I was wondering how the sacred bands looked like. Are they armored like regular hoplites or do they look different, or special?
DanAngleland said:On a serious note; the wiki of the Carthaginian Sacred Band mentioned a battle in which they were wiped out.
Untitled. said:E: About Libya. IIRC, Libya has never existed as a single entity before the modern-day state was established, although I could of course be mistaken.
They're not a thing in EU4 thoughjacobhinds said:Untitled. said:E: About Libya. IIRC, Libya has never existed as a single entity before the modern-day state was established, although I could of course be mistaken.
The general area of Libya has still very regularly been controlled by a single political entity, and when part of an empire it generally gets its own province separate from Tunisia and Egypt.
Also Libya is a separate faction in Rome II so it must be true.
I think both the sacred bands are completelyNoobMan4321 said:This had me wondering. Do they perform similar training as well as using the same structural military ranks? And why do they called the Sacred Band in the first place, are they strongly related with the religious cult or the king?
The origin of the "sacred" appellation of the Sacred Band is unexplained by Dinarchus and other historians. But Plutarch claims that it was due to an exchange of sacred vows between lover and beloved at the shrine of Iolaus (one of the lovers of Hercules) at Thebes. He also tangentially mentions Plato's characterization of the lover as a "friend inspired of God".[17][18]
- James G. DeVoto (1992). "The Theban Sacred Band". The Ancient World 23 (2): 3–19.
- Plutarch (trans. John Dryden, 1683). "Pelopidas". Parallel Lives.
kurczak said:Yeah it only took 100 years for Rome to deal with Carthage without any significant problems.
You're reading way too much into the words "elite" and "noble".
Captured Joe said:Yeah, the Carthaginian army was such a pushover.
Jesus Christ...
NoobMan4321 said:kurczak said:Yeah it only took 100 years for Rome to deal with Carthage without any significant problems.
You're reading way too much into the words "elite" and "noble".
Well your right on that point, but at the same time we gotta be mindful of the geographic map during the war between Rome and Carthage.
Carthage territories is vast due to dominance on the seas compare to Rome that have little to no naval fleets to dominate the seas. Furthermore Rome during their first punic war and after had many rivalries from all sides. They also had peace treaty somewhere after the first punic war and attempt to have trades while focusing their military resources against Epirus kingdom (but turned into a worst case scenario which broke out into second punic war).
This three major factor and others is what cause Rome to take 100 years to deal Carthage.
If the sea boundaries between them doesn't exist. The gap difference on land military is too huge to the point that Rome could conquered Carthage in a short amount of time since, Carthage main force are a whole bunch of mercenaries led by noble Carthaginian general together with their small Carthage armies (if recalled correctly). Rome on the other hand, have legions using maniple system and somewhere in 100BC they used Cohort system whom the legionaries were fully trained, well armed and led by senators/generals who has great credits (if recalled correctly).
Putting that aside, your probably right and wrong bout me reading too much words on "elite" and "noble".
One thing is certain though, we have different views and taste. And that's interesting enough to make me reply.
kurczak said:NoobMan4321 said:kurczak said:Yeah it only took 100 years for Rome to deal with Carthage without any significant problems.
You're reading way too much into the words "elite" and "noble".
Well your right on that point, but at the same time we gotta be mindful of the geographic map during the war between Rome and Carthage.
Carthage territories is vast due to dominance on the seas compare to Rome that have little to no naval fleets to dominate the seas. Furthermore Rome during their first punic war and after had many rivalries from all sides. They also had peace treaty somewhere after the first punic war and attempt to have trades while focusing their military resources against Epirus kingdom (but turned into a worst case scenario which broke out into second punic war).
This three major factor and others is what cause Rome to take 100 years to deal Carthage.
If the sea boundaries between them doesn't exist. The gap difference on land military is too huge to the point that Rome could conquered Carthage in a short amount of time since, Carthage main force are a whole bunch of mercenaries led by noble Carthaginian general together with their small Carthage armies (if recalled correctly). Rome on the other hand, have legions using maniple system and somewhere in 100BC they used Cohort system whom the legionaries were fully trained, well armed and led by senators/generals who has great credits (if recalled correctly).
Putting that aside, your probably right and wrong bout me reading too much words on "elite" and "noble".
One thing is certain though, we have different views and taste. And that's interesting enough to make me reply.
A respectable attitude, but I still think you have the facts wrong.
1) Roman navy was equal if not superior to Carthaginian by the end of the first war.
2) Pyrrhos had been dead for 60 years by the time the second war broke out. I think you're thinking the second Illyrain war which was more of a colonial conflict. Certainly not an existential threat to Rome like Pyrrhos was.
3) If Rome was connected to Carthage, it means no Metaurus, Hasdrubal could have linked up with Hannibal easily and from then on anything could have happened. Carthage lost any reasonable initiative at Metaurus after which there was no way for Carthage to actively win, the only option was that Rome loses by its own fault. And it didn't.
jacobhinds said:If there was a land bridge between Italy and Tunisia I think the Romans would have been even more screwed. Mercenary doesn't mean "ineffective at fighting", especially for the carthaginians. It's probably the opposite in most cases since being a mercenary is a profession rather than an obligation or temporary assignment, as it was for rome's standing armies.
NoobMan4321 said:stuff
Scitpi is hugely overrated. He scored some surprisingly swift victories in the African campaign, but the outcome of the war had been decided at Metaurus by the true unsung hero of the second war - Claudius Nero who pulled Rome's chestnuts out of the fire after Scipio had failed to stop Hasdrubal in Spain.Mamlaz said:I was always of the opinion that if there was no Scipio, there would not have been any "Rome" after the Second Punic War.