Tarentum too strong?

[anubis88]

hello!... historycally Rome conquered Tarentum in 272 or 271(can't remember right now ) but in my games Rome has HUGE problems conquering the Italian peninsula... playing as macedon and Carthage im trying to do what i can to help them but Epeiros is just to strong at the beging... Perhaps the garrison at Tarentum should be smaller?

I just want to know what you guys think and what happens with Tarentum in youre games.... Although... it's kinda funny seeing Rome besegied by Epeirus

[Foot]

The reason Taras collapsed (or partly the reason) is because Phyrros died in Sparta. Without the charasmatic king to keep everything in working order, I imagine that Rome took their chance. I believe that in return for the city, Rome allowed the Epeiros garrison to return home.

Foot

[Dan_Grr]

Don't pity the romans, they use to blast through everyone and everything in the games I play. If anything, the epeiros settlement on the italian peninsula is a temporary nuisance.

[abou]

I also think that Epeiros pulled the troops they had garrisoning Taras. Without them the city fell easily to Rome.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

If you are having trouble with Taras, you could do what I do. Assemble both armies together, then march just inside their border. They will split their forces in half and attack you with half, most of the time. Then you just besiege the other half.

[Chris1959]

I've started many campaigns as Rome and Taras is no problem.

Just send the entire Army that is near Arpi and seige immediately. I don't assault it will fall in 5 moves, sometimes Epiros lands a relief army and the garrison will always sally but these can be easily beaten in battle.

I also use that useless fleet to ferry every extra man I can to Rhegion and siege that by move 3, I detach a unit of skirmishers to block the strats of Messina and prevent those annoying Punic allies wandering into southern Italy.

By 271BC the South is secure and it's your choice to concentrate on the North or Sicily.

I've found Epiros will always make peace after Taras falls.

I'm playing on H/M.

[Sheep]

If you are having trouble with Taras, you could do what I do. Assemble both armies together, then march just inside their border. They will split their forces in half and attack you with half, most of the time. Then you just besiege the other half.

I've started many campaigns as Rome and Taras is no problem.

He's not having trouble with Taras. He's saying the Rome AI has trouble with Taras.

[Lomma]

The reason Taras collapsed (or partly the reason) is because Phyrros died in Sparta.

Phyrros died in Argos, actually.

[Wolfshart]

Phyrros died in Argos, actually.

Yup. I also don't think Taras fell because he died. It fell because he fled and left for greece. He had abandoned them to go back to greece because he was beaten many times by the romans and knew the inevitable fate of the city.

[Foot]

Yup. I also don't think Taras fell because he died. It fell because he fled and left for greece. He had abandoned them to go back to greece because he was beaten many times by the romans and knew the inevitable fate of the city.

Eh? Thats not exactly fair. He beat the romans, but only won by a small margin, not enough to secure victory. His plan was to get to sciliy and use that as a money making venture so that he could defeat the Maks. It didn't work so he changed plan and just went for a headlong attack at Pella, then at the last minute he changed tack and went to Argos. What is your proof for the inevitable loss of Taras. Epeiros was a rising star, not a falling one. It was only the death of Phyrrus that caused to to fall.

Foot

[Wolfshart]

Eh? Thats not exactly fair. He beat the romans, but only won by a small margin, not enough to secure victory. His plan was to get to sciliy and use that as a money making venture so that he could defeat the Maks. It didn't work so he changed plan and just went for a headlong attack at Pella, then at the last minute he changed tack and went to Argos. What is your proof for the inevitable loss of Taras. Epeiros was a rising star, not a falling one. It was only the death of Phyrrus that caused to to fall.

Foot

Yeah I was to short in my answer I agree. Though Sicily rather than Italy, which was to serve as a stepping stone, was probably his real objective from the beginning. It was wealthy and rather then the highly disputed peninsula more Greek then not considering it had two major Greek cities and only the Carths to deal with. He won 2 major victories against Rome but he got distracted by Carthage and went to Sicily. He did win almost all his battles but the war of attrition was too much for him. So in a desperate attempt he returned once more into Italy, to fight one more campaign. He was severely defeated in 275 at Malventum, as the Romans had meanwhile learned how to deal with his spearmen and elephants.
The tide having turned against him in force Pyrrhus returned home. I think his biggest folly was his inability to focus on a goal and see it through. I think Taras would have fallen eventually weather Phyrrus died or not. He was more focused on taking the Mak throne then going back to Italy. That was my point. I was just too quick with my answer. Sorry about that.

[Bootsiuv]

Eh? Thats not exactly fair. He beat the romans, but only won by a small margin, not enough to secure victory.

Hence the term "phyrric victory"...