User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:20:24 PM EDT
[#1]
Not only would the French or English armies of the 1300s beat the Roman armies of Julius Caesar, but the "Byzantine" armies of Belisarius during the 500s AD would beat the armies of Julius Caesar.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:20:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
well, they were French after all, can you really blame him?  Still Edward III was simply retarded. "Hey I got a great idea, let's go fuck up the French because Philip died and they're having heir issues, piss them off. Then when they're good, butt hurt, and ready to fight back, I'll retire and give the reigns over to my really retarded son Richard II. Brilliant!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:21:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only would the French or English armies of the 1300s beat the Roman armies of Julius Caesar, but the "Byzantine" armies of Belisarius during the 500s AD would beat the armies of Julius Caesar. Game over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:25:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Legions faced and beat Macedonian phalanxes. Pikes would be nothing new. 1500 men would be brushed aside by the skirmishers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: are we talking even strength or being outnumbered now? No matter here are a few famous fights: Morgarten – 1315 The first major use of pole-arm infantry by the Swiss came at the Battle of Morgarten. An estimated 1,500 strong force of Swiss routed a 15,000 strong Austrian force. The Swiss’ weapon of choice was the halberd. Laupen – 1339 Much like the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Battle of Laupen is regarded as one in the chain of battles that proved the superiority of well-trained infantry over knights. An outnumbered Swiss force was able to rout a larger force of knights and infantry. Laupen was also the first time the Swiss used the pike in combination with the halberd. there are a lot of others-battles of Morat, Nancy and sempach....they were always outnumbered Rome has its stuff pushed in by contemporary armies plenty of times. Put them up against armies with equipment 1000 years beyond them and it wouldn’t even be a contest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:26:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/87/34/2a/87342ac3beb7884c09cad329af7aa28d.jpg There were some European armies that could have put up one hell of a fight. Rome would win because they had the logistics to field huge number of people and move them rapidly for the time. Hitler took note of this fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:31:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Some of you might want to take a minute to reflect on the fact that the Roman Empire no longer exists today because it was defeated in battle and conquered, piece by piece, by other peoples.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:39:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I vote Roman Army due to amount of manpower, discipline, leadership (as a rule, tho there were exceptions) plus logistics. While many medieval armies had excellent equipment, morale & motivated leadership, as a rule those armies were stratified so that the average poor footsoldier would not have been a good match against a basic Legionnaire in equipment or discipline. Rome fielded genuine maneuver armies before anyone else penned the word. Professional army (Romans) vs farmers ect forced to fight for their lords (medieval armies) if it was a fight on neutral ground Romans, if the Romans were invading the home land probably the farmers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:40:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agincourt was unique. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:41:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m no expert in Medievel strategy but I do know that the Romans conquered a lot of territory. I’m voting Romans out of ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:42:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The pre-gunpowder medieval armies would beat any ancient army, because their tactics were more sophisticated... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:47:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. The Swiss and the Germand we doing that in 1600's Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those who enjoy reading of the Roman civil wars of Marius and Sulla and Caesar's Gaul campaign, the scale of violence the Roman's were willing to inflict and receive is mind boggling. Armies of this size were not seen again until Napoleon and then only briefly. World War I type logistics and planning and relentlessness. Quantity has a quality all its own. It would not have even been close. Also I don't think you barbarians comprehend the maneuverability of small units of Roman infantry during the heat of battle. You don't see it again until the German storm troops of 1917. Absolute control of their units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:52:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still Edward III was simply retarded. "Hey I got a great idea, let's go fuck up the French because Philip died and they're having heir issues, piss them off. Then when they're good, butt hurt, and ready to fight back, I'll retire and give the reigns over to my really retarded son Richard II. Brilliant!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:56:51 PM EDT
[#13]
The Mongols reached into Europe during the Medieval period.....
Subutai breaks Julius’s army and kills them all while they are running back to Rome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 10:00:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the Romans get to maneuver however they want to and the English don't, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they stood still in a muddy field without their shields all day perhaps. They wouldn't. They would either withdraw or (much more likely) advance quickly across the mud, pass through the anti cavalry stakes and crush the English army in close combat. The interior lines of the English are mud pits. The interior lines of the Romans are paved. The English aren’t doing shit for strategic maneuvering. Their logistics suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 10:07:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, wait, you see, in our fantasy matchup, you're side gets to learn new tactics it wouldn't know were needed until after it faces the opponent BEFORE it faces the opponent. So the M.E. army gets to figure out that whole coordination of heavy armor and missiles because that's what's needed to be victorious over the Romans. No, wait, I was wrong. In this thread we only allow the Romans to supernaturally adapt tactics beforehand as may be necessary to defeat previously unknown enemies...'cause reasons. Reason 2) professional officer corps from top to bottom Reason 3) the ability to employ complex but fluid maneuver and tactics |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 10:15:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well except for Poitiers and Crecy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Agincourt was unique. At the tactical level, maybe Edward III would have defeated Scipio or Caesar, but the Roman state was so much stronger than medieval European states, which could scarcely pay their armies much of the time. It was the strength of the Roman state that defeated Hannibal, and would have ground down most medieval European armies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 10:34:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Tough to say, but Rome was the epitome of organized, structured military units, tactics and discipline. And were controlled by very professional men, whom, I am assuming were well educated in military movement and command on the battlefield.
They would be very formidable during any time prior to gun powder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 10:39:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also remember that by the Middle Ages you had the stirrup and the couched lance, which made heavy cavalry much more effective then it had been in Caesar's day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 10:43:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but the French won the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 10:51:03 PM EDT
[#20]
Depends of it the Romans figured out the feigned retreat. Time after time European knights lost their asses falling for that. From the Mongols to Grunwald
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 11:17:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Comparing the Macedonians to the Swiss is almost laughable. Rome has its stuff pushed in by contemporary armies plenty of times. Put them up against armies with equipment 1000 years beyond them and it wouldn’t even be a contest. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: are we talking even strength or being outnumbered now? No matter here are a few famous fights: Morgarten – 1315 The first major use of pole-arm infantry by the Swiss came at the Battle of Morgarten. An estimated 1,500 strong force of Swiss routed a 15,000 strong Austrian force. The Swiss’ weapon of choice was the halberd. Laupen – 1339 Much like the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Battle of Laupen is regarded as one in the chain of battles that proved the superiority of well-trained infantry over knights. An outnumbered Swiss force was able to rout a larger force of knights and infantry. Laupen was also the first time the Swiss used the pike in combination with the halberd. there are a lot of others-battles of Morat, Nancy and sempach....they were always outnumbered Rome has its stuff pushed in by contemporary armies plenty of times. Put them up against armies with equipment 1000 years beyond them and it wouldn’t even be a contest. One of the great 'what if's' of history is what the western world would have looked like if Alexander did a volteface after Persia and turned his attention toward the western balkans and italian peninsula instead of chasing vain glory to the east until his army told him to chill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 11:27:08 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think Caesar would have shit on Alexander. I think Hannibal would have as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 11:30:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Military technology was the one thing that did advance during the Middle Ages. Roman Legions did not do good against cavalry. In fact, later Roman armies were basically medieval armies, but better organized, and focused on heavy cavalry (Cataphractii). A good medieval army with a lot of cavalry would overwhelm even the discipline of Caesar. Remember that his contemporary Crassus was crushed by a Parthian cavalry army in Syria. The big problem the Romans would have is just the march of technology. Halberds + pikes + crossbows or long bows + heavy cavalry working together would smoke anything the Principate could throw assuming roughly similar army sizes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 11:31:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tough to say, but Rome was the epitome of organized, structured military units, tactics and discipline. And were controlled by very professional men, whom, I am assuming were well educated in military movement and command on the battlefield. They would be very formidable during any time prior to gun powder. The Romans had a trained, professional army on the level of training and discipline that a modern army might have. Educated officers, soldiers who were drilled and trained from an early age, supply trains, supply clerks, engineers, doctors/surgeons etc etc. Not only that but the Romans were able to field several legions (6000 men, later ~8000) as well as auxiliaries who would number in the thousands. At one time the Romans had 25 legions in the field. It took Europe over a thousand years to raise armies on the level of Ancient Rome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 11:33:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In an open field Norman heavy cavalry would crush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 11:44:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Rome didn't win wars because the Legions were better soldiers, had the best gear or were better led.
The Romans in the Republican and early Empire eras did not know how to quit. Roman history is full of defeats were Rome lost entire Armies, battles like Canne were not uncommon. But Rome would just go, raise another Army, and come right back at it. That tenacity is what made Rome great. Once Rome lost that, it was just a slowly dieing corpse being consumed by outside forces. I'd venture a guess that a war between the greatest period of Rome(arguably before Caesar), and the greatest medievil Army would result in 9 out of 10 Roman defeats. But Rome would come back and eventually win a battle, and when they did it would be game over. Rome at her height never lacked for Romans willing to fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 11:50:49 PM EDT
[#27]
The difference in saddle tech gives the advantage to the medieval forces. Not to mention better range weapons, and armor, and pole arms.
The romans had Warcraft on their side. they had what 900 years of military history to draw from plus an ethos of working as a group in war as compared to the Christian ideals of personal chivalry. I says the romans win if it is armies meet without time for preparation on a random make shift battle field. Medieval forces win if they have time to prepare for battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:04:31 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Romans had logistics down. They had a professional army. They adapted. Even if you beat them they kept coming. If you did beat them they would take what they learned and apply it for next time. So a medieval army might win the first or maybe second battle with their advantages in armored knight's and heavy cavalry, but the Romans will win the war. Lead production: 
Shipwrecks: 
It took until 1500 to reach the urbanization rate Rome had at the turn of the century: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:12:41 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For those who enjoy reading of the Roman civil wars of Marius and Sulla and Caesar's Gaul campaign, the scale of violence the Roman's were willing to inflict and receive is mind boggling. Armies of this size were not seen again until Napoleon and then only briefly. World War I type logistics and planning and relentlessness. Quantity has a quality all its own. It would not have even been close. The Roman Empire had a population of 100+ million with an urbanzation rate of 20%, levels not seen in Europe again until the 1500s. Same with the production of foodstuffs, metals, ships, etc. Urbanization rate is a direct proxy of an early civilizations ability to produce a surplus. The amount of socioeconomic decline that occured in Europe from about 200-800 AD is staggering. Urbanization, total population, infrastructure, literacy all collapsed for centuries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:25:56 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The English have to ford rivers at defined places. The Romans built the first two bridges across the Rhine river in under 10 days. The interior lines of the English are mud pits. The interior lines of the Romans are paved. The English aren’t doing shit for strategic maneuvering. Their logistics suck. It took until the 1800s for the production of some metals/items in Europe to reach their per-capita Roman peak. It took until 1500-1800 for many socioeconomic indicators to reach their Roman peak. It took until the 1700s for cities in Europe to reach the size they did in Roman times. It took until the Napoleonic wars to see armies as large as the Romans. Logistically and economically, Rome destroys the medieval world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:19:55 AM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:55:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rome didn't win wars because the Legions were better soldiers, had the best gear or were better led. Rome at her height never lacked for Romans willing to fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:58:32 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am the first to admit that Alexander was a great war captain, but not a strategos. By his own admission, when Hannibal met Scipio he acknowledged Alexander's supreme military and commanding ability. Ceasar would have been a fair match for Philip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 3:27:30 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The English long bow was in most respects superior to the musket. The idea that you could "teach any idiot to use a musket in the space of few days" is also incorrect. Musketeers were generally highly paid professionals and the elites of the late Medieval armies. The reason for this is that maintaining a musket required an order of magnitude more technical knowledge than a bow and attempting to load a gun with loose powder under fire while carrying lit matches required a huge amount of training and discipline. The late Medieval armies spent massive sums developing gunpowder weapons and fielding units with firearms - they wouldn't have done that if bows were better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 6:23:48 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Edward III was badass, his son The Black Prince was badass. Richard II is Edward III's grandson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 7:47:34 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
picking fights for no reason other then to pick a fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 10:54:52 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These are myths created by romanticist historians in the 18th/19th century. Longbows were across the board inferior to muskets and musket-armed units routinely defeating archers with ease. No matter how powerful the bow, the low velocity of arrows means they only have an effective range of 50 yards or so - against unarmored targets. Even simple leather or quilted armor will cut the lethal range of a bow down even further. This means that firearms had a decisive range advantage. Finally, arrows inflict slicing wounds that are less debilitating than those from ~.75 lead balls. The idea that you could "teach any idiot to use a musket in the space of few days" is also incorrect. Musketeers were generally highly paid professionals and the elites of the late Medieval armies. The reason for this is that maintaining a musket required an order of magnitude more technical knowledge than a bow and attempting to load a gun with loose powder under fire while carrying lit matches required a huge amount of training and discipline. The late Medieval armies spent massive sums developing gunpowder weapons and fielding units with firearms - they wouldn't have done that if bows were better. Arquebuses and muskets were definitely more lethal than bows. There is some truth to the claim of training in the gun being easier. To use a longbow effectively required a great deal more physical strength and stamina than to use a gun, and that wasn’t trainable in a few weeks of drill training, if it was even possible for the frequently small-statured, undernourished recruits of the day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 11:34:06 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If bows had been better than guns, the Indians wouldn’t have been so eager to trade in their bows. Arquebuses and muskets were definitely more lethal than bows. There is some truth to the claim of training in the gun being easier. To use a longbow effectively required a great deal more physical strength and stamina than to use a gun, and that wasn’t trainable in a few weeks of drill training, if it was even possible for the frequently small-statured, undernourished recruits of the day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: These are myths created by romanticist historians in the 18th/19th century. Longbows were across the board inferior to muskets and musket-armed units routinely defeating archers with ease. No matter how powerful the bow, the low velocity of arrows means they only have an effective range of 50 yards or so - against unarmored targets. Even simple leather or quilted armor will cut the lethal range of a bow down even further. This means that firearms had a decisive range advantage. Finally, arrows inflict slicing wounds that are less debilitating than those from ~.75 lead balls. The idea that you could "teach any idiot to use a musket in the space of few days" is also incorrect. Musketeers were generally highly paid professionals and the elites of the late Medieval armies. The reason for this is that maintaining a musket required an order of magnitude more technical knowledge than a bow and attempting to load a gun with loose powder under fire while carrying lit matches required a huge amount of training and discipline. The late Medieval armies spent massive sums developing gunpowder weapons and fielding units with firearms - they wouldn't have done that if bows were better. Arquebuses and muskets were definitely more lethal than bows. There is some truth to the claim of training in the gun being easier. To use a longbow effectively required a great deal more physical strength and stamina than to use a gun, and that wasn’t trainable in a few weeks of drill training, if it was even possible for the frequently small-statured, undernourished recruits of the day. I have. You’d be lucky to get 2/10 on a pie plate at 50y. The training, ease of manufacture, and lower physical requirements are definitely higher on the list than accuracy. Firearms kind of sucked ass until rifling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 11:43:54 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you ever shot a .75 musket? I have. You’d be lucky to get 2/10 on a pie plate at 50y. The training, ease of manufacture, and lower physical requirements are definitely higher on the list than accuracy. Firearms kind of sucked ass until rifling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 11:53:40 AM EDT
[#40]
Roman armies would be completely outclassed from a technological and tactical standpoint.
The legion would lack any polearm weapons effective in detering and defeating an armored medieval heavy cavalry charge, pila would make little to no effect on medieval armor, the gladius and the later spatha would lack the reach of medieval swords, axes, and pole arms, and Roman armor would be outclassed by its medieval counterpart. The Roman tactics of checkerboard formations and manipular rotation would be superior to the medieval infantry tactics, but it is difficult to image Romans being able to overcome the imbalance in armor and armaments The Roman advantage in discipline and organization would be difficult to make advantage of in this situation. I would think the Roman army’s best hope would be to put its center of gravity and supply line to its back, the medieval army to its front, and practice a scorched earth campaign while falling back on its supplies, waiting for disease and indiscipline to weaken and reduce the medievals, similar to the Russian retreat towards Moscow in the Napoleonic Wars. That’s not a strategy that the stronger army tends to take. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:02:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which doesn’t count because that is well into the gunpowder age. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those who enjoy reading of the Roman civil wars of Marius and Sulla and Caesar's Gaul campaign, the scale of violence the Roman's were willing to inflict and receive is mind boggling. Armies of this size were not seen again until Napoleon and then only briefly. World War I type logistics and planning and relentlessness. Quantity has a quality all its own. It would not have even been close. Also I don't think you barbarians comprehend the maneuverability of small units of Roman infantry during the heat of battle. You don't see it again until the German storm troops of 1917. Absolute control of their units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:11:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you need a reason to fight France? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
picking fights for no reason other then to pick a fight.  God Wills It from Kingdom of Heaven |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:11:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m the guy that started the musketry talk. It was NOT in reference to some first gen musket held on a stick. I was referring to the early 19th century weapons found on the battlefields of Austerlitz and Waterloo. These weapons were infinitely more devastating than the long bow. My point was this: units equipped with these weapons were incapable of preventing through fire an opposing unit from closing into melee. If they were unable to stop melee there is no way smaller units of logbowman could have prevented the cohorts from closing into melee. My musket point was made entirely to minimize the impact of the famous long bow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Have you ever shot a .75 musket? I have. You’d be lucky to get 2/10 on a pie plate at 50y. The training, ease of manufacture, and lower physical requirements are definitely higher on the list than accuracy. Firearms kind of sucked ass until rifling. Bows were more accurate until rifling, but required an absolute shit-ton of experience to be so. Bows make lousy clubs, and lead balls are smaller, easier to manufacture, and less fragile than arrows. Crossbows bridged the gap, but were bulky, were difficult to reload, had those pesky arrows (albeit shorter ones), and lacked the psychological impact of boom and smoke. Actual lethality factors somewhat farther down the list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:14:59 PM EDT
[#44]
After initial losses, the Roman legions stand a good chance of adapting and prevailing. Roman adaptability and ingenuity in warfare was unmatched until the United States. Reference Roman naval adaptation during the Punic Wars against Carthage, and Julius Caesar's innovation when defeating Vercingetorix and work backwards to Roman adoption of military tactics and weapons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:19:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After initial losses, the Roman legions stand a good chance of adapting and prevailing. Roman adaptability and ingenuity in warfare was unmatched until the United States. Reference Roman naval adaptation during the Punic Wars against Carthage, and Julius Caesar's innovation when defeating Vercingetorix and work backwards to Roman adoption of military tactics and weapons. Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:55:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you need a reason to fight France? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
picking fights for no reason other then to pick a fight. The French carried out raids on English coastal towns, leading to rumours in England of a full-scale French invasion. In 1337, Philip VI confiscated the English king's Duchy of Aquitaine and the county of Ponthieu. Instead of seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict by paying homage to the French king, as his father had done, Edward responded by laying claim to the French crown as the grandson of Philip IV. The French rejected this based on the precedents for agnatic succession set in 1316 and 1322. Instead, they upheld the rights of Philip IV's nephew, King Philip VI (an agnatic descendant of the House of France), thereby setting the stage for the Hundred Years' War |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 12:57:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you ever shot a .75 musket? I have. You’d be lucky to get 2/10 on a pie plate at 50y. The training, ease of manufacture, and lower physical requirements are definitely higher on the list than accuracy. Firearms kind of sucked ass until rifling. Artillery is pretty bad at hitting a single man as well. It still rules the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:00:57 PM EDT
[#48]
lol
The Romans would get turned into pasta within hours. It's not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:07:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The standard of accuracy wasn't "kill that guy over there!" It was "Kill or scare one of that cohesive mob of hundreds of guys over there!". Artillery is pretty bad at hitting a single man as well. It still rules the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:09:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, why are the Romans allowed to adapt in this scenario, while their opponents are not? Medieval Europeans certainly adapted in their various conflicts (including against those pesky Muslims). Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File