Slitherine

dave_r wrote:
And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

The Persians did ratehr nicely for the most part. They ruled the most heavily contested part of the ancient world (Tigris/Euphrates crescent) for 200 years or so. They ruled Egypt and part of India for a while too. True, they didn't totally sort out some rabble on their western border, but they seemed OK until some chap called Alexander, who apparently wasn't half bad turned up with his pals.

azrael86 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

The Persians did ratehr nicely for the most part. They ruled the most heavily contested part of the ancient world (Tigris/Euphrates crescent) for 200 years or so. They ruled Egypt and part of India for a while too. True, they didn't totally sort out some rabble on their western border, but they seemed OK until some chap called Alexander, who apparently wasn't half bad turned up with his pals.

He had an army based largely around heavy foot though. So those Lh and cavalry-toting Persian armies (always with a huge number of units as well) were always going to be in trouble.

peterrjohnston wrote:

hammyhasnosenseofhumourwhenhehasahangoveronsundaymorning wrote:Very pretty as all those quotes might look can people please consider cutting out some of the less relevant lines when they quote a message.

Apparently not.

azrael86 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

The Persians did ratehr nicely for the most part. They ruled the most heavily contested part of the ancient world (Tigris/Euphrates crescent) for 200 years or so. They ruled Egypt and part of India for a while too. True, they didn't totally sort out some rabble on their western border, but they seemed OK until some chap called Alexander, who apparently wasn't half bad turned up with his pals.

Still waiting for a notable battle victory...

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

The Persians did ratehr nicely for the most part. They ruled the most heavily contested part of the ancient world (Tigris/Euphrates crescent) for 200 years or so. They ruled Egypt and part of India for a while too. True, they didn't totally sort out some rabble on their western border, but they seemed OK until some chap called Alexander, who apparently wasn't half bad turned up with his pals.

Still waiting for a notable battle victory...

On balance, I think that making Christian Nubian bowmen Superior was a misjudgement. (Although it does make an otherwise unviable army viable, so maybe not a bad thing from a purely game point of view).

rbodleyscott wrote: On balance, I think that making Christian Nubian bowmen Superior was a misjudgement. (Although it does make an otherwise unviable army viable, so maybe not a bad thing from a purely game point of view).

So we can look forward to some elite German Iron Collar wearers in V12 then?

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: On balance, I think that making Christian Nubian bowmen Superior was a misjudgement. (Although it does make an otherwise unviable army viable, so maybe not a bad thing from a purely game point of view).

So we can look forward to some elite German Iron Collar wearers in V12 then?

In version 12 perhaps. But we will both be dead.

rbodleyscott wrote:In version 12 perhaps. But we will both be dead.

More evidence for the " Welsh 'Shipman' " trial.

rbodleyscott wrote:

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote: The Persians did ratehr nicely for the most part. They ruled the most heavily contested part of the ancient world (Tigris/Euphrates crescent) for 200 years or so. They ruled Egypt and part of India for a while too. True, they didn't totally sort out some rabble on their western border, but they seemed OK until some chap called Alexander, who apparently wasn't half bad turned up with his pals.

Still waiting for a notable battle victory...

On balance, I think that making Christian Nubian bowmen Superior was a misjudgement. (Although it does make an otherwise unviable army viable, so maybe not a bad thing from a purely game point of view).

I actually disagree - they tonked the Arabs that they came into contact with and not many other people managed that.

I actually disagree

Why does that not surprise me?

dave_r wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

dave_r wrote: Still waiting for a notable battle victory...

On balance, I think that making Christian Nubian bowmen Superior was a misjudgement. (Although it does make an otherwise unviable army viable, so maybe not a bad thing from a purely game point of view).

I actually disagree - they tonked the Arabs that they came into contact with and not many other people managed that.

I disagree as well (mostly). If there is an issue with the list it is that there are too many chaps on horses, although I would probably limit the Superior bowmen by date to the early part of the list as well if I were to rewrite it today.

Also wonder if we can make the black hole this time ...

dave_r wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: On balance, I think that making Christian Nubian bowmen Superior was a misjudgement. (Although it does make an otherwise unviable army viable, so maybe not a bad thing from a purely game point of view).

I actually disagree - they tonked the Arabs that they came into contact with and not many other people managed that.

They also discovered coffee and invented espresso. That is sufficient justification for superior right there.

Skullzgrinda wrote: They also discovered coffee and invented espresso. That is sufficient justification for superior right there.

If embraced, then beverage-based classification is going to make some armies very scary. Particularly Aztec and Isles and Highlands.

azrael86 wrote:

Skullzgrinda wrote: They also discovered coffee and invented espresso. That is sufficient justification for superior right there.

If embraced, then beverage-based classification is going to make some armies very scary. Particularly Aztec and Isles and Highlands.

I would embrace this.

Dave R asked:
Still waiting for a notable battle victory.
---------
Well, let's see:
Cyrus beat the Medes
He beat the Lydians
In fact, hard to see how he built the empire without lots of notable battle victories.
Cambyses beat the Egyptians
Darius beat the Ionian Greeks
The Persians then held on to all that territory for 200 years - hard to see how they could do that without the occasional fight

Unless of course by 'notable' you meant 'written down by a Greek', in which case you are out of luck.

pyruse wrote:Dave R asked:
Still waiting for a notable battle victory.
---------
Well, let's see:
Cyrus beat the Medes
He beat the Lydians
In fact, hard to see how he built the empire without lots of notable battle victories.
Cambyses beat the Egyptians
Darius beat the Ionian Greeks
The Persians then held on to all that territory for 200 years - hard to see how they could do that without the occasional fight

Unless of course by 'notable' you meant 'written down by a Greek', in which case you are out of luck.

They only beat the Lydians because they disbanded their army for winter and then got surprised when the Persians didn't.

The Persian empire was mainly a victory for organisation, political and diplomacy ability rather than military conflict. The fact they could muster a massive army was usually enough to bully their neighbours into submission. When it actually fought it usually performed poorly.

The fact they never beat the Greeks (except at Thermopylae) perhaps says it all.

dave_r wrote:
The fact they never beat the Greeks (except at Thermopylae)

Assuming you ignore the defeats of the Ionian Greeks.

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote:
The fact they never beat the Greeks (except at Thermopylae)

Assuming you ignore the defeats of the Ionian Greeks.

Was that before or after they had burnt the Persian Capital to the ground?

dave_r wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote:
The fact they never beat the Greeks (except at Thermopylae)

Assuming you ignore the defeats of the Ionian Greeks.

Was that before or after they had burnt the Persian Capital to the ground?

Irrelevant to your question - plus it was Sardis, a regional centre, not the capital