Slitherine

A question for the authors; Why is Mithridates not allowed to be an Inspirational Leader? Wasn't he "Great"?

Thanks for your insight into the list design.

Mike B

Not on the battlefield he wasn't

mbsparta wrote:A question for the authors; Why is Mithridates not allowed to be an Inspirational Leader? Wasn't he "Great"?

The criterion is whether he was an exceptionally good general. He wasn't.

rbodleyscott wrote:The criterion is whether he was an exceptionally good general. He wasn't.

But if his people loved and were prepared to die for him he was inspirational.

A lot of players use IC's and do badly.

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:The criterion is whether he was an exceptionally good general. He wasn't.

But if his people loved and were prepared to die for him he was inspirational.

Fails on that score as well I fear.

people can get called "the Great" for reasons other than military ones - Theodosius is probably a good example, he is "the Great" more for his Christianity than his generalship, which was OK but nothing special.

A lot of players use IC's and do badly.

Who mentioned Tim?

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:The criterion is whether he was an exceptionally good general. He wasn't.

But if his people loved and were prepared to die for him he was inspirational.

He may have been (but probably wasn't) inspirational, but he certainly wasn't inspired. RTFM.

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:The criterion is whether he was an exceptionally good general. He wasn't.

But if his people loved and were prepared to die for him he was inspirational.

Fails on that score as well I fear.

people can get called "the Great" for reasons other than military ones - Theodosius is probably a good example, he is "the Great" more for his Christianity than his generalship, which was OK but nothing special.

And Pompey the Great, who essentially just mopped up after Lucullus, but got the credit. (Or was it because of clearing the sea of pirates?). Either way, it wasn't because of great generalship, as was demonstrated as Pharsalus.

this does actually lead me to a question on status of IC.

most of the benifit appears to be morale based and control of the terrain.

yet it means you are less likely to get first turn. which seems to be something most generals that fit the obvious criteria would go for (decisive moves taking control of the battle, often by a lightning strike)

this leads me to question if some of the great generals would in fact not be inspired under FOG?

Ben

Pompey was given the moniker early in his career, possibly ironically, simply because of his physical resemblance to Alexander and the fact that both of them became Commanders very young. He was a talented man, but only in matters of planning and management. On the battlefield itself he indeed seems to have been a bit of a liability, although in terms of boosting morale, rallying waverers and controlling battle groups he was probably quite good.

On commander classifications in general I think the most unfair are in Immortal Fire, which gives Mardonius FC and Pausanias (who decisively beat him at Plataea) only TC. A case of sour grapes from a Persia enthusiast on the panel?

Eques wrote:On commander classifications in general I think the most unfair are in Immortal Fire, which gives Mardonius FC and Pausanias (who decisively beat him at Plataea) only TC. A case of sour grapes from a Persia enthusiast on the panel?

I doubt if any 5th century Hoplite general deserves to be better than a TC. There wasn't much role for generaliship in the hoplite system.

Beating someone doesn't necessarily imply better generalship, especially when you have a superior military system. (From a scissors/paper/stone point of view in your optimal terrain).

After all, the Romans won an empire with mostly mediocre generals.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Eques wrote:On commander classifications in general I think the most unfair are in Immortal Fire, which gives Mardonius FC and Pausanias (who decisively beat him at Plataea) only TC. A case of sour grapes from a Persia enthusiast on the panel?

I doubt if any 5th century Hoplite general deserves to be better than a TC. There wasn't much role for generaliship in the hoplite system.

Beating someone doesn't necessarily imply better generalship, especially when you have a superior military system. (From a scissors/paper/stone point of view in your optimal terrain).

After all, the Romans won an empire with mostly mediocre generals.

............ I beg your pardon!! .... But I do agree in part. I am of the school that believes that the Roman military system(s) was developed, or rather was sustained, in part, because it could win in spite of the general. Sort of a Darwin-like thing. The army system worked and thus survived. Occasionally there was a mutation. The better mutations (Camilan reforms, Marian etc.) survived and flourished. Then global warming killed off the LRRs forever.

As for Mithridates; I will give you that he was no battlefield master. I could also argue that a man that need to poison himself daily was not really a great fan of his people or army. But I don't think we can underestimate his influence on the campaigns and politics of his era. The Romans clearly saw him as dangerous adversary and went to great lenghts to defeat him. As for Pompey ... It is unfair to judge him on Pharsalus alone. That day he simply faced a better man. Up until then or at least the Rubicon, he was the first-man in Rome. If we could go back to those days I wonder what the Vegas odds would have been; Pompey to win I would imagine.

Enjoyable discission ... Thanks
Mike B

It should remembered that Sertorius also made a fool of him (Pompey) on a number of occasions.

I am always amazed by how few defeats Rome suffered over seven, count 'em, centuries (300 bc - 400 ad).

I can only think of Cannae, Trebbia, Trasimene, Carrhae, Teutoberger Wald, Adrianapole and the Cimbri victory before Marius got involved (can't remember the name).

Even many of the above were down to special circumstances like treachery, ambush or division amongst the Roman command.

Eques wrote:It should remembered that Sertorius also made a fool of him (Pompey) on a number of occasions.

I am always amazed by how few defeats Rome suffered over seven, count 'em, centuries (300 bc - 400 ad).

I can only think of Cannae, Trebbia, Trasimene, Carrhae, Teutoberger Wald, Adrianapole and the Cimbri victory before Marius got involved (can't remember the name).

These are only the famous ones, they in fact suffered countless defeats over those 7 centuries. Even Mithridates Eupator (or his generals) defeated several Roman armies.

The main virtue of the Romans was that they could "take a licking and go on ticking".

If you look at Polybios's analysis of the situation prior to the 2nd Punic War you can see that Carthage was doomed from the start, simply on the basis of available manpower reserves. Add to that the fact that the Romans did not know how to give up....

I think the second factor trumps the first though.