What's everyone's favourite historical battles?
Printable View
What's everyone's favourite historical battles?
Cannae
Yes, Cannae makes me wonder at the stupidity of Romans, a bad plan is one that cannot be altered an all. Some tacticts by Hannibal there. :yes:
Hannibal's victory at Cannae was almost unbelievable.
Brief discription of the battle of Cannae.August 2 216 BC::book:
After losing the battle at Trasimene and Trebia The Roman brought with them the biggest army yet-85,000 men, Hannibal had 50,000. The Roman were so confident of victory. Trusting in their numbers, they let their central infantry push back the thin Punic infantry line. As Hannibal intended, this line bent rather than broke, enveloping the enemy, while the superior Carthaginian cavalry, routing the Roman cavalry, circle round to attack from the rear. Packed so tightly that they could not fight, some Romans then fled but many more were cut down. Roman losses reputedly approached 70,000 that day. a total annilhation not matched till the Teutoburger Wald disaster in 9 A.D:skull:
why didn't the game have Cannae as a historical battle?
One of my favourite historical battles is the Battle of Pharsalus. Caesar’s numerically inferior army defeated Pompey’s army who had twice as much soldier as Caesar had.
Brief description. August 9, 48 BC:
After conceding Rome to Caesar, Pompey and his Optimates fled to Greece, knowing Caesar will have to come after them and force him to fight away from his base. After several small skirmishes the deciding battle took place in Thessaly on 6 June 48 BC at Pharsalus. It was probably the largest battle ever fought between the Romans; Pompey had 60,000 troops and was strong in cavalry, but most of his infantry were out of condition. In fact Pompey were so confident of his victory, the night before the battle he and his senior officers were so confident they’d win the battle they sat up most of the night arguing about how they would share all Caesar’s wealth-who would get which of Caesar’s villas; who would get his best farms and olive trees. They didn’t think Caesar stood a chance, they were wrong.:sweatdrop:
Caesar was an expert on warfare. He’d carefully studied Pompey’s usual tactics. :book: Every time Pompey moved his infantry forward, Caesar’s troops were there, waiting for him. Whatever Pompey tried to do, Caesar anticipated him. Caesar had fewer men but all were skilled, hardened veterans from Gaul. The brilliant discipline of Caesar’s legionaries, who advanced with their pila as pikes, routed Pompey’s superior cavalry. By using their cavalry to attack the flank. Caesar’s forces were victorious. More than 6,000 of Pompey’s force were slaughtered and 25,000 captured. That’s more than Caesar’s whole army!:skull:
After the battle Pompey fled to Egypt:egypt: and was killed. Caesar would later cleanse the empire of Optimates forces and sees the beginning of an end for the Roman republic.
Siege of Sparta is pretty impressive. Usually ends up with hundreds of pikemen stabbing each other in the streets of burning city.
And from history: Carrhae. Surprising defeat for romans, who's legions couldn't adept for fighting in desert region and who's tactics were useless against fast moving missile cavalry.
Assaye, but thats way way out of the EB timeframe so... I won't mention that.
I always found Arausio an interesting turn of events.
Brief description. 6th October, 105BC
The Germanic peoples of the Jutland Peninsula, most notably the Cimbri and the Teutones, had been wandering Europe searching for a new homeland for overa decade. They had been deflected away from Italy by several encounters with Roman armies, at the same time inflicting numerous defeats upon them.
The consul of 106BC, Q. Servilius Caepio had been given command of a sizeable army and sent to southern France to hold it against the Germans. No major conflict arose that year, so in 105 the new senior consul, Gn. Mallius Maximus was also given an army and sent to join up with Caepio and confront the Germans now moving towards the Alps. Together their forces would number over ten Legions, or 80,000 troops. More than enough, the Senate thought to defeat 250,000 barbarians.
Caepio however, refused to accept Maximus' commands, on the grounds that he was a 'new man' and thus lacked the 'proper' ancestors. Reaching Arausio itself he built a camp on the opposite side of the river to Maximus and tried to persuade the Senate to give him command (legally impossible). A senatorial embassy forced him to move to the far bank but the two forces remained separated.:no:
Meanwhile Maximus detached a legate, M. Aurelius Scaurus, and [B]ALL[B] his cavalry and sent them 30 miles upstream.:oops: Bad move! When the Germans arrived they massaced the small force. Aurelius was captured, told the Germans to leave and was burned alive for his insolence.
The Germanic horde flowed on and surrounded Caepio's camp, flowing over the walls with much the same result. Its possible that Caepio launched a pre-emptive strike on the Germans to provoke them and thus claim the glory without Maximus' help. Caepio and his son escaped by boat leaving their army to perish.
Maximus still had no idea what was happening. He had no scouts left and Caepio wasn't sharing any information. When the Germans approached he led his army out to face them. He lined up with his left? flank on the river. Unfortunately as he lacked cavalry the much more numerous Germans were able to flank him and trap his army against the river, surrounding them and wiping them out. Maximus did survive however.
The battle was an absolute disaster for the Romans, the worst since Cannae. Maximus made several mistakes and Caepio was too proud to help him. Over 100,000 Romans perished in this battle (including non-combatents and camp followers):skull: . Arausio allowed Marius:yes: to become consul the year after and hold 5 successive consulships before winning at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae. It also reinforced his reforms from 108BC as there were now too few propertied men to fill a large traditional army.
makes sense:2thumbsup:
Most of these battles are in Coleen McCullough's books, anyone read them?
:skull:come to look at it, the battle of Arausio was really the worst defeat suffered by the Repbulic. but the Cimbri and the Teutones did have more men. At Cannae and Pharsalus Hannibal and Caesar was able to defeat enemies that almost have twice as much soldiers as they had. Gauis Marius later revenged Arausio at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae against the Teutones and at Vercellae against the Cimbri. both battles the barbarian had been utterly annihilated. :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Wait, Cannae IS included in the Historical Battles in the game, though it would've been better if you could play as Hannibal's forces.
Yep. But Hannibal not only had inferior numbers but also, mainly inferior troops. Only his hardened veterans on the wings and his cavalry was equal or superior to the romans. His entire center consisted of inferior Celtic allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
The in-game battle is a shoddy inferior, but the Battle of Teutoburg Forest would have been amazing to witness (as some kind of ethereal observer, obviously). The stupidity of Varus was incredible, and the organisation shown by Arminius was amazing for its time.
The Battle of the 'Saw' also seems interesting. Hannibal with 10000 tired men tricks 50000 mercenaries into effectively killing themselves. Make syou realise how fickle history is, if Hannibal had ever been properly supplied with a sizable, expereinced army, there is no way the Romans could have stopped him.
Hannibal was one of the greatest general ever but he wasn't invicible, and met his match in Publius Cornelius Scipio. at the battle of Zama both the troops were pretty evenly matched. Hannibal had the upper hand and even had large number of elephants (turned out to be the reason of defeat for Hannibal). even so, Hannibal was no doubt a military genius and the general of his time.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy
Do you get to post topics on the main forum if you become a member?
One has to be a Member to post in the Monastery (and sub-forum the Chapter House sub-forum), the Arena, the Hard-and Software forum and two of the three of the Tavern's sub-forums (the Frontroom and Gameroom).Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Access to the third sub-forum of the Tavern, the Backroom, requires a request to join the Backroom user group through your UserCP. This request will then be examined by the Backroom staff, who will choose to allow or disallow you access to the forum. Only problematic (rule breaking) users are usually disallowed entry, so you should get in easily enough.
~:)
****
Hullo folks ~:wave:
This thread is beginning to orientate more to historical based discussion rather than R:TW related discussion. I don't mind it orientating in that direction, its just that if it goes too far it would probably be better located in the Monastery. Junior Members cannot post there at current, but promotions can be arranged if deemed necessary.
Thanks :bow:
Chaeronea in Alexander. It's the only one I've ever won. :2thumbsup: Though I think it may have been a lucky fluke,because I've never been able to replicate said success. :wall:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
where is the MONASTERY?
Yeah! I picked up The First Man in Rome in a clearance sale, but didn't really touch it-- it was too intimidating, I barely knew anything about the Romans at that time. Then playing RTW inspired me to start reading. :laugh4: I was in the middle of reading Fortune's Favourites when I lost my copy, so I haven't picked it up since, but really, her books are amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdun
On-topic, my favourite battles from the games are River Trebia and Carrhae. The former because it demonstrates most clearly the strengths and main appeal of RTW-- realism, and how, you can use superior tactics to overcome inferior numbers and troops. Plus, the Carthagenians kick ass. :2thumbsup:
I like the latter because the whole backstory is just tragic.
I sorta disagree. Hannibal didn't lose because of any deficiency on his part, but because of the Romans' tenacity. The way the Republic kept bouncing back from each defeat stronger than ever, Hannibal could not really have subdued Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy
When you open the forum's mainpage (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb), scroll down till you meet a section identified as Miscellaneous. Its the second forum in the category, directly below the Watchtower.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Alternatively, click here.
~:)
BTW, on that note moved to the Monastery - I can't see it bouncing back to game based discussion too quickly. Any problems feel free to drop me a PM :burnout:
Kalka bridge. The Mongol army virtually annihialates an opposing army of a coalition of Russian princes, despite being heavily outnumbered. Although I actually like the Hungarian/Polish campaign a bit more, but alas, those consisted of more than one battle.
How many threads with the exact same name (and of course subject) as this one are there? 10? 50?
Alesia. Incredible strategy and tactics. Impressive battlefield engineering. Victory against a vastly larger host. A charismatic commander with balls the size of elephants. What more could you ask for?
Battle of Chocim into 1620. Probably biggest battle of XVII century. 48.000 Poles and Cossacks stopped 120.000 Turks with Sultan itself. Allies defend fortified camp next to Dniestr river, holding turkish assaults during days and making ambushes into nights. In the end Allies lost 12.000, while Turks lost 40.000 + about 2000 Tatars. That victory was good example how important can be cavarly during sieges.
It wasn't originally in the Monastery, mind. I think the OP was referring to the Historical Battles scenarios from RTW. It only got moved here because the discussion was moving towards battles in the broad sense, not only in the context of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
From history, Ipsus is also one of my favourites. It decided the fate of Alexander's empire. A similar battle for China in the late Han period was the Battle of Chi Bi ('Red Cliffs').
The Battle of Chi Bi also was a battle so big that it could've changed the future of the country, if Cao Cao succeeded in defeating the allied army, nothing could've stopped him from conquering the whole of China.
If he had succeeded, he wouldn't have needed to conquer the whole of China. Victory at the Battle of Chi Bi convinced the Wu to not capitulate to Cao Cao. It was a pivotal battle that decided whether China was to be united or divided-- in this sense, it is easy to draw a parallel between Chi Bi and Ipsus.
You seem to think that the Han lands covered all of China, you're wrong. The Three Kingdoms were only the southeast. Cao Cao sought to take control and establish his own dynasty, he wanted to become emperor but never lived long enough for it, his son Cao Pi however, achieved this goal.
Anyone read The Romance of the three Kingdoms, fantastic book.
Read it, both volumes. However, I've seen many people getting mixed up between the history and the novel, there are many misconception still recalled for today.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Yep. ^^ Both in original Chinese and in English. Never thought so many Westerners would read it. xD
Yeah. Some of them, like Zhuge Liang changing the weather, or Guan Yu's face being completely red, are obvious, but not so for some others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
(...I'm not a westerner :wiseguy: )
Zhuge Liang didn't collect over a hundred thousand arrows from Cao Cao too, and Liu Bei never threatened him to do it. One of the biggest misconceptions came from Guan Yu's achievements:
-He didn't pass seven gates
-Didn't kill Wen Chuo
-Didn't slay Yan Liang in a duel
-Most certainly did not kill Hua Xiong, Sun Jian was the hero of Si Shui.
I could go on all day about this.
Some favorite battles (some for the tactics, some for sheer unexpectedness, some for the extremely high casualties and ascribed or real historical importance):
- Gaugamela
- Cannae
- Carrhae
- Teutoburg forest
- Stirling bridge
- Kawagoe
- Kłuszyn
- Breitenfeld
- Plassey
- Borodino
- Singapore
- Stalingrad
- D Day beaches
Alright, to counterweigh the number of Roman battles:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
thinking of western equvilents don't anyone think Cao Cao is like Gaius Marius in some way?
Stalingard and D Day beaches. played both on call of duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Hi everyone, its been a while since I wrote on this point. Last time I made a fairly innocuous statement concerning Hannibal and brought down a world of trouble on my head. I think i need to clarify my reasoning:
At Zama, Scipio Africanus beat Hannibal, therefore Scipio is the equal of Hannibal. Nonsense, at Zama, Hannibal had inferior cavalry and equal numbers of infantry, only 1/3 of whom were veterans, and he nearly won.
Also, people seem to question whether he could have taken Rome. That is one of history's imponderables. For what its worth, he didn't have siege engines or a fleet with which to supply them (Hannibal Barca? sold it off), and he was down to around 20-30000 men, around half of whom were Gaulish mercs. Even if he took Rome he couldn't have held it. Thats why the battles against his brothers on Spain/Northern Italy were vital as they rendered Hannibal essentially hopeless.
I have to agree with Crazyguy, theres no way of knowing whether Hannibal could have conquered Rome because he didn't try!
At Zama everybody knocks him for losing. Yes in terms of numbers it was a stronger force than he had in Italy. But training and, more importantly experiance were lacking. He had more elephants, but again the Elephants were ill-trained and Scipio was ready for them.
This is not designed to detract from Scipio's acheivements. He was a great general himself. But some of his tactics were taken from Hannibal himself, according to some books I've read. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
Now that we're located in the monastry am I alright to bring up Assaye (circa 1803)?
You're right, Scipio Africanus was practically a student of Hannibal's tactics himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
How was Carthage ruled like, it's a bit confusing for me. are they ruled by an assembly, like the Senate. a king, or an emperor.
While I'm far from an expert I believe Carthage was ruled by an Assembly in a manner of the Greek city-states.
Within the assembly the Barca's, of which Hannibal was the 'next' patriarch, were a pre-eminent family and held much sway. However, the assembly (for whatever reason) denied Hannibal the supplies needed after Cannae and missed their oppurtunity, securing their own downfall.
Had they sent reinforcements to Hannibal, there probably wouldn't be a Rome.
The Barcas weren't the only family with a faction though. An assembly isn't a dictatorship. Perhaps political rivals/ jealous other factions (why do it when its already been done?) were behind the lack of support?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy
Isn't it a bit like the Roman Senate?
Kalka River and Legnica
Mohi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
What about Dong Zhuo? Didn't he torch the capital city and retreat? Or am I thinking of someone else??
Yeah, he burned the capital, Luo Yang, and changed the imperial capital to Chang An. That was one of the biggest mistakes ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Bear
The Chinese seems to love fire attacks, as demonstrated in the Battle of Yiling and the Battle of Chi Bi. does anyone know if the same method is used ever in the West?
.....I think it's fair to label this as a common tactic, I believe it was known throughout the whole world a long time ago.