The Art of War

[Larry]

If it's an ancient battleground, then forget all that mechanization. Where would tanks, planes, helicopters, etc. get their fuel? What happens when all the ammo runs out?

 

the battle takes place in ancient rome

 

and yes you are correct, just the fact that it takes place in the ancient world negates a lot of the inherent advantages that a modern army has. No satellite coverage, no GPS, no supply lines. Absolutely no chance of re-supply. Maintenance for the equipment will also be an issue, a lot of the high-tech equipment requires frequent routine maintenance, such as the choppers. Aside from the fuel, it needs hydraulic fluid, oil and all that stuff, which will be limited by the fact that they only have what is on hand.

 

so it's not as clear cut as you guys may think :-)

 

To make it a real fair fight, take away the US marines' tanks, choppers, guns and other high tech weapon systems and instead arm the ordinary soldier with swords, bows and arrows, spears, and hatchets. And to make it real fair, let's pit 100,000 Roman soldiers against 100,000 American marines/seals/special forces/delta force soldiers. Mano a mano.

 

this goes to the romans, 9 times out of 10.

 

Although the modern soldier might have advantages in conditioning and better nutrition and prior knowledge of the enemies tactics. Romans have been doing this kind of fighting for decades. they are a perfectly tuned machine, and while the modern army may know how romans do things, it's a world of difference between knowing and actually training and applying these tactics to the point of perfection.

 

Styles make fights, and in this particular one it favors those who have actually fought in ancient style fighting.

[sonnyt111]

The Han Dynasty Chinese vs. The Caesar-led Roman legions

 

Battleground: The plains of Afghanistan since this would be, more or less, the halfway point for both armies from their respective countries.

 

Winner: The Han Dynasty Chinese because of their missile weapons. I grant that the Romans have the superior infantry but killing your enemies from afar before engaging them in hand to hand combat would demoralize the morale of your enemy and would let you have the psychological advantage once the enemy is close enough for hand to hand combat.

 

Observing such a battle would have been interesting since they existed at pretty much the same time. Didn't the Romans also have missile weapons at their disposal? Sorry I'm not an expert on ancient military tactics so I'd appreciate a little heads up.

[Larry]

yes the romans had siege weapons such as catapults, scorpions and ballista (or the scorpio ballista), there were also reports of a self loading repeating crossbow called the polybolos (think of it as an ancient machine gun that fired bolts instead of bullets). they also had siege towers that were iron clad to protect them from fire, and these towers were big enough to be able to carry light siege weapons (such as scorpions)and a sizeable force of legionnaires.

 

ancient rome had a very good grasp of siegecraft, a lot of their knowledge were things that they learned from the Greeks which they improved heavily upon. Roman engineers were very skilled in creating war machines, they would prefabricate them and design them in such a way that they could break them down and transport them easily.

 

 

from what I know of the Han dynasty, although they too had siege weaponry, their main thrust was light cavalry, as they had a lot of skirmishes with the barbarian Huns who was mainly a large cavalry.

 

Romans had encountered difficulty against horse-laden opponents before, especially with Hannibal who would routinely out flank them, and employ hit and run tactics. But ultimately they adapted to the situation and came up with a combined arms tactic, that mixed infantry tactics with siege weaponry and this is what ultimately brought the cavalry down.

 

Now if you're talking about the han chinese army suddenly dropping down in front of the Romans and engaging them then I would have to say that the romans take it. Superior tactics, and experience against a variety of enemies and tactics give them the advantage. Remember that the romans used professional soldiers, the legion had men whose only purpose in life was fighting, and were honed by years of combat with other nations. the han chinese military was largely a conscripted army, although experienced but were mostly draftees, so you have normal farmer or artisan types playing soldier. Legionnaires would crush these guys.

 

The roman army for a time was one of the most devastating and most technologically advanced armies the ancient world has ever seen, these guys crushed everybody even the mythical spartans. You could take a battle or two from the legion, but in the end they would still beat you down. Ancient legionnaires knew how to f#&k countries up.

 

the chinese on the other hand while regionally very successful militarily, were routinely pestered by a group of horseback riding nomads, that routinely came deep into their country and messed things up. this happened so often that had to create a giant wall to protect themselves. That to me doesn't speak well of their martial tactics. Sure sun-tzu was a brilliant military mind, but Caesar was even more of a brilliant tactician and he proved this routinely in the field.

 

the scenario needs a lot more fleshing out I think, like exact numbers, are we talking the entire military strength of both civilizations? or just a sample size? What time period would these romans be from? This is very important since this would dictate technology, tactics, troop formations, and overall strategic approach.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Larry

[komissar]

you guys talk as if the success of a campaign hinge mainly on the weapons and equipment each combatant possess forgetting the fact that the men, their leaders, the strategy and other factors (political, social, etc) are as much affect the outcome of any battle. The concepts in the ART of WAR is very much applicable today as it was during the time it was written by Sun Tzu. The weapons are a good start to gauge your success but it will not be the be all and end all of its ultimate victory. The US was "defeated" in the Vietnam War by an army that was way below in terms of war technology.

[maxiev]

you guys talk as if the success of a campaign hinge mainly on the weapons and equipment each combatant possess forgetting the fact that the men, their leaders, the strategy and other factors (political, social, etc) are as much affect the outcome of any battle. The concepts in the ART of WAR is very much applicable today as it was during the time it was written by Sun Tzu. The weapons are a good start to gauge your success but it will not be the be all and end all of its ultimate victory. The US was "defeated" in the Vietnam War by an army that was way below in terms of war technology.

Agreed. Weapons systems are but one of the many factors that spell victory or defeat. The Vietnamese "thought outside the box" so to speak and applied a lot of Sun Tzu's principles to full advantage.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Yes, I agree. In the Vietnam War, the US was taken out of the scene by the VC/NVA due to attrition and public clamor in the US mainland to end the war due to rising casualties which was frowned upon by the American public. The Americans rarely lost a battle in the war but lost the war because, try as they might, they couldn't make the VC/NVA surrender. The VC had two internal factors going for them. First was the knowledge of the terrain which they used to their advantage, not to mention the maze of underground tunnels which the VC used to escape. The second factor were the peasants who sympathized with the VC. It was difficult for the Americans to track them down because either the peasants would tell them nothing or would lie about the whereabouts of the VC. In terms of battle tactics, I don't think the Americans were wanting because more often than not, they won the countless battles.

You got to admire the Vietnamese people. I'm pretty sure the Americans tried bribing their way into the hearts of the people in exchange for information about enemy strength, positions, etc. The almighty dollar only went so far to help the American military gather vital information which could have given their enemies away.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Has anybody watched the documentary "The Art of War" which was featured on the History Channel? The documentary revolves around Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military strategist. His teachings and genius lives on today on modern day battlefields. Even students at military schools in the US such as Westpoint study his teachings 2000 years after his time.

 

The program showed how the Vietnamese used Sun Tzu's tactics to defeat the US military. It explained how US Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee disregarded some of Sun Tzu's advise which resulted in the Union Army winning the American Civil War.

 

Here's the video. If you have the time watch it. Highly recommended.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=erZ2YidTZp4

Loved this video. Sun Tzu was a military genius.

[mokong10101]

Rome vs Han dynasty.

 

Napakadaling sagot.

 

Han dynasty 9 out of 10.

 

If you have to ask the Han dynasty has something that the Romans doesn't and only in medieval times lang nagkaroon ang Europe.

 

This weapon in mid to close range has the ability to punch through armor, even PLATE ARMOR.

 

Kung ikaw ay nanghuhula, yes tama ka.

 

C-R-O-S-S-B-O-W

 

Tada!

 

Tower shields are worthless.

[Bugatti Veyron]

The teachings of Sun Tzu is essential in understanding the art of war.

[sonnyt111]

If it is one battle yes, the Romans will likely lose the first contact... after that will be a toss up.

Bro you mean to say that after losing the first contact, the Romans will be learn from their mistakes and be able to make adjustments to their military strategies in order to counteract the enemy's own military strategies?

[TheSmilingBandit]

Could you destroy the entire roman empire (augustus' empire), if you traveled back in time with a modern US Marine Expeditionary Unit?

 

imagine that scenario for a while.

 

now here's the deal:

 

The entire roman military would be composed of about 330,000 men, since each legion would be about 11,000 men. These men would be professional soldiers, battle hardened in multiple campaigns, armed with weapons of the age namely, the short sword, the fullbody sheild, a pilum (spear), bows and probably some seige machinery such as towers and catapults.

 

now for the Marine Expeditionary Unit

 

from wiki

 

A Marine Expeditionary Unit is normally built around the building blocks of a MAGTF: a reinforced Marine infantry battalion is the ground combat element, the aviation combat element is a composite helicopter squadron, a battalion-sized logistics combat element, and a command element. Troop strength is about 2,200 and usually commanded by a colonel, and is deployed from an amphibious assault ship.

 

the equipment that comes with the MEU aside from the guns are as follows

 

again from wiki

 

4 M1A1 main battle tank

7 to 16 Light Armored Vehicle

15 Assault Amphibious Vehicle

6 155mm howitzer: M777

8 M252 81mm mortar

8 BGM-71 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missile weapon system

8 FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile

4 to 6 AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopters

3 UH-1N Twin Huey utility helicopter

12 CH-46E Sea Knight medium lift assault helicopter

4 CH-53E Super Stallion heavy lift assault helicopter

6 AV-8B Harrier jet

2 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit

1 LMT 3000 water purification unit

4 Tractor, Rubber Tire, Articulated Steering

2 TX51-19M Rough Terrain Forklift logistics

3 D7 bulldozer

1 Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement dump truck

4 Mk48 Logistics Vehicle System

7 500 gallon water containers

63 Humvee

30 Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement

 

the original poster from reddit wanted to make things a bit fairer, and removed all aircraft from the equation except for two fully functional helicopters, a Super Cobra, and the Sea King. He also removed the tanks (tanks would f#&k s@%t up in roman times)

 

The other restriction the MEU has is that they only have a 6 month ration of all supplies, since they time-travel and they cannot take their supply line with them.

 

GPS and other satellite dependent technology will be useless since there are no satellites in Ancient Rome.

 

But other than those, it's pretty much mana y mano.

 

Now consider the odds and tell us who do you think would win?

 

The numbers are overwhelming no doubt 330,000 pissed off legionnaires are no joke, but will technology overcome them and tip the tide in favor of the MEU.

 

This is going to be a fun exercise :-)

 

(BTW, someone turned this scenario into a serialized story, and Warner Bros has already optioned the story and the last I heard a script is already being made on this very scenario. You can search for Rome Sweet Rome on google to read the story)

Sorry for the late reply to this Larry, been busy with RL.

 

Let us assume that the MEU has EVERYTHING listed in working condition, with a full load of fuel and ammunition for all vehicles and that all the marines have full ammo and ration packs. Oh heck, for the sake of expediciency let's even assume that somehow they were transported with 6 months supply.

 

Unless they were miraculously dropped in time somewhere in Central Italy, they would probably end up having a fairly big pocket under their control until their ammo runs out. Of course, things would vary greatly depending on how good their commanders were at negotiating with locals, but based on how you formed the thought exercise it's going to be pretty much just pure fighting with no attempts to communicate right?

 

Alright, assuming that the MEU was timeported someplace in Northern Africa (Libya works well for this), then they are humped, really, really humped, their tanks, LAVs, and AAVs would probably lose their tracks before even reaching Egypt. The choppers and Harriers would work well for a while until the sand grits up their engines and they sieze up. (Notice that generally most people use improved fields for even these aircraft to prevent sand grinding up their engines. That would be impossible in the Saharan desert as there would be no improved fields.) A 6 month supply of tracks for the tanks/LAVs, and AAVs would equate to 1 set of tracks for the tanks (1 set for all 4 tanks mind you, not 1 set for each tank, LAVs and AAVs would probably have the same ratio), deserts are infamous for wrecking tanks because tracks would shed under the weight of those monsters (and yes those would be fully packed to help carry ALL the rations). So now we'll have 2,200 odd marine grunts, trapped in the desert, with insufficient transport to bring all their supplies … so I guess they'll do what marines have done … hump it … carrying everything they can carry (which will mostly be water and minimal food).

 

Let's assume they get to Egypt. Alexandria during Augustian times, were normally home to 2 Legions as well as an equal number of auxiliaries, call it 40,000 men. While the Roman Legionnaires of Augustus Caesar were infantry, their auxiliaries would have at least 2,000 or so cavalry.

 

Let's assume that the Roman Legate in charge has no idea who these 2,200 barbarians are marching through his area of responsibility, with weird monsters (humvees) in their midst, but he would bravely arrange his men in the classic checkerboard formation while sending out his auxiliary light infantry to skirmish with the MEU. His cavalry in the meantime would probably be sent on a wide flanking maneuver. The USMC MEU would chop up the auxiliary infantry and probably the cavalry, then proceed to turn the 2 legions into mince meat, at which point they will probably go through 3 or 4 clips of M16 ammo each (roughly ½ of their ammo ration that they are carrying). When they get to Alexandria, they will pretty much have an easy time getting food, perhaps they even send the vehicles back to get more ammo and fuel, let's say 16 or so clips per marine.

 

In the 2 or 3 weeks it'll take a trireme to make it from Alexandria to Rome, the MEU could probably move in their remaining ammunition, so the MEU can R&R in Alexandria for a month, although their fuel supply will probably be down to 2 months worth at this point. Let's assume that Augustus realizes that these barbarians are very dangerous and have already massacred 2 of his legions, he'll probably ship another 4 legions to Tyre and send orders for perhaps 4 to 6 legions and an equal number of auxiliaries to meet them there.

 

This means that the 2nd battle will be fought somewhere in what we would call modern day Syria or Israel. Let's assume 10 legions were sent, together with their associated auxiliaries, that is roughly 200,000 men, of which 20,000 would be cavalry (probably Arabs). Let's assume that this legate in charge doesn't realize what the MEU is capable of, after all, tall tales have been part of a legionaries life for ages. However, he decides to send the cavalry on a wide raid towards the rear of the barbarians while his light auxiliaries seek a skirmish with the MEU. Once the firepower of the MEU turns the auxiliaries into hamburger, the legate will give the only order he has left, 3 or 4 legions attacking from the front while the others will flank and engulf.

 

Augustus will probably lose another 4 or 5 of his legions, but the MEU will now be turned into pincushions as their READY-USE ammo (i.e. ammo in their harness) has been depleted and their supplies have been either burned or thrown away by the arab cavalry auxiliaries for being junk (probably looted though as copper is a useful metal).

[FleurDeLune]

Let's take the basic rule here by stating this: "If there's anything that can help solve any conflict, then it's only human instinct that he/she sticks to it". Sorry but that's my own "basic rule" application.

 

I mean let's take things direct to the point, if there's such a thing like an "art of war" then there should have been an art of avoiding it - "art of avoiding war".

 

And I guess there is one. Here's actually the caption "why it's so hard to defeat an enemy that won't fight you, and what this means for U.S. strategy on everything from Islamic State to China".

 

This is a very timely article. Read on.

 

[Strada2008]

Sun Tzu...I use his strategise for business...I am a lover, not a fighter...

[Memento Vivere]

yup

[justin.challenger]

Robert Greene's 33 Strategies of War make it appear that Sun Tzu's Art of War is just a small fragment of available strategies in dealing with conflict . . .

 

Very interesting reading, if you're willing to plunck 899 pesos for a copy . . .