ambushes, useful or a waste of time and resources?

[Son of Perun]

It's not a cowardly tactic, it's just the useful one... Ambushes are the key to a successful guerilla warfare, and the guerilla warfare is one of the most effective and the longest of all "styles of war". It's as calling the Scythians and Sarmatians cowards - it's not cowardice, it's just pure tactics, and horse archers are IMO the most effective formation of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Look at the enemies of Rome - the ones who were experts in the guerilla warfare or based their strength on the horse archers were the ones who were the hardest to conquer (e.g. Iberians) or even were never conquered (e.g. Germans, Parthians).

You obviously don`t like word cowardly. But remember, that cowards are the ones who live longer. Bravery is very close to stupidity. The ones who invented ambush tactics weren`t brave heroes because brave heroes just run against the enemy and kill or let themselves killed. Abushes were invented by cowards who led heroes.

[I Am Herenow]

Cowards are the ones who live longer.

Well, you could argue that, in fact, being heroic enough would make you "live" forever - rather like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae - whom everyone remembers (even before 300), unlike the nameless, countless cowards of conflicts through the ages, who may well have gained an extra 20 or 30 or something years of life, but were forgotten afterwards.

But I digress.

I personally can never be bothered to set ambushes - but I never use forts and barely use watchtowers. I know I should, but, you know, meh.

Do soldiers get morale bonuses/penalties for setting successful ambushes/being ambushed?

[Ludens]

Well, you could argue that, in fact, being heroic enough would make you "live" forever - rather like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae - whom everyone remembers (even before 300), unlike the nameless, countless cowards of conflicts through the ages, who may well have gained an extra 20 or 30 or something years of life, but were forgotten afterwards.

How about the 700 non-Spartan hoplites (not to mention the unknown number of helots) that also died at Thermopylae? Are they immortal as well? Or is their memory limited to those who study history?

[I Am Herenow]

How about the 700 non-Spartan hoplites (not to mention the unknown number of helots) that also died at Thermopylae? Are they immortal as well? Or is their memory limited to those who study history?

Well, the whole Spartan militaristic way of life was also a heroic/tough/whatever thing, making them seem "better" to the layman, and thus it was they that were remembered. As they were the elite, they were most famous.

Even today, there's an obsession with US Navy SEALs, the SAS and so on, as they're the elite - I don't think many people dream of joining the 182nd Light Infantry Division or whatever, unless they have some sort of connection to it (i.e. through family etc.).

[Ludens]

How about the 700 non-Spartan hoplites (not to mention the unknown number of helots) that also died at Thermopylae? Are they immortal as well? Or is their memory limited to those who study history?

Well, the whole Spartan militaristic way of life was also a heroic/tough/whatever thing, making them seem "better" to the layman, and thus it was they that were remembered. As they were the elite, they were most famous.

Yes, to the extent that popular history forgot there were others present who fought with equal bravery. Hence, to be remembered it isn't sufficient to be a hero. You need good PR as well.

[I Am Herenow]

Surely you can't think that the fame of the 300 Spartans who fought at Thermopylae is purely down to PR? Their more rigorous training and consequent prowess in battle earnt them a fearsome reputation which has carried on to the present day and has resulted in them being more famous than other soldiers of the period, even those that fought alongside the Spartans on occasion.

[Ludens]

Surely you can't think that the fame of the 300 Spartans who fought at Thermopylae is purely down to PR?

No. What makes you think that? I posted you needed PR as well.

Anyway, back to the original point of discussion: you stated that heroics could make you immortal, citing the example of Leonides and his 300. My counter-question was: what about the Spartan allies who died there as well? Your answer is: because Spartans are more famous, which illustrates my point. Who is remembered as a hero and who not depends for a large part on who is writing the history.

[I Am Herenow]

You stated that heroics could make you immortal, citing the example of Leonides and his 300. My counter-question was: what about the Spartan allies who died there as well? Your answer is: because Spartans are more famous, which illustrates my point.

No, I said that the Spartans are remembered because they were physically stronger than the other guys and better at fighting: i.e., more hero-like.

Besides, I believe Leonidas was the lynchpin of the whole operation: the Plataeans or whoever obeyed him and followed his orders, and not the other way round.

[Sarkiss]

Bravery is very close to stupidity. The ones who invented ambush tactics weren`t brave heroes because brave heroes just run against the enemy and kill or let themselves killed. Abushes were invented by cowards who led heroes.

so according to you Hannibal, the farther of stratagem, who had guts to define Rome on Roman soil with a bunch of exhausted mercenaries, is a coward? Germans, who ambushed and slaughtered the entire Roman army and thus guaranteed their freedom are cowards too? and Suren, whos genius crashed Romans and stopped Roman expansion in the East, even though outnumbered 5:1 is a coward?

[KuKulzA]

they say "work hard"
they also say "work smart"

courage is standing inspite of fear, and heroes lead compatriots to bravery

Hannibal's people were declining in the face of expanding Roman power, he used excellent tactics and rallied a bunch of diverse mercenaries from all around the Mediterranean to fight the Romans and might have succeeded if not for the unsupportive aristocrats at home...
he was damn brave to do what he did, but not only was he brave, he was smart
Vercingetorix, tried to unite the Gauls to fight the Roman threat, but he had vision, and knew it was going to be hard to get all the chiefs and princes to unite... he came close but you all know what happened at Alesia... but he wasn't stupid, he tried to get the higher ground....
Tecumseh, the Shawnee Chief, like Vercingetorix, attempted to unite and create a pan-Amerindian confederacy. He was a brilliant general, and used both frontal assault and the traditional hit-and-run... but he was no coward for fighting in a guerilla style... that's how you win against a better supplied and numerically larger force... its smart


just a few examples... seeing as how Teutoburg Wald had been mentioned already

just cause people work smart doesn't mean they don't work hard, they can coexist, the great ones, work hard in a smart way and rally their people to stand with them for the 'common good'... ironically all 3 above 'failed' but they have been immortalized as the great under-dog war leaders who came so close... but were fighting a uphill battle with trouble at home...

you can add to the list... Sitting Bull... the Mayans who resisted the Spaniard, the Mapuche, the Incan rebellion that nearly succeeded, Cetwayo (sp?) the Zulu, Kachins fighting Japanese in WW2, Filipinos fighting the Spaniards and USA, Taiping Rebellion, Sepoy Rebellion ....etc.etc.

[Intranetusa]

^ most of my ambushes occurred by chance/accident. I nearly maxed out the moving points of each general/captain and they happened to land on a ambush-capable space. And the next turn the AI just happened to cross that space (usually chokepoints such as the mountains in Anatolia/Turkey region)


So after months of playing, accidental ambushes happened to me about 8-10 times...quite effective actually. With several units of pedites extrandarii, reserves, and cheap mercs (total of half stack or less) I was able to destroy full stacks of medium-high quality enemy troops.

[dezzerx]

You obviously don`t like word cowardly. But remember, that cowards are the ones who live longer. Bravery is very close to stupidity. The ones who invented ambush tactics weren`t brave heroes because brave heroes just run against the enemy and kill or let themselves killed. Abushes were invented by cowards who led heroes.

I believe that when you ambush an army in those days you still have to get close to kill 'em. Or do you think they just hurled javelins from the trees, quickly ran close hacked a guy down and fleed? Let's not forget that one of the most famous ambushes "The Batle of Teutoburg Forest" did not happen in a forest at all but on a field near Kalkriese where the Romans were trapped by a bog on one side and a hill with a fortified wall on the other. In front of them was the main force of the Germans. The Romans where scattered because they had with them wagons and beast of burden and were not able to set up a decent formation because of lack of time or room before the Germans attacked.

But they fought, and the Romans were not killed by some unseen enemy but by the German spears in front of them. The Romans, good soldiers as they were did not panic and flee but were able to regroup on the second day. There has even been found signs of fighting on the hill sugesting that the Romans even attempted to take that fortified position.

You say heroes are the one who just run against the enemy. Yet Arminius is concidered a hero as is Sir William Wallace of Ellerslie.

People who call others cowards, even worse so call those cowards who fought and are no longer alive today to defend themself, from behind their computer should take some time and self-reflect...

[Cybvep]

Who is considered a hero is a delicate matter. To be precise, it's a very subjective thing. For example, for a group of people, local or national hero can be a symbol of independence or resistance against the occupants (e.g. Vercingetorix, Boudicca), even if the hero him/herself wasn't really successful in the uprising. Some outlaws are also considered heroes, e.g. Robin Hood or Janosik, and it's difficult to say if their actions were really that great or not cowardous ("Ha, they were running away from the government - COWARDS!!"), while some influential people in the history are viewed as "badguys" because of a single book or movie (e.g. Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu and the book "The Three Musketeers").

It's not really that different in case of ambushes, horse archers and guerilla warfare. Some will call it the "cowardice", while the others will call it the "tactics". As I said in my previous post, personally I consider this tactics. I think that it doesn't matter what path to victory will someone choose, it's the effect that is important. Tortures, assassinations, exterminations, slavery, ambushes or open field battles - who cares, when you achieve your goal? I mean, all that heroic stuff is good to glorify in tales and legends, but the reality is - all is fair in war (and love...). Or even better - even if something is not "fair" or moral, you can't decline the possibility that your enemy will use it against you.

[dezzerx]

but the reality is - all is fair in war (and love...). Or even better - even if something is not "fair" or moral, you can't decline the possibility that your enemy will use it against you.

Indeed, well said.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Let's not forget that one of the most famous ambushes "The Batle of Teutoburg Forest" did not happen in a forest at all but on a field near Kalkriese where the Romans were trapped by a bog on one side and a hill with a fortified wall on the other. In front of them was the main force of the Germans. The Romans where scattered because they had with them wagons and beast of burden and were not able to set up a decent formation because of lack of time or room before the Germans attacked.

It is an open field today but iirc it was a forested and swampy area in those days. It's true that the Romans were trapped in a narrow path between a swampy ground and some wicker fortifications erected by the Germans alongside the path.

That does not make the success smaller, of course. Personally, I think Arminius was a hero. Diminishing Arminius great achievement (a fairytale of nowadays) of liberating the Germans from Roman yoke I consider just as ridicoulous like declaring his deeds as anti-french bravery (like in 19th century). Far too often the heroes of old are abused by the weaklings of now.

[Hooahguy]

Centurio Nixalsverdrus is right- the Teutoberg Wald (or forest) was actually a forested marsh. i did a screenshot of a custom battle showing the doomed legions marching into the Teutoberg Wald. im going to use it for one of the next screenshot competitions.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It is an open field today but iirc it was a forested and swampy area in those days. It's true that the Romans were trapped in a narrow path between a swampy ground and some wicker fortifications erected by the Germans alongside the path.

Well, as for terrain conditions: you can pretty much compare it to the Guldensporen Slag. Bog, ambush, and you're trapped between nasty angry enemies and more bog and more nasty angry enemies...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Well, as for terrain conditions: you can pretty much compare it to the Guldensporen Slag. Bog, ambush, and you're trapped between nasty angry enemies and more bog and more nasty angry enemies...

What was the Guldensporen Slag? OK something with slaying I guess but I never heard of it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[dezzerx]

What was the Guldensporen Slag? OK something with slaying I guess but I never heard of it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

It was a battle in 1302 between the Flemish and the French. The Flemish forces largely consisting of peasants and town militia defeated the French army of proffesional troops and knights. The date of the battle is today still the national Flemish holiday.

A bit more detailed information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

It was a battle in 1302 between the Flemish and the French. The Flemish forces largely consisting of peasants and town militia defeated the French army of proffesional troops and knights. The date of the battle is today still the national Flemish holiday.

A bit more detailed information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs

Ah thank you!

[dezzerx]

It is an open field today but iirc it was a forested and swampy area in those days. It's true that the Romans were trapped in a narrow path between a swampy ground and some wicker fortifications erected by the Germans alongside the path.

Aha, makes sense!

In light of the diminishing of his achievement, the amateur archeologist, a British ex-military officer whose name escapes me, that had discovered the site said that Arminius is one of the most under acknowledged generals of the past.

A statement which sadly enough is true, he truely was a brilliant man!

And the anti-French attitude thing of the 19th century surely is rediculous, but they did erect a beautifull statue in his honor ;) !

[Tellos Athenaios]

In light of the diminishing of his achievement, the amateur archeologist, a British ex-military officer whose name escapes me, that had discovered the site said that Arminius is one of the most under acknowledged generals of the past.

Seen Terry Jones' Barbarians (The savage Goths), have you? Thaatu had links to the series somewhere...

[dezzerx]

Seen Terry Jones' Barbarians (The savage Goths), have you? Thaatu had links to the series somewhere...

Yes indeed I have. Good show, and although I enjoyed Terry Jones' sarcasm towards the Romans it could have done without imo.

[Cybvep]

Speaking of heroes, rebellions and uprisings - will we see more "scripted goodies" with the mentioned things in the future builds? Empire-building and management would be much more interesting then.

[NeoSpartan]

I don't know wtf is up is this ambushes not being brave stuff.... but I will say:

Ambushes, faint retreats, assasination, sabotage, diplomacy, etc, etc, etc are all tools of war. Ignoring them, saying that such strategies are less "brave", or less "honorable", or too "barbaric", whatever, only makes you weaker and your enemies stronger.

'NUFF SAID.

[Fenrhyl]

I don't know wtf is up is this ambushes not being brave stuff.... but I will say:

Ambushes, faint retreats, assasination, sabotage, diplomacy, etc, etc, etc are all tools of war. Ignoring them, saying that such strategies are less "brave", or less "honorable", or too "barbaric", whatever, only makes you weaker and your enemies stronger.

'NUFF SAID.

This is the whole difference between the french defeat at Azincourt and the french victory at Patay 20 years later. In the former case, the french wanted to fight in a chivalrous way, in the later one the french knights just bolted out of a forest to trample the unprepared english under hooves, lances and swords.

About Teutoburg wald : not only is it a wonderful feat of strategy, logistics and tactics ; it is also a demonstration of the marvels misinformation and betrayal can produce. A masterwork. Arminius (Herman or armand, means "great warrior") truly deserves his room in the halls of the greatest men of war.
Ironically, romans who were all to well documented about this disaster, put themselves in a situation where they re-enacted it at their own expense. It happened near the Neuss fortress, in 388 AD. A roman general named quentinius was utterly owned by the franks, a palatin legion (IOVIANI IVNIORES) and all its comitatenses legions were destroyed in a swampy fortress where wooden walls had been erected. Sounds like the germans too had learned their lesson well. The frank general is unknown, and given the political structure of frank tribes at that time, i'd say there was not an appointed general.