Romani Campaign

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Don't know. Caesar's also fought enemies who had the same kind of troops he has, led by a VERY skilled general, very close to him in military skills. Alexander didn't face any worthy enemy who led another hammer-and-anvil makedonian army. I consider it a military genius because he ALSO defeated the nomads, because most of the hammer-and-anvil tactic had been developed by his father.

Caesar didn't fought nomads as well as Alexander didn't face makedonian army and tactics and military skilled generals. I think they are comparable.


TOTALLY false that Alexander fought a united enemy. Persian army was a freaking puzzle led by a military idiot. Persian satraps turned against Darius many times, and ultimately killed him. Alexander took the entire Egypt without fight, after the fall of Tyrus IIRC.

Also, Alexander totally failed in creating a united empire: he could never keep its conquests even if he didn't die so young. His Successors were very very skilled men, but failed too. Taking down the Persian Empire was a very delicate matter, and Alexander lacked the patience and the political skill needed.

[Maion Maroneios]

Alexander had a plan of creating a Greek-Iranian Empire by setting forth massive movement of populations between Greece and Asia. If his plan worked, many scholars debate things would have been way more stable. And nobody neglects Alexander was at least one level above Caesar. Even if I wasn't Greek myself, I would have said the same. Just compare the works of the two.

And it's foolish to say Alexander was not a skilled politician. The very fact he was able to bring the world's largest Empire to its knees with relatively "small" effort (compared to the size of the Persian Empire) is already a massive feat in itself. Not to mention the undying (even to our days) legacy he left behind. His fame streches further than any other man has ever achieved, and his fame will remain for many more years to come.

Maion

[Valion]

I think you should all stop debating who was better of the 2, they were leaders of different times and not to mention different locations. Alexander gained his glory in the East when the phalanx was new technology thus the Persians didn't have the knowledge to counter it other than charging head on to their deaths. Same goes with Caesar his fame mostly came from conquering Gaul where again the Roman Legion was relatively new strategy where the Gauls had no answer other than head-on fighting. Both armies were lethal in open field and both generals where very adaptable. So comparing who was the better general is unrealistic, comparing generals should be done like Scipio and Hannibal people of the same Era not to mention they actually fought and tried to kill each other.

As for Legacy i think both are equally great, Caesars name was honored by all Emperors that followed by bearing his name plus the Russian Czar Derived from Caesar. As for Alexander he has the City of Alexandria and his name forever bore "The Great"

Both Men WERE GREAT! leave it at that. I respect them both as i respect Hannibal even though i hate Carthage to the Guts

[Jebivjetar]

I didn't want to compare Alexander and that barbarian dude named Cesar anyway, i just wanted to write some thoughts of mine

[Valion]

I didn't want to compare Alexander and that barbarian dude named Cesar anyway, i just wanted to write some thoughts of mine

So lets compare Alexander and Hannibal then

[lionhard]

I cant even believe ceaser is being compared to alexander wake up please

[DionCaesar]

I cant even believe ceaser is being compared to alexander wake up please

I totally agree with you ;-)

Caesar is so magnus, he even refused that title. Such modesty is only shown by the greatest :P

hehe



DionCaesar

[DaciaJC]

Or rather, stay on topic, please.

[Jebivjetar]

So lets compare Alexander and Hannibal then

You can always do that and write it in your book. Don't propose something: DO IT!

(btw this is not commercial for Nike shoes)

[chenkai11]

Excuse me, I want to start a Romani campaign. Is this a Romani Campaign thread? So I can get some tips and advice.

Oh... I noticed I am in a wrong thread.

[satalexton]

well u start by painting yourself red, cuz them red wunz goes fasta.

Then u grab a big shield, da grots call it the thueros, da boyz call it the scuta. You shud paint it red too.

To kill them humies, u use the stabba-choppa. 'Em humie slaves in the mines dubbed it da gladius, silly grots.

For sport, before you go all close an' personal with one big WAAAGHHHHH!!! throw un' or two of those pointy sticks. Them humie grots don't like it. Careful tho, itz make um' red. Red makes um' want to run fasta.

Anv' remember, we Romaies is never defeated in battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fighting so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see! WAAAGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cute Wolf]

Excuse me, I want to start a Romani campaign. Is this a Romani Campaign thread? So I can get some tips and advice.

Oh... I noticed I am in a wrong thread.

Eng... I was also Romaioktonaios, but at least a new members shouldn't get that bashing so hard... fellow philos... they only want an advice, and we does give an advice.... for those who sorely needed, because we still a civilized persons...

Well, actually Romaioi is one of a few factions that start with advantage (the first is KartHadast)... so keep pumping some troops and play with quality, and all would be easy, just try to take them slowly....

Waarrrrggghhhh..... BURN BARBAROPOLIS!!!!!!!

Oh, there was another threat to your pitiful barbaropolis... just made sure you keep some quantity of Hastati inside italia if you play with BI or Alex, because the AI often launch naval invasion... and taking Taras as quickly as possible is highly recommended, in case the Epeirotes want to grind you down under their elephant's feet.

Waaarrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh........... BUUURRRNNN BARRRBARRRROOOOPPOOLLLIIISSSSSSS!!!!!!

Soory, I couldn't stop myself to not saying that...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In before teh lockz... hope this thread won't be locked. Cute Wolf

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Alexander had a plan of creating a Greek-Iranian Empire by setting forth massive movement of populations between Greece and Asia. If his plan worked, many scholars debate things would have been way more stable.

This is something very very difficoult to do. To transfer so much greeks so far away is a logistic nightmare, and there's no evidence that it could be possible.

Anyway, it's a very-long-term plan, how could he keep the empire until that?

And nobody neglects Alexander was at least one level above Caesar. Even if I wasn't Greek myself, I would have said the same. Just compare the works of the two.

I'm sorry, i'm doing that and i'm not alone.

And it's foolish to say Alexander was not a skilled politician. The very fact he was able to bring the world's largest Empire to its knees with relatively "small" effort (compared to the size of the Persian Empire) is already a massive feat in itself.

Maion

This is NOT political skill. It's strategic genius, which i NEVER say Alexander lacked.

Political skill is completely different, and sure Alexander wasn't as skilled as Caesar. Caesar was NOT the undisputed king of his kingdom. He had to face a hostile Senate and dangerous rivals. Alexander didn't.

Not to mention the undying (even to our days) legacy he left behind.

Ahem... his empire crumbled in a few years after his death. His SUccessors fought for decades against each other, and then fell one after another. Nothing of their "legacy" and their culture survived until our days. Even in the Roman Era there was very little left, as PArthians and other Asian people took over what had left of the successors.

His fame streches further than any other man has ever achieved, and his fame will remain for many more years to come.

I'm sorry this is a personal opinion. Many many people just don't think so, just look at the topic about the "top 5 ancient celebrities".

AFAIK, His (Darius) satraps turned against him when they realized that he i s loosing, that Alexander is going to change many things from the roots. But the fact is that Darius did had oportunities to assemble some huge armies and not only once. Gauls are entirely different story, and they never had any real leader who would lead them united against Cesar. That is my point when i say that Alexander conquered united enemy.

I already said that Darius' huge armies were nothing more than a patchwork of different cultures and peoples. Orders had to be translated in a dozen languages to reach every unit, and i suppose you know HOW this could affect a battle outcome.

When Cesar demolished one army, he had no further problems with entire tribe. Alexander on the other hand was fighting one man (Darius) in several occasions.

One Vercingetorix counts for about 10 Darius. An army of sheeps led by a Lion will beat an army of lion led by a sheep. And Gauls were not "sheeps".

After all, it's something magic in Alexander what inspires me today (and in Hannibal of course). Cesar, for me, doesn't have anything magicalal in him and he belongs to some other type of a "genius". But he was a great man of his time, of course.

Personal opinions, i will never force you to love Caesar instead than Alexander.

Alexander had a mythic aura around him, that's true. His magnifical campaign sure had been one of the greatest of all the History, no doubt

Caesar had a more "practical" view of war, and sure he was less charismatic. I appreciate it, some people don't

I think you should all stop debating who was better of the 2, they were leaders of different times and not to mention different locations. Alexander gained his glory in the East when the phalanx was new technology thus the Persians didn't have the knowledge to counter it other than charging head on to their deaths. Same goes with Caesar his fame mostly came from conquering Gaul where again the Roman Legion was relatively new strategy where the Gauls had no answer other than head-on fighting. Both armies were lethal in open field and both generals where very adaptable. So comparing who was the better general is unrealistic, comparing generals should be done like Scipio and Hannibal people of the same Era not to mention they actually fought and tried to kill each other.

You forget that Caesar fought armies very similar to his own one. That's why i think it's military skills are at least equals to alex's ones.

As for Legacy i think both are equally great, Caesars name was honored by all Emperors that followed by bearing his name plus the Russian Czar Derived from Caesar. As for Alexander he has the City of Alexandria and his name forever bore "The Great"

Both Men WERE GREAT! leave it at that. I respect them both as i respect Hannibal even though i hate Carthage to the Guts

The Great Triad: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar i respect them too

[DionCaesar]

The Great Triad: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar i respect them too

I agree on that for sure. It just that Caesar came from nothing. He built up everything he had, himself! He managed to win the mob for him, which Alexander didn't even have to do (he simply was heir to the throne), he made connections in the political theatre, he had an ability of seeing who could do what for him, he had magnificent orginasational skills (which Alexander probably had as well), he had a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve, he wanted to do that for Rome, and for nothing else (when he conquered Gaul, the value of a gold bar devaluated with nearly 35%, which indicates how rich he was, so he didn't need any more money --> he had everything he wished). Besides, Caesar had to fight on multiple fronts several times. First of course in Gaul, and after that he had to choose between Spain or Greece to fight his wars.

When Caesar's life ended, the Roman world had changed enourmously. When Alexander died, the same happened in the Hellenic world. Caesar won a battle with about 50.000 soldiers versus an enemy that had 250.000 men. Alexander didn't win being that much outnumbered. Caesars victory at Alesia is still considered the most brilliant victory of military history.


Last but not least, Caesar made himself be eternal. The fact that we know everything he did, is because of his propaganda. Perhaps the victories weren't as great as he wants us to believe, but nearly everyone does think they are that great. Only a few people (you guys :P) doubt it. This is what he wanted and what he used propaganda for. Caesar also managed to stay on the 'clean' side at all times. The law is always with him (not counting one thing he once did to Cato), and the people know it. He just manages to put himself in the spotlight at the correct time. That really is something we can compare to modern politics and which rarely occurs.

Ok, I'm very sorry that I'm that pro-Caesar, I was sceptic about him once too, but after having read 3 biographies about him, I'm kinda convinced :P.

Vale Amices!


DionCaesar

[Valion]

I think Caesar compared to Alexander has the upper hand of having a VERY good successor, Octavian helped Immortalize Caesars name and his goal of a better Rome unlike Alexanders successors who carved his empire into different realms for themselves rather than fighting to unify a stronger Macedonian empire.

Ooh and yes we've all veered off-topic hehehe

[lionhard]

Alexander ftw! lol

[Jebivjetar]

[QUOTE=Mikhail Mengsk;2293101]




I already said that Darius' huge armies were nothing more than a patchwork of different cultures and peoples. Orders had to be translated in a dozen languages to reach every unit, and i suppose you know HOW this could affect a battle outcome.

We were not talking about battles outcome, but about differences between Gallic tribes and Persian empire.
Persian armies, no matter of their ethnicity fought for one master, for Darius, in the name of Persian empire.
Gallic tribes, on the other hand, fought for themselves. Each tribe fought a battle, then they loose and were conquered or pushed back. Persian empire did not fall after one battle.

Is it more clear now?










Personal opinions, i will never force you to love Caesar instead than Alexander.

Of course they are personal. Can they be impersonal?? But it's ok to share a psychological lesion i guess. Someone will surely discover brand new world in it.

[Alsatia]

Personal opinions, i will never force you to love Caesar instead than Alexander.

Of course they are personal. Can they be impersonal?? But it's ok to share a psychological lesion i guess. Someone will surely discover brand new world in it.

Agreed.

This topic is getting out of hand....

Oh, and one more thing.....

[Mikhail Mengsk]

We were not talking about battles outcome, but about differences between Gallic tribes and Persian empire.
Persian armies, no matter of their ethnicity fought for one master, for Darius, in the name of Persian empire.
Gallic tribes, on the other hand, fought for themselves.

Each tribe fought a battle, then they loose and were conquered or pushed back. Persian empire did not fall after one battle.

They formed leagues and alliances, like Vercingetorix did.

Also, they fought for their freedom, they were highly motivated. Non-persian levies weren't. Ethnicity counts, as long as your chief is your oppressor instead that your leader. We saw how they were willing to die for their leaders at Issus and Gaugamela.

Persian empire did not fall after one battle.

It fell after two XD

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

They formed leagues and alliances, like Vercingetorix did.

Also, they fought for their freedom, they were highly motivated. Non-persian levies weren't. Ethnicity counts, as long as your chief is your oppressor instead that your leader. We saw how they were willing to die for their leaders at Issus and Gaugamela.





It fell after two XD

Actually, after three .

[Jebivjetar]

TOTALLY false that Alexander fought a united enemy. Persian army was a freaking puzzle led by a military idiot. Persian satraps turned against Darius many times, and ultimately killed him. Alexander took the entire Egypt without fight, after the fall of Tyrus IIRC.

AFAIK, His (Darius) satraps turned against him when they realized that he i s loosing, that Alexander is going to change many things from the roots. But the fact is that Darius did had oportunities to assemble some huge armies and not only once. Gauls are entirely different story, and they never had any real leader who would lead them united against Cesar. That is my point when i say that Alexander conquered united enemy.

When Cesar demolished one army, he had no further problems with entire tribe. Alexander on the other hand was fighting one man (Darius) in several occasions.

After all, it's something magic in Alexander what inspires me today (and in Hannibal of course). Cesar, for me, doesn't have anything magicalal in him and he belongs to some other type of a "genius". But he was a great man of his time, of course.