The Massaliot league. A Hellenistic period Massalia Timeline

[Sersor]

Here too, I figure the Romans discount the sheer breadth and depth of Massaliote possessions and people giving it allegiance, because they discount its leadership as decadent, pleasure seeking, and while they know the tagmas are forces to be reckoned with, they underestimate both the resolve of the League to use them if their own heartlands are threatened and the ability of the League to muster competent forces.

Yes the Romans underestimated the Massaliot league. After all we talk about antiquity here. Spy Intel is pretty much non existence( i mean about enemy stats, demographics,production etc). Romans new that the league had an army in Sicily and one against Hannibal so i think it was a valid plan from their perspective. One big problem for Scipio was that he didn't find support from Gaul tribes to boost his army(unlike Hannibal in OTL in Italy). The hellenisation of the Gauls, the open society/citizenship towards Gauls by Massaliot League and the spread of Epicurean Druidism made the Gauls in that area to feel more Massaliotes than anything else.

They appear to have underestimated not only the subtle factors but gross ones too, like how fast a tagma could be mustered and then marched across country.

Yes exactly! The reformations of Alaksagoras in 271 BC made Massalia and especially the heartlands able to produce good quality armour and weapons really fast. About march across the country, the major manpool cities of Massalia,Tolosa and Emporion are really close and have a very good road network( i mention the major road build in previous posts)

From 271 BC Alaksagoras reformations:
The Industry was developed also. New state factories builded. Artefacts,furnitures,pottery,textile manufacturing were produced in abundance, weapon and armour manufacturing(a blend of Gaul-Greek techniques) were Massalian specialties. The screw chain, the wheel chain, the cam chain, the ratchet chain, the pulley chain, and the screw press were all in use.

But I forget there are yet more lessons and more ways in which the situation differs from modern ones. In modern nations, there is no way that an amphibious descent on a port followed by direct advance on an enemy capital could work; it would be a salient quickly cut off, and there is no way such an expedition could have the punch necessary to take the capital. But in these ancient times, populations are lower, great empires are generally cobbled together with relatively small forces intimidating populations into client status, and such a move as Philopoemen's gamble can have dramatic effect, if it pays off. This is what the Romans figured they could do to Massalia after all, and that it would demoralize the League.

Well said.

 

[Shevek23]

I see no update yet on how the battle of Rome turned out. I just glanced over the posts--I'm not overlooking one am I? I do that sometimes.

This is not pressure to post faster! You post pretty fast and regularly, and I do not mean to rush you. Only to verify I didn't overlook anything and we are still in suspense.

Looking forward to updates with patience!

 

[Sersor]

I see no update yet on how the battle of Rome turned out. I just glanced over the posts--I'm not overlooking one am I? I do that sometimes.

This is not pressure to post faster! You post pretty fast and regularly, and I do not mean to rush you. Only to verify I didn't overlook anything and we are still in suspense.

Looking forward to updates with patience!

I am writing the next one but i am not sure how would Hannibal deal with the situation. Any suggestion are more than welcome!

ps: Most of the victories of the League was due their combine arms tactics and not just the use of artillery.

 

[Avrorrange]

I am writing the next one but i am not sure how would Hannibal deal with the situation. Any suggestion are more than welcome!

ps: Most of the victories of the League was due their combine arms tactics and not just the use of artillery.

With Massaliot naval superiority,he's sitting ducks unless he can destroy the Massaliot armies in Iberia in a a single engagement and then make a straight dash across the Pyrenees to try and force peace negotiations for better outcomes.He also has to hope that the Romans can repel the Massaliot invasion of Italy.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

With Massaliot naval superiority,he's sitting ducks unless he can destroy the Massaliot armies in Iberia in a a single engagement and then make a straight dash across the Pyrenees to try and force peace negotiations for better outcomes.He also has to hope that the Romans can repel the Massaliot invasion of Italy.

The other option is to take the Barcid Kingdom and re-establish the old territories, whilst taking anything the League leaves unsupported. He could well support himself there. He'll just need to hold out with some good defensive territory until he can perform some territorial coups.

 

[Avrorrange]

The other option is to take the Barcid Kingdom and re-establish the old territories, whilst taking anything the League leaves unsupported. He could well support himself there. He'll just need to hold out with some good defensive territory until he can perform some territorial coups.

Not a viable strategy.It's proven from the last war that resources from Barcid territory alone isn't enough to defeat Rome.There's no point fighting a war of attrition where you know the strength of your enemy far dwarfs yours.Plus,Carthage itself would be left vulnerable if you are stuck in Iberia.The only chance Hannibal has would be to seek a decisive battle preferably through an ambush (where you can negate Massalian advantages and minimize your own losses) to wipe out a large force Massaliot troops and then march his way past the Pyrenees to threaten Massaliot homeland in order to hammer a less disadvantageous peace.

 

[James XI]

I am writing the next one but i am not sure how would Hannibal deal with the situation. Any suggestion are more than welcome!

ps: Most of the victories of the League was due their combine arms tactics and not just the use of artillery.

First, he'll risk an open battle, but it'll be on ground of his choosing. We're talking one of the 2-3 greatest military thinkers of all time. So think like him...which means think like the Massilian commanders. Hannibal always had great field Intel about his enemy leaders and forces. So he'll take what you do best/most, and use it against you. At Trebia he used their aggression and confidence and courage, plus their lack of proper reconnaissance, and got them to fight his fight, enveloped them and destroyed them. Wrote the textbook single envelomrnt.

At Trasimene, he used their anger and desire for revenge, their (still) poor reconnaissance and added some deceit...got the Romans thinking they'd caught up to the straggling end of the Carthahinian column, knowing they'd take the bait...and drew them into the textbook ambush.

At Cannae...well, that can wait. The point is, he's a genius at this stuff, a true magician. He and Napoleon...separated by 2,000 years...are the only generals in history who were so unbeatable that their enemies adopted an overt and official policy of not engaging any army that they were leading in battle. He's that good.

 

[Falecius]

First, he'll risk an open battle, but it'll be on ground of his choosing. We're talking one of the 2-3 greatest military thinkers of all time. So think like him...which means think like the Massilian commanders. Hannibal always had great field Intel about his enemy leaders and forces. So he'll take what you do best/most, and use it against you. At Trebia he used their aggression and confidence and courage, plus their lack of proper reconnaissance, and got them to fight his fight, enveloped them and destroyed them. Wrote the textbook single envelomrnt.

At Trasimene, he used their anger and desire for revenge, their (still) poor reconnaissance and added some deceit...got the Romans thinking they'd caught up to the straggling end of the Carthahinian column, knowing they'd take the bait...and drew them into the textbook ambush.

At Cannae...well, that can wait. The point is, he's a genius at this stuff, a true magician. He and Napoleon...separated by 2,000 years...are the only generals in history who were so unbeatable that their enemies adopted an overt and official policy of not engaging any army that they were leading in battle. He's that good.

Interestingly, both lost.

 

[Sceonn]

Hannibal simply does not have the Resources to do much more than a better coordinated insurgency.
His only purpose in this war is to divide Massaliot's attention between Rome and Iberia, and hope that Rome wins.

 

[Skallagrim]

Interestingly, both lost.

One might argue - and I would argue - that both men were brilliant tacticians, but could be defeated by a strategically superior enemy. And if the enemy has logistics and sheer manpowr on his side, there's only so far tactical genius can carry you.

I'll say this, though: Hannibal was such a gifted tactician that his tactical victories had effect on the strategic level. The Romans were right to be scared of him, and no sane man should ever underestimate such a man.

Which is why this sort of thinking...

Hannibal simply does not have the Resources to do much more than a better coordinated insurgency.
His only purpose in this war is to divide Massaliot's attention between Rome and Iberia, and hope that Rome wins.

...could actually be very dangerous in-universe in TTL for Massalia. If they reason like this, Hannibal gets an opportunity to suprise them with the sort of sudden move no other commander would even consider.

 

[Sceonn]

...could actually be very dangerous in-universe in TTL for Massalia. If they reason like this, Hannibal gets an opportunity to surprise them with the sort of sudden move no other commander would even consider.

You're selling the guy too high. He was an audacious and talented general, not a magician. Hannibal at this point is "In League", not Leading, the Iberian tribes. You think those tribes don't remember that the Barcids were doing the exact same thing Massaliot is doing now? Every thing he wants done has to be agreed on by the tribes, his authority only extends that far. And they won't take orders from him on the battlefield, but from their own leaders who also won't take orders from Hannibal.

The realities of OTL and ITTL are entirely different. You are using the 'Hannibal is great' card while dismiss the Man's actual reality of his current situation.

Hannibal can win a hundred victories, but he can't win the war. Rome's incursion into Massalia proper fumbled and will not be repeated while the City of Rome itself is threatened. Massallia rules the seas therefore Hannibal is completely cut off from his Allies, should they even be inclined to give a damn about him considering their own situations.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Hannibal can win a hundred victories, but he can't win the war.

The Hannibal/Napoleon curse.

 

[Falecius]

One might argue - and I would argue - that both men were brilliant tacticians, but could be defeated by a strategically superior enemy. And if the enemy has logistics and sheer manpowr on his side, there's only so far tactical genius can carry you.

I'll say this, though: Hannibal was such a gifted tactician that his tactical victories had effect on the strategic level. The Romans were right to be scared of him, and no sane man should ever underestimate such a man.

Which is why this sort of thinking...



...could actually be very dangerous in-universe in TTL for Massalia. If they reason like this, Hannibal gets an opportunity to suprise them with the sort of sudden move no other commander would even consider.

I agree.
Note also, however, that Hannibal ITTL is not exactly the same person we all know and love (somewhat different genes, that may matter little, and clearly different experiences and upbringing, that likely matter more).

 

[Falecius]

The Hannibal/Napoleon curse.

I admit that both had a chance to win the war historically. (Nap more so, I believe). Unlikely in bot cases, but they weren't against impossible odds, just unfavorable ones.

 

[Falecius]

Also, there's a critical difference between Hannibal and Napoleon: the latter failed politically when he was entirely in charge. Hannibal was a theater commander. Carthage's ultimate defeat was decided, to a point at least, regardless of the strategic advantage that Hannibal indeed gained in Italy (arguably Spain turned out to be the decisive theater).

 

[Falecius]

To elaborate: even today, after two millennia and two centuries, Cannae is a byword for decisive, catastrophic defeat against favorable odds (or the reverse). That battle is still studied as a tactical masterpiece, 'cause it was. Still, the party in the war who enjoyed such an utter success, such a totally decisive victory* - ultimately lost. That battle did change the strategic picture, temporarily, at the theater level - but even then, the Romans did not lose confidence enough to pull out from Spain (which possibly Hannibal hoped, and would have changed the strategic picture enough to at least even the odds).

* In most other contexts, a party who suffers this type of disaster just throws the towel - the Romans are remarkable because the didn't, and won.

 

[Avrorrange]

So how much cavalry does both sides currently have?Also,how much more cavalry can both sides further recruit?This is the important part.As far as infantry goes,the Romans can probably still conjure a lot of infantry and still put up a significant fight with competent leadership.The same with regards to the Massaliots.The factor that really limits the two sides' performance is the number of cavalry they can bring to the field.As we know,Hannibal and Scipio can both continue to do amazing things as long as they have enough cavalry.It's the number of cavalry that really limits their performance.

 

[Sersor]

So how much cavalry does both sides currently have?Also,how much more cavalry can both sides further recruit?This is the important part.As far as infantry goes,the Romans can probably still conjure a lot of infantry and still put up a significant fight with competent leadership.The same with regards to the Massaliots.The factor that really limits the two sides' performance is the number of cavalry they can bring to the field.As we know,Hannibal and Scipio can both do continue to do amazing things as long as they have enough cavalry.It's the number of cavalry that really limits their performance.

Valid points. I am going to post the next turn really soon(30 min?). I am writing there about this issues.

In general, Hannibal have way more bigger cavalry pool than Scipio.

 

[Sersor]

207 BC part 1

Hannibal left a detachment of 8,000 troops to garrison the newly conquered region and departed from Cathago Nova in spring of 207 BC. After a small siege he conquered Akrotiri. Then he fought his way through the Massaliot League allied northern tribes to the foothills of the Pyrenees, subduing the tribes through clever mountain tactics and stubborn fighting. At the Pyrenees, he released 5,000 Iberian troops who showed reluctance to leave their homeland. Hannibal reportedly entered South Gaul with thirty four thousands foot soldiers and seven thousands horsemen.
Hannibal's march brought him into the heartland of the League’s territory and frustrated the attempts of the enemy to fight out the main issue on foreign ground. The League army under Nikephoros was rushed to Emporion and the federal council had ordered the League’s army in Italy to make peace with Rome and bring his army back from Italy.

Italy theatre

The League with Hannibal on her heartlands decided to accept the Roman offer for peace and lift the siege of Rome.

Although Hannibal was near, the end of the war with Rome did not meet with a universal welcome in Massalia. When the federal council decreed upon a peace treaty with Rome, Alkiviadis, a former general, said he did not look upon the termination of the war as a blessing to Massalia, since he feared that if Rome was not completely destroyed it would soon regain its power and pose new threats to the League, he pressed for harsher peace-conditions. Even after the peace, Alkiviadis insisted on the destruction of Rome, ending all his speeches with “Rome must be destroyed”, even if they had nothing to do with Rome.
In the peace agreement Rome lost South Italy,Cisalpine Gaul and the League firmly established her power there over large areas(via vassals). The league imposed a war indemnity of 10,000 talents, limited the Roman navy to 5 ships (to ward off pirates), and forbade Rome from raising an army without the League permission. The League, on the other hand, by her victory, had taken a key step towards what ultimately became her domination of the west Mediterranean world. The Meagale Hellas League,by popular demand of their democratic assembly, was disbanded and joined as new members of the Massaliot League. A new nomes under the jurisdiction of Syracuse was formed. A new company/political party Neoi was formed also, representing Megale Hellas polis. Taratnum/Taranto(a former Spartan colony) and the near by area decided to join the Spartan Kingdom.

Iberia theatre

The dynatoi expedition in Africa left a detachment of five thousands in Lixus nomes and departed for Orestiko were another tagma from Asturica together with fifteen thousand Callaeci and Vaccaei tribes allied troops waiting to join them.

 

[gianni_rivera]

The league may be better off to have a rival than having them all vanquished and stagnated.