Felix Marcellus

Phalanx is plural for phalanx. If you're talking about the individual soldiers in the phalanx, it would be phalangite (singular) and phalangites (plural)

1-2-3-4 I love the Marine Corps. But I'm in the Army. I love the Army too though.

I chose Felix because I was so happy when I found this awesume website and Marcellus is a play off my first name.

Exactly, you can surf this forum for discussions on this. This subject has been discussed exhaustively in here. BUt Pertinax got you right. Not only can the legion beat the phalanx, it did. King Pyrrhus' phalangites got some legio love too. The battles Pyrrhus did win against Rome were on account of the elephants, not the phalanx. When Rome figured out how to deal with the elephants it was all over for the Greeks. Alexander's phalanx is another question. Under his leadership who knows. This has also been heavily discussed in here somewhere. Great discussions too.

Hannibal chose the Alps for the element of surprise. A large fleet would've more likely been identified. Hannibal also likely had the intent of picking up a large contingency of allied fighters during his march through the southern Gaul, which he did. Also, marching through Gaul over the Alps gave him the opportunity to secure LOC's to Spain from where he knew he would be able to acquire supplies mostly unhindered as he was not at the time challenged in Spain. Had he chosen to support his own invasion from sea, his sea LOC's would've been constantly interdicted and he'd have fared far worse logistically than he was with land based LOC's. When he started out this was a land oriented mission. He knew the Roman maritime capability far exceeded his. Bomilcar's and Mago's landings in Italy were no doubt calculated gambles. They paid off. It would've been a managable disaster had they not been able to land. Had his initial invasion been interdicted at sea it would been a warstopping event. He wouldn't have recovered from that. Even if he won such a naval battle on the way to landing in Italy, no doubt he'd have lost a comparable number to what he lost crossing the Alps. Who knows. But if you put yourself in his shoes in 218BC, no way does any commander with no Naval "Umph" choose to invade Rome by sea. He made the right choice tactically and logistically. For fun, what would you all do different if you were suddenly zapped back in time into Hannibal's shoes? Invade? Wait until you built up a Navy than challenge Rome on the seas? Be content to dominate Spain and maybe later on takes southwestern Gaul or more? Follow Hannibal's course, yet invest more time in developing an engineer corps for sieges? Turn on Carthage and ensure you had all the support back home that you needed? Or at the very least had your primary rival family the Hannos clapped in irons or placed in stocks or crucified... and then went after Rome? What would you do?

I don't really know anything about Rome's frontiers. But from a military point of view in general I'd say it would not make sense to build outposts north of the wall in enemy territory. 1. You've already built an obstacle to keep them out. A substantial one at that. 2. An outpost is a static creation easily targeted by the enemy. The men occupying it wouldn't last long. 3. You could patrol north of the wall with an armed and ready force, using different routes each time you patrol. This would achieve the same intent as an outpost (Provide early warning of an appoaching enemy) and increase force protection for those conducting the recon. If you alternate routes the enemy can't get a pattern on you and therefore makes it more difficult for them to attack. Whereas an outpost they can attack over and over and over again until the other side learns, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't continue to man this outpost".

Did I mention Rome was too big. Seriously. When you have an entity near the size of the US and a lack of: 1. High Speed Communications which facilitate a timely reaction to crises 2. Overwhelming technological overmatch 3. Solid alliance (of the willing; not a forced alliance) 4. Nationalism (Romans may have been very nationalistic about their empire, I doubt all the auxiliaries were so nationalistic about it) 5. Running water, Flushable Toilets, Air Conditioning, central heating (Basically this translates into a bunch of po'd people who will eventually need to blame someone for their miserable lives... and I'm just kidding with this one. HAHA... 6. (Which is really 5 since 5 was a joke) Accountability at the highest level of government (meaning the emperor is not someone who can be 'un' re-elected so what does he care if his foreign policy sucks and domestic policy consists of conscripting men and material to reinforce his sucky foreign policy) 7. (Which is really 6... and so on.) The JAY-OH-BEE. Seems to me there was a lot of work done by slaves that could've been given to citizens. Low unemployment rate is directly inverse to a stong economy. : your nation ain't going to last forever. And there's obviously more which has and has not already been pointed out here in this thread. But seriously, the flushing toilets, running water (and I ain't talking about those nasty public fountains), and air conditioning would be where my vote went. And if I didn't have a roll of Charmin after the next election I'd start up HizbaFelix and plant IED's on the Via Appia until I got them.

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.

Wow, that's pretty short. Is there more turns per year?

ROFL Oh dear lord, it is uncanny isn't it. Hannibal: DMX (yes, the rapper) He can portray a calm, calculating charismatic military leader and a kickass warrior at the same time. He'd have to work on an Arabic type accent to give the perception of being an African based warlord. (And a slightly better actor than Vin Diesel IMHO) Scipio Africanus: Eric Bana (The Hulk, Blackhawk Down, Troy) Hasdrubal: Djimon Hounsou (Four Feathers, Amistad, The Gladiator)

What is the timeframe of the game. It starts in the 400's? When does it end?

I disagree somewhat m8. Don't get me wrong. Overall, RTW is better than MTW as far as the engine goes. However, I am a fan of Medieval and Roman history. I own both games and I find myself after playing RTW for awhile, longing for the Medieval experience again. Medieval campaign play is also far more conducive to my busy schedule. It doesn't take as long to finish the game for me. I build up a navy and can conquer the whole map in no time. But Rome you actually have to march your armies to their destination; it's not just moving from one province to another. While Rome Campaign is more realistic, I find I can do more in MTW in a shorter amount of time. I love both games. If you're not perpetually busy like I am, than you'll probably enjoy RTW much better as you'll have more time to put into it. IF you can sit in front of your computer all day you likely will forget all about MTW and go nuts over RTW. I recommend holding onto MTW until they update it with the RTW engine or develop a medieval mod for RTW. I think they have a medieval mod for RTW if I'm not mistaken. Or they are in the process of developing one. I'd love that. Now, on another note. I just downloaded the RTR 6.0 with 6.2 patch. Anybody else here got that one? I haven't played it yet. Anybody know what the key differences are? I don't necessarily care about the new units and factions they added. I saw those on totalwar.org I think it was. Actual gameplay what are the differences. ANd has anyone played the Barbarian Invasion mod? How is that?

I am from beyond the great dividing river, east of the great mountains into the plains forest at the foot of the green hills. My ancestors dance in the branches of the trees when the wind blows. They leave their secrets in the fallen leaves. They tell of our history and our past glory. They make good mulch too. North Carolina, born and raised. In Georgia now. I will never leave the south (except for vacations every once in awhile. Mom's family is in Massachussetts. Can't tolerate that place for more than 12 hours though.)

I've enjoyed watching Rome for the most part. But week after week it becomes more soap opera-ish to me. I would've liked it to be much more of an action series like Band of Brothers. The Pharsalus episode was very disappointing to me and I had hoped the Caesarion episode would make up for it. Didn't. I actually opened up my laptop and started playing Texas Hold 'em on Pokerstars during that episode. All I can say for season 2 is..... BATTLES. Show them. Consult with Mel Gibson and get the battle scenes done.

Yeah, but Pompey had more tools than V did. A navy. Roman Legions. Better engineers. And the wealth of Greece, Spain and Egypt (just to name a few) to back him up. And still lost. Vercingetorix had a rabble of barbarians. I'm looking at it from a point of view of achieving more with less. Pompey achieved less with more.

Wow, lot's of great posts on this thread. I'd like to take this opportunity to balance out all your long intellectual explanations for Rome's fall with my short and simple explanation. Rome was too big.

Well, Pompey is listed as a Tier 2 guy. Vercingetorix actually managed to defeat Caesar in battle and gave him a much harder time than Pompey did. Pompey ran like a coward through Italy, across the Adriatic and into Greece. With superior forces at his beckon had he found the intestinal fortitude and energy to do so. I'll agree Vercingetorix doesn't belong in Tier 2 only if Pompey isn't in Tier 2 as well. Now, had Pompey died or retired from military life after achieving his great name, I might be of a different opinion. But he showed against Caesar when fighting any serious competition he was impotent. It's been hard to resist, but I've managed.

I've seen his books around for years but just never picked one up to read. Maybe I'll try the one on Caesar. Agreed on Egypt, it's a pit. Bright Star? Yes, Bright Star. For me, a 3 week deployment for a 3 day long computer driven scenario. For some lucky others, a 6 week deployment for a 3 day computer driven scenario. The good part was working with soldiers from other countries. But I'm definitely not scrambling to be a part of the next one. Oh, and I'd definitely recommend if you're a fan of Hannibal or Alexander picking up those books as well. Especially the one on Alexander because the beginning of that book discusses several famous captains of antiquity. It basically kind of shows the progression of Military science from I think Cyrus the Great up to Alexander. Then it just concentrates on Alexander for the remainder of the book.

Overall, great list. I disagree with the location of a couple names. BUt where I would put them would depend on the different possible criterias one could use for such a list. IE. Are we judging on land conquered, ability to motivate the troops and accomplish a mission, never losing a battle, winning a war despite losing major battles, fighting weak opponents vs strong opponents. I'll only comment on one person. And this is based off of fighting weak opponents vs strong ones. I'm a bit of a fan of Vercingetorix. He commanded not much more than an undisciplined rabble and managed to stick it to JC for quite awhile. Were he king of the Gauls and able to command the loyalty and resources of all his kind I believe JC would've died before he saw Gaul subdued. If JC is a tier one, his most able opponent (who was an uncivilized barbarian relatively speaking) should at least be high up on tier 2.

Are you looking for small unit tactics or what? Theodore Ayrault Dodge in his books on Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander talks a lot about tactics at least at the command level. The Alexander book starts out talking about several skilled captains throughout history before going into the Alexander portion. This guy uses all the ancient sources Livy, Vegetius, Quintus Curtius, Arrian etc. In addition, he travelled much of the ground Hannibal and Caesar tread. Through his journeys, seeing the terrain, he's able to confirm or discount what some of the sources tell us. Mostly he verifies distances and locations certain events took place. But when he talks about the battles, he well illustrates the command level tactics used by both sides. I don't recall him getting into details on formation usage, maneuvering individual formations, etc. But he does mention often his experience in the 19th century US infantry and how their formations worked and how he would imagine Roman, Carthaginian, Phalanx formations would've worked. Very interesting. He's definitely my favorite historian of the 3 great captains. Sidenote. I just returned from Egypt. Hated it. I highly don't recommend visiting it.

Outstanding post! Clearly demonstrates an understanding of TOTAL WAR!

Those of you reading the "Caesar or Alexander" or the "Who's greater, Caesar or Alexander" threads may know why I've created this thread. But for those who don't I'll explain. Someone here has contended that the number of battles a person fights can determine their greatness or the fact that they are greater than someone who didn't fight as many battles. Well my buddy Sun Tzu told me "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Anyway, what do you think. Please explain your response.

And I totally disagree with you that Brutus was one of Caesar's favorite officers. He served under Pompey. That would kind of make him Caesar's enemy. ONly after the Civil War did Caesar befriend him. Just a little more research Zelea. Just a little more.

Vercingetorix didn't over estimate the advantage of numbers. That's why he took a Fabian approach against Caesar. "All he managed to do was stop him taking Gergovia". How can you chalk that up as a "That's all"? Judging from Caesar's previous successes, I'd say defeating him at Gergovia was a pretty big accomplishment. Defeating him period is a major accomplishment worthy of mention in any history book. We'll never know exactly how big an accomplishment it was because we only have Caesar's clearly biased account of the event to draw from. (As far as primary sources are concerned). Vercingetorix would've possibly dragged this war on indefinitely if it were solely up to him. He was under pressure from other chieftains to engage Caesar in a decisive event. Remember, he wasn't King of Gaul. He was not absolute ruler over all. He led a confederation and was obliged to heed the opinions of others if he wanted to maintain unity among his army. It was not Vercingetorix who lost the war for the Gauls. It was the impatience of the Gallic tribal leaders in general. There chance to win a victory lay not necessarily in this one great general of theirs; rather it lied in their ability to remain united, which they could not in the end.

Carthage is proof that liberalism on the homefront can destroy the war effort abroad. Had Hannibal the full support of the homebodies, he may well have. But I doubt it. He needed siege machinery. Even when he had support from home he couldn't manage to get his hands on any siege machinery. Therefore, he likely would've never taken Rome. So, my final answer is the man didn't have a prayer.