-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treverer
@ 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
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"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Well that's what you get when you cite:
195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0
I posted this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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:
Quote:
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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: .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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...
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
@ Frostwulf: 3 battles? :inquisitive:
Get your Appian out and check for Quintus Pompeius, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus or Caius Vetilius.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
@ 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Why the arbitrary stop in time though? It's even in the same 'army period'.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
The AK47, though has the distinct pro that it hardly ever fails. The M16 on the other hand...
:clown:
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
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).
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Is this the right thread to discuss football? Or, you know, Macedonians and stuff?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFox
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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....
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero
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:
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
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:
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
i think he clearly means the ak 74
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Since when did the roman legions use AK whatever number?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Since ever. The romans liked things easy to mass produce therefore, the AK was their weapon of choice. It can be cruder than many other weapons but it's effective and reliable. The Gauls and Sweboz came with their FAMAS and G36 and MP5 but it took years to master and very specific locations to build hence, their lack of manpower in the late republic/early Imperial wich hindered them in their fight against the romans.
Cheers...
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
their lack of manpower in the late republic/early Imperial
O.O
levies doesn't count?..
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFox
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.
The area where they wanted me to back up my point was about the Spanish war, which I did.
How do you figure my list was inconclusive? You make a blanket statement that the Romans "kept losing battles" so I made a basic list which shows your claim to be false. How is it out of context? Your only statement was they "kept losing battles" so as far as the battle situation is concerned it met the contextual criteria. Did I go into great detail, no, but none the less it shows conclusively that your statement is wrong.
As far as what I put down:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=11
Again this list is not perfect by any means but it does show as far as battles are concerned that the Romans won the majority.
I also posted this:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=15563
I have posted two items that show your claim that the Romans "kept loosing battles" is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFox
The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed..
Where is anything from you to back up your claim? Where is anything that shows the Romans were on the "brink of being destroyed"?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
i think he clearly means the ak 74
yep...
