Roman Conquests

[roman wargamer]

i love Gaul and Parthia because of the long campaign

and the big battle and unique tactic and strategy being

tried and use by both sides.

[Fafnir]

I enjoy the Armenian and Parthian campaigns, the Cataphracts used by both these peoples were totally awesome. Since those were not on there... i voted for Carthage, because armored elephants are pretty cool too.

[Legate of XVPrimigenia]

I always loved Gaul and have read Julius's book on The Conquests of Gaul i recomend it to you its an excellent book called

Conquest of Gaul

[Dream]

I prefer Brittania, it being the northern boundary of the Empire and the place where Sarmatian Knights like Arthur Castus (King Arthur) was stationed. :sniper:

 

'longbow' i tottaly agree, the movie about king aruther being a roman leader of sarmation knighes was the worse movie iv seen in a very long time, and i watch alot of new/***** movies... altho the romans say sarmations were sent to england, the whole idea of a group of 5 people fighting to protect hardians wall is a joke.. the wall at parts is about 3 feet high? it was NOT to defend the land it was to tax trade, check how meny people game in, went out and so on.. 5 people who spent almost 2 minutes of the whole moive on horses...... and total ignore mounted weapons, like erm spears or lances? in place of a nice looking dagger? just just, anyone that uses that movie for anything other then a coaster deserved to be put in a sack and beaten then thrown into a river, and then have the river taken into space and thrown into a sun.... name the show i stole that from you get a cookie... also ;longbow' your nice hellllo

 

i like germania, macedon, greece for the romans beating on there historical predeceors, kind of to decide if the greeks had the right idea, phalax and lines, or the new comer romans with a pilum and short swrod, (a sword that the greeks were scared of and saw the woounds it made as being amazing and awful) fighing in colums with speed and big shields... i also like the germaina camp- so call barbarians teaching the romans a thing or two in combat and tactical planning..

 

right its 10, and sunrise.. im off to bed.

[Tobias]

I voted for Gaul. I agree with the above statements about Caesar's "Commentaries", being some of the only first hand accounts of Roman campaigning left to us. As well, the campaigns against the germans in the time of Gaius Marius and Sulla and Caesar against the tribes, and later the United Gallic Tribes under Vercinetorix seem to have brought out the best in people (i.e. Marius' victory at Aquia Sextiae, Caesar's at Alesia etc.), and the campaigns against these powerful peoples, and their subjection, are greatly indicative of the greatness of a well generaled roman army.

[Germanicus]

Gaul, mostly because of the rapidity, the conqueror and the number of sieges.

 

I also would go for Marius' victory at Aquia Sextiae against the Cimbri and Tuetones, that was stellar.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Gaul, simply because De Bello Gallico really convinced me that Caesar conquered those numerous tribes with ease due to the brilliant tactics.

[Felix Marcellus]

I chose Macedon/Greece just because of the phalanx vs. Legion battles. Though Greece was not conquered after Rome defeated Pyrrhus, I count that as the premliminary battle to determine the dominating force in Greece. I guess most of you would count that under the conquest of Italy. But I reserve my right as an American to be bass ackwards.

 

Furthermore, before Rome Macedon was the dominating force in the eastern med. Rome's conquest of Greece and Macedon was the final hurdle they had to overcome to be recognized as the world power they really were. Some say the end of the Second Punic War was enough of a victory for that. Maybe in the eyes of the less civilized people in the Western Med, but Rome's defeat of Carthage certainly didn't impress Macedon, the Ptolemies, Seleucids or any other substantial military power in the east.