About the battle of Corinth (146 BC)

Hi all

I'm new here. My apologies if I didn't take the time to make an introduction thread, but I've created an account in order to ask a specific question to EB users/developers/historians, and i'm eager to do so. I'm not even certain this is the correct section, but i've seen several threads concerning historical facts on here, so it looked like a good idea.

So, here we go. From the description of Thorakitai hoplitai on EB

"They were almost never used against the Romaioi because the Hellenikai poleis mainly accepted Romaios hegemony without serious struggle. The exception was Korinthos, whose Thorakitai Hoplitai broke the Romaioi left flank during the battle for the city, but were checked and then promptly cut down by Romaioi legionaries and Noumidoi mercenaries enveloping them on three sides."

I suppose the battle cited here is the battle of Corinth, aka the battle of Leucopetra. fought in 146 BC, between a Roman army led by consul Lucius Mummius and an army of the Achaean League led by the general Diaeus.

Now, I've checked all the fonts i could imagine on the battle. On the Web at least (after a long search on google i tried a site that listed, I presume, all the authors who described the battle. I won't cite it because spam is forbidden). I read some books on the subject, too. All the authors I checked give the same, limited account of the battle. Basically, the greek cavalry flees at the sight of roman cavalry, leaving the infantry alone and unprotected on the flanks. The greek infantry (I suppose a mix of thureophoroi and phalangites, but i'm not certain) manages to resist for a while, until a picked force of 1000 romans (infantry) attacks it on the exposed flank. End of the battle, for obvious reasons

I don't question the possibility that, in that period, some small picked forces of veteran hoplites (maybe even influenced by celtic and roman equipment, like the thorakitai) still existed , and I actually find it interesting. Very simply I would like to ask if some of you guys could provide a font that describes the battle the way it is described ingame. Maybe i'm not majoring in history, but I'm pretty sure that this was the only major battle that occurred near Corinth in the war. After that, the city was sacked and destroyed.

Sorry for my english. It's not my mother language, you know. And thanks in advance for the replies

I do not speak for the team, but the truth is that EB1, wonderful as it was, was full of these small anecdotal inaccuracies no one could really verify. The Baktrian heavy cataphract bodyguards were another case, as well as the early bodyguard's position and prestige after they appeared, also the Roman who cried when he visited Sparta at the end of the Spartan Hoplites' description, the vascii and goidilic super heavy infantry and a few others. They do add some flavor to the game.
Another interesting case I'd like to refer to in order to make a point is the Baktrian Horse Archers. I like this unit very much. But in the few sources available for Baktria they are nowhere to be found. I am however quite convinced that such a unit must have existed out of sheer necessity. The prevalent culture at the time and place would also dictate a design for their armament very close to that which they feature in the game. So if we can agree that they belong in the game, then a description is there to intrigue and satisfy interest for the unit. Adding a disclaimer in that description is perhaps correct, but detrimental to the narrative.
Long story short, in my opinion: Historic accuracy is good.... but don't sweat the small stuff....

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Another interesting case I'd like to refer to in order to make a point is the Baktrian Horse Archers. I like this unit very much. But in the few sources available for Baktria they are nowhere to be found. I am however quite convinced that such a unit must have existed out of sheer necessity. The prevalent culture at the time and place would also dictate a design for their armament very close to that which they feature in the game. So if we can agree that they belong in the game, then a description is there to intrigue and satisfy interest for the unit. Adding a disclaimer in that description is perhaps correct, but detrimental to the narrative.
Long story short, in my opinion: Historic accuracy is good.... but don't sweat the small stuff....

And i suppose that's the same reason why Bactria has a similar unit in Rome II. This... or they simply copied EB. Although I have to say that, when i've heard that unit for the first time, I actually pictured it in my mind as a native unit, not so much influenced by greek equipment.

Another instance would be the Iberi Lanceari. I've seen a picture in the internet (probably from an Osprey book) depicting an iberian horseman with mail on the horse, but I still find hard to think iberians would field such cavalry.

In any case, I understand your point. My original thought was that the description of the battle is maybe too much "detailed" to be a simple addition of the developers.

I mean, the Thorakitai broke the roman LEFT flank, and then were surrounded by legionaries and NUMIDIAN MERCENARIES

As for the left flank, it can be explained by the traditional position of the elite troops in a greek army (in other words, being placed on the right flank, they would have faced, and eventually broken, the enemy left flank), but how do you explain the specific mention of numidian mercenaries?

I don't. It's small stuff... :)

I'm not a historian, and I wasn't around for EB1, but I'll try to explain as best as I can.

EB1 had a number of ahistorical units, like the Iberi Lanceari, Goidelic and Vasci super-infantry, Seleucid Foot Cataphracts, and so on. These will not be in EBII.

The Thorakitai Hoplitai don't seem to be on the internal unit list for EBII. I'm guessing they were dropped due to a lack of sources, though I might be wrong about this.

Not sure about the Baktrian Hippotoxotai. The EBII thread on the internal dev forum is several years old, and all the pictures have expired because Photobucket is annoying like that.

Hopefully some of the other, more knowledgable members will see this thread and clarify things.

Thank you for your replies, gentlemen.

I suppose the purpose of the Thorakitai hoplitai is to simulate the shift from classic hoplite infantry to the more mobile thureophoroi and thorakitai

In any case, as you probably have understood, I'm more interested about the single battle than about the unit itself.

No intent to bash the EB developers here, so I ask, out of genuine curiosity: may we conclude that the part of the battle described in the unit description is "invented for the sake of narrative"?

A reply from a EB developer/historian, if he has enough time of course, would be appreciated. As well as yours, guys.

This is my opinion regarding this issue, this is not an official EB2 position though, just like Sylons.

Something like Thorakitai Hoplitai very likely existed given that the Aspis was almost completly abandoned for the Thureos as time progressed. At the same time, it is not like with the fading of the Aspis armour disappeared as well. So it is quite logical that the Hippeis hoplites, richer citizens or merchants, mercenaries and Epilektoi who used to fight with armour and Aspis later fought with armour and Thureos.

We also know that some Thureophoroi and Thorakitai fought in closer order. So that is another way at looking at Thorakitia Hoplitai:
Thorakitai and Thureophoroi fighting in the Phalanx (shield wall), discarding their javelins to do so but otherwise fighting with their usual equipment.

Ancient soldiers, just like today, fought in different formations and with different weapons according to the circumstances. In a PC game with hardcoded limits like Medieval 2 or Rome this diversity of tactics can only be portrayed by making different units.

One thing we could do in EB2 would be to make them a late variant of the Epilektoi. Late unit upgrades were not a possibility in Rome.

Originally Posted by Trve Leveller

Something like Thorakitai Hoplitai very likely existed given that the Aspis was almost completly abandoned for the Thureos as time progressed. At the same time, it is not like with the fading of the Aspis armour disappeared as well. So it is quite logical that the Hippeis hoplites, richer citizens or merchants, mercenaries and Epilektoi who used to fight with armour and Aspis later fought with armour and Thureos.

We also know that some Thureophoroi and Thorakitai fought in closer order. So that is another way at looking at Thorakitia Hoplitai:
Thorakitai and Thureophoroi fighting in the Phalanx (shield wall), discarding their javelins to do so but otherwise fighting with their usual equipment.

Basically, what I said in a nutshell. And I can add that the shift to thureophoroi/thorakitai was gradual, slow and definitely not uniform. This means that there could be, for instance, cities employing thorakitai dynamically, and others that would be more traditionalist and conservative, so employing the new equipment without discarding the old tactics. Hence the thorakitai hoplitai.

Another point would be the fact that greek historians refer often to various (both greek and foreign) heavy infantry as "hoplites". This is obviously confusing.

Anyway, back to the original question, any info or thoughts about the battle? Do you think that episode is actually an invention of EB staff?

I don't know who wrote that paragraph, could be that taking into consideration how the league's troops were resisting, was understood as picked roman troops being reserves, and to be able to attack the flank meant that the Hellenes had somehow pushed the main roman line on the spot...

Regardless of that if you carefully read Pausanias:

Originally Posted by Pausanias VII.16

There came three thousand five hundred cavalry, while the infantry amounted to twenty-three thousand. They were joined by a company of Cretan archers and by Philopoemen, at the head of some troops sent by Attalus from Pergamus on the Caicus. Certain of the Italian troops along with the auxiliaries were stationed by Mummius twelve stades away, to be an outpost for the whole army. The contempt of the Romans made them keep a careless look-out, and the Achaeans, attacking them in the first watch, killed some, drove yet more back to the camp, and took some five hundred shields. Puffed up with this success the Achaeans marched out to battle before the Romans began their attack. But when Mummius advanced to meet them, the Achaean horse at once took to flight, without waiting for even the first charge of the Roman cavalry. The infantry were depressed at the rout of their horse, but nevertheless received the onslaught of the Roman men-at-arms; overwhelmed by numbers and faint with their wounds they offered a spirited resistance, until a thousand picked Romans fell upon their flank and utterly routed them.

The 600 cavalrymen of the league faced 3,500 mounted troops from the Roman army (Numidians, Italics) alone, plus those sent by Pergamon. Unfortunately the Roman sources are silent about the allied numbers, but one can easily imagine that those Hippeis were overwhelmed by missiles, however the focus on meleeing and charging by the source disregarded it as not being combat...

Afterwards the remaining 23,000 infantrymen (Roman and Italic) together with Kretan and Pergamene ones (of unspecified numbers), met the 14,000 Hellenes, who we should notice initiated the attack. This might be what the author of EBI's paragraph used to motivate the flank push...

Nervetheless it is easy to dismiss few words when the outcome is known, but as they were "overwhelmed by numbers and faint with their wounds they offered a spirited resistance", a lot of fighting happened, to allow both men to suffer wounds and a picked force to either move around the flank, or take position to flank...

Considering the absence of cavalry and protection at the flanks, that the Hellenic infantry could "resist for a while", as you put it, against such numbers (not to mention the Roman troops at that time were veterans of the Punic and Macedonian wars) shouldn't be dismissed so abruptly...

Anyway about the use of Hoplitai by the authors, it is in fact correct, at least imo, to describe heavy infantry as "men bearing the hopla (all armaments for war)". It is modern authors that should instead stop to think of them as "men bearing the shield", because that clearly wasn't the meaning of the term...

I don't know who wrote that paragraph, could be that taking into consideration how the league's troops were resisting, was understood as picked roman troops being reserves, and to be able to attack the flank meant that the Hellenes had somehow pushed the main roman line on the spot...

Don't know if that's your impression, but judging from some parts message, you may have supposed I was trying to somewhat "diminish" the valor of greek troops. Be certain that this WAS not my intent. I gave a brief account on the battle, just to underline the fact that the specific episode cited on the unit's description is something i couldn't find in the sources I checked. But let us examine the battle together.

Regardless of that if you carefully read Pausanias

I did, thank you. I definitely remember that passage. And i read also other authors that unfortunately can't cite here. I did this research some months ago, and now the site i used to search the fonts on the battle is upgrading and unusable. IIRC, it was one greek historian and 2 latins, but my memory may fail me. Btw, it is possible that the greeks were also reinforced by remnants of the armies defeated in previous engagements. Still, nothing that wouldn have turned the balance of the fight, i suppose.

The 600 cavalrymen of the league faced 3,500 mounted troops from the Roman army (Numidians, Italics) alone, plus those sent by Pergamon. Unfortunately the Roman sources are silent about the allied numbers, but one can easily imagine that those Hippeis were overwhelmed by missiles, however the focus on meleeing and charging by the source disregarded it as not being combat...

Speculation, and I like it. But to be honest, i think they just fled because of the overwhelming numbers of enemy cavalry. We are not talking about hoplites here. Greek cavalry, apart from some examples that we all know, was not know for her "elan". And history taught us that "the men with a horse are the first to flee". Afterall, Diaeus clearly looks like an inept and cruel commander, who led his men to a suicide battle.

Afterwards the remaining 23,000 infantrymen (Roman and Italic) together with Kretan and Pergamene ones (of unspecified numbers), met the 14,000 Hellenes, who we should notice initiated the attack. This might be what the author of EBI's paragraph used to motivate the flank push...

I think you are a bit confused here. The greeks didn't initiate the attack. As is written by Pausanias and in the books I read on the subject, that first episode was an attack of the Achaeans (who probably outnumbered them, in this case) on a outpost of a vanguard of auxiliaries (probably italic). Basically, it was a skirmish of light infantry, and definitely, an event that was distinct from the actual battle, as Pausanias himself stated

"The Achaeans made a sudden attack upon them and gained a slight success, which was a few days afterwards revenged by a signal defeat."

The signal defeat is the battle of course. A battle where, historians tend to agree that the greek infantry, after the escape of the cavalry, waited passively for the roman force to attack and flank them. I don't see a push here, just a stiff resistance, if you like it. Nothing like what you read in that description.

Nervetheless it is easy to dismiss few words when the outcome is known, but as they were "overwhelmed by numbers and faint with their wounds they offered a spirited resistance", a lot of fighting happened, to allow both men to suffer wounds and a picked force to either move around the flank, or take position to flank...
Considering the absence of cavalry and protection at the flanks, that the Hellenic infantry could "resist for a while", as you put it, against such numbers (not to mention the Roman troops at that time were veterans of the Punic and Macedonian wars) shouldn't be dismissed so abruptly...

Again, speculation. The romans had superior numbers (and veteran troops, I know, thank you), and Mummius was a pretty experienced commander. Let me speculate, too. Any general with superior numbers and common sense would employ unengaged troops to attack the enemy flank, and would prepare for this operation before the battle. In other words, that was in my opinion a plan of the general from the very start of the battle, and didn't take much be executed. This was not the battle of Zama, where the charge of the cavalry decided the day. this was an already lost battle for the greeks (judging from the numbers employed), and the attack on the flank just made it "quicker" and less bloody.

Besides, remember that Pausanias is a greek author, and had any interest to depict the last resistance of the Greeks as a heroic one. Latin authors aren't the only ones who display this attitude, you know. Regardless, I don't find hard to believe that Achaeans actually resisted fiercely. Corinth was their last bastion of resistance, and they knew they would have been massacred anyway. Plus the greeks are well know for their attachment to their cities, so that kind of defense is actually more than justified. And if you think about it, in the previous engagements, the achaean army crumbled pretty easily. They probably had much more motivation (included instinct of self-preservation), in this case.

I wrote that the greeks resisted for a while (a pretty generic expression, btw), you that they resisted for a long time. Feel free to disagree with me, but i NEVER said that they were weak or offered weak resistance. They held the romans in place, and a flank attack made them rout. My point in this thread is that nothing of that description is actually described in the sources i checked. At least according to the sources, romans weren't pushed back, or broken. They simply flanked the achaeans who where resisting in the center.

One last speculation, Achaeans were probably using the sarissa, and we know how good that weapon is to hold enemy infantry (no matter if veteran or not): there you have a possible explanation on why the center was being held in place

In any case, i don't see a mention of picked hoplites or thorakitai, I don't see a mention of numidian mercenaries, and I don't see a mention of the roman left flank breaking. I think you understand my curiosity.

Anyway about the use of Hoplitai by the authors, it is in fact correct, at least imo, to describe heavy infantry as "men bearing the hopla (all armaments for war)". It is modern authors that should instead stop to think of them as "men bearing the shield", because that clearly wasn't the meaning of the term...

I totally agree. And i would go as far as to say that we don't even need to agree on this. It's a fact that the term "hoplite" comes from "hopla" and NOT "hoplon". The problem is that, since the common soldier of the classical Greece was the hoplite, people tend to link the name to the argive shield. I think we have to deal with this error, and many others. But we can live with it LOL

Sorry for the long post

If you are interested all the sources on the battle and its outcome are: Pausanias VII.16.1-9; Livy, Periochae 52; Zonaras IX.31; Polybius XXXIX.2; Justinus Trogus XXXIV.2.1-6; Florus I.32.4-7; Strabo VIII.6.23; Orosius V.3...

As for who attacked first, the Achaioi marched out before the Romani could attack, that it was a failure it is another matter imo...
Of course the infantry kept a defensive stance, Leukopetra was on the Isthmos. I don't think Pausanias wrote that account on his own and used source material, still as you say may have omitted something. It is also possible that Diaios received a hostile description by the contemporary sources...

The Koinon was behind its laws and generals sure, but running into a "suicide battle" blindly, wholly chosen by an inept and cruel man is an oversimplification. As you mentioned the likelihood of Sarissai also being used, would have made it possible to hold ground and push back the Romani at the Isthmos. Men were also sent to Megara to prevent/delay movement behind the main army, Diaios may have been corrupt and all, but clearly was following a plan...

As for the numidians, they weren't mercenaries, but allies and it can be assumed their presence as they were actively involved since the 2nd Punic War, even in Makedonia...
About the flank I told you, not knowing who wrote that paragraph I cannot answer, except as I did before imagine the reasoning behind that interpretation...
While the armament of Thorakitai and picked men in Hellas is definitely clear to you and such military structure well established. They might not be specifically listed in the ancient account, but the leading men were there, at least some Epilektoi were present...

If you are interested all the sources on the battle and its outcome are: Pausanias VII.16.1-9; Livy, Periochae 52; Zonaras IX.31; Polybius XXXIX.2; Justinus Trogus XXXIV.2.1-6; Florus I.32.4-7; Strabo VIII.6.23; Orosius V.3...

Thank you. Can I ask you where do you find sources on a specific event? If it's a site can you please send a link to me via PM?

As for who attacked first, the Achaioi marched out before the Romani could attack, that it was a failure it is another matter imo...
Of course the infantry kept a defensive stance, Leukopetra was on the Isthmos.

Odd. You said that the greeks attacked, but mantained a defensive stance. Isn't that a contradiction? As for what I read. the romans weren't ready to attack the city, but Diaeus was so galvanized by the victory in the previous skirmish, that he deployed the army in front of the city to provoke the romans to battle. then the romans deployed and attacked them. The rest is history, but i sincerely can't see how this can be considered a greek attack. Similar episodes happened many times in antiquity, and was up to the besieger the decision to accept the battle, or stay in the camp. Mummius took the chance, and if you ask me Diaeus decision was a disaster itself.The greeks were waiting for them, not advancing. The initiative was of the romans.

I don't think Pausanias wrote that account on his own and used source material, still as you say may have omitted something. It is also possible that Diaios received a hostile description by the contemporary sources...The Koinon was behind its laws and generals sure, but running into a "suicide battle" blindly, wholly chosen by an inept and cruel man is an oversimplification. Men were also sent to Megara to prevent/delay movement behind the main army, Diaios may have been corrupt and all, but clearly was following a plan...

That's the reason why i said "looks". I understand it's possible that he was depicted more bad than he was. But let's look at the facts. He imprisoned roman ambassadors coming to discuss before the battle, and even killed those of his army who proposed to negotiate with the romans. This doesn't sound like a clever move. As for the military conduct, as i said before, he made a terrible mistake by provoking to battle the romans in such a terrible position. Seems like a suicidal decision, to me. With those men, he could have resisted for a long time in the eventuality of a siege. And who knows, he could have asked for decent terms and avoided the distruction of the city. But maybe he didn't care at all.

Polybius even called the Achaeans "mad" for declaring war on Sparta, and subsequently on Rome. Although Critolaus may had his reasons to do so, it looks like a very poor decision. Achaeans had very few allies and Romans had recently won the 4rth macedonian war, It's true that many achaeans were ready for peace when the army of mummius was approaching, but being Dieaus strategos, he was able to impose his point of view.

As you mentioned the likelihood of Sarissai also being used, would have made it possible to hold ground and push back the Romani at the Isthmos.

Well, romans weren't "pushed back" ala Cynoscephalae. they were just being held. And i suppose this supports the idea that greeks were on the defensive.

As for the numidians, they weren't mercenaries, but allies and it can be assumed their presence as they were actively involved since the 2nd Punic War, even in Makedonia...

That's my opinion, too, but there is a problem. The numidian allies were cavalry, while the sources specifically refer to a picked force of roman infantry. This is in conflict with the description of the unit, that refers to numidian mercenaries surrounding the thorakitai hoplitai. Even if we want to consider the numidians as infantry (and i don't see why), they would probably be light javelin throwers, by no means appropriate to attack heavy infantry in melee combat.

About the flank I told you, not knowing who wrote that paragraph I cannot answer, except as I did before imagine the reasoning behind that interpretation...

And i find your reasoning very interesting. Nice conversation, BTW. I like to speculate and talk about battles and events that are not so well known by the general public

No, the numidian cavalry would have flanked the Hellenes in tandem with the Roman infantry. Emphasis is always given to Roman troops and their generals, it doesn't mean that only infantry took part in the attack on the flank...

By push back I mean, force them to a stand still at the Isthmos or forcing them to find another way to get to the Peloponnesos...

As for the attacking first, Pausanias does record: "Puffed up with this success the Achaeans marched out to battle before the Romans began their attack. But when Mummius advanced to meet them, the Achaean horse at once took to flight, without waiting for even the first charge of the Roman cavalry."

Tactically they were fighting a defensive battle, but to me seems like they were attempting to entice the Romani into charging. They did move first, and to advance past the safe distance of the camps, with so many thousands of men, at that time, meant that everybody was following agreed orders and it would've been to late to countermand them. In fact I suspect the Hellenic cavalry knew well they wouldn't be able to do anything in the open field, and I disagree about their poor elan, they might've tried to feign a retreat...

As for the political decisions, behind and prior to the battle, the Achaioi, or at least a good majority of them chose to go to war, fully knowing what the SPQR was capable of. In fact the reasoning could very well be this knowledge, the end of Makedonia, the gradual loss of Pergamene indepence, as far as freedom of action was concerned, provided enough examples to attempt a removal of Roman influence in Hellas. It was clear that the kind of autonomy the Hellenes wanted in the long run wouldn't be allowed by the Romani...
After that, imo, Diaios followed the only strategy that could, albeit with pretty low chances, win. Namely to keep a unified effort (all Hellenic military treatises, Taktika, of the time advice to do the utmost towards preventing stasis and collaboration from within). Thus Diaios elimated those that preferred not to fight, and by killing the envoys he made the polis part of the crime, making sure that they would fight, because even if they survived the battle, they would've been executed...

The idea that a siege could've been won is just out of the question, any decent Strategos, understanding the logistics the SPQR could count on, would know that victory by attriction would've been impossible...
Removing the Roman military presence in Hellas, hoping that the siege in Qarthadast would last longer and concentrate Roman efforts, while an ally could be found (maybe the Seleukidai) or naval forces mustered to prevent easy crossings by the Romani...
That was the only "workable" plan, since the decision to fight Roma had been taken...

Unfortunately regarding the sources, it is books, foot notes and bibliography listing them. However checking/looking for them in googlebooks often works ;)

No, the numidian cavalry would have flanked the Hellenes in tandem with the Roman infantry. Emphasis is always given to Roman troops and their generals, it doesn't mean that only infantry took part in the attack on the flank...

Yes, this was my initial opinion. But the sources and the description contradict each other. The sources say that it was a picked force of infantry only. The description speaks about numidian mercenaries. So either that description is invented, or numidians were infantry.

As for the attacking first, Pausanias does record: "Puffed up with this success the Achaeans marched out to battle before the Romans began their attack. But when Mummius advanced to meet them, the Achaean horse at once took to flight, without waiting for even the first charge of the Roman cavalry."

He refers to the fact that the army sallied out of the city before romans could even start the siege. But I'm pretty sure the romans couldn't attack the city directly, yet. They needed time to prepare the siege works, afterall. Still, what i mean is that it was the roman army that advanced towards the greeks. and that seems like a roman attack, not a greek one, for the said reason

Tactically they were fighting a defensive battle, but to me seems like they were attempting to entice the Romani into charging. They did move first, and to advance past the safe distance of the camps, with so many thousands of men, at that time, meant that everybody was following agreed orders and it would've been to late to countermand them. In fact I suspect the Hellenic cavalry knew well they wouldn't be able to do anything in the open field, and I disagree about their poor elan, they might've tried to feign a retreat...

But... the retreat wasn't feigned. It was a true one. Why would you think so? Didn't mean to say they had poor elan, just that they were nothing special, compared to contemporary cavalries. And being that a particularly desperate situation, they probably were the only people who could avoid death or imprisonement, after the battle.

As for the political decisions, behind and prior to the battle, the Achaioi, or at least a good majority of them chose to go to war, fully knowing what the SPQR was capable of. In fact the reasoning could very well be this knowledge, the end of Makedonia, the gradual loss of Pergamene indepence, as far as freedom of action was concerned, provided enough examples to attempt a removal of Roman influence in Hellas. It was clear that the kind of autonomy the Hellenes wanted in the long run wouldn't be allowed by the Romani...
After that, imo, Diaios followed the only strategy that could, albeit with pretty low chances, win. Namely to keep a unified effort (all Hellenic military treatises, Taktika, of the time advice to do the utmost towards preventing stasis and collaboration from within). Thus Diaios elimated those that preferred not to fight, and by killing the envoys he made the polis part of the crime, making sure that they would fight, because even if they survived the battle, they would've been executed...
The idea that a siege could've been won is just out of the question, any decent Strategos, understanding the logistics the SPQR could count on, would know that victory by attriction would've been impossible...
Removing the Roman military presence in Hellas, hoping that the siege in Qarthadast would last longer and concentrate Roman efforts, while an ally could be found (maybe the Seleukidai) or naval forces mustered to prevent easy crossings by the Romani...
That was the only "workable" plan, since the decision to fight Roma had been taken...

In my previous post I said that many achaeans were favourable to peace, but only when it was clear that the war was already lost (Critolaus probably died at Scarphea). Not before the war started. Diaeus was strategos and imposed his views.

A negotiate with the romans at this point could have saved the city. Probably wouldn't have saved greek indipendence, judging from what happened to Macedonia after Andriscus. But Diaeus preferred to give battle against a juggenaught, well knowing that this would represent the ruin of one of the richest cities in Greece.

Same for the siege. I don't think they could have won, but they could have delayed it so that the romans would have accepted surrender terms, that would obviously have been harsher than the terms romans would have imposed before the battle started (when the 4 roman ambassadors were imprisoned). But hey, they could have saved the city

I find hard, if not impossible to build a decent fleet that could prevent the romans from coming back, even in the eventuality of a defeat. Afterall they and their allies controlled the sea. And they generally used Epirus as a bridgehead. A fleet that could control the sea from Peloponnesus to Epirus seems out of their possibilities, even with the help of Seleucid gold. And speaking of seleucids, they were already on their knees after Magnesia, and had their own problems at home. So I find even harder the possibility that they could help.

Unfortunately regarding the sources, it is books, foot notes and bibliography listing them. However checking/looking for them in googlebooks often works ;)

Oh, I see. Thank you anyway

It's been a while seen we last saw a non-in-game-related thread develop like that! I really enjoyed reading it. I was a bit surprised too, since I can't see how the subject warrants the debate. At any rate...
I do think that initially the Hoplite was the soldier bearing the hoplon. The term almost certainly changed over time to acquire a broader meaning though I am not sure when, exactly. After all, Hopla is only the plural of Hoplon, perhaps used loosely in many descriptions, with the timeline spanning centuries. Besides look at the parallels: Thyreophoroi, peltastai, gherophoroi, hypaspistai...

And Quintus... I love your enthusiasm! You will find fertile ground for discussion and debate in this forum... much more so when treading lightly.
I truly look forward to discussions of other issues you bring up in the future.

Thank you, kdrakak. It's good to see this thread has attracted interest of the forum members. To be honest, I would have loved to join the community when the first EB was being developed, but I was damn busy in that period.

As for the future discussion, I have many ideas in my mind, but I prefer not to flood the forum with many different threads. An instance would be the Spartan and Illyrian presence in Italy. Like I said before, I like to discuss about events and facts that are not so well known by the general public. So stay tuned!

BTW, as for "hoplon"

This is an example of a word that, like many others in greek and latin (I've studied both, but i'm a bit rusty), has two different meanings, depending on grammatical number. Another example would be the latin "copia" (abundance, singular) and "copiae" (troops, plural).

I don't know if the word "hopla" can actually be used as the plural form of "hoplon", depending on context. IIRC this wasn't the case in latin. But it is also true that greek is a much more flexible language. A linguist/archaeologist/historian could help us in clearing up this doubt.