The Art of War

[TheSmilingBandit]

The era of the Roman Republic. Around 44 BC to the time the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Ok war junkies, this is a what-if scenario. What are your thoughts? Who would win it and why?

Circa 44 BC would be the Triumvirate period of Rome and the Han Dynasty of China.

 

The basics:

Manpower

• Rome (SPQR) - Not yet the more famous Imperial army, the armies of Rome during this time were still based on the citizen levies but were already becoming a professional army as the Legionaries had to serve for 16 years and were mostly volunteers. Their training was for at least 6 months and included a lot of close-order drill as the might of the Roman Legions during this time was their adaptability and capability to work well. The basic legionnaire would be Italian (this was after the Social War) and approximately 80% were trained as infantry, 15% as navy (Roman infantry can function as marines), and merely 5% as cavalry. Considering that this was between the 1st and 2nd triumvirates, there were roughly about 40-50 legions (roughly 5,300 men each assuming full strength or 265,000 legionaries) and about an equal number of auxiliaries (mercenaries, natives of various provinces, etc. etc., mostly used as scouts, light infantry, or cavalry). So the pool of soldiers available for the Roman Republic would be 265,000 legionaries and perhaps 200,000 auxiliary infantry and perhaps 65,000 auxiliary cavalry.
  
• China (Western Han) - all able-bodied men served at least 1 year in the army as conscripts with 1 year before that for training, only a small professional army was maintained. The Western Han ruled a vast area and their armies were divided roughly into 60% infantry (mostly garrison troops), 10% navy, and 30% cavalry (most of their professional soldiers were cavalry). While there is no hard number to use for the Imperial Chinese Armies at this time, during the battle of Mayi, the Han Emperor sent about 300,000 soldiers while maintaining his garrisons and simultaneously expanding southwards. So we can assume that their manpower would roughly be in the 2 million range of trained infantry and cavalry.
  
• Summary - On the basis of manpower, China would have the edge.

 

Training

• Rome (SPQR) - The training for legionaries is 6 months, and was intensive, but as the new soldier was assigned to his legion, his cohort, and his century, his more experienced companions would teach him their tricks for survival, and the level of esprit de corp was very high.
  
• China (Western Han) - The Chinese soldiers were trained for 1 year, but the level of training depends on the type of soldier that was being turned out. Garritroops (perhaps 75% of the infantry) were trained mainly in the use of their spears and crossbows, relying on fortifications to protect themselves. Standard Infantry was not really considered of great value, and their training was mostly in volleying their crossbows together, soldiers were cogs in the machine and were transferable from 1 unit to another without much thought, their foremost thought would probably be to survive their 1 year in service. Cavalry on the other hand served for a minimum of 6 years and were considered elite units, their training and esprit de corps would be comparable to those of the Roman legions.
  
• Summary - Rome has the edge on infantry while China had the edge on cavalry.

 

Equipment

• Rome (SPQR) - At this time the basic equipment of the legionary would be their 2 javelins, their short sword, dagger, chain mail shirt, leather greaves (arm and leg), and their shield. The auxila infantry would normally have no armor and be armed with either bows or slings and perhaps a short sword or a dagger. The auxila cavalry would carry spears, long swords, and chain mail shirts with rounded shields.
  
• China (Western Han) - At this time the basic equipment of the Chinese infantry would be their their spear, their short sword, dagger, laminated plate armor (mostly leather maybe with some metal reinforcements towards the front) and shields or crossbows and dagger without armor. Han cavalry were very well equipped spear, sword, a type of mace, crossbow, dagger, metal scale mail (probably iron), and shield.
  
• Summary - Rome's legions would have the edge for the infantry while China's cavalry would massacre the auxila cavalry.
  

 

In essence, Roman legions would turtle up and dominate the center of the battlefield while the Chinese infantry would move aside and k*ll/wound the Roman infantry auxiliaries, Chinese cavalry would route the Roman cavalry auxiliaries, then they could surround the legions and take pot-shots using their crossbows, out of range of the pila of the legions. Eventually the legions would either surrender or die (from wounds or from starvation).

 

This is just my opinion of course and we have not yet gone into the leaders.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Yes, I chose this era because of Julius Caesar. Perhaps, you can also give an opinion of the Romans vs. The Chinese circa 218 B.C., or the time of Scipio Africanus and Hannibal of Carthage.[/size]

The Marian Legions of Julius Caesar's time period were far more professional than the old Republican Legions used during the time of Scipio Africanus, so I'm afraid that if we went back in time it would be worse for the Romans.

 

A great and comprehensive analysis on both armies TSB but I have a few questions. Who's better in throwing the javelin, the velites or the cohorts? When you say auxilia, do you mean archer auxilia? They're supposed to be at the back of the infantry to provide fire support, right? [/size]

Auxilia is any "native" force used by the Romans as a force multiplier, in effect equal in size to the Roman contingents and could be cavalry (remember cavalry was not as effective at this time due to the lack of stirrups), light infantry, archers, or slingers.

 

It seems to me this Chinese tactic that you're referring to is akin to Hannibal's double envelopment tactic in his three major victories against the Romans. But I agree with you that the Chinese would beat the Romans simply because the Chinese can fight at a distance.

It is similar to Hannibal's tactic, but is more akin to the Parthian tactics adapted for use by infantry.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Did the Chinese use cross bows in 218 BC?

 

Yes, the auxilia provided fire support for the cohorts. The cohorts being the assault element and the auxilia being the fire element.

 

Yeah, I read that the Parthians are expert horsemen and marksmen and their main fighting force was their cavalry.

Sun Tzu's Art of War has references to crossbows in chapter 5 and that book was written circa 500BC.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Thanks TSB. In what era were the best Roman legions in?

Actually the Roman Marian-type Legions of Julius Caesar's time is pretty good, against any contemporary opponent within their region, they could probably win any war, though they may lose a few battles.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Except, of course, against the Han Dynasty Chinese. I'm just curious if the legions of Caesar could handle Attila the Hun and his army.

Not necessarily, The Mauryan Empire of India would have probably given the Han Dynasty and the Roman empire a run for their money as well, They were known for their ability to field 600,000 infantry supported by "several thousands" of war elephants and up to 50,000 cavalry.

 

Thankfully for the Romans, neither the Mauryans nor the Han were in their region. To be honest, I feel that a war between Rome, India, and China would have resulted in a deadlock. Besides, considering the distances involved none of these armies had the logistical ability to support a major war at extended distances.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Elephants were a major reason why Hannibal was able to annihilate the Roman Legions in those three major battles. But hey, India and China had a common border. Didn't they have skirmishes during the Mauryan and Han eras?

The common border would be the mountains where Nepal and Tibet are currently located, considering the height of those mountains and the extent of that mountain range, fighting a war would be a losing proposition to the attacker who would probably lose 30%-50% of his attacking forces.

 

Still the problem of logistics...besides elephants were a problem to their users too.

True, however the Asiatic elephants used by the Indians were nowhere close to as rambunctious as the African elephants used by the Carthaginians.

 

As for the logistics that would be a nightmare for any of them, although the Romans probably had the best logistical system among the 3.

Edited December 6, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[Stella of Hanaya]

I know a person who has mastered this art of war.

[TheSmilingBandit]

I know a person who has mastered this art of war.

Who?

 

Genghis Khan and the Mongosl vs. Saladin and the Moors. What do you think guys? Who will win and why?

The Mongols probably, their armies were definitely more versatile and far better trained. Although why would Saladin command the Moors? He was the Emir of Egypt and his most famous warriors were the Mamelukes, the Moors were the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula and the northwestern parts of Africa (i.e. Berbers)

[grandkaiser13]

Japanese Samurais or English (err... European) Knights?

[TheSmilingBandit]

Japanese Samurais or English (err... European) Knights?

Depends, generic samurai vs knights?

What time period?

[dfgvan]

how about the israelite army when Moses is watching...

it has been told that during a battle when Moses' arms are raised the Israelite's won't be beaten

[maxiev]

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.com/watch?v=erZ2YidTZp4

[Bugatti Veyron]

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

 

 

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing.

[sonnyt111]

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

 

According to the video, Sun Tzu's military tactics can also be used in politics, business, and sports. In fact it can be used in any activity of man where the goal is to win. Of course, in war, all norms of morality are thrown out. One can employ the most devious, underhanded, immoral acts in order to win. Such tactics are not acceptable when used in sports, business and politics but that still doesn't stop some combatants in these areas of competition from employing these tactics. For me the end doesn't justify the means. Except in a real war of course.

Edited January 1, 2013 by sonnyt111

[TheSmilingBandit]

how about the israelite army when Moses is watching...

it has been told that during a battle when Moses' arms are raised the Israelite's won't be beaten

Well what with the "divine intervention" and what-not it would be hard to know what actually happened.

 

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.com/watch?v=erZ2YidTZp4

Very nice link, though of course these gentlemen have obviously forgotten a maxim of war, which is to say, "in war, everything is simple, but even the simple may not be possible." With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the decades past it is easy to point a finger and say, "this is where [insert name here] made a mistake at the battle of [insert battlefield name here]. However, during the time in question, at the exact moment, perhaps the fog of war was enough to confuse people?

[Bugatti Veyron]

Well what with the "divine intervention" and what-not it would be hard to know what actually happened.

 

 

Very nice link, though of course these gentlemen have obviously forgotten a maxim of war, which is to say, "in war, everything is simple, but even the simple may not be possible." With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the decades past it is easy to point a finger and say, "this is where [insert name here] made a mistake at the battle of [insert battlefield name here]. However, during the time in question, at the exact moment, perhaps the fog of war was enough to confuse people?

 

I agree 100%. Generals in the heat of battle don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. They do, however, have at their disposal, the lessons of history and the wisdom of ancient and modern day generals who made the right moves as well as the wrong ones. Military schools teach these lessons to would-be generals who must use this knowledge to fight and win wars.

[TheSmilingBandit]

I agree 100%. Generals in the heat of battle don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. They do, however, have at their disposal, the lessons of history and the wisdom of ancient and modern day generals who made the right moves as well as the wrong ones. Military schools teach these lessons to would-be generals who must use this knowledge to fight and win wars.

Well I agree and disagree with that statement, yes military schools and academies do teach military history as well as tactics and strategy, however, in the heat of battle, how easy is it to remember what was taught and how applicable is each lesson in the specific instance of the battle.

 

As an example, during the Battle of Gettysburg it is easy for armchair generals to criticize Gen. Lee, but consider this, Gen. Stuart had led the bulk of the cavalry off on an extended raid and only returned late on the 2nd day of the battle. Without reconnaissance, Gen. Lee's knowledge about his foes dispositions is limited by the fog of war. Perhaps the biggest mistake was that he allowed Gen. Stuart to go off on his extended raid, but even then it was a fait accompli as Gen. Stuart had already left before his messenger arrived to Gen. Lee.

 

Even today, with radio and GPS, the fog of war still causes errors in the orders sent by officers to their men. What more in those bygone eras where horse-riding messengers were the only way to pass information?

[maxiev]

To a large degree, the problems of command and control have been reduced because of modern technology. Reduced casualties resulting from "friendly fire", intercepted communications, updated intelligence, etc. can be traced directly to technological innovations which were previously unavailable to past commanders.

[Bugatti Veyron]

Nowadays, American military personnel can go to war against Taliban insurgents from the comfort of their offices at the Penagon/military bases. They use remote controlled drones which can engage the insurgents. These personnel manipulate the drones right from their offices. After killing a couple of insurgents, these military personnel can go home and enjoy the evening with their families.

 

Iba na talaga ang guerra ngayon. Parang video game nalang.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Nowadays, American military personnel can go to war against Taliban insurgents from the comfort of their offices at the Penagon/military bases. They use remote controlled drones which can engage the insurgents. These personnel manipulate the drones right from their offices. After killing a couple of insurgents, these military personnel can go home and enjoy the evening with their families.

 

Iba na talaga ang guerra ngayon. Parang video game nalang.

 

You can easily imagine the following conversation: Husband: "Hi honey how was your day?"

 

Wife: Kissing her husband, "Oh I went to the mall and bought these pair of shoes. Like em?"

 

Husband: "Yeah they look good on you. What's for dinner?"

 

Wife: "Roast beef dear. By the way how was your day?"

 

Husband: "Great. Killed a couple of Taliban this afternoon. I'm going for more tomorrow. Oh I forgot I'm off tomorrow. Fred will pick up where I started."

 

Wife: "That's nice dear. Come along now. Let's have dinner."

 

Son come rushing in. Dad hugs son.

 

Son: "Hi dad!! How many Taliban did you k*ll today?"

 

Father: "I'll tell you after you do your homework."

 

Son: "When I grow up I want to be just like you dad!"

[sonnyt111]

You can easily imagine the following conversation: Husband: "Hi honey how was your day?"

 

Wife: Kissing her husband, "Oh I went to the mall and bought these pair of shoes. Like em?"

 

Husband: "Yeah they look good on you. What's for dinner?"

 

Wife: "Roast beef dear. By the way how was your day?"

 

Husband: "Great. Killed a couple of Taliban this afternoon. I'm going for more tomorrow. Oh I forgot I'm off tomorrow. Fred will pick up where I started."

 

Wife: "That's nice dear. Come along now. Let's have dinner."

 

Son come rushing in. Dad hugs son.

 

Son: "Hi dad!! How many Taliban did you k*ll today?"

 

Father: "I'll tell you after you do your homework."

 

Son: "When I grow up I want to be just like you dad!"

 

Killing has never become more impersonal than it is today.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Killing has never become more impersonal than it is today.

Yeah and there's less guilt involved because it's just like playing a video game. It's just like killing bad guys in a video game. The reality is people (both combatants and civilians) are killed. Collateral damage is something that cannot be avoided in this type of remote controlled war.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Here's an interesting link about the Philippine American War, 1899 - 1902 by Arnaldo Dumindin. Book includes very interesting old photos of the Philippines.

 

 

http://philippineamericanwar.webs.com/

[Larry]

I love these kinds of threads

 

for you military history buffs, I would highly recommend listening to Dan Carlin's podcast "Hardcore History" he covers very interesting subjects as the Mongol expansion and why they were so badass (conquered half the world without stirrups), theoretical battles between legendary armies. He also looks at monumental historic events in our world history and what they mean for present times. You can get it off iTunes if you're on iOS or use Doggcatcher if you're on android.

 

anwyay, whenver I see a military history thread anywhere, I'm always reminded of that insane thread on reddit.com. Basically the thread asked a simple question:

 

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)

[maxiev]

I love these kinds of threads

 

for you military history buffs, I would highly recommend listening to Dan Carlin's podcast "Hardcore History" he covers very interesting subjects as the Mongol expansion and why they were so badass (conquered half the world without stirrups), theoretical battles between legendary armies. He also looks at monumental historic events in our world history and what they mean for present times. You can get it off iTunes if you're on iOS or use Doggcatcher if you're on android.

 

anwyay, whenver I see a military history thread anywhere, I'm always reminded of that insane thread on reddit.com. Basically the thread asked a simple question:

 

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)

Bro Larry if these ancient Roman Empire saw Harrier Jets, various types of attack helicopters, full battle tanks, howitzers, mortars, and modern assault rifles used by men wearing full military battle gear with night vision glasses for the first time, and if one of or more of their men are blasted by just one Abrams tank, the Roman soldier's who have never ever seen these type of weapons, vehicles that can fly, weapons that can k*ll from hundreds of feet away, I would imagine they would lay their weapons down and worship what they percieve as gods. Because the 21st century soldier with 21st century weapon systems would appear as gods to these ancient soldiers. Shock and awe can be used to full advantage when dealing with these primitive soldiers.