Early Armenian Army (Rise of Rome)

[hazelbark]

There is a case for either way.

Even great commanders had bad days. And given our knowledge base there were many commanders that were probably better on the battlefield than the commanders have heard of. There is also a massive bias in any history simply because of language and survival of documents. There wre a number of societies that had military leaders who studied their art, were valorous and fought extensive and enlightened campaigns. They just didn't have Mel Gibson play they in a movie.

Every author chooses an approach. For friendlies you should certainly choose what you think is best.

BTW an IC may not be a good choice for Tigranes from a army capability point of view.

[Strategiser]

Fair point and I agree.

[grahambriggs]

Tigranes was named "the Great" because he was a "Great King" - i.e. there were subordinate kings that reported to him. He got to that status by marrying well and astute politics.

Unfortunately, he was a poor military commander - His first battle to relieve the siege of his capital Tigranocerta was a disaster - outmanouvered by a significantly smaller roman army. After which his capital was inspired to throw it's gates open. He didn't seem to do much better in his second and last battle either. I think that's why he's been given the thumbs down by the list writers.

[Strategiser]

That's a good point and I agree that it seems that he was a better politician than a military commander, although what you described covers his later period of reign. His earlier reign of power was epitomised with a stream of military victories. In any case, I think there is no harm in changing this for friendly games if the player wishes to do so by effectively spending more points.

[dave_r]

His earlier reign of power was epitomised with a stream of military victories.

I'll bite. Go on then, let's hear about all these victories.

[Strategiser]

Challenge accepted!

This is taken from wiki, a quote by Strabo:

When he [Tigran the Great] acquired power, he recovered seventy valleys, and devastated the country of the Parthians, the territory about Ninus (Nineveh), and that about Arbela. He subjected to his authority the Atropatenians , and the Goryaeans (on the Upper Tigris); by force of arms he obtained possession also of the rest of Mesopotamia and, after crossing the Euphrates, of Syria and Phoenicea. (Strabo).

In 83 BC, after a bloody strife for the throne of Syria, governed by the Seleucids, the Syrians decided to choose Tigranes as the protector of their kingdom and offered him the crown of Syria. Magadates was appointed as his governor in Antioch. He then conquered Phoenicia and Cilicia, effectively putting an end to the last remnants of the Seleucid Empire, though a few holdout cities appear to have recognized the shadowy boy-king Seleucus VII Philometor as the legitimate king during his reign. The southern border of his domain reached as far as Ptolemais (modern Akko). Many of the inhabitants of conquered cities were sent to his new metropolis of Tigranakert (Latin name, Tigranocerta).

At its height, his empire extended from the Pontic Alps (in modern north-eastern Turkey) to Mesopotamia, and from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. Tigranes apparently invaded territories as far away as Ecbatana and took the title king of kings which, at the time, according to their coins, even the Parthian kings did not assume. He was called "Tigranes the Great" by many Western historians and writers, such as Plutarch. The "King of Kings" never appeared in public without having four kings attending him. Cicero, referring to his success in the east, said that he "made the Republic of Rome tremble before the prowess of his arms."

[grahambriggs]

Had a bit of a google and it looks like the wikepedia article is a good summary. I think the problem here is that the main sources are Roman, and so focus on their battle with him. The problem that gives is that they don't say who was in charge of the army in the expansion period. The Roman reports of Tigranocerta paint him up as incompetant and unwilling to listen to the advice of his father in law Mithridates of Pontus, which is what the list authors seem to have gone with. Of course that might just be propaganda and a pandering to the usual "degenerate easterner" view in the Western world of the time.

Of course, one thing you could easily do is have him (or his delegated general) as Inspired for the conquests of the 70 valleys and the Parthian client states. That seems to have happened first before the absorption of the rump of the Seleukids; which seems bloodless. In list terms the main difference is the addition of ex Seleukid troops. Not that they are particularly of much use in this army, in my opinion.

[Strategiser]

Agree and thanks for the suggestion on the use of the army list.

[ravenflight]

I think the problem here is that the main sources are Roman...

Oh great, the old "Livy said that the Etruscans were fat and lazy, so we make them Reg D. The Romans were pretty good so we make them Reg B".

Of course the Etruscans nearly defeated the Romans but we'll just attribute that to numbers, not baised press from Livy!

[Strategiser]

Another quick question on the Early Armenian Army: we know that Pontic forces during this period (Mithridates VI) were firm allies with the Early Armenians under Tigranes the Great. Now, although the Pontic Army list (page 49 of Rise of Rome) allows for the Armenian allies, the Early Armenian Army list (page 54 of Rise of Rome) does not. Unless I'm missing something here, the Pontic Allies should be added to the Early Armenian army list under the Special Campaigns: Tigran the Great section.

What do you think?

Additionally, upon further reading, I can see that the Pontic Army does not have a Pontic Allies list at all (as in a separate allies army list like the others do). Does this mean that the Pontic army never provided ally contingents to anyone (but only vice versa, i.e. having an Early Armenian ally contingent in their army)? Interesting take as we know that the Pontic and Armenian forces fought side by side during the early-mid reign period of Tigran the Great.

[grahambriggs]

They were certainly firm allies. I think again it's a case of there's documented evidence of Pontic with Armenian allies in the "Roman sphere" but the Armenian campaigns are poorly documented. Generally, unless there is solid evidence for state A supplying a large allied force to state B and that they fought in the same battle, the list authors don't put one in.

I don't think Pontics were allies for anyone else - it was more that Pontus was the main focus.

[Strategiser]

Thanks, I agree. There is virtually no Pontic Allies army list in the book, which makes the Pontic Army a bit of a less prudent purchase when it comes to playing the FOG game, I suppose.

[grahambriggs]

True enough; many of the Pontic troop types though can be re-used for other late Hellenistic armies in the area.

[Strategiser]

Good point.