RTW: Historical Accuracy

I mainly started playing rtw because I liked history, and I played Mount And Blade.
But there are many historical inaccuracies in this game.
1) Chariots
I hate chariot factions because they are completely inccurately potrayed and well, um, because I suck at using them. Chariots back then (especially egyot) were used as a platform from which to throw missiles and were generally not used as a substitute for cavalry. In fact, scythed chariots were rarely used, as they were stupid. All u needed to do was kill the horse in the front which can be done easily with missiles and pikes. Chariot archers and light chariots of britain are more accurate.

2) Berserkers
Berserkers, doesn't mean going 'berserk' it actually means bear skin. So berserkers were not bloodthirsty, crazy warriors, but actuall warriors who wore bearskin lol.

3) CHARGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Horses generally don't chargfe at a unit of men head on. They are smart creatures, and will not charge at anything that appears solid to their eyes (you have to remember, animals like horses and dogs have poor eyesight). So, if a group of men holding shields and spears in tight formation, a horse won't charge at them. Instead, the horsemen will make the horses approach the group of men slowly, and if they get scared and run, the horses will run them down. If not, tough luck for the horsemen, because the horses won't charge. At the back of the enemy or flank, yes.

4) Pikes
Pikes usually took hours to develop, and one of the reasons why macedon lost battle of chaeronea is because one half of the army wasn't ready in pike formaton when the romans attacked. So you can't just go in and out of pike formation when you please.
And another thing was that pike formations were basically immune to missiles. Their shields and spears presented a wall of metal that few missiles could get past. In the battle of Marathon, the Persians attempted to defeat the Athenians who were guarding a mountain pass by hurling missiles at them, but the missiles had no effect.
So pikes were badass, but they were slow, took a long time to form up, adn were vulnerable at the flanks.

So yeah, these are just my thoughts. If you guys know anything about history, correct me, add some points, etc.
Despite all of this, RTW is one of the best historical games and will be forever.

Nice text.

Hahahahaha
Good points!

If you want to see briliant usage of pikes watch documentary video about Marathon battle.

Actually my points about the berserkers is a bit wrong.
You see Vikings did have berserkers who scientists say took some sort of drug from a mushroom (Mario?) adn this made them go 'berserk'. I find this hard to believe, but obviously they say it with some proof.

@ Clive Thanks man!

@Camaga Thanks dude! I have seen that episode I think, but I liked the one about hannibal better (if u've seen them)

Worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSvSKnvm3Y

@Spetz what's wrong with you mahn. Leave Iron in peace...

hawk01 wrote:@Spetz what's wrong with you mahn. Leave Iron in peace...

Hey, Hey!

Dont be missinformed or listen to the delusions you have heard. I didn't do anything to Iron. Zyzz started the shit with us for some unknown reason. If you wish to see you can go to totalwarhub yourself and read everything. I wont be posting here again.

hawklawl wrote:Instead, the horsemen will make the horses approach the group of men slowly, and if they get scared and run, the horses will run them down. If not, tough luck for the horsemen, because the horses won't charge. At the back of the enemy or flank, yes.

Yeah this isn't true.

@Aragorn https://www.quora.com/In-ancient-times-what-was-the-best-military-tactic-to-counter-heavy-cavalry
To help you:
Re Contrary to popular belief, horses will simply not run into a massed block of adult males. They may look like they will charge home, but almost none of them will. So all one needs to do is line up a bunch of dudes in a shieldwall and cavalry will not charge home. In other words, for heavy cavalry to "charge home" the heavy infantry needs to break before the point of contact.

@Aragon
Now, you might be thinking "well this is ridiculous, was it really that easy?" The answer is: "No".

Any army can organize a body of heavy infantry, basically armed men (almost always a spear and shield) packed closely together. But keeping this formation is harder than it seems. There are two main ways heavy infantry formations are broken prior to a heavy cavalry charge: fear and frustration.

Fear:
Men, even trained men, can't control their overwhelming fear of death. Voiding of bowels, peeing, vomiting were not uncommon prior to the point of contact with the enemy. So when a solid wall of horsemen, charging knee to knee comes at you... things tend to fall apart very quickly. No one is really sure where the routs usually started, but most likely with the back ranks as they could flee without impediment.

I wannna add something

Charges. I read the fact, that some heavy cavalry had a special armour to hide horses view. So the rider can control the horse as he wants. On horse was a heavy armour, so if a horse hit a soldier in run. The horse break out the man and the horse will not even feel him. All this time, rider should manage not to get into pikes or to get stuck into infantry, in this case he was very vulnerable.

omfg

Why do people honestly try to start arguments without even doing the most minimal of research. A quora question isn't research.

Here are (just a fraction) of the literally dozens of examples of cavalry charging into a mass of heavy infantry head on (mainly pikemen), either succeeding or, more likely, being slaughtered:

Marignano, Golden Spurs, Cerignola, the Zab river, Klushino, Ceresole.

Again, that is a small sampling of many, many cases. Here are some first-hand accounts of such battles:

First Hand Anonymous account of Klushino wrote:our horsemen, after ramming fences, with which the enemies treacherously strengthened their defences, plunging into pikes with chests of horses, suffered a lot of damage

This is a (roughly) contemporary depiction of a French cavalry charge against Flemish pikemen at Courtrai/Golden Spurs (the French lost):



Which closely follows the accounts of the French charging into the mass of Flemish infantry.

This is another depiction, this time of Gendarme cavalry charging into Swiss pikes at Marignano, where the French performed repeated cavalry charges at the Swiss pike formations to slow their advance.



The Swiss did not break at any point in the battle except at the very end. Indicating (of course) that the French heavy cavalry did indeed "charge home" many times into the mass of infantry.

OMFG I just kept scrolling down and read more. Dude who the fuck is telling you this crap?

Their shields and spears presented a wall of metal that few missiles could get past. In the battle of Marathon, the Persians attempted to defeat the Athenians who were guarding a mountain pass by hurling missiles at them, but the missiles had no effect.
So pikes were badass, but they were slow, took a long time to form up, adn were vulnerable at the flanks.

Ugh, I am guessing you confused Marathon for Thermopylae. First off, 5th century B.C hoplites were not "pikes" in any real sense. And while these (very) heavily armoured soldiers had good protection against missiles, due to the armour, not the formation, at Marathon specifically Miltiades thought it necessary to charge the Persians at the risk of breaking up his own formation because he believed the Persian archers posed such a threat to his troops.

While the angling of the Macedonian phalanx did provide some protection, the notion that it was somehow "basically immune" to missiles is shockingly absurd.

I mean there are literally first-hand accounts of Scythian horse archers riding around and shooting an entire formation to death.

And on top of this, stationary pike formations were not only not immune to missile fire but absurdly vulnerable to it. This is demonstrated by the sheer rape of the Scottish pikemen at Falkirk at the hands of the English longbowmen.

@Aragon
Bro I'm not arguing for the sake of it. Ok here's some proof.
Pikes:
You're right I confused pikes with hoplites. And I'm talking about the macedonian pikes here, not the medieval ones. It is actually macedonian phalanx, but I thought they were pikemen because in rtw, they say Silver Shield pikemen or something similar (the point is they call macedonian phalanx as pikemen). Macedonian phalanx aren't that different fro greek hoplites, they just have longer spears (sarissas).

Now about being immune to missile fire.
Dude, by immune, I don't mean completely immune, but able to withstand the missile fire without taking much losses. WATCH THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lxwzLh6hE4 The battle of Marathon. Watch 19:00 minutes.

You're right it's not mountain pass, but a narrow plain between two mountains. And it's not only armour that helps them, but their huge shields and the way their spears were angled. And please give me atleast one account of scythian horse archers shooting macedonian phalanx or hoplites to death. Or do you mean the greek mercenaries taken by Darius in his invasion of Scythia?
Also from wikipedia: Passing through the hail of arrows launched by the Persian army, protected for the most part by their armour, the Greek line finally collided with the enemy army.

Now about charging horses:
Zyzz ur right (I think) Because, somewhere, I read about Scythed chariots' horses being blindfolded. Don't know the accuracy of that.

This is from the osprey series of military books, so I guess you'll not question this.

Oops, I guess its hard to read the picture but let me help you.
1st pic second para reiterates the point that heavily armoured cav rarely charged into inf at full speed. They 'charged at a trot' and this was done on a psychological level, to make the men turn tail and run.
The second pic 1st para says that horses never charge into 'solid objects'.
So yeah, I'm not making my arguments based on 'some quora answer' but what I've read and seen.
I'm pretty sure a documentary in the history channel and books from osprey military series are accurate proof.

Fun fact:
There was a 'tetsudo' battle between the forces of Septimius Severus and his rival Pescennius Niger.
In this battle, Oescennius' forces occupied a hill and started firing upon the Emperor's forces, so Septimius' men adopted Tetsudo formation and climbed up the hill. Thanks to this formation, they were able to face the missile attacks, adn then, reaching to the top of the hill, fought Niger's forces. They were losing, because they had to fight uphill, but a sudden thunderstorm that blew rain into the faces of Niger's forces made sure that Severu won, especially when his cav climbed the hill and attacked Niger's forces in the rear.

The soldiers attributed the thunderstorm to divine intervention and thus gained higher morale. So, they won.

Battle of Callicinum: Horses will also not charge if there is a lot of noise such as the noise made by soldiers banging on their shields. This is Procopius' account:

"Nevertheless the enemy were not able either to rout them or in any other way to overpower them. For standing shoulder to shoulder they kept themselves constantly massed in a small space, and they formed with their shields a rigid, unyielding barricade, so that they shot at the Persians more conveniently than they were shot at by them. Many a time after giving up, the Persians would advance against them determined to break up and destroy their line, but they always retired again from the assault unsuccessful. For their horses, annoyed by the clashing of the shields, reared up and made confusion for themselves and their riders. Thus both sides continued the struggle until it had become late in the day. And when night had already come on, the Persians withdrew to their camp, and Belisarius accompanied by some few men found a freight-boat and crossed over to the island in the river, while the other Romans reached the same place by swimming."

Now you might think, if it is so easy to face horses, why did a frontal cavalry charge in medieval times actually work?
The answer is fear
Usually when you see a hundred or more well armored horses galloping towards you, you will feel the need to run. This is what broke many a formations. Also horse archers and normal archers keep firing at infantry, to soften them up. Then the infantry, unable to bear the losses, will break formation, adn charge at horse archers. Thus, they will not look solid anymore. When the formation is broken, the heavy cav will be charged into enemy.

Also, horses probably can be trained to charged into solid objects, but the rider's fears and emotions, anxiety adn stuf can also be felt by the horse. Imagine riding a horse into a dense formation of spears? Scary, right?

Jesus fucking christ you have got to be joking.

Bro I'm not arguing for the sake of it. Ok here's some proof.

Yes, yes you are. I'll go through everything point by point, as I did before. I can tell you have virtually no clue as to what you are talking about by the way you phrased most of these arguments. And the fact you are using a meme-like History Channel documentary (where the Persians somehow end up looking like 6th century Arabs) is the cherry on top.

Macedonian phalanx aren't that different fro greek hoplites, they just have longer spears (sarissas).

Actually, they are quite different. The 5th century B.C Athenian and Spartan homoioi were armed with the dory, which was no more than 10 ft in length and supported by the hoplos, hence the name 'hoplite'. It is impossible to actually carry a shield (with your hands) and wield the kind of 18-22 ft sarissa that the Macedonian pikemen used, which is why they carried a smaller shield, and they flung the shield over their shoulder, which offered minimal protection. The Macedonian pikemen of Alexander's time whore leather, not bronze breastplate and would have easily been killed/wounded by any composite bow of the day.

Now about being immune to missile fire.
Dude, by immune, I don't mean completely immune, but able to withstand the missile fire without taking much losses. WATCH THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lxwzLh6hE4 The battle of Marathon. Watch 19:00 minutes.

And again you are showing your ignorance of the subject. The hoplites at Marathon were not "pikemen" and they characteristically wore armour that was much heavier than anything worn by successor state pikemen . Not to mention that History channel account is a load of fucking shit, it is 100% wrong. We know it is wrong because the events at Marathon are vividly described by multiple historians, some of which lived at the time of the battle and probably knew survivors of it.

The Persians did NOT launch a general attack against the Greek infantry and most of the surviving accounts clearly stipulate that it was the Athenians who came down into the plain and assaulted the Persians, because Datis had sent another force to attack the unprotected Athens. This is clearly not what was put into the History Channel cesspit of a "documentary".

This does not line up with any other information known about the battle. For example, the famous, though perhaps apocryphal in its events, 'Marathon run' only makes sense if Athens was still in imminent danger after the battle. Which would only make sense if a Persian flanking force had been sent.

It also doesn't make sense that the Athenians were merely 'reacting' to a Persian attack. Miltiades purposely thinned his formation and strengthened his flanks to prevent envelopment. This is a conscious effort at enveloping an enemy.

This is corroborated by accounts from Plutarch, Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus.

And it's not only armour that helps them, but their huge shields and the way their spears were angled

omfg. The 5th century B.C Greek Hoplite is NOT the same or "nearly the same" as the 4th century B.C Macedonian phalangite. The hoplites are NOT known to have "angled their spears" given that their spears were only 10 ft long.

And please give me atleast one account of scythian horse archers shooting macedonian phalanx or hoplites to death.

Sure, so at Ecbatana in 129 B.C the Parthians assraped the Seleucids. The Parthians being ofc Scythians and the Seleucids fighting in the traditional manner of the successor states.

1st pic second para reiterates the point that heavily armoured cav rarely charged into inf at full speed. They 'charged at a trot' and this was done on a psychological level, to make the men turn tail and run.

Ugh, no. Its not necessarily a lie that heavy cavalry (once upon a time) did not charge "at full speed". That wasn't because 'horses don't charge into solid objects'. It is because it was before the invention of the stirrup which made maximum momentum (and couching) impossible.

I literally gave you 10+ DIRECT examples of battles where heavy horsemen LITERALLY charged INTO pikes and won (Klushino) and yet you continue to argue this? lmao.

The second pic 1st para says that horses never charge into 'solid objects'.

Mmmm no. It says that Roman cavalry tactics seldom used shock cavalry, no surprise. It then makes a vague statement about horses "not preferring to charge a solid mass". None of that means anything because I gave you half a dozen accounts of trained warhorses charging DIRECTLY into prepared infantry, sometimes succeeding, sometimes not.

Also, horses probably can be trained to charged into solid objects, but the rider's fears and emotions, anxiety adn stuf can also be felt by the horse. Imagine riding a horse into a dense formation of spears? Scary, right?

lmao. So in the same post you first try to claim horses *never* charge into formed infantry and then claim "oh well, they can probably be trained. The fact is horses were CERTAINLY trained to do so because I gave you multiple (more than 5) accounts of them doing so when the riders felt the need.

@Aragon
OMFG
Macedonian phalanx was basicall hoplites with longer spears, smaller shields and lighter armor. It helped them move faster and longer. And wtf? I'm saying (conceding to you) that horses PROBABLY can be trained (cause you're so adamant that they can) and then I said "even then the rider's fears and anxiety". Lol. I accept your point about the stirrups though, and defenitely was one major inhibiting factor of the ancient heavy cavalry.

And if the large shields protected the Greek hoplites, the macedonian phalanx was protected by their ANGLED SPEARS!

Here:
But despite being very lightly armoured, the Macedonian pikemen were very well protected against enemy missiles. During the charge, the pikemen held their lances vertically so that this huge mass of wood and iron could block enemy projectiles, lowering their sarissas at the very last moment to strike the enemy lines. And even in close combat, the back rows protected the first ranks by holding their lances up, deflecting enemy arrows and slings that harmlessly fell to the ground. -From Wikipedia.

And about vague refernces see if this is proper.
And yah I know that there are multiple accounts of battle of marathon. So? Did you forget that little part about Athenians being protected by armor.

Thing is u completely misunderstood me. I'm not talking about macedonian pikes or athenian hoplites but phalanxe in general.

And I guess I've proved my point. It's not that frontal horse charges never happened, its that it rarely did and horses dont want to do it, Thta's it. I'm not going to respond to you any longer.

And I know about the conflicting accounts of the battle. In one account I read, the Athenians come down from the hill, and their flanks were guarded by felled trees and brush. Still, read about the effect of missiles which I have posted. In my main article I have confused pikes and hoplites which I already accepted as a fault. But fact remains that both are impervious (mostly) to missiles (hoplites because of large shield and armor and macedonians because of angled spears) and that is a rtw inaccuracy. And btw here is the account of the battle of Ecbatana where Parthian horse archers shot a Seleucid phalanx to death lol:
Trogus'“Philippic Histories" (38.10) mentions that Antiochus VII had an army of 80,000 troops (no idea of makeup of army but probably mainly infantry) but he mentions 300,000 camp followers including cooks, bakers & stage players (sceptical about this figure but army must have had considerable baggage train). He scored several victories regaining Mesopotamia & capturing Seleucia & Susa. Then he advanced into Media & set up winter quarters distributing his army (including the camp followers) among several cities in the expectation of finishing off the Parthians the next year. However his harsh rule & the depredations of his army caused the locals to conspire with the Parthians & on an appointed day fell upon Antiochus' widely dispersed army. Antiochus gathered what troops he had & tried to stabilise situation but was surprised by a large Parthian force at Ecabatana where his men deserted & Antiochus was killed. His body was sent back to Syria in a silver casket, his son Seleucus was made prisoner & his neice was taken by Phraates into his harem. Phraates II did not enjoy this victory for long because prior to the battle he recruited Saka horsemen from the east to help fight Antiochus in the west, but they arrived too late to take part in battle but still demanded a share of the considerable Seleucid booty. Phraates was unwilling to compensate them so they went on a rampage. So instead of finishing off the Seleucids in Syria he turned east even recruiting captured Seleucid heavy infantry from the Ecbatana battle, met the Saka in vicinity of modern Turkestan where his Seleucid recruits seeing the battle going badly, deserted & massacred Phraates & his bodyguard (according to Colledge). Parthians never used Seleucid
Saka means Scythian I guess lol. Nice example. Without ha at all. xD

2. All the example of charges are from middle ages. This is a topic on rtw inaccuracy and ive shown u examples of horses not charging in ancient times. You might think, what is the difference? Well it could be in the fact like zyzz said that horses mightve later got armor to cover eyes.

Macedonian phalanx was basicall hoplites with longer spears, smaller shields and lighter armor. It helped them move faster and longer. And wtf? I'm saying (conceding to you) that horses PROBABLY can be trained (cause you're so adamant that they can) and then I said "even then the rider's fears and anxiety"

LOL. You seem to have no idea how a debate operates. The point of contention was whether or not war-horses WILL charge at a mass of fixed infantry. I have already, beyond any reasonable doubt, have proven that they will by listen half a dozen examples, including primary sources.

So the first half of the "debate" is over.

All the example of charges are from middle ages. This is a topic on rtw inaccuracy and ive shown u examples of horses not charging in ancient times.

As I said above, this 'half' of the debate is done, over. Get over it and stop trying to weasel word your way out of it. You SAID that horses do NOT charge at masses of fixed infantry, I showed, again and again, that they do.

And no, charging at a mass of fixed infantry from the front is never a good idea. I never argued anything remotely close to that.

As far as horses not attacking head on into infantry in ancient times, again more fucking bullshit. Look, you won't win. Here is ANOTHER ancient source directly on the matter:

Cassius Dio wrote:(...) For if they [the Romans] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the pikemen were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows. Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen, and many perished hemmed in by the horsemen. Others were knocked over by the pikes or were carried off transfixed. (...)

Cassius Dio, Roman History 40.22

Keep in mind this is about Carrhae. And "pikemen" refers to the cataphracts, which were mounted lancers. So CLEARLY heavy horsemen charged at masses of infantry, regardless if the infantry stood their ground or not.

Macedonian phalanx was basicall hoplites with longer spears, smaller shields and lighter armor.

No, no they weren't. Macedonian phalangites weren't "basically hoplites". This is a phillistine argument. Never mind the HUGE differences in equipment I already outlined which you casually dismiss as "kek shorter spirs lighter armur smaler shield". The Macedonian phalangites were used in a TOTALLY different manner than 5th century B.C greek hoplites. The phalangites fought in units of 256 men, 16 ranks deep whereas the typical spartan phalanx was ~8-12 men deep and in far more unwieldy blocks of men.

And regardless, I never said that the 'angling of the pikes' offered no protection. I simply stated that the notion that Macedonian phalangites were somehow "almost immune" to missiles is in itself ridiculous because the Macedonian phalanx was a unitary, forward facing formation of relatively lightly armored infantry.

Let me go on about WHY it is so ridiculous. The average Sarissa has a diameter of 2-3 cm in diameter. Now think about this for a second, use your head, the average forward facing man, from shoulder to shoulder covers about ~50 cm, yet you are suggesting that a pike that at MAXIMUM covers ~5% of the torso (just form the front) somehow makes someone "almost immune to missiles" xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

The fact is the angling of the pikes had little to do with missile defense. I mean, it was probably moderately successful at deflecting larger missiles (i.e javelins) and maybe it deflected some arrows, ~3-4% of them.

And even if all of your meme-like comments about the pikes were try, this would LITERALLY only apply to arching fire, not direct, horizontal fire.

So? Did you forget that little part about Athenians being protected by armor.

?

And I guess I've proved my point. It's not that frontal horse charges never happened, its that it rarely did and horses dont want to do it, Thta's it. I'm not going to respond to you any longer.

rofl. That isn't what you've been arguing. You haven't proven anything and you've completely been steamrolled in this. It "rarely" (despite me mentioning 6+ examples) because cavalry is not MEANT to simply charge the front of prepared infantry, duh.

Go ahead and continue to change the goal-posts all you like.

Oh I just read this xDDDDDD

You might think, what is the difference? Well it could be in the fact like zyzz said that horses mightve later got armor to cover eyes.

Yeah "like Zyzz said". You mean how Zyzz just pulled something out of his ass that was certainly not common? Barding (the armouring of horses) never covered the eyes (so as to make the horses 'blind'. The very notion baffles belief. Every extant horse armour clearly has wide open eye slits.

So yeah, this NEVER EVER EVER EVER fucking happened.

If you doubt what I am saying, try this: Completely close your eyes and then run full speed in a straight line and see if you don't fall, lmao.

@Aragon I'm sorry mahn no more arguments. I don't want a place for peaceful discussion turned into a warzone. I agree ok ?Or even if I don't chuck the topic. i won't disturb you alright? Just be constructive instead of trash talking. Tell me where I'm wrong instead of trying to prove I'm dumb. It just shows your aggressive nature and paints you in a bad light.

I'm just going to continue as if nothing happened.

5) Slingers: Contrary to popular belief, slingers had a far better effective range than archers. So, Carthage can actually stand back and hit Macedon's archers.

"As a weapon, the sling had several advantages; a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges in excess of 400 metres (1,300 ft)"- Wikipedia

Also, sling stones didnt need to penetrate armor to kill; they just needed to hit the armor, and the soldier would die due to the force of the hit:
"Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armour, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood."- Vegetius, De Re Militari.

So slingers are actually more effective than archers.

6) Roman Cavalry: Romans. Never. Had. Good. Heavy. Cavalry. Of. Their. Own. Period. (Or maybe they did but it was not very successful?)
At Cannae, suffering a humiliating defeat, the Romans realized the need for a good cavalry unit, adn realized that they didn't have it. So, scipio supported a rebel Numidian prince's claim to the throne, and thus gained the famed Numidian horsemen. In later times, (Caesar's times) they hired German heavy cavalry, who though lesser in numbers, were better than their gallic counterparts. Later than that (Roman Empire and Byzantine empire), they hired Hunnic horse-archers and various barbarian light adn heavy cavalry. In fact, they even adopted and hired the cataphract!

"As a result of this lingering period of exposure to cataphracts, by the 4th century, the Roman Empire had adopted a number of vexillations of mercenary cataphract cavalry (see the Notitia Dignitatum), such as the Sarmatian Auxiliaries."- Wikipedia.

So what was the Pretorian cavalry?
I don't know if there was any pretorian cavalry, but there certainly was the pretorian guard, who protected the Emperor's life. They were the bodyguards of the Emperor, during and not during battle.

7) Unit sizes: Infantry units were often much longer and bigger than cavalry units, except in maybe the armies of cavalry like scythia and parthia. Darius' persian army overextended Alexander's by over a mile, adn thus presented no opportunity to outflank. In battle of Cannae, the romans had 80,000 infantry, and only around 1,500 horse.