Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Phillip V never took the "war" with Rome seriously.
Your "300" moments.
- Thread starter Rheinmetall
- Start date
Thanks, Ghazi Infantry now hold a special place in my heart after their performance at Toulouse, I think I started with around 60 of them, in three seperate units and by the end there may have been 10 left but between the three they killed almost 1, 000 Frenchmen, most of whom weren't retreating, unlike my Light Cavalry kills which were breaking and mopping up the battered French units.
UrbanTiger
Chieftain
Cheezy, and that was his undoing... A mistake both the Macedonian successors and the Greeks often made was fighting lots of indecisive wars allover the place, they nearly did it, none of them posessed Phillip II or his son Alexanders "go for the throat" atitude. Phillip messed about in Ilyria, he'd already been fighting other pointless wars againt the other successors and the Greeks, now the bored king picks a fight with Rome, a civilisation who who held a grudge like it was their job.
The successor armies often waxed and waned in stregth, the Theban tactic that had served Alexandr so well was ditched in favour of phalanx's of upto 16,000 men marching in a low, unwieldy mass, supported by ever more exotic and expensive mercinary forces. One successor king, when asked the best way to attack the enemy replied "whichever way seems most useful", that really sums up the chaotic aproach of 3rd century BC Hellenic warfare.
Pyrrhus, arguably the greatest Hellenic general after Alexander, fought battles allover the eastern med, his small army, mostly borrowed, took on all comers and were never defeated in the field, but politically he achieved nothing. Pyrrhus army composition is interesting, it reflects the Hellenic trend towards fielding any exotic they could get hold of. Pyrrhus famous elephants were African forest elephants from Egypt, standing roughly 8 feet at the shoulder, Egypt also sent phalanx pikemen. Some of Pyrrhus's most dependable troops were his Gauls, they made up a fair chunk of his army in the later campaigns, they also spent a lot of time with the elephants, being brave but lightly armoured and highly mobile they may have served as "commando" troops during sieges. Pyrrhus is fascinating to study, although famous for his victories at high cost and his lack of comitment to any single campaign, he was a very charismatic leader and he was well versed in tactics and siege warfare, Hannibal put him second only to Alexander in his list of great generals.
Poltair, yes, cavalry really come into their own when the enemy starts running away, they could have a massive army but if you can panic them, your cavalry can rack up a huge tally of kills. Some infantry don't look much on face value, but used properly they can really rain on your enemies day.
Last time I used Ghazi infantry was in battle where I was covering two bridges, an Turkish army was marching on one bridge while an Almohad army moved against the other, I had one unit of Ghazi's on either bridge and they did more than expected. The enemy tried to smash their way across with massed cavalry, Nubian spearmen dented the attack, the I sent the Ghazi's in to cut the enemy horsemen to pieces while they were locked in battle with my Nubians.
Its was a huge battle and eventually my army retreated, but all credit goes the Ghazi infantry who held long enough for cavalry from the other end of the field to arrive, they must've been almost constantly engaged against no less than 6 enemy units at a time, only twice did I get chance to pull them out for a short rest before they were needed on the bridge again.
One of the best units in Rome: Total War is the Barbarian spearmen, they're faster than hoplites, harder hitting than Eastern mercinaries, their warcry bolsters their fighting ability and they can fight well in woods/snow. They're also deadly when deployed with cavalry as a mixed group, this is a classic German tactic that Caesar copied. I your enemy's cavalry matches yours, charge them and throw in the spearmen, the combined cavalry/infantry attack will quickly see of their cavalry and leaving their flank open to attack by the spearmen and your cavalry can swing around and hit them in the rear. If you're facing an army with lots of cavalry, same tactic works well, the superior enemy cavalry will no doubt charge yours and expect to crush them, that when you spearmen, preferably hiding in long grass etc, move in and take the charge, skewering them.
Another great tactic when using elephants (I will get hold of elephants any way I can lol!) is to "mix" a unit of skirmishers in with them like I described with the cavalry/spearmen, turn off "skirmish mode" and they'll stand and shoot at any enemy who comes near, since your main priority is protecting the elephants from enemy skirmisher fire. Any enemy shirmisher unit that aproaches your "living tanks" will come under fire from your skirmishers, and unit that charges your skirmishers will have half a dozen elephants to smacking into them. If you're confronted by spearmen, you can either split the group by sending the elephants around behind them, exposing them to attack from two sides, or, you can leave the elephants where they are and just shoot the spearmen, the first option is quicker and uses less javelins lol!
I've used elephants for siege work, especially if I needed to take a city quickly before an enemy army can get there, even the small elephants can batter down enemy gates and cites protected by wooden walls are dead easy, just pick which section of wall to attack.
The successor armies often waxed and waned in stregth, the Theban tactic that had served Alexandr so well was ditched in favour of phalanx's of upto 16,000 men marching in a low, unwieldy mass, supported by ever more exotic and expensive mercinary forces. One successor king, when asked the best way to attack the enemy replied "whichever way seems most useful", that really sums up the chaotic aproach of 3rd century BC Hellenic warfare.
Pyrrhus, arguably the greatest Hellenic general after Alexander, fought battles allover the eastern med, his small army, mostly borrowed, took on all comers and were never defeated in the field, but politically he achieved nothing. Pyrrhus army composition is interesting, it reflects the Hellenic trend towards fielding any exotic they could get hold of. Pyrrhus famous elephants were African forest elephants from Egypt, standing roughly 8 feet at the shoulder, Egypt also sent phalanx pikemen. Some of Pyrrhus's most dependable troops were his Gauls, they made up a fair chunk of his army in the later campaigns, they also spent a lot of time with the elephants, being brave but lightly armoured and highly mobile they may have served as "commando" troops during sieges. Pyrrhus is fascinating to study, although famous for his victories at high cost and his lack of comitment to any single campaign, he was a very charismatic leader and he was well versed in tactics and siege warfare, Hannibal put him second only to Alexander in his list of great generals.
Poltair, yes, cavalry really come into their own when the enemy starts running away, they could have a massive army but if you can panic them, your cavalry can rack up a huge tally of kills. Some infantry don't look much on face value, but used properly they can really rain on your enemies day.
Last time I used Ghazi infantry was in battle where I was covering two bridges, an Turkish army was marching on one bridge while an Almohad army moved against the other, I had one unit of Ghazi's on either bridge and they did more than expected. The enemy tried to smash their way across with massed cavalry, Nubian spearmen dented the attack, the I sent the Ghazi's in to cut the enemy horsemen to pieces while they were locked in battle with my Nubians.
Its was a huge battle and eventually my army retreated, but all credit goes the Ghazi infantry who held long enough for cavalry from the other end of the field to arrive, they must've been almost constantly engaged against no less than 6 enemy units at a time, only twice did I get chance to pull them out for a short rest before they were needed on the bridge again.
One of the best units in Rome: Total War is the Barbarian spearmen, they're faster than hoplites, harder hitting than Eastern mercinaries, their warcry bolsters their fighting ability and they can fight well in woods/snow. They're also deadly when deployed with cavalry as a mixed group, this is a classic German tactic that Caesar copied. I your enemy's cavalry matches yours, charge them and throw in the spearmen, the combined cavalry/infantry attack will quickly see of their cavalry and leaving their flank open to attack by the spearmen and your cavalry can swing around and hit them in the rear. If you're facing an army with lots of cavalry, same tactic works well, the superior enemy cavalry will no doubt charge yours and expect to crush them, that when you spearmen, preferably hiding in long grass etc, move in and take the charge, skewering them.
Another great tactic when using elephants (I will get hold of elephants any way I can lol!) is to "mix" a unit of skirmishers in with them like I described with the cavalry/spearmen, turn off "skirmish mode" and they'll stand and shoot at any enemy who comes near, since your main priority is protecting the elephants from enemy skirmisher fire. Any enemy shirmisher unit that aproaches your "living tanks" will come under fire from your skirmishers, and unit that charges your skirmishers will have half a dozen elephants to smacking into them. If you're confronted by spearmen, you can either split the group by sending the elephants around behind them, exposing them to attack from two sides, or, you can leave the elephants where they are and just shoot the spearmen, the first option is quicker and uses less javelins lol!
I've used elephants for siege work, especially if I needed to take a city quickly before an enemy army can get there, even the small elephants can batter down enemy gates and cites protected by wooden walls are dead easy, just pick which section of wall to attack.
You gotta love those Ghazi Infantry, they perform above and beyond everytime. Personally I prefer to use conventional tactics in all total war games, simple formations of infantry with cavalry flanks and several lines of troops one behind the other. Reserves are the key to Total War.
You would prefer to attack enemies in ways that aren't useful?
Combined arms are a glorious thing...UrbanTiger
Chieftain
Dachs, you obviously haven't read my other posts, I won battles in the most hopeless situations, against impossible odds, I even won re enactments of the battles of Thermopylae, Stalingrad, Zama and many other battle where I turned a hopeless situation around through shear guile and bulldog tenacity. I never give up, no matter the odds, I never back down, and if I do lose, the enemy are in shape to continue their advance while all I've lost is a small delaying force...
People have even asked me to take over their game for them because they're losing badly and are on the verge of defeat, I slow the enemy down using whatever force is available, if they can still fight, I can still win.
So no, I don't use tactics that aren't useful, I out think, out move and out fight my opponent, even with a few battered units, you can never underestimate me, my army fights like a bulldog, smash and grab, bite down hard and never let go.
If I was going to give a great example of my tactics, I'd say the battle of Stalingrad, it was a wargame that lasted 14 days straight, and even though (true to history) the Soviet player recieved a constant flow reserves, by day 14 my battered force was still holding the main objective against waves of Soviet troops outnumbering us roughly 6 to one.
My most memorable battle on Rome: Total War was deffending Phrygia against the Greeks, apart from my general (Pontic cavalry bodyguard, not Capodocian), all my Pontic army was made up of was eastern infantry, skirmishers and a unit of light cavalry. The situation looked hopeless as a HUGE army entirely of hoplites and armoured hoplites brought rams up against 6 points of our wooden wall, they broke through easily, almost overwhelmed us at the main gate and my most of my army was running for the ciry centre.
I Rallied my battered force in the city centre and using shear skill managed to kill each hoplite unit as we fought through the streets. A force of lightly armed eastern troops not just defeated, but wiped out a force that was more heavily armoured, better equiped and out numbered them 6 to 1, now that, is how Urban Tiger fights the enemy!
Alexander believed in combined arms, what his successors did was ignore the decissive power of the cavalry on the wings and focus on making the phalanx more powerful, and slower, and less mobile... When we look battles between the Diadochi and the Romans we see the Roman cavalry, who were not that good, holding their own against Phillip V's Macedonian cavalry, meaning that the battle comes down to the phalanx, which is only half formed, while they still manage to drive the legions opposite them right down the slope, their flank and rear are open to attack...
The Diadochi ditched the "Theban tactic" (concentrating most of your force on one wing to deliver a massive knock out blow) which had served Alexander so well and settled for "push of pike" style battles focussing on making the phalanx more powerful, at the expense of mobilty.
Alexander was keen to add new units to his army, but he always maintained the felaxability of his force, and the power of his Companion cavalry, a unit that was later downgraded and ignored. If Phillip V had had Alexanders Companion cavalry at Chynosephalae, they would have smashed the Roman cavalry into next year and opened up their flank to attack.
I took another great commander, Hannibal, to revive the devastating power of the Theban tacic and he used it to maxinum effect against an army far tougher than the forces Alexander had faced (until Hydaspes).
People have even asked me to take over their game for them because they're losing badly and are on the verge of defeat, I slow the enemy down using whatever force is available, if they can still fight, I can still win.
So no, I don't use tactics that aren't useful, I out think, out move and out fight my opponent, even with a few battered units, you can never underestimate me, my army fights like a bulldog, smash and grab, bite down hard and never let go.
If I was going to give a great example of my tactics, I'd say the battle of Stalingrad, it was a wargame that lasted 14 days straight, and even though (true to history) the Soviet player recieved a constant flow reserves, by day 14 my battered force was still holding the main objective against waves of Soviet troops outnumbering us roughly 6 to one.
My most memorable battle on Rome: Total War was deffending Phrygia against the Greeks, apart from my general (Pontic cavalry bodyguard, not Capodocian), all my Pontic army was made up of was eastern infantry, skirmishers and a unit of light cavalry. The situation looked hopeless as a HUGE army entirely of hoplites and armoured hoplites brought rams up against 6 points of our wooden wall, they broke through easily, almost overwhelmed us at the main gate and my most of my army was running for the ciry centre.
I Rallied my battered force in the city centre and using shear skill managed to kill each hoplite unit as we fought through the streets. A force of lightly armed eastern troops not just defeated, but wiped out a force that was more heavily armoured, better equiped and out numbered them 6 to 1, now that, is how Urban Tiger fights the enemy!
Alexander believed in combined arms, what his successors did was ignore the decissive power of the cavalry on the wings and focus on making the phalanx more powerful, and slower, and less mobile... When we look battles between the Diadochi and the Romans we see the Roman cavalry, who were not that good, holding their own against Phillip V's Macedonian cavalry, meaning that the battle comes down to the phalanx, which is only half formed, while they still manage to drive the legions opposite them right down the slope, their flank and rear are open to attack...
The Diadochi ditched the "Theban tactic" (concentrating most of your force on one wing to deliver a massive knock out blow) which had served Alexander so well and settled for "push of pike" style battles focussing on making the phalanx more powerful, at the expense of mobilty.
Alexander was keen to add new units to his army, but he always maintained the felaxability of his force, and the power of his Companion cavalry, a unit that was later downgraded and ignored. If Phillip V had had Alexanders Companion cavalry at Chynosephalae, they would have smashed the Roman cavalry into next year and opened up their flank to attack.
I took another great commander, Hannibal, to revive the devastating power of the Theban tacic and he used it to maxinum effect against an army far tougher than the forces Alexander had faced (until Hydaspes).
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well aren't you just great. 
You're my kind of General UrbanTiger, that's how I fight. If I've chosen to stand my ground then it's going to cost blood and lots of it, to get hold of it and even then you cant guarantee you'll keep the land when my reinforcements arrive, pissed like Hitler in '44 because you killed their brothers.
I don't recall any victories quite as impressive as the one you described but I did manage to hold off a Roman army of Urban Cohorts in a multiplayer match as Carthage.
I hate Carthage but I promised this guy a Punic War and he promised to grind Carthage into the dust. He broke through my gate and one other point in my wooden wall. I surrounded both breaches with three Phalax Each and had Iberian Infantry and Skirmishers behind.
For whatever reason, the other player chose to throw everything through the gate and paid a heavy price in red gold for it but I knew as soon as he thrust those men forward like lose change at a beggar, I couldn't hold the gate.
I pulled my force from the other breach in a gamble and very swiftly set up roadblocks down the street to the town center. Phalanx, backed by Iberians, backed by Skirmishers, repeated at three intervals down the street.
When I felt ready I withdrew my troops from the gate and those who hadn't already retreated to the town center were ordered to run back there. The Romans chased them as far as the first roadblock but once the Carthaginian's were passed, the Sarissa came down and the Romans were skewered.
Again though, the indomitable Urban Cohorts hacked their way to the Phalanx, just as the Phalanx was about to be butchered, the Iberians behind them rushed in, pushed the Romans a few feet backwards and allowed the Phalanx to up their Sarissa's and run all the way back to the town center, where they lined up along one edge of the square. (With two of them being up against buildings.)
Back up the street the Urban Cohorts were once again ready to slaughter brave Carthaginians, this time the Iberians, however their supporting Skirmishers, who had dispensed every javelin they had, now charged forward to occupy the cramped cohorts as the Iberians fell back to the town center.
Then the second roadblock was swiftly moved up, the Phalanx lowered Sarissa's and the skirmishers (With heavy losses.) fell back behind the long pike's and made their way to the town center.
This was repeated twice for each roadblock with the other player seemingly content to continue rolling down the same street with every cohort at his disposal. As he reached the last roadblock however, he had a change of heart and brought his cavalry around to a street that came out just behind the final roadblock.
Changes had to be made, one Phalanx on the square rushed to block the street, Iberians surged against the cohorts, skirmishers in miniscule numbers stepped up to throw what remained of their projectiles.
The Roman cavalry charged and hit the phalanx hard, losses were heavy on both sides, the two units of Iberian cavalry I'd been holding onto bravely sacrificed themselves against the roman cavalry to allow the two phalanxes to fall back to the edge of the square. I tried to pull some of my brave horsewarriors back behind the phalanx but they were cut down by their counterparts, who chased them remaining two or three directly onto one of the phalanx walls and got themselves killed.
With the Roman Cavalry gone and me all out of places to fall back to a meatgrinder of a battle ensued! For 50 minutes the Romans battled to push into the square and for 50 minutes, the Carthaginian Phalanxes held, supported by rushes of Iberians and Skirmishers when the line looked thin.
In a surprise, even to me, by the end of the slobber knocker, the Roman Captain had gotten himself killed, the Carthaginian Captain was still alive and the floor was submerged beneath an ocean of bodies.
The square meant my men had inifinte morale, because as soon as they broke, they ran to the back of the melee and rallied, ready to rush back in again. I truly thought I was set to lose once I was trapped in that square but eventually, Roman Urban Cohorts routed before a rag tag assembly of surviving Carthaginians who had won through either incredible bravery or sheer stupidity but who had, nevertheless, won.
I don't recall any victories quite as impressive as the one you described but I did manage to hold off a Roman army of Urban Cohorts in a multiplayer match as Carthage.
I hate Carthage but I promised this guy a Punic War and he promised to grind Carthage into the dust. He broke through my gate and one other point in my wooden wall. I surrounded both breaches with three Phalax Each and had Iberian Infantry and Skirmishers behind.
For whatever reason, the other player chose to throw everything through the gate and paid a heavy price in red gold for it but I knew as soon as he thrust those men forward like lose change at a beggar, I couldn't hold the gate.
I pulled my force from the other breach in a gamble and very swiftly set up roadblocks down the street to the town center. Phalanx, backed by Iberians, backed by Skirmishers, repeated at three intervals down the street.
When I felt ready I withdrew my troops from the gate and those who hadn't already retreated to the town center were ordered to run back there. The Romans chased them as far as the first roadblock but once the Carthaginian's were passed, the Sarissa came down and the Romans were skewered.
Again though, the indomitable Urban Cohorts hacked their way to the Phalanx, just as the Phalanx was about to be butchered, the Iberians behind them rushed in, pushed the Romans a few feet backwards and allowed the Phalanx to up their Sarissa's and run all the way back to the town center, where they lined up along one edge of the square. (With two of them being up against buildings.)
Back up the street the Urban Cohorts were once again ready to slaughter brave Carthaginians, this time the Iberians, however their supporting Skirmishers, who had dispensed every javelin they had, now charged forward to occupy the cramped cohorts as the Iberians fell back to the town center.
Then the second roadblock was swiftly moved up, the Phalanx lowered Sarissa's and the skirmishers (With heavy losses.) fell back behind the long pike's and made their way to the town center.
This was repeated twice for each roadblock with the other player seemingly content to continue rolling down the same street with every cohort at his disposal. As he reached the last roadblock however, he had a change of heart and brought his cavalry around to a street that came out just behind the final roadblock.
Changes had to be made, one Phalanx on the square rushed to block the street, Iberians surged against the cohorts, skirmishers in miniscule numbers stepped up to throw what remained of their projectiles.
The Roman cavalry charged and hit the phalanx hard, losses were heavy on both sides, the two units of Iberian cavalry I'd been holding onto bravely sacrificed themselves against the roman cavalry to allow the two phalanxes to fall back to the edge of the square. I tried to pull some of my brave horsewarriors back behind the phalanx but they were cut down by their counterparts, who chased them remaining two or three directly onto one of the phalanx walls and got themselves killed.
With the Roman Cavalry gone and me all out of places to fall back to a meatgrinder of a battle ensued! For 50 minutes the Romans battled to push into the square and for 50 minutes, the Carthaginian Phalanxes held, supported by rushes of Iberians and Skirmishers when the line looked thin.
In a surprise, even to me, by the end of the slobber knocker, the Roman Captain had gotten himself killed, the Carthaginian Captain was still alive and the floor was submerged beneath an ocean of bodies.
The square meant my men had inifinte morale, because as soon as they broke, they ran to the back of the melee and rallied, ready to rush back in again. I truly thought I was set to lose once I was trapped in that square but eventually, Roman Urban Cohorts routed before a rag tag assembly of surviving Carthaginians who had won through either incredible bravery or sheer stupidity but who had, nevertheless, won.
That's nice. I'm not really interested in your ostensibly impressive personal videogaming prowess. What I'm interested in is why you think that the quote you mentioned indicates a "chaotic approach". To me, it screams "this general is a sensible general".
Your view of the Successor militaries is jaundiced, albeit for the quite acceptable reason that that particular jaundiced view has been in vogue for people who don't really know what they're talking about with regards to Diadochoi warfare. I should like to know why the view is that cavalry flanking maneuvers are deemed to have played such an insignificant role when one of the most decisive battles of the Successor period, the Battle of Panion, was won when Antiochos III directed his kataphraktoi to swing around the flanks of the Ptolemaic army...there are individual retorts to most of the points made about the supposed "low quality" of Successor generals, but I frankly haven't the interest to give them, and would rather you direct yourself to Walbank, Sekunda, Anson, Bosworth, or any other solid Hellenistic historian, military and otherwise. You may learn something.
That's far less impressive when you consider that you're talking about video games, you realise?
UrbanTiger
Chieftain
If the successors were so good, how come they fell apart so quickly against Rome? Phillip is made to look like a total muppet at Chynosephalae, he lost 8000 men and his reputation, after that, he becomes Romes little puppy dog. Antiochus III had his moments as a great general, but invading Greece with just 10,000 men, letting them drink, feast and slack off from training over the winter set them up for a kicking at Thermopylae at the hands of the Romans...
Antiochus loses at sea, then he has to fight in the Romans on his own ground, his army of 70,000 men, including cataphrats, scythed chariots and other fancy units that actually messed up his advance and he lost the battle, again...
After 189BC, Seleucia went from the largest kingdom in the world to bowing to Roman demands, it went down hill from there, the next king began a military build up and moved against Egypt, a single Roman senator stopped the whole Seleucid army at the border and then set about enforcing the peace terms of 189 (ships were scuttled, elephants lamed). Seleucia gets weaker and waker until all that remains is Syria as a protectorate of Tigran, king of Armenia.
During this decline Egypt had a chance to unify the Ptolomic and Seleucid dynasties, but fearing that this might provote Rome they stopped short. Egypt lasted the longest partly because it allied with Rome, Cleopatra backed the wrong horse and Egypt payed the price of Roman occupation.
Macedonia went to war with Rome in 216BC, inconclusive, Phillip seeks peace and Rome, busy with Hannibal, accepts, 196BC, defeat, 8000 men lost but otherwise Macedonia is no worse off, 168BC, defeat, Macedonia loses some of territory, 148BC, defeat, Macedonia becomes a Roman province...
Now lets look at how inconsistant a Diadochi army could be, in some battles the Argerispades Thorakia Balistikoi were present, in other battles there weren't, in one battle Antiochus fields just 10,000 men, in the next he has 70,000, he goes from too few men to too many? Think about this, you're taking a golden opportunity to invade Greece, Macedonia's reputation has been dragged through the mud, the time is ripe, you have a vast empire, how many men do you take? 10,000, ok they can establish a base while you gain allies, but without a second force to back them up, they'll be hard pressed to conquor a city, let alone a kingom.
At Chynosephylae Phillip V's Macedonian cavalry can't break the Roman cavalry yet Alexanders Macedonian/Thessalian cavalry punched through Darius Bactrian cavalry (far better cavalry than anything Rome produced) who also outnumbered them by quite a way... I read somewhere that cavalry numbers were reduced, Phillip II bred his horses for strength, this was let slip after Alexander's death.
In Alexanders army his strong right wing was drawn towards the enemy, his weaker left wing drawn back, although he and his companions delivered a stunning blow to the enemy, troops in reserve to guard the now exposed right flank. At Gaugamela Alexanders "second line" of Greek hoplites were able to prevent a devastating Persian attack.
Its actually a period in history that interests me, one of the reasons I love Rome: Total War, apart from Egypt being some naff 600BC style army and Seleucia getting wiped out before they can built their best units its a great game. I'd to change the Egyptian army (I tried, it crashed the game) to a more accurate set up, Greek generals, levy pikemen, phalanx pikemen, small elephants, companion cavalry, Gaulish chosen swordsmen, oh and keep the Nubian and Lybian units.
Antiochus loses at sea, then he has to fight in the Romans on his own ground, his army of 70,000 men, including cataphrats, scythed chariots and other fancy units that actually messed up his advance and he lost the battle, again...
After 189BC, Seleucia went from the largest kingdom in the world to bowing to Roman demands, it went down hill from there, the next king began a military build up and moved against Egypt, a single Roman senator stopped the whole Seleucid army at the border and then set about enforcing the peace terms of 189 (ships were scuttled, elephants lamed). Seleucia gets weaker and waker until all that remains is Syria as a protectorate of Tigran, king of Armenia.
During this decline Egypt had a chance to unify the Ptolomic and Seleucid dynasties, but fearing that this might provote Rome they stopped short. Egypt lasted the longest partly because it allied with Rome, Cleopatra backed the wrong horse and Egypt payed the price of Roman occupation.
Macedonia went to war with Rome in 216BC, inconclusive, Phillip seeks peace and Rome, busy with Hannibal, accepts, 196BC, defeat, 8000 men lost but otherwise Macedonia is no worse off, 168BC, defeat, Macedonia loses some of territory, 148BC, defeat, Macedonia becomes a Roman province...
Now lets look at how inconsistant a Diadochi army could be, in some battles the Argerispades Thorakia Balistikoi were present, in other battles there weren't, in one battle Antiochus fields just 10,000 men, in the next he has 70,000, he goes from too few men to too many? Think about this, you're taking a golden opportunity to invade Greece, Macedonia's reputation has been dragged through the mud, the time is ripe, you have a vast empire, how many men do you take? 10,000, ok they can establish a base while you gain allies, but without a second force to back them up, they'll be hard pressed to conquor a city, let alone a kingom.
At Chynosephylae Phillip V's Macedonian cavalry can't break the Roman cavalry yet Alexanders Macedonian/Thessalian cavalry punched through Darius Bactrian cavalry (far better cavalry than anything Rome produced) who also outnumbered them by quite a way... I read somewhere that cavalry numbers were reduced, Phillip II bred his horses for strength, this was let slip after Alexander's death.
In Alexanders army his strong right wing was drawn towards the enemy, his weaker left wing drawn back, although he and his companions delivered a stunning blow to the enemy, troops in reserve to guard the now exposed right flank. At Gaugamela Alexanders "second line" of Greek hoplites were able to prevent a devastating Persian attack.
Its actually a period in history that interests me, one of the reasons I love Rome: Total War, apart from Egypt being some naff 600BC style army and Seleucia getting wiped out before they can built their best units its a great game. I'd to change the Egyptian army (I tried, it crashed the game) to a more accurate set up, Greek generals, levy pikemen, phalanx pikemen, small elephants, companion cavalry, Gaulish chosen swordsmen, oh and keep the Nubian and Lybian units.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Because the Roman style of warfare represented a completely revolutionary style of war. Between their new tactics, brilliant generalship, and seemingly endless manpower supply, that the Successors lasted as long as they did is more a testament to Rome not having time to conquer them than it is to Rome not being able to.
Phillip never had a chance against the Romans; Alexander himself could not have stood against them in his situation. This is like bashing the Polish military because the Germans beat the snot out of them in six weeks. Losing a war doesn't mean your military sucks.
,
Funny that things like that happen when you are invaded by five empires simultaneously and fighting a civil war.
What exactly does that prove?
That possibility was essentially non-existent, since the Ptolemaic goal was never to re-unify Alexander's Empire. From the moment Alexander died, the goal of the Ptolemies was to control a power base in Egypt from which they could become fantastically rich and maintain their power. All expeditions outside Egypt were undertaken with the maintenance of Egypt Proper in mind.
It was not because they were smart enough to ally with Rome, it was because Rome had everything to gain by propping up the Ptolemies, being unable to dedicate the forces necessary to properly subdue the empire, unwilling to deal with the power-unbalancing problem in the Senate of making Egypt a province, and not desiring the instability and power vacuum that would result from such a collapse. Egypt was very much the "sick man of the Mediterranean" in the way that Ottoman Empire was in the 19th century, and was likewise propped up by the great power(s) as a barrier against other forces.
Life isn't a game of Total War, you know, you work with what you have.
As far as exceeding necessary numbers, you should take a card from Colin Powell's handbook.
Was the goal to conquer Greece, or was it to back up his puppets the Aetolian League?
The Xystophoroi were hardly the Hetairoi of Alexander's day.
Whoopdehorsehocky.
Really, the whole "we completely made up crap about how the Roman Republic worked" thing never bothered you? Or the Romano-centricity of the game? Or that only 1/3 of the Seleukid Empire is on the map?
The short, four-word reason that Rome won every single war it fought in the Republican age was this: Rome had more men.
That's it.
No tactical wizardry, no strategic skill, no political reasons, no grand geopolitical models, nothing else. They just had more warm bodies to throw at the enemy. In 190 BC it almost didn't work, but the Romans got lucky. In the last decade of the second century BC they were so low on manpower that they had to start a social reform that ended up creating social and political conditions that destroyed the Republic.
It's only when Rome stopped fighting wars that it could win by throwing men at the problem that it encountered a problem, and that problem ended up being unsolvable before 476.
http://europabarbarorum.com/UrbanTiger said:
UrbanTiger
Chieftain
I know they had the manpower, a survey taken just before the Celtic war of 228BC showed Rome could draw on a pool of 700,000 infantrymen and 70,000 cavalrymen fit for service (on paper), the Celtic tribes of the Po valley could only muster 70,000 men for their attack...
40,000 Celts died fighting back to back at Talemon, trapped between two Roman armies, each as big as their own. Hannibal killed over 200,000 Roman soldiers but they still raised enough men not hem him in and cover their overseas territories. It wasn't "just numbers" though, it was logistics and efficiency.
Even with its large population Roman field armies were 36,000 strong, 30,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, I used to know the exact breakdown of a Consular army of the 200's BC but I've slept since then. Roman tactics were very simple, the velite's skirmished, the cavalry only expected to hold the flanks while the legions did the real damage, grabbing the enemy by the throat and cutting them to pieces.
Roman armies didn't need to outnumber their opponents, the legionary system made maximum use of every unit, it wasn't their equipment (their chainmail armour and helmets and cavalry saddles were of Celtic origin) that did the real damage it was their "Chessboard" formation. The enemy would form a single line and advance, the Romans had 3 lines, the first line would fight then retire through gaps in the second line as the second line hit home, throwing fresh men against tired/injured men.
Carthage was Romes most successful opponent, while "barbarian" and Diadochi kingdoms were defeated in just 1 or 2 battles the Carthaginians fought two long wars with Rome and fought many battles, giving a good account of themselves against the legions. A Carthaginian general needed to use whatever forces he had to each units best ability, this took great skill, Hamilcar and his sons Hannibal and Hasdrubal were noteworthy.
During the first Punic war which started in 265BC and didn't end until 242BC and was centred on control of Sicily, the midway point between both empires. By the closing stages of the war Hamilcar was gaining the upper hand in very difficult circumstances when Carthage (financially exhausted) decided to make peace...
The famed Carthaginian fleet performed poorly in both Punic wars, the government were weak and didn't give enough support to its general who seem to have largely opperated on their own with whatever troops they had. No serious, co ordinated, fully government backed opperation ever took place.
When Hannibal set out for Italy, he had only brothers for support, politically and militarily, the government aproved the war, especially after news of Hannibals stunning victories came. Hannibal sent baskets full of Roman senators rings back to Carthage after the battle of Cannae, they did nothing, even the "second front" on Sicily was lead by Syracusan Greeks at Hannibals instigation.
Hannibal had a phalanx just 4000 strong, its all he needed, they're often reffered as "pikemen" but they were equipped like Greek hoplites, not Macedonians. These Lybian "hoplites" were far more mobile than either Greek or Macedonian phalanxes, in one skirmish 2000 of them were deployed on a ridge then feigned retreat against the advancing Roman forces, an action suited to Macedonian Hypaspistoi who carried hoplite shields but were lightly armoured.
Rome had huge manpower, but most of the battles they won they were evenly matched with their opponents, it was their tactics that won. The Romans suffered a fair few disasters but they were also very lucky, things generally went their way, like Hannibals messengers falling in with a unit of Roman cavalry, allowing them Consul Nero to trap Hasdrubal and his relief force and dash Hannibals last chance of winning the war.
The Romans weren't invincible, they suffered some serious defeats against Parthia/Persia and all attemps to conquor northern Britain failed, the Romans lived under constant fear and suspicion of the dark forest of Germania to their north, wondering when the next massive horde would apear.
40,000 Celts died fighting back to back at Talemon, trapped between two Roman armies, each as big as their own. Hannibal killed over 200,000 Roman soldiers but they still raised enough men not hem him in and cover their overseas territories. It wasn't "just numbers" though, it was logistics and efficiency.
Even with its large population Roman field armies were 36,000 strong, 30,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, I used to know the exact breakdown of a Consular army of the 200's BC but I've slept since then. Roman tactics were very simple, the velite's skirmished, the cavalry only expected to hold the flanks while the legions did the real damage, grabbing the enemy by the throat and cutting them to pieces.
Roman armies didn't need to outnumber their opponents, the legionary system made maximum use of every unit, it wasn't their equipment (their chainmail armour and helmets and cavalry saddles were of Celtic origin) that did the real damage it was their "Chessboard" formation. The enemy would form a single line and advance, the Romans had 3 lines, the first line would fight then retire through gaps in the second line as the second line hit home, throwing fresh men against tired/injured men.
Carthage was Romes most successful opponent, while "barbarian" and Diadochi kingdoms were defeated in just 1 or 2 battles the Carthaginians fought two long wars with Rome and fought many battles, giving a good account of themselves against the legions. A Carthaginian general needed to use whatever forces he had to each units best ability, this took great skill, Hamilcar and his sons Hannibal and Hasdrubal were noteworthy.
During the first Punic war which started in 265BC and didn't end until 242BC and was centred on control of Sicily, the midway point between both empires. By the closing stages of the war Hamilcar was gaining the upper hand in very difficult circumstances when Carthage (financially exhausted) decided to make peace...
The famed Carthaginian fleet performed poorly in both Punic wars, the government were weak and didn't give enough support to its general who seem to have largely opperated on their own with whatever troops they had. No serious, co ordinated, fully government backed opperation ever took place.
When Hannibal set out for Italy, he had only brothers for support, politically and militarily, the government aproved the war, especially after news of Hannibals stunning victories came. Hannibal sent baskets full of Roman senators rings back to Carthage after the battle of Cannae, they did nothing, even the "second front" on Sicily was lead by Syracusan Greeks at Hannibals instigation.
Hannibal had a phalanx just 4000 strong, its all he needed, they're often reffered as "pikemen" but they were equipped like Greek hoplites, not Macedonians. These Lybian "hoplites" were far more mobile than either Greek or Macedonian phalanxes, in one skirmish 2000 of them were deployed on a ridge then feigned retreat against the advancing Roman forces, an action suited to Macedonian Hypaspistoi who carried hoplite shields but were lightly armoured.
Rome had huge manpower, but most of the battles they won they were evenly matched with their opponents, it was their tactics that won. The Romans suffered a fair few disasters but they were also very lucky, things generally went their way, like Hannibals messengers falling in with a unit of Roman cavalry, allowing them Consul Nero to trap Hasdrubal and his relief force and dash Hannibals last chance of winning the war.
The Romans weren't invincible, they suffered some serious defeats against Parthia/Persia and all attemps to conquor northern Britain failed, the Romans lived under constant fear and suspicion of the dark forest of Germania to their north, wondering when the next massive horde would apear.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
So what exactly is the point of all these tldr posts other than sophic masturbation?
Jos Ballenbak
Zombiehunter, duh.....
Sucking all the knowledge out of your brain thus transforming us into zombies!!!!!!!
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Is that what you call all historical discussion?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Not when its relevant, which 90% of his post is not.
Jos Ballenbak
Zombiehunter, duh.....
Zombies can't post pics.
