Romani Campaign

[DionCaesar]

Ave fellow EB- ers!

I am here to tell you in all my astonishment about the Romani campaign I am currently playing (1.1 still, started it exactly 1 year ago but didn't play EB for quite a while). The difficulty level is vh/m (as recommended :P)

The campaign came to such a point on which I decided that this is worth telling. So here is my story (no AAR, but I need your advice and this is actually an introduction to my question).

I decided to roleplay the game, so no blitzing and realistic republican armies. After having conquered Italy, I defeated the Sardinians and the people of Corsica, along with all of Sicily. Because I want to 'save' Gaul for the Marian armies (I really really like anything about Gaius Julius Caesar so I intend to copy his conquests in EB, when I have Marians troops), I captured Massilia and made it a allied city (IV type), but didn't touch the rest of the region. After that, I removed Kart Hadast from Spain and conquered the entire country, except for the last Lusotannan city (Mistake #1). Also the Greek cost was captured (Epeiros gone), and a peace treaty was formed with the once mighty Macedonians. To preserve this peace, a full stack army (2 legions in my game style) was stationed in Macedonia itself (military acces with the Macedonians).

I thought it might be a funny thing to have neighbours in Spain, who might revolt against me one day. That's why I let the ****** Luso's alive.

After a long Pax Romana, the Carthaginians started annoying the Res Publica, by attacking Sardinia every year. So the senate decided to sack Atiqua (mistake #2). And so it happened. The city was left in ruins and the Romans returned satisfied to Italy.

Right in time, it turned out to be, because the Sweboz started pressuring the Northern Border. So the Romani decided to capture Aventicos, and hold it as a borderfort. (mistake #3 most likely).

This happened probably 10 years ago (220 BC). Then, the invasions started. Stack after stack the Sweboz sent. The treasury, which used to be around 1.000.000, quickly dropped to 700.000 mnai. Every turn, at least 6 units were trained in Italy and Massilia (allied city, remember? --> Neitos!!)

Rome held off these attacks, with the help of a cavalry army composed of heavy Thessalikan cavalry and Sarmatian nobles. Until the year 215 BC, when the Lusotana decided they didn't want to live under slavery anymore. Even the forcing diplomats (:sweatdrop:) couldn't make them stay calm. They defeated 2 stationary legions and reconquered Numantia. The Romans sent 2 new legions to reconquer it (mistake #4), but they were intercepted by the Aedui, who suddenly made peace with the Sweboz AND Lusotana. They now formed an alliance that was attacking Rome's borders from every side.

And so we arrive 1 turn before the telling of this story. I pressed the turn button, and as usual, the Germans attacked. But this time they used a total stack, with fresh but experienced (..?) units. The battle was enormous: 2800 Romans vs 2400 Germans.

Ok, I won, with not too many losses. But I fought the biggest battle so far. Then the turn screen moved to Spain, where I saw my best army (A full stack republican army, sent to reconquer Spain) being attacked by 2 full stack Lusotania armies.

This was the greatest battle the Republic every fought, and to be honest, the most intense I personally ever did. It was completely even: 60% of my army was dead, 60% of theirs. It even got to 80-80. (we started with 3400. 2800 men). Then, my last tired troops had to fight two cohorts of Scortamareva. (OMG they're strong). They totally pwned my poor Triarri, Extraordinarii and principes, and the battle was lost with these loss percentages: 98% of the Romans died, 93 of the Barbarians (yes, they are!). All the blood, sweat and tears down the drain.

It was not yet over: the Aedui attacked (still in the same turn) Massilia, which I defended with another Pyrrus victory, and they killed my army that was laying siege to Bibracte.


And now, we're back to this time. I have no troops left, nor in Spain, nor in .. the Germania. Aedui region. (perhaps one 3/4 stack or sth. like that, but nothing more). What should I do? I have the feeling that I'm being overflown by AI armies, and my treasury (675.000 mnai left) is bleeding. I have that 2 legions in Macedonia, but I have the strange sense that the only reason why Makedonia hasn't yet betrayed me, is the presence of that army.

So now, fellow EB players, I ask for your advice.. Use force diplomacy or fall back, or give everything I have? (I do have 2 stacks fighting in Africa against Elite Phalanxes, so they're already busy).

Thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed it and I sincerely hope you can answer my question.:help:

[Mithradates I]

I am playing a Romani campaign (VH/M). My circumstances are somewhat different (allied with Lusotanni, Arverni and Sweboz, peace with the Carhaginians, BUT war with both Makedonia and the Aedui who are themselves allied). I am in 207 BC and facing an Aedui blitz that I never saw coming...my own strategy is to fall back on my sources of supply (the Italian cities), build up and then push back. We'll see how that works. I am interested to see what ideas/suggestions you get.

[Jebivjetar]

I like the smell of burning Rome :beam:

[chenkai11]

Roleplay in VH/M is a little bit frustrating. AI will send endless full stacks to attack you, not to mention all factions love to have a piece of you.

Use force diplomacy to save your campaign, but it will ruin your campaign actually (force diplomacy is consider cheating if not used appropriately). Or recruite new legions and must kill them all (Rome didn't build an empire with MERCY), you still have lots of mnai. Or sell Rome to the barbarians. :laugh4:

[Valion]

In my Romani Campaign i love burning Kart-Hadast over and OVER and OVER:beam:

[Andy1984]

Ok, your situation looks dire, but not entirely hopeless. Before I can give any real advice, you should tell us your income, for in the end your income (economic breakdown) is more important than the stockpiles of cash that will vanish during the coming years.

I suppose you have decent (i.e. large stone) walls at Mediolanum, Patavium and preferably Massillia. Decent walls in Bononia and Segesta would come in handy too. If you don't have them yet: build them. Build them in Iberia as well, since the AI is pretty retarded in taking cities. They're worth it. When you have large stone walls, more arrows are being shot towards the lightly armoured Sweboz and Lusotanni soldiers, while they can't use ladders. The remaining siege towers can be set ablaze by your foot archers (sotaroas are the cheapest) if there is no other way holding the settlement. A massive amount of slingers (combined with some actual combat units) on stone walls works best when used against the Lusotanni.

My plan (with the little information I have) would be to consolidate Italy by defending it from the North. Avaricum will probably be lost, and the defense might cost you Massilia as well. Three two-third-armies should do to hold northern-Italy (including Massilia). If you loose Massilia: raise a new army in Segesta.
If the Lusotanni have only two provinces, they should be pretty easy to bleed dry, since they can only rely on mercenaries and a mere two units each turn. When you fight them, your objective should be to inflict casualties upon them, while preserving your forces. If you can besiege them (and you're reasonably sure you can hold a sally), do it. This will prevent them from training extra troops. Winning the battles is almost unimportant (except when your defending a city). (My accensi and lasoae have been hurting the Lusotanni for almost a decade by now.) Should the Lusotanni want to storm one of your cities, inflict as many casualties as possible. Within probably less than five years, the full stack armies of the Lusotanni should be dwindled down. Wipe them out when done. :)

I'm not entirely sure how easy it is to stop an Aedui assault into north-Iberia. Maybe you can 'find' some mountain-passages where you have a massive terrain-advantage?

About your eastern frontier (Makedon). It's hard to give any advice. You should ask yourself whether (1) the Sweboz can attack these Illyrian settlements as well. If they can, and war breaks out with the Makedonians while you can't hold on, sacrifice a city like Segestica to the Sweboz hordes. This might convince the Makedonians not to send their full stacks to northern Italy. (2) Whether the costs of your garrissons (and probable reinforcements) is worth the income from these provinces. If you keep them, make sure to build out mines in Dalminion.

About your southern frontier (Carthage) and naval invasions from Makedonia: No withdrawals can be made from Sardin, Sicily or any other island you control. Make sure to have naval superiority, and attack any Carthaginian or Makedonian ship that comes to close. I know, fleets are expensive, but you don't want to sacrifice your islands and trade income either.

good luck,

Andy

[Jebivjetar]

In my Romani Campaign i love burning Kart-Hadast over and OVER and OVER:beam:

Burning some ashes, huh? :beam:

[Macilrille]

Remember the front page of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? On the front page it says, DON'T PANIC!!!

Do not. You are rich and you can build the best armies for European terrain there is. Edited to add The Sweboz are good as well, especially as they have temples adding six lvls of xp, with a Gaming Field that gives them gold chevrons to start out with. but nothing stands up to the Legions of Rome!

Your situation is not at all unusual, it happens all the time. In fact much worse often happens. Personally I have given up on anything but semi-roleplaying. The Res Publica Romana was not gentle on persistent enemies, the "Guide to proper Roman gameplay" is very wrong in that, Romans were IMO the most brutal people in antiquity- perhaps ever. So I try not to blitz and I try to keep to somewhat historical armies, but as the AI is berserk, I slaughter the factions that persists in attacking me, plunder and loot their cities (though not necessarily occupy and keep, just pillage and raze to the ground).

In a situation such as yours, use those Mnai to build up defence and economy and Legions. Then kill off those armies attacking you (you can do it), and raze all neighbouring hostile provinces to the ground. Having Rome sacked by barbarians while your treasury is full is embarrasing to say the least; build your Legions!

Perhaps killing the Lusos, for I can reveal to you that it is only a question of time before the berserk AI attacks you with Macedonia as well, and fighting a two-front war is always frustrating. Even if it happens now; do not despair or panic, you shall prevail.

Roma Vitrix!!!

[Valion]

Burning some ashes, huh? :beam:

:beam:

Ok i think i'l also shed some advice...

In my experience it is the FM that make the difference in any dire situation, no matter how many legions you keep on raising if they are led by idiots then the outcome are all the same. Seeing you have Sooooo much mnai i imagine you having ALOT of FAT, Corrupt and Extravagant FM's! So try and maintain 1 or 2 warmongers every generation. A FM with alot of morale bonuses can make your legions stand-up to any hoard like Brick walls.

In my Campaign i make sure my Generals don't get bored by playing with the Carthaginians in Africa:beam:

[Macilrille]

:beam:

Ok i think i'l also shed some advice...

In my experience it is the FM that make the difference in any dire situation, no matter how many legions you keep on raising if they are led by idiots then the outcome are all the same. Seeing you have Sooooo much mnai i imagine you having ALOT of FAT, Corrupt and Extravagant FM's! So try and maintain 1 or 2 warmongers every generation. A FM with alot of morale bonuses can make your legions stand-up to any hoard like Brick walls.

In my Campaign i make sure my Generals don't get bored by playing with the Carthaginians in Africa:beam:

:2thumbsup: Good advice.

See my advice to Mithridates in the "First Roman Campaign"- thread. It adds more detail.

[DionCaesar]

@Andy
Thx for your suggestion. I didn't yet prepare defenses in nothern Italy, so there are no stone walls there. I used FD to give 2 Sweboz cities to the Arverni and Aedui, so I hope the pressure will decrease. My current income is 25000 (exactly :P), but I think Carthage will be mine in a couple of seasons. Hopefully the Luso's won't go mad in Spain in that time.
As for losing Segestica and Dalminion: I've built mines all over the area, so I'll have to defend them. But it seems the Sweboz are only attacking 1 settlement, they desperately want it back it seems.

@Macilrille
thx for your advice too.. As I said, I try to expand as realistic as possible, but perhaps I have to let that go to save the campaign.. I'll try sending 2 full stacks to Spain so that they can reinforce eachother. That way I won't win any Pyrrhusvictories but will slaughter the Iberians.

Here are some links to screens of the situation:
https://img17.imageshack.us/i/romani1.png/
https://img27.imageshack.us/i/romani2.png/

[DionCaesar]

@ Valion
I know I've got a lot of money, but despite that, many of my familymembers aren't affected by that. There are some rich dudes, but also a couple of guys who are rich but don't change by being rich (forgot the name of that trait :oops:).

About the warmongers: how do I make them want blood? The life of an average familymember in my campaign looks like this:

He comes of age, and immediately travels to Roma to study (or other cities which have a Bibliotheca). So he is not a gouvernor. When he's about 22 he joins the army as a 2nd general (in the current situation (I already lost 5 familymembers to the Lusos and 1 to Sweboz) they are 1st general) and after that, he gouverns important conquered cities or returns to Roma to triumph.

At frontier cities I try to prevent governors from being attundant governors (the movement penalties suck) so they don't get lazy.

[Maion Maroneios]

The only thing I can tell you is good luck, I have no suggestions. It has been a very long time (and a dark one) since I played as the Romaioi. Don't read below if you know me well.

Your position is completely hopeless. There is no power in this world that can or is going to help you, I'm sorry. Trying to win with the Romaioi is like trying to walk towards the Moon. In other words, it is against all laws of Physics.

My suggestion: Delete your savegame and start a new one afresh. Don't make the same mistake of choosing the Romaioi (the EB team should remove them as a playable faction, or better as a faction wholly). If there is at least a small fragment of reason within you, you should choose a proper Hellenic faction. And join my Social Group.

Maion

[DionCaesar]

The only thing I can tell you is good luck, I have no suggestions. It has been a very long time (and a dark one) since I played as the Romaioi. Don't read below if you know me well.

Your position is completely hopeless. There is no power in this world that can or is going to help you, I'm sorry. Trying to win with the Romaioi is like trying to walk towards the Moon. In other words, it is against all laws of Physics.

My suggestion: Delete your savegame and start a new one afresh. Don't make the same mistake of choosing the Romaioi (the EB team should remove them as a playable faction, or better as a faction wholly). If there is at least a small fragment of reason within you, you should choose a proper Hellenic faction. And join my Social Group.

Maion

LOL

I really wonder what you guys got against the Romans :P
Well, for some Romans I can imagine (like Cato or Cassius) you hate them, but if you look at others (Gaius Julius Caesar:2thumbsup:) you can only say: Romans deserved to rule the world. ^^

Maion, what faction are you currently playing, if you're doing an EB campaign at the moment I begin to wonder. Makedonia? Hehe that's just trying to restore forgotten hope. Oh, and I forgot to mention, they got owned too by your Romaioi!

(lol I plan to play Makedonia after I've finished my Romani campaing too, so .. :sweatdrop:)


DionCAESAR

[Cute Wolf]

For your condition now, it seems that all you need is "enemy diet program", well, for the Romaioi you play, you should try to hire some Urodusios (Naked spearmen) to made your line scary to the enemy... that way, you eliminate their advantage over you (some Lusos and Swebozes had 15 morale)... and AFAIK the Romaioi could hire them...

According to your condition, I suggest you to start recruiting more slingers (Iasotae) so you could kill most of those missile allergic barbarians before their filthy hands touch your over shinning armor... and never neglect curepos / gallic light cav... they are your best friends to stab their cousins from the back... Do not bother to train massive Nietos Army, at least for field battle... your Reformed cohort has more men and cheaper... use them for sieges though, as they are better in frontal combat...

Well, that's all u need

[Maion Maroneios]

LOL

I really wonder what you guys got against the Romans :P
Well, for some Romans I can imagine (like Cato or Cassius) you hate them, but if you look at others (Gaius Julius Caesar:2thumbsup:) you can only say: Romans deserved to rule the world. ^^

Maion, what faction are you currently playing, if you're doing an EB campaign at the moment I begin to wonder. Makedonia? Hehe that's just trying to restore forgotten hope. Oh, and I forgot to mention, they got owned too by your Romaioi!

(lol I plan to play Makedonia after I've finished my Romani campaing too, so .. :sweatdrop:)


DionCAESAR
Nothing, it's just an inside-joke between us Romaioktonoi. And yes, I'm playing a Makedonian campaign. And as a matter of fact, I'm hammering your beloved people. Harharhar! Not to mention I control Rome herself. Harharhar!

:clown:

Maion

[DionCaesar]

OMG he dishonoured Roma!

After I've finished my 1.1 Bi.exe Romani campaign, I am, as I said, going to play a Makedonia campaign on 1.2 ALEX.exe. But why don't you just leave the Romans alive? I like real expansion, and Alexander didn't go to the west at all (although it is said that he wanted to conquer Italy and after that cross the Atlantic..?)


Could you Romaioktonoi at least make an exeption in your hatred for Julius Caesar? You must admit, he's above all the other Romans, isn't he? (:laugh4::smash:)


DionCAESAR

[Cute Wolf]

Could you Romaioktonoi at least make an exeption in your hatred for Julius Caesar? You must admit, he's above all the other Romans, isn't he? (:laugh4::smash:)


DionCAESAR

Caesar has some honourable intention, that's true, but:

The only good Romaioi is Octavian, because he tear down the corrupt Republic, a pity his mother force him to had something a child shouldn't get...

The only Romaioi that deserve a pity is Vorenus, who try to protect caesar and find his childrens kidnapped... :smash: HBO says that...

Look at my spoiler in my signature, and u find something...

[Maion Maroneios]

OMG he dishonoured Roma!

After I've finished my 1.1 Bi.exe Romani campaign, I am, as I said, going to play a Makedonia campaign on 1.2 ALEX.exe. But why don't you just leave the Romans alive? I like real expansion, and Alexander didn't go to the west at all (although it is said that he wanted to conquer Italy and after that cross the Atlantic..?)


Could you Romaioktonoi at least make an exeption in your hatred for Julius Caesar? You must admit, he's above all the other Romans, isn't he? (:laugh4::smash:)


DionCAESAR
Dishonoured? I made your polis less smelly by funding public bath places, Asklepieia and so forth. Not to mention I cleared the over-crowded polis by sending half the population to work for my mines in Makedonia and Attike. And yes, Megas Alexandros had plans of conquering Italia and Africa as well.

No exception is to be made for any Romaios. It is true he was a good man and exceptional in warfare, plus he cried when he saw the statue of Megas Alexandros at the age of 19. This shows character, if you ask me. Respect for the superior.

Maion

[Skullheadhq]

That's so true, He cried as he was (at that age, due to the required age to lead an army in the Republic)
a nobody, and Alexander at that age conquered half the world already.

And what did Caesar do, conquer Gaul and stage a coup d'Etat, while Alexandros defeated the most powerful empire the world had ever seen!

[Jebivjetar]

I did read that Caesars book, and i have this in mind:

1) Alexander conquered one big empire, one big enemy.
2) You say that Caesar conquered Gaul: yeah, he did: he conquered it tribe by tribe mostly. He wasnt fighting one big enemy, but many little ones. Galia was disunited, and i'm not sure if Caesar would have achieve what he did if the Gauls were not so naive, childlish and fragmented. Afterall, he did shit his pants when 2-3 tribes were about to unite: and he surely would shit his entire entrails if all the Gauls manage to unite them selves and attack him like they should.

While Alexander did drink one huge bottle, Caesar drinked little cup by little cup.

[Alsatia]

I did read that Caesars book, and i have this in mind:

1) Alexander conquered one big empire, one big enemy.
2) You say that Caesar conquered Gaul: yeah, he did: he conquered it tribe by tribe mostly. He wasnt fighting one big enemy, but many little ones. Galia was disunited, and i'm not sure if Caesar would have achieve what he did if the Gauls were not so naive, childlish and fragmented. Afterall, he did shit his pants when 2-3 tribes were about to unite: and he surely would shit his entire entrails if all the Gauls manage to unite them selves and attack him like they should.

While Alexander did drink one huge bottle, Caesar drinked little cup by little cup.

But even though Alexander had more than a few bottles in his day, he wanted more than what he already had. He could of conquered Roma if he didn't die in Babylon. The empire was too much for his greedy sucessors. Ampition was rife and the greed and ambition was their own undoing. Most of his sucessors struggled with their own portion of their empire yet they (probably) wanted more. They fought a civil war that they would never win.

Sure, Caesar did not get them all at once but it made it much more easier than attacking all those naked men at once. Divide and conquer was far easier. One of the marvellous things about the Roman Empire that Alexander did not have is that it has some form of stability until the late empire. Sure, when Caesar died, there was a squabble, but that did not properly mean the Empire was going to destroy itself anytime soon. The Empire would remain largely intact until the 3rd century. Then greed ,ambition ,corruption, The economy and those Germans brought the west to it's knees)

Caesar did not conquer the world, neither did Alexander, but what they both did chaged the world for the ages afterward.

Alexander, I hold with respect because with the equipment you had in those days, doing that in a lifetime was a great achievement in itself.

All Caesar did was conquer Gaul and start the foundation of the Empire (but Octavian properly started the Empire, as we all know).

[DionCaesar]

But even though Alexander had more than a few bottles in his day, he wanted more than what he already had. He could of conquered Roma if he didn't die in Babylon. The empire was too much for his greedy sucessors. Ampition was rife and the greed and ambition was their own undoing. Most of his sucessors struggled with their own portion of their empire yet they (probably) wanted more. They fought a civil war that they would never win.

Sure, Caesar did not get them all at once but it made it much more easier than attacking all those naked men at once. Divide and conquer was far easier. One of the marvellous things about the Roman Empire that Alexander did not have is that it has some form of stability until the late empire. Sure, when Caesar died, there was a squabble, but that did not properly mean the Empire was going to destroy itself anytime soon. The Empire would remain largely intact until the 3rd century. Then greed ,ambition ,corruption, The economy and those Germans brought the west to it's knees)

Caesar did not conquer the world, neither did Alexander, but what they both did chaged the world for the ages afterward.

Alexander, I hold with respect because with the equipment you had in those days, doing that in a lifetime was a great achievement in itself.

All Caesar did was conquer Gaul and start the foundation of the Empire (but Octavian properly started the Empire, as we all know).

Do you truly think that Alexander would be able to manage such empire on his own? The fact that his successors couldn't do it with like 100 men, only reinforces that, imho.
Alexander would have been a war criminal: why would he attack Italians or Africans? OK, Persia just asked for it, but he went further and further, in his naive dream of being the conqueror of the world.

Caesar, on the contrary, attacked the Gauls because they were becoming a treat to the Romans. Besides that, Ariovistus was about to become too powerfull. Caesar had political plans for an Empire, and to realise those plans, he had to be on the top position of it. The republic didn't move on in time.

About the conquests: Caesar has won more battles than Alexander, more difficult battles and even against his own equals (Pompey's legions). Alexander fought Barbaroi (the Persians) and some Indians, when his army wanted him to go back. When that happened to Caesar, he just reversed the situation and made his soldiers beg him to take them with him (to Africa that was at the time).
After his military successes, Caesar reorganized Roman laws and gave the people what should be theirs. IDK what Alexander did with his power, but I'm very sure it was less significant than what Caesar did.


DionCaesar

[Skullheadhq]

Don't think so.
Caesar might be a better politician but Alexander was a military genius, even more then Caesar.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Don't know. Caesar's also fought enemies who had the same kind of troops he has, led by a VERY skilled general, very close to him in military skills. Alexander didn't face any worthy enemy who led another hammer-and-anvil makedonian army. I consider it a military genius because he ALSO defeated the nomads, because most of the hammer-and-anvil tactic had been developed by his father.

Caesar didn't fought nomads as well as Alexander didn't face makedonian army and tactics and military skilled generals. I think they are comparable.


TOTALLY false that Alexander fought a united enemy. Persian army was a freaking puzzle led by a military idiot. Persian satraps turned against Darius many times, and ultimately killed him. Alexander took the entire Egypt without fight, after the fall of Tyrus IIRC.

Also, Alexander totally failed in creating a united empire: he could never keep its conquests even if he didn't die so young. His Successors were very very skilled men, but failed too. Taking down the Persian Empire was a very delicate matter, and Alexander lacked the patience and the political skill needed.

[Maion Maroneios]

Alexander had a plan of creating a Greek-Iranian Empire by setting forth massive movement of populations between Greece and Asia. If his plan worked, many scholars debate things would have been way more stable. And nobody neglects Alexander was at least one level above Caesar. Even if I wasn't Greek myself, I would have said the same. Just compare the works of the two.

And it's foolish to say Alexander was not a skilled politician. The very fact he was able to bring the world's largest Empire to its knees with relatively "small" effort (compared to the size of the Persian Empire) is already a massive feat in itself. Not to mention the undying (even to our days) legacy he left behind. His fame streches further than any other man has ever achieved, and his fame will remain for many more years to come.

Maion

[Jebivjetar]

TOTALLY false that Alexander fought a united enemy. Persian army was a freaking puzzle led by a military idiot. Persian satraps turned against Darius many times, and ultimately killed him. Alexander took the entire Egypt without fight, after the fall of Tyrus IIRC.



AFAIK, His (Darius) satraps turned against him when they realized that he i s loosing, that Alexander is going to change many things from the roots. But the fact is that Darius did had oportunities to assemble some huge armies and not only once. Gauls are entirely different story, and they never had any real leader who would lead them united against Cesar. That is my point when i say that Alexander conquered united enemy.

When Cesar demolished one army, he had no further problems with entire tribe. Alexander on the other hand was fighting one man (Darius) in several occasions.

After all, it's something magic in Alexander what inspires me today (and in Hannibal of course). Cesar, for me, doesn't have anything magicalal in him and he belongs to some other type of a "genius". But he was a great man of his time, of course.

[Valion]

I think you should all stop debating who was better of the 2, they were leaders of different times and not to mention different locations. Alexander gained his glory in the East when the phalanx was new technology thus the Persians didn't have the knowledge to counter it other than charging head on to their deaths. Same goes with Caesar his fame mostly came from conquering Gaul where again the Roman Legion was relatively new strategy where the Gauls had no answer other than head-on fighting. Both armies were lethal in open field and both generals where very adaptable. So comparing who was the better general is unrealistic, comparing generals should be done like Scipio and Hannibal people of the same Era not to mention they actually fought and tried to kill each other.

As for Legacy i think both are equally great, Caesars name was honored by all Emperors that followed by bearing his name plus the Russian Czar Derived from Caesar. As for Alexander he has the City of Alexandria and his name forever bore "The Great"

Both Men WERE GREAT! leave it at that. I respect them both as i respect Hannibal even though i hate Carthage to the Guts :beam:

[Jebivjetar]

I didn't want to compare Alexander and that barbarian dude named Cesar anyway, i just wanted to write some thoughts of mine :beam:

[Valion]

I didn't want to compare Alexander and that barbarian dude named Cesar anyway, i just wanted to write some thoughts of mine :beam:

So lets compare Alexander and Hannibal then :beam:

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Alexander had a plan of creating a Greek-Iranian Empire by setting forth massive movement of populations between Greece and Asia. If his plan worked, many scholars debate things would have been way more stable.

This is something very very difficoult to do. To transfer so much greeks so far away is a logistic nightmare, and there's no evidence that it could be possible.

Anyway, it's a very-long-term plan, how could he keep the empire until that?




And nobody neglects Alexander was at least one level above Caesar. Even if I wasn't Greek myself, I would have said the same. Just compare the works of the two.

I'm sorry, i'm doing that and i'm not alone.




And it's foolish to say Alexander was not a skilled politician. The very fact he was able to bring the world's largest Empire to its knees with relatively "small" effort (compared to the size of the Persian Empire) is already a massive feat in itself.

Maion

This is NOT political skill. It's strategic genius, which i NEVER say Alexander lacked.

Political skill is completely different, and sure Alexander wasn't as skilled as Caesar. Caesar was NOT the undisputed king of his kingdom. He had to face a hostile Senate and dangerous rivals. Alexander didn't.



Not to mention the undying (even to our days) legacy he left behind.

Ahem... his empire crumbled in a few years after his death. His SUccessors fought for decades against each other, and then fell one after another. Nothing of their "legacy" and their culture survived until our days. Even in the Roman Era there was very little left, as PArthians and other Asian people took over what had left of the successors.



His fame streches further than any other man has ever achieved, and his fame will remain for many more years to come.

I'm sorry this is a personal opinion. Many many people just don't think so, just look at the topic about the "top 5 ancient celebrities".





AFAIK, His (Darius) satraps turned against him when they realized that he i s loosing, that Alexander is going to change many things from the roots. But the fact is that Darius did had oportunities to assemble some huge armies and not only once. Gauls are entirely different story, and they never had any real leader who would lead them united against Cesar. That is my point when i say that Alexander conquered united enemy.

I already said that Darius' huge armies were nothing more than a patchwork of different cultures and peoples. Orders had to be translated in a dozen languages to reach every unit, and i suppose you know HOW this could affect a battle outcome.




When Cesar demolished one army, he had no further problems with entire tribe. Alexander on the other hand was fighting one man (Darius) in several occasions.

One Vercingetorix counts for about 10 Darius. An army of sheeps led by a Lion will beat an army of lion led by a sheep. And Gauls were not "sheeps".




After all, it's something magic in Alexander what inspires me today (and in Hannibal of course). Cesar, for me, doesn't have anything magicalal in him and he belongs to some other type of a "genius". But he was a great man of his time, of course.

Personal opinions, i will never force you to love Caesar instead than Alexander. :beam:

Alexander had a mythic aura around him, that's true. His magnifical campaign sure had been one of the greatest of all the History, no doubt :yes:

Caesar had a more "practical" view of war, and sure he was less charismatic. I appreciate it, some people don't :2thumbsup:




I think you should all stop debating who was better of the 2, they were leaders of different times and not to mention different locations. Alexander gained his glory in the East when the phalanx was new technology thus the Persians didn't have the knowledge to counter it other than charging head on to their deaths. Same goes with Caesar his fame mostly came from conquering Gaul where again the Roman Legion was relatively new strategy where the Gauls had no answer other than head-on fighting. Both armies were lethal in open field and both generals where very adaptable. So comparing who was the better general is unrealistic, comparing generals should be done like Scipio and Hannibal people of the same Era not to mention they actually fought and tried to kill each other.

You forget that Caesar fought armies very similar to his own one. That's why i think it's military skills are at least equals to alex's ones.



As for Legacy i think both are equally great, Caesars name was honored by all Emperors that followed by bearing his name plus the Russian Czar Derived from Caesar. As for Alexander he has the City of Alexandria and his name forever bore "The Great"

:yes:



Both Men WERE GREAT! leave it at that. I respect them both as i respect Hannibal even though i hate Carthage to the Guts

The Great Triad: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar :egypt: i respect them too

[DionCaesar]

The Great Triad: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar :egypt: i respect them too

I agree on that for sure. It just that Caesar came from nothing. He built up everything he had, himself! He managed to win the mob for him, which Alexander didn't even have to do (he simply was heir to the throne), he made connections in the political theatre, he had an ability of seeing who could do what for him, he had magnificent orginasational skills (which Alexander probably had as well), he had a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve, he wanted to do that for Rome, and for nothing else (when he conquered Gaul, the value of a gold bar devaluated with nearly 35%, which indicates how rich he was, so he didn't need any more money --> he had everything he wished). Besides, Caesar had to fight on multiple fronts several times. First of course in Gaul, and after that he had to choose between Spain or Greece to fight his wars.

When Caesar's life ended, the Roman world had changed enourmously. When Alexander died, the same happened in the Hellenic world. Caesar won a battle with about 50.000 soldiers versus an enemy that had 250.000 men. Alexander didn't win being that much outnumbered. Caesars victory at Alesia is still considered the most brilliant victory of military history.


Last but not least, Caesar made himself be eternal. The fact that we know everything he did, is because of his propaganda. Perhaps the victories weren't as great as he wants us to believe, but nearly everyone does think they are that great. Only a few people (you guys :P) doubt it. This is what he wanted and what he used propaganda for. Caesar also managed to stay on the 'clean' side at all times. The law is always with him (not counting one thing he once did to Cato), and the people know it. He just manages to put himself in the spotlight at the correct time. That really is something we can compare to modern politics and which rarely occurs.

Ok, I'm very sorry that I'm that pro-Caesar, I was sceptic about him once too, but after having read 3 biographies about him, I'm kinda convinced :P.

Vale Amices!


DionCaesar

[lionhard]

I cant even believe ceaser is being compared to alexander wake up please :furious3:

[DionCaesar]

I cant even believe ceaser is being compared to alexander wake up please :furious3:

I totally agree with you ;-)

Caesar is so magnus, he even refused that title. Such modesty is only shown by the greatest :P

hehe:laugh4:



DionCaesar

[DaciaJC]

Or rather, stay on topic, please. :yes:

[Valion]

I think Caesar compared to Alexander has the upper hand of having a VERY good successor, Octavian helped Immortalize Caesars name and his goal of a better Rome unlike Alexanders successors who carved his empire into different realms for themselves rather than fighting to unify a stronger Macedonian empire.

Ooh and yes we've all veered off-topic hehehe

[lionhard]

Alexander ftw! lol

[DionCaesar]

Or rather, stay on topic, please. :yes:

lol after this fierce discussion I don't expect much more advise on my Romani problem :P lol

Still a very nice new topic, really a pity I can't change the inital topic name.

[Jebivjetar]

[QUOTE=Mikhail Mengsk;2293101]




I already said that Darius' huge armies were nothing more than a patchwork of different cultures and peoples. Orders had to be translated in a dozen languages to reach every unit, and i suppose you know HOW this could affect a battle outcome.

We were not talking about battles outcome, but about differences between Gallic tribes and Persian empire. :idea2:
Persian armies, no matter of their ethnicity fought for one master, for Darius, in the name of Persian empire.
Gallic tribes, on the other hand, fought for themselves. Each tribe fought a battle, then they loose and were conquered or pushed back. Persian empire did not fall after one battle.

Is it more clear now?










Personal opinions, i will never force you to love Caesar instead than Alexander. :beam:

Of course they are personal. Can they be impersonal?? But it's ok to share a psychological lesion i guess. Someone will surely discover brand new world in it.

[Jebivjetar]

So lets compare Alexander and Hannibal then :beam:

You can always do that and write it in your book. Don't propose something: DO IT!

(btw this is not commercial for Nike shoes) :clown:

[Alsatia]

Personal opinions, i will never force you to love Caesar instead than Alexander.:beam:

Of course they are personal. Can they be impersonal?? But it's ok to share a psychological lesion i guess. Someone will surely discover brand new world in it.

Agreed.

This topic is getting out of hand....

Oh, and one more thing.....

:dancinglock:

[Mikhail Mengsk]

We were not talking about battles outcome, but about differences between Gallic tribes and Persian empire. :idea2:
Persian armies, no matter of their ethnicity fought for one master, for Darius, in the name of Persian empire.
Gallic tribes, on the other hand, fought for themselves.

Each tribe fought a battle, then they loose and were conquered or pushed back. Persian empire did not fall after one battle.

They formed leagues and alliances, like Vercingetorix did.

Also, they fought for their freedom, they were highly motivated. Non-persian levies weren't. Ethnicity counts, as long as your chief is your oppressor instead that your leader. We saw how they were willing to die for their leaders at Issus and Gaugamela.




Persian empire did not fall after one battle.


It fell after two XD

[chenkai11]

Excuse me, I want to start a Romani campaign. Is this a Romani Campaign thread? So I can get some tips and advice.

:oops: Oh... I noticed I am in a wrong thread.

[satalexton]

well u start by painting yourself red, cuz them red wunz goes fasta.

Then u grab a big shield, da grots call it the thueros, da boyz call it the scuta. You shud paint it red too.

To kill them humies, u use the stabba-choppa. 'Em humie slaves in the mines dubbed it da gladius, silly grots.

For sport, before you go all close an' personal with one big WAAAGHHHHH!!! throw un' or two of those pointy sticks. Them humie grots don't like it. Careful tho, itz make um' red. Red makes um' want to run fasta.

Anv' remember, we Romaies is never defeated in battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fighting so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see! WAAAGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

They formed leagues and alliances, like Vercingetorix did.

Also, they fought for their freedom, they were highly motivated. Non-persian levies weren't. Ethnicity counts, as long as your chief is your oppressor instead that your leader. We saw how they were willing to die for their leaders at Issus and Gaugamela.





It fell after two XD
Actually, after three :clown:.

[Cute Wolf]

Excuse me, I want to start a Romani campaign. Is this a Romani Campaign thread? So I can get some tips and advice.

:oops: Oh... I noticed I am in a wrong thread.

Eng... I was also Romaioktonaios, but at least a new members shouldn't get that bashing so hard... fellow philos... they only want an advice, and we does give an advice.... for those who sorely needed, because we still a civilized persons... :smile:

Well, actually Romaioi is one of a few factions that start with advantage (the first is KartHadast)... so keep pumping some troops and play with quality, and all would be easy, just try to take them slowly....

Waarrrrggghhhh..... BURN BARBAROPOLIS!!!!!!!

Oh, there was another threat to your pitiful barbaropolis... just made sure you keep some quantity of Hastati inside italia if you play with BI or Alex, because the AI often launch naval invasion... and taking Taras as quickly as possible is highly recommended, in case the Epeirotes want to grind you down under their elephant's feet.

Waaarrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh........... BUUURRRNNN BARRRBARRRROOOOPPOOLLLIIISSSSSSS!!!!!!

Soory, I couldn't stop myself to not saying that...

In before teh lockz... hope this thread won't be locked. Cute Wolf :skull:

[Alsatia]

This is getting to be more of a rome vs everyone else rant thread than an advice thread....

Thanks Cute Wolf for giving at least some advice.


Taking Taras is highly recommended, as you stop any rouge Epeirot army moving up Italia. Try expanding south until you get Lillibeo from the Carthies (if you want to get Africa early), then move north to kill those gallic tribes. And watch out for those Gaesatae in Bononia and the Po Valley.

Or, risk debt, get a full stack and sack Pella, for mines and whatnot. Kill all of those surrounding Hellenes as well. Just avoid their long pointy things....


Dear Moderator.....
:dancinglock:

[chenkai11]

Actually, I am trying to tell everyone the thread is getting off track. Instead of Romani campaign advice, it's more on "hey, Alexander is better than Caesar". :beam:

[Alsatia]

Exactly my point.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

:dancinglock: