|
|
Post by Fedor von Bock on Aug 11, 2020 13:42:09 GMT
I am not sure if I am the only one here thinking about this, but have anyone of you guys ever wondered why Caesar and Octavian is a archer general?
Like I am unsertain about Octavian but I read and watched about Caesar's conquest, and none of his battles heavily relied on archers. In fact, I would say ceasar is more of a infantry rather than a archer general because of his useage of the Roman legions. Even if we strech the requirements a bit we can argue if he can be a calvary general because he used the Gallic calvary. which is why I am still puzzled as to why he become a archer general.
Please help me solve this mystery, so this question will stop bugging me!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Aug 11, 2020 14:15:01 GMT
I am not sure if I am the only one here thinking about this, but have anyone of you guys ever wondered why Caesar and Octavian is a archer general? Like I am unsertain about Octavian but I read and watched about Caesar's conquest, and none of his battles heavily relied on archers. In fact, I would say ceasar is more of a infantry rather than a archer general because of his useage of the Roman legions. Even if we strech the requirements a bit we can argue if he can be a calvary general because he used the Gallic calvary. which is why I am still puzzled as to why he become a archer general. Please help me solve this mystery, so this question will stop bugging me! To say the truth, I don't believe ET even bothered about such things. They have to keep the balance between all branches and that's all. Very few ancient battles were resolved by active use of archers anyway. They played some part in defeat of Athenian expedition to Sicily during Peliponnesian war. Mithridates used Scyphian horse archers to some extent. But I really can't remember that their contribution was significant elsewhere. I guess that ET decided to make Caesar an archer and Pompey an Infantryman simply because Roman legionaries were both to some extent using pilum as well as gladius. |
|
|
|
Post by Fedor von Bock on Aug 16, 2020 22:05:42 GMT
I am not sure if I am the only one here thinking about this, but have anyone of you guys ever wondered why Caesar and Octavian is a archer general? Like I am unsertain about Octavian but I read and watched about Caesar's conquest, and none of his battles heavily relied on archers. In fact, I would say ceasar is more of a infantry rather than a archer general because of his useage of the Roman legions. Even if we strech the requirements a bit we can argue if he can be a calvary general because he used the Gallic calvary. which is why I am still puzzled as to why he become a archer general. Please help me solve this mystery, so this question will stop bugging me! To say the truth, I don't believe ET even bothered about such things. They have to keep the balance between all branches and that's all. Very few ancient battles were resolved by active use of archers anyway. They played some part in defeat of Athenian expedition to Sicily during Peliponnesian war. Mithridates used Scyphian horse archers to some extent. But I really can't remember that their contribution was significant elsewhere. I guess that ET decided to make Caesar an archer and Pompey an Infantryman simply because Roman legionaries were both to some extent using pilum as well as gladius. Yeah, I suppose that is true, ET seem to just put most generals into their respective troop types but some like Ceasar will get put into special categories. Maybe they just wanted a unique general in the first triumvirate instead of a all infentry option. |
|
