- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How were old world armies so easily out smarted?
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:29 pm to SpqrTiger
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:29 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
Read Caesar's Commentaries for evidence. You will see that Caesar was in constant communication with his troops, his allies, and the government in Rome.
quote:
SpqrTiger
Checks out
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:30 pm to Tigertracks
Romans practiced the use of formations and movement quite a bit. How do you think they routinely beat armies two to three times their size?
As for Hannibal, he ran into a Roman trait. Yes, he kicked their asses AT FIRST. But they learned. They lost the initial battles in many wars but then figured out their enemy's weakness and exploited it.
See Italian Civil War and third slave revolt.
As for Hannibal, he ran into a Roman trait. Yes, he kicked their asses AT FIRST. But they learned. They lost the initial battles in many wars but then figured out their enemy's weakness and exploited it.
See Italian Civil War and third slave revolt.
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:36 pm to Tiger1242
quote:The greatness of the Roman military wasn't in single battles. It was their willingness to drag things on for years if need be. When they laid siege to a city, they were prepared to stay there for decades if need be.
All 3 of which were battles where Hannibal tricked or out smarted the Romans
Hannibal got to the peninsula and won several victories. Great. Now what? He could never actually conquer Rome. He didn't know shite about siege warfare, so the cities never fell. He should have gone home, but instead, he stubbornly hung around allowing his army to be chipped away at, and for Scipio to breed horses in Sicily.
It was his arrogance that got him killed in the end. He was safe in exile but couldn't help but fight a proxy war with Rome under the banner of some small king. The king betrayed him to Rome and he killed himself.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:57 pm to Darth_Vader
So much of the original premise is flawed; it arises from an 'all other things being equal' mindset--- in truth, 'all other things' were virtually never equal.
Armies were large mobs, poorly trained, with varying levels of motivation, sanitation, and organization. Logistics were hit and miss, recon was hit and miss, and often armies quite nearly stumbled into each other to start engagements.
On the ancient battlefield itself, the more organized and systematically armed you were, generally, the better you fared; the Greeks might not have Persian numbers, but when the Persians fought as mobs with wicker shields, they fared poorly- the more elite troops, with better equipment and training did much better against the Greeks.
The same holds true across the history of the world; chariots, horses, roads, standardized equipment-- all of these things helped achieve military supremacy. If you had a decisive edge in one of the major areas, you could ride it mercilessly to distinct advantage in conflict after conflict, until enemies either adopted the same strategies to negate your advantage, or found some other means to mitigate it.
Armies were large mobs, poorly trained, with varying levels of motivation, sanitation, and organization. Logistics were hit and miss, recon was hit and miss, and often armies quite nearly stumbled into each other to start engagements.
On the ancient battlefield itself, the more organized and systematically armed you were, generally, the better you fared; the Greeks might not have Persian numbers, but when the Persians fought as mobs with wicker shields, they fared poorly- the more elite troops, with better equipment and training did much better against the Greeks.
The same holds true across the history of the world; chariots, horses, roads, standardized equipment-- all of these things helped achieve military supremacy. If you had a decisive edge in one of the major areas, you could ride it mercilessly to distinct advantage in conflict after conflict, until enemies either adopted the same strategies to negate your advantage, or found some other means to mitigate it.
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:16 pm to Darth_Vader
I think he means stirrup.
Popular
Back to top

0






