A great summation as to why heavy shock cavalry was so effective. Unlike in many video games you don't have to slaughter your opponent to the last man to win, you merely have to get him to break. And once the first batch of men break it is exceedingly hard to stop the flood.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
I can't help but wonder what things are like in the White Palace right now. Odysseus has been gone for many years, but the stories keep coming in of one glorious victory after another. I'm sure there are some strong anti-Persian factions in the court who don't like this combined effort and might even be spreading doubt about all these "victories" from the long absent emperor.
The description you gave of the heavy cavalry are a great flip on the image of the Indian elephant coming to terrify the Greeks, which is really epic, but then crowned by this co-operation of two militaries that are descended from at least two thousand years of conflict against each other. No military knows another better, no commanders have spent as long together compared to their age that I can recall.
I don't know if it was intentional, but I think that Alexander the Great would have been proud of this battle, I know you reference Cannae, and the Carthaginians, but that image of Greek and Persian working together in India, and that mirroring of the Elephant-Horror that that ancient army must have faced, was incredible.
There have been some great battles in this story, but I don't think anything has struck me as quite so culturally significant as this battle, not since the days of fighting against Shah Rukh. The world has completely changed since that point, but I think THIS battle may well be the point that the Indian subcontinent is roused from its comfort. Perhaps it was because the story didn't focus on the last Persian invasion of India, but this just feels more dramatic, a young up-and-coming rival to Vijayanagar trounced by a smaller force. Not that India is at risk of conquest (I'm pretty sure that's been ruled out and Vijayanagar would be a nightmare to crack) but I dunno, I don't expect a Roman Empire-in-India at the moment, but I could certainly see Indian states bringing in Roman and Persian advisors or as mercenaries.
Or alternatively the story that gets told (in the world, not the timeline) is that Chandragupta was uppity and overconfident, and was humiliated by the Romans and Persians - what threat could they possibly present to Vijayanagar?
I don't know if it was intentional, but I think that Alexander the Great would have been proud of this battle, I know you reference Cannae, and the Carthaginians, but that image of Greek and Persian working together in India, and that mirroring of the Elephant-Horror that that ancient army must have faced, was incredible.
There have been some great battles in this story, but I don't think anything has struck me as quite so culturally significant as this battle, not since the days of fighting against Shah Rukh. The world has completely changed since that point, but I think THIS battle may well be the point that the Indian subcontinent is roused from its comfort. Perhaps it was because the story didn't focus on the last Persian invasion of India, but this just feels more dramatic, a young up-and-coming rival to Vijayanagar trounced by a smaller force. Not that India is at risk of conquest (I'm pretty sure that's been ruled out and Vijayanagar would be a nightmare to crack) but I dunno, I don't expect a Roman Empire-in-India at the moment, but I could certainly see Indian states bringing in Roman and Persian advisors or as mercenaries.
Or alternatively the story that gets told (in the world, not the timeline) is that Chandragupta was uppity and overconfident, and was humiliated by the Romans and Persians - what threat could they possibly present to Vijayanagar?
Vince
Monthly Donor
Ody is marching an army halfway around the world to give the Triunes the mother of all financial hits.
Somewhere in the afterlife D3, that miser Theodoros IV and Andreas I are all watching with great approval.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
It would be utterly hilarious if Henry has to stop his war in Germany, or even gets pushed back a little, because his cash flow gets reduced because Rhomania wrecks a colony on the other side of the world.
I don't think he will yet. The war on the rhine is on top of their priorities, should bengal and all of their island asian territories burn or occupied, then that will certainly be a hell of a revenge against the Triunes.
I also hope that Odysseus really goes to island asia and conquer more stuff, then proceed to head into mexico and back to Mediterranean.
He'll be truly known as the magnificent. It would overshadow his namesake in both great story and adventure. One hell of an achievement.
I seriously doubt Henri is going to stop his war with the HRE over Awadh. While it is a setback if Chandragupta does lose to Odysseus and Iskander, the Triunes are handily winning against the Germans in their battle for the Rhine. Even with the Ravens' Rebellion, I doubt that it's going to deter him from continuing the war for a very favorable peace with Ottokar and Elisabeth. Unless B444 has plans to screw over the Triunes, it's likely that they will get what they want over this war.
However, I think Henri or Louis will eventually have to face Odysseus head on in India, as Bengal could very well hang on by a thread if they let the Romans linger for far too long in the subcontinent.
Chandragupta: "Awadh will be a superpower by 1650."
Odysseus and Iskandar: "No, you'll collapse faster than a wagon wheel without spokes."
Odysseus and Iskandar: "No, you'll collapse faster than a wagon wheel without spokes."
Vince
Monthly Donor
I think Henry will have his Rhine border regardless of Ody's actions. He's just too far ahead at the moment and it would take time for anything in Bengal to affect the Triune homelands. But afterward, that could cause some serious problems. B444 did allude that the Triunes will head for some major problems in the coming decades.
Bengal is probably as far as he'll go. He's got no reason to go any farther than that and I don't think his men signed up to do a world tour.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
I know he isn't going to be leaving the Rhine border, Lotharingia is well under his thumb at this point, but considering how long the war in Germany has been going at this point it probably wouldn't take much to really upset the treasury accounts.
As for Odysseus going further, I think they meant after this war in India and after he goes back home. It has been pretty well established that he has no real interest in governing from Constantinople and since he already has heirs and his sister taking care of the administration he is more free to go around and tour the whole empire, maybe do some foreign visits too, in a way no other emperor has done in centuries. If that includes a bit of fighting in the colonies I doubt he will be upset.
Last edited:
Circling the world would be a glorious triumph, but it's definitely not happening. Odysseus would need to pass by any Caribbean naval squadrons the Latins have and through the Straight of Gibraltar on the way home, which would be very dangerous for a man who would have made many enemies. A tour of RITE is possible, but he'll be returning home through Egypt.
His army is still a long way from Bengal, and as long as the Triunes can rely on the local troops the Romans would be vastly outnumbered without allies. Iskander needs to go home soon. He out to shore up his reputation and legitimacy and a defeat of Awadh would do that. He needs to be in Persia setting things in order. The Vijayanagar are not looking for conquest I don't think. They just want to knock down rivals. It's unclear at this point if a neutered Awadh is enough to make them feel comfortable with Triune Bengal. If it is, don't expect them to lend Odysseus a hand.
As for a Triune response if Odysseus does successfully march on Bengal, the German war is likely to be resolved by the time they even know about it. We left Germany in 1638. Lotharingia was conquered, the Raven State was established and Ottokar was trying to stabilize the borders. It's already 1644 in Odysseus's campaign, by the time he could march on Bengal, achieve victory and a ship could sail around the cape and back to King's Harbor we're looking at 1645-6. Henri might be dead by that point for all we know.
His army is still a long way from Bengal, and as long as the Triunes can rely on the local troops the Romans would be vastly outnumbered without allies. Iskander needs to go home soon. He out to shore up his reputation and legitimacy and a defeat of Awadh would do that. He needs to be in Persia setting things in order. The Vijayanagar are not looking for conquest I don't think. They just want to knock down rivals. It's unclear at this point if a neutered Awadh is enough to make them feel comfortable with Triune Bengal. If it is, don't expect them to lend Odysseus a hand.
As for a Triune response if Odysseus does successfully march on Bengal, the German war is likely to be resolved by the time they even know about it. We left Germany in 1638. Lotharingia was conquered, the Raven State was established and Ottokar was trying to stabilize the borders. It's already 1644 in Odysseus's campaign, by the time he could march on Bengal, achieve victory and a ship could sail around the cape and back to King's Harbor we're looking at 1645-6. Henri might be dead by that point for all we know.
Wow, what an immense victory, in such a fateful location as well. I wonder if the strength of Awadh has been broken here.
Also btw @Basileus444, the adjectival form for Awadh is Awadhi, so Awadhi troops for instance.
How does Venkata Raya have Gorkha soldiers at his disposal?
Also btw @Basileus444, the adjectival form for Awadh is Awadhi, so Awadhi troops for instance.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
Mercenaries, the area they are from is poor agriculture land so like the Swiss in Europe they probably are overrepresented in the Indian mercenary population.
This is getting ridiculous. Roman and Persian soldiers, outnumbered some three to one, manage to not only attain a decisive victory, but do so at the cost of a mere 8,000 dead after literal years of campaigning with barely any defeats or mutinies? I’m not buying it. You’re telling me nobody in the Awadh army tried to rally their soldiers? That the entirety of the army on the frontline suddenly forgot how to count and literally see that they outnumber the enemy? That Chandragupta doesn’t take advantage of weakened Romano-Persian lines to break through (or that attacks already under way don’t do so)? That the Romano-Persians manage to create a cauldron around the Awadhi forces, who by your own admission still have a battle-ready force in the rear, the perfect area to mount a counterattack not clogged by soldiers, and get away with it?
I’m sorry, but this is straying from skilled leaders defeat peer opponents to my generals are better than Alexander and Hannibal and can’t lose. Seriously, this is a more lopsided victory than Austerlitz (a battle between roughly equal forces), as devastating as Guagamela (which only took place after the Persian army had been defeated twice already and Alexander had taken the Mediterranean coast, lowering morale and army troop quality), and even riskier than Cannae (where Hannibal was only outnumbered by about 10% or so).
I can accept that morale shattering would be a devastating effect, but not across the entire army simultaneously, let alone on the flank opposite of the problems. Besides, like I mentioned earlier, breaking morale doesn’t mean it stays broken. William the Conqueror managed to rally his men after they began to flee the field and came back to win a smashing victory at Hastings. And I think you’re severely overestimating the terror of heavy cavalry. They’ve been a known factor for literal millennia, I honestly don’t think Awadhi soldiers would suddenly forget that they exist and treat them as unknown monsters as soon as they show up. Not to mention that by this point gunpowder had significantly reduced their viability and the amount of armor they wore by this point OTL. I highly doubt the Romans have decided to ignore the fact that armor plating has decreasing yields when they were fighting for their lives a mere ten years earlier and needed every edge they could get. A single volley from the Awadhi would send more than a few cavalrymen tumbling to the ground, weakening any morale effect the charge may have.
If this victory is for story reasons and not necessarily what’s realistic, fine, but I am having a very hard time suspending my disbelief at the increasingly long string of Roman victories with only one real defeat in the last generation (and that one was diplomatic, not on the battlefield where the Romans apparently have the best soldiers and everybody else just has to let the Romans win).
I’m sorry, but this is straying from skilled leaders defeat peer opponents to my generals are better than Alexander and Hannibal and can’t lose. Seriously, this is a more lopsided victory than Austerlitz (a battle between roughly equal forces), as devastating as Guagamela (which only took place after the Persian army had been defeated twice already and Alexander had taken the Mediterranean coast, lowering morale and army troop quality), and even riskier than Cannae (where Hannibal was only outnumbered by about 10% or so).
I can accept that morale shattering would be a devastating effect, but not across the entire army simultaneously, let alone on the flank opposite of the problems. Besides, like I mentioned earlier, breaking morale doesn’t mean it stays broken. William the Conqueror managed to rally his men after they began to flee the field and came back to win a smashing victory at Hastings. And I think you’re severely overestimating the terror of heavy cavalry. They’ve been a known factor for literal millennia, I honestly don’t think Awadhi soldiers would suddenly forget that they exist and treat them as unknown monsters as soon as they show up. Not to mention that by this point gunpowder had significantly reduced their viability and the amount of armor they wore by this point OTL. I highly doubt the Romans have decided to ignore the fact that armor plating has decreasing yields when they were fighting for their lives a mere ten years earlier and needed every edge they could get. A single volley from the Awadhi would send more than a few cavalrymen tumbling to the ground, weakening any morale effect the charge may have.
If this victory is for story reasons and not necessarily what’s realistic, fine, but I am having a very hard time suspending my disbelief at the increasingly long string of Roman victories with only one real defeat in the last generation (and that one was diplomatic, not on the battlefield where the Romans apparently have the best soldiers and everybody else just has to let the Romans win).
Outnumbered 3 to 1, yes, but on ground prepared ahead of time and a battlefield of their choosing, restricted in space so that the entirety of Chandragupta's force is unable to deploy. The Roman/Ottoman force has had time to rest and recover, and thus has not effectively been constantly on campaign. The only reserves Chandragupta still had after the Roman counter charge were noted to be caught up in the retreat, and while yes, left unmolested routing troops can reform their lines and fight on, the Roman cavalry were specifically noted to have not allowed them any respite.
Combine that with excellent leadership, and a concentration of what are by this point, bar none the most experienced, well equipped and well trained soldiers on the planet, 3 to 1 odds are not nearly so decisive at that point. Odysseus and Iskandar did literally everything in the book that you should do to counter a numerical disadvantage short of building an actual fortress and their opponent was forced to give battle where he could not make use of his only real advantage.
I don't really see how this is unrealistic. This sort of number disparity is also not nearly so uncommon as you would seem to believe. The English in the Hundred Years War were intimately familiar with it, as were the classical Romans. The Swedes under the Caroleans made an art form of destroying much larger armies. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth managed to win two battles known popularly as Polish Thermopylaes. These are just the examples I can pull from the top of my head. Numbers are only one part of the fight, and in this case likely worked against Chandragupta as the size of his army and relative lack of mobility forced him to take a battle on ground of the enemy's choosing.
It IS Gaugamela down to the way it was won. And Hannibal was outnumbered at Cannae way way worse than a mere 10%. But this leaves aside that not all armies of the era were created equal. The Greeks and Persians at this point have what's 18th century European style armies, Malborough and Frederick the great would be right at home if they found themselves with either army. Awadh... does not, it's still mostly feudal levies. Historically you've seen the effects when such clasg of this time and again in India, Clive at Plassey had 2,900 men facing over 50,000, Munro at Buxar had 7,000 facing 40,000, the expansion of Sikh power under Ranjit Singh for some of the obvious examples, but also elsewhere in the world, the Ottomans did not go from threatening Vienna in 1683 to teetering on the brink of destruction in 1830 from inferior numbers or any notable technological discrepancy...
Huh? Even a cursory reading of the evidence shows that's not true.
The Romans spent the first two-thirds of the War of Roman Succession getting their teeth kicked in. Seriously, check out the updates from 1631. Blucher and von Mackensen beat the Romans like a drum in multiple battles in 1631-1632. The tide didn't really turn until the 1633 campaign and really didn't turn until Thessaloniki in 1634. Hell, the only reason Blucher and co even made it to Thessaloniki in the first place is because Michael Laskaris was out of position in the north. Meanwhile, in Syria, Ibrahim won several victories over a Romano-Egyptian force during the same time period. Times were bleak in 1631-1632.
The only fronts where the Romans weren't on the backfoot to start were northern Mesopotamia and Italy, both of which were tertiary fronts at best.
Also, the Romans clearly lost at Nineveh...twice. The Roman army's incessant need for validation for Alexios Gabras doesn't change the fact that dude dropped the ball. As much of a diplomatic screw up as Mashhadshar the only way it would have ever gotten that bad is because Roman arms failed on the battlefield in the first place.
This is a great victory, but you know what would be cooler? A roman-persian army marching all the way to the pacific. Marching through china and ending in nanjing would be preferable, but going to Island Asia is probably the more realistic one.