Good Ancients Match-Ups

[steve_holmes_11]

Glad to see we are back to the OP topic.  A good range of armies there: the Crusades and the clash of cultural & military technology that resulted is the reason that this is the other Ancients period that interests me most. 

If you are changing period are you changing rules?  I do not know TTS but of the popular ones I have tried ADLG and MeG and prefer the latter.  Madaxeman has an analysis that is worth reading and TTS is clearly popular but it rather depends on what your local people want to play.  https://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/2020/04/who-was-playing-what-2019-20-ancient.html

One of the really interesting aspects of that group, is that 4 of the lists stretch over at least 2 centuries (Not the Catalans).
Three of them see significant changes to their military systems, and borders during those times.
* Byzantines change their mercenaries, adopt Knightly cavalry and very late experiment with firearms.
* Ottomans go the whole switch from a Turcik Steppe force to a mixed army with reliable cavalry and regular foot and early adopters of firearms..
* The Venetians introduce the super-heavy knight fairly early in the period, and add a few firearms to their crossbows near to the end.

I like the way that each list has a relatively limited core of reliable troops, but is going to need some irregulars / levies to make up the army.
Not the masses of knights and spear-crossbow supporting foot of the traditional middle age army.
There are also allied contingents (Stradiot horse) that can crop up in more than one army.

[mmcv]

I was reflecting (with #3 son who is reading Modern Studies at school) that Ancient History has more in common with Modern Studies than mainstream history.

Both Modern Studies and Ancent History have fast unknowns (Either classified information or lost in the sands of time).
They also suffer form the biased reportage far more than mainstream history.

I've heard it said that Ancients wargaming features the most speculation, extrapolation and gap-filling; except perhaps moderns.

Yes for sure, that is one element I enjoy as gives you a lot more room for creativity. I enjoy the hobby as a creative outlet so having a bit of flexibility mixed in with the research to fill the gaps can be fun. That's partly why my first 20th century project is AVBCW as I enjoy the creative aspect of coming up with alternative history. In the likes of the 19th and 20th century there's such a huge amount of information available, there's a bit less room for creativity within the historical sphere. Still lots of interesting things to be done as evidenced by many on this forum, but you need a good understanding of the history to riff off it creatively.

[Waremblem]

When chosing a period in which to game I tend to also look at what could make an excellent campaign. Recreating Waterloo is splendid, but after you've done it a few times I find wargamers want to fight the campaign and actually move the armies around pre-battle. With this in mind, and returning to the topic of good Ancient match-ups - the first question that should be asked is would you rather paint Persians/Seleucids or Parthians - or do you want to paint maurading Barbarian types?

If Persians then you could go with Sparta, Athens, a Xenophon mercenary band, and two rival Persian brothers vying for the throne. This makes for an interesting campaign that goes beyond the hoplites vs Persians.

If Parthians then you could go with Parthians, Belisarius era Byzantines, Vandals, and Goths. A four army battle royale contesting the remains of the fallen Roman world.

If you're more Barbarian inclined you could go back to the time of Adrianople and have late Romans vs numerous Germanic contingents who are all mounted at this point and a tough nut for the legions to handle along with Parthians.

Or if you prefer your Byzantines to have the Varangian Guard (although we are getting more Medieval here), go with them, whichever Eastern Caliphates strike your fancy, Normans, and Franks. Could also throw Vikings into this mix although Normans pretty much functioned as maurauding jackels in the theater fulfilling the same role and you get to play around with proto-knights.

For campaigns - the Roman civil war is always fun. You could fudge history a bit and say Pompei Magnus attacks Caesar before the Gauls are defeated so you have the two Roman factions and the Gauls and Germanic tribes. Fast forwarding to Octavian vs Antony has already been mentioned and this too is fun, especially if you get creative with the forces Antony gets in Egypt. Another like army vs like army classic Ancient clash is the wars of the Diadochi which is oozing with amazing historical characters that are fantastic to sink your teeth into and represent on the battlefield. 

Best of luck in your choices. And on the greatest general tangent - clearly it is Caesar. He fought over 50 set piece battles. For point of comparrison Alexander fought 5ish depending on how you're scoring. Genghis Khan is #2. #3 is where you'd have some lively debate. I'll go with Napoleon. 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

The Mortiem et Gloriam team have put quite a bit of work in on these:
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg/army-lists/historical-enemies/

[paulr]

The Wargames Research Group came up with their list of Suggested Six-Player Historical Campaigns a while ago

http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf

I'm currently working on my third, only fifty six left to go

[DaveH]

The Wargames Research Group came up with their list of Suggested Six-Player Historical Campaigns a while ago

http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf

I'm currently working on my third, only fifty six left to go

That was in the first edition of DBA which must be around 30 years ago.

I like using Hoplite Greeks and Early Achaemenid Persians as the hoplites can be used as mercenaries in the persian armies and it is possible to have the civil wars between the persians with their mixture of subject peoples to add interest.

[hammurabi70]

That was in the first edition of DBA which must be around 30 years ago.

I like using Hoplite Greeks and Early Achaemenid Persians as the hoplites can be used as mercenaries in the persian armies and it is possible to have the civil wars between the persians with their mixture of subject peoples to add interest.

Dated August 2010 with a page count of 157?  The indications are DBA3 and I am too lazy to go and consult it.

[paulr]

Yes, WRG came up with their first suggestions for DBA v1.0 a long time ago, can it really be 30 years ago
According to the Wikipedia page for DBA it really is 30 years ago this year

I linked to the most recent version I could find which was produced during the development of DBA 3.0

[Orcs]

I don't see the problem. As long as I can be the Romans.

Alternatively play Sunjester and his Magic Dice.

Yes 20 units of Early Imperial Romanvs  Vs Sunjester with 1 unit of warriors 2 units of horsa and a chariot plus his Magic Dice and you will see the Romans routing off the table after 3 moves

[hammurabi70]

Best of luck in your choices. And on the greatest general tangent - clearly it is Caesar. He fought over 50 set piece battles. For point of comparrison Alexander fought 5ish depending on how you're scoring. Genghis Khan is #2. #3 is where you'd have some lively debate. I'll go with Napoleon. 

Really!!!     

How many set-piece battles do you score Alexander in his Balkan Campaign?  Are you recording every battle Caesar wrote up as a set-piece battle?

The big three for me are: Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander.

[FierceKitty]

Frederick, Alexander, Nobunaga for mine.

[Waremblem]

Really!!!     

How many set-piece battles do you score Alexander in his Balkan Campaign?  Are you recording every battle Caesar wrote up as a set-piece battle?

The big three for me are: Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander.

Zero for Balkan Campaign. How many should I score? They were mostly skirmishes between under 8000 men. Basically, it was the equivalent of a Jeb Stuart cavalry raid.

I don't think there is any question Caesar would have beaten Hannibal. And Alexander, in my opinion, when you break down the myth is likely one of the most overrated generals in history. It was already established 100 years before that Greek hoplites would always beat Persian infantry. Phillip took that Greek army and injected steroids into it. Alexander inherited all of that and was able to cross the Bosphorus and win a couple battles with it.

[FierceKitty]

It's also repeatedly been established that Persians can eat hoplites for breakfast on the wargames table if they use their heads, numbers, and mobility. Whether they could have stopped a Macedonian army, and particularly one led by a very resourceful and inventive general, can only be speculation.

[Ithoriel]

For me, Caesar was an inspirational leader, who is well regarded because he wrote his own epitaph and was saved from his strategic ineptitude by his centurions. YMMV

[hammurabi70]

Zero for Balkan Campaign. How many should I score? They were mostly skirmishes between under 8000 men. Basically, it was the equivalent of a Jeb Stuart cavalry raid.

I don't think there is any question Caesar would have beaten Hannibal. And Alexander, in my opinion, when you break down the myth is likely one of the most overrated generals in history. It was already established 100 years before that Greek hoplites would always beat Persian infantry. Phillip took that Greek army and injected steroids into it. Alexander inherited all of that and was able to cross the Bosphorus and win a couple battles with it.

The scoring depends on your definitions, which would seem to be a minimum of two legions or equivalents on each side.  How complete are our historical records?

I am wondering why Caesar would unquestionably beat Hannibal.  Our knowledge of Caesar's victories are mainly known through his own writings [as pointed out elsewhere] whilst those of Hannibal through those of his enemies.  Both generals only fought a limited range of opponents.  Many claims have been made about Alexander inheriting his father's army but he fought a wide range of armies apart from conducting numerous sieges, showed tactical innovation and created the refused flank.  Given the claim that Napoleon was supposed to be worth 50,000 men no comment is needed.  The joy of personal opinion is that each can have their own.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Shapur II gets my vote.

[Waremblem]

It's also repeatedly been established that Persians can eat hoplites for breakfast on the wargames table if they use their heads, numbers, and mobility. Whether they could have stopped a Macedonian army, and particularly one led by a very resourceful and inventive general, can only be speculation.

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.

[Ithoriel]

Hannibal lost because Roman manpower and economic resources were greater than Carthaginian ones.

Hannibal understood combined arms, stratagems and tactics far better than Caesar did (IMHO).

A Roman Hannibal would have won the war, probably faster, while a Carthaginian Caesar would still have lost and probably faster too.

All that said, I don't beleive we can ever make a real decision on who was the "best" general because there are so many imponderables. We can certainly have our favourites though. However, like our favourite anythings, they will probably change. Sometimes minute-by-minute in my case

[Waremblem]

Yes, we all have favorites. Probably should start a thread about this topic somewhere so we don't hijack this thread. It is fun to banter about!

[Westmarcher]

For me, Caesar was an inspirational leader, who is well regarded because he wrote his own epitaph and was saved from his strategic ineptitude by his centurions. YMMV

Good ol' Vorenus and Pullo.