Which is the Best.

[Agelastus]

Yes, the leader activation system could be better (far too rigid) and you do find units doing strange things (like phalanx lines breaking up and going in what seems like five different directions at once!) On the other hand, unless Avalanche Games new system is better, I don't know of an ancient combat system that doesn't have problems. Besides, I have fond memories of them from my University days. One couldn't drink all the time, so when the TV was crap or I'd run out of books I spent many happy hours inventing my own battles and campaigns (rarely played the actual historical battles, strangely enough!)

Oh, and Caesar is probably the least interesting of all of them, even if it might be the most accurate (battles between two virtually identically armed and equipped armies is rarely overly interesting to wargame.)

Hmmm, time to get back on topic. Stilicho and Aetius were certainly competent commanders, in the Late-Roman mold. It is sometimes difficult to assess them because of the relative paucity of good source material from the time, caused by the prevailing chaos. Aetius in particular is difficult to assess because his greatest triumph was against the Hunnic army at the Catalaunian Fields. Fearsome as Attila undoubtedly was his army was seriously attenuated at this point-apart from anything else many of his Hunnic troops were probably fighting on foot because their horses had died.

 

[unmerged(3773)]

interesting point about Stlilicho is that his main opponent, Alaric, had been formed as a commander in a roman officer school...and it was only after Stilicho's death that Alaric could finally take Rome (Sic transit gloria mundi). I saw his mausoleum in a milanese church a few years ago. Quite impressive.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Ceaser

Ceaser was not one of the best generals. He is mainly built up as a great general due to propoganda from his time and ours. He had little first hand knowledge of the army before he took command of the legions in Gaul. He was a politician more than a soldier. When he took control of the legions he was a compitent commander. No more than that. He was able to understand that if he listened to his subordinates he would be fine.
The Roman army was a finely tuned machine before he arrived. It was a machine that required little maitenance. The leaders below ceaser were very good and the traditions of excelent supply, sanitation and organization that had helped Rome in the past were as strong as ever.
It is aparent that when Ceaser first took charge and invaded the lands of Gaul that he made some beginners mistakes. He made himself vulnerable on more than one occasion. He marched arround Gaul however, and eventually learned how to operate his armies better.
Like Nepolian and Alexander the Great, Ceaser won many battles. However, he did not display the same genious of the other two commanders. Ceaser relied on luck, advice and most of all, his troops. He showed himself best when he was rallying his forces in various battles. He was always brave and knew exactly where to be when the battle was raging. He was the best kind of motivator a soldier could wish for. But none of this shows a brilliant commander like others in history. Ceaser was at best, like the Duke of Welington. He managed his units without much error. He did not, however, manage them without being mundane in his strategies.

 

[unmerged(199)]

Re: Ceaser

Originally posted by CoolElelphant
He had little first hand knowledge of the army before he took command of the legions in Gaul. He was a politician more than a soldier.

Incorrect. He had served his requisite 10 campaigns prior to his consulship, and had commanded as Praetor with substantial successes in Spain, 3 years before the Gallic command.

No more than that. He was able to understand that if he listened to his subordinates he would be fine.

And your evidence for such a statement would be...?

The Roman army was a finely tuned machine before he arrived. It was a machine that required little maitenance.

This statement basically shows your limited knowledge of the Roman army.

excelent supply, sanitation and organization that had helped Rome in the past were as strong as ever.

Supply systems had a very hard time operating in the Gallic interior.

It is aparent that when Ceaser first took charge and invaded the lands of Gaul that he made some beginners mistakes.

Such as?

Like Nepolian and Alexander the Great, Ceaser won many battles. However, he did not display the same genious of the other two commanders.

This statement shows your limited knowledge of the Generalship of Alexander. As for Nepolian (Napoleon?), he considered Caesar to be one of his role models, which shows that he at least understood Caesar.

Ceaser was at best, like the Duke of Welington. He managed his units without much error.

Just as this statement shows your limited knowledge of the Generalship of Wellington.

You need to broaden your reading a bit.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Cut, thrust, parry, stab. Ripost?

Hannibal

 

[Agelastus]

Additionally, as to Caesar's military experience, he fought in the wars against Mithridates of Pontus-as a private citizen he raised what amounted to a private army that drove one of the King's lieutenants out of south-western Asia minor (and for the life of me I can't remember the area's name-I'm pretty sure it wasn't Lycia.) He also won, to the best of my knowledge, a "Civic crown", only awarded for saving the life of a fellow Roman in battle and holding the ground on which this action took place (at Mytilene.)

One of Caesar's best points as a general was that he did take the Roman army to a peak of efficiency rarely matched earlier or later-the parts were there already, but they rarely functioned at the level of his army in Gaul.

As for mistakes, one of his greatest defenders, T. A. Dodge, once said that an examination of his campaigns suggest that he spent more than half his time getting his army out of difficult situations he himself had helped to create. So the mistakes are there, and in many cases were avoidable-this doesn't entirely detract from the fact that the extrications were often brilliant improvisations in the best traditions of great generalship.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Ceaser

I have read on Alexander the Great. One of histories best generals.

Spain was mostly Roman controled before ceaser arrived.

The Roman army was very well organized. They were the only force of their time that I have ever heard of who always boiled their water. That must have saved them from alot of casualties. They have had successful suply chains, no matter how difficult, in the past.

The Duke of Wellington knew what he had to do in Waterloo and before then. He was obviously not in charge of the large formations like other genrerals but he usually had superior force or blundering enemy generals to help him win. The coolest thing he did was to order the men to hide behind the rolling hills at waterloo.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Roman medics were more advanced than anything until ww1, but that dont help win battles much, im looking for somethig really good from you here, something thatl shake me up and make me think your onto something.

Hannibal

 

[unmerged(199)]

Re: Ceaser

A comment Agelastus, regarding Dodge's (and others) comments on Caesar. Caesar is often accused of being overly rash and aggressive (and he was both), but this is to divorce him from the tenets of his time. It was Roman doctrine of the later Republic and the Empire up to 250 AD to strike fast, first, and furiously whenever possible with whatever troops were available. A study of the Roman campaigns from 100 BC - 200 AD will clearly highlight this interesting tendency, which resulted in many remarkable successes (and also many fiascos).

One of Caesar's gifts, IMO, was that he perfected this doctrine (his famed celeritas), and his incredible ability to somehow always managed to extricate himself from the situations when aggressiveness failed.

Originally posted by CoolElelphant
I have read on Alexander the Great. One of histories best generals.

One of history's great conquorors. On his skill as a General, the judgement of today's historians is far more balanced, and tend toward a more measured judgement of his skills.

Spain was mostly Roman controled before ceaser arrived.

As I said, you need to broaden your reading a bit.

The Roman army was very well organized. They were the only force of their time that I have ever heard of who always boiled their water.

Be so kind as to cite me a source for this? Romans did not drink water (except in very dire circumstances.


They have had successful suply chains, no matter how difficult, in the past.

And the point is...?

The Duke of Wellington knew what he had to do in Waterloo and before then. He was obviously not in charge of the large formations like other genrerals but he usually had superior force or blundering enemy generals to help him win. The coolest thing he did was to order the men to hide behind the rolling hills at waterloo.

As I said, be so kind as to have done some study on the Duke of Wellington, before you offer us your one-sided opinions.

 

[w_mullender]

Re: Re: Ceaser

Originally posted by strategy
Originally posted by CoolElelphant
I have read on Alexander the Great. One of histories best generals.
One of history's great conquorors. On his skill as a General, the judgement of today's historians is far more balanced, and tend toward a more measured judgement of his skills.

Yes that is the tendency, but they need some better things to explain how a "mediocre" general could become one of the greatest conquerors and won almost all his battles under very different circumstances.
Some examples
-Defeating the persian armies several times while being outnumbered
-Conquering Egypt
-Tyrus
-In Afghanistan beating several "guerilla" armies.

Most historians use the decline of the persian empire and the failure in command to downgrade his ability as a commander. But did they ever visit all the regions in which he fought. I doubt that one of them ever went to Afghanistan, but they can check with some Russian generals how easy it is to fight wars over there. I imagine also that it must have been a nightmare to keep the discipline, supplies etc in order.

 

[unmerged(199)]

Re: Re: Re: Ceaser

Originally posted by w_mullender
Yes that is the tendency, but they need some better things to explain how a "mediocre" general could become one of the greatest conquerors and won almost all his battles under very different circumstances.

I do not think he is considered mediocre by any modern commentators (or at least not anyone of repute). The point of these arguements, as I understand them in any case, is that his command and control skills were quite limited; most likely due to his tendency to place himself at the front of the Companions and charge on to glory. That he was an inspirational and very competent commander of armies is obvious to anyone.

It of course all depends on what meaning you place on the word "Great Commander". If one means the commander with the greatest achievements, then Alexander comes in on a clear #1 position. It is when one considers his strategy and tactics that he sometimes comes off as seeming second-best.

Some examples
-Defeating the persian armies several times while being outnumbered


It is actually quite doubtful whether Alexander was outnumbered in any of these battles; suspicions abound that ancient sources "inflated" the numbers by including camp followers, etc, into the army totals. Typically, it seems that only about 40k-60k of the Persian army could be expected to actually fight, which appears to be a quite close numerical match to Alexander's army. At the Granikos and Hydaspes, he probably had superior numbers.

-Conquering Egypt

Piece of cake. The Egyptians welcomed him.

-Tyrus
-In Afghanistan beating several "guerilla" armies.

Alexander had inherited the best artillery and siege engineers in the Mediteranean world from Phillip, so hardly a measure of his skill.

But did they ever visit all the regions in which he fought. I doubt that one of them ever went to Afghanistan, but they can check with some Russian generals how easy it is to fight wars over there. I imagine also that it must have been a nightmare to keep the discipline, supplies etc in order.

Russian experience in Afghanistan can not be compared with what would have faced Alexander.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Supply considerations
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-11-01.html

Hannibal

 

[unmerged(199)]

Roth's book is very good; the logistics and attrition system in Imperium will partly be based upon the research in this book. Also, if this interests you, try "Paul Erdkamp: Hunger and the Sword : Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican Wars (264-30 B. C.)", a parallel study on the same topic. Roth and Erdkamp published their works independently of each other within a 6 months period. In addition to the more general stuff (as in Roth) Erdkamp's work contains specific studies and discussions of logistic situations in the Macedonian and Punic wars. Both are very interesting, though.

And of course, anyone interested in Roman warfare must read the book of the reviewer of Roth's "The Roman Army at War : 100 BC-AD 200 (Oxford Classical Monographs) by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy". Currently, the study on the Roman army, which tramples on most of the popular myths of today.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Strategy, this may intrest you, as i was looking through your Imperium site.


All Roman citizens had at least three names: praenomen (like our first name), nomen (like our second name), and cognomen (no equivalent in most modern cultures; many cognomina (plural of cognomen) have their origin in physical peculiarities). Fabius, like some other prominent Romans, had two cognomina: Maximus ('most eminent'), which he inherited from an ancestor and Verrucosus, which he was given because of a physical characteristic).
See John Porter's informative site
http://www.usask.ca/classics/CourseNotes/RomanName.html
Also
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_365/Roman.Rep.Names.html

Hannibal

 

[Agelastus]

Like the cognomen "Agelastus"-Never Smiles.

An interesting tidbit is that "Caesar" means "a full head of hair". He was going bald long before he died.

 

[unmerged(3967)]

Scipio..... !

 

[unmerged(4643)]

I think the best Late Republic General was Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix. Here is a guy who was not a military person....by training. and he ended his life as ruler of the Roman world. Never defeated as general..won battles against great odds.

Cornelius Sulla

 

[unmerged(199)]

Originally posted by Cornelius Sulla
I think the best Late Republic General was Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix. Here is a guy who was not a military person....by training. and he ended his life as ruler of the Roman world. Never defeated as general..won battles against great odds.

Not a military person by training??? Then pray tell me, what was he doing in Numidia under Gaius Marius's tutelage? Or against the Cimbri under Catulus?

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Cornelius Sulla
I think the best Late Republic General was Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix. Here is a guy who was not a military person....by training. and he ended his life as ruler of the Roman world. Never defeated as general..won battles against great odds.

Cornelius Sulla

Same military training as all Roman nobles-one couldn't hope to rise politically without completing the requisite number of "campaigns". He was also one of the great self-promoters of all time (Plutarch based much of his life on Sulla's autobiography-read the description of the battle at Chaeronea for one.)

He was also the kind of nasty piece of work you didn't want to cross-it was undoubtedly his example that Caesar was determined not to follow when he had to fight a civil war.

 

[Lord Prime]

I vote for Belisarios reservation for spelling.