d'oh! getting my land and water military fiction confused -- my point was though that cannon could be / was loaded with anti-personnel rounds (cannister?) that could do unpleasant things to masses of people.Originally posted by: neutralizer
BTW, grape and chain shot were not used in land cannons because they were just too large and heavy to fire on land. To fire those, they'd need a huge naval cannon. Obviously the grape and chain shot were used to knock down masts on naval ships not on land. Just a correction
But even with solid shot they could aim it to "bounce" through ranks in a rather gruesome form of bowling.
Say 2000 Romans charge against 2000 recoats from 100 yards away. Let's say the cover 25 yards every 15 seconds (keep in mind they have to run with sword and shield, so no they're not gonna do the 40 in 4.4 NFL scouting combine time). And let's say that every 15 seconds the Redcoats reload their guns and are ready to fire.
At 100 yards, the Redcoats fire. They're not very accurate say about 10% accuracy. That means there's 200 Romans either injured or killed which means they are not part of the charge anymore. That leaves 1800 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At 75 yards, the Redcoats fire again. At this range the accuracy has improved to 20%. If it were 1800 vs. 1800, that would mean 360 Romans would be dead. But there are also 200 extra guns. We'll assume this group's success rate lags by about 1/2 (since they could be targeting the same person as someone else) So that's another 10 Dead. That leaves 1430 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At 50 yards, the Redcoats fire again. At this range the accuracy improves to 30%. Once again using the same argument that's 429 Romans dead. But now there are 570 more Redcoat guns. Once again this group's success rate lags by about 1/2. So that's another 85 Romans dead. That leaves 916 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At 25 yards, the Redcoats fire again. At this range the accuracy improves to 40%. Using the same argument that's 366 Romans dead. Now there's 1084 more Redcoats. The next 916 Redcoats shoot with about 20% accuracy killing 183 more Romans. The next 168 Redcoats shoot with 10% accuracy killing 16 more Romans. That leaves 366 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At this point the Redcoats quickly get out their bayonets. Since the Redcoats are defending themselves + the fact that the bayonet is longer than the sword, we'll assume they get "first strike" abilities. They dispatch about 10% of the Romans before the Romans can even touch them. That leaves 330 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
The Romans are now amongst the Redcoats. The 330 Romans engage with 330 Redcoats. They hit with a 75% accuracy rate leaving 248 Redcoats dead. While they are striking however, they leave their backs open to an attack by other Redcoats (who aren't part of the 330) This strike by the Redcoats are blunted by armor or whatnot of the Roman Army. It only has a 40% success rate. That leaves 132 Romans dead and 198 Romans alive to face 1752 Redcoats.
The 198 Romans now engage in 198 Redcoats. Once again they hit with a 75% accuracy rate leaving 149 Redcoats dead. Once again while they are striking, they leave their backs open to an attack by other Redcoats. With again a 40% success rate, 79 Romans are killed. That leaves 119 Romans to face 1603 Redcoats.
119 Romans now engage with 119 Redcoats. They kill 90 Redcoats in this round and lose 47. It's now 72 Romans to face 1513 Redcoats.
Playing the scenerio out the Roman army shrinks from 72 to 44 to 27 to 17 to 11 to 7 to 4 (at this point i start rounding down) to 2 to 1 to complete annihilation. Meanwhile the Redcoats shink in size from 1459 to 1426 to 1406 to 1394 to 1386 to 1381 to 1378 to 1377 to 1376.
Final score:
Redcoats: 1376 Roman Army: 0
-Ed
At 100 yards, the Redcoats fire. They're not very accurate say about 10% accuracy. That means there's 200 Romans either injured or killed which means they are not part of the charge anymore. That leaves 1800 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At 75 yards, the Redcoats fire again. At this range the accuracy has improved to 20%. If it were 1800 vs. 1800, that would mean 360 Romans would be dead. But there are also 200 extra guns. We'll assume this group's success rate lags by about 1/2 (since they could be targeting the same person as someone else) So that's another 10 Dead. That leaves 1430 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At 50 yards, the Redcoats fire again. At this range the accuracy improves to 30%. Once again using the same argument that's 429 Romans dead. But now there are 570 more Redcoat guns. Once again this group's success rate lags by about 1/2. So that's another 85 Romans dead. That leaves 916 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At 25 yards, the Redcoats fire again. At this range the accuracy improves to 40%. Using the same argument that's 366 Romans dead. Now there's 1084 more Redcoats. The next 916 Redcoats shoot with about 20% accuracy killing 183 more Romans. The next 168 Redcoats shoot with 10% accuracy killing 16 more Romans. That leaves 366 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
At this point the Redcoats quickly get out their bayonets. Since the Redcoats are defending themselves + the fact that the bayonet is longer than the sword, we'll assume they get "first strike" abilities. They dispatch about 10% of the Romans before the Romans can even touch them. That leaves 330 Romans vs. 2000 Redcoats.
The Romans are now amongst the Redcoats. The 330 Romans engage with 330 Redcoats. They hit with a 75% accuracy rate leaving 248 Redcoats dead. While they are striking however, they leave their backs open to an attack by other Redcoats (who aren't part of the 330) This strike by the Redcoats are blunted by armor or whatnot of the Roman Army. It only has a 40% success rate. That leaves 132 Romans dead and 198 Romans alive to face 1752 Redcoats.
The 198 Romans now engage in 198 Redcoats. Once again they hit with a 75% accuracy rate leaving 149 Redcoats dead. Once again while they are striking, they leave their backs open to an attack by other Redcoats. With again a 40% success rate, 79 Romans are killed. That leaves 119 Romans to face 1603 Redcoats.
119 Romans now engage with 119 Redcoats. They kill 90 Redcoats in this round and lose 47. It's now 72 Romans to face 1513 Redcoats.
Playing the scenerio out the Roman army shrinks from 72 to 44 to 27 to 17 to 11 to 7 to 4 (at this point i start rounding down) to 2 to 1 to complete annihilation. Meanwhile the Redcoats shink in size from 1459 to 1426 to 1406 to 1394 to 1386 to 1381 to 1378 to 1377 to 1376.
Final score:
Redcoats: 1376 Roman Army: 0
-Ed
that makes about as much sense as me trying to scam beers off people by proving that -1 = +1 (the only way you can disprove it is if you have a nice knowledge of Riemann sheets)
neutralizer
Lifer
- Oct 4, 2001
- 11,552
- 1
- 0
wow, what a great comparison. That would be an interesting battle. I think the Romans would be far more brutal than the 18th century army for sure
Yes, but you left out the obvious. Put the Redcoats into multiple lines. Once the Romans overtake the first line, the second line is in place to fire into the first line. Make four lines of 250 Redcoats and the Romans wouldn't stand a chance. They would however kill 1/4 to 1/3 of the Redcoats at best.
Arm the Redcoats with something a bit more modern, even 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifles, and the Romans would have their butts handed to them. Arm them with AK-47s or M-16s and it is likely that not a single Redcoat would die.
Hopper
it's a friday night, and you guys have probably spent the better part of at least 10 minutes thinking this whole Romans vs. Colonial army out. I know I spent about 3-4 minutes reading the whole thread and making my decision then voting. God I hate ATOT.
lol, i still think the issue on the table of the bombadeer hatch on ST pj's needs resolving... hahahaha
LOL! I have an excuse, Thumper's working tonight so I've got nothing better to do other than hang out with you bums.Originally posted by: NewSc2
it's a friday night, and you guys have probably spent the better part of at least 10 minutes thinking this whole Romans vs. Colonial army out. I know I spent about 3-4 minutes reading the whole thread and making my decision then voting. God I hate ATOT.
Hopper
Some good reading along these lines though not specifically romans vs. redcoats
David Drake - Ranks of Bronze, The Forge (General series, with SM Stirling)
Eric Flint - 1632
SM Stirling - Island in the Sea of Time (Nantucket series)
William R. Forstchen - Rally Cry
Drake is excellent in general for military fiction, best known for his "Hammer's Slammers" stories but the out-of-print Forlorn Hope is one of his best.
David Drake - Ranks of Bronze, The Forge (General series, with SM Stirling)
Eric Flint - 1632
SM Stirling - Island in the Sea of Time (Nantucket series)
William R. Forstchen - Rally Cry
Drake is excellent in general for military fiction, best known for his "Hammer's Slammers" stories but the out-of-print Forlorn Hope is one of his best.
An entertaining thought, but almost impossible to accurately spec out. The Romans were the second most effective military force in world history (Alexander the Great ranks first, due to sheer area conquered in a short time span). They proved themselves militarily superior to all of the people throughout the Mediterranean, Northern Africa, and Gaul. Only after a long drawn out decline, did their military superiority finally dim. This superiority was the result of very advanced battlefield tactics (partially drawn from the Greek phalanx), combined with outstanding military leadership (e.g. Caesar, Scipio Africanus, etc.). The British are an entirely different beast. Much of their military supremacy was a result of their incredible naval prowess (not the Romans biggest strongpoint - but not too weak either (Actium)). The British land tactics weren't drastically superior to others during their time period - one of the reasons that they were unable to form an empire the size of the Roman empire (whether they wanted this burden is another question altogether). Yes, gunpowder would give the British some advantage. However, as others here have brought up, it cannot be forgotten that the Romans had their own set of ranged weapons, including archers and bolts. Trained archers could do quite a number on the British ranks, especially considering that the British have little to no protection from piercing weapons (which the ancients did have). The Romans would also be more effective melee fighters, because their primary forces are designed to accomplish this task. Thus, instead of having an all purpose unit that isn't spectacular at any one area (British), the Romans would have multiple independent units with individual areas of expertise. This combination of units could quite easily prove the decisive factor in a Roman victory, assuming that the initial shock of gun powder doesn't completely cause chaos within the ranks.
FYI, I'm majoring in Classics and Rhetoric, so I do have some background in this.
FYI, I'm majoring in Classics and Rhetoric, so I do have some background in this.
sparkyclarky,
You're right that the Romans could give the British a run for their money, but it misses the overall point.
If the Romans were really superior, then militaries around the world would not have shifted away from those weapons and tactics.
In any case, surprise and proper tactics can overcome some technology advantage. The Indians gave the British a ton of trouble for a long time because the British didn't adapt to the tactics used by the Indians.
That being said, the 1700s are the last time period when these comparisons are possible. Anything much past that becomes a turkey shoot, as has been covered in this thead. Even Winchester repeating rifles and manual gattling guns would wipe out Romans by the thousands.
Hopper
You're right that the Romans could give the British a run for their money, but it misses the overall point.
If the Romans were really superior, then militaries around the world would not have shifted away from those weapons and tactics.
In any case, surprise and proper tactics can overcome some technology advantage. The Indians gave the British a ton of trouble for a long time because the British didn't adapt to the tactics used by the Indians.
That being said, the 1700s are the last time period when these comparisons are possible. Anything much past that becomes a turkey shoot, as has been covered in this thead. Even Winchester repeating rifles and manual gattling guns would wipe out Romans by the thousands.
Hopper
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 5,947
- 403
- 126
Wow, I didn't know "Forlorn Hope" is out of print...
I'm just waiting to see if anybody brings into discussion the BFG-9000
I'm just waiting to see if anybody brings into discussion the BFG-9000
Either way, the numbers he gives are quite generous to the Romans. At a 100 yards and 2000 men, the hit rate would be at least 50%(aiming for the broad side of barn basically).
I think you might have misunderstood one of my points. When I claim that the Romans were the second most effective military in history, you have to understand that effectiveness is judged based upon the conditions that existed at the time. Obviously, the Romans wouldn't stand a military chance against today's technology. But, in their day, they conquered a good sized chunk of the known world, within a relatively short time span (200 years or so). They also were able to have the longest period of sustained peace that the world has ever known, partially thanks to their military prowess - the Pax Romanum. What I'm attempting to say is that greatness is relative, but this doesn't stop one from doing a comparison of the greatness of one civilization to another. One of the primary reasons that militaries shifted away from the Roman ways of warfare was because much of it was lost in the Middle (Dark) Ages. The Germanic invasion of Rome led to a large loss of culture and technology in Western Europe. Fighting styles had to be developed anew. It just so happened that one of the new technologies brought in was gunpowder. Yes, gunpowder did significantly change the face of warfare (making it less personal for one). However, during the 1770s, it was still a rather undeveloped technology, as opposed to Roman practices, which were refinements of military tactics and technology passed on for many centuries. Hopefully that clears things up a bit.
Of course, and taking their place in history into account, they were quite impressive indeed...
That being said, an arguement could be made that while it was impressive, it lacked the staying power to keep the Romans around. Today, with all our technology, it would take a major world war to have a repeat of the Dark Ages.
Granted, with nuclear weapons that is certainly possible, but unlikely.
But that wasn't the question, the question is how they would fare against the armies of the world 225 years ago.
Peace is a realitive term, you could say we haven't had a major war since WWII.
No one could argue however that we have "peace".
BTW, there have always been wars going on around the world since the dawn of time, most are small, some are regional, and a few are quite impressive.
Ok, here is a question:
Which nation is/was greater, the United States of America or the Roman Empire? On what do you base your answer?
Why was Rome so easy to invade?
From my reading, Rome simply expanded too far too fast and could no longer control her borders. Rome had an impressive army, but I do not believe they ever had the numbers they needed to really control their land.
I see it like America today, we try to control the world's oceans with, what, 12 carriers?
Hopper
Do those civl war muskets pierce through their shields as well as their armor? Well enough to make a man go down or severely injured?
I love the history of Rome and its army. I remember in elemetary school reading on their strategies and stuff. I think one of the smartests/coolest things was their formation of a "turtle shell" where they would lock their shields together so that arrows, rocks, and the such would not do much harm.
I was thinking that they could do a similar thing against those musket militia army until they get close enough to doa full out charge. Of course, this is all reliant that the gusn dont go through the shields as well as armor, which I have no clue on.
I love the history of Rome and its army. I remember in elemetary school reading on their strategies and stuff.
I think one of the smartests/coolest things was their formation of a "turtle shell" where they would lock their shields together so that arrows, rocks, and the such would not do much harm.I was thinking that they could do a similar thing against those musket militia army until they get close enough to doa full out charge.
Of course, this is all reliant that the gusn dont go through the shields as well as armor, which I have no clue on.The History Channel did a very nice program about armor used back in the day, and why it was dropped.Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Do those civl war muskets pierce through their shields as well as their armor? Well enough to make a man go down or severely injured?
I love the history of Rome and its army. I remember in elemetary school reading on their strategies and stuff.
I was thinking that they could do a similar thing against those musket militia army until they get close enough to doa full out charge.
Yes, musket bullets would go through those sheilds. To make a sheild that would stop them would be too heavy to carry around and be useful. They were meant to stop arrows, not bullets.
Hopper
The Romans actually had quite a bit of staying power. The legendary founding of Rome is 753 BC (or is it 752? I'm too tired to hunt it down right now) and the most often cited date of the fall of Rome is 476 AD. 1,000 years is nothing to sneeze at, roughly half of which was spent ruling over large areas of land. If you read up on the Pax Romanum, I'm sure you'll find that it actually was a quite calm period, even by today's standards. After having emerged from a century of civil war, Rome came out shining under Augustus. At this point in time, I think it's safe to say that Rome was a greater power than the US. They ruled a good portion of the known world and had what I would consider better administration techniques (e.g. live and let live, not the forced indoctrination into a non-native culture that we seem so eager to do to others - e.g. Native Americans). The US is still in its infancy, and only time can tell what will happen from here. We had a long gestation period from the 1600s to 1941, and since our entrance as a major player on the world stage, we've experienced a rapid escalation in power and influence. However, this is already starting to backlash. Perhaps we will still be around 600 years from now, perhaps not. If future generations look back on us, and compare us to the Romans, I would view that as a compliment towards our greatness. However, there exists the chance that we are nothing but a flash in the pan (and yes, nuclear weapons have made this a distinct possibility - we may be the engineers of our own demise). As far as Rome having expanded too far, too fast, I'd say that doesn't hold a whole lot of sway. They were the most efficient administrators of the ancient world, which allowed them to deal with issues of scale that arose. It's not the expansion that directly did them in, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many ancient Romans. They thought that their society suffered as a result of corruption caused by a corrosion of traditional values. Some of this supposedly was the result of new ideas that were introduced to Rome from the foreign cultures that they encountered. The Romans tried to counter this threat in numerous ways - Augustus implemented moral codes, later emperors persecuted Christians, etc. We'll I'm off to bed now....
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Do those civl war muskets pierce through their shields as well as their armor? Well enough to make a man go down or severely injured?
I love the history of Rome and its army. I remember in elemetary school reading on their strategies and stuff.
I was thinking that they could do a similar thing against those musket militia army until they get close enough to doa full out charge.
For the last fricking time, muskets of the time were strong enough to pierce steel plate armor. The Romans were equiped with bronze armor. Even with the shield in between, the Romans are fscked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter