Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 28th, 2017, 06:34 PM   #21

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 865
Blog Entries: 1

But of course, logistics aren't important. Just massive scale battles, all the other aspects of generalship are to be dismissed as irrelevant.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:01 AM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
I don't know, Philip was a pretty capable and cunning diplomat. He would probably be a lot capable of meeting the Romans on his own turns, garnering alliances, juggling the affairs of state etc. to a greater capacity than Philip V. Also, the two major battles with the Macedonians against the Romans saw the Macedonians not performing at their best at all.
You either think Philip was the same tier as Hannibal, or you don't.

If you think Philip is the same tier as Hannibal, well, good luck with your argument.

If you don't think Philip is the same tier as Hannibal, how do you make an argument against fighting Scipio, who was pretty much Hannibal's equal in almost every way. Roman logistic system at this point was one of the most superior in the world. Practically unmatched in the west.

The generals from the Romans included those of Fabius the Delayer, Scipio brothers, and Claudius Nero. I just don't see how you can make the argument in either the strategic field, where the Romans held both the numeric advantage and the logistic advantage, and in the tactical field, where Roman generals were at the top of their game.
mariusj is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:02 AM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
But of course, logistics aren't important. Just massive scale battles, all the other aspects of generalship are to be dismissed as irrelevant.
Are you saying the Roman logistic system is inferior to those of the Macedonians?
mariusj is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:50 AM   #24

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 865
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
You either think Philip was the same tier as Hannibal, or you don't.

If you think Philip is the same tier as Hannibal, well, good luck with your argument.

If you don't think Philip is the same tier as Hannibal, how do you make an argument against fighting Scipio, who was pretty much Hannibal's equal in almost every way. Roman logistic system at this point was one of the most superior in the world. Practically unmatched in the west.

The generals from the Romans included those of Fabius the Delayer, Scipio brothers, and Claudius Nero. I just don't see how you can make the argument in either the strategic field, where the Romans held both the numeric advantage and the logistic advantage, and in the tactical field, where Roman generals were at the top of their game.
What does my comment have to do with Hannibal or Scipio? Or even logistics for that matter? I'm simply saying that I think Philip II was an objectively better general than Philip V.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Are you saying the Roman logistic system is inferior to those of the Macedonians?
No, I am not.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 01:37 AM   #25

Salaminia's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 462

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
You either think Philip was the same tier as Hannibal, or you don't.

If you think Philip is the same tier as Hannibal, well, good luck with your argument.

If you don't think Philip is the same tier as Hannibal, how do you make an argument against fighting Scipio, who was pretty much Hannibal's equal in almost every way. Roman logistic system at this point was one of the most superior in the world. Practically unmatched in the west.

The generals from the Romans included those of Fabius the Delayer, Scipio brothers, and Claudius Nero. I just don't see how you can make the argument in either the strategic field, where the Romans held both the numeric advantage and the logistic advantage, and in the tactical field, where Roman generals were at the top of their game.
I do believe you are on the entirely wrong thread. A redirect might be in order as the above is utterly irrelevant to the topic.
Salaminia is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:51 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salaminia View Post
I do believe you are on the entirely wrong thread. A redirect might be in order as the above is utterly irrelevant to the topic.
I am sorry, was he referring to the Philip V, who fought against the Romans AFTER the Punic War?

If so, then did he say the following

"If Philip was king during the reign of Philip V, he would be mopping up the Romans."

Would does this imply, anyone with basic reasoning would think he believes that Philip II would defeat the Romans during the reign of Philip V, who just defeated the Carthaginians and Hannibal?

Or are you telling me there are more mental gymnastic revolving his multiple statements?
mariusj is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 03:16 PM   #27

Salaminia's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 462

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Or are you telling me there are more mental gymnastic revolving his multiple statements?
I am "telling you" that here are now multiple threads where you can play the game of how much better a pantheon of Roman generals (and some others in cameos) supposedly were compared to Philip II. This thread does not need to become yet another boring, repetitious copy. There are are other point scoring playgrounds for that.
Salaminia is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 05:03 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salaminia View Post
I am "telling you" that here are now multiple threads where you can play the game of how much better a pantheon of Roman generals (and some others in cameos) supposedly were compared to Philip II. This thread does not need to become yet another boring, repetitious copy. There are are other point scoring playgrounds for that.
Well perhaps he shouldn't be saying that again in this thread. /edit Also, I am not saying ALL Roman generals would beat Philip. I have never made that kind of statement anywhere, so don't you strawman me. This is a claim where he says Philip would beat the Romans DURING Philip V's reign. Which means he either thinks Philip would defeat Scipio and the army that won Zama, or he doesn't think Scipio & his legions would fight Philip. This isn't a repetitious copy, unless you are already biased.

I mean, if he kept repeating the same kind of bullshit in every thread, you are complaining at me for rebutting these same comments?

He said in this thread Philip would mop up the Romans during the Second Macedonian War, or around that period. Is he right or wrong?

If you think he is right, then you are saying Scipio, and the other generals who lived through the Second Punic War, would be mopped up by Philip.

Is that the same thing as Sulla vs Philip? No. But the same kind of hero worshiping that is mind boggling.

Last edited by mariusj; December 29th, 2017 at 05:10 PM.
mariusj is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 06:19 PM   #29

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 865
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Well perhaps he shouldn't be saying that again in this thread. /edit Also, I am not saying ALL Roman generals would beat Philip. I have never made that kind of statement anywhere, so don't you strawman me. This is a claim where he says Philip would beat the Romans DURING Philip V's reign. Which means he either thinks Philip would defeat Scipio and the army that won Zama, or he doesn't think Scipio & his legions would fight Philip. This isn't a repetitious copy, unless you are already biased.
See this is where I take issue with. Scipio didn't serve in the Macedonian Wars, so why bring him up at all? The Roman troops were veterans, but the Macedonian army wasn't a walk in the park cakewalk to destroy either. Philip II was an accomplished master of grand strategy. If he was given like a week or two to come up to speed with world events, updates in military, economic and diplomatic situations etc. I think he would perform better than Philip V, just as Alexander would.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
If you think he is right, then you are saying Scipio, and the other generals who lived through the Second Punic War, would be mopped up by Philip.

Is that the same thing as Sulla vs Philip? No. But the same kind of hero worshiping that is mind boggling.
I would conversely rebut that Sulla is being hero worshiped considering his generalship is being overblown, plus his legacy was a complete disaster.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 06:40 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
See this is where I take issue with. Scipio didn't serve in the Macedonian Wars, so why bring him up at all? The Roman troops were veterans, but the Macedonian army wasn't a walk in the park cakewalk to destroy either. Philip II was an accomplished master of grand strategy. If he was given like a week or two to come up to speed with world events, updates in military, economic and diplomatic situations etc. I think he would perform better than Philip V, just as Alexander would.
Wait, you think the Romans WOULDN'T RECALL Scipio if Philip was doing anything remotely close to Hannibal?


Quote:
I would conversely rebut that Sulla is being hero worshiped considering his generalship is being overblown, plus his legacy was a complete disaster.
You are aware you are showing off Phillip's skill in like every other thread you are involved in right?

I only brought up Sulla b/c someone falsely accuse me of doing something, e.g. mixing up two threads.

This thread you are claiming that Philip would have mopped up the Romans, which I rightly ask, you think Philip could have beaten Scipio.

Do you?
mariusj is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
philip



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Philip V of Macedon markdienekes Ancient History 10 December 22nd, 2016 12:25 AM
Philip the Great? Lee-Sensei Speculative History 11 April 10th, 2016 04:58 PM
Philip Sheridan Viperlord American History 100 April 29th, 2013 12:01 PM
King Philip's War tjadams American History 67 August 25th, 2012 10:10 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.