{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/29/2018 3:41:25 PM
8
Very big into roman history and I'd say them. Someone else has already given a great explanation on why too, their military was very professional, very disciplined and they were more organized than their opponents.
To take the romans and Persians: the Persians easily outnumber the Romans but they lacked training and good equipment. 30,000 romans could definitely put up a good fight vs 100,000 Persians just by their tactics, discipline and superior weaponry.
One of my favorite things on roman discipline is a legion was punished by getting beat to death if they fled a fight. 1 out of every ten men were picked to be beaten and the other 9 were given sticks to do so. This instilled fear of disobeying your officers in battle to where the romans feared their own more than the enemy.
Another favorite thing was the legions themselves. You had the defensive testudo formation that made them a moving shield, imagine being on the opposing side and seeing hundreds of arrows not even denying the roman advancement because of the formation. This is what many warring factions lacked and why the romans prevailed just about every time.
Furthermore the romans were setup in tiers (princapiis, triarii, auxiliary, etc etc and I'm probably spelling them wrong but each tier had their own classification) where the youngest and most inexperienced fought first, as they tired, they fell back as the next tier took their spot and they'd be fresh and more experienced as the cycle progressed, it would just be a repeating process until you cycled back through. Most of the great generals also kept a reserve unit for emergencies. They'd also have the better equipment as the longer you served and the more money you earned, the better armor you could afford.
I think it would've been awesome just to see what could've been had Rome not fallen. Romes issue was being so big that eventually their military just couldn't keep up fighting on so many borders as more factions started warring vs them, you could add bad leadership from corrupt senate to just bad emperors, romes treasury slowly depleting (which was a big issue as the military relied on money), etc etc.
A lot of modern day things are influenced by what the romans did in their time.
English
-
Genghis can would fu[b][/b]ck the Roman Empire
-
Sure he would buddy
-
Actually, he would. Romes heaviest and most humiliating defeat was at the hands of the Parthians, who fought in a similar fashion to the Mongols. Except not as good as the Mongols seeing as they took a gigantic shit on Persia.
-
Everyone shit on persia
-
Apart from Rome.
-
cause macedon shit on them so hard they couldn't come back.
-
Tell that to the Romans who got annihilated at Carrhae then 😂
-
Editado por kellygreen45: 3/29/2018 6:56:31 PM[quote]One of my favorite things on roman discipline is a legion was punished by getting beat to death if they fled a fight. 1 out of every ten men were picked to be beaten and the other 9 were given sticks to do so. This instilled fear of disobeying your officers in battle to where the romans feared their own more than the enemy.[/quote] This act of unit discipline/punishment was called "decimation". Literallly the killing of every tenth man in a unit by his comrades. What made it so effective in maintaining unit discipline was who lived, and who died was simply chosen at random. [quote] think it would've been awesome just to see what could've been had Rome not fallen.[/quote] That was the Byzantine Empire. Or the Eastern Roman Empire. You're right that the Empire eventually grew too big to manage given the technology of the time....but also the Romans eventually became complacent. Like many powerful nations in decline, they lost sight of what was the source of their power...and preserving and maintaining that....and began to consider power their birthright. So they eventually became so obsessed with INTERNAL struggles for power, that they neglected the military, and left more and more of the business of defending the Empire to non-Romans. Who (obviously) had no real loyalty to Rome itself. What the Fall of Rome meant for Western Europe, was a thousand year hiatus for education and progress while the barbarian tribes that swept into the Empire's remnants figured out how to pick up where the Greco-Romans left off: The Renaissance. The fact is that we're only about 5 or 6 centuries more technologically advanced than the Romans were in the 5th Century.
