mquish

Indeed. If you really want tactical though, multiplayer might be a better choice than single player, since often against a computer opponent somewhat unrealistic tactics seem to work wonders (well, like as greeks just use enough phalanxes to make a circle when defending, some horsemen and missile troops in the middle, and watch the enemy run to a pointy death, then let the horses loose when the enemy flees and run them down). Of course, you can use more realistic tactics, but often those end up being not as effective against AI in my experience. Agreed. Maybe the games developer should have put more work into the AI or even created a difficulty structure, like easy,normal,very hard and extremely hard(for me of course) . Indeed. If you really want tactical though, multiplayer might be a better choice than single player, since often against a computer opponent somewhat unrealistic tactics seem to work wonders (well, like as greeks just use enough phalanxes to make a circle when defending, some horsemen and missile troops in the middle, and watch the enemy run to a pointy death, then let the horses loose when the enemy flees and run them down). Of course, you can use more realistic tactics, but often those end up being not as effective against AI in my experience. I like your battlefield tactic. Might try it sometime.

An archeological discovery of a tomb belonging to a wealthy singulare(cavalry elite) named maximus brought light to the dacian wars recently. Maybe if you looked up (maximus-dacian wars) you might find a very interesting first hand account of the dacian wars.

When Rome lost her legions in Teutoberg Forest or Cannae and so forth, it was tragic, but the republic was untouched and Romans kept their freedom. When the Roman army lost at Pharsalus, the state was overthrown by a monarch and the people and senate of Rome forever lost their rights. Who cares about the loss of a few eagles, when the SPQR stops standing for anything meaningful? I think we are steering away from the real question at hand, What was romes greatest military defeat not which defeat had the worst reprocussions for the empire. So for me the worst military disaster would have to be cannae; in terms of soldiers killed. I hope whovever reads this understands where i am coming from

This is just a theory and by all means correct me for any wrong factual statement put forward. Its just something i was thinking about. Maybe the pilum wasnt suppose to bend, but because the metals used at the time(mainly bronze,copper) were weak alloys, they werent strong enough to withstand the force of impact.

Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of table top wargaming, but I am not sure it would be the best resource for the actual thing... I think you should try www.blackmask.com It has a wide range of book choices in many areas

If you're going to bash my posting - at least read the post properly first. I was referring to wielding the spear like a staff, which does require space. Obviously as a one-handed stabbing or throwing weapon it doesn't require much space and could be used in tight formations, but that was not what I was talking about. It should've been rather clear if you indeed read the whole paragraph of the post, and not just the lines you quoted; "...to be used as a staff. Although when used as such [a staff]..." Im sorry for misunderstanding your post. I should have read it more thoroughly. No hard feelings? [ Just because you disagree with how another poster articulated his/her point doesn't mean you have to be so testy about it... Im sorry for the manner in which i replied. I have a habit of bringing out the worst in the phrasing of my sentences. I am truly sorry. I didnt mean to be rude. I post in general support of Pantagathus observation and not to single anyone out. Sometimes its important to reiterate our forum rules, which first and foremost includes being courteous to fellow members. Im sorry about the manner of my reply. I was having a bad day; which is no exuse, but am none the less sorrow.

The Urban Cohorts were the of a police force in the major cities... they did not have anything to do with protecting the eagles, that was the sole job of each individual legion and it's standards... I am sorry for the phrasing of my answer as you may have misunderstood what i was trying to say. I was not associating the urban cohort to protecting the standard only that they might have being a crack fighting force if used in the main army. I was associating the legionary first cohort with protecting the main and most important of the standards. The way I figured he didn't mean that either, just a bit unclear with his sentence structure. Thank you for pointing out my mistake in the phrasing of my post. I was not associating the urban cohort with protecting the standard

[ . Although when used as such it does require some space around you to wield, but if you have that, it's very efficient. Obviously for a legionaire, though, you couldn't do that with the large shield anyway, nor in a tightly-packed formation. If you are going to state a fact make sure you know what you are talking about. A legionare didnt need any space to through his speer as it was through from above its head therfore needing no room laterally to through it. The romans had this thought about before you and I were even born and besides i dont think they would have not thought about this before sending an entire army out to fight. I have not seen or heard of a document from ancient roman times stating, "The romans lost the battle of '''''''''' because they forgot they couldnt throw there spears in a thightly packed formation.

I totally agree. I personally think the pilum is underappreciated in context of romes great victories. It played a huge factor in winning battles. I also think it was the most cleverly created weapon of ancient times because of the many tasks it performed in one throw as you have explained above. The use of it was a devasting introduction to romes enemies of whats to come. Picture and an army of maybe 5000 romans, each throwing two waves of pila. Thats 10000 spears hurtling towards you which must of being devasting not just to the enemies physically but also mentally, destroying morale even before the battle began. It gave the romans a huge advantage to take into the battle and this is why i regard the pila as one of the most clever weapons made. As spears go, it wasn't any better than ayone elses. The only advantage it gave was that you couldn't throw it back. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be the target of a volley That maybe so, but in the hands of a professional army like the romans it became that much more deadlier. Trained in the art of throwing a spear in unision and with great accuracy, the use of the pilum for the Romans was a very efficient and uncostly;in terms of lives lost, way of killing the enemy. Yes i agree it is like any other spear with any any other soldier behind it that is, other than a roman.

Scourge of god, Atilla the hun most likely

I think you are steering away from the question comletely. The question was which was the worst roman defeat not which roman defeat had the worst effect on the roman empire or which was the worst in terms of recovering in the future

You are completely mislead if you think he would have lost if he came up against rome. Against any other phalanx formated army rome probably would have won due to their flexibility but against Alexander a man who was in love with his cavalry, ate with them, drank with them and held them in the highest regard their would be no contest. When it comes to cavalry superiorty, Alexander had the best. He was also a brilliant tactician. The only way the romans could beat a phalanx formation was to outflank it and come in from the sides and the rear. To do this they would have to defeat alexanders cavalry which is propostrous, giving the quality of cavalry a roman army commands.

Dont forget the urban cohort or the first legionary cohort to created to protect the roman symbol of might, the eagle.

None can argue over the pilum; it's the perfect infantry throwing spear I totally agree. I personally think the pilum is underappreciated in context of romes great victories. It played a huge factor in winning battles. I also think it was the most cleverly created weapon of ancient times because of the many tasks it performed in one throw as you have explained above. The use of it was a devasting introduction to romes enemies of whats to come. Picture and an army of maybe 5000 romans, each throwing two waves of pila. Thats 10000 spears hurtling towards you which must of being devasting not just to the enemies physically but also mentally, destroying morale even before the battle began. It gave the romans a huge advantage to take into the battle and this is why i regard the pila as one of the most clever weapons made.

I think it was more to do with the use of stirrups,when riding with stirrups you can put so much more force into your strike.The Roman four horned saddle was good but it still wasnt as effective as stirrups,the stirrups give you a lot more agility so your able to fight better from horse back.With the Roman saddle you pretty much have to keep your backside planted in the saddle. Not every Army in Europes middle age was made up of levies and poorly armed peasant's (sigh),the English Army in the hundred years war was totally professional,there wasnt a poorly armed peasant in sight.But i do agree that the Infantry can beat the Cavalry.Look at the battle of Crecy (1346) for example,36,000 French to 12,ooo English,the English dissmounted there Knights and Men at Arms (no levies or peasants present) and formed three battle lines (horses moved to the rear) supported by six thousand Longbowmen and a couple of crappy Ribbalds.The French mounted Knights attacked those lines 14-16 times and were utterly destroyed in doing so.The estimated casualty's are 10,000 dead French with several hundred dead English.A good well trained Infantry Army could best cavalry all day long with support from Archers. Back to the topic, I dont agree with him,i dont see the Cavalry as a Roman weakness because they may not have had good Roman Cavalry units but they did have good Auxillia Roman Cavalry,Sarmations for example. I also dont agree. The overall quality of cavalry through roman times were of better quality than most people make them out to be.ie, Legionary cavalry, Preatorian cavalry and of course the very effective sarmation cavalry. They still were a roman armies weakness when you take them on their own. But see the problem with that is, Most of the time cavalry were used in conjuction with spearmen.ie, legio lancero or velities. So to say that individualy cavalry were a roman armies weakness i think is incorrect.

I agree. Rome total war is a very educational game covering the basics of ancient roman warfare including weapons and tactical informations too.

Nero