-
Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Doesn't sound like you have battle difficulty set to medium...
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.... :)
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
@ 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.
-
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.
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
WTF did he do in the topic's ? If he is that annoying I'm sure you can make something to his posting abilities .
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
May be we should have a sticky thread explayning that and why the Roman army was not a force of 250,000 elite warriors.
-
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.
Bullshit list. :thumbsdown:
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.)
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
:wall: :dizzy2:
...
:shrug:
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
I updated the post, if it concerns my reply. Webbrowser went nuts. :shrug:
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
/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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
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.)
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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 :)
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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 :)
Yup, pila look pretty much the same wherever they come from but while Italians ones bend Gallic and Iberian ones don't.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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".
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by zonks32
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... >.<
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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
IIRC, the "excuse" for using modern steel was that´s comparable with ferrum noricum. I dont think romans used it for (mass-) producing armor, though.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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... >.<
Maybe that explains why we see things in color....the original dinosaurs were color blind and seeing the pink became a survival trait! :clown:
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.
There are no natural laws, they are all theories. Hence it is more correct to refer to the theory of gravity than the law of gravity.
The mathematic example you refer to is outside (natural) science, so that's under a different system.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
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".
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Is it me or the Cohors evocata and the Praetorians are missing 2 armor points?
Cheers...
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
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 :).
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
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?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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... :/
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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/t...al_organs.html
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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 :).
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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 :).
No, everything is always up for review. Elevating a hypothesis to the status of theory should not ever affect how it is treated when data is compared to the predictions the theory makes. The case of Newton's theory of natural gravitation shows very well how even the most universally trusted scientific theories can be disproven by data; no physicist today holds any faith in Newton's theory, instead relying on the theory of general relativity.
Science does not really deal with fact. No theory is ever sacrosanct.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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 :)
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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?
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
"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.
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
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
-
Re: Roman Legions seem too weak
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:
