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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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


:clown:

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.

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

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.

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).

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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....

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:

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.

i think he clearly means the ak 74

Since when did the roman legions use AK whatever number?

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...

Quote:

---

their lack of manpower in the late republic/early Imperial

---

O.O

levies doesn't count?..

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

i think he clearly means the ak 74

---

yep...