Hamilcar Barca

I should explain myself clearer What I meant was that before the battle of Ilorci, Massinisa's Numidian cavalry pursued Cnaeus Scipio's retreating army and attacked its rear columns so that it was forced to make a stand as to defend itself, this allowed the main Carthaginian armies under H.Barca, H.Gisgo and Mago to catch up to him and destroy him. The same hapened to Hasdrubal after Ilipa. After he began his retreat, he was pursued by the Roman light infantry and cavalry who slowed him down until the legions could catch up and annihilate the remnants of his army.

Ilipa was fantastic. Scipio really acted ahead of his time here by simply rewriting all the rules of classical warfare and playing the enemy right into his hands. But it should be noted that H. Gisgo's overall losses in the actual battle were about 15,000 men, the Romans lost 800. After been temporarily saved by a suden storm in which Scipio called off his onsluaght, virtually all of Gisgo's Spanish allies deserted him and he attempted to escape south. Scipio then pursued him with his cavlary and light troops, slowing him down till the legions could arrive and slaughter what remained of his army save for 6,000 men. It is noted by Livy and Polybius that this engagement was not really a battle, but a total slaughter. This was also very similar to the way in which Cnaeus Scipio was hunted down and killed by H. Barca, Mago and H. Gisgo some five years ealier at Ilorci. Ilipa was certanley deccisive, as it gave Rome total control of Spain as well as robbing Carthage of its wealthiest province. Had Gisgo won, then the Carthaginans would of had another chance to reinforce Hannibal, not to mention regaining control over all of of Spain. As for Napoleon, he revolutionsed modern warfare but ultimately failed in what he sent out to do. He was basicly a 19th Century Hitler without the racism. Scipio Africanus was a far greater commander than him in my opinion, among the foremost reaons been that Scipio never lost a battle despite been outnumbered in virtually every engagement he fought. Among his great victories was the siege and capture of Carthago Nova as well as the huge battles of Baecula, Ilipa, Utica, Zama and Magnesia. He is also credited with been hugely popular with his men and the celtiberians, as well as been gracious to many a defeated foe.

You can also make your own diagrams by reviewing the army deployments as described in the original texts by Livy, Polybius, Appian etc

On the contrary Centurions were a crucial part of the fighting. They often sufferred high casualty rates because they were expected to lead their men from the front, but they were also very experienced, usually it took 15-20 years of active service to be illegible for promotion to Centurion.

Thats ok wargamer, Apology accepted

Syracuse was cool, but it was sad that Archimedes was killed. His defence engine, the claw was increadible. As for Alaric I, he basicly starved Rome out as well as smashing the aquaducts which led into the city. Rome sufferred badly and eventually a traitor let Alaric in through the west gates.

Great pictures CenPrinCohILegVIVictPF.

Its already been said, He'd beat a soldier with his vitis until it snapped, then he'd ask a sub-ordinate to "fetch me another", so that the beating could continue. He apparantly did this often and thus earned the nickname.

Yes, Tacitus does mention a centurion known only as "Fetch me another" Cedo Alteram, but he got what he deserved and was lynched by his men during a mutiny on the Rhine in 14AD. As for the Centurion with the medals, it was common to wear them into battle during Caesars day.

Don't forget the siege of Carthage. It took three years but as they gave command to a Scipio, results were achieved. Also worth mentioning is Pomepius Strabo who, after the most famous siege of the Social War, became known as the "Butcher of Ausculum". As for Rome's enemies, Alaric I has to win this for his three sieges and eventual sacking of Rome itself in 410AD.

What article are you referring too wargamer? I wrote that info on Crecy 3 months ago.

Those are valid points but Hannibal's decline after Cannae wasn't his fault. He took every opportunity he was given and performed to the best that any one could have dreamed of. His ultimate failure came about on behalf of the incompetence of the Carthaginian senate and Hanno who did not offer any real aid to the Barca's. Hannibal could have been reinforced easilly, but the three Carthaginian armies in Spain sat idle for ages and never co-operated or acted in union until it was too late. The fact was, while Hannibal only ever won or drew in Italy, the Romans won all their battles in Spain with the exception of the Upper Baetis in 211BC when both the Scipio's were killed. As for naval superiority, the only naval battle worth mentioning from the Second Punic war was the battle of the Ebro Mouth in 217BC where Cnaeus Scipio ambushed the dis-organised Carthaginian fleet under Himilcon, capturing 27 ships and sinking 4 for no losses. This effectively enabled him to have free reign on the Spanish Coastline. The Carthaginians did make plans to deploy a new much larger fleet after this. But the Romans had already done this and the Carthaginian admirals lost their nerve and never challenged them again. Back on topic my favourite tactical commander rests in a toss-up between Gaius Marius and Sulla.

Auckland, New Zealand

For the record, the longbow won many victories for the English during the CYear war. Crecy is but one example, other great victories also occurred at Auberoche (1345), Poiters (1356) and Agincourt (1415). They had lost their advantage by the 16th Century though, the French simply used cannon fire to break up their ranks such as at Castilion in 1453. I always did like Crecy though, here is a write-up for it from The battles of CYear War that I did a while ago. Crecy 1346 English Victory The Battle of Crecy took place on the 26th of August, 1346 in northeren France and is commonly known as a/the battle which ended heavy chivalry. Outnumbered 12,000 to 35,000, Edward III took up a defensive position on a hill and waited for the French under Phillip IV to engage him. Despite their inferior numbers, The Welsh longbowmen both outranged and outfired the French crossbowers who were pinned down and thrown into confusion and panic. Phillip then ordered a full cavalry charge but Edward had anticipated this and prior to battle had constructed pits, trenches and spiked defences (caltrops) to disrupt and cripple the French horse. The Longbowmen all the while continued to inflict enormous casualties whilst the footmen effortlessly repelled all that evaded their defences. The result was a humiliating defeat for Phillip with 15,000 killed and many more wounded. The English estimated their dead at 200.

Thanks for the explanation Fatboy. Good to get that cleared up.

I wasn't suggesting Cynoscephelae was a legendry Roman victory, I was simply saying it was a victory in any case. I am aware that the Macedonian armies at the time of Roman expansion were of poor calibre and leadership, Perseus fled without even using his cavalry. But what I am saying is that the Alexander would have NEVER conquered the Romans, he may have beaten them initially, but they would have found a way to stop him. Alexander never actually fought any noteworthy commanders either though, Darius II and Porus were loosers who had armies to large for them to actually control. Darius' men constantly had bad morale, they were whipped into combat by their officers and most of them had little training or combat experience. By the time Alexander started his expedition into Asia Minor, his army was well battle-hardened from their battles with the Greeks. As for badly outnumbered battles. Sulla's infantry were outnumbered 1 to 7 at Chaeoronea, I think that counts as significant. You also mention the poor quality of the Roman cavalry, this is true but the Romans often supplemented their own with far better auxillaries such as the Numidian cavalry. Well actually at Pydna the Macedonians outnumbered the Romans 44,000 to 38,000 in the infantry department. But yes, Perseus didn't use his cavalry, he dropped his nuts and ran. I take into account everything that you say, I just believe that the great Roman generals which I alreadt mentioned could have beaten Alexander. I see this is turning to another ROME VS GREECE topic. uh oh

Civil wars almost certanley leave scars. Rome's civil wars evidently led to its destruction and while I am not American, I think everyone in the world is aware of the contempt that the Northern states have for the south. One thing I do find interesting is how the Wars of the Roses (1455 - 1487) is not recorded as "The First English Civil war" and that the war between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads (1642 - 1651) is not recorded as "The Second English Civil War". Instead we just have the latter recorded as the former. After all the Wars of the Roses was without doubt a civil war, I guess the name just sounded cool so it stuck.

The Macedonian phalanx was an outdated system by the time of the Romans. Pyrrhus of Epirus, the nephew of Alexander the Great handed the Romans two consecutive defeats at Heraclea and Beneventum. But once the Romans figured out how to deal with elephants and the phalanx, they never lost against a Macedonian styled army again. The point is that the Romans would NEVER anything other than a victory on THEIR terms. While they may have lost to Alexander and his generals initially, there is no way in hell they would have surrendered to him, they would have found a way to beat him eventually and end the war they saw fit. The phalanx seemed like a good idea on the surface but it had no manouvaribility. At Cynoscephelae, Phalanna and Pydna, the Romans simply got in the flanks or rear of it after which a slaughter ensued. The phalangites had light armour and a very short sword (more of a dagger), as soon as they were deprived of their hedgehog formation, they were rendered helpless. As for Alexander, he was a legendry general but I think he gets more attention than he deserves. Pure luck seems to have won him most of his victories opposed to disciplined strategy. He was almost certanely mad as well, believing himself to be the son of God and thus that he was immortal. Caesar, Sulla or the Scipio's would have wiped the floor with him. Remember that S. Africanus or Sulla never lost battles either, and they were often fighting when badly outnumbered. e.g. Ilipa, Baeculla, Chaeoronea, Orchenomus etc

Damn that was a cool idea, I would had loved the chance to get a Roman coin. Too bad I didn't come to this forum sooner. BTW, where did you (the mods) get those coins from and how do you confirm authenticity.

I come from Auckland, NZ, but I'm at university in Wellington right now. History for both is depressing, Wellington: founded 1850, Auckland: founded 1830. wow. Thats why I love European history so much, its got so much substance . Run down of NZ history: All thats happened in NZ in the last 150 years is two inter-racial wars between the natives and the settlers. First 1845 - 1860, second 1864 - 1878. Not alot happened, the maori were beaten and had their land taken. But there was sick twist, a colonial treaty founded in 1840 known as the Treaty of Waitangi, between the maori and pakeha(settlers) which allocated land rights to Maori was ignored during these wars. BUT, the government fom the 1970's onwards restarted honouring this treaty and started to give back land and millions of dollars in compensation money. Worse still, these bastards just won't stop complaining and now theres a Treaty of Waitangi tribunal which hands out vast sums of money to all these corrupt lazy bastards who claim decent from the tribes affected 160 years ago. Now, compared to other indeginous groups, say the Aztecs, the aborigines or the American Indians, the maori did not have a hard time, they were never persecuted and the wars only began because they started been assholes to the whites. Yet, these other groups never got any compensation for multipe atrocities while the maori get millions anually rom the socialists faggots in governemnet and try and shoehorn their influence into everything, despite making up 80% of the jail population. There is no justice. I'd move to Australia but they tax the life out of you over there. NZ in a nutshell: Nice to visit but only live here is you are a left wing unambitious asshole who can dole off the pushover government... Actually my life is very nice, I'm just focussing on all the annoying stuff which keeps poping up in the news. At least the weather is nice, and we only have about 7 shootings a year.

The Carthaginian senate gave him the title, not the Romans. They were apparantly impressed with his territorial expansions in Africa during Punic War 1, even though they were strategiclly pointless. Hanno didn't support the Barca's but he certanley didn't want the Romans to win. After the war, he had Numidians capturing all of his estates and stripping him of his wealth.

Roman and Byzantine military history from 390 BCE to about 1076 AD. I'm pretty well informed of anything regarding armies, generals, conquests, wars and battles from within that time period. On the other hand my knowledge of Roman culture, literature and religion leaves alot be desired

Assumption is the mother of all (edited by system)-ups

19, but don't care about what I'm supposed to be doing at this age lol

Byzantium for me, Basil II won me over with his legendry victory at Kleidon (Ballithsmore) in 1014. In response to Pontus, I'm not sure if you could call them an empire. Mithridates only maintained control of his "empire" for 2 years before Sulla captured it all back and slaughtered his armies. But then again it did take the Romans three wars to finally snuff him out.