| Lord Raglan | 10 Sep 2011 2:49 a.m. PST |
Please excuse my lack of historical knowledge, were there any occasions when the Republican Romans actively supported Ptolemaic forces in battle. Raglan |
 BigRedBat  | 10 Sep 2011 3:37 a.m. PST |
|
| olicana | 10 Sep 2011 3:59 a.m. PST |
It is certainly has "what if" potential, and I doubt if many would mind a bit of license – after all, the Republic did have a navy that could get them there. |
| French Wargame Holidays | 10 Sep 2011 4:44 a.m. PST |
well Marc Anthony's legion supported Cleopatra's army does that count? |
| Lord Raglan | 10 Sep 2011 4:51 a.m. PST |
Simon, Thanks for the reference however it's too late for my given period, in particluar I am looking at the forces of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 BC) against the Seleucid throne of Antiochus III (241–187 BC). or there about? Raglan |
| BigRedBat | 10 Sep 2011 5:38 a.m. PST |
Raglan, rather too early, I fear. Except as a what-if. Simon |
| Swampster | 10 Sep 2011 6:01 a.m. PST |
The Romans had enough on their plate during Philopator's reign, with the 2nd Punic War, 1st Illyrian War and 1st Macedonian War. |
| Lord Raglan | 10 Sep 2011 7:55 a.m. PST |
Cheers guys, it was worth a try Raglan |
| JJartist | 10 Sep 2011 12:15 p.m. PST |
Not really, however after Pydna, the Republic ordered the Seleucids to leave Egypt (which they had finally conquered) --- and Antiochus IV summarily did. Had the Seleucids defied that order then another Syrian War could have occured. After that the Ptolemaic potentate most appealling to Rome was appointed. |
| Marcus Brutus | 10 Sep 2011 5:34 p.m. PST |
The Ptolemaic army of the period in question was rather good and doesn't really need Roman help in my opinion. |
| JJartist | 12 Sep 2011 8:16 a.m. PST |
"The Ptolemaic army of the period in question was rather good" ---> Compared to the Seleucids maybe… but then they fell apart at Panion and after. |
| Marcus Brutus | 12 Sep 2011 8:34 a.m. PST |
Every empire/nation has its good days and bad. Look at the Selecuids at Raphia and the Romans at Cannae. For the period in question I think the Ptolemaic army is pretty decent. And Panion is slightly later than the period under dicussion. |
| JJartist | 12 Sep 2011 6:54 p.m. PST |
And Panion is slightly later than the period under dicussion?? Yes, since Panion was two (or four) years after Zama, luckily the Roman Republic had folded up tent by then…. The Seleucids mostly had bad days against any decent opposition, they are always higher regarded in gaming than they should be, and the Ptolemies get boot-strapped up by comparision. |
