Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 467801" data-attributes="member: 6533">DefeatI'm not sure how Roman you want this Republic to be, but it sounds like a pretty cool encounter and national player.Unlike Shark, who's comments are pretty much dead on as far as I'm aware, I'm more of a student of the political aspects of the Roman military and I while I do recognize the Romans as a nation with a stellar military tradition I thought you might benefit from some ideas on how the Romans might be defeated or mess up in your scenario.First, I think it is significant to note that the Republic lost an army in a previous battle.  One of the few significant flaws in the Roman tradition is a fairly poor ability to deal with defeat.   Unlike the Byzantines who, when they were organized enough to plan anything, could plan very effectively to regroup and retake the land or negotiate, the Romans generally only built strategies around winning so major defeats precipitated major policy crises.  The reaction to a defeat would vary with what stage of political development the "Romans" are in.  But in all cases they are unlikely to try the same strategy twice and fairly likely to vary their tactics.  In the imperial period they would be likely to abandon a strategey of military conquest all together.  My point being, that if the Republic is going to invade again, they are going to attempt to surprise the enemy not necessarily with different battlefield tactics but certainly with a different invasion strategy.You would be likely to see them use a very prepared battlefield and to see them attack using at least three different forces and a reserve so that it would be harder to target them with area affect spells.  I would also suspect the use of very unconventional tactics like flanking over difficult terrain, preparing a traitor in the PCs army, night attacks, lots of harrasment, manipulating the weather to increase their enemies comparative lack of discipline and confidence, false forces, feigned retreats, and heavy use of misinformation.Also, the defeat would mean at once a major morale hit for the Republic, the Romans frequently romanticized their best opponents ala Hannibal, and at the same time a major motive for revenge against the enemy commander.  They would be likely to consider giving up strategic advantage in order to humiliate the enemy commander or otherwise regain honor.  There would also be lots of ceremonies and an emphasis on Omens which enemy illusion magic could manipulate.On Flaws:Roman soldiers were extremely superstitious.  This was a major problem for their commanders.Roman formations were very vulnerable to mobile dispersed forces.  They lost major battles to German light infantry and Parthian light cavalry in the late Republic and early Empire.  Oddly, their enemies abandoned these tactics fairly quickly so the Roman legion didn't adjust their own tactics till much later in the Imperial period. Despite their high degree of technology they were actually very conservative and the stirrup took them by close to complete surprise at Adrianople.  I imagine that similar technological gaffaws could wipe out their spiritual brethren.They often relied on allies to make up defeciencies in their own ranks.  Sometimes these alliances could be manipulated.  The Huns avoided total defeat at the hands of the late Romans when a Frankish King took ill and had to leave the Romans without crucial forces for a follow up to a major victory against Atilla.Roman forces never really utilized long range missile fire.  Despite their use of Ballista, they never had something like Crusader Crossbow lines or English Longbow formations.  On the other hand neither did the Swiss and that didn't stop their troops from reigning supreme over European battlefields in missile friendly Renaissance Europe.Effective Guerilla tactics did work well against the Romans set formations.  Spain took the Romans 200 years to conquer completely and caused, according to some, the constitutional crisis of the Grachii cause the campaign was bleeding Rome slowly.  In the end, Roman diplomacy was the decisive factor.I'm fairly certain your PCs are doomed.  Romans did understand siege tactics and machines.  And had some idea of the possibilities of field artillery.  If their opposing forces are demoralized, as you claim, and they come armed for bear and mean, as they will, they will win in a what ever pitched battle/burn the land style campaign they come to wage.  It isn't good when a Roman style enemy has been humiliated beyond the point of mercy.  I think the PCs only hope is to try to split their efforts between fortifying a location and going Guerrilla until reinforcements with high morale show up.  Undead are nice for both strategies.</blockquote>

Verification