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 29th, 2017, 06:07 PM   #31

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 1,587
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Wait, you think the Romans WOULDN'T RECALL Scipio if Philip was doing anything remotely close to Hannibal?
How am I supposed to know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
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?
I've only been in like 2 threads for the past year, both of which where Philip is the topic of discussion. I'd love to talk about Alexander/Hannibal/Caesar and others. No relevant threads about them have come up recently, however.

I'm not sure how Philip would perform against Africanus.

Last edited by Duke Valentino; December 29th, 2017 at 06:10 PM.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2017, 06:29 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,707

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
How am I supposed to know?
Sorry, so you are telling me you don't know if Rome would have recalled Scipio, but are certain that Philip would have mopped up the Romans?

And I can't imagine any logical conclusion that WERE Rome to be invaded, their greatest general would not be recalled just cuz.

This is a joke.


Quote:
I've only been in like 2 threads for the past year, both of which where Philip is the topic of discussion. I'd love to talk about Alexander/Hannibal/Caesar and others. No relevant threads about them have come up recently, however.

I'm not sure how Philip would perform against Africanus.
So you either think Philip is on the same tier as Hannibal and Scipio, or you don't think they are on the same tier, either way, if the kind of comment like you don't know how Philip would perform against Africanus (which is kind of true) then there should be NO comparison at all then. The only thing you should be talking about is people who have fought. Otherwise, no one knows exactly what would happen if two people who never fought would perform against each other.

But if we were to compare, then we can from the careers of these military man, and make an educated guess on whose ability belongs to what tiers. It won't be accurate, after all it is comparing individuals crossing time, but I think it is fair to say that Scipio as a military commander is a far better commander than Philip seeing from his Spanish campaign and his African campaign.

And NOT to mention that Philip's strongest units, his Macedonian cavalry, were very much ancestors of Hannibal's Spanish Heavy Cavalry. They were drilled in familiar fashion, equipped in similar fashion, and while unfortunately for both of us Hannibal never get to use his heavy cavalry on Scipio at Zama, but the Romans were experienced at this point with the kind of close and personal kind of combat style at this point after a decade at war against Hannibal. So Philip's most powerful arm of decision won't be a surprise to anyone from the Roman military, unlike when they first encountered Hannibal's forces.

Then we can talk about the Roman navy, at this point they were the master of the sea, they will be capable of supplying the expedition forces practically everywhere. They will be able to blockade any Greek cities or islands, their existence will force the Macedonian fight on Roman advantage.

Basically, I don't see anything that points anywhere to a remote Macedonian victory.

Is there any strategic advantage that Macedon had that Rome haven't overcome during the Punic Wars? Or tactical advantage of the Macedonian army? Or the supply? Or the human resources?

You would need a deux machina for a Macedonian victory. You will need the senior military leadership to all die, and even then, you still don't know if you can actually win against them. The legionary was after all, the world's finest fighting forces at that point, proven through the destruction of the equally mighty Hannibal.
mariusj is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 09:15 PM   #33

Salaminia's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Bluff
Posts: 626

Another thread unsubscribed. Some cannot help themselves...
Salaminia is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 09:42 PM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,881

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Sorry, so you are telling me you don't know if Rome would have recalled Scipio, but are certain that Philip would have mopped up the Romans?

And I can't imagine any logical conclusion that WERE Rome to be invaded, their greatest general would not be recalled just cuz.

This is a joke.




So you either think Philip is on the same tier as Hannibal and Scipio, or you don't think they are on the same tier, either way, if the kind of comment like you don't know how Philip would perform against Africanus (which is kind of true) then there should be NO comparison at all then. The only thing you should be talking about is people who have fought. Otherwise, no one knows exactly what would happen if two people who never fought would perform against each other.

But if we were to compare, then we can from the careers of these military man, and make an educated guess on whose ability belongs to what tiers. It won't be accurate, after all it is comparing individuals crossing time, but I think it is fair to say that Scipio as a military commander is a far better commander than Philip seeing from his Spanish campaign and his African campaign.

And NOT to mention that Philip's strongest units, his Macedonian cavalry, were very much ancestors of Hannibal's Spanish Heavy Cavalry. They were drilled in familiar fashion, equipped in similar fashion, and while unfortunately for both of us Hannibal never get to use his heavy cavalry on Scipio at Zama, but the Romans were experienced at this point with the kind of close and personal kind of combat style at this point after a decade at war against Hannibal. So Philip's most powerful arm of decision won't be a surprise to anyone from the Roman military, unlike when they first encountered Hannibal's forces.

Then we can talk about the Roman navy, at this point they were the master of the sea, they will be capable of supplying the expedition forces practically everywhere. They will be able to blockade any Greek cities or islands, their existence will force the Macedonian fight on Roman advantage.

Basically, I don't see anything that points anywhere to a remote Macedonian victory.

Is there any strategic advantage that Macedon had that Rome haven't overcome during the Punic Wars? Or tactical advantage of the Macedonian army? Or the supply? Or the human resources?

You would need a deux machina for a Macedonian victory. You will need the senior military leadership to all die, and even then, you still don't know if you can actually win against them. The legionary was after all, the world's finest fighting forces at that point, proven through the destruction of the equally mighty Hannibal.
You're not using your imagination. Phillip invented the newer Phalanx style armies many years before Phillip V! So obviously if Phillip had lived in the newer times, he'd have invented military reforms that would have been EVEN GREATER! The Macedonians would have had medieval knights and Parthian horse archers, fighting alongside super-legions (just like the legion... but better!). Am I the only one tired of these fanfiction accounts of ancient generals. Let's compare them relative to their own time, not imagine what Caesar would have done if he'd had access to space ships and cannons.

I don't have some strong opinion either way as to this thread, but the inference that Phillip just would have adapted somehow and overcome the Romans is pretty silly. Phillip was a good general in his own lifetime, but all his battles were as the overdog. We never saw much to suggest he'd be able to overcome a superior force with the same or fewer men on a consistent basis (which is what he'd have to do in order to have a chance v.s Rome).
Caesarmagnus is online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 12:01 AM   #35

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 1,587
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Sorry, so you are telling me you don't know if Rome would have recalled Scipio, but are certain that Philip would have mopped up the Romans?

And I can't imagine any logical conclusion that WERE Rome to be invaded, their greatest general would not be recalled just cuz.

This is a joke.
Did I say Rome was to be invaded?



Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
So you either think Philip is on the same tier as Hannibal and Scipio, or you don't think they are on the same tier, either way, if the kind of comment like you don't know how Philip would perform against Africanus (which is kind of true) then there should be NO comparison at all then. The only thing you should be talking about is people who have fought. Otherwise, no one knows exactly what would happen if two people who never fought would perform against each other.

But if we were to compare, then we can from the careers of these military man, and make an educated guess on whose ability belongs to what tiers. It won't be accurate, after all it is comparing individuals crossing time, but I think it is fair to say that Scipio as a military commander is a far better commander than Philip seeing from his Spanish campaign and his African campaign.

And NOT to mention that Philip's strongest units, his Macedonian cavalry, were very much ancestors of Hannibal's Spanish Heavy Cavalry. They were drilled in familiar fashion, equipped in similar fashion, and while unfortunately for both of us Hannibal never get to use his heavy cavalry on Scipio at Zama, but the Romans were experienced at this point with the kind of close and personal kind of combat style at this point after a decade at war against Hannibal. So Philip's most powerful arm of decision won't be a surprise to anyone from the Roman military, unlike when they first encountered Hannibal's forces.

Then we can talk about the Roman navy, at this point they were the master of the sea, they will be capable of supplying the expedition forces practically everywhere. They will be able to blockade any Greek cities or islands, their existence will force the Macedonian fight on Roman advantage.

Basically, I don't see anything that points anywhere to a remote Macedonian victory.

Is there any strategic advantage that Macedon had that Rome haven't overcome during the Punic Wars? Or tactical advantage of the Macedonian army? Or the supply? Or the human resources?

You would need a deux machina for a Macedonian victory. You will need the senior military leadership to all die, and even then, you still don't know if you can actually win against them. The legionary was after all, the world's finest fighting forces at that point, proven through the destruction of the equally mighty Hannibal.
I agree that Scipio is an objectively better general than Philip.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 02:01 AM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,707

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
Did I say Rome was to be invaded?
Fine. What does mopping up the Romans mean then.

How do you mop up Rome if you don't plan to invade them? I mean... you think the Romans are just going to stop attacking you? When a war began, they are going to finish it, one way or another.


Quote:
I agree that Scipio is an objectively better general than Philip.
Well, unless you can explain the above question or refine your words, I don't see how you can both thin Scipio is objective a better general, and that Philip would be able to mop up the Romans.
mariusj is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:50 PM   #37

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 1,587
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Fine. What does mopping up the Romans mean then.

How do you mop up Rome if you don't plan to invade them? I mean... you think the Romans are just going to stop attacking you? When a war began, they are going to finish it, one way or another.
I meant staving the Romans out of Macedonia/Greece, at least for a time. The Romans had superior manpower, logistics and army system, the legion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Well, unless you can explain the above question or refine your words, I don'tsee how you can both thin Scipio is objective a better general, and that Philip would be able to mop up the Romans.
I did not factor in that Scipio may be recalled to fight against Philip.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 02:46 PM   #38

Publius's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Why do you want to know?
Posts: 517
Blog Entries: 1

On the possibility of Scipio Africanus being brought in to deal with the Macedonians if Flamininus failed, it's worth remembering that Scipio had a lot of jealous enemies in the Senate who wouldn't have been very keen on giving him another opportunity to cover himself in glory.

It would have probably taken an especially dire situation for these people to stomach the idea of giving Scipio command of an army again.
Publius is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 03:48 PM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,707

Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius View Post
On the possibility of Scipio Africanus being brought in to deal with the Macedonians if Flamininus failed, it's worth remembering that Scipio had a lot of jealous enemies in the Senate who wouldn't have been very keen on giving him another opportunity to cover himself in glory.

It would have probably taken an especially dire situation for these people to stomach the idea of giving Scipio command of an army again.
He also has some very powerful allies. After all, they didn't get his brother until after his death, so he still mattered for quite a while.

The popular assembly would be clamoring for him if there were any signs of trouble.

He was also friend with P. L. Crassus, who was Pontifex Maximus, and also a rich handsome and rather well-connected individual.

I really wouldn't count Scipio out.

One reason I think Scipio was 'out' in Roman politics was because he was rather disgusted with the old man himself. Choosing self-exile over confrontation. If Scipio honestly wanted the command, he has friends and he was well loved that I don't see anyone can stop him. That is if he wanted the command.
mariusj is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 04:00 PM   #40

Salaminia's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Bluff
Posts: 626

Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius View Post
It would have probably taken an especially dire situation for these people to stomach the idea of giving Scipio command of an army again.
Worth noting is his failure in the winter of 195/94 to gain a command in the east against Antiochos III. This amid a confected crisis of Antiochos invading Greece and Italy.
Salaminia 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 21st, 2016 11:25 PM
Philip the Great? Lee-Sensei Speculative History 11 April 10th, 2016 03:58 PM
Philip Sheridan Viperlord American History 100 April 29th, 2013 11:01 AM
King Philip's War tjadams American History 67 August 25th, 2012 09:10 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.