oats

lol that's funny.

As Pubilus stated, it changed and varied much over time. The most interesting, perhaps are those that were established in Gaulic portions of northern Europe, and their development into major central cities.

There were horsemen during that time that did not require the use of stirrups, but those were the exception rather than rule, methinks.

Late roman era (and definitely Byzantine) saw the use of the heavy horse with which charging was a possibility.

I'm not sure what part I would be. Had I existed in Roman times and had my pick of positions, I'd like to be part of the early heavy cavalry that evolved into Byzantine Cataphracts. Otherwise, it is likely I'd likely be in the velite.

That is absolutely fantastic.

Sorry, I was thinking "What If" questions to be plausible in a historical context. So I can say what if Alexander took his Phalanx against American 101st Airborne? (slight exaggeration of timescale.) By the time Scipio II was born in 236 BC (assuming that Alexander's what-if-he-went-west campaign didn't alter history that Scipio was born), Alexander would have been 100 years old.

Gaius, I'm not even sure Scipio was even born, given Alexander's possible timeline for a Western Campaign. And Scipio Jr. was only the Scipio he was after emulating Hannibal's tactics in which he killed Scipio Sr. (note, I am not using strictly Roman Terms). Scipio may not even have become Scipio Africanus, had he not seen the tactical prowress of Hannibal in his decade plus tour in Italy.

Early legionnaires were not trained professionals: most of them were called upon on a conscription basis. Their tactics and strategy consisted of: "Go forward." The lines of the Legion were easy enough to understand: 1st line are unexperienced, 2nd line more experienced, 3rd line are the crack group, and perhaps the phalanx after that. So they essentially steamrolled their lesser opponents in the Italian peninsula. Had Alexander, a very skilled tactician and strategist, been as healthy as he was when he conducted the campaigns in the east, would no doubt have given the Romans serious trouble. As Gaius Octavius mentioned, the Mediterranean peoples may have joined up against Alexander, but in all likelihood the biggest problem that Alexander would have faced is the terrain. The many different people that lived in the Mediterranean, were likely to have joined up with Alexander, as they did with Hannibal on his march to Rome. The challenging terrain to navigate most likely would have been an interesting factor for Alexander to contend with. Also, Alexander's reliance on the cavalry may not have been effective as Hannibal's mixed infantry/cavalry tactics. Remember Italy is a mountainous country, protected by the Alps. To us, now, crossing the Alps creates awe. Then, the Alps must have been seen as an insurmountable obstacle. [nr] I would say that had Alexander been at full health (mental and physical) and was determined to go West, he would have enlisted his expanded expeditionary forces from Persia (as suggested by Segestan), but travelled by naval forces or land march hugging the coastline. The Roman Republican leadership was not exactly united or designed for warfare, as evidenced by Hannibal's first years of invasion. The division would have proven ruinous to the Roman Republic had Alexander been their enemy as well. It may have even been possible that Carthage, depending on when Alexander engaged in this hypothetical Western Campaign, would have allied with Alexander against Rome. Or perhaps Alexander would have gone after Carthage first. Who knows. THis is one of the things that historians debate ad nauseum like whether China would have dominated the world post-1500 had they continued with their maritime expeditions.

Go Rangers! Truly unfortunate loss(es) to the Sabres. Both teams had it made going in, however.

I'm pretty sure the addition of Minucius was sarcasm, but it does highlight Fabius as an able strategist. Scipio, Hannibal and the like were famed for their tactics, but overall strategy can be pretty boring. The Fabian strategy of protracted war was probably the best way to wage a war against a superior opponent until the opportunity presented itself to retaliate. Too often, Fabian generals are overlooked, underrated, and brushed off, even during their own time period (i.e. George Washington) So Fabius would get my vote, though he was less flashy, but had a level head about him.

Oh thank goodness. Thank you very much. It was driving me insane.

This may be a silly question, but I do not see the posts in the thread, but instead a list of people who have replied. I have to click on each subject to read the responses and I personally find it kind of annoying. Is there a way for me to personalize the board settings so it doesn't do that?

Didn't the early Republic face major set-backs when met with highly experienced light cavalry? (Numidian cavalry routing Roman Allied cavalry at Cannae is possibly the most obvious example) And the definitive victory by Scipio won through the use of aggressive cavalry? I know later that they employed what is believed to be the precursor to heavy knights and used heavy cavalry tactics, but what different kinds were there?

What were the famed categories and famed units of the Roman Cavalry. I understand they also used allied cavalry to supplement their own and after the 2nd Punic War, the importance of deploying elite cavalry to the field was understood and improved upon by later Roman generals. From this site, we get a general idea (i.e. Lancer, Contari, and Cataphract) but does anyone know this subject in detail? (Also, forgive the newbness, but how do I get the board such that I can read all the posts and not have the click on each individual post?)