Good Ancients Match-Ups

[flamingpig0]

Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

[hammurabi70]

That is because it is near impossible to replicate what made a hoplite a hoplite. What makes a knight a knight or a samurai a samurai? The Persians tried to raise hoplites after they were beaten in Greece and it didn't work. The nature of wargame rules is to make a fun game (at least modern ones) - history, however, tells us the Persians could not beat hoplites. Most general Ancient rules make hoplites stationary blocks that are easy to flank and defeat.

We know Caesar would have beaten Hannibal because Hannibal was beaten by Roman generals not the equal of Caesar. Caesar actually did fight against a wide range of foes - he beat Gauls, Germans, Spanish Vandals, Britons, Romans, etc. Caesar won huge set-piece battles all over the known world. I would not put Alexander in the top 10. For instance, Gengis Khan would have destroyed Alexander's army in about 3 hours. He would have drawn forward Alexander's impetuous Companion cavalry charge then would have shot the phalanxes to pieces. And that is giving GK Persian era bows so he doesn't have a tech advantage.

I like Napoleon, I have him 3. He was a great general. You can't go wrong with either Caesar or Napoleon both are God Tier generals. Alexander is more of an A or B rated general. About the equal of Rommel or Patton I'd say.

So the Allied Generals of WWII were better than the German Generals of WWII because they were the winners?  Caesar's opponents were variants of Celts and Romans, which is hardly a wide range of fighting styles; Alexander had to take on Celts in the Balkans, Persians, Steppe tribes and Indians, which represents a wide range of military technology and fighting styles. Was Caesar's invasion of Britannia a success or failure?  The historians still dispute it.  This is the first suggestion I have ever seen that the Companion cavalry were impetuous.  Alexander took on cultures with a long history of using bows and using them effectively.  Fighting the steppe tribes was a tough struggle but he proved victorious.  Caesar was undoubtedly a great commander but did he not state that a contemporary Roman general in Spain was the greatest ever? 

At Cannae Hannibal comprehensively defeated his opponents on ground of their choosing at a time of their own choosing when outnumbered two to one.  The only loss he sustained, that I know of, was at Zama and it is well worth reading the article in SLINGSHOT on it that discusses the possible approach Hannibal had to winning it.

Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

And I think we have a winner; an astute observation.

[Ithoriel]

Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

He plucked victory from the jaws of defeat at Kadesh, to win a tactical victory, albeit a strategic draw.

Later he successfully campaigned in the Levant, taking territory as far North as Tunip from the Hittites, which he later traded for a peace treaty that lasted for the rest of his reign.

Best general ever? Probably not, but a force to be reckoned with none the less.

[steve_holmes_11]

The thing about the great generals:

They tend to have the best sergeants / centurions / file leaders ....

Never neglect the quality of your NCOs.

[Waremblem]

So the Allied Generals of WWII were better than the German Generals of WWII because they were the winners?  Caesar's opponents were variants of Celts and Romans, which is hardly a wide range of fighting styles; Alexander had to take on Celts in the Balkans, Persians, Steppe tribes and Indians, which represents a wide range of military technology and fighting styles. Was Caesar's invasion of Britannia a success or failure?  The historians still dispute it.  This is the first suggestion I have ever seen that the Companion cavalry were impetuous.  Alexander took on cultures with a long history of using bows and using them effectively.  Fighting the steppe tribes was a tough struggle but he proved victorious.  Caesar was undoubtedly a great commander but did he not state that a contemporary Roman general in Spain was the greatest ever? 

At Cannae Hannibal comprehensively defeated his opponents on ground of their choosing at a time of their own choosing when outnumbered two to one.  The only loss he sustained, that I know of, was at Zama and it is well worth reading the article in SLINGSHOT on it that discusses the possible approach Hannibal had to winning it.

And I think we have a winner; an astute observation.

Of course, the Allied generals were superior. Few armies and generals in the history of warfare are more overrated than the German army of 1939-45. The exception would be von Manstein who was a tactical genius and someone I would rate an S class general. However, even the much-hyped Rommel had tremendous flaws. I equate the German generals to the Confederates in the ACW - they benefited in the past a great deal from lost cause romanticism which has been curtailed quite a bit with recent scholarship.

Alexander conducting raids against disorganized tribes is hardly a testament to his qualities as a general leading set-piece battles. I have yet to hear about all these major victories Alex won. That is likely because there were only 5. Alex also shares a ton with Ramses - a whole boatload of propaganda about him and it's curious why we have no contemporary sources. The companions as a unit were not impetuous but the way Alex used them was. That would have never worked against Genghis. And - please, there are bows, then there are bow tactics that the Mongols used. Like comparing AA baseball to the Los Angelos Dodgers. And let's not forget Genghis defeated the greatest military power on one side of the world in China, crushed the best Islam had to offer, and then did the same to the Christain West.  

Caesar's invasion of Briton was a success to everyone but his detractors. It was never intended to be a full-scale conquest but a reconnaissance in force. The other vital quality Caesar had was that he never had his army destroyed. Napoleon, for example, lost massive armies in 1812, 1813 and his field army disintegrated in 1815. Now I will grant the Alexander defenders he mostly won (although I am positive his foray into India was a defeat later scrubbed into a "draw" by historians) but as I have already stated it was established 100 years prior hoplites would always beat Persians so I'm not sure how much battlefield credit he deserves for doing that. Alexader was certainly audacious but his actual generalship might have come up short against more equally matched foes.

As for Hannibal - again, I believe not in the same league. It is cited Hannibal won outnumbered at Cannae. I reply, so? Caesar was often heavily outnumbered. He won massive victories at Bibricate and Pharsalus being outnumbered 2:1. At Alesia, he conducted a siege while outnumbered then destroyed the entire assembled Gaul relief force. He invaded Germania and Briton destroying armies in his path just because he could. He won a civil war also being outnumbered - in fact he took Rome with a single legion. He then overthrew the entire Senate and transformed a Republic into an Empire. Tactically, he was innovative and from a morale perspective, few, if any, leaders have inspired men more (remember the Macedonians revolted against Alex). Caesar was a titan.  

[FierceKitty]

We heard most of that the first time round. Have some tea and chill out a bit, dude.

[hammurabi70]

Looks like we are all right and all wrong.   

You Tube follow up from the original article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18tLrSw-w1s

[Waremblem]

LOL, looks like I nailed it with 2 of the top 3. Nice link. I'm checking out their website.

[hammurabi70]

LOL, looks like I nailed it with 2 of the top 3. Nice link. I'm checking out their website.

A complete fluke that I stumbled upon it while doing something else. The original written article did the rounds of the websites a year or two ago.  It does depend on:
(1) How well American sports analysis can be used for military engagements in history [ very dubious]
(2) The accuracy of the input data [very suspect]

However, it is at least something.

[steve_holmes_11]

Happy new year all: A bit of a thread hijack back to its roots.

My search for good match-ups have led me through a re-appraisal of several sets of rules.
Having quickly rejected those with a "Legions can't lose" bias, I found a few other dissonances between contemporary accounts and the tabletop experience.

Bear in mind here that ancients will  never me my "big main theme", so I am looking for something quite different from the committed ancientist, and especially the competition gamer.

One concern was over the number of AARs where the battle hinged on one unit making a neat little move, or using a special rule.
This set in a context of two long lines pushing into mutual contact.
The plucky sergeant holding the line seems a thing that appeared with the fighting style, and possibilities offered by the breachloading rifle - and more so when a magazine was added.
I felt a degree of historic dissonance here. Too much control of troops in contact - perhaps.

A bigger one was the effect of foot skirmishers in ancient warfare.
Once again I'm left with the impression of age of rifle Jagers - admittedly Jagers who don't aim very well.
I've tended to view the ancient LI skirmisher having some very specific roles.
* Scouting (AKA contesting the enemy skirmisher)
* Holding camps and difficult terrain, and ambushing from those locations.
* Specially trained ones could also operate as missile contingents for formed foot - or support chariots and foot.

My thesis is that playing out scouting according to normal rules really slows down the main event of the game.
I thought through some alternatives.
* A scouting phase similar to Chain of Command where players could commit their Psiloi with little expectation of their returning for the main battle. (Either occupy scouted terrain, or filter away as the big boys arrive).
* Combine the better psiloi with forme units for a bit of shooting and flank support.

It's all a little far fetched using my main rulesets, so I got onto Google (other search engines are available) and rediscovered Philip Sabin's Lost Battles.
This appears to be extremely abstract with few troop types, some general formulae for combat, and played on a very limited (5 x 4) grid.
It clearly lacks many of the buttons that dedicated ancientists enjoy pressing, but I figured it might work for me.
Bonus that it provides lists and battle reports for around 25 ancient battles form the Greco-Persian, Hellenistic and Republican Roman eras.
Perhaps there is a semblance of "Good match ups".


Searching for the book found the price at £25 - rather higher than I'd punt for a speculative set of rules.
I then found that a slightly earlier version of the rules (without the book's design notes) was on sale for £6 under the title Strategos II.
I've ordered these and will post a bit more after I've read them.

[Macsen Wledig]

A bigger one was the effect of foot skirmishers in ancient warfare.
Once again I'm left with the impression of age of rifle Jagers - admittedly Jagers who don't aim very well.
I've tended to view the ancient LI skirmisher having some very specific roles.
 * Scouting (AKA contesting the enemy skirmisher)
 * Holding camps and difficult terrain, and ambushing from those locations.
 * Specially trained ones could also operate as missile contingents for formed foot - or support chariots and foot.

and I tend to agree

[Ithoriel]

I'd say skirmishers existed to harass the enemy in and out of battle.

They existed to drain enemy morale and to fatigue them. Any casualties caused were merely a nice bonus.

I'm not aware of light infantry regularly guarding camps. Indeed I'm not convinced camps were regularly guarded, except by camp followers of very little military value. Exceptions include battles like Adrianople, where one side was defending it's camp.

Similarly, I'm not sure light infantry, or any other Ancient troop types come to that, were regularly used in ambush.

Light infantry skirmishers certainly worked alongside other troops as chariot runners, elephant guards, to bolster the effectiveness of cavalry and so on but the bulk of them seem to have worked between the battle lines, driving off their opposing numbers and slowing and harassing the enemies main battle line.

Archers firing over the heads of formed comrades seem to have largely been part of the same unit - not skirmishers acting in support of heavier troops.

[flamingpig0]

Light Infantry/skirmishers would often be people turning up with what the had rather than being units created by a state for specific tactical reasons.

[Macsen Wledig]

I think that in ancients we tend to overemphasise the nature of skirmishers or at least their 'form' Personally I think a lot of what we regard as skirmishers were often attached to or part of formed foot and just stepped in and out to do the basics

[FierceKitty]

Hmm, not sure I agree. Peltasts, velites, Cretans, slingers...these are very clearly marked specialists.

[Macsen Wledig]

not all obviously as there are always exceptions to the rule (especially amongst more professional armies).