Enlighten me

[antisocialmunky]

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

[BurningEGO]

Romulus?

Cookie for you!

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

[desert]

[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.

[Husker98]

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.

exactly only those armies raised weren't roman more of their increasinly fewer local allies and remaining units. Scipio Africanus had been deployed with Roman Allies to Iberia to avenge Roman losses in the area. Illyria was a minor invasion to stop the Illyrian piracy that was raising heck.

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.

Hannibal, you know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it -- Maharbal


Hannibal didn't have a siege train or siege equipment with him and a siege of rome would have taken YEARS, this thought of mind prevented a march on Rome. oddly enough though if he had besieged Rome (he marched near to the city once) he might have forced their hand and thus a favourable truce. Hannibal had a chance and his indescisiveness saved rome and killed Carthage.

Hannibal had them on their knees thats why Rome was bent on destroying carthage once and for all in the third war.

Macedonia by Alexander's time was able to defeat the Achaemenid Empire

Yes it was a leaderless empire with alot of man power... Give those men at Gaugemala good General like Cyrus the Great and maybe Alexander doesn't conquer all of the Persian empire..... the persians problem is similar to the Macedonian one in the Roma vs Makedonian war, a powerful country with no leadership.

[soup_alex]

Hannibal had a chance and his indescisiveness saved rome and killed Carthage.

Please tell me you didn't just blame Hannibal for the downfall of Carthage.

[Βελισάριος]

Please tell me you didn't just blame Hannibal for the downfall of Carthage.

Oh, dear... I feel a third Punic War coming...

You do have to admit that Hannibal didn't play his cards right in the end. Maharbal was right, He did not know how to use a victory. He could#ve taken Rome and spared the rest of us a lot of trouble.
And please don't say we'd all be speaking some kind of Semitic language.

And how is this anywhere near what the topic was originally about?

[Macilrille]

Hannibal was right, Rome was too large to be taken, just like Carthage was, note that Scipio did not march on it after Zama. With the resources available to hannibal, he could not have invested Rome.


BTW, Hellene lovers, I am now trying to compile a list of all Hellene vs Roman battles to answer your question, as well as trying to get a clear picture of what state Rome was in after the Punic wars, I suspect no better than macedon, probably even worse.

[soup_alex]

You do have to admit that Hannibal didn't play his cards right in the end. Maharbal was right, He did not know how to use a victory. He could#ve taken Rome and spared the rest of us a lot of trouble.

Perhaps, yes!

And how is this anywhere near what the topic was originally about?

That is a very good question.

Macilrille, I had thought that Scipio didn't move on to Carthage because he wasn't a total c*nt? the war was effectively over and the Senate wanted to make terms?

[Maion Maroneios]

I think your mistaken as to what i was asking. I want to play the Romani and practice slaughtering the Maks. I will be putting the battle difficulty at hard, it should be pretty fair. and i plan to have a balanced roman army from the camillian era. That is why i wanted to have a balanced Phalanx army because whenever i play as a successor faction i created armies that are "efficient" not exactly balanced.

OK I understand now I suppose

That's a very, very unrealistic army composition and i'd leave the server before even starting the battle if you brought that into a game with me.

It's not unrealistic at all, it's just out of date. As for that last part, that means you're a plain coward Romaios barbaros

Because unless you fought that army with Marian Roman troops you couldn't win, the Romans have no units like those to compete with their huge numbers, huge attack and defense and morale stats.

And you want to win per se, right?

In real life a republican Roman army could smash that to pieces on any given day, but not in this game because the units are far too superior, which would make the battle an unfair one, which defeats the object of this game.

That was a nice one. Have you ever haired of the quote of Aemilius Paulus saying: "I have never seen anything as terrible and fearsome as the Macedonian phalanx?". He said that for a reason. Macedonia was a shadow of it's former self, repeatedly beaten by anyone who came into range (Epirus, the southern Greek states, northern Thracian and Illyrian tribes, then Rome) but managed to pull off quite well. Add the complete incompetency of the leaders of that time and the poor quality of the armies (plus the habit of using the phalanx as an offensive force) and you get a clear result: Roman victory.

Ah, before I forget it: The Romans were never able to get the Macedonians on head-to-head. Only when they encircled them. This means there weren't any units that could just mop the floor with the Makedones. They just used their troops wisely and took advantage of their flexibility and terrain.

Plus, these battles are supposed to be realistic. It's very unrealistic that the Makedonians would be using an army of nothing but nothing but the absolute elite of the elite. There isn't a single unit of levies in that army, of which Makedonia and Greece used more of than anything else.

I must disagree with you. The southern Greeks used many levies, that is correct. The Makedones used levies only when they were in dire need, not always. They only used psiloi as levies. Even their crappiest phalangites received a considerable amount of training before thrown into battle.

Maion

[Dutchhoplite]

Not very new but still very interesting:

http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Su..._vs_Legion.htm

[Macilrille]

No one could defeat the Maginot Line from the front. Does that then, by the same way of judging things, make French 1940 doctrine and army superior to German 1940 doctrine? Everyone then thought they were, and their tanks were better as well, and more numerous... Yes, they must indeed have been superior to the Germans, just as the Hellenes were superior to the Romans.

Oh both the Germans and the Romans employed superior battlefield tactics and mobility!! No they must not!! That is cheating! They must understand their inferiority!!!

[antisocialmunky]

Belgium FTW?

[BurningEGO]

And... French static warfare was good. If they had covered all their fronts the germans wouldnt have gotten past them, just like in world war 1 (the schlieffen plan was after all a major failure, which resulted in trench warfare). You also have to take in consideration that France had... internal problems, en masse during these times (i would even go further and say that they still have them today).

Although, covering all their borders would be semi-impossible. The maginot line itself was already... costly.


Now, i could say that Blitzkrieg was inferior to all other battle plans because hitler got defeated in the end (just like i heard someone saying that Rome was the one that built an Empire, lol). Actually, the greeks had the same problems as the germans had in world war 2. Lack of numbers. The soviets just kept pumping men out of nowhere, and no matter how many were killed, many more came. The romans did exactly the same.

Rome's Hellenistic enemies never were able to achieve the coordinated combined arms cooperation that Pyrrhus or Alexander achieved

Keep that in mind.

[Vasiliyi]

Oh boy, I never planned to start a rome vs hellen war online. Sorry guys. I just wanted to pit myself against a balanced hellen army and I wanted to make sure the army I used was balanced. I hope to replicate the battle today and play it on medium difficulty. And ill be using full stack armies this time. That said I never condem or encourage this arguement of rome vs hellen.

[Cbvani]

Oh boy, I never planned to start a rome vs hellen war online. Sorry guys. I just wanted to pit myself against a balanced hellen army and I wanted to make sure the army I used was balanced. I hope to replicate the battle today and play it on medium difficulty. And ill be using full stack armies this time. That said I never condem or encourage this arguement of rome vs hellen.

The Rome v Hellen war thing is kind of a topic around here right now. Go on, try and start another topic that mentions even tangentially rome or the hellenic way of war, and see what happens.

[Dutchhoplite]

That's certainly true...

[BurningEGO]

Hey no war here, just a lively, good discussion. Right Macilrille, right Husker?

Now seriously i dont have any problem with neither greeks or romans. Only that i think that a proper army using some style of hellenic warfare had more chances at victory then a roman army. As history showed.

[A Very Super Market]

Blitskrieg isn't a bad tactic per se, but it requires total air superiority to work. Poland's was destroyed on the ground, France was completely taken by suprise, and Norway was comparitively hard fought to due the British air presence.

[Vasiliyi]

A very super market, your forgetting his successes in Russia.

[A Very Super Market]

Russia was poorly prepared for an attack, and especially a well-organized one. The Russian airforce wasn't exactly one to admire either. Many planes, but poor quality. Russia also lacked many AA defenses, and just generally wasn't prepared, much like France. But on a bigger scale.

[BurningEGO]

Still, operation barbarossa was a tactical failure for it failed to conquer any of its 3 targets. Managed to encircle many armies, but failed to put a decisive end to the war. Stalin also had moved his industrial base to siberia which made things harder for the germans.

Not to speak about the winter. Napoleon wasnt able to deal with it, neither were the germans.

[Husker98]

Hey no war here, just a lively, good discussion. Right Macilrille, right Husker?

Now seriously i dont have any problem with neither greeks or romans. Only that i think that a proper army using some style of hellenic warfare had more chances at victory then a roman army. As history showed.

yea it's a friendly discussion/debate on military strategy of the time all is good hearted fun.

Not to speak about the winter. Napoleon wasn't able to deal with it, neither were the germans.

The Germans could have been ready for the winter but Hitlers original battle plan was only geared for the summer and early fall, Hitler believed it possible to cover all that ground in one campaign season. Once the German troops had the adequate clothing and gear to combat the winter they were doing ok. not great but ok. Had they been ready for winter warfare i don't think all of those casualties would have happened. but once again after 1941 Hitler was his armies and Germany's own worst enemy he thought France and Poland were all his success, not his General's, this built up ego helped him make the mistakes he made on the eastern front ultimately costing Germany the war there.

[kekailoa]

All this arguing about Romans vs Hellenes is making me sick.

We all know the superior form of warfare is the good old Celtic charge. Never fails.

[BurningEGO]

Mhhh, speaking of roman haters, i just checked the social groups out there and there is one called Rômaioktonoi - A group for all Rômaioi-haters. Obviously created by no one else then Maion. Maion, if you are reading this, tell me, do you serve smashed romans with a distinct smell of elephants?

Now, seriously (speaking of EB): There is nothing better then beating a full stack of romans with elephants...

[soup_alex]

There is nothing better then beating a full stack of romans with elephants...

Except, obviously, beating two full stacks of Romans, etc.

[Macilrille]

No flamewar- flamewar!!! I HATE you all ;-)

Of course not, a debate can be spirited without devolving to flaming, the difference is whether you go for the man or the ball (football- what you barbaroi Americans call soccer- expression). And should anyone ever feel offended by me, spit it out so we can resolve it. Fora such as this tend to be misinterpreted.

However, it is slowly dawning on even my dense head that no matter what I say or do, or no matter how convincing my arguments are, even if I actually devote my professional ardour to it and research it to write a book upon it, there will always be an excuse, an explanation, something... that allows the Hellene lovers to retain their delusion, so I am simply getting fed up with trying. Keep your delusion, to me history shows who was strongest.

Just one thing, if you think Macedonia was more exhausted by the traditional Hellene internal strife (fool Graeculi) than Rome was by the 2nd Punic war there is something seriously wrong with you. Try reading Brunt's "Italian Manpower", even his low estimates shows how badly Rome and Italy was hurt by these. It is 600+ pages though and not written in a very entertaining way (ie it is dry even to me who is a historian myself), good luck with it.

Edit: What I mean is that no one can argue with the delusional, I shall refrain from comment on this subject at all in the future. It is like hitting a pillow, you leave no mark when retracting your hand. No offense at all by calling you delusional- we all have our little personal ones, me included.