What are your cheapest core units to defeat Rome?

Let's say you set out on a campaign (difficulty H/H) aiming to obliterate Roman Republic and ultimately conquer the city of Rome. You pick your favourite faction. You tinker with your generals little bit. You give Rome a few decades time to fully develop and get some reforms. Then you start your ultimate campaign of all campaigns. You will face full stack after full stack army built around principes, pedites extraordinarii or legionary cohorts.

What are the cheapest units you feel confident to use as core of your armies in order to consistently defeat Roman armies you will face? Why?

Can't go wrong with a lot of the widely-available Greek roster for your infantry (who are both regionals and mercenaries): Classical Hoplites and Thureophoroi. Add in some mercenary/levy phalanxes to hold the centre, and that's a cheap, yet sturdy, battle line. Honourable mention to Keltohellenikoi, who are equivalent to Thureophoroi. For skirmishing Peltastai and Kretan Archers, again cheap, common and effective. For that all important ranged anti-armour role, Iaosatae. Especially good for assassinating Roman FMs before the clash, though make sure you keep them well away from any fighting.

For cavalry, Curepos/Leuce Epos are the best mediums around (and again both cheap and mercenary). Javelins for harassment, excellent stamina, lances to close when you've worn the enemy down. You can have three of them for every two elites you might have bought and they're much more useful. If you can't get them, Thracian Light Cavalry isn't bad either, again it's the AP weapons that make all the difference.

all what surena had at the battle of carrhae

go with germn baseball bats they are cheap and effective

Carthage has all you need and you don't even have to think about cavalry too much. And you can throw in a few elites whose upkeep won't break your economy since they won't be coming to Rome from very far. Roman infantry is cheap and well armored. The best and surest way to deal is the typical frontal infantry engagement coupled with a cavalry charge to the flank or rear. Any other scheme takes too much effort and micromanagement. The Carthaginian roster's core mix is the obvious solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Carthage has all you need and you don't even have to think about cavalry too much. And you can throw in a few elites whose upkeep won't break your economy since they won't be coming to Rome from very far. Roman infantry is cheap and well armored. The best and surest way to deal is the typical frontal infantry engagement coupled with a cavalry charge to the flank or rear. Any other scheme takes too much effort and micromanagement. The Carthaginian roster's core mix is the obvious solution.

---

Funny you mention Qart-Hadast, some of their core roster are imitations of the same Greek units I mentioned upthread, meaning you can mix and match/replace with mercenaries as you go. Hanatim Libim (Libyan Spearmen) are Thureophoroi/Keltohellenikoi and Dorkim Libi-Ponnim (Liby-Phoenician Infantry) are Classical Hoplitai. As an aside, Hanatim Libim Kdedim (Libyan Heavy Spearmen) are Thorakitai.

Balaeric Slingers are even better than Iaosatae.

Siluri skirmishers and Cwmyr. Supported by Belgian cavalry of course...

First, I played some campaigns with diadochi (AS, Makedonia). When facing Romans on battlefield, it happened several times that they massed all their Principes infantry in the centre. After a while of pushing the mass on my solid line of pikemen, even the core Pezhetairoi lost numbers in the few criticial center units that broked and fled. My cavalry flanking maneuvres were then not the usual winning strike any more but rather securing just some kind of a draw ...

Later on in my Arverni campaign, I used Bataroas (Northern Gallic Swordsmen) as the core, complemented with a unit of Solduros, a unit of Gaesatae, plus some light cavalry. That usually worked fine, almost never losing battles. The FM reached Italy from the north on his avenger trip via the Alps. Later on, I built second army around slightly cheaper Botroas (Southern Gallic Swordsmen) in order to make logistics easier and took off on the route from Massilia to Italy. To my surprise, I was defeated on multiple occassions, and forced to rebuild this army again and again.

Then I started to wonder what units will do just fine and what units will not ... curious about your experience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

First, I played some campaigns with diadochi (AS, Makedonia). When facing Romans on battlefield, it happened several times that they massed all their Principes infantry in the centre. After a while of pushing the mass on my solid line of pikemen, even the core Pezhetairoi lost numbers in the few criticial center units that broked and fled. My cavalry flanking maneuvres were then not the usual winning strike any more but rather securing just some kind of a draw ...

---

A significant part of the problem is that you're playing on Hard battle difficulty; the bonuses given to the AI virtually negate the problems they should be having going at a phalanx from the front.

Otherwise I'd say don't rely solely on your cavalry to flank, Thureophoroi/Thorakitai are much more mobile than your phalanxes, and equal to the task of matching Romans in melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

Later on in my Arverni campaign, I used Bataroas (Northern Gallic Swordsmen) as the core, complemented with a unit of Solduros, a unit of Gaesatae, plus some light cavalry. That usually worked fine, almost never losing battles. The FM reached Italy from the north on his avenger trip via the Alps. Later on, I built second army around slightly cheaper Botroas (Southern Gallic Swordsmen) in order to make logistics easier and took off on the route from Massilia to Italy. To my surprise, I was defeated on multiple occassions, and forced to rebuild this army again and again.

Then I started to wonder what units will do just fine and what units will not ... curious about your experience?

---

The standard Celtic units don't have armour, which means they can't survive prolonged melee with well-armoured Romans. The only common, non-elite Celtic unit that fits the bill are Keltohellenikoi who are great in numbers for holding the centre. Certainly better suited than Botroas/Bataroas or Gaeroas/Gaelaiche. Otherwise you're into elites like Solduros or Neitos.

the northern gaul swordman is already elite as it is they are a kind of carnutes and i do love them greatly even tough they tend to drive me to the red more often then not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

the northern gaul swordman is already elite as it is they are a kind of carnutes and i do love them greatly even tough they tend to drive me to the red more often then not

---

Bataroas have even less armour than Camillian Hastati, so even if you consider them "elite", they won't last in prolonged contact with even the lightest Roman line troops. Even the Golberi Curoas aren't equally armoured, though they just top out the Camillian Hastati in total defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Bataroas have even less armour than Camillian Hastati, so even if you consider them "elite", they won't last in prolonged contact with even the lightest Roman line troops. Even the Golberi Curoas aren't equally armoured, though they just top out the Camillian Hastati in total defense.

---

But the charge bonuses! The lethality score! Slam a roman formation with these bad boys and watch them flee. Keltoi victories have to come quick or they won't come at all. Trick is to rout the romans as quickly as possible, Brihentin make good FM killers, Gaeroas and Gailache are best used to draw enemies into traps or as light reserves, Gallic elites are too pricey to use against anything but enemy elites. But Bataroas should be thrown into the enemy as soon as possible.
Keltoi don't do hammer and anvil, they use chisel and hammer instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodeni

But the charge bonuses! The lethality score! Slam a roman formation with these bad boys and watch them flee. Keltoi victories have to come quick or they won't come at all. Trick is to rout the romans as quickly as possible, Brihentin make good FM killers, Gaeroas and Gailache are best used to draw enemies into traps or as light reserves, Gallic elites are too pricey to use against anything but enemy elites. But Bataroas should be thrown into the enemy as soon as possible.
Keltoi don't do hammer and anvil, they use chisel and hammer instead.

---

You don't get quick routs on Hard battle difficulty, there's a coded bonus to both defense and morale (and Romans already have high morale). So unless you're fighting a stack led by a captain, they'll be sticking around.

When dealing with Romani there are imho just two vertitable courses of action:

Carrhae - Romani lack cavalry and don't have as many spearmen as most factions, so Heavy cavalry(or any lancer, cuepos, Illyrioi hippeis....) ideally supported by horsearchers.

Teutoburg forest - Romani sport large numbers of heavily armoured units but don't have a lot of archers, so getting lots of "weak" armour piercing units with nor armour can be rather usefull.

When in doubt add slingers and levy hoplites/Phalangites, but that's "Win EB 101".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackfruitguy69

all what surena had at the battle of carrhae

---

YeS ExactlY !!

all those Veteran Armies they could not cross Mesopotamia! because Parthians were tactican & powerful!

and they could not cross Syria! because Sassanids were highly Veteran and Advanced Equal to rome and even better!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Funny you mention Qart-Hadast, some of their core roster are imitations of the same Greek units I mentioned upthread, meaning you can mix and match/replace with mercenaries as you go. Hanatim Libim (Libyan Spearmen) are Thureophoroi/Keltohellenikoi and Dorkim Libi-Ponnim (Liby-Phoenician Infantry) are Classical Hoplitai. As an aside, Hanatim Libim Kdedim (Libyan Heavy Spearmen) are Thorakitai.

Balaeric Slingers are even better than Iaosatae.

---

It's the cavalry that makes the difference. I love the Hellenic rosters too, but cheap core units to defeat the Romans are to be found more readily in Carthage. Besides... Xanthippos may join the fight so you get the best of both worlds! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

It's the cavalry that makes the difference. I love the Hellenic rosters too, but cheap core units to defeat the Romans are to be found more readily in Carthage. Besides... Xanthippos may join the fight so you get the best of both worlds! :)

---

True, they do have a much better cavalry choice than any of the Greek factions. One thing they do miss are Peltastai, who are extremely useful and cheap, but they're a mercenary unit widely available, so not a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

YeS ExactlY !!

all those Veteran Armies they could not cross Mesopotamia! because Parthians were tactican & powerful!

and they could not cross Syria! because Sassanids were highly Veteran and Advanced Equal to rome and even better!

---

thats why the romans burned the persian capital on 2 ocasions

crassus made a mistake when he trusted his scouts and was missinformed about the kind of catrphact he would be facing since he assumed he would be facing armenian cathraphacts wich weren´t as armoured or disciplined as the parthians

also the parthians inovated with their camel caravan suply train or they would be out of arrows and forced to face the romans in melee before they where in disaray

After fighting battles with hellenistic phalanx for some time, slow and cumbersome heavy tool for steamrolling anything - if you can catch it - I switched to celtic more flexible style. Though at first, I used those units more like any regular swordsman until I discovered their charge. For those less patient generals among us - charge is the answer! Enemies tremble in fear when they see us. And where the fighting is the thickiest - Gaesatae is the answer!

Anyway, speaking about units available to celtic factions, I was actually impressed by Massilian Hoplites - they can stand to Roman legions in normal circumstances. On the other hand, the other naked unit Uiruduisios was rather dissapointment, they broked and fled even when facing some regular celtic units. But I never actually tried Celtic Axemen - does the armor piercing ability make a difference against against Romans? And Helvetii Phalanx, how do they fare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

On the other hand, the other naked unit Uiruduisios was rather dissapointment, they broked and fled even when facing some regular celtic units.

---

They're a support unit, never use them as frontline troops. They should be standing behind your main line, lobbing javelins. They're also great for flanking enemy units. Basically like chariots, but easier to use.

Quote:

---

But I never actually tried Celtic Axemen - does the armor piercing ability make a difference against against Romans?

---

Definitely. On top of being strong against armour, Celtic Axemen are one of the most versatile units in the game.

Quote:

---

And Helvetii Phalanx, how do they fare?

---

Unsurprisingly well. Both the Helveti phalanx and the "Alpine" phalanx spearmen are very useful, especially for Celtic factions. The latter even have axes, making them a dual purpose unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

Anyway, speaking about units available to celtic factions, I was actually impressed by Massilian Hoplites - they can stand to Roman legions in normal circumstances.

---

Really? I've found them a good deal less capable than Keltohellenikoi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Really? I've found them a good deal less capable than Keltohellenikoi.

---

I just play around with Arverni campaign, trying to awake the "Celtic Storm" that once plundered Roma. Recently conquered Massilia. So in time, I will try once more both Keltohellenikoi and Massilian Hoplite against legions. Will let you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

I just play around with Arverni campaign, trying to awake the "Celtic Storm" that once plundered Roma. Recently conquered Massilia. So in time, I will try once more both Keltohellenikoi and Massilian Hoplite against legions. Will let you know.

---

Out of interest, are these Camillian or Polybian legions? Keltohellenikoi seem pretty well-matched to Camillian Hastati and even Principes, but the heavier-armoured Polybian variants are much more durable.

Personally, I find it difficult to fight Romans as Gauls without axemen or other AP infantry. Reason being, Triarii (especially Camillan era), Pedites Extraordinarii, and Polybian Principes are very difficult to kill if all you have is spearmen and swordsmen. Sure, you have slingers and lancers for an AP punch, but they can't slug it out in melee. And slingers are notoriously bad at killing 4+ shield units from the front, and difficult to manoeuver around on the battlefield. Plus it's lame to spam those units. While Bataroas are the main killer unit in Gallic armies, you should always bring some Appea Gaedotos or Teceitos, or even Tekastos or Asturian axemen when fighting Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Personally, I find it difficult to fight Romans as Gauls without axemen or other AP infantry. Reason being, Triarii (especially Camillan era), Pedites Extraordinarii, and Polybian Principes are very difficult to kill if all you have is spearmen and swordsmen. Sure, you have slingers and lancers for an AP punch, but they can't slug it out in melee.

---

In my experience, barbarian armies in Europe have the combination of speed, stamina and enhanced charge bonus as their greatest combat advantage. They don't hold the line against the Romans or anyone else... most of the time there is no line. They can however run their way to victory through any plan. They can team up on individual units that will rout and eventually get to the ones that don't usually rout, such as the Triarii and Pedites. Furthermore, most barbarian infantry units have a +8 charge bonus, while there are "freaks" with +10 or even +12 at reasonable prices, coming soon to a store near you! Outrun! Outcharge! Barbarize Barbarorum!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

In my experience, barbarian armies in Europe have the combination of speed, stamina and enhanced charge bonus as their greatest combat advantage. They don't hold the line against the Romans or anyone else... most of the time there is no line. They can however run their way to victory through any plan. They can team up on individual units that will rout and eventually get to the ones that don't usually rout, such as the Triarii and Pedites. Furthermore, most barbarian infantry units have a +8 charge bonus, while there are "freaks" with +10 or even +12 at reasonable prices, coming soon to a store near you! Outrun! Outcharge! Barbarize Barbarorum!!!

---

Well I'm currently playing a Sweboz campaign and they CAN definitely hold a line ;),even a against roman heavy infantry:
I usually pin them down with Dugundiz or Speudogordoz and use Clubmen to to kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thoras

Well I'm currently playing a Sweboz campaign and they CAN definitely hold a line ;),even a against roman heavy infantry:
I usually pin them down with Dugundiz or Speudogordoz and use Clubmen to to kill them.

---

Speudogordoz are among the best Germanic infantry units, not "cheapest core". The principle is correct of course: gang up on them. However, if you are holding the line the attacker does the choosing. Why waiver that prerogative with a fast, high-stamina, barking band of beer-drunken and bloodthirsty Jerrys?
I would not really expect the Dugundiz to hold a line toe to toe against principes (which are pretty much same-tier units) under normal circumstances. But whatever floats your boat :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Speudogordoz are among the best Germanic infantry units, not "cheapest core". The principle is correct of course: gang up on them. However, if you are holding the line the attacker does the choosing. Why waiver that prerogative with a fast, high-stamina, barking band of beer-drunken and bloodthirsty Jerrys?
I would not really expect the Dugundiz to hold a line toe to toe against principes (which are pretty much same-tier units) under normal circumstances. But whatever floats your boat :)

---

It works if you block the Javelins ,with jugundiz, they can actually hold them with minimal losses,but most of my troops have 3 exp on default and my current main army(new campaign) has only silver chevrons.
Oh and they aren't holding the line for a long time I usually flank immediately,when fighting opponents with low morale I usually charge the enemy ;).

Quote:

---

Speudogordoz are among the best Germanic infantry units, not "cheapest core".

---

Yeah I usually have only dugundiz ;) and the most of killing is done by the Slaganz .
But honestly by the time you get them you usually have enough money.~;) ,my main point was that they can hold the line especially the Dacians and Sweboz.

Just looking over the Qarthadastim roster again, and noting more Greek imitations; this time Parasim Libi-Ponnim (Liby-Phoenician Cavalry), who are Lonchophoroi Hippeis.

I wonder if I should just stow my dislike of AI Rome and give a Qart-Hadast game a go, just once...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I wonder if I should just stow my dislike of AI Rome and give a Qart-Hadast game a go, just once...

---

Hmm I always though that it was too easy :Lot's of money and really good troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thoras

Hmm I always though that it was too easy :Lot's of money and really good troops.

---

It is too easy, but it's really fun to play if you role play and take your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

It is too easy, but it's really fun to play if you role play and take your time.

---

As people should know by now, I only ever take my time. I have no interest whatsoever in blitzing and finishing the game in 50 turns. I spent 50 turns just getting started in my migrated-Epeiros Bosporan Kingdom game.

Mostly what puts me off is being faced with stacks of not even remotely historical Romans (all Triarii, or all Leves), deployed in an ahistorical way too (a double line, no hint of a quincunx). Also the mix of Camillian and Polybian troops later on as they don't disband anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

As people should know by now, I only ever take my time.

---

Very sorry... I didn't know... by now. But is that historically accurate? Did Quintus Sertorius take his time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Very sorry... I didn't know... by now. But is that historically accurate? Did Quintus Sertorius take his time?

---

Quintus Sertorius didn't have a lot of time! :)

I think I've talked myself out of a Qart-Hadast game already. I just like the Greek roster, especially in random places that don't have formal factions (Massalia, Pergamon, the Bosporan Kingdom, Kyrene, Syrakousai, etc) in EB1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Out of interest, are these Camillian or Polybian legions? Keltohellenikoi seem pretty well-matched to Camillian Hastati and even Principes, but the heavier-armoured Polybian variants are much more durable.

---

In my previous Arverni campaign, I focused more on role-playing, expanded slower, just enjoying game. So that when I invaded Italy between 230-220 BC fighting Romani, my Bataroas/Botroas faced already Polybian legions. At that time, also for roleplaying, I focused more on Celtic units and rather skipped Celto-Hellenic units, using them fron necessity only. In order to compensate the lightly armored regular Celtic infantry, I used the combo of smith / temple / field of games, boosting Bataroas from attack 10 / defence 20 to 13/23 stats. Plus giving the general some experience chasing rebels before engaging in any serious campaign against Romani.

In this Arverni campaign, just for a change, I wanted to rush more, expand faster in all directions, particularly to Italy, in order to fully assimilate conquered regions (as the Celts miss the highest tier cities). Sack Roma on the way, following Brennus in 390 BC. Reaching Sicily and Gibraltar ASAP. That was the plan anyway.

The year is 246 BC. Until now, I united Gaul though being slowed down by crappy economy and under-populated cities, delaying Celtic reforms even further. The Aedui are still alive and kicking, holding Mediolanum, fielding also Gaesatae quite frequently, attacking Massilia and Viennos. The Sweboz expanded towards Belgium, holding half of it. I allied with them, in the hope the war on this front could be postponed few decades, as expansion in this direction is currently not in my interest. And my economy cannot bear to feed another army.

In the meantime, I got distracted from my plan by treacherous QH attacking Emporion, having to divert my troops into Hispania. Among the strategic difficulties playing Arverni, aside from crappy economy and low population, is the necessity to (sooner or later) wage war on 3 fronts against up to 5 factions.

This time, fortunately, at least the Romani diverted from their usual attacks on Massilia for the time being (temporary relief, for sure), and focused their attention on expansion north-east, taking Patavium and later Segesta (hopefully). Since the year is 246 BC, they still field Camillan legions. The proportion of Triarii and Pedites Extraordinarii starts to worry me. Sooner or later, my lightly armored Celtic units will have to face them, and the outlook to protracted melee is not promising ...

Attachment 12834

The repeated Aedui attacks starts to get annoying, I am thinking on wiping them out soon. Perhaps, while they besiege Massilia, I could mount a surprise attack on Mediolanum via the Alps. Since Mediolanum is their only region, this would finish them off. What do you think?

Attachment 12835

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Personally, I find it difficult to fight Romans as Gauls without axemen or other AP infantry. Reason being, Triarii (especially Camillan era), Pedites Extraordinarii, and Polybian Principes are very difficult to kill if all you have is spearmen and swordsmen. Sure, you have slingers and lancers for an AP punch, but they can't slug it out in melee. And slingers are notoriously bad at killing 4+ shield units from the front, and difficult to manoeuver around on the battlefield. Plus it's lame to spam those units. While Bataroas are the main killer unit in Gallic armies, you should always bring some Appea Gaedotos or Teceitos, or even Tekastos or Asturian axemen when fighting Romans.

---

Yep, similar experience here. As far as I can remember from my previous Arverni campaign, units like Triarii and Pedites Extraordinarii always stood in the melee for very long time, and were among the last to break and rout.

Regarding Celtic Slingers, I fought a tight battle against Aedui near Massilia last night. First, I was actually losing, until my 2 FMs sandwiched enemy general and killed him. That turned the battle in my favor, initiating a multiple routs. With slingers, I focused their fire solely on a unit of enemy Gaesatae, though the kills were rather dissapointing, reducing their numbers from 120 down to 90 only until they ran out of ammo. Next time I will focus their fire on enemy general instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

In my experience, barbarian armies in Europe have the combination of speed, stamina and enhanced charge bonus as their greatest combat advantage. They don't hold the line against the Romans or anyone else... most of the time there is no line. They can however run their way to victory through any plan. They can team up on individual units that will rout and eventually get to the ones that don't usually rout, such as the Triarii and Pedites. Furthermore, most barbarian infantry units have a +8 charge bonus, while there are "freaks" with +10 or even +12 at reasonable prices, coming soon to a store near you! Outrun! Outcharge! Barbarize Barbarorum!!!

---

Actually, my Bataroas held the line quite well, assuming I did not spread them too much but rather put their formation in multiple lines, reducing unit formation width but increasing unit depth. Though fighting with them usually requires a tactical trade-off to make: either let them stand and fire javelins (anf give up charge), or close and charge (and give up javelins). For both, there is usually not enough time before lines collide and melee starts.

Don't wipe out the Aedui, transplant them somewhere else. If you're savvy with the move_character command and have Force Diplomacy installed, transplant them to Galatia (currently held by Pontos according to your campaign map) or Tylis (which looks rebel) or if you just want them out of the way, Ireland. Killing factions off is a waste, especially when they can become something else in another place.

put them in the east and turn them into the boii give them segestica and that place with the druids and the cordinau orca

Phalanxes are overpowered in EB SP. I'd load up on levy pikes and keep general near for morale. They can hold forever as long as morale is kept up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

Regarding Celtic Slingers, I fought a tight battle against Aedui near Massilia last night. First, I was actually losing, until my 2 FMs sandwiched enemy general and killed him. That turned the battle in my favor, initiating a multiple routs. With slingers, I focused their fire solely on a unit of enemy Gaesatae, though the kills were rather dissapointing, reducing their numbers from 120 down to 90 only until they ran out of ammo. Next time I will focus their fire on enemy general instead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BroskiDerpman

Phalanxes are overpowered in EB SP. I'd load up on levy pikes and keep general near for morale. They can hold forever as long as morale is kept up.

---

In both instances, I edited the EDU to change all multi-hit point units (except elephants) back to 1. That includes Gaesatae/Tindanotae, elite phalanxes and Hypaspistai.

I don't find phalanxes to be particularly troublesome or overpowered once you do that.

the Problems with Phalanxes are
most soldiers per unit
shield value of 5 in some cases multiplied.

Naked fanatics are though, yes, but even Skutjanz are quite efficient at dealing with them. Slingers are ok but not ideal. with Their laughable armour value the higher attack of the Archer is more usefull than the AP of the Slinger.
Slingers are great VS heavy Cav tho.
@Barbarians Holding a line:
imho both Dugunthiz and Bataroas are reasonably good lineholders, not as great as Haploi but still Long enough to fall in their flanks. Their Advantage clearly lies in the mass Charge but they do hold the ground for quite a while against non-shock troops.
So I'll stick with: the best cheap troops vs Romans are: ALL Slingers, Clubmen/axemen and lancers. in Order to pullit off however it's advisable to bind them with Spear infantry, Dugunthiz can do that but any Phalanx unit(both classic and Macedonian) preforms better.

I'd personally choose Dugunthiz over Bataroas vs romans tho, the Spears to a fair amout of damage to the chainmail clad Romani, while the swords are better suited to fight other "smelly barbarians", their both not armoured enough to not die from the Roman weapons, so you might aswell take some of them with you.

I

Quote:

---

n both instances, I edited the EDU to change all multi-hit point units (except elephants) back to 1. That includes Gaesatae/Tindanotae, elite phalanxes and Hypaspistai.

I don't find phalanxes to be particularly troublesome or overpowered once you do that.

---

There are no cavalry or infantry units with more than one hit points, eccept the Gaesatae and Tindanotae.
Argyraspides and other elite units have only one hit point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thoras

I
There are no cavalry or infantry units with more than one hit points, eccept the Gaesatae and Tindanotae.
Argyraspides and other elite units have only one hit point.

---

Did they have more hit points in 1.0 or 1.1? I remember it being an issue at one point, but it might have been in a previous version. Either way, I did edit the EDU so no units (bar elephants) have more than 1 hit point per man.

Actually fighting the roman heavies isn't all that hard: first you get some armored spearmen (those keltohellenikoi are great, but even hoplitai haploi can do the job). You put them in single line and on guard mode, let the romans tire themselves out attacking them (placing your line on a hill and/or in a forest will increase their durability). In the meantime your laosotae with your FMs (I usually have 4 slingers and 2 generals, in case one dies) should take out their cavalry, while your Bataroas should run around, throw javelins at their backs and charge If yo don't have enough money for a full invasionforce get some ships and raid their western cities, great way to break their economy and enhance yours, plus you won't have to worry about triarii and pedites for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Don't wipe out the Aedui, transplant them somewhere else. If you're savvy with the move_character command and have Force Diplomacy installed, transplant them to Galatia (currently held by Pontos according to your campaign map) or Tylis (which looks rebel) or if you just want them out of the way, Ireland. Killing factions off is a waste, especially when they can become something else in another place.

---

Regarding Aedui. well, unfortunately, I have to dissapoint you. The temptation was too strong, I could not resist. The brother of Arverni king set out on a campaign from Helvetis with 6 units of Bataroas, sneaked via Alpine passes unnoticed and besieged Mediolanum. Reiief Aedui army attacked, tough and hard-fought battle followed, resulting in heroic victory. The fate of Aedui, once mighty tribe and rulers of Gaul, was sealed in 2 seasons.

However, the idea of moving a faction to other location instead of wiping it out has some merit. For some time, I already think about occupying central Europe, role-playing Boii, and turn the whole continent of Europe into the "Europa Barbarorum" indeed. I am looking forward using Boii Swordsman as my core unit that are supposed to be professional experienced warriors, serving as mercenaries before. So I considered using Epeiros (for nicely looking cavalry), Aedui or Arverni (same culture). Though I never used the "move" command, and I am concerned whether this might corrupt the game campaign in any way?

The world moved on. Arverni took Mediolanum and set a foothold in Italy. The risk of provoking Romani did not come and they stayed at peace for a few years, taking Segesta in the meantime. Arverni were busy taking remaining independent regions around Gallic homeland, particularly in Swabia/Bavaria. The Sweboz mishandled Belgic tribes who rebelled and were later subdued by Arverni chieftain, establishing favourite border on the Rhine. The Poeni were pushed further into Hispania where - out of desperation - they started war with Lusitani as well and - surprisingly - took some regions from them. As the time approched the year 240 BC and all the independent regions around were taken, Arverni feel ready to start campaigning against the Romani. However, the Romani still did not take Sicily, did not get Polybian reform, they still stick with Camillan units. So Arverni waited and enjoyed last few peaceful years ...

The Time of Bondsmen reforms came before 240 BC and curious thing happened. In the previous campaign, when the Time of Soldiers came, new barracks appeared and the old ones were still present but "damaged". I used to destroy the old barracks and got a lot of cash (high tens of thousands). This time, though, the old barracks stayed fully functional and I have to build a new ones. If I destroy the old barracks, I have to start building the new ones from scratch, i.e. from the lowest level. So I wonder what behavior is supposed to be the correct one?

Though there are so few new units in the Time of Bondsmen that the process of switching to the new barracks everywhere may not be worth the trouble. I have to say I like the way the reforms work for AS or Makedonia, where the new units simply appear in the roster among the old ones.

yes it can corrupt the game

i once played around with all sort of comand consoles and one or more of them corrupted the campaign ...

when i played with the arverni i set forts on the mountain passes in the alps and in the pyrinees and on the river passes it costs you some cash but with the levy spearmen the time you get to move your single army around more then pays up for it

War!

The year is 239. In winter, some rogue Romani attacked Mediolanum. Roman senate did not let the chance go and followed with full scale war effort, sending more and more troops. Brycham dArvern returned from the Danubius with 2/3 stack army, drove the rogues out and lifted the siege. Next turn, he was attacked by Roman general with 1/2 stack army and won easily. Then I felt pretty well!

A few turns later, the Romani put Mediolanum under siege again with another 1/2 stack army composed mostly of principes and triarii and led by 3-star general. Dear 1-star Brycham dArvern felt really annyoed. With a full stack army in Mediolanum at his disposal, he ordered sally and attacked. He charged and pressed the Romani with head-on attack, relying on 2:1 numerical superiority in men. Lines collided, men screamed and pushed against each other. After a while, first Celtic unit broke and routed. Then next and another. In a few moments, half army was in rout, the other half slaughtered. Brycham could not believe his eyes. He blew the trumpet, trying to stop his men but no no avail. The battle was lost.

Sun-c once said: "Numbers alone confer no advantage. Do not advance relying on sheer military power."

When I lost the first battle of Mediolanum, I was so shocked that I forgot to take any pictures. Having 2:1 superiority and expecting easy victory - and lose. It did not happen to me for very long time. My self-esteem was in ruin. In the past, I used to rely on quality troops like Pezhetairoi and Thorakitai rather than on any cheap rubble.

So I decided to re-play the battle again. This time, I will be maneuvering more carefully. And I did. The struggle was long and in the end I won the battle. But I was shocked again. In the aftermath, I lost 2/3 of my full stack army. Many units of Gaeroes or Botroas were reduced from 200 men to 50 only - and these were actually those that won their fights! Fortunately, Brycham had a Druidic Surgeon and one more chirurgeon-type in retinue, so the numbers in the campaign map were back to about 1/2 of the stack. But there are 2 full-stack armies of mixed composition approaching from Patavium and several small armies are waiting around Bononia to join the fight. I absolutely cannot afford such losses. I start to understand how victorious Pyrrhos felt after Herakleia and Asculum.

Look at the picture: there is a unit of Camillan Triarii surrounded by 3 Celtic units (Gaeroas, Botroas, Caturige). I think a 4th unit of Botroas or Garoas joined the fun later. How do you think this particular fight ended?

Attachment 12849

They got butchered ;)? Use AP troops and let them attack the rear ,using light armored spearmen against Triarii is a waste.
Btw. why isn't your genereal moving ,he should charge the rear or flank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

Regarding Aedui. well, unfortunately, I have to dissapoint you. The temptation was too strong, I could not resist. The brother of Arverni king set out on a campaign from Helvetis with 6 units of Bataroas, sneaked via Alpine passes unnoticed and besieged Mediolanum. Reiief Aedui army attacked, tough and hard-fought battle followed, resulting in heroic victory. The fate of Aedui, once mighty tribe and rulers of Gaul, was sealed in 2 seasons.

However, the idea of moving a faction to other location instead of wiping it out has some merit. For some time, I already think about occupying central Europe, role-playing Boii, and turn the whole continent of Europe into the "Europa Barbarorum" indeed. I am looking forward using Boii Swordsman as my core unit that are supposed to be professional experienced warriors, serving as mercenaries before. So I considered using Epeiros (for nicely looking cavalry), Aedui or Arverni (same culture). Though I never used the "move" command, and I am concerned whether this might corrupt the game campaign in any way?

---

You can't easily do a migrated faction game without using the move_character command; it takes a long time to walk to the new location in which time you may have lost your original homeland, and been wiped out already. I would have said use the Casse for a migrated Celt game, but their FMs have crappy chariots for bodyguards. So whichever you prefer of Aedui/Arverni as the Boii or Kingdom of Tylis.

It won't corrupt the game as long as you're careful with how you use it. Moving someone who was engaged in a siege, or out of a settlement (that creates an invisible clone which really borks things) will cause problems, but nothing else will. I've done it time and again and had games run on a long time. The real issue is finding the internal names of characters from certain factions. Greek ones are easy, barbarians are trickier and Romani are the most annoying of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

yes it can corrupt the game

i once played around with all sort of comand consoles and one or more of them corrupted the campaign ...

---

As long as you are careful with it, it won't. Moving your own stuff in particular is safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thoras

They got butchered ;)? Use AP troops and let them attack the rear ,using light armored spearmen against Triarii is a waste.
Btw. why isn't your genereal moving ,he should charge the rear or flank.

---

The quiz question: believe it or not, the Triarii won the fight! I considered this fight onthe right flank over, so I paid my attention elsewhere. Then after a while when I looked back all Celtic units were reduced to 1/4 of the original strength and in rout while the Triarii were approaching the center eager to join fight there ...

Regarding the general: in the 1st battle of Mediolanum, once I moved the general to the flanking maneuver. the center line started to collapse and units in rout. So this time I kept him behin the center line in order to boost morale and only later he started to attack Roman heavy infantry from the back.

3rd Battle of Mediolanum

Attachment 12856

Just another full stack Roman army besieged Mediolanum, mixed of 1/2 Roman units like Principes, Triarii and Pedites Extraordinarii, the other 1/2 of Gallic and Illyrian auxiliaries. This time, Brycham dArvern had also some Gaesatae. The battle was tight again, a half of my Celtic units were in rout at one moment. But they usually stopped a few tens of meters behind battle line and could be sent back to fight. Then some Roman units started to rout as well, and I was able to spread the moral hit to surrounding Roman units. So apparently the low morale is a common problem for most Celtic units.

The other problem is apparently lack of armour. When the battle lines approached and units started to exchange volleys of javelins, some units of Gaeroas were reduced to 1/4 of their original strength after just a few shots while their opposing Roman Principes had only negigible losses.

1st Battle of Massilia

Attachment 12857

Here the center line is held by 4 units of Massilian Hoplite. They served well though the losses were high. On the other hand, the opposing army had very little true Roman units but many mercenaries and auxiliaries.

Quote:

---

The quiz question: believe it or not, the Triarii won the fight! I considered this fight onthe right flank over, so I paid my attention elsewhere. Then after a while when I looked back all Celtic units were reduced to 1/4 of the original strength and in rout while the Triarii were approaching the center eager to join fight there ...

---

I meant that your units got butchered ~;),as I said using light spearmen against Triarii is a waste.Even if they win they take far too much losses.
It's best to pin them down and then use shock cavalry or ap troops to break them.

Quote:

---

Regarding the general: in the 1st battle of Mediolanum, once I moved the general to the flanking maneuver. the center line started to collapse and units in rout. So this time I kept him behin the center line in order to boost morale and only later he started to attack Roman heavy infantry from the back.

---

Hmm that's why I don't play with celts their morale is damn low.

you need to go on the offenssive if you had a fortified rhine and pyrinees and had the mines in the alps you could probably be swimming in money and afford 2 to 3 armies with those 3 armies you could be on the offenssive wich enables you to set a defensive line of weak troops and flank the romans with your more elitish troops such as the axeman or the swordman or your horseman even leucos epos are great they outmanouver their enemies and then just stand on their back shooting them with javelins that normally breaks the least strong roman units and then with 3-4 units keep on charging their backs until they break

if the roman cavalry goes at you engage them with 2 or 3units to lovk them down wich gives time for your general to get there and kill the roman general once he breaks the leucos can outrun the roman cavalry so they can´t escape and die
if they still got javelins when they rout turn the shoot at will it will even be more effective when chassing down the roman cavalry

also leucos epos enables you to hunt down their more elite units i never let princeps or triarii escape when they batle againt me i always runned them down

leucos epos and their ligurian equivalents are cheap and available as mercearies

i also have a population control policy so everytime a city goes over 12.000 citizens i turn it into an army recruitment center so merge some units and send the stacks composed of 2-25 men each into those towns to retrain them (i once took 3.000 citizens out of viennos or gergovia in 1 turn replenishing my army of eduii but it allowed me to rebuild my army and free massilia from a roman stack) actully you should consider having small armies like that of depleted troops so you can boost your military power in no time and control your population levels on diferent cities

also play on huge the diference and immersion is brutal and since i macro control freak the hability to control your population is a plus for me i go around sending levy spearmen all over to replenish some cities populations particulary when you have border forts and forts in all major passed in your lands you can get 1 unit of levy spearman from the carnutes homeland to emporium in no time by just changing the unit you recruit in x that recruited unit go to border fort to fort to city to fort to the destined city

not the same unit ofc but a similar unit

also the remi give great cavalry and belgiums are great lineholders imho experience and their swordman aren´t half bad at flanking and kicking the roman infantry butt (wierdly not from the front only from the back or the sides ... )

I've been inspired to resume my Massalia game; I just love using Keltohellenikoi, and the "Epirote" ones have these cool green tartan cloaks. I've only got a couple of units of them in my army, but they're more than adequate to deal with mostly-unarmoured Celts.

I have Greek governments in Massalia, Alalia and Emporion, with client kingdoms in Tolosa and Burdigala.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I've been inspired to resume my Massalia game; I just love using Keltohellenikoi, and the "Epirote" ones have these cool green tartan cloaks. I've only got a couple of units of them in my army, but they're more than adequate to deal with mostly-unarmoured Celts.

---

How did you get Epeiros to Massilia? Did you apply this "move" command, or migrate by ship in-game?

Quote:

---

I have Greek governments in Massalia, Alalia and Emporion, with client kingdoms in Tolosa and Burdigala.

---

In client kingdoms, do you also recruit Celtic Vollorix unit? This is similar to Neitos in stats, just available anytime. If so, is it a general, or a regular field infantry unit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

How did you get Epeiros to Massilia? Did you apply this "move" command, or migrate by ship in-game?

---

With the move_character command; I disband my navy (and elephants) immediately upon starting the game. I also move Helenos Aiakides to Dalminion to besiege it alone, so I can suicide him when the defenders sally out.

Epirote characters are easy, their visible names are the same as their internal names. Open the console (with `), remove the fog of war with toggle_fow so you can see where they're going, then move the cursor over where you want to move them to and type show_cursorstat to get co-ordinates. Then enter move_character "Pyrrhos Aiakides" x,y or move_character "Captain [whateverhisnameis]" x,y to teleport them to where they need to go.

When finished type toggle_fow again to return to normal view.

I also edited the EB\Data\text\expanded_bi.txt file so that all the labels say "Massalia" rather than "Epeiros", and changed the colour scheme (in EB\Data\descr_sm_factions.txt) so they're blue, rather than green (I also change the Ptolemies to yellow rather than gold, so they're distinctly contrasted from Seleukid silver). If you just want the files already edited, PM me an email address and I'll give you a copy of mine. I'd highly recommend downloading the Force Diplomacy mod and the "b" version of the City Mod (to at least give you a settlement-cap advantage over the Aedui/Arverni).

Once I've got Massalia, I let my original settlements revolt (I destroy my government buildings in each, but don't touch anything else) and disband most of my troops for the long rebuilding of my economy. I use the process_cq Massalia to rush-build some equivalent infrastructure to what was in the settlements I've abandoned (usually a port upgrade and blacksmith, along with some barracks so I can at least recruit a garrison).

It may seem like a lot of rigmarole, but once you're set up in Massalia, that's pretty much it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenisar

In client kingdoms, do you also recruit Celtic Vollorix unit? This is similar to Neitos in stats, just available anytime. If so, is it a general, or a regular field infantry unit?

---

Yes, I make them type IV governments and recruit a Celtic Lesser King/Vollorix. They're a general who a turn after recruitment, if left in a type IV settlement, become a Client Ruler. I make a point of only putting Celtic units in them, though they may temporarily start with a Greek garrison. To spare their populations, I usually do the recruiting of their Gallic garrisons in Massalia, which has people to spare by then.

EDIT: On a related note, I've been having some interesting times while intervening on behalf of my ally, SPQR, against the Qarthadastim. Interesting in terms of struggling a little to cope with all the armour they bring. Finally kicked them off Sicily with this battle:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...71011285_n.jpg

Heroic Victory because of the difference in quality of troops, rather than numbers. One unit of Hoplitai got very badly chewed up fighting Elite Pikemen, but never wavered. Those Brihentin are a waste of money, I think I'll disband them when I get back, Leuce Epos are more useful and cheaper. Barring the Iberians as special AP-unit, it's all Greek/Celtic. I took a special trip to Sicily earlier on specifically to hire those Kretans, there's not a decent archer anywhere else in the western Med.

if i was any good with the console i would play a syrakousai game just for the hell of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

if i was any good with the console i would play a syrakousai game just for the hell of it

---

I've just demonstrated all the commands you need and how, give it a try with an Epeiros game.

Not relevant...

So I continued in my testing Arverni campaign in the meantime. The year is 230BC, I built 3 armies for deploying various units and see how they perform:
- a northern-gaul army - with units recruited north of the Alps,
- a southern-gaul army - with units recruited from Cisalpine Gaul,
- and a kelto-hellenic army - from units recruited from Massilia and maybe later Emporion as well.

But the Romani still did not get their Polybian reforms because they did not take Syracuse yet. It seems they use all their resources to attack Arverni in Cisalpine Gaul, sending army after army rather than finishing conquest of Sicily. This is how the composition of their armies frequently looks like:

Attachment 12874

While waiting for Polybian reforms I took Patavium as well, and plan to bottle Romans in Italy. Hopefully this does not contradict with the reform conditions. Busy with battles in northern Italy like this one:

Attachment 12875

While fighting in Liguria, one unit fighting for the enemy actually catched my attention: Gaemiae Liguariae. My general was better than theirs, my army outnumbered theirs, some quality units like Principes and Pedites were already in flight, while a unit of Ligurian infantry still held their line even when being surrounded from 3 sides. Actually, they were the last to rout:

Attachment 12876

Because waiting for the Polybian reforms takes ages and I am concerned when and if it will ever happen, I became curious with another question. See, originally I wanted to "assimilate" whole Europe and make it a nice green natural area of Celts living in their villages in harmony with nature ... environmentally friendly ... ecologic ... whatever ... BUT as the Celts miss the highest level of cities, it shortens their time and forces to rush. Otherwise, some huge cities like Roma will build level 4 government building after reaching 12.000 population limit and their Roman culture cannot be overrun anymore in game. So I became obsessed with questions like:
- How can I prevent it?
- Do I have to conquer Rome?
- When can I conquer Rome the earliest?

So I set on another campaign, forking the current one just after defeating Aedui in Gaul, and started MARCH ON ROME immediately!

The journey was a dangerous one, full of perils, difficult to replace losses, grabbing every available unit I could get, and never having enough men. And this is what I achieved in 260BC:

Attachment 12879

BUT the bloody Romani have already built level 4 governement - what a dissapointment! All I did was for nothing! I was too slow! I cannot make Rome a nice Celtic village anymore! Now I am wondering: Could I conquer Roma even sooner?

yes anphibean operation half a stack or even 1/4 stack build latters and storm the city (don´t worry with rams they always catch fire )

there´s always some windows of opurtunity and more then what one would expect the romans only leave 1 general to control and defend the city half of the times without any other unit whatsoever so depending on how close is their available field army if done correctly you can get 3 turns until the nearest roman field army can reach you

burn down the city and all structures who are useless to you (barracks notably and their goverment type must always go ) and once it´s done set up a type4 goverment with an allied general

eventually you´ll have to have a full stack of rorarii to control the city even with your client ruller at 8 prestige points but thats the priçe of keeping rome

Rome will only build a Type IV government in their Italian cities if their default Type I has been destroyed previously by an invading faction (most likely you, if you're playing Gauls). So you'll face Polybian troops eventually, as long as you don't conquer too much of Italy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

thats why the romans burned the persian capital on 2 ocasions

crassus made a mistake when he trusted his scouts and was missinformed about the kind of catrphact he would be facing since he assumed he would be facing armenian cathraphacts wich weren´t as armoured or disciplined as the parthians

also the parthians inovated with their camel caravan suply train or they would be out of arrows and forced to face the romans in melee before they where in disaray

---

simple comparison:

well 2 times capital was taken yes but we should see the POSITIVE side as 2 times capital was sacked and destroyed but the Romans could not Advance toward Mesopotamia & Iranian Plateau! because Parthia unlike Sassanids & Romans was a Federalical System that no one ruled all the things and Romans faced heavy resistance of local Armies and disciplined ones of course thats why they did never defeated Parthia.

unlike this Romans 2 Times their Capital was Sacked and taken and gradually gradually suddenly the whole Western Roman Empire Fell!

simple......

i dont understand most of you react to Rome and Iranian Plateau Kigdoms & Empires like Rome is your Father's Empire!!
and many of you say Crassus was fool! ok we suppose he was fool but rome fought 300 years against Parthians and 300 years against Sassanids!! so dont tell me that there was not at least 1 good general in the whole great Empire even succeded by Cassar's and others Legacies & Traditions......!!!

if Rome was better than Parthia or Sassanids, simple, they could penetrate and destroy the whole of their Empire, and believe me they would go until china! so we see otherwise.....


and if Parhia would not fell to Totalitarian Sassanids or Sassanids would continue the same Government System, Arabic Muslims could never conquer and abuse Those lands.........
(Sassanids were more powerful and equal to Rome unlike Parthians, but were easily broken as the king would fell and there would be no more local Resistance due to lack of governship and morale)

rome was the father to western civilization

as for the rest of what you said romns used heavy infantry the parthians and sassanids used heavy cavalry so on the plains they won but had rome decided to keep conquering the sassanids and the parthians would have had a fight of a lifetime but when it came rome was already fractured within and no true great roman could afford to spend so much time away from the city without loosing influence and being betrayed and sold out not even emperors

wierdly enough it was crassus demise who created the 1st unbalance that gave cesar the oppurtunity to try and outgrowth everyone before him before crassus demise cesar relied on crassus and pompey to keep a balance beteween the diferent roman factions wich meant he could spend 10 years away from rome conquering without being forced to return for whatever reason (and the senators did try to get him to return and face trial for his crimes )

Quote:

---

Because waiting for the Polybian reforms takes ages and I am concerned when and if it will ever happen, I became curious with another question. See, originally I wanted to "assimilate" whole Europe and make it a nice green natural area of Celts living in their villages in harmony with nature ... environmentally friendly ... ecologic ... whatever ... BUT as the Celts miss the highest level of cities, it shortens their time and forces to rush. Otherwise, some huge cities like Roma will build level 4 government building after reaching 12.000 population limit and their Roman culture cannot be overrun anymore in game. So I became obsessed with questions like:
- How can I prevent it?
- Do I have to conquer Rome?
- When can I conquer Rome the earliest?

---

The earliest you could take Roma is probably in (late) 271 BC, but that would require serious powergaming. In all likelihood you have to take Roma before 265 BC, to prevent the Romans from building level four governor's building.

The easiest way to make that happen would be a naval invasion, since AI tends to be very bad defending against those. As a bonus you get to avoid a couple of difficult (and thus time consuming) battles, for Mediolanum / Segesta, Bononia and Arretium, before you can get your hands on Rome.

A problem is that you start the game without ports, and having to deal with the Aedui. To commit a serious portion of your troops to a Southern campaign will come with its own challenges.
I am not sure if Tolosa has the naval harbor at the start of the game. If it does, your best bet may well be to take Tolosa, build a ship there, and put a general with some units on there. If you are lucky + somehow manage to save some money, you might be able to start a siege of Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

rome was the father to western civilization

as for the rest of what you said romns used heavy infantry the parthians and sassanids used heavy cavalry so on the plains they won but had rome decided to keep conquering the sassanids and the parthians would have had a fight of a lifetime but when it came rome was already fractured within and no true great roman could afford to spend so much time away from the city without loosing influence and being betrayed and sold out not even emperors

wierdly enough it was crassus demise who created the 1st unbalance that gave cesar the oppurtunity to try and outgrowth everyone before him before crassus demise cesar relied on crassus and pompey to keep a balance beteween the diferent roman factions wich meant he could spend 10 years away from rome conquering without being forced to return for whatever reason (and the senators did try to get him to return and face trial for his crimes )

---

yes indeed despite all those corruptions and barbarous wildery of romans, im obssessed with all those advanced technologies and high civilization lifestyle. i see USA as New Rome!

but for the thing you said, yes Parthians used heavy cavalry instead of Infantry, unlike rome. but Sassanids were a balance of heavy infantry & cavalry

because as time passed both Rome & Sassaanids (Easterns) realized and found out both of their weaknesses! Rome's weakness was in Heavy Cavalry so they made as little equal to Eastern Cataphracts (Calbinari - Armenian Cataphract);

even so as for Sassanids found out Weakness in Heavy Infantry so they made nomerous heavy infantry units such as Sughdians, Dylamites (they mostly attacked by Sudden Strikes and smashing through lines), Kushan Axmen, Kamandare Shahi (King's Bowmen), Gilanis, & ...... many other.
they even expanded their heavy cavalry to not only simple cataphract but also Super Heavy Irak (Iraq) Cataphracts, Pushtigban (Bodyguards), Zhayedan ( Immortals), Kardakan (Kurdish Lancers), & ....many other.

and please dont say in 700 years no Good Roman generals were there!! Pontus and Parthia were like each other even Pontus was very better in infantry but they fell and not Parthia!!
but as for sassanids they were a highly troublesome Great Citadel For Rome to go for easterners and China & India! and also a very equal enemy as they even conquered many roman cities and never lost Armenia & East Syria unlike Parthians. they even Sieged Capital Constantinople and Conquered Jerusalem and Damascus and Antioch once!!


its ok for you to have bias toward Rome, because your European and you think ther's only and ONLY Rome and even hellenics in the world's history!!!! but its your Bigotry that deny other civilizations & Empire's greatness.

as a say, says War makes Advancements! in war if for example 2 sides have a long conflict they will soon find out their Powerful and Weakness Points......

i don´t even like rome too much but the trufh of the fact is that the sassanids particulary relied mostly on roman disunity to secure their western border then on their own might one constant concern of the sassanid foreigh policy was always not to give the romans an excuse to forget their internal rivalerys and unite against 1 single enemy

along other reasons being that romans where richer and had greater manpower then the sassanids themselfs thus the reason why they had to create heavy infantry to defend their cities if they ever went to war with rome as they did quite a few times and everytime they got cornered they knew they where screwed since cavalry without mobility ...

also for the easterns their greatest source of income was trade and trade altough it means high tax revenue it´s also incostant and in case of war they couldn´t sell to the romans and their 400 million citizens market

also the romans homogeneized their population for the most part due to their constant urbanization plans while the sassanids still had alot of heterogenity so they needed the cash either to bribe off local rulers into staying in line or to pay their soldiers to keep those less homogenous people in line

my bias is relative there´s civilizations i like more others i like less the easterns are not particulary less liked by me actually the achemid empire or the hitite empire are 2 of my favourites one for what they created the other for the misteries it still contains

i can read more of your drive by the way you make some statements then whatever piece of information you think you know about me you gave an emotional reply i gave you the facts

rome was the father of the western civilization kaiser emperor or czar are all the same cesar the 1st emperor even tough the world emperor already existed as the military leader of a region after him it became the byword for political leader of diferent people/nations under 1 ruler

as for in 700 years no good roman general as i stated earlyer if you had bothered to read what i said instead of just skimming it feeling enraged and replying in an overly emotional way roman leadership problem was keeping their status and so they couldn´t afford to spend 10 years away from rome (demagogy sucks but it´s highly effective to get rid of your political enemies ) and as you can check both times the romans went on the offenssive against the "easterners" where they burned down ecbatana it was always a blitz campaign and the loot those generals made had to be used then to apease their population and political adversaries so they could regain their status

thus as what i said earlyer had a true war broken out and the sassanids would have had 3-5 generals leading armies into sassanid lands and a multi pronged attack against the sassanids would have put them to panic since the sassanids couldn´t afford to split their forces or else the brother of the king or the nephew could decide he would be a better ruller then the current ruller (another side effect of carrhae )

basically the sassanids where weak defenders and strong on the offenssive