What's new

13 BEST INFANTRY OF ALL TIME[NO ORDER]

Well, they kinda got lucky because of the kamikaze.

The Japanese also invaded Korea that ended in a complete failure.



Not much info, but considering the time. The organization, equipment, training, etc seems way a head of its time. It's from all 2600–2350 BC.

Yes but the korean inavsion failed more due to logistics and naval weakness than the inferiority of japanese infantry.
Japanese invasions of Korea (1592
Read from 'military capabilities' section.
 
Yes but the korean inavsion failed more due to logistics and naval weakness than the inferiority of japanese infantry.
Japanese invasions of Korea (1592
Read from 'military capabilities' section.

What they were trying to do was impossible anyways, lol.

But in terms of infantry on infantry, I dont think there would be a huge difference honestly.
 
2.THE MACEDONIAN PHALANX.

One of the most celebrated and imitated military formations in history,the macedonian phalanx superseded the hoplite phalanx as the main instrument of hellenistic warfare.This unstoppable forest of 18 foot pikes were invulnerable from the front and as long as their flanks were secured could pin an enemy force in place pushing it constantly back.It was invented by philip of macedon ,father of alexander who intended to use it as a anvil to his heavy hetairoi cavalry's hammer.
He replaced the hoplite spear with a 18 ft sarissa and the shield with a smaller hand held shield.They were lighter,more mobile and among the first regularly drilled professional forces that allowed them to perform complex manuevres.Alexander cconquered his empire with these as the backbone of his army.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
They fought packed in a close rectangular formation, typically eight men deep, with a leader at the head of each column and a secondary leader in the middle, so that the back rows could move off to the sides if more frontage was needed.The basic unit of 256 men was called the syntagma.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Difference with the hoplite phalanx.Before a battle the sarissa were carried in two pieces and then slid together when they were being used. At close range such large weapons were of little use, but an intact phalanx could easily keep its enemies at a distance; the weapons of the first five rows of men all projected beyond the front of the formation, so that there were more spearpoints than available targets at any given time.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Syntagma ,side view.Faced with a forest of pikes.Enemies were usually helpless.The other held their spears upwrads to ward off arrows.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The Macedonian phalanx was not very different from the Hoplite phalanx of other Greeks states, save it was better trained, armed with the sarissa enabling it to outreach its competitors and stave off enemy cavalry, and wore far lighter armor enabling longer endurance and long fast forced marches, including the ability to sprint to close and overwhelm opposing positions and archers. In essence, the range of their counter-weighted sarissa, allowed them superior mobility as well as superior defense and attack abilities despite the encumbrance disadvantages of the longer weapon once trained up to handling it in formation.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Note the size of the man compared to the sarissa.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Elite phalangites,were the argyraspides.Or silver shields.These were the veterans aged 45 and over who had fought under philip and alexander.In the successor wars,all suuccessor states fielded their own phalangites.The seleucids eventually developed their own argyraspid royal guard.Maintained at 10000.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Macedonian battle formation.Note; hypaspists were elite hoplite style heavy infantry[not heavy cavalry as wrongly stated here]The elite heavy cavalry were the companions led by alexander in person.[first entry in best 12 cavalry thread]
Neither Philip nor Alexander actually used the phalanx as their arm of choice, but instead used it to hold the enemy in place while their heavy cavalry broke through their ranks. The Macedonian cavalry fought in wedge formation and was stationed on the far right; after these broke through the enemy lines they were followed by the hypaspists, elite infantrymen who served as the king's bodyguard, and then the phalanx proper. The left flank was generally covered by allied cavalry supplied by the Thessalians, which fought in rhomboid formation and served mainly in a defensive role.

Weaknesses:The armies of the early Hellenistic period were equipped and fought mainly in the same style as Alexander's. Towards the end, however, there was a general slide away from the combined arms approach back to using the phalanx itself as the arm of decision, having it charge into the enemy lines much like earlier hoplites had. This left the formation fairly vulnerable — though near invincible to forwards assault, phalanxes like other infantry formations were fairly prone to flanking, and worse still tending to break up when advancing quickly over rough ground. So long as everyone was using the same tactics these weaknesses were not immediately apparent, but with the advent of the Roman legion they proved fatal in every major engagement, the most famous being the Battle of Pydna, as the Romans were able to advance through gaps in the line and easily defeat the phalangites once in close on rough ground.
If used in a combined armed fashion led by competent generals such as pyrrhus of epirus,the phalangites proved they were still capable of defeating rome's armies albeit high cost.But the roman legion was the formation of the future.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Next;Roman legion
 
3.THE ROMAN LEGION

The single most successful,long lasting and influential infantry formation in history the legions were rome's instrument of destruction,through which it conquered and ruled the ancient world for nearly 700 years!Even after the western roman empire fell,the eastern roman empire would last another 1000 yrs and their infantry too was based on the original roman model,though weapons and tactics had changed.Later european armies like the spanish tercio,again and again tried to capture the key principles of the roman success.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This will be discussed in 3-4 parts because of the massive time frame,rome's legions constantly evolved and so did the tactics.Also because of the extensive information available on them.

Part 1;The republican legions


The legion['levy' in latin] began its career in a unspectacular manner .The first legions were essentially hoplites who fought in the greek manner with a round shield and spear and a straight sword in rigid formations.In the hilly terrain of italy they lost heavily to their more mobile samnite foes,and in 390 bc the gauls even sacked rome itself.This first incarnation of the legion was known as the servian legion.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The Upper and lower tier of roman servian legionaries,equipment according to class divisions and wealth.Fought mostly as hoplites,with some skirmishers,archers and light cavalry in support.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The romans learned,adapted and put forward a new system known as the manipular legion adopted from their enemies,the italian samnites but perfected by rome.
The new army was deployed in three liens known as maniples in a triplex aces.The first line were the 1200 hastati[young men of around 20.green with little combat experience].The second line were 1200 princeps [men at the prime of their life,combat experienced,usually former hastati] and third line of 600 triarii,older veterans.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Hastati.They shed the spear.Adopted the new heavy throwing javelin the pilum and the stabbing short sword ,the greek hoplite shield was discarded in favour of the samnite oval scutum shield.The hastati would discharge their javelins before charging.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
2nd line princeps,similar equipment with heavier armour.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The final line,they retained the hasta spear and fought as hoplites.
These 3 were supported by a screen of skirmishers called velites.

The main genius of the formation was in its organization..Within this triplex acies system, contemporary Roman writers talk of the maniples adopting a checkered formation called quincunx when deployed for battle but not yet engaged. In the first line, the hastati left gaps equal in size to their cross-sectional area between each maniple. The second line consisting of principes followed in a similar manner, lining up behind the gaps left by the first line. This was also done by the third line, standing behind the gaps in the second line. The velites were deployed in front of this line in a continuous, loose-formation line.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
As the army approached its enemy, the velites in front would throw their javelins at the enemy and then retreat through the gaps in the lines. This was an important innovation since in other armies of the period skirmishers would have to either retreat through their own armies ranks, causing confusion, or else flee around either flank of their own army. After the velites had retreated through the hastati, the 'posterior' century would march to the left and then forward so that they presented a solid line, creating a solid line of soldiers. The same procedure would be employed as they passed through the second and third ranks or turned to the side to channel down the gap between the first and second rows on route to help guard the legion's flanks



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

At this point, the legion then presented a solid line to the enemy and the legion was in the correct formation for engagement. When the enemy closed, the hastati would charge. If they were losing the fight, the 'posterior' century returned to its position creating gaps again. Then the maniples would fall back through the gaps in the principes, who followed the same procedure to form a battle line and charge. If the principes could not break the enemy, they would retreat behind the triarii and the whole army would leave the battlefield in good order. According to some writers, the triarii formed a continuous line when they deployed, and their forward movement allowed scattered or discomfited units to rest and reform, to later rejoin the struggle.

The manipular system allowed engaging every kind of enemy even in rough terrain, because the legion had both flexibility and toughness according to the deployment of its lines. Lack of a strong cavalry corps however, was a major flaw of the Roman forces.

Still don't get it?Go see the flash animation on this link.
A Warhammer Ancient Battles Site

The checkerboard formation in action,.When engaged they would present a solid line.[can't post more than 8 images per post,so will make a isolated post to display the checkerboard formation within each maniple after this post].
Another unique feature of the Roman infantry was the depth of its spacing. Most ancient armies deployed in shallower formations, particularly phalanx-type forces. Phalanxes might deepen their ranks heavily to add both stamina and shock power, but their general approach still favored one massive line, as opposed to the deep three-layer Roman arrangement. The advantage of the Roman system is that it allowed the continual funneling or metering of combat power forward over a longer period—massive, steadily renewed pressure to the front—until the enemy broke.If both the hastati and princeps failed they could either retreat behind the triarii to reform while they presented a barrier of pikes and retire in good order or attack again with the triarii acting as the final reserve.

This was primarily the army that conquered greece,carthage and the seleucids and won rome the dominance of the mediteranean.


PART 2;Marian legions.Caesar.
 


Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Notice in the first picture the maniples of the first line deployed in checkerboard formation.In the distance u can see the 2nd and third line maniples too.
In the 2nd pic.The red indicates hastati,blue principes.
 
the outcome of a legion vs phalanx fight is indeed a difficult question. I would say the type of commander would have made the difference between victory and defeat. But I also think that the highly mobile and flexible Romans had a slight advantage with their legions. Especially the late republican ones/imperial ones.

OT: Anyone else waiting for this game?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rome Total War was a classic game especially with mods like EB. On topic as I stated in the previous banned thread, IMO the Roman Legions take the title of best infantry in history at any time of the day. Fierce, skilled and organized with good armour. What more can a general ask for.
 
ROMAN LEGION -PART 2

The Marian Legion

Though the manipular legion was a great improvement,hannibal's combined arms tactics in the punic wars demonstrated its weaknesses.The reforms were unofficially begun under scipio africanus and finally completed under gaius marius to counter the germanic threat.The legion which was previously a conscript force was now slowly becoming a professional army.Marius removed all class requirements.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The maniples were done away with,replaced by the cohort.
The distinction between the heavy infantry types of hastati, principes and triarii had began to blur, perhaps because the state was now assuming the responsibility of providing standard-issue equipment to all but the first class of troops, who alone were able to afford their own equipment and under marius were officially removed.The cohort was 480 men each,composed of 8 centuries of 80 men each.At the right of the legion the best cohort was stationed ,composed of 800 men.They were the most experienced soldiers and fought at the right flank because thats where their right flanks would be uncovered ,unlike in the centre where the next roman shield would cover the exposed right flank of a legionary.
The young men were still placed in front and the senior veterans in the back of a cohort according to manipular legion principles.
A legion consisted of ten cohorts.9 normal and one first cohort.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
This is what caesar's men would have looked like.Hamata chainmail armour.Note the romans adopted the gallic helmet from the gauls and the stabbing short sword gladius hispanseis from the iberians who they faced under carthage.This roman trait from learning from their enemies was a great asset.They copied the samnite pilum[made their own ingenious addition],scutum shield[modified it themselves],greek siege ballistas[created their own similar scorpions],the gallic helmet from the gauls and the short sword from spanish.They also began to use field artillery like ballistas.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The roman republican eagle.Marius gave the legions their silver/golden eagles.To lose its eagle was the ultimate disgrace for a legion.Napoleon copied this and gave eagles to his regiments.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The pilum heavy javelin.Each legionary carried 2.These were designed to bend on impact meaning a thrown pilum couldn't be thrown back by the enemy.It was a lethal armour piercing weapon and was designed so that even if the enemy didn't die from the pilum by taking the blow on his shield,it would get stuck in his shield making it unusable.This meant the enemy now had to face the roman legionary without his shield.Bad idea against roman infantry.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The melee weapon was the short stabbing sword,the gladius .And a small dagger too.The legionary would throw his pilum ,either killing or removing his opponent's shield.Now in close combat he would thrust him back with his big shield and pin him down/obstruct his view and from behind the protection of the shield bring his short sword into the enemy's gut and intestines.It was a brutally effective method.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The dreaded pila storm.Any army approaching roman infantry would face a storm of thousands of these javelins.Just play rome total war,u'll know how brutal pila are.

THE IMPERIAL LEGIONS-PART 3.

After the roman civil wars,rome became a empire.The legions were reorganized by emperor augustus as fully professional voluntary standing army soldiers paid and equipped by the state.Each legionary served for upto 25 yrs.Imperial rome usally fielded a force of 30 legions each with around 5000 men.And an equal number of auxillary allied legions for a standing army of around 350000.Usually most of these were involved in guarding the frontiers,so for new camapigns only 5 -10 max were available.Coupled with similar number auxillaries.This would still be a large force.[50000-100000 men]
Roman discipline became legendary,it was said that 'their battles were bloody drills,and drills bloodless battles'.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The imperial legions.The new rectangular shield and segmented armour.

How they fought.First they would throw pilum,then.....this video explains the dreaded roman wedge formation and system of rotating troops.Excellent video.Its about boudicca's revolt against the romans and the battle where it ended with 9000 romans slaughtering 80000 britons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybHl9jYue_g

Next:The imperial legions continued.
 
Part 3:The imperial legions.[continued]



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Roman legionaries.100AD during dacian wars of trajan.Note the deadly dacian romphoria sickle like weapon.This weapon had such slashing power it could slice through the edges of the shield and strike hand of the legionary holding it.To counter it the romans adopted the hand guard and added iron edges to the shields.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Legionaries with hand guards at the peak of the empire.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The equipment of imperial roman legionaries.Note the superb lightweight segmented armour the lorica segmenta and the gallic helmet,plus pilum and gladius.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The famed roman testudo or tortoise formation.This was a defensive formation that provided excellent protection against missile troops and was also used for sieges.Against eastern cavalry and horse archers,this formation along with field artillery like archers and ballistas,combined with light cavalry and new slingers with deadly lead bullets were used.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
One of the roman formations used for recieving heavy cavalry,units like this would form hollow squares with slingers and missile troops in the centre.Directly charging roman legionnaries was usually suicidal unless u could break up their formation.Even for cataphracts.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Each imperial roman legion had a artillery corps of 130 ballistas and scorpions.these provided direct fire support and from field fortifications were devastating as the gauls found out at alesia.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
A roman legionary with equipment.The digging equipment was carried.Romans were masters at building roads,and till the 16th century and whole of the middle ages,roman roads were the main infrastructure of europe and north africa.Hence the saying-'all roads lead to rome'.
They were also masters of field fortifications,good cavalry based armies against which romans were sometimes at a disadvantage usually couldn't exploit any battlefield success much as they were helpless vs roman fortifications protected by artillery and legionaries.Alaric the goth,sacked rome in 410 AD during the fall of the western roman empire.Was very wary of roman fortifications and famously said-'I have made peace with walls' after suffering devastating losses in an attempt.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
A roman mobile fort.The Roman Legions used to carry EVERYTHING they needed to form their own stockade, an armed camp to include the wood for fencing! No matter where they were, deserts, woods, swamps they could stop and set up a protective camp. In fact, you can still see the traces of their encampments today in archaeological ruins. The Roman Camp was a vital technique used in the military. One might ask themselves, technique? Yes, technique. The Roman Camp was actually a detailed strategy used to prevent surprise attack. The Roman Legions would easily control their surroundings by taking a portable city wherever they went. The Army would march all day, and when they found a spot to settle, the entire army could build a camp that ran as efficiently as a well-planned city. The only difference between the Roman Camp and the Roman City was that the camp would be in a different location the next day.

The Roman Camp was easily built in about six hours. The first step in building the city is constructing the walls. The camp would be surrounded in fossa (ditch) and an agger (wall). This ditch and wall system made it difficult to attack, and often would slow down the enemy.
The Roman Camp was shaped like a square, with entrances at the midpoint of each of its sides. The entire camp perimeter was made of a strong wall, built up by a vallum. This vallum had walkways that were constantly guarded by centurions, and each portae is guarded by an additional watchtower. The guarded gates in the vallum were called portae. The camp was connected by roads which were built as straight as possible. The way the road system worked was that the Via Principia connected the eastern and western portae, and the Via Praetoria connected the north and south portae.
All the Soldiers were quartered inside cantebernium, which were tents that could hold eight men at a time. The general's tent, called the Praetorium, was located in the center of the camp, where the main roads intersected. Outside the general's tent was a flagpole. When certain flags were raised, battle could be signaled.

Next;Late roman legion.Decline of the heavy legions.
 
PART 4:The Late Roman legion.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

From around 250 AD a slow decline began in the quality of the roman infantry.From the 4rth century a.d the great tribal migrtions of the germanic tribes began.Revolts and succession struggles,plus the persistent threat of the new sassanids in the east.Combined to overwhelm the empire's forces.To combat the more frequent raids and advances of their hostile neighbors the legions were changed from slow and heavy to much lighter troops, and cavalry was introduced as a serious concept.Now ther was one cavalryman to 3 infantry to the earlier 1 to 40.The legion was trimmed down to meager 1000-1500 men units.
This meant that the new subdivided infantry lost the awesome power that the earlier legions had, meaning that whilst they were more likely to see a battle they were less likely to win it. That legion size was at an all time low was also a factor.Roman horsemen, while fast and more numerous,were actually much too weak to cope with the very cavalry based invasions of the Huns, Goths, Vandals and Sassanids.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Another primary reason was the 'barbarisation of the infantry'. Essentially it is argued that the increasing barbarization of the heavy legions weakened weaponry, training, morale and military effectiveness in the long run.The italians no longer had citizenship privilage and legions recruited from all over the empire.Most barbarians fought under their own leaders in their own style and since were not italains generally didn't have the same morale of earlier legions.Such practices as permitting the settlement of massive, armed barbarian populations on Roman territory, the watering down of the privilege of citizenship, increasing use of alien contingents, and relaxation or removal of traditionally thorough and severe Roman discipline, organization and control, contributed to the decline of the heavy infantry.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The late roman legion used round shields because the Roman state didn't have the money to train the soldiers to work as an organized fighting machine like the early legion was. Instead the late legion was a militia and hence had to use round shields because round shields are better in individual combat.
The excellent but expensive lorica segmenta armour was also abandoned.The spear became prevelant.The romans were now armed and armoured mostly like their barbarian enemies.Later roman authors lamented this decline and praised their old legionaries.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
These comitatenses were the mobile heavy infantry of the late legions.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Evolution of the legionary.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Evolution of the legions through the ages.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Note the praetorian legion on the extreme right.These were the roman imperial guard.They were initially superb troops but like the ottoman jannisaries later became corrupt and took part in palace coups and intrigues.

Next:English Longbow.
 
2.THE MACEDONIAN PHALANX.

One of the most celebrated and imitated military formations in history,the macedonian phalanx superseded the hoplite phalanx as the main instrument of hellenistic warfare.This unstoppable forest of 18 foot pikes were invulnerable from the front and as long as their flanks were secured could pin an enemy force in place pushing it constantly back.It was invented by philip of macedon ,father of alexander who intended to use it as a anvil to his heavy hetairoi cavalry's hammer.
He replaced the hoplite spear with a 18 ft sarissa and the shield with a smaller hand held shield.They were lighter,more mobile and among the first regularly drilled professional forces that allowed them to perform complex manuevres.Alexander cconquered his empire with these as the backbone of his army.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
They fought packed in a close rectangular formation, typically eight men deep, with a leader at the head of each column and a secondary leader in the middle, so that the back rows could move off to the sides if more frontage was needed.The basic unit of 256 men was called the syntagma.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Difference with the hoplite phalanx.Before a battle the sarissa were carried in two pieces and then slid together when they were being used. At close range such large weapons were of little use, but an intact phalanx could easily keep its enemies at a distance; the weapons of the first five rows of men all projected beyond the front of the formation, so that there were more spearpoints than available targets at any given time.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Syntagma ,side view.Faced with a forest of pikes.Enemies were usually helpless.The other held their spears upwrads to ward off arrows.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The Macedonian phalanx was not very different from the Hoplite phalanx of other Greeks states, save it was better trained, armed with the sarissa enabling it to outreach its competitors and stave off enemy cavalry, and wore far lighter armor enabling longer endurance and long fast forced marches, including the ability to sprint to close and overwhelm opposing positions and archers. In essence, the range of their counter-weighted sarissa, allowed them superior mobility as well as superior defense and attack abilities despite the encumbrance disadvantages of the longer weapon once trained up to handling it in formation.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Note the size of the man compared to the sarissa.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Elite phalangites,were the argyraspides.Or silver shields.These were the veterans aged 45 and over who had fought under philip and alexander.In the successor wars,all suuccessor states fielded their own phalangites.The seleucids eventually developed their own argyraspid royal guard.Maintained at 10000.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Macedonian battle formation.Note; hypaspists were elite hoplite style heavy infantry[not heavy cavalry as wrongly stated here]The elite heavy cavalry were the companions led by alexander in person.[first entry in best 12 cavalry thread]
Neither Philip nor Alexander actually used the phalanx as their arm of choice, but instead used it to hold the enemy in place while their heavy cavalry broke through their ranks. The Macedonian cavalry fought in wedge formation and was stationed on the far right; after these broke through the enemy lines they were followed by the hypaspists, elite infantrymen who served as the king's bodyguard, and then the phalanx proper. The left flank was generally covered by allied cavalry supplied by the Thessalians, which fought in rhomboid formation and served mainly in a defensive role.

Weaknesses:The armies of the early Hellenistic period were equipped and fought mainly in the same style as Alexander's. Towards the end, however, there was a general slide away from the combined arms approach back to using the phalanx itself as the arm of decision, having it charge into the enemy lines much like earlier hoplites had. This left the formation fairly vulnerable — though near invincible to forwards assault, phalanxes like other infantry formations were fairly prone to flanking, and worse still tending to break up when advancing quickly over rough ground. So long as everyone was using the same tactics these weaknesses were not immediately apparent, but with the advent of the Roman legion they proved fatal in every major engagement, the most famous being the Battle of Pydna, as the Romans were able to advance through gaps in the line and easily defeat the phalangites once in close on rough ground.
If used in a combined armed fashion led by competent generals such as pyrrhus of epirus,the phalangites proved they were still capable of defeating rome's armies albeit high cost.But the roman legion was the formation of the future.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Next;Roman legion

Macedonia Battle of Gaugamela 331 BC - YouTube
 
Rome Total War was a classic game especially with mods like EB. On topic as I stated in the previous banned thread, IMO the Roman Legions take the title of best infantry in history at any time of the day. Fierce, skilled and organized with good armour. What more can a general ask for.

Try roma surrectum 2 mod 1 turn campaigns.Just epic.The romans were disciplined,educated,patient,flexible,persistent and ruthless.Diffcult combo to overcome.
 
the outcome of a legion vs phalanx fight is indeed a difficult question. I would say the type of commander would have made the difference between victory and defeat. But I also think that the highly mobile and flexible Romans had a slight advantage with their legions. Especially the late republican ones/imperial ones.

OT: Anyone else waiting for this game?

I am waiting for that, the last time I played total war was couple of years ago. Total war Empires. :woot:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

One of the worst movies i have ever seen.The persians are constantly depicted as orgy enjoying,womanizing,slave masters.While the fact is that the macedonians themselves were masters of orgies,homosexuality and such.Alexander himself was bisexual.And the 'civilized' macedonians under alexander often butchered entire cities including their own greeks like thebes.So they were certainly not paragons of virtue and civilization fighting the barbarians,though they certainly were the better military machine.
Also all modern accounts agree darius's force was not 250000 as it was not logistically feasible but around 200000.This would be the total force when including the huge persian baggage train along with the non combatants.Of these around 120,000 were actual combatants that faced the macedonians.
The film is full of historical inaccuracies such as alexander's wife roxanne being shown as a african,while actually she was central asian.The indians of porus from the punjab area are made to look like polynesians and alexander does a hilarious faceoff against a elephant with his horse lol.In reality horses would run from the smell of elephants and he charges into this elephant.
 
One of the worst movies i have ever seen.The persians are constantly depicted as orgy enjoying,womanizing,slave masters.While the fact is that the macedonians themselves were masters of orgies,homosexuality and such.Alexander himself was bisexual.And the 'civilized' macedonians under alexander often butchered entire cities including their own greeks like thebes.So they were certainly not paragons of virtue and civilization fighting the barbarians,though they certainly were the better military machine.
Also all modern accounts agree darius's force was not 250000 as it was not logistically feasible but around 200000.This would be the total force when including the huge persian baggage train along with the non combatants.Of these around 120,000 were actual combatants that faced the macedonians.
The film is full of historical inaccuracies such as alexander's wife roxanne being shown as a african,while actually she was central asian.The indians of porus from the punjab area are made to look like polynesians and alexander does a hilarious faceoff against a elephant with his horse lol.In reality horses would run from the smell of elephants and he charges into this elephant.

Yes, some of the battles were far fetched but I posted it because of the maneuver Alexander did. This is pretty much how he got the army to rout in that particular battle, they did show the Greeks as womanizers and such. They also blatantly made it clear that Alexander was bisexual. Yes, the elephant scene was hilarious but most accounts say he did go head to head with Porus and was knocked out, after which his lieutenants captured Porus (which is a fishy).
 

Back
Top Bottom