(Rome, Sweet Rome) Who would win if any infantry unit vs the Roman Legion?

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:03:25 -0500

"Rome, Sweet Rome" is an alternative history and military science fiction short story describes what might happen if a United States Marine Corps expeditionary unit were somehow transported back to the time of the Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Mar 6 at 2016 6:07 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:07:20 -0500

Cpl Tou Lee Yang I am going to stay neutral, however I do like Augustus Caesar, he was a genius of tactics and strategy.

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Mar 6 at 2016 6:09 PM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:09:16 -0500

I read through a Reddit form and came upon a short story about a MEU somehow being transported back to the Roman era. It is basically about 2,200 men with deployed equipment vs 330,000 Roman soldiers. I've read from many feed back that the Roman will win because the MEU will not have any resupplies and their modern day electronic would be useless such as GPS. From my perspective, any modern day military unit with modern day weaponry would win, unless the Roman waited out the military unit by ensuring they run out of supply to support the troops.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 6 at 2016 6:10 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:10:01 -0500

Same weapons, shields, and uniforms?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2016 6:12 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:12:49 -0500

turtleshell formation works great but not against hand grenades and machine gun fire!

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Mar 6 at 2016 6:13 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:13:41 -0500

If we went international I would expect the Gurkha battalions of the 19th century would tear a Roman Legion to Shreds, if we plopped any of Roman Legions into France in 1916 they would be decimated by common British, French, Australian or German soldiers in the mud, gore and poisonous gas.
Further back the British longbow archers of Crecy and Agincourt would decimate the Roman legionnaires
What say you historians

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 6 at 2016 6:17 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:17:26 -0500

Given the same weapons or not, my money is on the Marines. The Roman Legions were successful because they never faced another professional army. Their battles by and large were fought versus mobs, mostly armed and armored with inferior equipment, and we all know that a well organized force will invariably defeat poorly organized ones. That being said, I remember one sci-fi story of a solider transported back in time armed only with a pistol. It made him virtually invincible until he ran out of ammo. When asked what function he wanted to perform in that ancient civilization, he choose blacksmith (thinking that his modern knowledge would give him an advantage). As it turned out, he was terrible at it. He ruined swords and other implements because, like most of us, he used modern tools without actually understanding the basics of making them It was a vastly different story in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. The hero of that story was a late 19th century man who had greater knowledge of the basic skills than modern machinists and was able to fabricate bicycles and revolvers among other useful implements.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Mar 6 at 2016 7:54 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 19:54:25 -0500

The Roman Legion at the time was a superior force due only to sheer numbers, organization and armor. Up against any warrior force in the past 170 years years they would be defeated soundly.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Mar 6 at 2016 7:56 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 19:56:12 -0500

It depends on many aspects.Short term yes,long term no.Back then Rome was Power.Rome was Order.I would warn the Marines to be cautious.

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Mar 6 at 2016 8:26 PM

SSgt Dan Montague — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 20:26:47 -0500

Some depends on the scenario. A single company would get slaughtered by the Roman Legion. That is thousands going up against just over 100. Most all of our modern day high tech equipment wouldn't work. So the grunts would be basic WW2 infantry with rifles and bayonets. Now a MEU on the other hand I think would destroy them. So long as they don't have another 50000 reinforcements over the hill.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2016 10:19 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:19:30 -0500

almost as crazy as a line on Saturday Night Live from decades back with the statement 'what if Spartacus had an airplane?'

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Mar 6 at 2016 10:56 PM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:56:11 -0500

Well your first problem is that the Marines know history; the Romans don't. So the Marines know that taking out the leaders will ruin any Roman movement. So first thing the Marines would do is take out the Senate. As the Romans worship gods, it wouldn't take too much tomfoolery (grenade, flame thrower, etc) to convince the Romans that the Marines themselves are "gods." Next thing you know - wholesale surrender.

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made Mar 7 at 2016 7:47 AM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 07:47:18 -0500

Infantry

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 9:04 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 09:04:15 -0500

Any pre-industrial military force would not stand long against virtually any modern force...provided the modern combatants had the ability to establish good fields of fire, stand-off/choke points, and didn't run out of ammunition.

In the case of the Legions, their primary tactic was reliance on strict discipline to hold the line of shields together while moving forward in one, unstoppable mass. Those shields were great for stopping arrows, spears and swords...not so much against 5.56 and 7.62. Forced to disperse, fight in small units, and maneuver over a battle-space, the Legionaries would be cut down en-masse before they ever got close enough to engage.

Now...here's how they could still win.

If the Marines didn't have time to organize, or were caught in a confined space, the Romans could siege them with heavy ballistic weapons like the ballista and onager. Masters of field works, the Romans could cut off a smaller unit of Marines, then hit them with periodic sapping raids until they were out of water and ammo...then go in for the kill. Hand to hand, the Marines would be tough customers...and assuming they were wearing IBAs and ACHs, would be at least as well armored as the Romans. However, the K-Bar isn't a suitable parrying weapon, and the pilum and gladius would be lethal in comparison...especially in the hands of men who'd been training with them since their early teens.

However, the Romans relied heavily on centralized command...the Marines are famous for initiative and adaptation. Knowing they were up against such forces, the Leathernecks would probably assemble spears from whatever they could find, fix bayonets, lock into a "box" in a small entry point, and kill Romans like it was going out of style.

More to the point, if the Marines could manage to hold onto their SAW ammo...using bursts to cover the front ranks, then "push" each oncoming wave...they might just make the Romans cut their losses, offer terms...and recruit the surviving Jarheads into their ranks.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 7 at 2016 10:35 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:35:23 -0500

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-ambush-that-changed-history-72636736/?no-ist
http://www.livius.org/te-tg/teutoburg/teutoburg01.htm

Cpl Tou Lee Yang Being that the Roman legions were very shiny without a lot of substance, I would say the Marines not even by a short margin. When the Roman Legions went into the Teutoburg Forest, they got their ass handed to them by "Barbarian Tribes" (AKA Germanic Tribes). The Roman Emperor at one point referred to these tribes as beatable, but unconquerable. So a less advanced, by roman standards, society handily defeated the greatest military power of the time.

Having laid out that context, I believe that a MEU with similar arms to the romans would defeat them in battle. If the Marines used guerrilla warfare tactics the would have greater success than the would if they just went head to head with the legions. Of course if the Marines were armed with their regular gear, then it just becomes a massacre that ends with the Highest Ranking Marine being worshiped as a god for bringing the the thundersticks, strange wingless birds, and boats that fly to earth. Even the Bayonets that the Marines carry would be of such superior quality steel to what was technologically possible during the Roman age that they would be considered a magical bringing from the gods. Despite their technological advancements, and the breadth of their empire, the Romans were still a superstitious people. That is why I say that the Marines with their modern weapons would route the Romans, and then be worshiped by the Romans after the defeat.

Thanks for posting this, sorry for the drawn out history stuff.

The Ambush That Changed History

An amateur archaeologist discovers the field where wily Germanic warriors halted the spread of the Roman Empire

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Mar 7 at 2016 11:02 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:02:39 -0500

Just an uneducated hypothesis here, but the Marines would massively slaughter the Romans--at first--but if they cannot pack enough resupply into their time traveling DeLorean, then its a question of if Rome can throw enough bodies at the steadily depleting Marines because the Marines would eventually run out of stuff to kill them with.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Mar 7 at 2016 11:14 AM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:14:42 -0500

Much depends on numbers. A normal Roman Legion would have 4,500 men. An MEU is normally half that. A unit with modern weapons would be fine until the ammo ran out. After that, they'd be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. The best way to survive long term is to avoid combat.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 7 at 2016 11:14 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:14:43 -0500

In my eyes Spartacus won, but his crazy compadres wanted to sack Rome instead of fleeing through the Alps.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Mar 8 at 2016 8:55 AM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:55:14 -0500

I'm guessing that firearms would be a bit of a difference maker.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2016 6:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:15:35 -0500

Most of us are familiar with what happened when Polish cavalry charged German tanks. What many don't realize is that the Polish (winged) Hussars were one of the most elite fighting forces of the 16th and 17th, possibly even 18th Century. Swords, spears and even rifles don't stop tanks though... and Germany managed to roll into Poland without a whole lot of difficulty. The same would happen with a modern infantry unit facing troops armed with swords, shields and spears... they would cut through any military force (shields and armor don't stop bullets) at least until the infantry unit ran out of ammunition.

How would a modern Marine infantry unit without any ammunition do against a Roman legion? They would be slaughtered.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 10 at 2016 4:15 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:15:45 -0500

Roman Legion vs modern Marines is not a good example as there is such a disparity in technology and weaponry that it's not even remotely comparable. A good example of what would occur can be seen in Eric Flint's time travel series "1632". The series supposes a modern West Virginia mining town being transported back into the middle of the Thirty Year Wars in the middle of Europe. In one scene the towns folk went up against a Spanish tercio (which essentially is a pike phalanx) using modern hunting rifles and a single M60 that one townsperson had acquired illicitly. They pretty much stop a tercio charge in it's tracks as the Spanish mercenaries have never seen high velocity repeating rifles, let alone a machine gun spitting out ball and tracer rounds. Even if they donwngraded the tech to muzzle loading rifles, they'd still have the advantage over the tercio.

Now, if you were to pit a legionnaire and a Marine in a barehanded fight, THEN things would get interesting as now you are dealing with the MAN and not the equipment.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 11 at 2016 1:30 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:30:57 -0500

Okay, now I want to read this story. Where can I find it?

Response by SPC Harold Bustamante made Mar 12 at 2016 12:21 AM

SPC Harold Bustamante — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 00:21:30 -0500

romans where big and brutal with swords and they could march for days and live off of little and they where cruel if needed to be. Infantry would pick them off way before they got to them but would have to train them extra hard for brutal sword and hand to hand head butts...

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Mar 15 at 2016 8:04 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:04:14 -0400

I don't think Romans at that time had close air support.

Response by SGT Aaron Atwood made Mar 15 at 2016 10:27 PM

SGT Aaron Atwood — Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:27:32 -0400

I'll try to be original and stay within the time-frame of the Roman Empire's existence (East/West Rome too) for potential foes since it looks like everyone else went Romans vs militaries of today. Battlefield: open ground like a grassy field with little to no hills. Roman armies historically have banked on fighting in that kind of terrain. Weaponry of the time can stay the same for the Romans and the potential foes.

Roman legion vs (drum roll please)..... Chinese army during the Han dynasty. On tactics alone I think the Chinese have a leg up. Historically they're already combating and keeping nomadic tribes away from their borders, and Sun Tzu's Art of War has been out and available to read and learn from for some time. I think the Chinese general commanding the army would quickly figure out how to effectively outmaneuver the slower Roman legion and compress the Roman soldiers quickly much like the Gothic lancers decimated a legion later on after Augustus' time.
On experience and discipline it could go either way. The Roman army is a professional one. Augustus' time was after military reforms were made so Romans could choose to be soldiers by profession rather than conscripted into it. The Chinese army on the other hand was made of mostly of conscripts as well as volunteers. Despite this the Chinese army fought constantly especially when China was anything but unified. Weaponry and armor could again go either way. The Romans have some definite artillery advantages but the Chinese have the repeating crossbow, lamellar armor (which the Romans later copied), and newer innovations in sword-forging. In a battle I think it could go either way especially depending on who's leading each force, but if I had to decide I'd put my money on the Chinese.

Now, Roman legion vs (another drum roll)...... Mayan army during the Late Preclassic era. For weaponry the Romans initially appear to have a leg up, but keep in mind the Aztec and Mayan armies weren't that different when it came to arms and armament, and both dealt with the Spaniards who were wielding steel armor and arms (and don't forget the gunpowder). The Roman armor, assuming what they're wearing isn't leather, would protect them well enough from the extremely sharp obsidian weapons the Mayans would likely be using. For experience and profession the Romans likely have a major leg up especially when one takes into account Mayan power wasn't at its height until the Classic era which most historians compare to the Italian Renaissance. I don't think we know enough about the Preclassic-era Mayan military to make any other comparisons to, so based on the above I'd say the Romans would win; probably easily at that.