tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7386336651732048473.post2002187277493990754..comments2024-03-25T17:26:33.773+09:00Comments on Here's no great matter: Pyrrhic campaign: Heraclea, 280BCPrufrockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17659918463589870423noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7386336651732048473.post-46383506139802070172014-07-19T20:04:05.464+09:002014-07-19T20:04:05.464+09:00I should like to edit for the above text that you ...I should like to edit for the above text that you read "It is worth bearing in mind that even at the time of Hannibal's invasion of Italy in 218 B.C., neither Consul were given command of MORE THAN the normal two legions for a consular army, in spite of the dangerous gravity of the situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7386336651732048473.post-20660250825774169672014-07-19T19:24:21.242+09:002014-07-19T19:24:21.242+09:00One thing that I think your scenario shows to good...One thing that I think your scenario shows to good effect and which must have been a serious issue for Pyrrhus in all three of his encounters is the risk of his line being outflanked by the Romans. If one assumes that the majority of Pyrrhus's infantry were pikes, as I think one should, then these would have been formed up in phalanx formations of some depth and this would have had the effect of shortening his line - which is probably why he stood on the defensive - possibly on the slightly higher ground to the south of the River Siris between the modern day towns of Anglona and Troili, which would make sense militarily. The only problem with this is that the battle would have taken place nearer to the ancient city of Pandosia rather than Heraclea from which it takes its name but on the whole I think it is far more logical that the Greek camp would have been on this higher ground where it overlooked the course of the River rather than on the flatter ground nearer Heraclea (modern day Policoro) and a general of the calibre of Pyrrhus would surely have seen the advantage of this. Even allowing for the regular Roman deployment in the triplex acies formation, the Roman line must have very likely extended well beyond that of the Greek line unless Laevinus formed up with his maniples directly behind each other as Scipio did at Zama, which is highly unlikely and your demonstration shows this well and I think this fact underlines the importance of Pyrrhus's strength in the cavalry arm, which contrary to Jeff Jonas's re-enactment, I think must have given Pyrrhus a numerical superiority in this arm, as he is likely to have enjoyed in all three of his battles with the Romans. Again, as previously stated in another one of your website forum threads, I disagree with your numbers for this battle on the basis that Laevinus was clearly the only Consul on the battlefield and that he therefore could have had no more than two legions. It is worth bearing in mind that even at the time of Hannibal's invasion of Italy in 218 B.C., neither Consul were given command of the normal two legions for a consular army, in spite of the dangerous gravity of the situation. For the reasons I have previously stated, I therefore reassert my previous belief that the numbers for each army should therefore be reduced to about 25,000 on each side with the Romans having a slight numerical superiority if one accepts the testimony of Justinus. That said, I always enjoy revisiting your website as I do that of Jeff Jonas, not purely for the thought provoking issues that it helps to raise but for the aesthetics of the photography. Nice work Prufrock. Steve C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7386336651732048473.post-10718729204370851002012-04-17T07:54:45.896+09:002012-04-17T07:54:45.896+09:00Interesting battle report. Even in the few games o...Interesting battle report. Even in the few games of Lost Battles I've played I have learnt to be nervous of the loss of a general. This one illustrates why!TWRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980598327408683598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7386336651732048473.post-16041562245947152722012-04-05T01:26:58.762+09:002012-04-05T01:26:58.762+09:00There were surprising results all round, but it wa...There were surprising results all round, but it was a most enjoyable day! Am looking forward to the next round :)Prufrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17659918463589870423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7386336651732048473.post-5488813276826870362012-04-03T04:01:16.827+09:002012-04-03T04:01:16.827+09:00Nice work both of you, especially the photos.Nice work both of you, especially the photos.Andrew Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7386336651732048473.post-7240184937310199472012-04-02T10:49:50.502+09:002012-04-02T10:49:50.502+09:00A great game, although I'm very surprised the ...A great game, although I'm very surprised the victory points were quite as skewed as they were: to lose by over 70 points, nearly double what was required for a major victory, and yet have only one unit shattered - on the 9th turn, didn't seem right.<br /><br />A major victory OK, but not a incredibly comfortable one...Luke Ueda-Sarsonnoreply@blogger.com