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.
The Romans did have superior tactics until they met Hannibal where they abandoned those practices. Hannibal did exactly what I previously indicated--when the Romans wanted to close, they fell back and ultimately defeated a 50,000 man army with a 40,000 man army by encircling the larger force of superior fighters.
quote:
In effect, the Roman army had defeated itself.
It had solely relied on the superiority of its legionaries, having lined them up and told them to advance. No use had been made of the superior numbers, other than to simply add more ranks onto the back of the advancing columns. As the Carthaginian units manoeuvered, nothing was done to counter their actions. One simply did what one had always done - advance.
Such ignorance was most likely born from the fact that the battles with Hannibal were the largest contests Rome had ever fought by that time. Despite their earlier dealings with king Pyrrhus, they most likely had not gathered enough experience yet in such matters to be able to cope with such huge a challenge. And the superiority of their legions perhaps made them rely to heavily on their soldiers alone.
In short, Roman tactics were non-existent at Cannae. The Roman force acted with brute force, charging at its dangerously clever opponent like a bull. end quote
Stubborness lost Cannae for the Romans.
Hannibal adapted to Roman tactics and had them reeling for years. Eventually the Romans adapted to Hannibals tactics and took the war behind his lines to his homeland. Their ability to be in more places than the Carthagenians could defend (naval superiority) was Hannibal's doom.
Romans have no chances not that that against 50-60 seals, and even against one squad of usual infantry. Pledge of a victory - the correct tactics. To the modern soldiers (alone soldier?) it is enough to liquidate commanders, messegers, to burn camp and warmachines and poison the food-water, and the Roman army will run up in superstitious fear.
Given 2,500 years of Human history & the speed (# of generations) for the various viruses & bacteria, I'd say w/in 6 months 1/4 of the Seals would be dead along w/roughly 2/3 of the population.
Given 2,500 years of Human history & the speed (# of generations) for the various viruses & bacteria, I'd say w/in 6 months 1/4 of the Seals would be dead along w/roughly 2/3 of the population.
Why would that be " germ warfare " ..?..the navy seals are in great health and won't be carrying any diseases unless they were in WMD.....
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.
That's the fun of it. Strategy is what wins wars more often than not.
The favorite tactic of the Romans was to advance into an area and sit. It was especially effective along trade routes. The offer was become a part of our empire, handle your own local affairs if you follow our overall lead, and we build a large wide higway into town which will bring everyone to you. Trade was the life blood of most places and that road the centurians were set to build was the key. Very few said no. Those that did were flattened. But most saw all the possibilities of being able to trade safely and become wealthy.
And the Romans did not force local cultures to change. They controlled defense and foreign policy. If you didn't follow the Roman culture domestically, they didn't care. In time Roman dress, language and customs spread, but it was not by force but by choice.
As for the seals, they might make a splash, but they couldn't resupply, and the Romans were both patient and had enormous numbers and would certainly be happy to welcome them and their knowledge if they were willing. Consider if you were trapped in Roman times, what would be better, die by attrition or become the newest courted enemy?
Given 2,500 years of Human history & the speed (# of generations) for the various viruses & bacteria, I'd say w/in 6 months 1/4 of the Seals would be dead along w/roughly 2/3 of the population.
Very true. People who grew up either survived childhood disease or were immune. Those who didn't have immunity died.
Foreign disease is one of the suspected causes of even dino die offs when it corresponded with the merging of land bridges. I'd say fewer of the Romans would die off as in their world they grew much better immune systems. The seals now... remember that back before every counter had to be wiped by a sanitising wipe befor you touched it, the kids who got to twelve had a good chance if they didn't have an accident of living to a ripe old age as the body was ready to do full battle.
Why would that be " germ warfare " ..?..the navy seals are in great health and won't be carrying any diseases unless they were in WMD.....
This only applies in similar human populations. Bacteria and viral contamination is all around us and on us but most of it we don't react to since our bodies win. You go to a different time and the story could be much different since they would not have been exposed.
The same applies to the seals. They are just as vulnerable to the local miasma and would have no protection from it either.
Rome also had waves of plague which spread along the trade routes and they would be far more vulnerable to that.
Why does the Navy have Seals fighting as soldiers anyway? They already have the Marines to be their soldiers and neither should be doing jobs best left to the Army. All this must cost a great deal more money than simply having the Army practice land war and the Navy practice sea war. Seems like military turf building at the expense of the taxpayer.
This only applies in similar human populations. Bacteria and viral contamination is all around us and on us but most of it we don't react to since our bodies win. You go to a different time and the story could be much different since they would not have been exposed.
The same applies to the seals. They are just as vulnerable to the local miasma and would have no protection from it either.
Rome also had waves of plague which spread along the trade routes and they would be far more vulnerable to that.
Yes I see that it all would be very interesting to see how well modern medicine could handle whatever came up. The 60 member seals teams would have to have the best doctors in the US Navy imbedded into theirs unit.......and I still say that they would have to use chemical - germ warfare WMD along side of nuclear war heads to defeat the roman army and civilian deaths would be common place.
My guess is that 50-60 SEALS could take out a legion within 5 to 10 minutes. And that's just with high-powered rifles.
Without air or artillery support,
Please see the battles of
Isandiwana,
The Little Big Horn,
Mogadishu, ( that was 160 Seals, Rangers, Special Forces and Air Force Para-rescue)
Even with modern weapons it would be a slaughter. I don't care what weapons 60 men would have that could withstand an attack by 3,750,000 soliders with bows, lances, or ancient forms of long range weapons. It's silly speculation.
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.
