careyfree

Just curious if anyone here plays Rome: Total War (for PC). My interest in Rome goes back to elementary school and as a History major I took a lot of hours on the subject in college (my favorite: a 4-hour course on the Punic Wars, utilizing classic sources and taught by a brilliant professor). But this game has renewed my interest tenfold (hence, my finding this site). If you aren't familliar, it's a great strategy game that combines empire building (like the Civilization series, but more in-depth) and a battlefield mode where one can command up to 10,000 troops at a time. However, you'll want to go to totalrealism.com and download the totalrealism mod, which turns an arcade-like game into one based on historical fact (these guys really did the homework and have produced a great - and FREE - product). Great game with the mod. Completely unrealistic (but fun nonetheless) in standard format. Here are some links: http://www.totalwar.com/community/rome.htm http://www.rometotalrealism.com/ http://rtw.heavengames.com/

Granted, much of Hannibal's force was put together in short time, but he also had a strong force of "hardened" vets from Italy, a force that in many reports stopped his infantry cold before the returning calvary turned the battle for the Romans. Granted, Scipio's ability to train his men surly helped and his men were "experienced" (though, by most accounts, not good experiences). However, did he not also have to put together his force in rather short time. I guess my question then would be: Were they that much better and more experienced than Hannibal's forces, enough so that this fact can be used to marginalize Scipio's victory?

It's always been my understanding that Scipio's troops at Zama weren't "hardened veterans" as many on this thread have claimed, but a collection of defeated troops (Cannae survivors, etc.) he raised in Sicily after his admonishment by the Senate. Granted, they weren't exactly "raw" recruits, but not exactly "hardened vets" (i.e. his Spanish troops). Scipio also didn't have elephants, but did devise an innovative way of dealing with (and defeating) them. Scipio has always been my favorite Roman general and, IMO, he really gets the short end of the stick by historians. The guy was Rome's savior, at its time of most dire need, in what was the most pivotal conflict in the Republic/Empire's history. And then there's the Hannibal envy. Great battlefield tactician - but that's just about it. He was not a very good politician, as evidenced by his lack of support from home and his almost complete inability to turn any Latin allies to his side - the one factor he most needed to accomplish his goals. He was not very good at seeing the whole picture. I'm assuming he had poor intelligence beforehand, hence his complete miscalculation of the relationship between Rome and its Latin allies. Terrible miscalculation for someone described by some as the "greatest ever." Baah! Scipio learned tactics from observations of Hannibal's victories, he was bold in their implementation (Carthago Nova, Illipa) and was a great politician, as evidenced by his ability to do what Hannibal could not (i.e. the wooing of Massinissa and his ability to turn much of the Spanish tribes to his side). Hannibal is nothing but a one-trick pony(albeit with a very good trick). Scipio was the complete package.

Thanks guys, Just trying to glean some strategy tips for Total War (Total Realism mod). This should help greatly.

Does anyone know where I can find (online, preferred) some diagrams and analysis of battles throughout Roman history? Right now, I'm stumped.