Roman Legions seem too weak [Archive]

HopliteElite

11-10-2007, 19:19

I'm not sure if this has been brought up and if so, there is probably a reason for it, as the EB team is great when it comes to accuracy but in my Roman campaign I've noticed on every occasion, my Augustan legionaries are being cut to ribbons by light iberian skirmishers, Caetratti light infantry might be their name. It is so bad that I lost an entire unit of legionaries to one unit of these seemingly inhuman light infantry while only killing about 17 of them, during a city siege. Both my legionaries and the enemy had no chevrons of experience. I also lost an entire unit of legionaries, excepting 5 men, fighting hand to hand on a wall against a unit of peltastai, although at least in this case I did manage to wipe the peltastai out.

I try to play somewhat true to how the Romans really fought, using only nominal amounts of cavalry and archers, while relying instead on legionaries and allied infantry but I've been horrifed to see my legions get decimated by unarmored and medium skirmishers in hand to hand combat. I'm finding that I might have to employ hammer and anvil tactics in order to not lose entire units to skirmishers but I know the Romans never really employed such cavalry tactics, so I feel ingenuine doing so. Is this historical? Did the Romans truly lose a great deal many men even when fighting what should be highly inferior troops? I do not mind, in fact, I love it when I have to fight a unit of true elites, like Spartans, and I see my Romans biting the dust but against skirmishers?

This is less a criticism and more a question about the motives behind making the legionaries seemingly so weak. I am not, by the way, expecting my legions to be superhuman at all, I am just confused to see them wrecked by skirmishers. I'm sure there is a good reason behind the weakening of the legions, since, as I mentioned above, you guys are great with the accuracy, I would just be interested in hearing the reasoning, even if only for my own educational purposes. Thanks in advance and great job with 1.0, I'm enjoying it immensely. Keep up the excellent work.

abou

11-10-2007, 19:28

Pharnakes

11-10-2007, 19:30

Well, both the units you mentioned are hardly exactly your steriotypical skirmisher, the peltastai are just about "legionaries" in their own right, plus the defenders of walls get a bonus when figthing on them, and the caetratai are notorius (in both real life and ingame) for butchering large quantaties of over armoured heavy infantry - thats what they are for.

Sakkura

11-10-2007, 19:38

Iberi Caetrati are a prime target for a good cavalry charge. Of course, that doesn't work too well when assaulting cities...
Plus, it seems that fighting on walls gives lopsided results in general.

mcantu

11-10-2007, 21:55

Doesn't sound like you have battle difficulty set to medium...

CaesarAugustus

11-10-2007, 22:33

Never use wall fights as in indicator of how good a unit is,... besides taking forever the attacker usually takes many more casulaties than usual... I prefer to sap myself.

konny

11-11-2007, 01:37

A unit of Camillan Hastati will cut a unit Peltastai to pieces (suffering many loses for sure), so that should be true for Imperial Legions as well. Wall fights have their own rules.

Amongst the Iberi units, there are some that look like nothing but have AP swords. I had really started to fear these guys and prefer to encounter any stack of Carthagian heavy spearmen with Sacred Band cavalry than facing one of these units Iberi holding a gate, or simillar situations with them.

Parkev

11-11-2007, 01:43

Ran a few tests a while ago as the Casse in custom battle.
Cohors Reformata beat Rycalawre
Polybian Principes beat Rycalawre unless you get lucky (3 deep seemed to work only if you busted the middle of the Roman line).

And then look at the cost ratios; something like 1:2 per man (Roman:Casse) and after that conclude that Roman troops are pretty good.

Frostwulf

11-12-2007, 08:23

Roman troops were hardly the end-all of infantry. In fact, they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals. Most of the time their victories came from the use of sheer force, an unrelenting drive, and a nearly complete lack of care for casualties. The Roman infantry was among the best in the world, especially by the time Marius made his changes(most likely started prior to Marius). A combination of arms,armor,training,discipline and triplex acies made them very formidable.

HFox

11-12-2007, 08:32

The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already. :wall:

'very formidable' describes my mother in law.......now if only she could be reformed.... :)

Frostwulf

11-12-2007, 10:14

The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already.
Without going into much detail:
496-418 Roman wins 17/ Roman losses:3
391-302 Roman wins 40+/ Roman losses:5
298-265 Roman wins 15/ Roman losses: 4
264-241(First Punic War) Roman wins 12/ Roman losses 6
225-219 Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 1
218-202(Second Punic War) Roman wins 30/ Roman losses 16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
201-200 Roman wins 2/ losses 0
200-197(Second Macedonian War) Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 0
197-195 Roman wins 3/ losses 0
195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
194-192 Roman wins 5/ losses 0
191-190(War against Antiochus) Roman wins 6/losses 0

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines. The Romans certainly lost huge numbers against Hannibal but eventually with good commanders finally defeated him. The above list should be considered to be slightly off on the win/loss columns by a potential of 2-3, I was rushing.

pezhetairoi

11-12-2007, 10:19

From what I've read it certainly sounds like you're on VH for battle difficulty. No matter how AP falcata (pl?) are, they only halve armour values so you should still have one mighty hunk of armour between you and him. And since I conquered spain in the late Camillan and early Polybian era with ease despite hordes of Qarthadastim caetrati and scutari, it seems a bit incredible that caetrati can eat up Augustans so.

Treverer

11-12-2007, 10:33

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-12-2007, 10:35

Without going into much detail:
496-418 Roman wins 17/ Roman losses:3
391-302 Roman wins 40+/ Roman losses:5
298-265 Roman wins 15/ Roman losses: 4
264-241(First Punic War) Roman wins 12/ Roman losses 6
225-219 Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 1
218-202(Second Punic War) Roman wins 30/ Roman losses 16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
201-200 Roman wins 2/ losses 0
200-197(Second Macedonian War) Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 0
197-195 Roman wins 3/ losses 0
195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
194-192 Roman wins 5/ losses 0
191-190(War against Antiochus) Roman wins 6/losses 0

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines. The Romans certainly lost huge numbers against Hannibal but eventually with good commanders finally defeated him. The above list should be considered to be slightly off on the win/loss columns by a potential of 2-3, I was rushing.

The Roman army was never exceptional in our period, but it's standardisation and it's homogenisation meant it lack serious weaknesses in it's core element. The infantry. Having said that, the chronic problems on missile troops and cavalry were only solved at the end of our period.

Roman success had two causes; brute force through superior numbers, and ALWAYS maintaining a reserve force.

Dayve

11-12-2007, 11:34

You must be joking... I conquered half of Iberia in the Camillian era using a few native Roman troops as a core surrounded by hordes of allied Iberian light spearmen and light swordsmen and generals who barely scratched 1 command star. I conquered the other half in the Polybian era with much the same legions and never even suffered 1 defeat.

You must be playing on hard or medium battle difficulty. However i will agree that Roman troops take way too many casualties against javelins, even non-AP ones hurt hard. You get 1 unit (or nightmare situation, more than 1 unit) throwing javelins at your Roman heavy infantry and large full bodied shields be damned you will take 50% casualties in that unit, especially the Camillian and Polybian units, 1 volley of javelins and your hastati are decorating the ground in the hundreds with their blood.

Tellos Athenaios

11-12-2007, 15:32

Well that's the Romans for you: they use light infantry to take the bulk of the casualties-- and if things turn less than pretty that way they'll send in another 10.000 of them.

Mind you based on their equipment you shouldn't even bother with placing the Hastati for your first line. You take a shorter, slightly curved line of Principes, and keep a longer curved line of Hastati behind them. The main part of those Hastati rush in just before the enemy infantry engages. Rear guard are the Triarii and you move them in when enemy cavalry engages your flanks.

This way you should have less casualties inflicted by enemy missiles.

abou

11-12-2007, 15:50

The Roman infantry was among the best in the world, especially by the time Marius made his changes(most likely started prior to Marius). A combination of arms,armor,training,discipline and triplex acies made them very formidable.
Frostwulf, go home. If you want to ignore something like three or four discussions in recent history on the topic then be my guest. I don't want to see this collapse into the same miasma of suck that you turned the German and Celtic threads into.

russia almighty

11-12-2007, 16:42

WTF did he do in the topic's ? If he is that annoying I'm sure you can make something to his posting abilities .

konny

11-12-2007, 17:09

May be we should have a sticky thread explayning that and why the Roman army was not a force of 250,000 elite warriors.

Sarcasm

11-12-2007, 17:41

Starforge

11-12-2007, 20:13

Bullshit list. :thumbsdown:

/boggle

Gotta love how people want to say someone is wrong but don't even try and post opposing facts. I realise that some folks have some prejudice culturally towards the Romans but - since every culture / race in this time period are nothing more than bands of street thugs willing to slit their neighbors throats for a few bits of gold - can we dispense with the prejudice? Let's try and leave modern morality and law out of a place where it really doesn't fit or apply.

Maybe he's wrong - but until I see people actually citing different numbers with actual sources I'll reserve judgement.

On topic - I find the Romans to be represented well enough in the game - decent but not great units and cheap enough that you can afford to lose a few or a stack.

Tellos Athenaios

11-12-2007, 20:23

Well that's what you get when you cite:

195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0

Because a) (Minor point) It's not like there was one grand plan of conquering Iberia or sth.

More (Not compeltely 100%) like tribe x defies Romans rule, by god we shall send an army forthwith. Tribe x anihilates Romans and forces the retreating consul to accept the independence - by god we're the laugh of the whole of civilised world! Oh dear: they did it again!

Tribe x = Numantines, forcing the Romans in republic era to acknowledge their skill.

And there were others, who could do that job just as well too.

Because b) In front of people who actually worked to accurately represent such things as the Roman Legions, the Iberian tribes etc. etc.
Because c) You post a list which is worthless as source material because it gives you no sort of 'window' to refer to. The list doesn't contain casualties, army make up, terrain advantage for either side, etc. etc. And if history teaches us anything about military efforts, than it is that those tell us a lot more about succes or failure than the amount of battles you won or lost. And for the record: the campaign of Hannibal was one grand failure: IIRC about 50% of his troops were either gone or seriously ill before he even could begin with accomplishing any sort of objectives he had in mind. (Those 50% fell to: 1) Iberians who didn't like the Carhties crossing the borders; 2) Gauls who didn't enjoy it either; 3) Winter.)
Because d) You create the impression the Iberians can be brushed asid fairly easy: just look at Wikipedia - that'll prove me right and you wrong. And mind you as far as the Romans go Wikipedia even managed to get the duration of military service wrong. Ask Philip about that. -- Or look up the last debate on this Romans were the Best topic (Spears are very unbalanced thread). :gah2:

EDIT3: As far as the seriousness and the ferociousness of the Iberians is concerned. Augustus (Octavius Caesar) boasts of being the first to competely have subjugated Iberia! And that's when...you ask? Well in his Res Gestae which is written towards the end of his rule as Princeps, so we talk 20 AD-ish. Also it's worth nothing that Iberia is explicitly depicted on the Augustus of Prima Porta (famous for the decorations on the cuirass, famous for being the Roman copy of the Greek Doryphoros, famous for being the arche-type of all (later) Emperor statues) alongside with Gaul, and Parthia. (Gaul and Iberia are mourning their loss, the Parthian king humbly returns the Roman standards taken from the previous Roman generals who attempted to conquer him.)

Charge

11-12-2007, 20:37

:wall: :dizzy2:

...

:shrug:

Tellos Athenaios

11-12-2007, 20:43

I updated the post, if it concerns my reply. Webbrowser went nuts. :shrug:

Intranetusa

11-12-2007, 21:20

The Roman infantry was among the best in the world, especially by the time Marius made his changes(most likely started prior to Marius). A combination of arms,armor,training,discipline and triplex acies made them very formidable.

Actually, the quality of Roman arms and armor was often lower than their opponents. Their weapons/armor was cheap and produced in mass.

Their weapons and armor (chainmail, and later the famous 2nd century CE iron band armor) were made of carburized iron of varying quality. Roman metallurgical skills were actually quite poor compared to other civilizations at the time and they never developed steel.

abou

11-12-2007, 21:22

Well, to be fair it wasn't a copy of the Doryphoros. It just took the pose, which was famous and well attested already and looked good.

Intranetusa

11-12-2007, 21:22

May be we should have a sticky thread explayning that and why the Roman army was not a force of 250,000 elite warriors.

Actually that's a great idea. I'm writing an college-essay on misconceptions of the Roman military and that type of info would help a lot. :D

Sarcasm

11-12-2007, 21:33

/boggle

Gotta love how people want to say someone is wrong but don't even try and post opposing facts. I realise that some folks have some prejudice culturally towards the Romans but - since every culture / race in this time period are nothing more than bands of street thugs willing to slit their neighbors throats for a few bits of gold - can we dispense with the prejudice? Let's try and leave modern morality and law out of a place where it really doesn't fit or apply.

Maybe he's wrong - but until I see people actually citing different numbers with actual sources I'll reserve judgement.

On topic - I find the Romans to be represented well enough in the game - decent but not great units and cheap enough that you can afford to lose a few or a stack.

Heh...So a completely random list supported by a wikipedia article that's awfully biased *for* the romans you believe? Fine. Good for you.

My opinion that the list was bullshit was not because I'm prejudiced towards the Romans - thank you very much for passing judgement without really knowing a thing about me. To portray them as something that they were not is to do them a disservice really. They won, indeed, and their victory is even more impressive the more due credit you give to their opponents and realize that they were not super-men. Think about it.

That list, not only is largely arbitrary, it ignores that an extremely large number of the casualties the Romans suffered were not in set piece battles, and is basically prejudiced (now there's a good use for the word) towards those cultures that chose not to resort to field battles as their main way to stop them. But even those cultures did confront them on occasion in mass, and contrary of what it says in that post, they did win plenty of battles. Just not the wars.

Tellos Athenaios

11-12-2007, 21:47

Well, to be fair it wasn't a copy of the Doryphoros. It just took the pose, which was famous and well attested already and looked good.

Granted: a naked midget wouldn't have looked as .... impressive? :laugh4:
The whole thing about the Doryphoros which makes it *the* Doryphoros, is the detail to both realistic and ideal proportions and pose.

A Terribly Harmful Name

11-12-2007, 21:57

I used to question EB madly because of this, but now I have one less issue with this mod. Legionaries, the Cohors Reformata especially, are still by far the BEST infantry on the world.

They're not elite, but they're cost-effective, and that's their key word. With 12 attack (0.13 lethality) they are by far the most skilled swordsmen in the whole game; in Medium, they'll defeat toe vs. toe most rank and file infantry on the game, stand cavalry charges, trash opponents except for their very elites. They come in great numbers for a low cost, so if any pesky enemy elites get in your way, you could just throw not one, but two, more and more legionaries to overwhelm these elites with your numbers.

The key, of course, is to keep your guys in formation and get as many of them per unit as possible fighting. That includes using 3 to 4 rank deep formations, and setting them to fire at will also helps.

The point with Roman infantry is that it is excellent heavy infantry, and cheap. The war winning solution that put thousands of nations under the Roman yoke wasn't a chosen group of elites, it was a mass of well-trained, well equipped core troops. When only 10% of the enemy army is superior to you, it's just plainly easy to overwhelm them with these rock solid infantrymen.

Reminds me of WWII, and how american soldiers complained about the quality of American guns vs. German guns. The point is, they won because they could put a lot of competent troops on the field, not because they prioritized individual elites and very high quality weapons that didn't work (either due to bad projects or chronical lack of ammo) like the Germans did.

Are you playing on Medium?

--------

I'm still not satisfied with the uber phalanxes, the weak pila, and the stat increases for Hellenistic units in general, however. So I still think it arosed because of "pro-hellenism" instead of historical accuracy on the first place.

Edit - And what about the worthless Cohors Imperatoria, worthless Evocati, and worthless Cohors Praetoria? I still think the Romani deserve an uber unit in the game, at least to make the Praetorians worth their costs.

Starforge

11-12-2007, 22:04

Actually, the quality of Roman arms and armor was often lower than their opponents. Their weapons/armor was cheap and produced in mass.

Their weapons and armor (chainmail, and later the famous 2nd century CE iron band armor) were made of carburized iron of varying quality. Roman metallurgical skills were actually quite poor compared to other civilizations at the time and they never developed steel.

Just out of curiosity - how much did the consistency of the metalworking vary from province to province (say Iberia to Italy to Anatolia) given a particular time period? Just wondering how much local raw materials and the availability of local craftsmen played with the quality of Roman armor.

Heh...So a completely random list supported by a wikipedia article that's awfully biased *for* the romans you believe? Fine. Good for you.

My opinion that the list was bullshit was not because I'm prejudiced towards the Romans - thank you very much for passing judgement without really knowing a thing about me. To portray them as something that they were not is to do them a disservice really. They won, indeed, and their victory is even more impressive the more due credit you give to their opponents and realize that they were not super-men. Think about it.

That list, not only is largely arbitrary, it ignores that an extremely large number of the casualties the Romans suffered were not in set piece battles, and is basically prejudiced (now there's a good use for the word) towards those cultures that chose not to resort to field battles as their main way to stop them. Though even those cultures did confront them in them, and to the contrary of what it says in that post, they did won plenty of battles.

Thanks for being a bit more detailed. Simply saying "bullshit" and moving on makes it easy for one to draw possible misconceptions regarding your motives and prejudices :).

As stated in my on-topic comment, I don't believe that they should be supermen. I also firmly believe that there's a lot more than quality of troops involved in determining who wins a battle (something that you can't really portray in R:TW all too accurately.) Set battles and those mostly garnered from Roman sources are (I'm going out on a limb here) what we have to go on. Argueing that guerilla warfare happened and would skew the numbers since many cultures couldn't fight a set battle might very well be true - but simply not important to the discussion here on a TW forum wherein there is no real guerilla fighting going on in game (and in many cases likely a bit of speculation going on.)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-12-2007, 22:12

Just out of curiosity - how much did the consistency of the metalworking vary from province to province (say Iberia to Italy to Anatolia) given a particular time period? Just wondering how much local raw materials and the availability of local craftsmen played with the quality of Roman armor.

Well, I saw a comparisn of Roman swords found in Britain, only one was properly quenched and one (The "Tiberius" Gladius) had had it's edges so ground down that the carbonising on the outside of the blade was completely gone and the smith had worked through to soft iron underneath.

On the other hand Caesar's side-arm in Gaul was probably Iberian Steel.

Tellos Athenaios

11-12-2007, 22:17

The ore found in Syria and in Northern Iberia was of such exceptional properties that swords from those regions became widely renown for their quality. It required a good deal of expertise though, but if done properly you would have steel with an edge that lasts for centuries to come -- and the armour you could get was simply impenetrable for arrows. (Because the tips of the arrows would bend on the surface of the armour instead of piercing it.)

On the other hand: in Rome itself you would (especially so in the early days) favour imported gear (the muscle cuirass for instance) from Greek cities to the south.

Sarcasm

11-12-2007, 22:25

As stated in my on-topic comment, I don't believe that they should be supermen. I also firmly believe that there's a lot more than quality of troops involved in determining who wins a battle (something that you can't really portray in R:TW all too accurately.) Set battles and those mostly garnered from Roman sources are (I'm going out on a limb here) what we have to go on. Argueing that guerilla warfare happened and would skew the numbers since many cultures couldn't fight a set battle might very well be true - but simply not important to the discussion here on a TW forum wherein there is no real guerilla fighting going on in game (and in many cases likely a bit of speculation going on.)

Roman troops were, as far as I can tell of good quality, though certainly nothing extraordinary in the early period. They were brave, possessing a mentality that I sort of see expressed in later Italian armies made up of essentially high quality militias (much like the hoplites a couple centuries earlier). Certain periods of the early legion produced abnormally good quality legionaries during great wars (namely the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, along with the Makedonian Wars). Later, professionalizing the army made a great impact on the quality of the individual soldier and that *is* shown IMO - the late legionaries are just about the best bang for your buck in the mod.

Dogged determination and willingness to adapt is also what made Rome triumph when other powers would have simply give up. Iberia being a prime example - they saw their Vietnam to the end even if it implied mass-murder, genocide, pillaging and mass deportations to do it.

On the sources, there's plenty of Greek and Roman documents that check just how many defeats the Romans suffered during some periods. Meaning, that list is basically bogus. Again resorting to the Iberian scenario, the period of the Celtiberian and the Lusitanian Wars are prime examples with various praetorian and consular armies being defeated several times.

Starforge

11-12-2007, 22:29

Well, I saw a comparisn of Roman swords found in Britain, only one was properly quenched and one (The "Tiberius" Gladius) had had it's edges so ground down that the carbonising on the outside of the blade was completely gone and the smith had worked through to soft iron underneath.

On the other hand Caesar's side-arm in Gaul was probably Iberian Steel.

Ah, as I suspected then. We get used to thinking of "mass produced" in modern terms where one BMW is pretty much identical to the next BMW. Must play some hell drawing any real conclusions beyond what the local metals and craftsmen were like (presuming the poor sod wasn't a transfer :p)

Thanks :)

Sakkura

11-12-2007, 22:31

the late legionaries are just about the best bang for your buck in the mod.

Actually, it can be argued that the Polybian principes give more value for money than Cohors Reformata/Imperatoria. But the latter is preferable since they can be recruited all over the place.

blank

11-12-2007, 23:01

Actually, it can be argued that the Polybian principes give more value for money than Cohors Reformata/Imperatoria. But the latter is preferable since they can be recruited all over the place.

The principes would be experienced soldiers, whereas the reformed legionaries might not be

HopliteElite

11-12-2007, 23:24

This has all been very informative. Knowing that history seems to back up some of the weaknesses I mentioned, I am actually enjoying losing less experienced legionaries only to replace them using some sort of sick mass production of men, while I see my enemies slowly dwindling. I am however noticing that my older legionaries that are becoming more experienced are truly becoming fearsome veterans. I still use very little cavalry or archers but I am just more content to throw men at my enemies, only to bring up reserves if things get too hairy, since this, according to this thread, seems to be how the Romans worked. Thanks for all the information, its made my Roman campaign much more fun to know that it all truly is authentic.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-12-2007, 23:31

Geoffrey S

11-12-2007, 23:36

Thanks for being a bit more detailed. Simply saying "bullshit" and moving on makes it easy for one to draw possible misconceptions regarding your motives and prejudices :).
It's a tempting reaction nonetheless. Try reading the Celtic/Sweboz overpowered/underpowered topics and you'll find a topic the :wall: smiley was made for.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 00:09

It's a tempting reaction nonetheless. Try reading the Celtic/Sweboz overpowered/underpowered topics and you'll find a topic the :wall: smiley was made for.

I've followed those over the months. Alot of interesting info buried in those even if some / much of it is opinion. As a layman - and someone who gets most of his opinion from the web / History channel it seems quite evident that nearly all observations about events 2000 plus years ago fall into either general or speculative categories and all too often tainted by a bit of ancestral pride (far too often IMO in the BBC produced ones regarding the Celts.)

Being German / Spainish I guess I should be anti-Roman as well :beam:

Sadly, on many levels, I'd just like to get some undiluted facts which is probably impossible until / unless someone invents a time machine and you can actually be there.

zonks32

11-13-2007, 01:03

I've followed those over the months. Alot of interesting info buried in those even if some / much of it is opinion. As a layman - and someone who gets most of his opinion from the web / History channel it seems quite evident that nearly all observations about events 2000 plus years ago fall into either general or speculative categories and all too often tainted by a bit of ancestral pride (far too often IMO in the BBC produced ones regarding the Celts.)

Being German / Spainish I guess I should be anti-Roman as well :beam:

Sadly, on many levels, I'd just like to get some undiluted facts which is probably impossible until / unless someone invents a time machine and you can actually be there.

Exactly, I listen to a many of these "historians" and "scientists" talk about this and that as fact, in reality its mostly theory, they become so convinced that they close their mind off to any other possibilities and so become ignorant.
If all we know the T-rex could have been pink, even modern history is suspect, take the Iraq war as an example, in 50 years will it go down in history as the Iraq version (invaded by the USA for oil) or the USA (trying to bring democracy to Iraq) who knows ?.
I find many arguments on this forum amusing because every one's argument is based on something some one else has told them or read some where, yet they will claim it is fact.

Raphia

11-13-2007, 03:53

I always thought the main reason why there army was reformed was because the farm system that the Roman army was recruited from being destroyed.

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 04:17

Nah, that hypothesis is way overblown and no credible evidence supports it, really. The whole idea of the population crisis has been called into question by modern scholars, actually.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-13-2007, 09:35

Dayve

11-13-2007, 10:00

Well, later in the empire you can understand... Who the hell would want to don heavy armour and fight against mounted Huns!? I certainly wouldn't. :smash:

I'd be the first to chop off my middle finger.

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 14:27

indeed. Popular wars were, well, popular, with no shortage of volunteers to recruit. If the prospect of booty or slaves was high, plenty of farmers would enlist. IF the war was unpopular or the prospect of riches poor, there would be a dearth of military-age men to recruit.

Sakkura

11-13-2007, 14:31

Well there was an agrarian problem but it seems to be more on the order of people not wanting to go on service lest a senator grab their land while they were away, rather than an actual lack of farmers.
Yeah. Part of the social unrest from the late second century BC and on was even caused by such problems, so a reform of recruitment and/or the agrarian system was called for. The Gracchus-brothers didn't succeed with their agrarian reforms, so instead it ended being Marius and his recruitment reform that went ahead.

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 14:44

not really. Marius wasnt the first to recruit from the proletariat, and even after him standard class armies were still recruited. "Marian reform" is just a handy name placed on the epoch by some people. It was really the Social War that normalized the recruitement of capite censi soldiers.

Chris1959

11-13-2007, 16:29

After a very polite request to post in the forum, I'll stick my head into this lion's mouth.

I think one thing that is forgotten in arguements about how good/bad the legions were we tend to forget how good they were off the battlefield. The Romans were overall some of the best military emngineers going.

That means they usually turned up for battle well equipped, well fed and well armed. On the whole I get the impression that they suffered relatively low attrition rates and one of the hardest things a commander faces is getting troops to battle in a good condition to fight.

And also the Romans turned siege warfare into an art form that few could match. I've climbed Masada and seen the Roman ramp, an army that could take that fortress could take anything.

Also things we overlook bridging rivers etc, remember Ceasar bridging the Rhine in six days. The trade mark roads, marching camps etc.

These are things that do not show to well in the campaign game but are what set the Romans apart from enemies who in many ways were "better".

Intranetusa

11-13-2007, 16:37

Ah, as I suspected then. We get used to thinking of "mass produced" in modern terms where one BMW is pretty much identical to the next BMW. Must play some hell drawing any real conclusions beyond what the local metals and craftsmen were like (presuming the poor sod wasn't a transfer :p)

Thanks :)

Still, Roman arms/armor varied greatly in quality - and they never had steel.
This basically invalidates half the crap the history channel does on the lorica segementa... (I saw once they said the lorica segementa that tested <which for some reason they used modern high quality steel> could stop a scorpion/ballista bolt....which is really bullsh*t

Intranetusa

11-13-2007, 16:45

Exactly, I listen to a many of these "historians" and "scientists" talk about this and that as fact, in reality its mostly theory, they become so convinced that they close their mind off to any other possibilities and so become ignorant.
If all we know the T-rex could have been pink, even modern history is suspect, take the Iraq war as an example, in 50 years will it go down in history as the Iraq version (invaded by the USA for oil) or the USA (trying to bring democracy to Iraq) who knows ?.
I find many arguments on this forum amusing because every one's argument is based on something some one else has told them or read some where, yet they will claim it is fact.

Hmmm, zonk, in scientific terms, theory is used differently from everyday terms. In science, a theory is used to explain a fact. That is why gravity is called a "theory" - theory of relativity and theory of universal gravitation.

As for the T-Rex being pink, if it was pink, all its prey would spot it from 10 miles away, and all the pink dinosaurs would've died out before any significant population developed... >.<

Bava

11-13-2007, 16:53

Starforge

11-13-2007, 17:36

Still, Roman arms/armor varied greatly in quality - and they never had steel.
This basically invalidates half the crap the history channel does on the lorica segementa... (I saw once they said the lorica segementa that tested <which for some reason they used modern high quality steel> could stop a scorpion/ballista bolt....which is really bullsh*t

Hehe - some of their representations leave much to be desired scientifically. I suppose they're aimed at a bunch of eager young minds in classrooms but even then I find it suspect at best.

One episode they showed the difference between the recurve nomadic bow and the western longbow. The replicas were both approximately (gotta love that) half the draw of what they think they were from the time period (anyone else see how once those 2 disclaimers are made - watching the rest is like reading a fantasy book?) Then, since the recurve had a bit more velocity on the arrow (no mention, btw, if the arrows in question were appropriate to the period and culture) hence the recurve was the better bow.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but I'm pretty sure I didn't learn much from that demonstration.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 17:42

Tellos Athenaios

11-13-2007, 17:49

Hmmm, zonk, in scientific terms, theory is used differently from everyday terms. In science, a theory is used to explain a fact. That is why gravity is called a "theory" - theory of relativity and theory of universal gravitation.

As for the T-Rex being pink, if it was pink, all its prey would spot it from 10 miles away, and all the pink dinosaurs would've died out before any significant population developed... >.<

Two things.

First: Law & Theory are not the same. Law is about (proven) fact; Theory is about explaining things which arise. Theory doesn't mean fact - in fact it's one of the very few words in the science vocabulary to retain its everyday meaning. ~;) Evolution? Theory. Proven? No, not yet.
1+1=2? Law. Proven? Yes. This has been theory for thousands of years!

Second: does aforementioned prey have the ability to see in colour? .... Because if they don't then being pink is much the same as being blue, or being yellow. An optional extra.

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 18:02

Sakkura

11-13-2007, 18:10

Sakkura

11-13-2007, 18:13

actually evolution is proven many times over.. Theory is used in science as the best possibile explanation for something, such as the "Theory" of gravity. or the "theory" of relativity. Same thing with the "Theory" of evolution.
Yeah, theory is the next best thing to fact in science. A theory is something that there is very strong evidence in favor of. Newer ideas which are unproven or less rigorously tested are referred to as hypotheses.

The colloquial term "theory" corresponds better with the scientific term "hypothesis" than the scientific term "theory".

Starforge

11-13-2007, 18:15

actually evolution is proven many times over.. Theory is used in science as the best possibile explanation for something, such as the "Theory" of gravity. or the "theory" of relativity. Same thing with the "Theory" of evolution.

Depends probably on how you use it. Proving how certain attributes have "evolved" as a response to environmental conditions on certain species can likely be done. Proving that human beings evolved from primates still requires some leaps of faith since we seem to be missing those smoking guns that positively lead us from primate to modern man.

I'm not argueing creationism - merely stating that while the "theory" of evolution (in the manner in which it is usually referred to) might make much sense it's hardly fact.

mAIOR

11-13-2007, 18:17

Is it me or the Cohors evocata and the Praetorians are missing 2 armor points?

Cheers...

Sakkura

11-13-2007, 18:21

Is it me or the Cohors evocata and the Praetorians are missing 2 armor points?

Cheers...
My understanding is that they used more or less the same equipment as other legionaries, and as such their armor stat should not be higher. However, at least the evocati should have a little better morale and probably defense/attack due to their experience.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 18:32

Yeah, theory is the next best thing to fact in science. A theory is something that there is very strong evidence in favor of. Newer ideas which are unproven or less rigorously tested are referred to as hypotheses.

The colloquial term "theory" corresponds better with the scientific term "hypothesis" than the scientific term "theory".

Dangerous ground there. Setting "theory" above "hypothesis" merely implies that enough scientists bought into the "hypothesis" to believe it's "fact" but don't want to get caught having to prove it.

So....what determines moving a "hypothesis" to a "theory" exactly? Number of people believing it to be true? Popularity of the idea? Political correctness of the idea?

Sorry, kinda like facts and not-facts as opposed to facts, likely facts, probably facts, maybe facts, not likely to be facts, hopefully facts and willfully facts :).

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 18:38

Depends probably on how you use it. Proving how certain attributes have "evolved" as a response to environmental conditions on certain species can likely be done. Proving that human beings evolved from primates still requires some leaps of faith since we seem to be missing those smoking guns that positively lead us from primate to modern man.

I'm not argueing creationism - merely stating that while the "theory" of evolution (in the manner in which it is usually referred to) might make much sense it's hardly fact.

Actually this is untrue, we know the common ancestors of both primates and human beings.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 18:42

Actually this is untrue, we know the common ancestors of both primates and human beings.

Really. They actually found a smoking gun? Got a link somewhere?

Intranetusa

11-13-2007, 18:43

Two things.

First: Law & Theory are not the same. Law is about (proven) fact; Theory is about explaining things which arise. Theory doesn't mean fact - in fact it's one of the very few words in the science vocabulary to retain its everyday meaning. ~;) Evolution? Theory. Proven? No, not yet.
1+1=2? Law. Proven? Yes. This has been theory for thousands of years!

Second: does aforementioned prey have the ability to see in colour? .... Because if they don't then being pink is much the same as being blue, or being yellow. An optional extra.

A law is a "general statement about nature." A law really explains nothing. It is the theories that explain the laws. That's why the "law of gravity" is explained by the theory of universal gravitation and theory of relativity.

Gravity can't be seen, can't be touched, can't be tested (what you experience is acceleration and normal force), etc. Overall, gravity is a theory supported by evidence, just like every other theory in science.

Depends probably on how you use it. Proving how certain attributes have "evolved" as a response to environmental conditions on certain species can likely be done. Proving that human beings evolved from primates still requires some leaps of faith since we seem to be missing those smoking guns that positively lead us from primate to modern man.

I'm not argueing creationism - merely stating that while the "theory" of evolution (in the manner in which it is usually referred to) might make much sense it's hardly fact.

Well, nothing in science in concrete. Evolution is the best scientific argument that explains the origins of life, and supported by various fields of science ranging from biology to paleontology to chemistry.

As for leaps of faiths, well, the leap required evolution isn't that great. We have skeletons from primates such as neanderthals, cro magons, Australopithecus afarenaris, Australopithecus Africanus, "taung child," "java man," "peking man," etc that supports the idea that modern primates and humans have a common ancestor.

As for theories, theories can never become fact. Hell, we don't even know if gravity actually exists or not... :/

Intranetusa

11-13-2007, 18:49

Dangerous ground there. Setting "theory" above "hypothesis" merely implies that enough scientists bought into the "hypothesis" to believe it's "fact" but don't want to get caught having to prove it.

So....what determines moving a "hypothesis" to a "theory" exactly? Number of people believing it to be true? Popularity of the idea? Political correctness of the idea?

Sorry, kinda like facts and not-facts as opposed to facts, likely facts, probably facts, maybe facts, not likely to be facts, hopefully facts and willfully facts :).

Hypothesis that is well supported by evidence and cross examined by other scientists eventually becomes theories.

Really. They actually found a smoking gun? Got a link somewhere?

There is no such thing as a "smoking gun." That's actually a popular term constantly advocated by creationists/intelligent designists.

Evolution is a non-stop continual process that has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. Unless you dig up every single fossil of every primate that every existed, you're only going to get skeletons that represent transient points in time.

If you want a link, look up science articles on neanderthals, cro magons, Australopithecus afarenaris, Australopithecus Africanus, "taung child," "java man," "peking man," etc

If you want a link regarding evolution in other life forms, here are some good google topics:
"lung fish developing color vision"
"whales & dolphins have hindlegs bones"
"sea anemone light receptors evolve into eye"
etc

Here is a science link to fun facts on vestigial organs left over from evolution:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs.html

Starforge

11-13-2007, 18:53

Well, nothing in science in concrete. Evolution is the best scientific argument that explains the origins of life, and supported by various fields of science ranging from biology to paleontology to chemistry.

As for leaps of faiths, well, the leap required evolution isn't that great. We have skeletons from primates such as neanderthals, cro magons, Australopithecus afarenaris, Australopithecus Africanus, "taung child," "java man," "peking man," etc that supports the idea that modern primates and humans have a common ancestor.

As for theories, theories can never become fact. Hell, we don't even know if gravity actually exists or not... :/

Again - not argueing from a anti-evolution standpoint - merely playing devils advocate (no pun intended.) My understanding was that there was no genetic link between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthal making it not an ancestor but a failed evolutionary tract.

Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution comes with quite a bit of speculations given the data. This goes back to my earlier post wherein some folks want to have another layer of "truth" between "hypothesis" and "proveable fact." Theories, actually, can become fact and it wouldn't suprise me to have a proof of gravity at some point (maybe even in our lifetime.) String theory anyone? :p

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 18:55

Geez dude I thought everyone was aware of this by now, its even on wiki for chrissakes.

latest common ancestor of humans and chipanzees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis

Starforge

11-13-2007, 19:04

There is no such thing as a "smoking gun." That's actually a popular term constantly advocated by creationists/intelligent designists.

And this right here is my biggest problem with your "hypothesis" / "theory" idea. Simply because I didn't agree I've been pigeonholed regarding my ideas. I personally don't have any more "faith" in God any more than I have "faith" that science has filled in all the answers.

We are here now. What came before (certainly what came millions of years before not history of our own species which we can learn modern lessons from) is an interesting excersise. Maybe I'm just jaded but the debate about what happened a few million years ago that resulted in me sitting here in front of my computer typing away seems awfully damn detatched from practicality.

Not having a vested interest on either side of the equation makes watching both sides go out of their way to "prove" an unproveable point kinda funny :).

Starforge

11-13-2007, 19:06

Geez dude I thought everyone was aware of this by now, its even on wiki for chrissakes.

latest common ancestor of humans and chipanzees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis

Just a small snippet:

"Another possibility is that Toumaï is anatomically related to both humans and chimpanzees, but the ancestor of neither."

Yep - sounds like facts to me.

Sakkura

11-13-2007, 19:07

Intranetusa

11-13-2007, 19:19

Again - not argueing from a anti-evolution standpoint - merely playing devils advocate (no pun intended.) My understanding was that there was no genetic link between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthal making it not an ancestor but a failed evolutionary tract.

Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution comes with quite a bit of speculations given the data. This goes back to my earlier post wherein some folks want to have another layer of "truth" between "hypothesis" and "proveable fact." Theories, actually, can become fact and it wouldn't suprise me to have a proof of gravity at some point (maybe even in our lifetime.) String theory anyone? :p

"failed evolutionary tract"

Exactly If other species evolve, why won't humans? Humans certainly are not some special organism immune to the laws of nature.

"Theories, actually, can become fact and it wouldn't suprise me to have a proof of gravity at some point"

Incorrect. Theories can never become laws. Theories are supported by factual evidence. A fact (you probably meant law) is a generalized statement about nature. A theory explains laws in detail. String theory actually isn't a theory at this point - they call it "theory" but in actuality it is treated as a hypothesis.

And this right here is my biggest problem with your "hypothesis" / "theory" idea. Simply because I didn't agree I've been pigeonholed regarding my ideas. I personally don't have any more "faith" in God any more than I have "faith" that science has filled in all the answers.

We are here now. What came before (certainly what came millions of years before not history of our own species which we can learn modern lessons from) is an interesting excersise. Maybe I'm just jaded but the debate about what happened a few million years ago that resulted in me sitting here in front of my computer typing away seems awfully damn detatched from practicality.

Not having a vested interest on either side of the equation makes watching both sides go out of their way to "prove" an unproveable point kinda funny :).

I haven't pidgeoned your ideas. What I said was true - IDers/creationists DO use the term "smoking gun" quite often as a rebuttal to evolution.
As for my theory/hypothesis idea, no this is not "my idea." This is called the "scientific method" - something we all learned in middle school.
Science is not something that requires the same type of faith as religion. As for all the answers, no, science will never be able to explain "everything" but science is the best tool we have to explain the physical world.

The question I will ask you know is - If you don't believe in evolution, what do you believe in?

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 19:22

exactly. science does not deal in absolutes, only religion does that. science takes the evidence and gives the best possible explanation as we understand it at the time. look at einstein's work on general relativity, before newton's theories on gravity were predominant.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 19:39

The question I will ask you know is - If you don't believe in evolution, what do you believe in?[/B]

Thought I made that relatively clear in the last post: who cares? It's not a point that anyone can prove beyond doubt and has no measurable point in its current form beyond science proving the bible wrong or the bible proving science wrong. What's even more amusing is why either side gives a large rats butt what the other believes beyond a psycological excersise.

As to the "scientific method" being learned in middle school (/chuckle) it seems we lose sight of that method when defending theories that we are psycologically passionate about. I'm not saying that's you or that it applies in this instance or every instance but too often people accept "theories" as facts unsupported simply because it's easier than actually having to think about it.

"he's a scientist - what he said must be true." :beam:

Edit: Funny you would ask me what I would "believe" in. Look up the definitions of belief and see how merely asking about belief kinda invalidates our scientific discussion :)

alatar

11-13-2007, 20:48

Starforge, basicly the bible will neer ever prove science wrong.
Science evolves and attapts, and is constatly changing, take physics for example, every ten years the thorys change dramaticly.
And "who cares" about wheather or not evolution exists. C'mon don't be stupid, in the treatment of infectious diseases the theory of evolution comes into play. How else did peniclin magicly stop working?

Intranetusa

11-13-2007, 21:22

Thought I made that relatively clear in the last post: who cares? It's not a point that anyone can prove beyond doubt and has no measurable point in its current form beyond science proving the bible wrong or the bible proving science wrong.

So basically you're avoiding my question?

Judging from your previous statements, I will make the assumption that you are an intelligent design supporter. Which is also why you are refusing to answer my question.

And you ask who cares? Well, when PETA members firebomb medical research plants and Greenpeace tries to destroy genetically engineered crops out of ignorance of biology, hundreds of millions of people die from the potential benefits that science would yield.

What's even more amusing is why either side gives a large rats butt what the other believes beyond a psycological excersise.

Actually, biologists don't give a damn what Pat Robertson or Billy Graham thinks. The problem here is when religious fundamentalists try to inject religious teachings into public school, which not only threatens the separation of church and state, but also scientific advancements that benefits humanity.

Unfortunately, the only time most of us care about science is when another nation (ie. Soviets) show that they are superior in the scientific field (ie. launching of Sputnik), thus creating a public furor and support for science (space race).

I'm not saying that's you or that it applies in this instance or every instance but too often people accept "theories" as facts unsupported simply because it's easier than actually having to think about it.

"he's a scientist - what he said must be true." :beam:

Edit: Funny you would ask me what I would "believe" in. Look up the definitions of belief and see how merely asking about belief kinda invalidates our scientific discussion :)

Not having to think about it? It's actually far easier to say "BAM! Jesus intelligently designed mankind in 6 days, 7000 years ago," rather than thinking about how a highly selective and complex biological process is responsible for the creation of life over 800 million years.

As for your statement that "he's a scientist - what he said must be true."
Have you ever heard of the scientific community? That semi-organization exists solely for the purpose of scientific debate and the questioning of science. Never heard of the "Darwin wars" either?

And your final statement. I asked what you "believe in." I didn't ask you for your religious faith. Belief and faith are two different words with different definitions. Look it up.

Teleklos Archelaou

11-13-2007, 21:34

"At last I went to the artisans; I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;, because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom;"

I'm not a scientist myself. I'd much rather trust the general scientific community of anthropologists, botonists, biologists, et al., than someone who just has a feeling that something isn't right with their generally agreed beliefs, or someone who is relying on words written down by humans a little before our mod's time period that is supposed to have all the answers wrapped up neatly for us.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 21:41

Starforge, basicly the bible will neer ever prove science wrong.

sigh...did I say it would? Doesn't keep a bunch of folks from believing they can though does it? Can science disprove "faith?" Not the words or specifics of a human written bible but actually change peoples beliefs? I'm not saying that their "faith" is right but having it will happen in spite of science (want several thousand years of recorded history as evidence?) Just using recent history and Christianity....how long did it take the Catholic church to revoke the excommunication of Copernicus? heh.

Science evolves and attapts, and is constatly changing, take physics for example, every ten years the thorys change dramaticly.
And "who cares" about wheather or not evolution exists. C'mon don't be stupid, in the treatment of infectious diseases the theory of evolution comes into play. How else did peniclin magicly stop working?

Not saying that adaptation and natural selection don't work as observed in the example you used. Without knowing the environmental factors and the actual ancestors to modern humans makes knowing how / why we evolved problematic. Why do we have 10 fingers and toes? We can extrapolate that it was a mutation that provided a selectable benefit but we'll very likely never know why.

Maybe all of this was evolution, maybe ID, maybe space aliens populated the earth a million years ago and we can't find the ship. /shrug and....? :beam:

So basically you're avoiding my question?

No...you're asking me to pick a side. I'm closest to apathetic agnostic (look it up if you want a definition.) Problem is - it's always easier when we can pigeonhole people down a set path. We assume folks are christian right or socialists or communists or whatever so that we can assume the rest of the facts without having to think about their individual positions. If there is a God (or big juju as George Carlin calls it) since he / she / it doesn't involve itself in any manifest or meaningful way in daily existance....who cares. But feel free to assume I'm aligned with Billy Graham if that's your comfort zone rofl.

Actually, biologists don't give a damn what Pat Robertson or Billy Graham thinks. The problem here is when religious fundamentalists try to inject religious teachings into public school, which not only threatens the separation of church and state, but also scientific advancements that benefits humanity.

Actually, the original constitution in no way wanted a separation of church and state and only protestants - particularly worried about the Catholic church getting a foothold as the state religion, placed that language into the constitution. Have to laugh your ass off that the same people who put the language in out of fear are now stuck with it (to use a religious term - reap what you sow.) Don't believe me - look it up.

And your final statement. I asked what you "believe in." I didn't ask you for your religious faith. Belief and faith are two different words with different definitions. Look it up.

I know what belief means but here's a helpful link for ya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Not overly scientific methinks.

Edit: Maybe it was the "big Electrode" with George Carlin....been a while since I watched that one :p

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-13-2007, 22:16

I view evolution the same way I do God.

In neither instance can I provide you with abolute proof but that doesn't stop me from believing both to be true.

How's that you you?:beam:

Frostwulf

11-13-2007, 22:18

@ Frostwulf: Have you found some numbers concerning the minor battles/guerilla in Spain?

Not knowing the facts, I'd guess the Romans had a real hard time at trying to pacify it and lost most of their troops after the conquest of Spain. Well, this reminds me a bit of a modern-day situation: the second US-Iraqi War and its aftermath.

Yours, T.From my understanding the Romans had a real tough time with Spain, especially in the 150's. The ones I listed in the 190's goes a little in the detail on some of these but not much. I have listed the 3 main battles at the bottom of this post.

The Roman army was never exceptional in our period, but it's standardisation and it's homogenisation meant it lack serious weaknesses in it's core element. The infantry. Having said that, the chronic problems on missile troops and cavalry were only solved at the end of our period. The Infantry is who I was mainly referring to considering the good cavalry and missile troops tended to be mercenaries(for the most part). The infantry I do think was exceptional(by Caesars time for sure), not the greatest but they were certainly good not just "they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals."

Roman success had two causes; brute force through superior numbers, and ALWAYS maintaining a reserve force.I know for the battles with the Celts the Romans in general were outnumbered. As far as against the Samnites,Greeks etc. I'm not sure I agree with you, I haven't read enough of the battles yet to make that conclusion. The reserve did play a big part but so did the Roman discipline and triplex acies.

Frostwulf, go home. If you want to ignore something like three or four discussions in recent history on the topic then be my guest. I don't want to see this collapse into the same miasma of suck that you turned the German and Celtic threads into. I don't recall any of this discussion before except one that dealt with Roman culture, not the soldiers or army. As far as the German(which I started) and Celtic threads how is it that "I" turned them into a "miasma of suck"?

Well that's what you get when you cite:

195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
I posted this part:

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines.

Because c) You post a list which is worthless as source material because it gives you no sort of 'window' to refer to. The list doesn't contain casualties, army make up, terrain advantage for either side, etc. etc. And if history teaches us anything about military efforts, than it is that those tell us a lot more about succes or failure than the amount of battles you won or lost. And for the record: the campaign of Hannibal was one grand failure: IIRC about 50% of his troops were either gone or seriously ill before he even could begin with accomplishing any sort of objectives he had in mind. (Those 50% fell to: 1) Iberians who didn't like the Carhties crossing the borders; 2) Gauls who didn't enjoy it either; 3) Winter.)
My list as said above was basic and made just to show the following post as wrong:

The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already.
The Romans did win more battles then they lost.

@Sarcasm-I'm not ignoring your post, I just feel that I answered you from my above reply.
For your second post:

Roman troops were, as far as I can tell of good quality, though certainly nothing extraordinary in the early period. They were brave, possessing a mentality that I sort of see expressed in later Italian armies made up of essentially high quality militias (much like the hoplites a couple centuries earlier). Certain periods of the early legion produced abnormally good quality legionaries during great wars (namely the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, along with the Makedonian Wars). Later, professionalizing the army made a great impact on the quality of the individual soldier and that *is* shown I concur completely with you on this, I believe I have said something along the same lines as this in the Celtic overpowered thread, I believe I said they were militia/conscript army.

On the sources, there's plenty of Greek and Roman documents that check just how many defeats the Romans suffered during some periods. Meaning, that list is basically bogus. Again resorting to the Iberian scenario, the period of the Celtiberian and the Lusitanian Wars are prime examples with various praetorian and consular armies being defeated several times.I stated my list was basic and didn't get into those much. Here is what is written during the Spanish Wars of the 190's.
Turda(195)-Spanish Wars
During the Second Punic War the Spanish tribes fought for one side or the other(or both in turn). Soon after the cessation of hostilities they began to fight for themselves-against the Romans. In 197 the Romans divided the administration of the conquered part into two praetorian provinces, Hispania Citerior (Hither Spain) in the east and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain ) in the south. In the same year there was an insurrection in Hither Spain in which a Roman army was routed at an unknown place and the praetor Tuditanus died of his wounds. After this, the Spaniards appeared to simmer down until, two years later, the praetor Minucius routed two Spanish commanders in a pitched battle near Turda (probably Turba), inflicting 12,000 casualties and capturing one of the commanders. It is unsaid but may be presumed that the Spaniards started the fight. Livy, 33:44(4-5) pg.197

Iliturgi(195)-Spanish Wars
Marcus Helvius was retiring from Further Spain with 6,000men at the end of his tour of duty. A large force of Celtiberians, estimated at around 20,000 in number, fell upon him in the vicinity of Ilitugi [near Cabanes]. About 12,000 of the Celtiberians were said to be killed. The town was seized and all the adults were put to death. Livy, 34:10(1-2) pg. 197

Emporiae(195)-Spanish Wars
The senate decided that the escalation of the war in Spain necessitated a commander of consular rank instead of praetor. The province of Hither Spain was assigned to Marcus Porcius Cato, wo landed at Emporiae[Ampurias] just south of the Pyrenees and encamped nearby. While he was there, representatives of the Ilegetes, who were allies of Rome, came to complain that they were being continually attacked by hostile tribesmen and they asked for help. Cato was in a dilemma. He was unwilling to refuse aid to his allies but thought it equally unwise to weaken his modest force. He solved the problem by ordering the embarkation of a third of his force n full view of the delegates. When the latter had departed to report the 'facts', which were also certain to reach the enemy ears, he ordered the disembarkation of the troops. After a period of intensive training, he took his men out one night and led them past the enemy position. At daybreak he drew his men up in battle order and sent thee cohorts up to the ramparts. When the enemy saw them, Cato recalled them as if in flight. The ploy succeeded in enticing the enemy out of their defenses, where upon Cato ordered the cavalry to attack them on both flanks while they were still in disorder. Even with this advantage, the fighting was indecisive. The cavalry on the right were driven back, causing some panic, and so the consul sent two cohorts to outflank the enemy on that wing and attack them in the rear. This redressed the balance. When his men became exhausted, the consul put in fresh reserves who made a vigorous charge in wedge formation. This force the enemy back and then put them to flight back to their camp. When Cato saw this, he ordered the second legion to advance at full speed and attack the camp. The fighting was still robust and the camp was vigorously defended until the consul noticed that the left gate was only thinly manned. He directed the principes and hastati to the weak point, where they burst inside the camp. After that, it became a massacre as the Romans cut down the enemy who jostled and scrummed at the approaches to the gates. The enemy losses were 'heavy'. In consequence of the battle the Spaniards in that area surrendered, as did many other towns along the consul's route until the whole country north of the Ebro had been subdued. Livy, 34: 11-16920; Appian, Spanish Wars,40 pg.197

These came from :Battles of the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Chronological Compendium of 667 Battles to 31Bc, from the Historians of the Ancient World by John Drogo Montagu.

Here is a list from another forum, though I don't know how exact it is.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=15563

Intranetusa

11-13-2007, 22:44

No...you're asking me to pick a side. I'm closest to apathetic agnostic (look it up if you want a definition.) Problem is - it's always easier when we can pigeonhole people down a set path. We assume folks are christian right or socialists or communists or whatever so that we can assume the rest of the facts without having to think about their individual positions.

So you're basically saying you have no opinions on the origins of life or science/religion/etc?
Then as an "apathetic agnostic," why did you comment and say this:

"Depends probably on how you use it. Proving how certain attributes have "evolved" as a response to environmental conditions on certain species can likely be done. Proving that human beings evolved from primates still requires some leaps of faith since we seem to be missing those smoking guns that positively lead us from primate to modern man."

Your statements basically states "belief in evolution requires a leap of faith," which is quite a non-apathetic argument which leads me to believe you do have a strong opinion tilting to one side.

Actually, the original constitution in no way wanted a separation of church and state and only protestants - particularly worried about the Catholic church getting a foothold as the state religion, placed that language into the constitution. Have to laugh your ass off that the same people who put the language in out of fear are now stuck with it (to use a religious term - reap what you sow.) Don't believe me - look it up.

And actually, the founding fathers were mostly non-Christian Deists who did not believe in a personal diety that intervened in the universe. Their philosophy was mostly based on Enlightenment influences (with various judeo-christian elements). It's funny how everyone assumes that the founders wanted a Judeo-Christian nation.

I know what belief means but here's a helpful link for ya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Not overly scientific methinks.

The word believe has nothing to do with science because modern vocabulary assigns more than one definition to a word.

Dictionary.com is more useful than wiki definitions. Here is a helpful link for you that explains the definitions of the word "believe."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

Look up the 2nd and 3rd definitions of the word believe.

A Terribly Harmful Name

11-13-2007, 23:11

My understanding is that they used more or less the same equipment as other legionaries, and as such their armor stat should not be higher. However, at least the evocati should have a little better morale and probably defense/attack due to their experience.

More or less the same armor except for the two greaves giving them extra protection. Yet this was erased with the watered down Romans in EB 1.0 for mysterious reasons, I believe.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 23:26

So you're basically saying you have no opinions on the origins of life or science/religion/etc?
Then as an "apathetic agnostic," why did you comment and say this:

"Depends probably on how you use it. Proving how certain attributes have "evolved" as a response to environmental conditions on certain species can likely be done. Proving that human beings evolved from primates still requires some leaps of faith since we seem to be missing those smoking guns that positively lead us from primate to modern man."

Your statements basically states "belief in evolution requires a leap of faith," which is quite a non-apathetic argument which leads me to believe you do have a strong opinion tilting to one side.

What part of "closest to" don't you get ROFL. And yes - belief in evolution does require many leaps in faith simply because scientists find bits and pieces of evidence and have to speculate on how this or that fits into their philosophy. Accepting what they come up with as "truth" would certainly require some "faith" :juggle2: .

And actually, the founding fathers were mostly non-Christian Deists who did not believe in a personal diety that intervened in the universe. Their philosophy was mostly based on Enlightenment influences (with various judeo-christian elements). It's funny how everyone assumes that the founders wanted a Judeo-Christian nation.

It's funny how people who don't like Christians (as seems obvious from your posts though I'm sure you'll disagree to appear more tolerant) go out of their way to assume that the founding fathers (folks who held mass every Sunday in Congress I guess as a PR stint) didn't respect Judeo-Christianity. It kinda pisses me off as a person who attempts to respect history that 200 plus years later, our progressive society would like to rewrite history to support their viewpoint. Don't like Christians, the religious right, or their views - fine. Hit them with ideas not revisionist history. That Jefferson and I'm sure other of the founding fathers were worried about a church (be it Anglican as he was raised or Catholic or whatever) have undue influence over the states I have no doubt. Denying that even a Deist (presumably) such as Jefferson didn't respect Judeo-Christianity is absurd.

Oh, wait, I'm argueing a Christian viewpoint - I must REALLY be a Christian!! :bounce:

The word believe has nothing to do with science because modern vocabulary assigns more than one definition to a word.

Dictionary.com is more useful than wiki definitions. Here is a helpful link for you that explains the definitions of the word "believe."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

Look up the 2nd and 3rd definitions of the word believe.

Yup - don't look behind the curtain and skip the first definition. I'm sorry, but if that doesn't underline where you are coming from I don't know what does. Believe only what supports your argument. You really didn't mean the most common definition of the word "believe" but actually one of the secondary meanings. My bad.

Couldn't have proved my point any better.

Zaknafien

11-13-2007, 23:31

Um, evolution does not require leaps of faith, there is a plethora of evidence in the scientific community.

And it is well known that most of the Founders were diests or unitarian universalists who did not practice "Christianity" as protestant evangelicals do today. They have tried to hijack the 'founding fathers' for religious propaganda.

Starforge

11-13-2007, 23:52

Um, evolution does not require leaps of faith, there is a plethora of evidence in the scientific community.

Wasn't meaning to challenge your beliefs :beam:

And it is well known that most of the Founders were diests or unitarian universalists who did not practice "Christianity" as protestant evangelicals do today. They have tried to hijack the 'founding fathers' for religious propaganda.

So, I ask again - having mass on Sunday in Congress as a matter of public record was a PR stint? /sigh. Find me sources that say they were Deists and I can find sources that say otherwise (and both sides are biased with the political times.)

Lol. Well, this kind of fearmongering on both sides (The Christians will take away our rights / the Progressive will undermine our values) is laughable. Keeps people fighting each other while the people at the top keep taking their money to the bank so I guess it's effective.

jhhowell

11-13-2007, 23:59

Theory doesn't mean fact - in fact it's one of the very few words in the science vocabulary to retain its everyday meaning. ~;)

While I haven't read back to see where the heck this came out of a discussion of Roman legions, this statement could not possibly be more wrong and is a serious pet peeve of mine (and I suspect of most other scientists).

The whole strategy of the US creationist movement is based on the wildly different meanings of the words "fact" and "theory" in their everyday vs. scientific usages. In everyday English, a "fact" is as good as information gets, while a "theory" is just some idea someone had that may or may not be true. In science, "fact" is just another name for "data point". They're indispensable, but they're also the most basic and trivial type of information. Theories are the most solid, bedrock ideas in science because they organize huge numbers of indivdiually meaningless facts into a coherent whole, allowing us to understand why phenomenon X occurs and to predict new phenomena. Creationists are semantically correct when they say evolution is a theory, not a fact. The problem is that they (and many of their listeners in this country) believe that's a criticism or a statement of weakness... :wall:

To be fair, scientists don't help matters by using alternate meanings of the word theory (I think the origins lie with the mathematicians, but I could be wrong). Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism, etc., are theories as above, while string theory (for example) is a rather different beast...

Tellos Athenaios

11-14-2007, 00:36

First I'd like to re-state that theory is not fact; that theory never meant fact; and that all a theory is - really is a way of reasoning based on either facts or nothing at all. Science (and especially its history) is full of theories which haven't been proven or have been firmly disproven. Theories merely try to explain what occurs. Science is the sport of asking yourself: "what?". It's the only question you can try and prove or disprove through experiments - and you concept theories regarding the answer before you start doing experiments.

Scientific Law on the other hand is about fact insofar as that it will tell you what certain data means regarding other data. It is the proven theory, if you will.

If you would go into Math theories you will find that especially there theories often have hardly (if any at all) factual basis (heck even the word basis means something entirely else there, and indicates a particular line of reasoning -called induction- is being followed) - and that they are built from well often nomenclature. Some theories make it into law, because they get mathematically proven - some are discarded through counter examples for instance, yet another class is forgotten and most of all remain just that: a theory.

Now, before someone starts believing I am some sort of US Creationist or the likes of them... That is about as wrong as you can get. Creationists, I am fully aware of, often will emphasise this aspect of science (a theory isn't a proven fact and therefore shouldn't be thaught as such - which if you think about it isn't a really bad thing to keep in mind) yet on the other hand they ignore the simple fact that their own beliefs haven't been proven as right either. Still, they are right when they claim "theories are not facts".

Only 'scientific' law and data are.

Starforge

11-14-2007, 01:05

Heh.

Look - at a very early age I was taught by a very bright uncle to question everything. Just because someone tells you that "this is how things are" doesn't mean that they really are. Question it - investigate for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

The sad thing is - if you utilize this philosophy, many times you run into folks who act as if you walked into church and said "there is no God" even when discussing science. It's funny how emotionally tied people get to their positions and how we are all automatically presumed to have chosen a side. With us or against us!

It's not something I intend to apologize for, however, the thread itself has diverted awfully far from it's purpose.

Back to our regularly scheduled historical simulation discussion.

Sakkura

11-14-2007, 02:01

Scientific Law on the other hand is about fact insofar as that it will tell you what certain data means regarding other data. It is the proven theory, if you will.
There aren't really any scientific laws. That word was once used, but since the "laws" of Newton were proven to be in error, the term has more or less fallen out of use in scientific circles.

When a scientist makes a suggestion for an explanation of a set of data, that is called a hypothesis. If that hypothesis explains all the data available, and also makes predictions that are confirmed, it typically ends up being viewed as a theory - a very strong hypothesis that is able to explain a very large part of the scientific field in question. So useful are these theories, that they often keep being taught even after they are scientifically disproven, simply because they are very useful in explaining and calculating many phenomena. Newton's "laws" are still taught in physics, the "central dogma" is still taught in molecular biology, etc.

Sarcasm

11-14-2007, 02:03

@ Frostwulf: 3 battles? :inquisitive:

Get your Appian out and check for Quintus Pompeius, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus or Caius Vetilius.

Frostwulf

11-14-2007, 03:47

@ Frostwulf: 3 battles?

Get your Appian out and check for Quintus Pompeius, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus or Caius Vetilius.
Sarcasm I stopped the timeline at 190 BC, it has nothing to do with guys from 150's or later. As I had said before in this thread that the 150's were tougher for the Romans in Spain then in the 190's.

From my understanding the Romans had a real tough time with Spain, especially in the 150's. The ones I listed in the 190's goes a little in the detail on some of these but not much. I have listed the 3 main battles at the bottom of this post.

So yes during this time it was the 3 incidents I listed.

Sarcasm

11-14-2007, 03:52

Why the arbitrary stop in time though? It's even in the same 'army period'.

Sarcasm

11-14-2007, 04:08

I'll also add that the fact that they had so many losses in Hispania (not Spain), and that they had an enormous difficulty in providing their generals with constant reinforcements that this situation warranted. You *see* the political will to see the war through waning in the Senate, and it's only through massive lobbying that a party in Rome manages to get their best general at the time, with a small reinforcement force and a core group of volunteers from around the Mediterranean.

So in essence this entire period is pertinent to the question; these losses, wether in a set piece battle (and there were plenty of those) but also in skirmishes, that led to a semi-professionalizing of the army. In fact, the supposedly great reformer of the army, Marius, was present at the last siege of Numantia, having been witness to Scipio's reform of the battered Roman survivors that dared not leave from Tarraco.

Zaknafien

11-14-2007, 04:16

Indeed, Marius was more of a poor man's Scipio Aemilianus, having picked up his tricks of the trade from the master--who in turn took alot from his dear old dad, Aemilius Paullus.

Frostwulf

11-14-2007, 04:17

Why the arbitrary stop in time though? It's even in the same 'army period'.unfortunately my time is limited and sporadic, thats why my timeline was very basic and ended at that date. I put down a "disclaimer" because I knew I couldn't do an accurate timeline in the amount of time available to me. The purpose was simply to refute the battle win/loss ratio as claimed by HFox. While my timeline will have errors in it, it does go to show that the Romans had more wins then losses, your comments about situations and losses being legitimate. I don't plan on doing anymore on this subject as I still only have time to do limited research and I still have to fulfill my word to Thaatu.

Intranetusa

11-15-2007, 16:53

What part of "closest to" don't you get ROFL. And yes - belief in evolution does require many leaps in faith simply because scientists find bits and pieces of evidence and have to speculate on how this or that fits into their philosophy. Accepting what they come up with as "truth" would certainly require some "faith" :juggle2: .

The problem here is your double standard. I highly doubt you question the existence of gravity, light, and heat as well. The fact that you solely question evolution based on your presumably religious belief without questioning everything else is called hypocrisy.

It's funny how people who don't like Christians (as seems obvious from your posts though I'm sure you'll disagree to appear more tolerant) go out of their way to assume that the founding fathers (folks who held mass every Sunday in Congress I guess as a PR stint) didn't respect Judeo-Christianity. It kinda pisses me off as a person who attempts to respect history that 200 plus years later, our progressive society would like to rewrite history to support their viewpoint. Don't like Christians, the religious right, or their views - fine. Hit them with ideas not revisionist history. That Jefferson and I'm sure other of the founding fathers were worried about a church (be it Anglican as he was raised or Catholic or whatever) have undue influence over the states I have no doubt. Denying that even a Deist (presumably) such as Jefferson didn't respect Judeo-Christianity is absurd.

Oh, wait, I'm argueing a Christian viewpoint - I must REALLY be a Christian!! :bounce:

It's funny how people assume that just because you believe in evolution, you don't like Christianity.

If you re-read my quote, I clearly said this nation was influenced "with Judeo Christian elements"

Here is my statement again:
And actually, the founding fathers were mostly non-Christian Deists who did not believe in a personal diety that intervened in the universe. Their philosophy was mostly based on Enlightenment influences (with various judeo-christian elements). It's funny how everyone assumes that the founders wanted a Judeo-Christian nation.

And yes, our founding fathers were Deist. I'm surprised you're arguing against this - If you don't believe this, look up the biographies of our founding fathers. Jefferson himself said that belief in Jesus would fade away just like belief in Minerva or the Greek gods. Franklin said lighthouses are more useful than churches. etc
The founders took the morals of Christianity, not the actual miracles and superstitions. Look it up

Yup - don't look behind the curtain and skip the first definition. I'm sorry, but if that doesn't underline where you are coming from I don't know what does. Believe only what supports your argument. You really didn't mean the most common definition of the word "believe" but actually one of the secondary meanings. My bad.

Couldn't have proved my point any better.

The fact that you refuse to accept more than one definition to a word/concept - aren't you falling into the same trap that you are accusing all of us of doing?

Anyways, it's best we take this subject to another topic.

HFox

11-15-2007, 17:53

The purpose was simply to refute the battle win/loss ratio as claimed by HFox.

Part of your research should have been to READ what I said. What ratio did I mention...

I said
"
Originally Posted by HFox
The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already.
"

I don't mind a constructive argument...but dont miss quote people to fit an argument you invent to support your case.

Stand back a little and think about what's being written here. People are focusing too much on one or two details....and not the whole picture.

The M16 was a better weapon than the AK47....but was it better when used in a war time situation? And who won?

Tellos Athenaios

11-15-2007, 18:06

The AK47, though has the distinct pro that it hardly ever fails. The M16 on the other hand...

:clown:

Sakkura

11-15-2007, 18:14

The AK47, though has the distinct pro that it hardly ever fails. The M16 on the other hand...

:clown:
Meh, the M16 is very reliable too. The American army just used the wrong ammunition for it in Vietnam and forgot to tell their soldiers to clean their weapons. Silly generals.

Intranetusa

11-15-2007, 18:21

Meh, the M16 is very reliable too. The American army just used the wrong ammunition for it in Vietnam and forgot to tell their soldiers to clean their weapons. Silly generals.

Wrong ammunition? All M16 variants use the standard NATO 5.56 mm ammunition. Do you mean the type of gunpowder? Stick gunpowder vs ball gunpowder - whereas one combusts and creates much more dirt and grime which clogs the weapons

Sakkura

11-15-2007, 18:38

Wrong ammunition? All M16 variants use the standard NATO 5.56 mm ammunition. Do you mean the type of gunpowder? Stick gunpowder vs ball gunpowder - whereas one combusts and creates much more dirt and grime which clogs the weapons
Well, you're absolutely right. By ammunition I meant the whole cartridge, where the powder it contained was at fault.

Diamondj

11-15-2007, 19:17

Iberia was a major problem for the Romans, and remained so for a very long time. You will notice that many Iberian troops wield the falcata - a weapon with AP power. Therein lies your problem.

Roman troops were hardly the end-all of infantry. In fact, they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals. Most of the time their victories came from the use of sheer force, an unrelenting drive, and a nearly complete lack of care for casualties.
I'd hate to say it but the truth is closer to the opposite of everything you just said. During the prime of both the Roman republic and the Roman empire, their soldiers were superior to just about every army they faced. You might be confused because of the fact that the Roman army as a whole was generally many times larger than any of their enemies. However, on any given battlefield it was pretty much a given that they would be outnumbered (of course this all comes from Roman sources so perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt). Only rarely would the Romans face an opponent that could use their strengths to take advantage of the traditional weaknesses of the Roman army (near total lack of non-auxilary cavalry, light infantry, missile troops, and scouts).

Rodion Romanovich

11-15-2007, 19:31

Without going into much detail:
496-418 Roman wins 17/ Roman losses:3
391-302 Roman wins 40+/ Roman losses:5
298-265 Roman wins 15/ Roman losses: 4
264-241(First Punic War) Roman wins 12/ Roman losses 6
225-219 Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 1
218-202(Second Punic War) Roman wins 30/ Roman losses 16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
201-200 Roman wins 2/ losses 0
200-197(Second Macedonian War) Roman wins 4/ Roman losses 0
197-195 Roman wins 3/ losses 0
195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
194-192 Roman wins 5/ losses 0
191-190(War against Antiochus) Roman wins 6/losses 0

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines. The Romans certainly lost huge numbers against Hannibal but eventually with good commanders finally defeated him. The above list should be considered to be slightly off on the win/loss columns by a potential of 2-3, I was rushing.
Thanks for posting this! Excellent! :2thumbsup: Though it's difficult to draw a strict line between win/loss, I think it put the importance of the Marian reforms in a new light for me.

@Sarcasm: what is wrong with the list?

Starforge

11-15-2007, 19:55

Anyways, it's best we take this subject to another topic.

Something I thought I did before you posted more half truths, misreadings, assumption of my personal beliefs and cherry picking of what the founding fathers said / wrote to accentuate their beliefs that you would (presumeably) like to advocate.

It's unfortunate that you can't think for yourself and have to pick sides and assume others have done the same. If you want to discuss it further - PM me but I'll give you the last word here if you so choose.

Tiberius Nero

11-15-2007, 20:36

Is this the right thread to discuss football? Or, you know, Macedonians and stuff?

Frostwulf

11-15-2007, 23:45

Part of your research should have been to READ what I said. What ratio did I mention...

I said
"
Originally Posted by HFox
The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already.
Could "kept loosing battles" be considered a type of ratio?

Webster's College Dictionary-"ratio"2. proportional relation; rate: the ratio between acceptances and rejections.

"kept losing" is proportional.

Webster's College Dictionary-"proportion"1.comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to size, quantity,number etc: ratio.

Did you use the term ratio, no. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term ratio either.

I don't mind a constructive argument...but dont miss quote people to fit an argument you invent to support your case.
I didn't misquote you. I simply alluding that you were saying that the Romans were losing more battles then winning: "kept losing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed". Were you not implying this?
If you feel that I have insulted or demeaned you then I apologize. It seemed to me that you were saying the Romans lost most of their battles which is not the case.

Thanks for posting this! Excellent! Though it's difficult to draw a strict line between win/loss, I think it put the importance of the Marian reforms in a new light for me. I'm glad if it helps, but please remember that this is a basic list and some of what Sarcasm about Roman losses and other things are valid.

Intranetusa

11-16-2007, 00:04

Something I thought I did before you posted more half truths, misreadings, assumption of my personal beliefs and cherry picking of what the founding fathers said / wrote to accentuate their beliefs that you would (presumeably) like to advocate.

It's unfortunate that you can't think for yourself and have to pick sides and assume others have done the same. If you want to discuss it further - PM me but I'll give you the last word here if you so choose.

Funny, I was just about to say that you're posting half lies, hypocritical-double standards, and refusal to answer a straight question out of fear your entire illogical argument will collapse on itself.

If you think I'm making up the quotes about the founding fathers, I'll gladly pm you sections regarding their biographies.

Saying that the founders were Deists is merely historical fact, not some half baked fairy tale that you'd like to assume.

HFox

11-16-2007, 05:52

Could "kept loosing battles" be considered a type of ratio?

No....not even in klingon. To argue otherwise is.....meh!

As has been stated in so many other threads all of this arguing is assumptive.
But it isn't going to stop me playing this because I have some minor point shoved up the chuff of my ass? No!

People have asked you to back up your point with research and constructive argument, if you won't do this, and base your point purely on an inconclusive and contextless list then there is nothing to answer.

HFox

11-16-2007, 05:55

The AK47, though has the distinct pro that it hardly ever fails. The M16 on the other hand...:clown: exactly...its not the better weapon....

NeoSpartan

11-16-2007, 08:36

Is this the right thread to discuss football? Or, you know, Macedonians and stuff?
:focus:

Nah man, this thread is about M16A1 and AK 47, especially their use during the Vietnam war. Also included is a discussion of the type of poweder used by M16's round when it was 1st deployed. The subsecuent change and upgrades... etc.... I believe soon we will see the discussion about the AK 72 and its use by the CCCP in Afganistan.

Cold war type of theme....

We also have a "Theological" discussion about Evolution and Creationism. Where the guys are calling eachother "idiots" but in nicer terms.

hum.... however now that u mentioned it.. Lets talk about FOOTBALL (american football dang it!!!!!!!!!!)

So far the Redskins are 5 & 4. Not so good, and we have lost a lot of good players due to injuries. On top of that coach Gibbs doesn't "seem" to be doing much to get the team together. Either way Dallas....... U GOING DOWN THIS 18TH!!!!!!! :whip:
:yes:

Sakkura

11-16-2007, 17:38

I believe soon we will see the discussion about the AK 72 and its use by the CCCP in Afganistan.

*snip*

So far the Redskins are 5 & 4. Not so good, and we have lost a lot of good players due to injuries. On top of that coach Gibbs doesn't "seem" to be doing much to get the team together. Either way Dallas....... U GOING DOWN THIS 18TH!!!!!!! :whip:
:yes:
Oh, the AK 72? I'm gonna quote wikipedia here:

The USS Aludra (AK-72) was a Crater-class cargo ship in the service of the United States Navy in World War II. Named after the star Aludra in the constellation Canis Major, it was the first ship of the Navy to bear this name.
How the USSR got a hold of it and sent it to the very, very, very landlocked country Afghanistan beats me... :clown:

Redskins are going to be in trouble against Dallas. If you can't even take the Eagles, the cowboys are just out of your league. I guess that Patriot game just blew the team apart. Kind of sad, because they had been looking pretty decent until then. Them Patriots are really being mean this year, even the Colts have started losing after being Patriotised.

Sadly, the only NFL game that is transmitted with decent commentators in Denmark this weekend is Lions-Giants.

But that's okay, because there's real football this weekend as well. Euro 2008 qualifiers. Denmark's facing DavidHealyLand.... I mean, Northern Ireland, tomorrow. :sweatdrop:
Scotland and Italy is going to be a thriller. The world champions simply have to win this one to qualify, but the Scots are back in force.
Portugal have to beat Poland, but the Poles have been strong this qualification. Serbia and Finland are both ready to pounce if they slip up.
Norway-Turkey will be another key match.
England have to get point(s) against group leader Croatia to keep Russia behind them.
Spain and Sweden both seem to be fairly certain to qualify, so their match will be a direct faceoff for the number one spot in the group.
And finally, Bulgaria have to beat neighbors Romania to have any chance to slip past the Netherlands.

For you Americans: Think of it as the two final rounds of regular season crammed into one extended weekend (one round on saturday and one on wednesday). Except there are two spots in the "playoffs" per division, and no wildcards, and all matches are in the division.