Enlighten me

[BurningEGO]

most historical cases of cavalry vs heavy infantry the heavy infantry has prevailed

Its true that Roman legionaries had a good chance of repelling cavalry attacks... provided they were organized properly against such. There are countless examples where a good general managed to beat cavalry forces with heavy infantry. In fact, Rome did rather well even when facing Parthian-Persian-Armenian Cataphracts.

Making use of tight formations (to soften the enemy charge), firing at the enemy (sometimes legions were even given slingers), exchanging the Pilum with heavy thrusting spears, using terrain to their advantage, creating some very loud noise by yelling and/or beating their shields or even using caltrops, were just some things the Romans would do against cavalry forces.

And, cavalry forces were not that powerful as in the middle ages since their charges were not as devastating.

But did i say that Cavalry was better then Heavy Infantry? What i said is that the combined arms, the way, for example, Hannibal used was far more devastating then the old Roman strategy of "throw at them all we have got". A cavalry charge in the enemy rear would cause devastating casualties. Suposing, they werent expecting such (otherwise the legionaries would be able to repel such an attack like Caesar did in Pharsalus).

I sort of feel obliged to point out too that Pyrrhus was beat by the Romans at Beneventum.

First of, Pyrrhus' army had been drained due to his struggles in Sicily and due to his other Pyrric Victories. Secondly, he didnt loose. In fact, the battle was inconclusive to each side, but he did afterwards decide to abandon Italy for good. He didnt have the means to beat the Romans as everyone should know (in fact, few had).

The phrase Pyrrhic Victory comes from somewhere.

Of course, the Romans had an almost infinite reserve of manpower. Despite all their looses they always managed to bolster their ranks again and throw at Pyrrhus everything they had. If Pyrrhus had the same resources as Rome, he would have definetely win. The Romans only managed to annex Magna Graecia because they were experts at fighting wars of atrition. Hannibal couldnt defeat them, and Pyrrhus was no exception either. Although Hannibal had a lot of conspiracies going on against him.

Oh yes, "the greeks or the macedons obviously were badly beaten because they limited themselves...", there is always an excuse is there not?

Its a fact that the romans managed to snatch such big victories from Macedonia due to the incompetence of certain leaders, like Perseus. Macedonia was not what it was, either. The army was just a shadow of its former self.

By the time of the third macedonian war, everything was in favour of Rome. Had Rome faced a Macedonia so strong as the one of Alexander The Great (prior to his conquest of Persia), for example, things would have been absurdly different.

Beating a nation when that same nation is at its weakest, doesnt really show any kind of superiority.

Dunno why people keep saying that Hellenic warfare was superior to Roman, who won and created an empire?

Ancient Rome had little, if any, enemies (they actually had many, but few that could actually match their finances and manpower). Only real threat to Roman existance was Carthage, but due to internal intrigues Hannibal was limited. All of its neighbours were, far inferior, and didnt have the means to challenge Rome. Even great leaders like Pyrrhus were unable to defeat Rome due to lack of resources.

Again, just because of sheer weight, brute force and a vast economy, it doesnt properly mean that Roman warfare was superior to Hellenic wafare.

How many times did Rome actually manage to win a battle against a force using some sort of Hellenic warfare? And how many times did they loose against such a style? I dont know the exact numbers, but its rather obvious that their defeats under such circunstances were far bigger then their victories.

you Hellene lovers

I am just stating the obvious. If you "Roman lovers" are unable to see it due to your blind love, your problem. And dont call me Hellene lover, bud. My first name starts with a R, and its closely related to Rome. Its a very famous name, and if you discover it, i will give you a cookie.

[DaciaJC]

My first name starts with a R, and its closely related to Rome. Its a very famous name, and if you discover it, i will give you a cookie.

Romulus? Remus?

[A Very Super Market]

Fail. It's Romeo

[Cullhwch]

Rex?
Ricimer?

[antisocialmunky]

Ya know, I'm just going to throw this out here but massed HA beats both.

[desert]

[BurningEGO]

Romulus?

Cookie for you!

And damn, you actually made me laugh with that one Super Market. Romeo... Ah!

[Husker98]

Of course, the Romans had an almost infinite reserve of manpower

umm no it didn't during the punic wars after its epic defeat at cannae Rome was forced to withdraw all its remaining armies due the fact there where no more reserves left. they had to wait until their next bunch of kids grew up to raise another couple legions.


By the time of the third macedonian war, everything was in favour of Rome. Had Rome faced a Macedonia so strong as the one of Alexander The Great (prior to his conquest of Persia), for example, things would have been absurdly different

i don't really think so the organisation and execution of roman military strategy would have held him off or atleast forced him to return to macedon to raise a new army atleast once. once again italy is not the place to execute a phalanx like military formation in battle, nor are parts of greece for that matter. Alexander would have only been willing to fight on open ground and the romans wouldn't have. to negate his phalanx, you want to simulate an invasion of rome take your phalanx into the many ravines and forests of italy and the mountains of greece at the time on EB and tell me different. i sure did when i conquered rome on my eb campaign with macedon, even then it took me decades to take down the republic at the cost of thousands of troops.

[BurningEGO]

umm no it didn't during the punic wars after its epic defeat at cannae Rome was forced to withdraw all its remaining armies due the fact there where no more reserves left. they had to wait until their next bunch of kids grew up to raise another couple legions.

Uh? Thats a good thing for me to review, but from what i knew Rome was still able to muster multiple armies after Cannae - after Cannae Hannibal managed to gain new allies, but these allies were for the most part defeated because while Hannibal was busy somewhere, the Romans attacked them. Syracuse is one example, the Samnites are another, and even far away Iberia, the main source of Carthaginian manpower.

And come to think of it... if they had to wait for the kids to grow up, Rome would have been defenseless and Hannibal would have taken it.

But yes you are right regarding the Phalanx - such formations required a wide open field. Still, both Hannibal and even Pyrrhus managed to lure the Romans into fighting battles under their conditions.

Oh and come on... Macedonia by Alexander's time was able to defeat the Achaemenid Empire, which was far, FAR bigger and could muster far more men then Rome... Now now, lets not exagerate. We all know that Rome was a Lernean Hydra that grew two heads for each one cut off, but even such a beast could be defeated. As it was.

[antisocialmunky]

Perhaps if Darius hadn't been assasinated after Gaugamela, it would have been more interesting...

And yeah, the Romans after losing 45,000 out of 80,000 raised another 80,000 men and divided them into four armies to deny Hannibal any more major pitched battles. They also invaded Iberia and Illyria during the same period.

It's always amused me as to how well the Romans multi-tasked.

[Cbvani]

If the Roman manpower advantage is universally acknowledged, shouldn't the Roman players get a few extra units in their stacks, going to 20 unit stack instead of a 14 uniter?
I'm kidding, I'm just Hellen baiting.