Name your most wished historical battles

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Hello

Post your most wished historical battles in the game apart the already announced cartage, teutoburg and nile.

Limit the selection to 9 romaninvolving battles

5 battlefield
2 sieges
2 sea battles

And 5 non roman involving ones
2 battlefield and 1 sea 1 siege

My selection

Battlefield:

Zama
Telamon
Aquae sextiae
Magnesia
philippi

Siege

Syracuse
Alesia

Sea

Cape ecnomus
Antium


Non roman

Battlefield:

Raphia
Beth zachariah
Dyme

Siege

Rhodes

Sea

Chios

[August]

The ones I would care to mention, you have already did, Prometheus. Though I'm more of a campaign "make my own history" fellow.

On the second thought, I would add Battle of Cynoscephalae to the line-up. Would be a great demonstration of superiority of manipular formation over phalanx.

[Shek93]

Zama and Alesia i wish they are historicall battles

[HigoChumbo]

Cannae, I'm a simple guy.

I never play historical battles in any case. They feel like half-sized scripted ***** to me.

[Doe3000]

Battles I'd love to see featured would be in no particular order - although realistically you could never have all of these: 1.Cannae 2. Raphia 3. Alesia 4. Asculum 5. Actium 6. Pharsalus 7. Philippi 8. Actium 9. Sellasia 10. Pydna 11. Cynoscephalae 12. Magnesia 13. Gergovia 14. Cape Ecnomus 15. Zama 16. Trebbia 17. Trasimene 18. Numantia 19. Aqua Sextiae 20. Tigranocerta. I have lots of others, but those will do for now.

[RGA]

Battle of Ipsus. 500 elephants sound like alot of fun

[achilles-91]

Syracuse
Alesia
zama

[Illidan1371]

Carhae or carahe or however u write it..u know the battle in which parthians defeated romans

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The battle of carrae is a roman defeat but not of particular interest , it hink it was overrated in history as it only showed how arroganceand ineptitude can lead to a total disaster, but nothing else. And honestly pretty boring .
Some of those battles like teutoburg were famous onlybecause the roman war machine got defeated , on countrary to the usual result.
Much more interesting would be some of the Ventidius bassus battles .

[b3an15HLy]

The battle of carrae is a roman defeat but not of particular interest , it hink it was overrated in history as it only showed how arroganceand ineptitude can lead to a total disaster, but nothing else. And honestly pretty boring .
Some of those battles like teutoburg were famous onlybecause the roman war machine got defeated , on countrary to the usual result.
Much more interesting would be some of the Ventidius bassus battles .

Not really, the defeat at Carrhae demonstrated the inflexibility of Roman legions against an elusive highly mobile foe (a tactic that would be a cause of their eventual downfall at the hands of the Muslim Arabs), it also signalled the beginning of the end of the Roman war machine being seen as the supposed dominant and unstoppable force that it had come to be known.
Also Teutoberg forest was a pretty shattering blow and definitely a decisive point in history, it more or less ensured that the area beyond the Rhine was never pacified as well as being a prelude to the end of the Western Roman Empire at the hands of the 'barbarians' that migrated from beyond Germania.
Though your right, I do want to see alot of historical battles, even ones that aren't as prominent. The original Rome had about 10? So I'm hoping for twice that number

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Not really, the defeat at Carrhae demonstrated the inflexibility of Roman legions against an elusive highly mobile foe (a tactic that would be a cause of their eventual downfall at the hands of the Muslim Arabs), it also signalled the beginning of the end of the Roman war machine being seen as the supposed dominant and unstoppable force that it had come to be known.
Also Teutoberg forest was a pretty shattering blow and definitely a decisive point in history, it more or less ensured that the area beyond the Rhine was never pacified as well as being a prelude to the end of the Western Roman Empire at the hands of the 'barbarians' that migrated from beyond Germania.
Though your right, I do want to see alot of historical battles, even ones that aren't as prominent. The original Rome had about 10? So I'm hoping for twice that number

Not really .
Carrae was the first clash of romans versus parthians , the imediately following battles made by Ventidius agains parthians ended in all roman victories , proving how Romans soon adapted and could defeat the mobile parthian armies.
Also romans were all but unflexible , thats a pretty wrong definition , ore adapt to. The hellenistic warfare than roman one that constantly changed , evolved and adapted itself.
As for teutoburg it was an ambush that lasted days set on a marching line including carriages and all , surely not a battle at all.also it didnt stop at all roman advance in german territory as proved all following roman battles in the area resulting in roman field victories . The reason why the german province was left was because it didn't provide any income or refund for the expenses of the warlacking any spoils of war or valuable local resource. While other contries like britain did instead have.
Also the arab muslims never clashed with the romans , they faced byzantine armies , wich were totally evolved and different fromthe republican armies.

Also check the battles camaigns of judas maccabeus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Maccabeus
A totally forgotten leader that inflicted heavy losses to the seleucid armies.

[Zeybek]

As for teutoburg it was an ambush that lasted days set on a marching line including carriages and all , surely not a battle at all.

To be fair the Osnabrück/Kalkreise site which is generally considered to be the most probably site for the battle also has remains of fortrifications built by the Cherusci in anticipation of the coming battle; there was a lot more to the battle than simply 'ambushing from the forest,' the Romans probably focused their assault on certain fortrified chokepoints the over the course of the few days and were surrounded. Overall it would have been more of a 'break the enemys defense while they harass you from all sides' rather than the 'escape the ambush' battle we saw. Thats something I still wanna see from the engine, the new new defensive mode deployables we can have.

[b3an15HLy]

Not really .
Carrae was the first clash of romans versus parthians , the imediately following battles made by Ventidius agains parthians ended in all roman victories , proving how Romans soon adapted and could defeat the mobile parthian armies.
Also romans were all but unflexible , thats a pretty wrong definition , ore adapt to. The hellenistic warfare than roman one that constantly changed , evolved and adapted itself.
As for teutoburg it was an ambush that lasted days set on a marching line including carriages and all , surely not a battle at all.also it didnt stop at all roman advance in german territory as proved all following roman battles in the area resulting in roman field victories . The reason why the german province was left was because it didn't provide any income or refund for the expenses of the warlacking any spoils of war or valuable local resource. While other contries like britain did instead have.
Also the arab muslims never clashed with the romans , they faced byzantine armies , wich were totally evolved and different fromthe republican armies.

Also check the battles camaigns of judas maccabeus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Maccabeus
A totally forgotten leader that inflicted heavy losses to the seleucid armies.

Not really, The Parthians and Romans were at each others throats for centuries, no one Empire was able to destroy the other although they did each have their moments of major defeats and victoires. I'm not suggesting that one was stronger or better than the other, I'm saying that this battle is not over-rated in any sense, yes Crassus was seeking glory and made bad decisions but it still doesn't excuse the defeat completely, the difference in tactics and army compositions were vastly different compared to Rome vs Greeks/Barbarians etc. Plus in the time of Ventidius there was huge turmoil in the Parthian empire, it lacked cohesion whilst Rome was just recovering from its bouts of civil wars.
When I said inflexible I meant in comparison to desert/ cavalry archer warfare, they were new to this arena and adapted surprisingly fast, it still however hampered the effectiveness of Roman legions unitl the death of the Empire, I mean if that wasn't the case then it should've been simple for Rome to push through Persia into India.
That part about Germania not being able to provide enough finance is not entirely true and was definitely not the reason why the Romans never conquered it, Teutoberg Forest is still regarded as important regardless of whether the Romans had baggage, or where in formation or not, the importance of the battle is its decisiveness in halting the Roman advance.
Also, The Arab Muslim fought eh Byzantines and Sassanids both of which were just evolved states of the Roman and Parthian/Persian empire. Back then the Byzantine empire actively regarded themselves as the ROman empire, historians coined the term Byzantine to avoid confusion. I also never said Roman legions were defeated by Muslims, I meant that the tactic and its application was heavily successful against Byzantine (Roman) formations and tactics, The Byzantines still had many military roots with Ancient Rome.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Not really, The Parthians and Romans were at each others throats for centuries, no one Empire was able to destroy the other although they did each have their moments of major defeats and victoires. I'm not suggesting that one was stronger or better than the other, I'm saying that this battle is not over-rated in any sense, yes Crassus was seeking glory and made bad decisions but it still doesn't excuse the defeat completely, the difference in tactics and army compositions were vastly different compared to Rome vs Greeks/Barbarians etc. Plus in the time of Ventidius there was huge turmoil in the Parthian empire, it lacked cohesion whilst Rome was just recovering from its bouts of civil wars.
When I said inflexible I meant in comparison to desert/ cavalry archer warfare, they were new to this arena and adapted surprisingly fast, it still however hampered the effectiveness of Roman legions unitl the death of the Empire, I mean if that wasn't the case then it should've been simple for Rome to push through Persia into India.
That part about Germania not being able to provide enough finance is not entirely true and was definitely not the reason why the Romans never conquered it, Teutoberg Forest is still regarded as important regardless of whether the Romans had baggage, or where in formation or not, the importance of the battle is its decisiveness in halting the Roman advance.
Also, The Arab Muslim fought eh Byzantines and Sassanids both of which were just evolved states of the Roman and Parthian/Persian empire. Back then the Byzantine empire actively regarded themselves as the ROman empire, historians coined the term Byzantine to avoid confusion. I also never said Roman legions were defeated by Muslims, I meant that the tactic and its application was heavily successful against Byzantine (Roman) formations and tactics, The Byzantines still had many military roots with Ancient Rome.

I don't know where you are picking up your informations but I quite disagree as it doesn't fit with most books and sources tell us .
Also The Ventidius battles come right after the Carrae defeat , there wasn't much turmoil , on countrary the PArthians become overconfident to be able to defeat again Roman army . but failed and for more than a battle , till their very same leader remained killed .Also Parthia was never able to reach Rome, On countrary Romans sacked Parthian capital more than once .
To say that Sassanid is an evolution of parthian empire , sorry I disagree also , they are quite different in culture and warfare techniques , plus one was enemy to the other .
Of course some people like to remember only roman efeats because were few and rarer than their actual victories perhaps involving some personal nationalistic wounded pride , wich speaking of history and a game make really no sense .

[Stavroforos]

Siege of Masada.

[Markas]

Carrhae and Arausio.

[torongill]

Roman battles:

1. Zama
2. Trebia
3. Ilipa
4. Pharsalus
5. Magnesia

Roman sieges:

1. Syracuse
2. Carthago Nova

Roman Sea battles:

1. Cape Ecnomus
2. Agaetes islands

Non-Roman battles:

1. Raphia
2. Pydna
3. Telamon
4. Chaeronea
5. Mantinea

Non-Roman sieges:

1. Rhodos
2. Tyre

Non-Roman sea battles:

1. Chios
2. Eurimedon

[Murfmurf]

As Prom has unsurprisingly gone for all Roman victories I'll go for all Roman defeats

Land:
Cannae
Arausio
Carrhae
Tunis
Beth Horon

Sea:
Drepana

Siege:
Gergovia
Lilybaeum

[Romanheart]

It would be great to see Idistavisus, Watling Street and Mons Graupius

[Romanheart]

I don't know where you are picking up your informations but I quite disagree as it doesn't fit with most books and sources tell us .
Also The Ventidius battles come right after the Carrae defeat , there wasn't much turmoil , on countrary the PArthians become overconfident to be able to defeat again Roman army . but failed and for more than a battle , till their very same leader remained killed .Also Parthia was never able to reach Rome, On countrary Romans sacked Parthian capital more than once .
To say that Sassanid is an evolution of parthian empire , sorry I disagree also , they are quite different in culture and warfare techniques , plus one was enemy to the other .
Of course some people like to remember only roman efeats because were few and rarer than their actual victories perhaps involving some personal nationalistic wounded pride , wich speaking of history and a game make really no sense.

+Rep!