Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Phillip V never took the "war" with Rome seriously.
Poltair, I have the original Medeival Total War, its old fashioned now but still fun. That is a great victory, even if you'd lost it would still have been a cost effective battle with such heavy enemy losses.
You would prefer to attack enemies in ways that aren't useful? Combined arms are a glorious thing...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.
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".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...
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...
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.
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...
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.
The short, four-word reason that Rome won every single war it fought in the Republican age was this: Rome had more men.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.
http://europabarbarorum.com/UrbanTiger said: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.
So what exactly is the point of all these tldr posts other than sophic masturbation?
Is that what you call all historical discussion?