Magna Graecia: Titanomachia (A City State Quest)

None of the strategoi anticipate being able to make Taras surrender. Very few citizens are interested in investing themselves into a multi-year siege that will keep them away from home in unpleasant conditions especially with an election next year. The goal is to force Taras to concede defeat and come to terms, not to destroy them. There isn't a great deal of enmity against Taras in the city and little enthusiasm for an ambitious attempt to secure total hegemony over the entire Sallentine peninsula when that attempt is likely to be expensive in lives and liable to diplomatic intervention from other Italiote Greeks.

Admiral Skippy said:

There are reasons why full blockade only starts to become a regular or successful naval tactic in the 18th century, with ships with vastly greater endurance and sea-keeping than the kind we're using. Even then, you had to be the Royal Navy to pull it off.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The Athenians blockaded Syracuse effectively during their siege of the city. However, the geography of Taras makes a blockade awkward.



The red outline is the approximate boundaries of the ancient city of Taras (it was originally a peninsula, not an island, with only one entrance into the Mar Piccolo). The blue wall would be the siege wall cutting the city off from land, and the blue circle and dotted line the naval camp and the blockade respectively. However, as you might have noticed, there is a large body of water called the Mar Piccolo, which was famed in antiquity as a brilliant natural harbor. It is from here that the Tarentines could potentially row food across the bay, and so ships have to run double duty, preventing naval entrance into the city from two different points. Total success in a siege is thus quite difficult, even with naval supremacy.

Oshha said:

I hope it isn't doesn't because having negative consequences for a split vote is just bad game mechanics because it encourages bandwagon via making it mechanically optimal to have as many people as possible vote for the winning vote.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't do that anymore for exactly the reasons you describe. I want to encourage debate and argument about votes and this is counterproductive to that. Arguments can and will be noted but they won't affect the city's "civil stability", which in any case no longer exists as a mechanic.

We can't trust our backs to squabbling barbaroi in a fight between Hellenes nor trust the word of another when the diplomacy with Metapontion is worth more.

Oshha said:

I hope it isn't doesn't because having negative consequences for a split vote is just bad game mechanics because it encourages bandwagon via making it mechanically optimal to have as many people as possible vote for the winning vote.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Im not sure if that a hidden mechanic or if it was scrapped. I think it was scraped in the last quest.

Edit:Ninja'd

Everyone? We were just warned that taking heavy casualties in battle can irreversibly cripple a polis. This is not a good time to go voting for the plan that rolls the dice on a single big armored clash, with minimal effort to call upon our allies. We're not Sparta; we don't just automatically have superior strength in our phalanx that will roll over the opposition in a direct battle, if we don't take the time and effort to whittle down their own strength first.

Secretariat said:

I entreat you, o wise ekklesia, to consider carefully the merits.

If we send our beloved Xenoparakletor to the Metapontion -- that is a decision which will benefit us today, but at tomorrow's cost. The king of the Dauni will no doubt punish his cities mightily, for their restiveness; he is a cunning man, and this news will hark to him.

Contrariwise, if we send him to the Dauni, that is a decision that costs us today, but benefits us tomorrow. Our war against Taras will be more difficult, but our war against the Dauni will be more easily resolved.

Are we so troubled, poleis, that we must sacrifice long-term benefit for short-term gain?

------

Which is to say, do we actually need the extra insurance of buying off the Metapontion, or can we win without securing their neutrality?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It depends. Do we have the ability to just trivially slam aside the Tarentine army and slaughter them so easily that our intact strength still faces the Metapontines' strength?

Secretariat said:

Good point. It is probably more accurate to describe this as doctrine for how we prosecute the war, yeah?

We're assuming more risk with Storm of Iron. Do we reap more rewards when we assume that risk? I don't see it, but it's also possible I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm not seeing it either.

If we had reason to think our phalanx was stronger, numerically or qualitatively, than the Tarentine phalanx, Steel Ram would make sense. But Eretria is basically mini-Athens to Taras' mini-Sparta here; we're stronger in ships, skirmishers, and allies, while they have a more numerous and very probably more experienced and physically trained phalanx. We need to leverage our strengths to whittle down theirs, not gamble everything on a single massive clash of arms.

Cetashwayo said:

We still have a few days but I'm just generally not a fan of asking people to redo votes.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I was thinking for future reference.

Spacegnom said:

I did not want this war, but it seems more warlike minds prevailed. So, let us find out if my caution was actual cowardice or their ambition was hubris...
[] Plan Steel Ram

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

We are under no obligation to pursue the aggressive "charge in and smash 'em up" plan for warfare just because, well, we decided to do something that would predictably mean war.

---

Leukos the Accountant climbs atop his cylindrical rock, wobbling for a moment, then recovering his balance.

"Men of Eretria! I will see many of you again soon, as fearful ash-staved spears clash! But for today, I come bearing warnings! Theron, mighty and courageous like a bull, will have us rush forward, like a bull at a gate. I am sure that no matter what the gods decide regarding our cause, in the coming battles he will win great glory for himself that will be spoken of among the Eretrians for many a year.

But the bull, rushing at the gate, may find himself repulsed. The gate may be too strong. Worse yet, all unheeding he may trap a leg in a pit, falling broken to the Earth. It was not only by the wrath and manly courage of Achilles, son of Peleus, that the Achaeans overthrew Troy, and though the Tarentines are no Trojans, few among us would claim to be the equals of the greatest heroes of ancient days.

Our victory has not been foreordained by the oracles, and the omens are mixed. We will need the wisdom of Odysseus and Nestor, and to preserve our strength so that we can return with greater numbers on the morrow. Our excellent cavalry must be given every chance to prove themselves the masters of the Tarentine horse! The mass of our citizenry, even those lacking panoplies, must gain their chance to win renown at the head of those among the Peucetii and Messapii ready to answer our call! And our peerless navy must sweep the seas of every Tarentine thing, that the people of Taras know they are alone and without foreign aid in their effrontery.

None of this can be done purely with an armored clash on the plains.

[X] Plan The greatest glory is lasting victory

Cetashwayo said:

The Athenians blockaded Syracuse effectively during their siege of the city.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Of course you're the GM here, but I would point out that Athens had a hundred triremes, plus allies. That means you can keep thirty on-station at once whilst the others are getting fresh water and supplies, repairing broken spars, etc.

We have fifteen.

Admiral Skippy said:

Of course you're the GM here, but I would point out that Athens had a hundred triremes, plus allies. That means you can keep thirty on-station at once whilst the others are getting fresh water and supplies, repairing broken spars, etc.

We have fifteen.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You'd receive about as many from Thurii, and the area Athenai had to cover was larger than the area of the Tarentine harbor. I don't disagree, however, which is why I immediately showed why a naval blockade of Taras would be very difficult in the next sentence.

Cetashwayo said:

You'd receive about as many from Thurii, and the area Athenai had to cover was larger than the area of the Tarentine harbor. I don't disagree, however, which is why I immediately showed why a naval blockade of Taras would be very difficult in the next sentence.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm just hammering on about a totally tangential hobbyhorse of my own about how difficult it is to effectively conduct blockades or do a lot of what we consider basic naval activities with triremes.

I submit that effectively blockading Taras will also have been made easier by eliminating their own fleet and wrecking their docks so that they're reduced to whatever can be dragged up on the beach for cargo transport.

Cool.

Missing out on the glory sucks -- both for internal morale reasons, and for our reputation among other Greek states (which is already pretty shitty.)

That said, Eretria has never really been about glory; and if there's a way to describe the Eretrian way of war, I think "hiding like cowards behind our stone and wooden walls" is much more accurate than "let Ares and the fates decide." This is mitigated somewhat by the boldness of a naval raid on Taras... but in the end, I think we as an ekklesia have to date preferred money to songs, and I do think Lasting Glory is in the end a comparable amount of gain for somewhat lower risk, and a whole lot more on brand.

...on that note, given who we are maybe we should build a temple to Hades.

Secretariat said:

Cool.

Missing out on the glory sucks -- both for internal morale reasons, and for our reputation among other Greek states (which is already pretty shitty.)

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

One catch I'm not seeing much mention of- what if we fight a decisive armored clash of phalanxes and we lose?

Suddenly all that glory that accrues to the winner is accruing to Taras, not us; we get humiliated as the unmanly weaklings who couldn't win a push of phalanx battle and the rest of Greece is all like "bro, do you even lift?"

By weakening the Tarentines before fighting any such battle, we improve our odds of getting neutral or positive reputation shift out of this, as opposed to a negative one.

Cetashwayo said:

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hmm. Europe's probably going to object if we blockade the E90, but it seems like we may be able to avoid that.

Secretariat said:

I do think that depends on the terms we offer them. If we give the Tarantines extremely generous terms at a moment of strength, I think we can win their trust through our generosity; conversely, if we try to extract everything we can out of them, we'll definitely cement them as an enemy.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

We would still have humiliated them and have allied with the Mesepii who they planned to subjegate for their own benefit.

Then you also have to deal with the likeliness of Eretria giving those very generous terms and then realize that we are doing to them what Kerkyra did to them so long ago that created the divide between us.

So I find it unlikely :/

Simon_Jester said:

Everyone? We were just warned that taking heavy casualties in battle can irreversibly cripple a polis. This is not a good time to go voting for the plan that rolls the dice on a single big armored clash, with minimal effort to call upon our allies. We're not Sparta; we don't just automatically have superior strength in our phalanx that will roll over the opposition in a direct battle, if we don't take the time and effort to whittle down their own strength first.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And yet somehow you took that to mean that we can somehow and should avoid battle at all costs, including reputation?

Yes battle should not be entered wantonly, but that is not what Steel Ram is doing either. You also completely ignore the rest of the post you are refencing. It is not just one dice roll, there are two phases prior to it that also levies our strengths in both skirmishers and cavalry to gain the upper hand. It also ignores that not only would we be boosting our own forces, but the Epulian league would support us and we would be entreating with Metapontion to allow our ally Thurii through, doubling our Hoplite numbers at the least.

You ask why they should help us at all if it is Hegemony they fear? The reason they fear hegemony is because they themselves are also more focused on Syrakousai. Which I will remind you is our rival. Thus if they assist us in this, we can also help them deter Syrakousai.

IC: So you cry with 'ifs' and 'mays' out of fear! 'What if we lose? We could lose everything!' You cry out, as if the good men of Eretria should doing anything because of chance of death.

If we had lived like that then our beloved city would have never existed and we would have all been enslaved by the Persians all so long ago!

Death is our everpresent companion, you should not cower from it, but meet it head on. There is no such thing as certain victory and to shy from battle because of it is rank cowardice.

Secretariat said:

Cool.

Missing out on the glory sucks -- both for internal morale reasons, and for our reputation among other Greek states (which is already pretty shitty.)

That said, Eretria has never really been about glory; and if there's a way to describe the Eretrian way of war, I think "hiding like cowards behind our stone and wooden walls" is much more accurate than "let Ares and the fates decide." This is mitigated somewhat by the boldness of a naval raid on Taras... but in the end, I think we as an ekklesia have to date preferred money to songs, and I do think Lasting Glory is in the end a comparable amount of gain for somewhat lower risk, and a whole lot more on brand.

...on that note, given who we are maybe we should build a temple to Hades.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I really think you should not belittle the value of glory. We have already caused problems with giving in the demands of the Metics and the Epulian League. While I do not deny that they are good demands and should be listened to, that still causes us problems.

Eretria has always been about glory. What on earth are you talking about? Do you really think being thought of as cowards with not cause us problems?

Nothing in war is certain. Whilst certainly more cautious and to some extent predictable, Serpent's Vice is not actually certain either; Taras may decide to fight on and elist allies having not lost a battle, or there might be some hilarious upset with their cavalry or our very recent Measpii allies. Equally we might roll incredibly well and catch like, five hundred hoplites unsupported in bad terrain with our skirmishers or something.

A wise man once said that a decisive battle happens when two generals each think they have a winning advantage, and one of them is wrong.

In this case, if Thurii marches to our aid, we will have notable superiority in skirmishers, parity or slight superiority in cavalry, and probably a significant numerical superiority in Hoplites. After that point, it's in the hands of the various strategoi, but I think we have a pretty good chance of victory. If we can win in the first two phases we may well be able to achieve a landslide. If I thought a decisive victory was improbable, I wouldn't have voted the way I did, and two out of three of our best and most respected generals would not be proposing it.

But it is a risk, there is no denying that. War is a risky business, and not for the faint of heart.

Sivantic said:

And yet somehow you took that to mean that we can somehow and should avoid battle at all costs, including reputation?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It is still less accurate to claim that "Lasting Victory" is an 'avoid battle at all costs including reputation' plan than to claim that "Steel Ram" is a 'seek battle recklessly' plan.

By nature, when we go to attack Taras, with the reduced number of allies and skirmishers, we will be in more danger of being drawn into a trap. The Tarentines have cavalry as good as ours; their skirmishers are less numerous but still competent. And we will be fighting in territory we know.

Yes battle should not be entered wantonly, but that is not what Steel Ram is doing either. You also completely ignore the rest of the post you are refencing. It is not just one dice roll, there are two phases prior to it that also levies our strengths in both skirmishers and cavalry to gain the upper hand. It also ignores that not only would we be boosting our own forces, but the Epulian league would support us and we would be entreating with Metapontion to allow our ally Thurii through, doubling our Hoplite numbers at the least.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Remind me again how your count works? I was under the impression that the Thurii would mostly be attacking Tarentine colonies further south.

IC: So you cry with 'ifs' and 'mays' out of fear! 'What if we lose? We could lose everything!' You cry out, as if the good men of Eretria should doing anything because of chance of death.

If we had lived like that then our beloved city would have never existed and we would have all been enslaved by the Persians all so long ago!

Death is our everpresent companion, you should not cower from it, but meet it head on. There is no such thing as certain victory and to shy from battle because of it is rank cowardice.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Leukos:

"There is honorable and manful willingness to seek battle... And then there is jumping off a cliff because one cannot be bothered with strategems, and suicide seems preferable to thinking."

"To have strategems is not to be a coward. To think is not to be a coward. If a man believes that thought is cowardice, that planning is unmanly, I question why he is even here, in a place of thinking, planning, and talking. It is not required. No shame need accrue to the idiotes for withdrawing himself from public affairs and simply letting others, less fearful of being emasculated by a conversation, make the weighty decisions upon which depend the future of the city."

Admiral Skippy said:

Nothing in war is certain. Whilst certainly more cautious and to some extent predictable, Serpent's Vice is not actually certain either; Taras may decide to fight on and elist allies having not lost a battle, or there might be some hilarious upset with their cavalry or our very recent Measpii allies. Equally we might roll incredibly well and catch like, five hundred hoplites unsupported in bad terrain with our skirmishers or something.

A wise man once said that a decisive battle happens when two generals each think they have a winning advantage, and one of them is wrong.

In this case, if Thurii marches to our aid, we will have notable superiority in skirmishers, parity or slight superiority in cavalry, and probably a significant numerical superiority in Hoplites. After that point, it's in the hands of the various strategoi, but I think we have a pretty good chance of victory. If we can win in the first two phases we may well be able to achieve a landslide. If I thought a decisive victory was improbable, I wouldn't have voted the way I did, and two out of three of our best and most respected generals would not be proposing it.

But it is a risk, there is no denying that. War is a risky business, and not for the faint of heart.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

My argument is that having sought a war we did not prepare for, it would be wise for us to concentrate on force preservation rather than on a death-or-glory gamble.

We did not seek out this war for big piles of glorious rewards. We did not plan ahead or prepare for it. We'd probably have done some things differently if we had.

As such, it is unwise for us to gamble on the assumption that we CAN find a decisive advantage that makes a decisive battle profitable, when in reality nothing is certain and the enemy has every opportunity to entrap us or fall upon us with their undiminished strength.

Because they've been doing more to be ready for this moment than we have.

Simon_Jester said:

One catch I'm not seeing much mention of- what if we fight a decisive armored clash of phalanxes and we lose?

Suddenly all that glory that accrues to the winner is accruing to Taras, not us; we get humiliated as the unmanly weaklings who couldn't win a push of phalanx battle and the rest of Greece is all like "bro, do you even lift?"

By weakening the Tarentines before fighting any such battle, we improve our odds of getting neutral or positive reputation shift out of this, as opposed to a negative one.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To echo on this point, I think that even if we do go with the Serpent's Vise strategy, we're going to end up with a decisive battle at some point. Taras can force us to engage them eventually by marching over to the Messapii and then threatening to burn out their undefended holdings. Pitched battle favours them so they will immediately try and seek it; they have more forces and are far more unified in the concentration of that force.

How I personally suspect the war to go is that Taras will organize their armies into a huge phalanx and then seek a decisive battle as that's what they expect and what they're strong at. Their best case scenario is to hit us immediately before we can weld Eriteria, the Leauge, the Peuketti, Messapii and Thurii into a cohesive fighting force. If they march like the wind, they might be able to force battle and engage us piecemeal.

Given how Thurii is on the opposite side of Magna Gracia from the rest of our forces, they will have the option to force battle with us before Thurii arrives or hit Thurii before they can link up with our other forces. They're simply closer to Eritreia than Thurii is so they're able to build up more initiative against us. They could also decide to make an immediate lightning strike against the Messapii to try and scatter their (currently disunified) league. We can't oppose them in that without reinforcements from the Leauge, Peuketti, and Thurii, so the Messapii will be ravaged.

Plan Steel Ram unfortunately plays to Taras' strengths. Since they have more hoplites and they're more unified, they are able to seek decisive battle much earlier than is possible for us. Plus, given how they only have to defend Taras while we have three main areas to defend (Eritreia, the Messapii and Thurii), they have tactical flexibility to pick a more advantageous Strategic position. Battles only occur when a general thinks they're going to win and Taras inherently has more options for where they can set the field of battle.

Serpent's Vise minimizes this. By rejecting open battle with Taras and instead focusing on harrying them, Taras won't be free to seek decisive battle while we're weak and disunified. By rejecting open battle, we're able to organize our forces and sort out the kinks before weakness can be exploited.

At some point, Taras will get tired of being constantly harassed and besieged within their city. If they come out, we fade away to harass them again, but they still have the option to force battle. The Messapii cities and countryside are vulnerable and by targeting them, they force us to seek battle to oppose them. Given how some barbarian cities do not have stone walls, Taras might also be able to pin us in place by threatening to sack a city.

During the time it takes for Taras to force us to battle (where their strengths in numbers, unity and hoplite warfare can be brought to bear), we will be harassing and weakening them. This gives us more time for out strength to come to bear and sap their strength.

For Steel Ram to work, we have to be faster than Taras in setting up for phalanx warfare and I just don't see that happening. Taras knows that if Thurii gets to us then the Tarantines will be outnumbered; thus, it's logical for Taras to do everything they can as soon as they can to maximize on their advantages.

Simon_Jester said:

One catch I'm not seeing much mention of- what if we fight a decisive armored clash of phalanxes and we lose?

Suddenly all that glory that accrues to the winner is accruing to Taras, not us; we get humiliated as the unmanly weaklings who couldn't win a push of phalanx battle and the rest of Greece is all like "bro, do you even lift?"

By weakening the Tarentines before fighting any such battle, we improve our odds of getting neutral or positive reputation shift out of this, as opposed to a negative one.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think that it should also be taken into account that by leaving the confederacy out of battle and seeking Metapontion's help, even at the cost of Dauni raids, it shows we value Hellenes above barbaroi. This humbleness to Metapontion would show we are not as close to the Barbaroi nor as strong as it seems and gain us a chance at a better deal with Metapontion.

We've been accused of pride and being too close to the barbaroi, so what better way to show we are not as proud and half-barbarian as most would assume by showing how we'd rather court Metapontion than bribe the Dauni or ride with the fractious Messappii?

Should Metapontion allow Thurii through, seeing that we have no trust in the Messapii, we would have a much more experienced hoplite army on our side in the Thurii. That's not mentioning we'd gain more experience from the Thurii hoplites helping in the clash without taking on as much risk for our own.

This will be useful when we turn on the Dauni next.

"Fellow citizens, it is true that recklessness is a dangerous fault in a polis. And yet still worse a fault is cowardice. It is not my will that our city engages on this course, but we are at war. And in war sometimes a failure to take risks is as fatal as plunging ahead heedless. Would this city even still stand today had Eretria not reacted to barbaroi conspiracy by bold maneuvers? Certainly I think it unlikely we would enjoy our League, and our vassals, and our present prosperity if not for the decisive leadership of Herodion upon the motion to bring war to the Iapyges.

I think it wise to settle this quarrel with Taras as quickly as possible. The longer we remain at war, the greater the chance of some misfortune. And the most likely misfortune would be the intervention of some outside party to do us ill. We can anticipate the Dauni will do so, but the damage they cause will be the burning of crops and fields, and likely not even so far south as our city. Athens has sustained far worse with the Spartiates coming up against the walls of their city each year, and yet she survives to fight on other battlefields. Crops can be resown and we can punish the Dauni at will after this war concludes. We have most to fear from other Hellenes who wish us ill or might in turn fear for their security from our city.

The clash of hoplites is an ancient and accepted method of settling the differences of two cities. To win a victory in such a way will do us credit with the rest of Italia. We have the advantage of our auxiliaries. Some Messapii can be enjoined to serve our army as scouts, and they know their terrain as well as Taras does. We withstood the fury of the mercenary horde collected by Syracuse. If our hoplites merely stand their ground and our light-armed men and cavalry perform as they have in the past, then victory will be ours. Honorable defeat will sit better with the Tarantines, and give grounds to their peace party to recover. And should we lose the day we have our cavalry and light-armed men to cover the retreat. We can pursue a strategy of patience and raiding just as well next season.

But to instead rely upon ambush and naval descents from the very first escalates this conflict. We have seen that Athens comes no closer to ultimate victory by such methods, even if it keeps Sparta at bay. To the Tarantines, for us to unleash their barbaroi enemies upon the fields of their ancestors will be much to swallow. Our fellow Hellenes will look askance and wonder if we do not mean to butcher the Tarantines by dishonorable means, and secure our hegemony by simple slaughter. It will make peace longer in coming and more difficult to achieve.

Thus I think it best to meet the Tarantines on the field. It offers more personal danger to citizens but less danger to our polis. The Drakonian strategy offers the reverse. The sooner this badly-begun war ends, the better."

Simon_Jester said:

It is still less accurate to claim that "Lasting Victory" is an 'avoid battle at all costs including reputation' plan than to claim that "Steel Ram" is a 'seek battle recklessly' plan.

By nature, when we go to attack Taras, with the reduced number of allies and skirmishers, we will be in more danger of being drawn into a trap. The Tarentines have cavalry as good as ours; their skirmishers are less numerous but still competent. And we will be fighting in territory we know.

Remind me again how your count works? I was under the impression that the Thurii would mostly be attacking Tarentine colonies further south.

Leukos:

"There is honorable and manful willingness to seek battle... And then there is jumping off a cliff because one cannot be bothered with strategems, and suicide seems preferable to thinking."

"To have strategems is not to be a coward. To think is not to be a coward. If a man believes that thought is cowardice, that planning is unmanly, I question why he is even here, in a place of thinking, planning, and talking. It is not required. No shame need accrue to the idiotes for withdrawing himself from public affairs and simply letting others, less fearful of being emasculated by a conversation, make the weighty decisions upon which depend the future of the city."

My argument is that having sought a war we did not prepare for, it would be wise for us to concentrate on force preservation rather than on a death-or-glory gamble.

We did not seek out this war for big piles of glorious rewards. We did not plan ahead or prepare for it. We'd probably have done some things differently if we had.

As such, it is unwise for us to gamble on the assumption that we CAN find a decisive advantage that makes a decisive battle profitable, when in reality nothing is certain and the enemy has every opportunity to entrap us or fall upon us with their undiminished strength.

Because they've been doing more to be ready for this moment than we have.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Nay, it is not the plan that I call cowardice, but those that push it because Steel Bull has chance of loss. Every plan has a chance of loss and fear of loss should not be valid reason for decrying a plan especially when the plan has put effort into stacking the odd on our side as much as possible. We are not facing them with reduced numbers, we are increasing them. Our Skirmishers are better than theirs and our Cavalry is their equal. The Thurii would only be nipping at them if they can not pass through Metapontion. Our plan addresses that as we remove them as a Taras ally and allowing the Thurii to pass through, granting us 2000 Hoplite and potentially more skirmishers.

"And so you turn to lies and slander. You act as if we merely as if all the preparation done by Ark means nothing. To have strategems is not cowardice I agree, but to decry a strategy for having battle in it is cowardice. My quarell is not with the Lasting Victory plan, but with those that besmirch Steel Bull because their is a mere possibility of loss.

It is hilarious that you would accuse us as idiotes when you ignore how battle is fought, when you ignore the preparations made to ensure victory, when you ignore our own strengths. When you equate a chance of loss as a guarantee of loss. Your blindness does you credit"


I highly doubt they have been accruing in strength faster than us. We have not been sitting idle all these years. We have increased the number of Peuketii levies, we have ensured the happiness of our Metics and thus willingness to fight for Eretria, we have ensured the happiness of our Epulian Leagur and thus ensure their support. We are negotiating passage for our allies.

Our citizens may be inexperienced but they are brave and they have an even braver Strategoi leading them and that inexperience can be solved here.

Victory may not be certain, but I do not find it unreachable.

(Also, probably avoid spaghetti posting)

We want one thing from the Dauni– neutrality. We want two things from the Metapontines– neutrality and military access.

The Dauni are closer, so it's fair to say one isn't strictly better than the other. But the Metapontines have much more to offer us, especially in this war. And they're more likely to remain allies with us than the Dauni, so our diplomatic efforts are far less likely to be wasted.

Satar said:

Skantarios scoffs.

"Were we cowards, we would not have made war against Taras, either now or delayed. By marching to war against a peer power we have enough proven our own arete and valor. Those who deride as measured a strategy as the Serpant's Vise prove themselves to be callow youths, spoiling for conquest, unready for true war."

"Others speak of the fruits of victory as if those very fruits were already in their mouths. Bah! There are many green men who have never known war as it is amongst the Hellenes. They are unready for the push and push of spear on spear. You lot say that a victory will give us glory. What then, of failure? The Serpant's Vise grants us no great honor, it is true, but it does not dishonor us as a failure in a straight clash will. And the odds are not in our favor, citizens, if we march with only a portion of our forces, disjointed, as the Steel Ram wills."

"And what of chance? Must chance be brought up again and again as the despoiler of hopes? Chance is a tree whose fruit is not always poisoned, not always foul. In a longer war, chance can flip against us, but it also may aid us. So much for chance."

"Finally, concerning the actions of the Athenians: their strategy is markedly different from ours, it's end is not yet known, and a comparison is thus unreliable and inappropriate. Cease such comparisons."

"Friends, countrymen, citizens, I beseech you: see reason; see sense; play to our strengths, not their weaknesses; let the prudence of the veteran triumph over the eagerness of the novitiate. That is all!"

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And I roll my eyes.

"We have repeatedly not called the Serpent plan cowardice. We do not dismiss the Serpent plan as invalid. I agree with Ark that it is a good plan.

What I, and it is just I, had a problem with is avoiding the Steel Ram plan because it does not guarantee victory. That several have said that we must fear being slaughtered as if we had no chance.

We do not march as a disorganized mob either as you mentiones, we march with the Epulian league at our side and while we may not have the Messapii with us, we plan to meet the Thurii on the way. Our Navy will still assist us in besieging the city.

You say we should play to our strengths and that is indeed why Theron should lead. A stout cavalryman, he can lead our cavalry and superior skirmishers to success in two of the preceding phases to the collision of our Hoplites. I highly encourage you read the informational. Even with our inexperienced Hoplite, we can still match them.

Sivantic said:

Death is our everpresent companion, you should not cower from it, but meet it head on. There is no such thing as certain victory and to shy from battle because of it is rank cowardice.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Fine words.

Will you say them to the childless mothers, and the wailing widows, when they ask "Was there nothing you could have done to bring our sons and husbands home alive?"

Will you be the one to tell them? that when given the choice between the lives of our citizens and the laughing of the barbarioi, that we feared their laughter so, and that is why their sons and husbands are dead?

A strange man once said:

There is only one sin. Defeat.
There is only one grace. Victory.

Now, this is an exaggeration and not precisely true - how you win or lose does matter - but we should choose a plan that gives us the best chance of victory, which in my eyes is the Serpent. There seems to me to be no particular reason for us to want a decisive clash with Taras before we are as ready and prepared for one as we can be, and we've weakened them as much as possible. There's no real reason to believe that time would not be on our side, since our forces are less united, less experienced and less coordinated to start with.

If we assume that the Serpent has a better chance of victory than the Ram, then I would also contend that relative to the glory gained by victory in comparison to the catastrophe of defeat, the glory gained by a decisive victory in a head-on clash in comparison to a victory by attrition and stratagem is so much less important as to not outweigh the increased chance of defeat.

In addition, I believe that talking with the Dauni in itself is a bigger long-term benefit than talking with Metapontion here, since Metapontion demands things of us while the Dauni rebel cities offer things to us. If we go for a decisive clash, we definitely need Metapontion to allow our allies to help us, so we lose the opportunity here for a minor additional gain. With the Serpent, we can afford to choose the Dauni and pacify our flanks, since even in the worst possible case of Metapontion quickly joining Taras, which is unlikely, our strategy is still sound and we are still able to strangle their war effort, destroy their logistics and force them to offer terms.

[X] Plan The greatest glory is lasting victory

[X] Plan The greatest glory is lasting victory

Theron Zosimus is too rash, I feel.