Legio X

Im sorry if my scenario was unclear, I d

Nice explanation thanks

But in that case the Spartans should have rolled up the Theban left wing before, as the Spartans (probaly) had much stronger and more experienced soldiers...

I've read that the Thebans used a "diagonal" battle line, but how could they get such an advantage over the Spartans just because that?

I know his own "diary" was a major source of our knowledge about the campaign against the Gauls. but is Caesar's writings the only source of our knowledge of the war really? Caesar's commentaries on his Gallic adventure were not for his own private use (as in a diary), but for political propaganda. It's useful to note in this context that Caesar refers to himself in the third person ("Caesar", "he") and not in the first person ("I"). Unless Caesar were quite mad, it's unlikely he'd use the third person for himself in his own diaries. (Though this is someone who claimed to be a descendent of Venus...) We do have other sources for the war, but I don't think they're really dispositive of the numbers Caesar faced. Our other sources are archaeological -- so, we can go to Gergovia (say) and excavate for Roman war machinery, but it won't tell us how many Gallic women and children were clapped in chains and sent to Rome. For that kind of information, we rely on Caesar (who claims to have enslaved a million men, women and children). You said the commentaires was for propaganda purpose, and so think I, but the talk abput descent from venus is too of course, i dont think he really thought he was a desent from a god, but it strengthen his stand with the people.

I dont know very much about the byzantine armies, but i think they would have won, bacause their flexibility, strong cavalry, and strong mix of roman,greek and eastern influensed troops. The macedonians had great cavalry to in the companions, but they were used to fight light armed and less organized enemies like the persians.

Well i think Caesar was the best, hw won several battles against overwelmling (spell??) odds, aoften because exelent diplomatic and kindness to the people.

Are you saying there were only 300 troops among the Greeks? Respectfully, I don't think so. There were also 700 Thespians and 400 Thebens...and probably a lot more as well as a couple thousand helots in support at the final battle. Before that final day, there were several thousand other Greek allies who retreated only when it appeared hopeless. A late Empire army means less discipline, less training, and even less loyalty. It also spells a more likely defeat of the Romans. On the other hand, let's consider Persian wicker shields vs. a well-disciplined Roman killing machine of a Julius Caesar. Throw in a few hundred auxiliary Roman archers and Balearic slingers. More interesting. The Battle at Thermopylae (at least initially) was a frontal encounter in a limited area. This would play to the legion's strength. guy also known as gaius Now when i wrote "late empire", i meant non-republic, an army after the Marian reforms. Not an army from the the downfall time of Rome, but like around 30BC- 150AD. But i agree that the romans wasn't as loyal or had the same condempt of death as the Spartans. Sorry my bad english, I'm from Sweden ya know

What had been the result if the invading persians faced late-empire legions instead of Spartans at Thermopylae?

Hi! I wonder if you think Constantine the greats military reforms were good or bad for the empire in the long run.. for an example he took away the preatorians and made limitateii to bordertroops..well you can read about it yourself and tell me what you think

You never answered the question hehe

I

Well, the after the divide of east and western roman empire the eastern realized the value of cavalry agains their eastern enemies, mainly sassanids. Thatswhy they made clibinarii and cathafractii, but i guess youre right about earlier

I think the romans would win, read about the battle of Pydna and you will understand

Hello, i wonder wich general of the ancient you think was the greatest. This can include kings, emperors etc.

Hello, i wonder if anyone have played Rome total war alexander? Is it worth to buy or is rtw and barb invasion better? Also i wonder if anyone have played the game Rome SPQR wish seem to be almost the same as rtw but maybe a little more advanced? Happy for answers!

Thanks for the posts everyone, i really apriciate it!

Hello, i know that Herodotus wrote down the names of the 300 spartans at Thermopylae because he said that "they deserved to be remembered". Now i wonder if anyone know where i can find these, cuz i dont, please send a link in that case. Thanks in advance.

Hello, in a biography about Caesar, Adrian Goldsworhty says that its just a myth that the pila bends after hitting a target. Have anyone heard this too or something else? If you find something that says it actually bends, please send a link. Thanks in advance!

Hello, im just wondering how i get that picture under my name wich everyone can see when i write something, very thankful for help

Agreed, not only due to their threat to Roman homeland, but the stories of child sacrifice in Carthage are supremely outrageous if true (?) Remember that in their eyes, the child sacrifice wasnt cruel at all, just a way to make the gods happy, im sure the carthagians thought the romans were cruel when they buired the vestal virgins alive if they had sex

While I don't disagree with the fact Scipio was one of the greatest generals of the republic era there is one point I think we need to be mindful of. Scipio faced Hannibal when the latter's power was on the decline. He was stuck in Italy waiting for reinforcements for a considerable period of time when the Romans took the battle to Carthage in Spain and Africa. Hannibal's tactics in truth did not change much as well. By the time Scipio faced Hannibal in Zama he knew perfectly well how to handle the war elephants. Keeping these points in mind I don't think he was as brilliant as many paint him to be. The greatest general in my opinion was Caesar. He was a great politician as well as a master tactician. The seige of Alesia was testament to his brilliance - he surpassed Alexander's brilliant seige of Tyre. To add to that Caesar's invasion of Gaul was the greatest undertaking of that era - he conquered Gaul in just over 8 years. To add to that he defeated a German army as well as expanding the frontier to soutern England. This is to name just a few. On the topic of conquests, Caesar's feats were not matched till the days of Trajan's successful conquest of Dacia. As a politician he paved the way for the waning republic (with its corrupt senators) to be dismantled and reorganised as the Roman Empire. I won't go too much into detail with his political achievements; most are well aware of his achievements here. As a sidenote, while some might disagree, Rome gained true success when the government was reorganised as an empire. But that's just my personal opinion. Your wrong in one thing, caesar did not include britain in the roman empire, he forced them to pay tax but they quited when he left, it was an emperor long time later, cant remember the name, that made britania to a roman province.

Ok, thank you all for answer, I really appreciate that

I think they used piked, not sure, anyway the hastatii did as hastat means pike/spear.