Sacred band of carthage and thebes.

Users who are viewing this thread

Sacred Band of Thebes  :arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

total_war1427324988_055-13.jpg

04-6.%20%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%20%3F%3F%3F%20%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%20%28%3F%3F%3F%3F%20%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%2C%20%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%29.%20%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%20%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%20%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%20373%20%3F.%3F%3F%20%3F.%3F.%20J.Shum

total_war1426708064_041-08.jpg

07.jpg

Pt11TFw.jpg

total_war1410900209_011.jpg

Sacred Band of Carthage  :arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Carthage

50O9012.png

okqjQnG.jpg

oiTRp7V.jpg

aM7Z88M.jpg

1334953188-645933-8010-rrssrrrrsrrs-rrsrsr-www.nevsepic.com.ua.jpg
 
No, it was just that sometimes lions hid behind soldiers who were being painted. It generally happened at the end of a battle, when there was room for them to get 'in frame'. It's the big cat equivalent of doing bunny ears behind someone's head when a photo is taken.

On a serious note; the wiki of the Carthaginian Sacred Band mentioned a battle in which they were wiped out. Upon reading the link to this Battle of White Tunis, I noticed something interesting; when the Syracusan army landed in Libya and defeated the Carthaginians the first time, many cities under Carthaginian rule defected. If the wiki is to be believed this was out of hatred of Carthage as much as fear of the Syracusan army, and a Libyan king is mentioned, suggesting the Libyans were a subject kingdom that still had a strong sense of identity and even a hierarchy independent of Carthage, even if that hierarchy probably was heavily subservient to Carthage. This is in marked contrast to the relations of Rome with the cities of Italy. When Hannibal inflicted several defeats of huge Roman armies, most of the cities remained loyal to Rome, and there were no kings for the people to rally around anyway. This allowed Rome to survive and draw on a huge pool of manpower and keep producing huge armies to face Hannibal, who couldn't manage to besiege Rome.

The Syracusan's were besieged at home by Carthage, which precipitated the bold move of the Syracusan king to invade Libya (he and his army had to run the naval blockade of Syracuse to escape). Had he tried this against Rome, he would probably have faced the same problem as Carthage did; even if he could have won a battle or two, Rome would have kept the loyalty of its allies and been able to keep fighting.
 
How much would the helmet underneath the lion weigh? The head itself shouldn't weigh too much, but why would you want to add more strain on your neck?

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.
 
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.
 
jacobhinds 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.
They're not a thing in EU4 though
 
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?
 
NoobMan4321 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?
I think both the sacred bands are completely
different from each other in context and function, for example
according to Duncan Head & Ian Heath...

GLkkwo8.jpg

xyFk0Qf.png

concerning the naming of the sacred band of Thebes

:arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes#Composition

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.

So the sacred band of Thebes where an elite group of hoplite lovers,
while those of Carthage where members of the nobility trained from
an early age and served as a unit of citizen infantry, yet referred to
as a sacred band by Greek Authors / in the game 0 A.D. they are
called the Black band based on the assumption that they wore a black
band on their arm, but im not sure where they got that info from?!

album_image-6.php.jpeg
 
That's a huge gap between Thebes and Carthage. Perhaps thats why Rome was able to invade Carthage city without dealing any significant problems cause between an army of nobles and an army of elites.

With the elites immense knowledge of warfare and decades/ years of experience in the battlefield. I can say they're the major pain in the arse compare to Nobles who, if never been to combat before. they have the fighting capabilities, but lack experience and knowledge of the enemies, a simple units that may not be able to change the war unless the nobles have a genius among them to counter this weakness.

And yeah, I don't remember they use a black bandanna around their wrist or arms :O
 
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".
 
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.

Captured Joe said:
Yeah, the Carthaginian army was such a pushover. :facepalm:

Jesus Christ...

Yea, I agreed with that.
 
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:
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.
 
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.

Good point. Gotta have to look again cuz I haven't been touching this topic bout the war between Rome and Carthage for sometime now. But right now I'm having my schedule tight when Uni expedition is opening round this mid feb as well as grading day for Karate that'll be up round end of feb. I'll catch up to this historical info with what free time I have in me during this month.

Nice chatting with you though.

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.

That, would be round second punic war when Hannibal was leading different kinds of mercenaries to aid him on the battlefield right? Well if there's one thing I can agree with you. Is that Rome has a sense of stubbornness that believes might and strength will win whilst on Hannibal view versatility and strategy can win over might and power. Which Hannibal style of warfare works.

Wondered how the Roman forces never sent observers to observed how the battlefield came out, analyse, plan a strategy and then execute a new strategy to counter Hannibal's next attack in the first place.

Had it not for that..... Whoever that guy is... That Scipio? not sure.... Found out direct major battlefield is unfavorable as Hannibal is damn good at it and decided to use skirmish attack method (similar to attrition warfare but smaller scale) which actually works but received criticisms from senators cause it's not "ROMAN-ISH" and labeled him as coward on that time. The outcome of the second punic war would have been a different story. Still The Senators acted like jealous gamers that cannot differentiate skilled players or hackers, they should be praising him for being an efficient roman general.

And I'll be excusing myself as I'm gonna be focusing on uni application as well preparing for Grading. Nice one though.
 
I was always of the opinion that if there was no Scipio, there would not have been any "Rome" after the Second Punic War.
 
NoobMan4321 said:

Yeah reading up on the Punic wars might be a good idea. The attrition guy was Fabius Maximus and one of the people who opposed him was actually the very Scipio. In any case, he wasn't an underappreciated genius. He was actually an appointed dictator, several times a consul and a role model for generations to come. Which leads me to...

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.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom