushed. Had the Greeks adopted such tactics earlier, or had Perseus not been captured at Pydna, they might have been able to resist Roman conquest.
Radeous gives them to various eastern factions, sadly i think without the unlock all factions mod from twcenter you can only use them as parthia though. Be quite fun to play as persia and try create a new persian empire.
As a comment on immortals that Richon missed, Basically Immortals were so strong because the ancient world lacked proffessional armies. The Immortals were a collection of full time soldiers in a world where full time soldiers just werent a thing apart from very special exceptions.
If you count them as the time they were a powerhouse you have to take into account they are a light desert troop, where they are subjected to battles in intense heat and a lot of manouverability they would probably have beaten the Spartan forces. The Greek style troops only really came into their own in more moderate heat where the fairly closed landscapes of Greece allowed them to be walls of bronze and leather.
By the time Alexander came about they were a fairly outdated military style and its no wonder they got walked over by the Macedonian tactics and technology.
In some cases lightness is far better than overly heavy armour deserts are one of these places. Open plains are another. This isnt reflected entirely well in the game because fatigue doesnt really make as big an influence as it probably should be.
Metal plate until much later times, was fairly rare and hard come by, most armour was made from hard leather, sometimes in wealthy or special cases given a thin bronze sheet to create a composite style. The power of greek arms comes from the dory (a 8-9ft spear) which had a feirce point and was much more durable than the contempory swords. A dory would cut straight through the both the persian wicker shields and their soft leather or thin scale armour.
Partly though because its much easier to thrust with a hip using a spear than a sword, swords are much more arm based weapons, spears use a whole body thrust more naturally than it would come to use a sword.
As a reference point the Persians were armed with much shorter 5-6ft short spears so without an open field and their ability to run around and encircle their opponents it becomes almost like punching a dwarf in the face before he can touch you.