Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire 'Rome, Sweet Rome': Could a Single Marine Unit Destroy the Roman Empire?

One other thing I want to add.

I just finished the official history of Guadacanal as well as a history of the US Navy in WWII. One thing that struck me was the ability of the Marines to resupply themselves. It's all part of a remarkable system. Sure, we know Marines are superior killers and work well at the tip of the spear, but behind that is a very flexible and resourceful logistics system that is built to resupply the front line.

Cutting off the chance for resupply really puts a Marine at a disadvantage. On Guadacanal, where the ammunition was able to flow, the Marines were able to fend off superior Japanese forces that were willing to die in suicide charges.

If you want to read a great alternative history novel pick up a copy of "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove.

Modern South Africans travel in time to arm the Confederacy with AK-47's and lots of ammo.

The Romans have always fascinated me, we like to think of gladiators and orgies but they were fantastic engineers and organizers. Kind of makes you wonder what happened to their Italian descendants?

But anyway, a new recruit would have about 6 months of training and a good part of that was hours and hours and hours of practicing with a wooden sword that was about twice the weight of a gladius. That and marching, marching, marching which hasn't changed all that much. I didn’t know this but the idea behind the close fighting was that a soldier held off the man in front of him with his shield but reached between the shields to stab the enemy immediately to his right, not the one directly in front of him. Not sure what the guy on the extreme right flank did...

I’m sure that varied with opportunity, if you can cut off a hand or foot go for it no matter where it is, but it was kind of a foretelling of the buzzsaw tactic where modern soldiers behind a berm angle their fire off to the left and right while remaining protected from direct frontal fire.

Yes! And I want those Marines stationed on the coast of my homeland, England. When those Roman bastards tried to land, blow 'em out of the water.
It was all downhill for my Celtic ancestors after the Romans took over.

The marines would probably destabilize the empire and reach so sort of peace with various factions. Within 50 to 75 years or less, the Romans would be driving their own tanks and airplanes.

It is a mystery that has never been completely answered as to why the Romans never had an industrial revolution. They were sufficiently advance to have one and in many ways more advanced than the Europeans were in the 18th Century when the Industrial Revolution began. And consider that from the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution to WW II with automatic weapons, tanks and airplanes was only one hundred and fifty years. It is safe assume that with advanced examples on hand, and spurred by the knowledge of what was possible that the Roman Industrial Revolution would be even more rapid.

Fuel would be easy as the Romans already knew of distillation. They would simply have to apply it to the tar bubbling up from the surface in Arabia. Black powder would be easy enough as well. And they had plenty of coal and iron ore.

So while your average Marine might not be able to build an oil refinery, make gunpowder, or set up a Bessamer furnace, they had sufficient knowledge to point the Romans in the right direction and Roman technology was sufficiently advanced to take the ball and run once they knew what was possible.

The best theory I've heard on why the Romans didn't get more industrialized was that they had no need to reduce labor. They had slaves a plenty and unlimited manpower.

It would be fun to play around with a computer simulated scenario of what it would take to turn the tide of a battle. For example, how many AR's and how much ammo would it have taken to turn the tide at the Little Bighorn?

While I’m on a roll, I was always a bit disappointed with the opening battle sequence of “Gladiator” where the fight descends into a melee immediately. They march in order okay but then everything goes helter skelter.

In a typical engagement the soldiers would fling their pilum (or pila) just as the enemy got within range, maybe 30 yards away. This is the spear with the long lead tip. It would embed itself in the enemy’s shields, or any that missed would have their soft tips bent and be useless for throwing back. With a spear stuck in his shield and enemy had difficulty wielding it effectively or a legionnaire could step on the spear and drag down the man’s shield.

But organization with the key to their tactics. A barroom brawl such as depicted in Gladiator meant something had gone very wrong.

Or, being Marines, the Roman world 50 years later would have 10 times more bars and whorehouses.


Just kidding. Love you guys. Oo-rah and all...

Because of the necessity of face to face fighting with swords and spears, Roman armies fought in mass. A squad of machine gunners could wipe out a legion of swordsmen in short order as long as they could keep the barrels cool. A few guys lobbing tear gas grenades could immobilize the legion without having to kill them. Of course if they didn't kill them, they'd have to guard and feed them.

Well, let us take the Battle of Alesia in France in 52 BC.
The Romans were led by Cesar, they laid seige to the Celtic fort. But the Romans were outnumbered.
The Romans were held together by the courage and battle tactics of Julius Cesar. He was seen throughout the battle, riding back and forth on his horse. Cesar's red cape was visible throughout the battle.

Just one sniper on the Celtic side to take out the Roman leader and the battle probably would have turned.
If not, that sniper could have just continued to kill each Roman commander. I think the battle would have turned in about an hour.

My limited understanding of quantum physics/mechanics makes me view these sorts of hypotheticals as a waste of time, energy, and pixels.

But it is fun, I have to admit. I enjoy wasting time as much as the next man.

Depends on how many bullets they had

I posted this a while ago but this seems like a good time to repeat it. Time travel would be impossible according to the law of conservation of matter and energy.

If you traveled back in time, the atoms that are part of your makeup right now would have to revert to the eggs or cereal you had for breakfast. Otherwise as you passed back through 7 AM this morning those atoms would exist in two places at once – the eggs and your body. Basically if you stayed in this space time continuum you’d have to play back your life exactly like a movie played backwards. If you kept your consciousness and traveled back further than your current age it would be interesting as you were sucked back into the womb.

If you traveled forward in time you’d look like an immovable statue to those around you in normal time. Over the course of 100 years folks might notice your hand had moved from its position 100 years ago but you wouldn’t just disappear and reappear sometime later. That’s assuming that you traveled in space as well as time.

If you did not, the Earth would be millions or billions of miles away so you’d rematerialize in deep space if not inside some celestial body, causing one hell of an explosion as your atoms and the celestial body’s atoms competed for the exact same space. Or maybe you’d be immediately crushed by this planet if you happened to be on the side of directional travel and it tried to move through you.

You might be able to overcome the conservation of matter and energy law if your atoms and the energy holding them together moved out of this space-time continuum, out of our universe so to speak, and were immediately replaced by an equal mass and energy from whatever universe/plane/dimension you were using as the medium of travel. I’m working on that one but there are just so many alternate universes to choose from...

I read it many years ago. I enjoyed it a great deal till after the South won. Then I thought it got a little boring.

We brought law and civilization to you savages.

Their central government was too powerful to permit that to happen. No one could do anything without permission from the highest authorities, so there was no free market of any kind, which is what's needed for an industrial revolution.

That, too. A convergence of reasons. You need conditions to be just right, and planets perfectly aligned just so, to have an industrial revolution.

That sort of gets to the reason for the loss to begin with, i.e., the Indians had Winchester repeaters with ten round magazines, while the US Cavalry had single shot .45-70 carbines.

And no A-10's, don't forget that...