Slitherine

There are several themes involved in this discussion.
One is why Sparta is so strong and second is how to keep battleline intact in melee combat.

Compared to late-middle age dismounted armored knight's armor, I suppose Roman army's and Greek army's armor and shield is
much less heavier. Greek army's shield is huge and somewhat cumbersome, though.

What I am missing to understand is how to fight in unison with his comrades, as units in systematical way.
Though the theory of phalanx as huge scrum and intial charge is everything that decides the war's outcome is hard to accept.

Fascinating subject!

Where to begin?

First, let's stop and realise that the very concept of a formation was a revolutionary one.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone before the greeks used formations. As far as we know, they simply existed in swarms or mobs, with no effort to be anything else.

Then let's stop and think about frontages.

A man with a chopping sword or axe needs a lot of room. He needs a circle whose radius is equal to the length of his weapon, plus the length of his arm, plus a little buffer space.

The romans later got around this by using a very short sword (the famous gladius ibericus), and using it only to stab with. This is a point many people miss entirely. The roman infantryman did not chop with his sword at all; he used only the point.

The greeks did the exact same thing far earlier with their spears. They packed themselves into very tight formations, shoulder to shoulder, and used a stabbing weapon.

So if a barbarian needs 6 feet (call it 2 meters) of frontage, and a hoplite needs only 3 feet (call it 1 meter), what happens? That's right, one barbarian winds up facing two hoplites.

So while your example above addresses the vertical, it ignores the horizontal, which is the important aspect

OK, time for one of my little alternate takes on history.

How many of you have ever marched in formation?

I have, courtesy of the USMC.

Remember when you were first learning how to march in step, and how some guys were always stepping on each other's heels, and how much that sucked? Can you possibly imagine marching in a formation that tight, and not marching in step?

Neither can I.

And yet it is the "official" version of history that the ancients knew nothing of cadence, did not march in step, and that the concept wasn't invented until the 16th or 17th century AD, virtually yesterday in historical terms.

Bullpuckey, says Possum. There's no way.

Primus, it's a ****ing obvious concept. It's not brain surgery or any great leap of intuition.

Secundus, it just does not work!

I personally believe that the ancients called cadence and marched in step, whatever the official version of history says. There were enough other aspects of military science that were lost in the fall of the western empire, and had to be re-discovered. To my way of thinking, cadence was just one more.

You are loved by me, please dig up more if you can.

You brought up the fact that historically there was no cadence, I have to agree with you that there had to be some kind of cadence system set-up, to what extent we will dream of ever knowing.

First, regarding the use of formations, the "Stele of Vultures" depicts an obvious phalanx formation, and was from ancient Sumeria, roughly 3000 BC (IIRC), long before Greece or Rome. There is an ongoing argument that ties the development of the phalanx and close-order formations to the development of a large class of "citizens" instead of a small elite group of ruling nobles on either horse or chariot, or an ill-equipped and untrained mass of peasants. The shield of your neighbor prevents the enemy diagonal to you from stabbing at your exposed sides, making the sum greater than the parts, but only as durable as the weakest link. Armor was often confined to a small section of the torso, if worn at all, and at first did not adequately protect the armpits, sides, thighs, and various other locations which later forms of armor did. The spear and the short stabbing sword are practical in a densely packed formation, and quickly became the standard arms for such warfare throughout the ancient world. Having an adjacent fighter drop out of formation left you vulnerable, and your only practical recourse was to fall back until someone in the second rank could cover the gap. The long sword and the axe are usable in formation, but only with an overhead chop, unless you want to spread out beyond the protection of your neighbor. There is actually a website dedicated to the spacing of the various arms and formations, along with march camp and tent "templates", mainly based on the Roman army.

As for cadence, the Romans used a number of marching songs and chants, some fragments of which have survived through the writings of their detractors, due to the slanderous nature of their content. One such reference about Caesar's legions translates to something roughly along the lines of: "Lock up your daughters, the ?? Legion is here; lock up your sons, Caesar is leading them..." I can't imagine a legion travelling down the road singing that without being in some sort of march rhythm, or that the officers would have allowed such a show of disrespect unless it was for an over-riding practical reason, and also what other function would the various musicians have had, aside from basic signals for advance, retreat, etc.

Hey Honvedseg, nice. the cadence son would've been to die for, If I could hear it aloud.

what was the website you mentioned.

I thought it was more on the lines of hide your women, caeser is here- he was known to be pretty promiscious.

Also, what possum notes- the distance thing- is probably the primary difference between the soldier and the warrior. The soldier was trained to fight as part of a unit. Being a hero was bad- it broke the formation, and made the unit more vulnerable. The warrior was a great one for combat, but was more of a duelist or skirmisher- he needed range to move, as he fought on his own. This is also partially due to that most warriors were not profesionally trained fighters- they had skill and prowess, but not a great deal of experience when it came to working as a team.

By contrast, the soldier was trained to rely on the support of his allies and they on him, making the whole greater than the sum of parts, and enough soldiers working in cohesion outclassed warriors in large battles. This is also the reason that the romans did not fare well when surprised by enemy warriors- the warriors were able to catch them disorganized, where soldiers could not rely on the support of their comrades, nor help them out.

Honvedseg -

The translation Robert Graves gives us, for the song that the troops of Gaius Julius sang while marching through through the streets of Rome is-


We carry home the bald whore-monger,
Romans lock your wives away


As far as the Stele of Vultures, a few objections.

Primus - The Phalanx was created by the Macedonians, and was a formation of sarissa or pikes if you will, and not spears. A formation of spearmen is not a phalanx. Granted, this is a niggling objection.

Secundus - the Sumerians are a huge mystery. They appear to have been an amazingly advanced civilisation for their time. I'm not going to go off on any wild theories (this time), but there was something decidedly odd about the Sumerians.

Tertius - I would suggest to you that the formation depicted on the Stele of Vultures may well have been a parade formation. But who knows?

Marching songs, LOL.

It was 30 years ago, but I recall a few.


The sergeant, the sergeant,
the bastard of them all,
he gets you up in the morning,
before the bugle call.

Squads left! Squads right!
Face front in that line!
and then the dirty sonofabitch,
will give you double-time.

Oh, hidey-hidey, god almighty,
who the **** are we?
We're the men of the second platoon,
delta company!

A Hoplite formation was a phalanx.

Formations were used before the Greeks.

Troops in CLOSE formation have to march in step, and if not then there is chaos.

The Greeks advanced in step singing and chanting their paens, except for the silent Spartans.

'If I had a low IQ, I could be a Drill Sergeant too.' etc.

'Pick up your and follow me, that's the mark of the Infantry.' etc.

AAA-0, magobarca

There are so many people who know very much about ancient wars, arts of wars, and what the soldiering is in here.

So excuse my ignorance, I just show some odd questions from watching movies.
Yesterday, I watched movie, "Druids". The hero in this movie is Verkingetorix, the Gauls who revolts against Caesar,
the guy who appeared the demo version's last map, Alesia.
The movie shows some gaul's towns, Gergovia, Alesia and Bibracte. It seems town is built on hills, and surrounded by walls.
And they seems to do farming, as they burn their crops in the field by horse-drafting cages full of charcoal.

So, they don't look like to be forest wanderers hunting after deers and bears. Building their towns needs somekind of teamwork.
And they seems to have market, too. If their society is such advanced, and they seems to unit themselves on several ocasions,
why don't they know about soldiering?


Second questions is about forming battle line. Nowadays, there are some countries in the world which have anti-riot police.
In most cases, they have shields and battons, watching and sometimes control mobs at the streets.
In some countries, their sheild of see-through plastics, and the not like roman sctum, more like parma, which velites have in LA.
But in other countries, their shields　looks like sctum, made of alminum. So their tactics could be in some ways similar to roman legions.

First sub question is use of their sheilds. Not only bashing with arms intact and heads down against opponents belly, there could be some other
use. Like placing shields horizontally, narrow edge forward against opponents neck, and crushing it at the initial charge.
Or, strike opponents shoes, his instep with under edge of shields and fixing him, then stub with swords.

Second sub question is if roman knew they can pack 2 soldiers against one warriors, maybe they could let roman first line form in loose formation,
so as to immense opponents in to his units, and crush opponents warriors with roman's second lines soldiers.

In this way, against 10 celtic warriors of opponents first line, roman units employ second line of 20 soldiers, and against 10 celtic warriors of second line,
roman employ first line of 20 soldiers.

As forming shield walls, obvious short point is only fractions of your troops per unit is fighting, the other troops in the back is waiting his turn and watch
the situation and prepare himself. So if possible there might be other way to effect every troops in units at the same time.
Roman's solutions seems to be pilum(javelin), but I just want to think there might be other way.

Hi Tora-tora-tora!!!,

The Gauls or Celts or Kelts did have an advanced civilization at that time. They were better metal workers than the Romans, although their swords could range in quality from bad to excellent. Gallic swords were found by archaeologists buried in the mud of Lake Trasimene (Hannibal's 2nd large battle against the Romans in northern Italy) where they had lain for 2,000 years, and some of those Gallic swords were able to be bent to where the point of the blade almost touched the tang (handle) of the blade and when released they sprung back into their correct shape; other Gallic swords would either get bent or even break, it just depended on the quality of the iron ore and who the swordmaker was.

Their cities were very large, and most were defended by very thick walls of stone and wood and earth. They were decent stoneworkers. They were not wandering tribes at this time in history, but were settled with defined territorial boundaries, and had what basically was a feudal system of government at the tribal level. They also had a 'national' council of sorts with an elected leader from amongst all the tribal nations, although this leader's and the council's authority were limited and disunited. The Gauls of the Atlantic coast of France also were decent seafarers and J. Caesar had a hard time defeating their large, rugged sailing ships.

They did train for battle, and could be very disciplined, contrary to the typical stereotype of them always being just a mob of rushing, screaming barbarians. They did practice tactical manuevers. The Gauls could and did form shield walls as did the Germans. Vercingetorex also saw how the Romans effectively used archers, slingers, and javelin skirmishers and he increased their numbers greatly in his armies. Overall, they lacked the higher discipline, better training, and endurance of the Romans, although the gauls were considered by the romans to be very fierce and uncommonly brave. Another fair comparison would be of the Gauls and the Japanese Samurai and other warriors at the time of the attempted Mongol Invasions of Japan. The Mongols and koreans were impressed at the individual fighting prowress and bravery of the Japanese warriors, and were not familiar with the looser and more open and individualistic style of fighting of the Japanese.

The Gauls were similar in mentality to the Vikings and Germans, even the Japanese to some degree, in that they glorified the warrior and tended to treat warfare as a personal game and could get wild and impetuous and fickle, unpredictable. They weren't as well trained and disciplined as the Romans or Greeks, but they were fairly well trained in the art of individual combat and to a lesser extent mass combat in formations. They were not stupid. They were bigger and could also be stronger than the Romans on an individual basis.

That movie "Druids' is rather bad, a 'Class b stinky' IMHO.

Chris

Sending in a first line in loose formation, then backing it with a stronger line in close formation would be a bad idea, especially if you were in the first line. You would want to meet the enemy with as strong a line as possible to limit casualties on your side. The "checkerboard" 3 line pattern depicted for the Roman army is the subject of much debate, and may not have worked that way at all. In particular, the Triarii, often considered to be the hardened veterans and best units, were probably made up of the legion's clerks, artisans, architects, and engineers, etc. They were certainly "veterans", but probably not the best fighters, and were only thrown in as a last resort to save the army from complete disaster. As a last resort, and as "career" soldiers, they were probably charged with holding up the enemy long enough for the rest of the army to escape.

The additional 5 to 15 ranks had several purposes above and beyond repacements, even when their weapons didn't reach the enemy. First, a soldier carrying a heavy sword or spear and wearing 30 to 80 pounds of equipment (more while marching) and fighting for his life is going to get VERY tired in a short amount of time. Part of the purpose of musicians and cadences also may have applied to combat itself, where the front rank would suddenly fall back at some particular point in the cadence, and the second rank would take over, allowing the exhausted front rank to recover. At other times, shieldwall versus shieldwall may have turned into a gigantic shoving match, where each side tried to push the other over backwards, and the additional ranks all added weight to the drive. Finally, if things turned for the worse, the last rank of "file closers", usually older or highly dedicated men, was given the task of preventing the men ahead from deserting.

The light infantry was often equipped with circular shields, which were better for individual combat, while the legionaires carried the rectangular or elongated "scuta", which was optimized for use in a shieldwall. The Gallic shields were initially round, until they had been fighting against the Romans for long enough to adopt many of the same tactics and equipment.

Gallic fortifications were typically built by placing a layer of logs lengthwise, spaced so that no two were touching, and filling the gaps between them with stone. A layer of stone was laid on top of that, and then a second layer of logs were placed, this time at right angles to the first. The process was repeated, creating a wall that was fireproof, yet had the reinforcement of wood to resist rams and siege engines. Gaius Julius (eventually Caesar) noted this on his journals, and appears to have been highly impressed with several aspects of the Gauls' methods of warfare.

Rome's strength was in its ability to field and train an army, send it anywhere in the empire quickly, and keep it supplied for as long as necessary. The Gauls, in comparison, were able to muster an extremely large and powerful army on fairly short notice, but were unable to feed the huge masses, which rapidly degenerated into a feuding mob of seperate tribes and then headed home. The more competent Roman generals learned how to avoid the huge but short-lived collective armies and conquer the individual tribes piecemeal.

The Gauls' strong point was their individual fighting ability and the small but tight-knit village and tribal units, which apparently practiced as a group. The weak link was that there was no strong higher command to weld the little groups of 50-200 men into larger formations, resulting in an almost uncontrollable army. The overall commander might be forced to stop and give directives to every one of the lower tribal leaders, who would otherwise be offended by receiving orders from a mere messenger. Equipment (swords, shields, etc.) varied from group to group, with quality totally dependent on the wealth of the individual tribe or village and the skills of its own craftsmen.

The first line would most likely be skirmishers, and the Gauls could and did use these effectively just as the Romans did and thsi is described in some histories. The Triarii as seperate maniples only existed in the republican manipular System, and beginning with Marius or Caesar or thereabouts as it is not known positively when this occurred, the Legions switched to the Cohortal System, and the Triarii as seperate units vanished, although most probably went to form the 1st Cohort of the newly organized Cohortal Legions. The Republican era Triarii were used as you state, they were the reserves, but many times became involved in the fighting as at Zama and with Scipio in Spain.

Read of the Battle of Telamon in about 224BC, where the Gallic army, about 70,000 strong, fought in 2 directions at once if I am not mistaken, and their ranks held, although they did launch some wild attacks upon the Romans. The Gauls also siezed a dominating hill before the battle and placed their cavalry upon it if I am not mistaken.
In this large battle the Gauls acted and operated as a fairly disciplined mass of troops and held their formation, as about 30,000 survived and I believe escaped the 2 or 3 Roman armies that had them trapped. The Gauls understood tactics and the advantages of terrain. Shortly afte the Battle of Cannae, the gauls in northern Italy ambushed another Roman army in a forest, and killed about 20,000 Roman and Allied troops.

It would seem that they could operate in large formations in a fairly disciplined manner at times. The Gauls that fought at Cannae with hannibal had not been thorughly trined in Carthaginian and Roman tactics, yet they fought a grueling and disciplined defensive battle in the center of Hannibal's line. Later, when Hannibal siezd the port of Taranto, he marched in some of his finest, most well equipped and disciplined troops, and these included units of gauls, who by that time had been thoroughly trained by Hannibal.

Overall, compared to the Romans and greeks, theywere less disciplined and impetuous, fickle and unpredictable, but they could and did at times fight in an organized and disciplined manner, although this was more of an exception to the rule. They did usually rely upon a mass attack, the 'barbarian rush' so to speak, but they usually had a reserve, and did protect their flanks, used their cavalry generally wisely, and knew and utilized the advantages and disadvantages of terrain.

Many of their city walls composed of the lattice-like arrangement of wooden logs and much more stone with stone facing, were very strong and formidable, and those walls caused the Romans many problems.

You have a good point(s) about the Republican triai, since they were not only the most veteran troops, but also the OLDEST with nagging wounds and injuries, but they were proud and stubborn and excellent troops none the less.

Also, it may have been when Marius took the field against the Germanic Cimbri that the legionary maniples were grouped together into cohort-like units, because the Cimbri had crusahed the previous Roman army at Orange I believe, and it seems that this defeated roman army was using the manipular system of tactical unit deployment. The smaller maniples seem not to have been able to stand and resist the larger formations of the Cimbri and their allies.

When Marius fought the Cimbri and defeated them, it was a hard battle, and the Cimbri are said to have basically fought in a shieldwall with white shields and breastplates in a disciplined and stubborn manner.

I just bought Legion Arena at Best Buy for $40, and there were 4 copies there on a bottom shelf with a little dust on them believe it or not, so i moved those copies and put them on the top shelf next to Battle for Middle earth 2, which latter game I may also purchase when the price comes down. i will soon get Cult of Mithra, and am interested in doing a Middle Earth mod. I wonder if the unit graphics files can be used from CoM and LA in the Spartan game engine. I don't know, but in the original Legion there are some fantasy units that can definitelt be used for Middle Earth.

The Gauls were not stupid, and I can't wait to play the Gauls in LA. I have all the older Slitherine games also installed on my computer, and I enjoy playing the Gauls, Germans, Iberians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Illyrians, etc. against the Romans as well as playing the Romans against all those 'barbarian hordes'.

Magobarca, aka Flavius Cornelius Silva (There was another Silva that commanded what I believe was the 3rd or 4th Roman army that invaded britain, Flaviys Cornelius was in command at Massada, although I prefer the republic to the empire era. Silvanus was the Roman diety of forest and field, he drank a lot with Bachus and Minerva and all those bewitching forest sprites and wood nymphs etc.)

Wow, this thread has been busy!

As far as actual man-on-man tactics used by the legions, all I know is that they were very fond of a thrust to the upper thigh of an unarmored or lightly armored oponent. This was apparently one of their standard moves, taught to recruits from day one of their swordwork training.

You will love the Gallic campaign. It's really quite desperate for the last 1/3 or so. You are often faced with both time and casualty constraints.

I found that my usual training and equipment strategy worked very well.

1/3 Warriors
1/3 Veterans
1/3 Heavy Cavalry
and a few bowmen

Infantry go Swordsman, Drill, Feint in strict rotation, with a break for Disciplined Formations at L6. Frenzy comes available at L13, and from there on, they are killing machines. Next work on Armor Penetration. Expert Drill is enough, no need for Master Drill.

Cavalry go Swordsman, Drill, Feint in strict rotation, with a break for Trample at L8. Frenzy comes available at L13, and from there on, they are killing machines. Next work on Armor Penetration and more Trample. Expert Drill is enough, no need for Master Drill.

Armor the crap out of your Cavalry and Veterans, and buy them the best weapons you can possibly afford.

The Warriors the same, but at a lower priority.

If you follow this regimen strictly, you will find in the late campaign, when things get really harsh, that your troops are capable of minor miracles. They will eat Legionaires raw, and not even pause to spit out the bones.

Now, this was pre-patch.

Patch notes say, "The balancing of numerous units has been tweaked to improve multiplayer and make Romans vs Gauls a fair fight."

Let's hope fervently that FC is too smart to fall into the old trap of tweaking stuff to adjust multi-player, and screwing up the single-player game.

If they have nerfed the Gauls' units, the gallic gampaign may be hosed...



Do not waste any money on Fanatics, they'll hurt you badly later on, when the harsh casualty limits come into play, and they level up so very s-l-o-w-l-y...

Hi Possum,

That thrust-to-the-thigh manuever you mentioned has stirred some cobwebs in my belfry and I recall that. Good info there. You know quite a bit. It is also possible that the Romans may have deliberately 'hooked-shield side edges with an enemy" to open up an area for a thrust. They were smart, and though. Just picture a whole bunch of short Romans hunched down behind that large scutum with the galadius held back in readiness for a thrust. They were trained to hack with them too, when an opportunity presented itself or if necsessary. That is a nasty sword. 'Shield-hooking' was a manuever from latter times and and axe was one weapon used to hook an enemy's shield, then pull the top of the shield towards yuo and thrust forward wiht the battle-aze or hand-axe into the enemy's face. You don't sink the blade into the top of the enemy's shield, rather you catch the top of the shield below the axe-head on the haft, and then pull the shield toward you. SCA stuff from original sources etc.

I made it to the Batlle of Cynocephalae in Macedon and it took me about 10 times to win it on normal, but when I won it I slaughtered the Macedonians. I kept a lot of low level early troops in my little legion and just upgraded them so I have an army that is not strong in legionaires, only 1 of each type. makes it hard to win but it is fun. I finally found the right spot in my line for my Eqyuite unit and I tried many variations before I won. I am saving that game.

I am following your upgrade advice just about to the tea with my Romans, and even the upgraded low level milita and spearmen and scouts are pretty good. thanx for the gallic advice, but i don't know if I will make it through the Roman campaign!!

Remeber the Great battles of Alexander, hannibal and caesar games?? they were good and had a decent scenario and map editor and also could be modded. I still like like Legion Gold, Sparta and Got and CoW. i have to dig up my old saved modded files on those. At the old Legion Forum I was the first to get the Legionaires to throw their pilums by doodling with the text files and following Ian's instructions, then about 1 week or so after I got it to work some other fellow came up with a simpler mod string and it worked too, but according to ian and the instructions it shouldn't have worked but it did!! %-) I believe modding is a love-hate type of thing.

I just patched the game but am dtill in the Rome campaign. ***However, maybe you or someone else might know what the deal is on this: when i put the disk in to start the game, a pop-up appears with blank click boxes on it!! if you click the top boc it will start the game, and most of the click-boxes below that are inet connections. how come there is not any words on those click boxes to explain what they are, or do I have a partially whacky install??

Great game, but I wish there was a 2D option. Nice crisp graphics in 2D that looks like 3D IMHO in Legion and Sparttan and GoT.

Take care and thanx for the info, Magobarca or Chris

PS: I have to look for that Carthage mod again, and then try to unlock the Gallic campaign, and I know I read how to do that here and may have copied the posts. Darn Elephants are real tough, but with all the upgrades and melee and missile fire against them, they can be dropped, but I saw that you needed 2 or more units for Pachyderm unit. I may make them a bit less tough, don't know though.

Hi Tora-tora-tora!!!,

The Gauls or Celts or Kelts did have an advanced civilization at that time. They were better metal workers than the Romans, although their swords could range in quality from bad to excellent. Gallic swords were found by archaeologists buried in the mud of Lake Trasimene (Hannibal's 2nd large battle against the Romans in northern Italy) where they had lain for 2,000 years, and some of those Gallic swords were able to be bent to where the point of the blade almost touched the tang (handle) of the blade and when released they sprung back into their correct shape; other Gallic swords would either get bent or even break, it just depended on the quality of the iron ore and who the swordmaker was.

***BTW, the lake where those springy Gallic swords were found was Neufchatel or Neuchatel, domething like that and in france i believe. I think Peter connolly mentions that in his book and he witnessed this incredible events several times at the archeology-dig site I guess.

magobarca, mago-bark-a could be celtic or Entish.

Ave magobarca,

I have read your posts with great interest, and, apart from a few spelling and grammatical errors, they are extremely informative. I applaud your enthusiasm and long may it continue.

However, I feel as though I must correct your information in one aspect, "Flavi(y?)s Cornelius was in command at Mas(s?)ada" this is not right. (spelling?)

Please see my post of Dec. 6 2005 http://www.slitherine.com/eslitherine/f ... .php?t=590 you will note that his name was L(ucio) Flavio Silva Nonio Basso or L(ucius) Flavius Silva Nonius Bassus.

Please explain "(There was another Silva that commanded what I believe was the 3rd or 4th Roman army that invaded britain,), I don't understand? When was this event?

Keep up the good work, 5/10 for spelling and grammar, 10/10 for content. Might I respectfully suggest that you reread your posts in the preview screen before you finally submit them. Please feel free to criticise me in return if you think it to be appropriate. I'm neither driven by ego nor any need to prove myself.

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

PS. Please don't be offended by any of the above, it's meant as constructive criticism.

When he says 3rd or 4th roman army that invaded britain, I assumed he was referring to Claudius' invasion, when the romans arrived in several distinct waves...

magobarca wrote: I just patched the game but am dtill in the Rome campaign. ***However, maybe you or someone else might know what the deal is on this: when i put the disk in to start the game, a pop-up appears with blank click boxes on it!! if you click the top boc it will start the game, and most of the click-boxes below that are inet connections. how come there is not any words on those click boxes to explain what they are, or do I have a partially whacky install??

ROFL

Hey, Ian, see this? Sound familiar?

No, mago, you don't have a wacky install. It's an odd bug with the game that seems to affect about a half dozen of us who post here.

What OS are you running?

I reported it back here -
http://www.slitherine.com/eslitherine/f ... .php?t=618

Hello Possum,

I am running Windows 98SE on a 1.8Ghz Pent4, 512MB of RAM, etc., but the OS I bet is not the prblem. The problem may be that the Strategy First patch is no good, and there is a size difference (kbs) between it and other patches at different sites, so I might try a patch from a different site.

Poop. This is rotten and stinks.

Mago-poopus-barca