Two thousand years ago, Rome was expanding, growing, invading, conquering. From well-garrisoned centres of trade and government and culture, Rome was leaking outward, its influence spreading via force of arms, wealth, and simple communications. Where Rome established a limb, there the locals learned Roman ways. However, when Varus took up the reins in the north, he desired faster assimilation. He wanted more money, and he wanted it now. Like a certain political leader of today, Varus was not a soldier; he was a bureaucrat. According to his books, his knowledge of the way the world worked, and so on, he thought squeezing the Germans harder and harder would bring gains that would outweigh any losses. In 9 anno domini, Varus led three legions, six cohorts, and three squadrons of cavalry to quell some pesky Germans who didn't want to play along with the Roman way of doing things. In all, over 16,000 Romans, a monstrous army for the day and a large army in Roman terms. This massive army, the most well-equipped and disciplined in the world, was slaughtered in Teutoburg Wald by the Germans.
history does tend to repeat itself... and we learn history so that we dont repeat mistakes.. well, that's one of the reasons at least... well, i think we're makin great progress... :bugeye:
Hmm... there are one or two things Adam fails to mention. Those "pesky Germans" were about 14,000 strong (an estimate only, of course. It's almost impossible to get an exact figure but this estimate is generally agreed as being fairly close) and represented the first real unification of the Germanic tribes against an oppressor yet seen, under the command of an ex-Roman auxiliary soldier, Arminius. Arminius was an ex-Roman auxiliary (and had roman citizenship, by all accounts) and was no "barbarian". He was no stranger to the Roman army, or it's tactics. They were outnumbered, yes, but not a huge amount and picked their terrain carefully to negate any Roman advantage. Arminius himself was goaded into revolution mostly due to the fact that his wife eloped to marry him, which pissed off her father no end. The father then complained to the roman governor about his non-welcome son-in-law and accused him of treason. He intensley disliked the romans prior to this but hadn't yet made the final step into rebellion. Most of the planning was done in secret while convincing Varus that he was not doing anything of the sort. The Romans were lured into hilly, wooded terrain, which in no way suited it's general fighting style, as Arminius knew quite well. He began with lightning attacks against the Roman baggage train, cutting supplies before the real fighting started. His Germans, a fearsome lot well used to "psyching out" enemies using blood curdling yells and having a fearsome countenance, were then put to work harrassing a still-marching Roman army every step of the way, with the result that by the time the Romans reached a suitably defensive position, they were tired, drawn, and had lost most of their baggage wagons. 800 or 900 of their troops were German light cavalry, auxilaries, and these had mostly deserted and were now fighting on the German side. What was slaughtered over three days then was not the well-discplined, deadly Roman legions the Germans had fought until then. They were demoralised, hungry, and frightened, and fighting on terrain they were not suited for. It was definately not a slaughter of the disciplined Roman legions we all know, by a tribe of barbarians. It was the systematic mauling of an ill-led force by a superbly-generalled German army, even if they didn't have the training or equipment of the Romans. Somehow, I dont think this is very similar to the situation we're now facing in Iraq. Georgy boy is not standing at the head of the American forces, and they're led by professional soldiers. The Iraqi government is going to have to come up with something pretty damn special to stop them, and I don't think they have much in the way of hilly wooded terrain. Maybe a city or two to hide in?
Hey, look. Someone made exactly the same connection you did Adam... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/12/162014.shtml
In other words, they whipped them. As I said, the Romans were well-equipped and disciplined. These are the legions who had already conquered nation after nation, no doubt with many hard battles behind them, many of those with limited supplied. It takes a lot more than three days with limited food and sanitation facilities to demoralise a professional army. See, this is where actual military experience can give one a useful perspective. But the point remains. The vastly superior force was hammered in the home territory of the people they sought to crush. If Saddam really does have the support of his people - against the USA at least - and if he manages to bog the USA down into a Mogadishu-like battle in Baghdad, the USA may find itself shouting "Bring me back my legions!"
Cool. Maybe there really are other people out there who can read and make logical connections. Although I dislike the way he, and you, refer to the Germans of the time as "barbarians". It is worth noting that they weren't even called "Germans" (or "Germany" for that matter) at the time.
Originally posted by Adam In other words, they whipped them. As I said, the Romans were well-equipped and disciplined. These are the legions who had already conquered nation after nation, no doubt with many hard battles behind them, many of those with limited supplied. It takes a lot more than three days with limited food and sanitation facilities to demoralise a professional army. It does, yes. Good leadership from the enemy, never knowing when you're going to be hit next by screaming "barbarians", not getting any sleep, those sorts of things... those professional soldiers would have been jumping at the hoot of an owl. The Germans weren't exactly strangers to the odd swordfight either.. they'd been beating the shit out of each other for centuries before deciding the Romans would be a far better target. See, this is where actual military experience can give one a useful perspective. *laughs* yeah Adam. Being in the navy must have given you invaluable insights into ancient warfare. Appealing to authority now? But the point remains. The vastly superior force was hammered in the home territory of the people they sought to crush. I disagree with the "vastly superior" bit (superior, yes.. "vastly" gives the wrong impression of actual events.). The Americans don't come anywhere near outnumbering the Iraqis, and I doubt the Iraqis have the capability to seriously harm American morale unless the US stupidly allows itself to be drawn into a street-fighting conflict. I would also point out that while the Roman armies were better equipped than the Germans, the technological gap between Iraq and the US is far wider. If Saddam really does have the support of his people - against the USA at least - and if he manages to bog the USA down into a Mogadishu-like battle in Baghdad, the USA may find itself shouting "Bring me back my legions!" Here, you might be right. If all those conditions are met. the Americans would have to be fairly inept to allow themselves to be drawn into fighting in Baghdad though. If they do, I unreservedly withdraw all comments about the US having good military leadership. Let's just see when the dust settles, shall we?
In the end the Romans did win the cultural war against the Barbaric German tribes. Germany, like much of Europe today, is just a bastardized version of Roman culture.
When I used the word "barbarians" it had quote marks around it. Didn't that suggest anything to you? The term "Germans" was used for ease of reference, rather than listing each people individually. So I'm lazy, sue me.
In a lot of ways, yes, I agree. Look at the Vandal's control of Carthage.. they embraced Roman culture wholeheartedly (and did nothing to deserve their reputation for destructiveness, incidentally). This battle went a long way towards preventing an almost complete Roman domination of Europe though. What are the odds on Iraq looking like an Arabic version of the USA someday?
the marquis No. This is where military experience would serve you well. I spent nine days in a wrecker's wargame without seeing the sun, irregular sleeping hours, no sleep sessions more than five hours long, no showers, stuffing food down when I could manage it between naps, off-shift action stations and the ops room. And no decline in my performance. Every sailor was rated, marked, as were the ship and each department. I spent a week alternating between running, sleeping on the ground, and kayaking, carrying a full pack, with basic rations and no comfy unfiform or tent. We used to run from 5am to midday in combat boots and uniform, full pack, L1A1, ammo, canteen. Stop for lunch. Then run back. Physical hardship and low rations and discomfort for only three days is not enough to make the most highly trained soldiers in the world jump at the hoot of an owl. It simply doens't work like that outside of whatever David Eddings books you've been reading. The Romans, too, had been fighting and winning with generally superior methods for a long time. Appealing to experience. Your appeal to ignorance does not serve you well. The USA military is, on a level playing field, vastly superior. Thus Saddam's announcement months ago that he would draw the USA into the cities if he could, to attempt another Mogadishu. The USA vastly overpowers the Iraqis because the USA retains absolute air superiority with incredibly powerful weapons systems. That is, by the way, the prevailing US military doctrine of the last couple of decades, in case you missed it. I disagree. Again, this is where actual knowledge of the subject would serve you well. Regarding the Teutoburg Wald battle. The Celtic peoples of Europe were already using pattern-welded steel swords, which the Romans were still trying without success to imitate four centuries later. However, the Romans had superior training, superior methods, and superior numbers. The locals had the home ground advantage. Regarding USA-Iraq. There are only a few differences in technology. 1) Twenty years of main battle tank development. 2) Very fast and mobile missile platforms (Apaches, F16s, et cetera). 3) Superior battlefield observation and resource management on the part of the Americans. The locals had the home ground advantage. Those are the main differences in each case. My opinion is that the USA has some capable military commanders, and always has. But unfortunately they allow stupid civilians to interfere with their war activities. Regardless of what the USA military commanders want, Bush may demand they march into Baghdad.
Not good I presume. The Arabs are an ethnocentric people who would rather ‘die on their feet then live on their knees’ to quote an old revolutionary. They are a proud people who have their own history and culture, which at one time was actually superior to Western civilization. For them, cultural submission to a people they have exchanged countless wars is not an option.
Re: the marquis You're kidding, right? That's what you're basing your military knowledge on? You weren't exactly under fire during that exercise. Three days in unfamiliar territory being harrassed by a disciplined adversary, with loss of your auxillary forces to the other side, loss of your supplies, being harassed relentlessly until they reached a defensive position and unable to set up any sort of serious perimeter can very easily demoralize a force, particularly if you've realized your commander is incompetent. In ancient combat demoralization was a major contributor in many battle fields. Alexander's success against far superior Persian forces was generally achieved by demoralizing the center of the line that faced his phalanxes. I served 22 months in Vietnam and I saw men in defensive positions become extremely agitated during one night of harrassment when NVA forces continually probing the perimeter and mortars were being lobbed in. generally these positions were held, but air support and artillery fire often had to be called in to break the assault. There are more than a "few" differences between US and Iraqi technology other than you mentioned. One of the main factors in today's warfare will be the US' ability to destroy Iraqi communications. The US military has always allowed its field commanders a great deal of autonomy in adjusting to battlefield situations. In other words, Central command develops a strategic blueprint, but commanders on the spot are allowed a great deal of autonomy in adjusting to opportunities or problems that arise. The Iraqi military, however, is completely centralized in the style of the old Soviet Union. It is an extremely rigid chain of command. Field commanders are given no autonomy whatsoever on the battlefield, and if an opportunity arose would not be able to capitalize with out going through the chain of command first, and by the same token, if the situation collapses, they have to allow for orders from higher up before adjusting. They dare not make a decision on their own. Before US ground troops go in the Iraqi communications will be destroyed, thus cutting off all contact between Iraq leadership and field commanders. Iraq's army today is not even of the quality it was in '91. The Iraqi' Soviet-built main battle tanks were no match for the Abrams, artillery is not even comparable, and many of the Iraq troops surrendering were using weapons that were WWII vintage. And as in '91 Saddam will direct the Iraqi military; Bush won't. He will give full control to his generals as his father did with Schwartzkopf. This will be no Teuteburg Wald.
Re: the marquis Originally posted by Adam No. This is where military experience would serve you well. Yeah Adam. You were in the navy once, and that makes you a expert authority on military history and tactics. If anyone else used this argument on you, you'd label them a fool, and we both know it. Save it for the groupies, you're completely failing to impress me. I spent nine days in a wrecker's wargame ... Adam's little story about how he thinks he had it as tough as a Roman legionary under attack for three days once, edited out in the interest of space, and the fact that this thread was never meant to be a comedy. ...Physical hardship and low rations and discomfort for only three days is not enough to make the most highly trained soldiers in the world jump at the hoot of an owl. It simply doens't work like that outside of whatever David Eddings books you've been reading. And did they shoot at you too? Were your mates dropping around you with axe wounds and spears in the belly? Those war dogs the Germanic tribes used going for your throat? No? Didn't think so. As much as you try to convince me you've been through it and know, the fact is you havent, and you don't. Appealing to experience. Your appeal to ignorance does not serve you well. Look up the definition of an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument Adam. Oh look, I'll save you the trouble. from : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html "An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true." In this case, "claimed to be" is particularly appropriate. The USA military is, on a level playing field, vastly superior. Thus Saddam's announcement months ago that he would draw the USA into the cities if he could, to attempt another Mogadishu. The USA vastly overpowers the Iraqis because the USA retains absolute air superiority with incredibly powerful weapons systems. That is, by the way, the prevailing US military doctrine of the last couple of decades, in case you missed it. Erm, Adam? I was talking about the Romans not being a "vastly superior force" compared to the Germanic army. Context, Adam. Con-text. It's in the dictionary. However, here you're preaching to the converted. I'm not sure why you had to write a whole paragraph telling me something I already know. Unless of course you were assuming (bad, bad Adam) that I didn't. I disagree. Again, this is where actual knowledge of the subject would serve you well. Regarding the Teutoburg Wald battle. The Celtic peoples of Europe were already using pattern-welded steel swords, which the Romans were still trying without success to imitate four centuries later. However, the Romans had superior training, superior methods, and superior numbers. The locals had the home ground advantage. Here is what I originally said. "I would also point out that while the Roman armies were better equipped than the Germans, the technological gap between Iraq and the US is far wider." Adam, you cannot seriously sit there and tell me that the technology gap between the USA and Iraq in terms of military hardware is not not wider than what the Germanic people and the Romans was at the time of that battle. Swords and spears are swords and spears. Ok, so the Germans had them a little longer and far less likely to break. But the fact remains that it's still a sword, and still requires you get up close and personal. I won't even go into how many germanics actually had those swords. Compare that with tanks that can hit your enemy at a much longer range and better accuracy than he has, and what will probably amount to total control of the air with all the attendant advantages that gives. I mean, seriously... argue away Adam. Type your heart out. My opinion is that the USA has some capable military commanders, and always has. But unfortunately they allow stupid civilians to interfere with their war activities. Regardless of what the USA military commanders want, Bush may demand they march into Baghdad. Hence me saying that if they allow themselves to get drawn into an urban conflict then I agree, they would be pretty damn stupid. I did put in this disclaimer.
coldrake Also basing it on my ability to read and learn from history. Indeed. I have been in situations in which group[s of people were actively hunting me, trying to kill me, but those were the best examples I personally have of being physically hard-pressed over time. The point being to demonstrate that being pressed hard does not screw over professional soldiers. 1) Demoralisation is still a major factor in combat. However, I doubt the level of demoralisation suggested among the Romans in Teuroburg Wald. They were very experienced soldiers, with the best training in the world. And unlike today, where you get 18 year old high school jocks, give them an M16, and say shoot when you see something, these were men who fought toe-to-toe with people trying to stick sharp metal through them; I have no doubt whatsoever that they were emotionally tougher than any of the kids sent over to Vietnam. 2) No offence, but the American performance in Vietnam is hardly a good thing to use as an example of anything except bad work. This is covered by the second point I made earlier. I'm not so sure that's accurate. Iraq doesn't have the battlefield communications capability to support such a method. Yes, that is exactly what happened last time. Do you think they learned nothing? Maybe so.
I spent nine days in a wrecker's wargame without seeing the sun, irregular sleeping hours, no sleep sessions more than five hours long, no showers, stuffing food down when I could manage it between naps, off-shift action stations and the ops room. And no decline in my performance. Every sailor was rated, marked, as were the ship and each department. I spent a week alternating between running, sleeping on the ground, and kayaking, carrying a full pack, with basic rations and no comfy unfiform or tent. We used to run from 5am to midday in combat boots and uniform, full pack, L1A1, ammo, canteen. Stop for lunch. Then run back. so? my winky is still bigger than yours
Re: Re: the marquis No. What makes me qualified to discuss tactics is me having graduated with top marks from the RAN Surface Warfare School, and having read about history my entire life, and having been so damn good at my job that the Captain of my ship specifically requested that I be on certain critical tasks in various siuations. Yes, I have been shot at, by a great many people. Yes, I have had people with knives and such actively trying to kill me. No, you were talking about USA-Iraq: Happy? Actually I do make an assumption about you. I assume you're an idiot regarding just about everything, because you rarely show any rational thought or logic. Demonstrate to me the technological gap between Iraq and the USA. The number of pattern-welded steel swords available is unknown. Most steel and iron weapons from the time have vanished through corrosion. I'm well aware that we use different technology today. How does this demonstrate that the technological advantage of one side is greater or narrower then then now, or now than then?
I wasn't aware that we were still living in the era of the sword. *Smiles and politely reminds Adam that we even have crossbows* Shocking, isn't it? It's not like something like this has ever happened before or after....I mean, the Americans didn't defeat the better trained and equipped British army in our Revolution, and it's not like the Americans didn't get their asses kicked in Vietnam by a technologically inferiour force that knew the land... Oh wait. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hannibal: Power is most effective when it is most insidious. Perhaps they can stand up to military might, but I wonder if they can hold up against Pepsi-Cola and rock and roll?
Re: Re: Re: the marquis Originally posted by Adam No. What makes me qualified to discuss tactics is me having graduated with top marks from the RAN Surface Warfare School, and having read about history my entire life, and having been so damn good at my job that the Captain of my ship specifically requested that I be on certain critical tasks in various siuations. And this, of course, makes you an eminent authority on ancient warfare. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I know you'll point out the connection for me. You're still appealing to (claimed) authority. Besides which, I've read a lot of history too. And I can piss further. And My dad is bigger than your dad. Now.. regarding your above "statement of fact" ... umm... "prove it". I want scanned documents, statements from your former commander describing his undying respect for you, statements from the opposition saying how they admire you so much because you ran rings around them in "exercises".... the whole nine yards. Support your assertions, Adam! Yes, I have been shot at, by a great many people. Yes, I have had people with knives and such actively trying to kill me. *laughs* umm.. ok. Me too, huh. No, you were talking about USA-Iraq: Happy? *sighs* alright Adam, seeing as you can't read, I'll post it again for you. Your post : My reply : I'll say it again for you, Adam. Context. Demonstrate to me the technological gap between Iraq and the USA. Waste of time. I'd try to demonstrate that the majority of trees have green leaves too, but I'm sure you'd find some way to argue about it.
/Adam mode But Marquis, in the fall, the trees in my yard have orange and red leaves! You are just a silly teen who frightens me, just as most women do. /end Adam mode
