Comrade Gorbash posted:Now that is on point. But you must understand, the red trousers. Tres bon!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Wait, which wars did not have decisive outcomes? The third century BC is when Rome became a world power. In the Third Samnite War Rome conquers most of Italy, ends the Etruscan confederation, and subdues the Samnites until the Social War. After that they conquer Magna Grecia and effectively defeat Pyrrus, and they are not clowned on by him in regards to tactics or anything. The First Punic war sees Rome gain Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinina. The Second Punic War sees Rome invade Carthage itself, and force concessions which see Rome now control the ~half of the Iberian peninsula, and completely kicks Carthage out of everywhere but North Africa. As for the rest, the fact that they had such mixed outcomes in battle but became a world power anyways is part of the deal. I would point to attrition being a big factor in the Pyrrhic War, but the grinding it out is less about attrition and more that the Romans just never accepted a defeat. Especially since, except against Pyrrhus, the Romans don't necessarily inflict all that much damage as they lose. They open the Third Samnite Wars with a big loss at Camerinum, and then turn it around. They suffer lose against the Gauls at Arretium, who go on to ally with the Etruscans, but that ends with the Gauls beaten and the Etruscans crushed for all time. They get beat at Faesulae, and then drive the Gauls back out of Northern Italy. Even against Pyrrhus, they lose at Hereclea and Asculum. The First Punic War is of course that long comedy of errors, though it's more a back and forth deal than the Romans starting on the back foot. The Second Punic War on the other hand is initially a long string of Roman losses but the Republic always getting back on its feet. Anyways it's not that the Romans were bad at war in the 3rd Century, just that they come across as mostly average, in contrast to their later reputation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Stuff like this makes me wonder how Athens held out so long against Sparta. It does explain the eventual defeat and occupation of Athens by Sparta, though. Athens had a shitload of $$$$$ from their maritime trade and tribute from their clients and colonies compared to Sparta which was dirt poor and their shipbuilding facilities and expertise was probably the best in the mediterranean. It was honestly Persia dumping a lot of cash to help the Spartans that got them to pull a decisive win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Oh yeah the Athenians also had really plentiful silver mines to their south and during most of the War the Spartans were way more worried about suppressing Athenian-backed Helot revolts than fighting the Athenians themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Is Massie's Dreadnought still a respected work? I've always meant to read it, but there's been so much revision in the historical record for the last decade I am concerned that even a relatively recent work might be outdated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Stuff like this makes me wonder how Athens held out so long against Sparta. It does explain the eventual defeat and occupation of Athens by Sparta, though. Honestly if anything the amazing part is that Sparta won at all. The plague and the Sicilian defeat did more to Athens then Sparta ever could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Hey ensign, How did the soviets start their diesel engines, on tanks and trucks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Is Massie's Dreadnought still a respected work? I've always meant to read it, but there's been so much revision in the historical record for the last decade I am concerned that even a relatively recent work might be outdated. Somewhat related, is there a way to find big recent historical revisions of accepted knowledge? Wikipedia list of historical errata / patch notes, something like that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I remember a children's book about time travelers, and the veteran time traveler's advice to the newbie about landing in an unfamiliar dimension and time that seems to be a war zone is, look at the outfits the soldiers are wearing. Bright and colorful uniforms mean you're good to go. Dirt colored uniforms mean pucker up this is gonna be lovely until you can get out of here. Sounds like The Homeward Bounders by Diana Wynne Jones; a most excellent novel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Somewhat related, is there a way to find big recent historical revisions of accepted knowledge? Wikipedia list of historical errata / patch notes, something like that? Pretty much journal articles. THat poo poo shifts over decades, so if it's a subject you're really interested in you won't have much trouble staying abreast. Since it's history these things also generally move in phases, as one interpretation becomes more accepted then another begins to displace it, and usually you end up with a consensus that's a combination of multiple approaches. The functionalist/intentionalist argument over the Holocaust is an example of that where those movements are pretty easy to trace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Thanks for fixing the link, that's a really interesting read!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Somewhat related, is there a way to find big recent historical revisions of accepted knowledge? Wikipedia list of historical errata / patch notes, something like that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Yeah, it kind of seems the Romans were the initial example of the old British maxim, where "they lose every battle but the last". Stubbornness counts for a lot in warfare, both tactically and strategically. Course the better maxim is definitely "whatever happens, we have the maxim, and they have not".
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
It's usually just been used as an example of the resilience of both Roman society and its relationships with its allies.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Isn't the whole brightly colored uniform thing a bit of an anachronism, because the technology for dyeing fabrics effectively and for a long time is relatively recent so any brightly colored field uniform just faded into a dull brown (for red) or some such quite quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
That happened due to over exposure to the elements on campaign especially if they can't get replacement clothing from depots, soldiers usually slept rough with blankets outside tents until the middle or even late 19th century for some armies. I consider that more general wear and tear and a fact of campaign life. They become an anachronism when smokeless powder finally arrives on the scene and suddenly everyone is using bolt action long rifles.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Also, as I understand, red faded notoriously quickly.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 23:02
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also, as I understand, red faded notoriously quickly. Yeah the cheap synthetic dye on the soldiers coats was notorus for running and turning the coat from a certain shade of red to a sickly looking brown.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 30th Oct 1917 posted:Day devoted to cleaning up, inspections and reorganising of sections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:Sounds like The Homeward Bounders by Diana Wynne Jones; a most excellent novel. That's the one. More complex than just a time travel story, though: our world is literally a Dungeons and Dragons game played by extradimensional beings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:More complex than just a time travel story, though: our world is literally a Dungeons and Dragons game played by extradimensional beings. So basically Donald Trump is someone's joke character that got way out of hand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Good catch, stupid mobile posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 02:20
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
StandardVC10 posted:So basically Donald Trump is someone's joke character that got way out of hand? Donald Trump is why you don't put a deck of many things in the campaign, he's what happens if you draw the throne, the fool, and the gem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
It's still Monday somewhere WW2 Data Today's a short update with the US 7-inch Projectiles. This was a caliber that they were phasing out, hence why there are fewer examples today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
I'm playing Numantia for a review and this is a game about Rome trying to put down a rebellion by Celtibernians (Spanish Celts) or some poo poo. So of course I start playing as the Romans and basically all of their units suck in comparison to the Celtibernians. I'm not having fun. To be fair, historically, the campaign started with Rome losing 6K of their 30K troops in an ambush, and then continues, at least on wikipedia with stuff like "...and then the consul didn't have enough food, so the troops starved in winter." Elite military machine my rear end. JcDent fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
What did you expect pre-Marian Reforms? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
It says something about that military machine if it can prevail even when being driven by an idiot who keeps on crashing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
The Romans had an NCO corps way before anyone else in the region as far as I can tell, and that kind of institutional knowledge means that the army always would know how to fight at a tactical level, so even if the generals were utter ponces who kept blundering into ambushes the army would still be able to organize an effective resistance unless their opponents manages to attack in a way that completely negates the Roman organizational advantage (See: Teutoburg, Carrahe, Cannae). It's not that the army itself was more elite individually, it's that their leadership at a tactical level was better, so they could work better as a group and (post Marian-reform) could still be extremely maneuverable in a way that most of their opponents for most of their history weren't. In my opinion, the real disaster at Cannae wasn't the loss of the army, per se, it was the annihilation of Rome's most experienced centurions and the resulting loss of experience and institutional knowledge. Not to say that the quality of the generals had no effect, a bad general would get them into ambushes or horrendous strategic situations while a good general only fought battles when the conditions were right. And sometimes you end up with Caesar, who inspired a fanatical level of loyalty in his men and inspired them to do the impossible because of a combination of his own charisma and his strategic acumen. Also the Rome thread taught me that Roman armies were amazing at engineering and logistics, and that appeals to me because I am incredibly boring. Plus logistics win wars, any army that focuses on how to keep an army well fed, well equipped and well trained is already well on their way to victory. Can't really think of any case where that wasn't true, which means some one is going to pull up a war where a mob of starving peasants managed to utterly crush an army that had every qualitative advantage. The real question is, if we bring back black powder guns to the early Roman Empire, how long before they start using something like pike and shot tactics? I'd say between a minute and however long it takes for a general to notice that these "gun" things are way easier to train with compared to swords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:The real question is, if we bring back black powder guns to the early Roman Empire, how long before they start using something like pike and shot tactics? I'd say between a minute and however long it takes for a general to notice that these "gun" things are way easier to train with compared to swords. edit: the world's first drill manual for matchlock is japanese btw
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
But how would Romans decide who to give guns? It's something I wouldn't generally be comfortable with giving to auxilia, but you can't really used them as pikemen, either, since Roman level of training would probably make killer pikemen...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i mean, the japanese had pavis-and-polearm-and-shot, the russians had wagon-lager-and-shot, [x] and shot is a thing if you don't have bayonets and reloading takes a while What I like about Japanese and firearms is that weebs are all about honoraburu samurai spirito and katana when Japanese actually went "guns? Yeah, I love this poo poo immensely, more please." I also liked that Maori liked guns so much their nearly exterminated themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What I like about Japanese and firearms is that weebs are all about honoraburu samurai spirito and katana when Japanese actually went "guns? Yeah, I love this poo poo immensely, more please." quote:I also liked that Maori liked guns so much their nearly exterminated themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAUSjvZ2-U They ain't wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:16
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
JcDent posted:But how would Romans decide who to give guns? It's something I wouldn't generally be comfortable with giving to auxilia, but you can't really used them as pikemen, either, since Roman level of training would probably make killer pikemen... testudo and shot 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Reading How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. Apparently, the German plans for Operation Citadel (the Kursk offensive) were so compromised and thoroughly known to the Soviets, that exactly one hour before the German artillery was scheduled to start their initial bombardment, kicking off the offensive, the Soviet artillery started bombarding the German artillery positions. Just imagine what went through the head of the German officers at that point. "Oh gently caress, this is going to go badly, isn't it?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
JcDent posted:But how would Romans decide who to give guns? It's something I wouldn't generally be comfortable with giving to auxilia, but you can't really used them as pikemen, either, since Roman level of training would probably make killer pikemen... I mean, technically pike without shot is just a phalanx, which the Romans deployed before the Marian reforms (see: triarii). Does it make that much of a difference to have muskets rather than e.g. slingers, given the armour level of most of their opponents?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
The romans may or may not have had much use for muskets but they would have loved field artillery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean, technically pike without shot is just a phalanx, which the Romans deployed before the Marian reforms (see: triarii). Does it make that much of a difference to have muskets rather than e.g. slingers, given the armour level of most of their opponents? It does in that it takes years to train a slinger and it takes like eight weeks to train a guy to shoot a gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Guns would probably have dealt with those parthian horse archers that gave them so much trouble....
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Guns would probably have dealt with those parthian horse archers that gave them so much trouble....
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 12:09
|
|