NO Point Taking Rome First

[kennyxx]

AlejIll stick my neck out here. Ive not heard of Pyruss or the Roman Macedonian Wars following Alexanders death.It is well known through military analasists that Roman Cavalry were crap. Not always but mostly. The Roman power was mainly centred on its legionaries holding and buzz saw hammer tactics. The Cavalry were the guys with money that could afford a horse and the shiny armour. I cant recall any Roman eras where there cavalry were called famidable. Yet Alexanders and the Thracian Cavalry will often be rated as the highest Cavalry. Bettered by the Monghuls and the Nomadic tribes that were on horses basicall before they could walk.Before these two victories for the Romans keep been mentioned. Just take a look at the quite often defeats they took. Even with there mobility and tactics Roman legions were anhialated by various opponents. To say that any of these Romans could have held arguably the greatest military general and tactician is quite shaky. As maybe argued for Roman power. Still the basics of any wars past or since were and even now are Alexanders.Napoleon Bonepart Rated as the Greatest General for the last 1000 years as in the top 3 rated by military Scholrs. Napoleons war and thesis for war was Alexanders Blue Print.The German Blitzkriec Reading Fuller is more or less identical to Alexanders warfare. Alexander had an eye for detail and everytime spotted the enemies weakspot and exploited it by apropriate means for total success.THe wars and battles mentioned prior are insignificant. I Always remember Hannibal at Canea. Had Alexander achieved that Victory he would have been on Rome within weeks. Kenny

[Paralus]

G'day Alejandro GÇô and of course GÇô Kenny.Alejandro has raised some interesting issues.Firstly Alexander of Epirus. I referred to AoE's jaunt in Italy in one of the former posts. Not a huge amount can be gleaned from the exercise, as there is not a large amount to go on. Being in the office, I shall go from memory! The original request for help came from the Tarentines (who, showing they were slow learners, invited Alexander's great nephew Pyrrhus with similar results) which Alexander ostensibly answered. He was to lead them against the Samnites who were then attacking the Greek cities. When his ambitions became obvious the Tarentines ditched him (indeed his ally appears to have dispatched him) and The Romans (with whom he had opened negotiations) finished the Samnites (over some decades of to-ing and fro-ing, but certainly by 290). It does not provide any real indication.Secondly, the Roman Calvary. The Roman cavalry was at times populated by "nancy boys" as I suppose Kenny would describe them. It was also made up with some decent soldiers as well. As with Greece, those who could afford such trappings GÇô horse etc GÇô made into the cavalry ranks. They were though trained and it was by means the weak pack of blundering rich boys that one might so easily presume. The oft cited result of Cannae needs to be seen in perspective: as Valeria says, the Romans suffered due to the insufferable incompetence of their general ("of the day") Varro as much as Hannibals' tactics and heavy cavalry. A better-behaved enemy the Carthaginian could not have wished for. And yes, Plutarch describes the Roman cavalry as getting the better of the Macedonian.I posted another thread to deal with the Hellenistic questionParalus