Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Speculative History question

  1. #1

    Default Speculative History question

    I am making a mod that is based on the idea of history according to Total War series. In this scenario the Romans are not able to capture the Greeks who become a confederation and are able to repulse the Romans with a combined army approach. The Romans are able to capture most of western Europe and bring Carthage to its knees. Carthage is not destroyed, rather is turned into a vassal state. The Greeks remain a confederation with mutual defense allowing for survival. I do not have enough knowledge to come up with what the resulting army structures would be like going into the 5th century. Rome remains infantry heavy? Greeks keep Successor style armies? Naval supremacy is important because no one "owns" the Mediterranean?
    I realize this scenario is somewhat ridiculous, but what would the world look like if a Rome: Total War 2 game became history?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Speculative History question

    Quote Originally Posted by Muppet Slapper View Post
    I am making a mod that is based on the idea of history according to Total War series. In this scenario the Romans are not able to capture the Greeks who become a confederation and are able to repulse the Romans with a combined army approach. The Romans are able to capture most of western Europe and bring Carthage to its knees. Carthage is not destroyed, rather is turned into a vassal state. The Greeks remain a confederation with mutual defense allowing for survival. I do not have enough knowledge to come up with what the resulting army structures would be like going into the 5th century. Rome remains infantry heavy? Greeks keep Successor style armies? Naval supremacy is important because no one "owns" the Mediterranean?
    I realize this scenario is somewhat ridiculous, but what would the world look like if a Rome: Total War 2 game became history?
    Greek is a wide term. First i thought you just meant mainland greeks without macedonia, but the mentioning of successor armies obviously indicates that your imagination includes further Macedonia, Pergamon, the Seleucids and Ptolemeans. In that case i would think it depends on the point if the romans defeated the macedoncian army. Phalanx tactics died mostly after the defeat of the Macedonians. The failure of the Phalanx in those battles were based on terrain, not the tactic in general. Actually the Roman legionaries first failed to beat them until the formation was broken through the terrain. Because of that i would think the successor tactics would remain intact. As for equipment, the roman soldier was not unique. You would find similar equiped soliders all over the mediterranean. Roman success was logistics. They could field more well equiped soldiers as other nations. The variety of the equipment was almost only in ornamentic.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Speculative History question

    Also successor armies where generally developing larger phalanx formations with longer sarissa pikes, eventually some being just over 20ft in length, as you can imagine this would create a very rigid formation. There was also a general decline in combined arms tactics, which contributed to Roman victory, as said by Marcus the terrain played a big part in the Macedonian defeats and a lack of combined arms meant less adaptability to a changing situation. What if the Macedonians had a force to plug gaps in the phalanx so that the Romans couldn't turn around and go for the disrupted troops?
    To make it believable perhaps throw in an earlier event where the successors, or at least Macedon, didn't start going down the route of "bigger phalanx is better".

    As for the other greeks, they did experiment with more diverse tactics, heavier armed peltasts, more "Roman or celt like" hoplites in less rigid formations. Theuros hoplites come to mind. Though by the time this experimentation was going on the Greeks were well past their zenith and the Romans had put a stop to it with the sacking of Corinth.

    Perhaps a military innovation from the Galatian wars could be used for your narrative to send the hellenic factions on a different course? After all the great strength of the Romans was the adoption of other cultures tactics eg. maniples from the Samnite wars, Celtic armours, hispanic swords, cataphracts by Attila's time.

    Also perhaps Antigonas One-eye united the hellenic sphere as he attempted but failed to do in our time? He strikes me as the successor general with the most ability to have done so. He ruled what became Seleucus' lands before his defeat and his son eventually took over Macedon, hence Antigonids. I think your idea that the Greeks could have been united after Alexander is not that far fetched. The main thing that prevented unification was the ability of the Ptolemaioi to flood the Nile thus preventing several attempts at an invasion of Egypt by the other successors.

    Bear in mind also outside of the TW games, the late Roman soldier actually ended up using a thrusting spear (hasta) as his primary weapon and fought in a large shield wall (oval and round shields interlocked) like a bulldozer that trampled barbarian armies in a grind out fight which proved effective up until the fall. Sound abit like something from an earlier time? Phalanx/hoplite style tactics were always viable in one form or another. The leap between phalanx, maniples and shield wall is not large when you consider how each formation evolved. Heck the Alans who were sarmatian horsemen originally fought in a shield wall in the centre of the Gothic/Alan/Roman army that defeated Attila at Chalons.

    Hope this post helps you. I like the idea of speculative history when you consider how many tiny, easily altered events can change the world.
    Last edited by KozaK101; February 03, 2016 at 07:44 AM.
    True bread is for True Romans

  4. #4

    Default Re: Speculative History question

    Thanks for the great input. I think you both have great points and I agree with your lines of thought. I don't know of reasonable way the Greeks/Successors could stand up to Rome without joining forces. I did not know about the larger phalanxes in later Successor armies, so if they were able to keep a combined approach they may have been able to repulse Roman advances. This leads me to think what would the legacy of this type of warfare been. I was thinking that they Phalanx might turn into a very heavily armored force so as to defend against the the mounted archer threats in the east with heavy shock cavalry to make the "hammer in anvil" tactic to be viable. Also the flanks of the phalanx may be protected by a more flexible force of hypaspist, possibly sword carrying with foot archers and/peltasts in support. I assume they would have their own version of the mounted archer as well.

  5. #5
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Speculative History question

    Heck the Alans who were sarmatian horsemen originally fought in a shield wall in the centre of the Gothic/Alan/Roman army that defeated Attila at Chalons.
    No they did not. The Alans fought on horseback in the center of the formation with Cataphracts and Lance-and-Bow cavalry tactics as a counter to their Hunnic adversaries.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •