Hello. I decided to put the EB part of my Multi AAR (I'll explain in a second) here, since this forum is quite vivid and the meadhall simply isn't.
So what is this about?
What is this AAR about?
This AAR can be considered as a mammoth project I have been thinking about for a while. History of man will replay an entire string of history, from the Persian Empire till the American domination of the 20th century. Yeah that’s right, I want to pull off a series of AARs that connect to each other, an entire alternative history.
Since I know this is a big AAR and everyone will most likley have doubts ("yeah he’ll start it and never finish it."), I’ll post first things first. I am fully aware how much work this will be, that’s why I will take a slow approche. A very slow aproche. Secondly, I have allready played a test run from 300BC till 1500 AD, and playing that alone alread took me half a year. But I am willing to take my time.
What are the methods?
Since this is my first AAR I’ll have to try a few things out as we go. But this AAR will be written as pseudo realistic primary sources. Certain people will write about something in history. Sometimes they are writing to back up a king, sometimes an aristrocate will write negative comments about a ruler. Sometimes a historical source will be critical with the situation itself. Sometimes it will have lies and plot-holes in it. Some writers might be more interessted in facts, some in myths, and well often enough a writer will be more curious about who the king/emperor/president is having an afaire.
But there will be also historians posting scientific or populistic work about it. You will meet all those persons as we go.
What I want with this method is to create a multi-structual history. I don’t want to simply entertain with jokes or simple dialogs, I want my reader to think and re-live my history with me.
Do I have to read all the previous posts to enjoy this part of the AAR?
Not necessarily. This AAR should be understandable without the previous updates for the most part. But it can't hurt to read either if you like, since some less essential parts will be less clear, like for example why there were five Samnite wars. If you wan't to read all the stuff go here: History of Men
Last edited by Fixiwee; 10-19-2009 at 19:02.
Reason: removed the weird prophecy of future american domination
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
-Will Rogers
First punic war
The Roman Empire, by Wolfgang Schreier, Bonn 2003
With Pyrrhus gone from Italy, the Romans were exhausted from a century of war, after facing a total of five wars against the Samnites. But the war was not completely over yet, Pyrrhus left a small garrison at Tarrentum, but otherwise he did not support his Oscan allies. The Oscans raided the the southern Roman border, but that seemed to prove counterproductive. In 271 BC a consular army Lucius Quincitus Caudinus marched on Tarentum itself and stormed the city after a brief siege.
Rome in the winter 272 BC. A Oscan raiding band can be seen atacking Campania.
Consul L. Quintus Caudinus is ready to take the city by force.
Bruttian Infantry from Calabria played an important role in taking of the Tarentum.
The fightings in the city were unlike for antiquity, but from time to time street fighting like here occured.
Roman cavalry securing a small alley conecting two major routes. Much fighting took place in small groups in small alleys like this one.
A Roman envoy reached Epirus the next year and made a final peace treaty that settled the south Italy as a Roman sphere of influence. In conclusion the Romans lost most of the battles against Epirus, but nevertheless won the war.
The following year, 269 BC, the Romans had one last problem to deal with in south Italy. During the 4th Samnite war Rhegion, modern-day Reggio Calabria, was garrisoned with Campanian and Roman troops who declared their independence from Rome. The Roman senate did not respond well to that kind of mutiny and sent an army to the city which was besieged more then a year and starved to submission. While the city it self was preserved from looting and destruction some 300 captured Roman renegades were beheaded on the Roman forum.
Rome besieging Rhegion. The city was well fortified by experienced soldiers. It took the Romans over a year to take it, and that only by starving the city to submission
Now the Romans had all the land they could possibly use for their own needs and most Roman citizen and senators agreed that the last wars were long and bloody and that Rome needed some rest. But that would not happen.
The situation in Greece: In Greece the new Epirote king Alexander II defeated the Macedons under King Antigonos Argeades in 258BC and gained the city of Pella. In the meanwhile the Macedons, though weakend, were not idle and pressed against Athens and caputred it in 256 BC. Attempts to take Sparta failed.
Silanos – Historiai
(written about 130 BC)
Who is Silanos?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Silanos was a greek historian who lived from 200BC to 120 BC. He came to Rome [under reasons that have not happend yet - this will be edited]. His account on the Roman history are of high value since he followed the pragmatic histiography like Demosthnes of Ancyle.
Book IV […] In the year that M. Atilius Flaccus and D. Iunius Caudex were consuls [264BC] the Mamertine, which means “Son of Mars”, mercenary captain Ennychos from Messana in Sicily started raiding the Bruttium [modern Calabria] coast with small ships, ignoring the fact that there was still a consular army stationed in Rhegion. It is hard to reconstruct the reason for Ennychos brutal attacks. Possibly he was trying to achieve more wealth to fight of his main enemy, Hieros from Syracuse. Nevertheless it is very likely that Ennychos was looking for a quick way to get his hands on some booty, being unaware that he would start a war between two other nations. The Romans on the other hand were hoping that the problem would go away by itself, doing nothing at first. The following year Ennychos repeated his attacks once more and the Roman senators grew weary by the raids. What happened then was changing history significantly so it is most important to describe the details in length here. The Romans had a long history of a friendly relationship with the Carthaginians, both sides traded vividly with each other and in some cases Carthage even sent the Roman military aid, for example during the war with Pyrrhus (source: Kalisthos of Syrakousai). However the diplomatic contact of both city-states was rather weak and both powers missed the important chance to talk about the sphere of influence in Sicily. Not at one point either of the states declared a border to the other. From this perspective the Punic war might be seen as a simple mistake, but there is also something deeper then this. Growing tired of Ennychos the Roman senate debated over the possible actions. But being stressed out from the numerous wars with the Samnites and the Oscans, and possibly also being aware of the danger about leading an army to Sicily many Senators under the lead of L. Cornelius Arvina, spoke out against taking action to Messana, but rather fortify Bruttium with Roman colonies to annihilate Ennychos. The senators could not agree on this matter so they decided to let the Comitia have a decision over the matter. The voters of popular assembly also showed hesitation for they also thought that Rome needed rest from the wars, but eventually the opinion was swayed by the idea to lead a consular army to Sicily and swiftly gain booty and wealth. This was seen as a simple military expedition without aim to gain permanent hold on the island itself, something Carthage didn't know. Next year the army was lead by the consul C. Fabius Caudex, with him was a man called L. Conerlius Scipio, who I will talk later in greater detail.
Raids by Messana as described by Fabius.
A history of Rome, by Prof Alfred Kennard, 2002 New York
The consular army that crossed the strait of Messina in 262 was lead by Consul C. Fabius Caudex. This act would ultimately lead to war with Carthage, since a small band of Carthaginian troops were stationed close to Messina and violence broke out when Roman scouts reached the Carthaginian outpost. It is hard to tell if that event was intentionally used as a reason for both sides to wage war against each other or if the whole act was accidental. It is not unlikely though that a diplomatic solution could have been achieved. The Carthaginian could have had Messina, while the Romans would have controlled the straight of Messina which seemed to be the key of the conflict.
Ennychos was dealt quickly with. The citizen of Messina had enough of Ennychos reign of terror and opened the gates to the consular army. The mercenary captain did not surrender and barricaded himself in the inner city. It took two days of fighting after which about 2000 Roman troops and 800 Mamertines were killed in the struggle.
With the open conflict that emerged against Carthage the Roman senate decided to hold Messina, since they didn’t want to let the city fall into enemy hands.
Despite the open conflict both sides hesitated with attacking the other for the first few years and the first phase consisted of very minor skirmishes and mostly shadow boxing. Oddly enough there were no diplomatic talks; both Fabius and Silanos confirm that.
In 258 BC the Romans were able to gain the support of Syracuse, leaving Hieros in office, who joined an alliance with Rome, sending money and troops for their cause. Two years later, L. Cornelius Scipio was elected Praetor, which was significant for the war since he was sent to Sicily to organise Roman rule on the island.
Carthaginian troops land on Sicily in the winter of 256. The following year the Romans would also strenghten up their forces.
In the following year, 255 BC, both sides built up their forces and a massive clash of war seemed to become inevitable. The Carthaginians had two armies stationed on Sicily lead by Hamalcar the Elder and his son Hamalcar the Younger. The Roman consular army started campaigning in the west of Sicily, but Hamalcar the Elder tried to wear out Roman supply and resources, thus avoiding direct confrontation. It wasn’t until 254 BC when the consul L. Valerius Maximus marched on Lilibeo, the most important city on Sicily, so that Hamalcar the Elder decided to attack the Romans.
What followed was one of the bloodiest battles of the war. […]
Gnawing hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.
“Monarchy degenerates into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into savage violence and chaos”
- Polybius
Second war with Epirus 220 BC - 214 BC
The Roman Empire, by Wolfgang Schreier, Bonn 2003
Once the Romans left Polyanthes Aiakides, the king of Epirus, to do as he pleases, he immediately began preparing for a new offensive against Macedon. In late 219 BC he attacked and beat Antigonus Amynous once again in 218 BC at the battle of Berora much to the displeasure of the Romans. In the same year the Senators of Rome agreed to attack Polyanthes once again and a year later a Roman legion embarked over the sea to Epirus.
The map shows the world in 220 BC and the Roman camapigns in Epirus. Note that the Romans only campaigned in the Epirus homeland.
Polyanthes had reinforced Epirus since he knew that the Romans might eventually attack, so in 217 BC it came to the battle of Epidamnos under the Roman consul L. Aurelius Cotta. Though the Romans suffered notable casualties the maniple system proved to be flexible enough to overcome the Greek phalanx.
Roman Hastati outflanking a Phalanx, due to their better mobility. At the same time the war with Carthage in Spain was making hardly any progress for the Romans until 217 BC Cn. Aurelius Cotta, the brother of the victor at Epidamnos seized the Carthaginian city of Arsé. Lucius Cotta was assassinated in the same year, while Cnaeus died of natural causes a year later. The war in Spain stalled again.
A history of Rome, by Prof Alfred Kennard, 2002 New York
In the year 216 BC the Romans won the important sea battle of Thiro against the Carthaginians, securing sea superiority in northern Mediterranean Sea. The battle actually consisted of three separate sea engagements in over two weeks. The Carthaginians tried to flank the Roman fleet with faster ships, but the Roman tactic of boarding enemy ships with ground troops proved to be superior. In total the Romans lost 45 ships, while the Carthaginians lost about 90 ships. This victory secured the vital sea trade and transportation of troops to Spain.
This map shows a reconstruction of the Battle of Thiro. 1) The Roman fleet under Admiral Decimus Papirus Turdus gets attacked near the port of Thiro by the Carthaginian Admiral Bodinelquart. After his defeat Bodinelquart retreats and regroups to the west. A few days later Turdus gets attacked at 2) again by Admiral Tabnit with the main fleet, but this battle is indecissive. The Romans move further west where Tabnit atacks with his mainfleet at 3) again.Bodinelquart regrouped at 4) and moved to the battle trying to flank the Romans. Though the Romans suffer signifianct casualties, they are able to rout the enemy fleet.
Meanwhile the tide seemed to turn for the kingdom of Epirus. The assassinated Roman Consul Lucius Aurelius Cotta was replaced by the new consul Cnaeus Pomponius Titus. Apollodoros Aiakides, the brother of the King of Epirus Polyanthes Aiakides, destroyed a Roman army in the battle of Toryne. Unfortunately only fragments of the historical sources concerning this battle survived but it is clear that poor Roman leadership lead to the loss of 15.000 Roman lives. This defeat led to a change in the Roman military system. Soldiers were now divided into the three existing military groups (Hastati, Principes, Triari) by age and experience rather then by wealth. While not a revolutionary reform, this change was an important step to ensure the necessary military strength needed to fight in foreign regions like Greece and Spain.
With the defeat at Toryne the Romans were caught off guard. But the RomanRepublic had access to a vast amount of military manpower and a year later another Roman legion landed at the shores of Epirus.
It is said that the Aiakides brothers had a dispute over the war with the Romans since the kinghimself, unlike his brother, had not yet won a single battle against them though he had beaten the Macedons time after time. King Polyanthes Aiakides feared loosing support to his brother who had smashed the Romans last year. So he decided for a swift and quick attack against the Roman legion under the command of Consul Publius Claudius Nero while they were still on the shore. As we have seen before the Romans lacked experienced and talented leaders during this period. Polyanthes moved with his troops against the Roman encampment where it came to the battle of Cassope in 215 BC
Battle of Cassope 215 BC - A battle with poor leadership for the Romans
Greek cavalry trying to punch through the Roman lines.
The Romans had the high ground and the numbers to hold the line. Without outflanking this formation the Epirotes are not able to break through the enemy.
Polyanthes was one of the best military leaders of his times and his troops where experienced, but the Romans had the high ground and more troops. During the battle Polyanthes was killed trying to manoeuvre his troops around the Roman flank. With his demise the troops where unable to complete the manoeuvre, thus the Romans remained in advantage over the Epriotes and eventually won the battle. The Romans lost about 5.000 soldiers, while Polyanthes lost his own life and 15.000 soldiers. According to Silanos the victory at the battle of Cassope was a surprise to the Romans, since they did not believe they could win the war against Polyanthes in a single battle.
Despite the dangerous situation, the royal guard fought the Romans bitterly to the last men - a fact that the Romans were proud to defeat such a tough enemy.
With the destruction of the Epirote army the Romans quickly moved to the city of Epidamos where Apollodros Aiakades held out. In the same year the consular army stormed the city and took Apollodros prisoner. The following year, 214 BC Polyanthes son, Xanthippos Aiakades, now legitimate heir to the throne, met with the Romans to discuss the term of peace. With the whole of Epirus in the hand of the Romans, the king being dead and his brother being shipped to Rome in chains Xanthippos did not have any trumps to come to reasonable terms with the Romans. Xanthippos went to exile to the Seleucid Empire to the east. Epirus became Roman province and the Macedon King Antigonus III was restored in Greece. Apollodros Aiakades, the victor over the Romans in the battle of Toryne, was publicly executed during the triumph of Publius Claudius Nero.
It can be questioned why the Romans bothered so much with Epirus in the first place. Land hunger and military expansion cannot be the reason, since they did not try to gain any land when they first landed in Epirus in 220 BC. If we are to believe Fabius, the Romans felt a moral obligation to help the Macedons since the Romans allied themselves with them. From their perspective Polyanthes was a problem that was troubling the Roman-Macedon agreement and they just wanted to solve this problem and goy away again. Since Polyanthes did not stand to his word and attacked the Macedons again he had to be removed completely. To ensure further aggression from the king Romans dissolved the throne and made it Epirus into a province so that no one else could take control over Epirus again. From the view of the Romans they were just making sure that peace would endure. From the view of the Greeks the Romans were now a power factor bigger then themselves which could not be ignored any more.
But with the second Punic war still going on in Spain, peace in reality was a far goal for the Romans in 214 BC.
[Multi-AAR] - History of men - EB part
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Dayve
Bookmarks