Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
King_Cyrus
Janissary
Joined: 16-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Ancient Armies Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 00:43 |
Charles Brough brings up a very good point. It seem most if not all ancient armys become week for one reason or another. I know alot about the Achamanid Empire (Persian Empire). Under there original leader Cyrus the Great almost all the troops were trained to be soldiers begining at a very young age and starting there military careers at about 20 and ending in mid 40's or even latter. This continued for a few more kings (Cambysus,Darius the Great,Xerxes,Artaxarus). After these kings though the Persians begain relying heavily on levies from all over the empire who were very untrained and like charles said would run away from a battle for many reasons (which it seems they did at Guagamala). So i think Rome vs China debate can be meaningless.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 at 21:20 |
how can it be meaning less. just because they get weak at different periods.
|
|
Janissary
Baron
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 446
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 22:13 |
I prefer Chinese, becouse they had more Strategicly Smarter Generals, They had more Mauneurement and they had a good philosophy, That would made them to destroy any army of Ancient Times.
They had Paper armpor which was more effective than Roman Iron, They had a bow which was between longbow and "Short bow"(Asian bow) which destroyed many beautiful armies of Huns and Turks and Mongols, and offcource could destroy Roman tooo
That is mAnd also, To train from less age, it was in many ancient states as Sparta, Huns (which founded 221 b.c.), Celts-Gauls, Etruscians and so on
Becouse the mean of life in that times was a Warfare, that is not hard to understand.
|
|
Bishop
Shogun
Joined: 08-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 223
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 01:39 |
Originally posted by Janissary
That is mAnd also, To train from less age, it was
in many ancient states as Sparta, Huns (which founded 221 b.c.),
Celts-Gauls, Etruscians and so on
Becouse the mean of life in that times was a Warfare, that is not hard to understand. |
IS this English, I can't understand what you are saying.
Not that it matters, no one can compare to the Greeks. No one, not even the Romans, who I pick after the Greeks.
|
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
|
Alkiviades
Baron
Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 02:08 |
I'd rather have an army of citizens, ready to defend willingly their
way of living and beloved ones, than any army of obedient sheep under a
King or Emperor or whatever.
So, Greeks and Republican Rome!
|
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 04:13 |
I prefer the Roman Republican armies which had Scipio Africanus and Spartans because of their training and skill as warriors.
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
Janissary
Baron
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 446
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Oct-2005 at 22:25 |
Hey men, I did not meant that Greeks were weak, In fact they were more effective than Rome, But I said that training from little age it is many nations, especially in Spartans and Huns
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Oct-2005 at 22:23 |
How were Greeks more affective then the Romans hahahahhaha.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 10:00 |
Originally posted by Rome
How were Greeks more affective then the Romans hahahahhaha.
|
They could be more effective, but the armies of the Diadochi had really
let themselves go. Politically the Greek Successors did not have the
single-minded determination of the Republican Roman state. The Roman
legion was also maneuverable enough to outclass the rigid phallanx.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 12:06 |
It was easy for a few maniples to detach from a legion and attempt a flanking manoeuvre on a formation such as the phlaanx, which is what I believe happened at Cynoscephalae in 197bc when Philip of Macedon's army was decisively defeated.
I think probably a better example of the superiority of the legion to the phalanx than my previous example of Magnesia.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html
I don't think anybody can strongly dispute the fact that the legion was overall superior to the phalanx. My example shows the strength of the phalanx when facing an army head on and also its fatal weaknesses.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Janissary
Baron
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 446
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 12:18 |
ok, i meant, they did not live in the same time when both had their highest military.
When we see both Peloponnes and Persian wars, we see that, with very few casaulties they defeated persians (compearing in number)
but Rome, even after MArius, (not battles with germans), in many battles lost more than greeks phalanks of hoplites did
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 12:32 |
Yeah, thats because the Romans of the Late Republic were on the offensive and some times you got to lose, but you continue to fight to win and thats whats important. Plus the greeks lost plenty of battles to.
Edited by Rome
|
|
Janissary
Baron
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 446
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 14:42 |
yeah, I know
but Romans were late and more developed technology and strategy, of cource
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 16:23 |
The Romans were not late. What are you talking about.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 16:34 |
Originally posted by Janissary
ok, i meant, they did not live in the same time when both had their highest military.
When we see both Peloponnes and Persian wars, we see that, with very few casaulties they defeated persians (compearing in number)
but Rome, even after MArius, (not battles with germans), in many battles lost more than greeks phalanks of hoplites did |
Youve been given many examples of Roman armies defeating often larger armies even Greeks and coming through with few casualties.
If we believe the Roman casualties at Cynoscephalae which is 700 to over 13,000 Macedonians killed or captured, then you see quite conclusively the superiority of Romes legionary system over the Greek phalanx. Even if Roman casualties were actually higher the fact remains a phalanx army was decisively defeated by a legionary army on the offensive.
The chief weaknesses of the phalanx were exposed in this battle and the big strengths of the legion were shown quite conclusively.
It is a
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 18:40 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
If we believe the Roman casualties at Cynoscephalae which is 700 to over 13,000 Macedonians killed or captured, then you see quite conclusively the superiority of Romes legionary system over the Greek phalanx. Even if Roman casualties were actually higher the fact remains a phalanx army was decisively defeated by a legionary army on the offensive.
The chief weaknesses of the phalanx were exposed in this battle and the big strengths of the legion were shown quite conclusively.
It is a
|
Pardon me Heraclius but your assumption is not true. The Macedonian's army defeat in Cynoscephalae is charged mostly on the poor management of Philip V who commited one serious and decisive mistake, instead of anything else.
In Cynoscephalae, Philip V attacked dissimilar. Meaning while the right Macedonian wing and Centre were together, the left Macedonian wing was still marching as undisciplined divisions. Romans made use of this gap with result this to be the crucial point of Macedonian defeat.
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 19:19 |
I recognise a reason why this battle went Romes way is due to a failing by Philip.
However, I was right when I said the chief weaknesses and strengths were displayed.
The phalanx is formidable when taken head on even the legion is going to struggle against a wall of spears, however the rigidity of the phalanx is a major weakness which made the fact a group of maniples detached on the Roman right flank and hit the Macedonian centre in the rear even more catastrophic. As there is no effective defence a phalanx formation can offer when attacked from the rear, its simply not possible or atleast practical for the entire formation like that to change direction when heavily engaged in combat.
The fact the Macedonian left was disorganised obviously contriubuted to this, but whereas the legion is more than capable of resisting attacks from the flanks by manoeuvring to face another direction the phalanx is almost totally helpless.
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Janissary
Baron
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 446
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 00:14 |
Macrinus
Marcus Crasses+40 000 roman
Gordian+40 000 roman
Philip Africanus+70 000 roman
Decius
Valerian+40 000 roman
Carus
Julian+60 000 roman
Valens+45 000 roman
VAlentinian
Are name of Great Roman Generals which died in the hand of Goths and Persians
So, dont say that roman were greater than Greeks, and they surely were late
The Highest peak of Greece is 5th century b.c. and Alexander
Highest peak of Rome is 1 b.c.-3 a.d.
There more than 300 years difference
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 00:40 |
Romans were greater then Greeks in battle.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 11:38 |
I don't see what point your trying to make Janissary, that armies get defeated?
We didnt need you to tell us that, its a simple fact armies lose sometimes, do you want me to list all the Persian defeats? All that'd prove is the undeniable fact that no army is invincable, big deal.
What do battles against Persia and the Goths have to do in a contest between Romans and Greeks? They have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
Anyway Valentinian I didnt die in battle nor did Valentinian the II or III, none of the 3 Gordian Emperors were killed by Goths or Persians, who on earth is Philip Africanus? do you mean Philip the Arab? he was killed in battle against Decius anyway. Julian the Apostate was indeed killed in battle, but his army was not destroyed and later on proclaimed Jovian Emperor.
Valerian was captured through deception by Shapur, Valerian may have even narrowly won the battle of Edessa (highly debatable), however plague ravaged his army and forced him to negotiate with the Persians for peace. Shapur captured him through deceit. Macrinus was an Emperor who was defeated in battle against some guy called Gannys and then executed, neither Goths or Persians executed him.
Dare I even mention the fact Varus was not a "great" Roman general, Valens was undoubtedly killed at Adrianople along with 2/3 of his army, I again point to the crushing defeat the Goths suffered at Naissus a century earlier as a counter-balance.
I suggest you get a more accurate list that has some basis in fact or I promise you somebody will tear it to pieces, by the way Carrhae has become a tired example that you use in every single topic like its some astonishing revelation. You cant keep saying the same thing and expecting it to have an impact on the debate.
I ask again what have battles against Persia and the Goths got to do with battles between the Greeks and Romans and determining superiority?
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|