#1 Edited by Chaos Prime (10582 posts) - - Show Bio
Alexander the Great

V

Rules - Both characters get a Roman Legion to command roughly 4,100 soldiers.

Alexander & Hannibal get 72hrs prep & full info on each other to plan their strategy.

The 2 Generals will not be taking part themselves in this encounter.

Their troops will be armed with a long shield, Spear & Sword along with their usual Armour.No Archers!!(now there are)

The 2 armies will start 2 miles apart (image below of battle ground).

Whos Legion reigns supreme?

Roman Legion.

Scene of battle, clears skies on the Russian steppes.

Edit - There are now 100 archers on each side armed with regular Bows for that period & 40 arrows per man.

#2 Posted by Outside_85 (7075 posts) - - Show Bio

Flipping a coin. It's a vast open plain, both sides have the same amount of solider's that has the same gear, 3 days of drilling isn't going to make much of a difference, and the commanders are nowhere in sight.

#3 Posted by Chaos Prime (10582 posts) - - Show Bio
#4 Posted by RDClip (1068 posts) - - Show Bio

This battle doesn't make sense. No archers? What about cavelry? Alexander's army was known for using the long spear in the phalanx formation. Hannibal had at least a couple of Elephants. 4000 seems way too low for armies of that period.

#5 Edited by Outside_85 (7075 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_prime: The problem is that you've taken two generals that led from the front, and removed them and you've given them someone elses' soldiers to fight with. So this fight will be decided on chance and the two generals giving out the right pointers for the commanders thats going to be in the field and outside of the generals supervision.

#6 Edited by Chaos Prime (10582 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

This battle doesn't make sense. No archers? What about cavelry? Alexander's army was known for using the long spear in the phalanx formation. Hannibal had at least a couple of Elephants. 4000 seems way too low for armies of that period.

First off a legion had from either 1000 to 6000 soldiers.Secondly this is down to tactics/strategy by probably 2 of the most famous guys in history regardless of equipment & types of men at arms.

It all boils down to who gives the better orders to win this encounter.

@outside_85 imo its not down to chance.Troop moral will play a big part & the charisma of the generals.Again this battle will be won imo before a spear is thrown/sword struck by which General gives the better prep talk & motivates his men more :)

#7 Posted by Outside_85 (7075 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_prime: I am assuming the two groups start the three day's prep at the same level, but a lot morale is down to the individual soldier when the focus point isn't there to lead them on, and they aren't even there to shout encouragements. Were they present, I would probably give it to Alexander due to his tendency to be in the thick of the fight and because there's no terrain for Hannibal to exploit properly.

#8 Posted by Chaos Prime (10582 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_prime: I am assuming the two groups start the three day's prep at the same level, but a lot morale is down to the individual soldier when the focus point isn't there to lead them on, and they aren't even there to shout encouragements. Were they present, I would probably give it to Alexander due to his tendency to be in the thick of the fight and because there's no terrain for Hannibal to exploit properly.

Yep same levels weapons etc But being professional soldiers im sure they will take everything into account from wot their generals orders/demanded of them.

#9 Posted by Outside_85 (7075 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_prime: But that's still the problem here, you are fighting on a completely flat surface, both sides are armed with the same gear and soldiers in the same amount. There are no real wildcards on the battlefield that can provide a deciding factor (ala a cavalry charge, special units or people).What you have is Alexander and Hannibal sitting back in camp trying to second guess one another's tactics and counting on the Roman Legionares to be able to deal with it. Not to mention the Legion is a particular unit as well in the sense that it's strongest in blocks so they can lock shields, which leaves it somewhat inflexible.

#10 Edited by RazzaTazz (9348 posts) - - Show Bio

It would seem logical that Hannibal would have a slight edge as he would have likely studied the tactics of Alexander seeing as he came along over 100 years later.

Moderator
#11 Edited by Fallschirmjager (11522 posts) - - Show Bio

@razzatazz said:

It would seem logical that Hannibal would have a slight edge as he would have likely studied the tactics of Alexander seeing as he came along over 100 years later.

Agreed. In a pure tactical situation, I would give Hannibal the slight edge here. His victories against Rome are still some of the worst defeats they ever suffered over their entire history.

Alexander wins a strategical situation though (not that one is present in this scenario) and his conquest of the middle east was equally impressive given the short amount of time.

@rdclip said:

This battle doesn't make sense. No archers? What about cavelry? Alexander's army was known for using the long spear in the phalanx formation. Hannibal had at least a couple of Elephants. 4000 seems way too low for armies of that period.

Given't that he used the number 4000, I'm assuming he is using an early legion which would have been about 4,200 legionaries at full strength. All legions of this time would have had their own cavalry detachment usually around 300~ men.

A late period legion (closer to 5200) would not only have its own cavalry, but siege equipment, archers, medical staff, supply chain ...etc.

#12 Posted by Chaos Prime (10582 posts) - - Show Bio

Bumping with a slight edit :)