Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's assume they had landed with 1000 men and X amount of equipment. They would win many wars against Romans. Many allies would go to their side. But after many victories, the Romans would have found a way of killing them all, even at the expense of a war of 50 years.
Not to mention what would have happened in part of that technology would have fallen in the hand of Roman engineers.
I think that both were more intelligent than all that, and I guessed they would be considered by Romans like their "descendants", not barbarians. They would have replaced the Praetorian guard and with time, they would have imposed their own Imperators and formed a Roman nobility branch. With that kind of technology and know-how. Romans could have solve their two main problems: Limitless expansion to the east (Germania and beyond to create a buffer zone) and open a way to China defeating Neoparthians. The Empire would ne alive today under another form, not just religious. They could also have landed in America before, and Industrial revolution would have started 1500 years before.
I wasn't sure if this thread was more appropriate for the History, Military Life and Issues or Great Debates forum. I chose History because I figured that some of you may be knowledgeable about military history.
Do you think it would be possible for 50-60 SEALS to take out the entire Roman army given the right equipment?
with RPG's, sniper rifles, land mines a hellocopter an a coulple tanks.............yes
You guys are all wet. For some reason, you think that that a Roman legion, confronted by a few dozen rounds of high explosives going off in their ranks, would hold formation. They would break and run, just the way they did at Cannae.
You guys are all wet. For some reason, you think that that a Roman legion, confronted by a few dozen rounds of high explosives going off in their ranks, would hold formation. They would break and run, just the way they did at Cannae.
Except that the Romans didn't break and run at Cannae, they were encircled and killed.
I wasn't sure if this thread was more appropriate for the History, Military Life and Issues or Great Debates forum. I chose History because I figured that some of you may be knowledgeable about military history.
Do you think it would be possible for 50-60 SEALS to take out the entire Roman army given the right equipment?
The only way that 50 to 60 US Navy Seals could defeat the Roman Army is to use " both nuclear and biological weapons " on the Roman Army " ....
I think that both were more intelligent than all that, and I guessed they would be considered by Romans like their "descendants", not barbarians. They would have replaced the Praetorian guard and with time, they would have imposed their own Imperators and formed a Roman nobility branch. With that kind of technology and know-how. Romans could have solve their two main problems: Limitless expansion to the east (Germania and beyond to create a buffer zone) and open a way to China defeating Neoparthians. The Empire would ne alive today under another form, not just religious. They could also have landed in America before, and Industrial revolution would have started 1500 years before.
Not to even mention the medical benefits. The technology could well be used for more than war. What if the Romans identified the usual pathogins, including plague, and could prevent them? Not only would their empire last much longer, but the great mystery of the Black death would not be a mystery and more places might have fought it off.
I doubt should the Romans capture the technolgy that they'd be likely to kill the seals when they would have a better use. Rome grew in part because it was capable of gaining allies and did this in preference to war when it was possible.
Reminds me of a Star Trek episode. Yes, Romans would have adopted them as part of their "tribum". Romans were a zero to the left in technology, all their technicians were from the former Hellenistic empire. I have no doubt that the Hellenistic technicians would have grasped inmediately all the new technology, even the language.
Yes, they would have prevented plagues and idiotic religions and changed the economy. Rome was based in conquest and plunder, it would have changed to a market based productive economy, and the population would have multiplied by 100 (no plagues, potatoes, corn, etc). The Roman Empire would have conquered the entire world, and then it would have cracked by the year 1000.
Wow, what an asinine thread---and I'm joining it!!!
The Romans were less succesful from their technology than they were for their tactics. Getting close to the enemy, tossing short spears, then closing to hand to hand range where a short sword was more effective than long swords, spears or axes. So close in work was their specialty.
In Viet Nam, the only way the Vietnamese could win, was by using similar close in tactics. The U.S. should have done much more stand off, air, naval and artillery punishment of the enemy, but no we had to close in, too, because that was our main tactic as well (Nam vet, 1967). We gave them a fighting chance.
If the enemy wants to close with you---stay away from him. If he wants to stay away from you, close with him. It will inevitably upset the enemy because he is not accustomed to fighting in those circumstances.
Seals are closers. As were Roman soldiers. They would give the Romans a chance, although a pitiful one.
There is a science fiction series, the first one entitled 1632, which postulates a small West Virginia town being thrown back from modern times to the late middle ages and getting involved in the 30 years war (I think). Of course, the town has a National Guard armory. Interesting read for all the speculators here.
No, Roman won battles not based on closeness at all, but on stubborness, adaptability and negotiation.
In other words, until Sila, they were more farmers fighting their neighbours than soldiers, and in fact, they always acted as farmers.
When they were beaten, they tried again, if beaten, they tried again, if beaten, they copied their tactics, bought their enemy's allies or poisoned the leader.
When the enemy had superior technology, they used their advantage in their favour (turning naval battles into land wars by attracting ships with hooks in the Punic wars).
Romans would have beaten the Navy Seals in the long run, maybe after 50 years, they did not care about time. Numantia took them 40 years, they chased Annibal during 15 years, etc.
But after all, why should US Navy Seals would want to fight Romans in an eventual Time Jump? Romans was certainly a brutal civilization, but civilization after all and the only big hurdle between the values of Roman Civilizatio and current values would be Christian values, Humanistic values, etc (already present in Classical Civilization).
And the German Lansknets and the Spanish tercios would have cut to pieces the American National Guard in an eventual jump to the 30 years war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
US Navy SEALS vs Roman Army
