Started By
Message

re: How were old world armies so easily out smarted?

Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:29 pm to
Posted by Pecker
Rocky Top
Member since May 2015
16674 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:29 pm to
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 by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58182 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:30 pm to
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.
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 8:34 pm
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
65338 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:36 pm to
quote:

All 3 of which were battles where Hannibal tricked or out smarted the Romans
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.

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 by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
73601 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:40 pm to
quote:

tricking the Romans by hiding Calvary


Pretty easy to do since cavalry (not Calvary, the mountain in the Bible) didn't exist then.


You're joking, right? Cavalry predates the Romans. And the Romans themselves used cavalry from their earliest days.







LINK
Posted by BoardReader
Arkansas
Member since Dec 2007
7392 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:57 pm to
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.
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 9:58 pm
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58182 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:16 pm to
I think he means stirrup.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram