Would Roman Legions have been good against native americans?

>>2341099
5 to conquer all of them. Pre or post Smallpox?

Yes you mongoloid. The native Americans didn't have metal weapons or horses.

>>2341128
pre

>>2341099
p much everything but the incas, I'd guess. geographical reasons behind inability to conquer the incas.

>>2341137
No. Even though the Romans had metal, were the greatest cohesive fighting force in history, and had horses like >>2341130 they would just get completely swarmed.

>>2341167
is this post ironic

The plains Indians would have been slaughtered. The ones in woods and south might have been a little trouble but no more than 10 legions beats everything.

>>2341173
Is this post ironic?

>>2341196
This post is ironic

>>2341099 (dubs!!)
how many layers of irony are you on senpai

>>2341217
You too thanks

Look at Caesars invasion of Gaul, now think less developed enemies.

File: Aztec-Macuahuitl.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>2341099
I don't think the Aztecs had nearly the military tactics and technology necessary to post a threat. What's a club with obsidion flakes against steel and gladiuses?

Obviously the Romans wouldn't have nearly as much success as the Spanish though.

>>2341271
lmao those epic romans sure got those filthy g*rmans and destroyed them forever haha!!

>>2341257
No prob bob

>>2341192
Wouldn't even a battle ready cohort crumble if they where jumped by raiding parties of natives in bumfuck nowhere swamp forest in Florida, Germania-style?

>>2341431
No. How are the natives going to kill them? They'd seriously struggle to put enough men in the field to threaten romans.

>>2341431
No. Teutorburgowald was basically a fluke by the German tribes and Varus was a total retard. Most of the time the Romans tore through Germanic tribesmen like a hot knife through butter.

The equivalent of 3 cohortes conquered Mexico, there were at least 9 active cohortes in every legion. There were usually about 25 legions going. There was another 25 legion equivalents in terms of auxiliary troops. They could have conquered the whole New World with a few legions. Most natives didn't even have iron weapons for christ's sake let alone artillery.

>>2341280
Obsidian is sharper than steel.

>>2341462
And a lot more brittle. The blades on one of those things would shatter immediately and become almost useless as soon as it contacted a shield, or even decent armor.

>>2341462
Thin obsidian breaks on impact with hardwood, let alone steel.

>>2341167
Romans got swarmed by the Iceni and look at what happened to them.

>>2341137
Then no they couldn't. The incas would btfo out the romans (assuming they were invafing their homeland) and the aztecs may give them a long struggle but whether they'd be successful or not is more 50/50 imo. It depends also who are leadung the armied. Is it scipio, caesar, tlacaelel and ahuizotl?

>>2341099

On one side you have a disciplined and professional army with metal weapons, shields and above all actual tactics and strategy. On the other side you have smelly stone age savages.

>>2341755
>Romans
By then the Roman army was practically able to recruit legionaries from all of Cisalpine Gaul, Gaul, and Hispania.

The Britons were invaded by Romano Germans. The Batvians were some of the most literate people in the Empire, also they acted like a Knighted class in relation to the Empire.

It was impossible for the Britons to overcome such an overwhelming force, it was not just Romans who conquered them, it was nearly unified Europe.

File: 0606dc3e1b048b1cc39b18d4ed1df82b07f58e58.jpg (26KB, 400x350px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x350px

>>2341099
Romans barely had the naval technology to leave sight of shore. Crossing the Mediterranean was a real danger back in those days which is why studying ancient underwater wrecks commonly yields valuable archaeological treasure.

There's no way that the Romans could realistically sustain a presence there. They couldn't even sustain a permanent presence in Germania or Mesopotamia.

>>2341823
t. lindybeige

File: 500to1 Roman victory wattling ST.jpg (1MB, 2204x1492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2204x1492px

>>2341128
>small pox was the reason Europeans conquered the Americas
>implying the natives could have ever fit FUCKING 1 Million people onto a battlefield
>IMPLYING THERE WERE EVEN THAT MANY NATIVES AROUND
There is no evidence natives had such large numbers under one cohesive empire
There is no evidence natives had such large numbers period.
>>2341823
>shifting the goalposts this hard
The natives could fucking swarm the Romans, they couldn't field that many men in one area you fucking mongoloid.
Watling street is the refutation to the "swarm" argument.
Like what the fuck does that even mean? "They would swarm them hurr durr." What the hell does "swarming" even look like?
>>2341167
>this nebulous non-descriptive term demonstrates how the Romans would lose
t. angry Mestizo rapebaby
Build it.
>>2341454
t. IQ 185

>>2341099
The question wasn't "Who would win?" it was how many legions would conquer, so to the fucking Idiots saying "theyd be swarmed" well how many fucking legions would it take to "swarm" the Aztecs?

Doesn't matter how many natives. 5 legions is critical mass against these subhuman savages. Civilization will triumph just as it always has.

>>2341847
>they couldn't get there
That wasn't the fucking question, retard.
Read the OP, then ask yourself "Why am I such a moron?" Then kill yourself, then reply with How many legions you think it would take.
>>2341823
>Romano Germans
as long as they are fighting for Rome it makes 0 difference.

>>2341847
True but not germane to OP's supposition.

GIVEN a Roman ability to project force to the New World, they would kick ass and take names against barbarians there as readily as barbarians n Europe, Asia and Africa.

The romans proved time and time again that they had literal stone-hard military doctrines and it would take an unstopable force to get them to try out new things.

They could conquer most of North America and the very southern parts of South America, but it would be a bloody mess anywhere from Bolivia to Yucatan, and I have my doubts on wether they could actually win in any meaningful amount of time.

That is, unless their generals and commanders were willing to try out new things ;)))

>>2341099
Arguably this is hard to determine since the average size of a legion changed throughout the entire history of the Republic/Empire. They started out around 5k per legion, not including auxiliaries in their count, and they were upwards of 10k-12k near the time of their peak. I'd argue that it wouldn't even take five legions. One legion of 10,000 men held off bouddica and her 230,000 soldiers.

>>2341894
undeniably 100% based
t. romaboo

>>2341940
>this >>2341280
>capable of stabbing

>>2341940

That as tried on the Legions, repeatedly, and often won the barbarians a battle. Never won a war.

>>2341940
They literally won battles at 10:1 odds. Five red niggers with stone tools won't be a threat.

File: Accounts of the conquistadors.png (75KB, 935x553px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 935x553px

Had they had steel weapons and horses, pic related.

>>2342136
>horses

So are we talking Indians/native the US dealt with them -- as they were becoming skilled horsemen, for example? Or as they would have been when the Romans were around?

>>2341901
>Naval invasions require no navy guys!

How do people like you breathe long enough to type a post?

PROTIP: Logistics, faggot. Read a book about it.

>b-b-but muh hypothetical!

It's a retarded hypothetical. Kill yourself.

File: Belisarius_by_Francois-Andre_Vincent.jpg (110KB, 600x455px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 600x455px

>>2341901
boy, you sure are feeling bitchy tonight, aren't you? Change your tampon and try to stay civilized, here
>How many legions you think it would take.
You could have a thousand legions lined up on the shore of the Atlantic swatting their swords at the waves and not getting any closer to conquering Mesoamerica.

>>2341906
>True but not germane to OP's supposition.
Yeah, but if we start talking about age of colonialism level of technology, then we should probably assume that they wouldn't be wearing lorica segmentata and worshiping Mars, they'd probably be Christian and look, act, and fight in a matter analogous to how the Spaniards fought.

And the result would probably be the same: relatively few troops needed to project force and topple centralized resistance while European diseases do the real heavy lifting wiping out the natives.

>>2342170
OK but that is not the fun way to do it.

i want many (you( pls helbbbbb

>>2341894
The incas had a census of their people. Their empire alone had millions.

>>2342204
But many effective fighters?

>>2342149
as experienced as the Roman cavalry

>literally slaughtered the injuns of Europe for all its existance untill it collapsed
>Implying northern europeans weren't practically injuns

>>2341099
They would for sure be even more effective than the Spaniards if they had moderately more men. Even an average force of Gauls would outmatch the Aztecs, and we know what happened to them...

>>2341448
Pre-disease?

>>2341099
Caesar would have done it with 2-3 in the same number of years

>>2341099
>conquered the Gauls, who had iron weapons
Yes.

>>2342301
Correct. Look up accounts of the missisipi valley expedition.

Romans would struggle with the incas. The logistics of fighting in the mountains in enemy territory is mind-boggling. Hannibal crossed a relatively short stretch of the alps and lost like a third of his men. The Andes would win the war for the incas. Or tihuantisuyu.

Aztecs are a different game, as Romans have a good plan of action for subjugation city states: divide and conquer. They would use the same tactics cortes did, ally with the second most powerful altepetl and promise them a seat of authority and regional hegemony/autonomy when they won, and use that against the rest of the cities. Romans were really good at sieges, and these people had no horses. Even if they blocked the land bridges the Romans could built a pontoon bridge. When it comes down to actual combat the Romans blow the fuck out of the Mexica. It's not even close. In terms of equipment it'd be like showing up to a knife fight with the Death Star. Stone/wood weapons against people wearing mail? Pretty sure Roman armor alone would really limit the effectiveness of mexica peltists (atlatl) and archers, to say nothing of shields.

>>2342430
Plus if you have cavalry vs people with no cavalry and haven't ever even seen a horse before, it's not even fair. When it comes to tactics, even the Germans/celts were more advanced. Aztec warfare was almost always xochiyaoyotl (literally "flower war") meaning it was all for show. Basically Gladiatorial combat for the sake of moving up in the social order, gaining slaves/prisoners, and establishing regional Hegemony. It's a more elaborate version of "send out your best guy, they 1v1, and the winner wins the war." the cities would agree on where/when to meet, how many warriors to send, and what the victory conditions were (e. G. Winner gets x amount of cacao per year for 3 years, you join our Alliance, etc) and whenever even a quarter of the other side was captured (they fought for capture rather than killing) they called it quits and went home to sacrifice, drink, and move around in the social order. To say nothing of troop numbers... Even during the punic wars Rome alone fielded more troops than all sides of Cortes's conquest (Alliance and tlaxcala). Rome vs Aztecs is like Rome vs Sumeria. It's not even close. I'm actually reasonably certain the Sumerians would beat the Aztecs too, as they at least used metal weapons and armor.

Romans vs East Coast is even more of a curbstomp, but unlike the Aztecs they'd be harder to occupy. Aztecs had a functioning state level society and had tons of precedent for treaties, Hegemony, etc. East Coast natives would basically harass the Roman settlements. But given the nature of Roman fortifications, they probably would be less effective than vs the settlers in our world.

>>2342234
If this is the case I would actually have to say Rome would struggle with the plains. There are no features to use to their advantage, and they historically struggled with horse archers.

>>2341474
>>2341734
Oh I didn't mean to imply it would go through armor, just that it would fuck up any part of the body caught exposed.

In any case, the Romans would have to do like Caesar in Gaul or Cortes in Mexico and make alliances to divide the natives or else they'd be crushed. Their love of slaves would cause a lot of health problems once Syphilis breaks out in camp.

>>2342430
Don't forget the Inca empire also had deserts and the amazon rainforest in the east.

>>2342430

Rome didn't have wars of conquest, they gained control through Civil War and political instability ie. Pergamon.

>>2342523
Yeah, the Inca Empire is often written about as an archipelago of mountaintops surrounded by oceans of inhospitable terrain.

>>2341761
A Roman general would play the other natives against the Aztecs, just like Caesar in Gaul.

>>2342430
Not all mountains are the same. Hannibal lost his men because he was crossing a frozen hellhole and his men were walking down paths so narrow a fucking mountain goat would have trouble. On top of that, they also routinely got ambushed by locals.

>>2342438
>they historically struggled with horse archers.
No they didn't. They lost a single major battle to the parthians and then proceeded to shit on them until they stopped existing.

>>2342542
That is hands down the most retarded statement i've ever seen on /his/.

>>2342430
they'd just reuse the Hestati, Triarii, and Principii system, worked in italy, which is rather mountainous

File: 1486503172258.png (1MB, 1920x3025px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x3025px

>>2341847
not attacking your post.

the whole roman naval technology reminded me of this

>>2342170
oh la la somebody's getting laid in college

>>2342206
Doesn't matter, you're not getting a Roman army bigger than ~10,000 in the fucking Americas in this time period in history. Disease! Starvation! Climate! You have no Roman roads. You have no Roman fort system. You are in a foreign land that has never been documented by Europeans even in a broad sense of the term and you have no fucking conceptualization of the terrain.

All of these factors applied to the Conquistadors too, but they had heavy ships, colonies along the West Indies, and medical supplies.

File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>2343106
Eek Barba Durkle

>>2343106
>>2343138
>>>/reddit/

>>2341099
Romans at their peak around the time of Trajan would have smashed anyone up until guns were invented.

>>2342670
This

Horse archer was a meme because Crassus was a fucking idiot who was just rich never a good commander. Parthians got booty blasted the second a real Roman General went against them.

>>2342692
Italy is a mountainous country, not a country of mountains. The Inca empire is more akin to a really long Switzerland surrounded by jungles and deserts. The Romans lived in a mountainous country but they did not have the sort of expertise at Alpine warfare that comes with having a large empire composed mostly of inhabited high-altitude mountains and valleys. To the present day proficiency in Alpine warfare remains an important, but still ultimately secondary pursuit by the Italian Army.

I find the engineering and logistical prowess of the Inca astounding in fact, particularly considering their lack of applied metalworking and large beasts of burden. It's a shame the Spaniards burned all the records over muh heathenry and muh idolatry.

>>2343081
Lost

Could Romans even handle the weather in North America, the climate is quite extreme?

Aztecs were literally just brown, manlet Germanics that could build to the level of old Assyrians.

>>2344784
Romans were manlets too
Aztecs were about average back then
>The Aztecs were short and stocky, the men rarely more than 5 feet 6 inches tall (The average height of men in the 1600s between 5'5 - 5'8)
About average, and well built
But no armour

>>2341761

Incas were organized but even at their best they couldn't compete with the heavy Roman infantry and advanced tactics, they'd just have no way of breaking through.


>>2341919

best example here. Boudica's picts were better armed than any mesoamerican could hope to be(stolen roman weapons and armor on top of their own), And they were even familiar with Roman tactics, but they hammered the Roman lines over and over until they were exhausted and panicked.

North American natives only knew of light skirmishing, not battles THIS big and hardcore, Aztecs fought to capture and would be horrified at killing machine, Incas wouldn't be able to keep up hours of slugging it out with ironclad soldiers with formidable stamina and unflinching dicipline. They didn't even alternate their battle lines to keep the formation fresh and rested.

>>2341285

Gaul was not Germany you fuck wit

>>2342438
>Romans vs East Coast is even more of a curbstomp, but unlike the Aztecs they'd be harder to occupy. Aztecs had a functioning state level society and had tons of precedent for treaties, Hegemony, etc. East Coast natives would basically harass the Roman settlements. But given the nature of Roman fortifications, they probably would be less effective than vs the settlers in our world.

it'd be like Hispannia then?

>>2341167
Spaniards got swarmed too and look what happened.

Remember that the amount of gunpowder and horses they had was ridiculous. Barely a factor.

>>2344850
>Aztecs fought to capture and would be horrified at killing machine
Are you high?

We're talking about people who publicly sacrificed WINNING members of s sports team, and who lived in a society where ripping a mans heart out was a common and public sight.

File: Brennus_mg_9724.jpg (2MB, 2912x4368px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2912x4368px

>>2341099
A bit less than Cesar needed for Gauls I would say, technologically they were inferior to gallic tribes and did not have the pre-existing 350 years of combat experience against them.
The biggest challenge would have been logistic though but romans were pretty much the ones who invited the discipline and the british managed to do better only after 1800 years.

Didn't the Aztecs fight as individuals?

>>2344743
The Spanish handled Central America fine, and that's much hotter than most of North America.

>>2344864
No, between lower population density, a much more peaceful existence, and the fact that the Americans would be wielding stone weapons, it would be much easier than Hispania.

>>2341099
In a completely hypothetical scenario where logistics don't exist the Romans would destroy literally everyone, they would have no answer to the Romans equipment, tactics and discipline.

>>2345359
In xochiyaoyotl, pretty much.

>>2342571
And just like Cortes did.

>>2341099

They probably would have preserved the Aztec temples and religious life. The best analogy would be Egypt.

>>2341099
anything would have been good against native americans, they hadn't even developed any kind of metallurgy

File: native pops.png (24KB, 521x129px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 521x129px

>>2341894
>IMPLYING THERE WERE EVEN THAT MANY NATIVES AROUND
>There is no evidence natives had such large numbers period.
bitch please

Native americans were pre-historic
They didn't even master bronze age technology
50 spanish conquistadors btfo thousands of them fighting with vulcanic rocks embedded in sticks
and this was in the 1500s for fuck sake

>>2342152
tip

>>2346784

>thinking that the conquistadors had to do much, if any of the fighting when they had 10,000s of local allies who hated the aztecs guts.

>shittalking obsidian weaponry.

You're mostly here for the &humanities aren't you?

>>2347048
>obsidian weaponry
>not prehistoric clubs
>having any chance against arquebuses and longswords
you must be here for the memes

File: picture4va.png (2MB, 1009x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1009x768px

The Conquistadores suffered greater than 50% casualty rates despite their technological advantage.

>>2347101
Not surprising, giving that they weren't actually all that well equipped and were badly outnumbered even with their allies.

>>2347235
And given the fact that they were conquering TWO fucking continents. That's a long fucking campaign.

Depends which part of the americas.

The Inca and also the Inuit would probably be the hardest, maybe nearly impossible for the Romans to defeat

File: 1300044776986.jpg (34KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x600px

>>2346480
>they hadn't even developed any kind of metallurgy
>>2346784
>They didn't even master bronze age technology

File: Set_of_Mesoamerican_bronze_axes_2.jpg (299KB, 1606x1004px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1606x1004px

>>2348442

>>2345346
>We're talking about people who lived in a society where ripping a mans heart out was a common and public sight.
and thats they went to battle, to capture warriors to sacrifice

>>2344865
>Remember that the amount of gunpowder and horses they had was ridiculous. Barely a factor.
best bait I've seen on this board and it goes unnoticed, shame

>>2347101
Dude, the conquistadores conquered the Inca with 313 soldiers.

Get a fucking grip.

>>2348501
probably bait but whatever

>conquered the Inca
those are clearly aztecs

>with 313 soldiers
Without cavalry and artillery the Spanish wouldn't have survived a single battle.

>inb4 there were too few horses and cannons
which the Aztecs never faced before, the Spanish just had to charge or shot the general and the battle was over

>>2341130
The Incas had bronze weapons and armor.

>>2348259
I could see the Inca's being simply to big an issue to even begin conquest and instead the Romans just establishing favorable trade relations with them.

unless they were in just as big a political crisis as during the spanish conquests in which case I could see a divide and conquer tactic working

>>2344857
Correct, it was substantially less developed.

>>2341474
It's not a sword, it's a serrated club. No wearable armor will save you against a fucking baseball bat to the skull.

>>2350625
> No wearable armor will save you against a fucking baseball bat to the skull.

False.

Especially in battlefield conditions.

Heck, even a lance strike can be absorbed.

http://i.imgur.com/pxUpSIM.gifv

>>2347101
Most of them died during la noche triste and the siege of tenochlitan. In the first case it was because the spanish boats were loaded with gold and couldn't navigate properly and in the second case it was probably one of the most brutal battle of history where both side fought during both night and day, in the lake and in the bridge to the city during more than two months until the aztec had been completly exterminated.

File: Screenshot_20170211-182719.jpg (2MB, 1080x4773px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x4773px

>>2350385
>bronze
>doing shit against iron and steal

Kek. Even that's a joke though because metal armor was used by the common soldier.

>>2344222
I think anon was talking about Hun style steppe horse archers, which, admittedly, the Romans found challenging for a time, but without the actual bows of the Huns, and decades of time to form an entire society around being really really good at horse archery, the Romans would win.

>>2348551
>the Spanish just had to charge or shot the general and the battle was over
Except that's fucking wrong.

>>2341167
>were the greatest cohesive fighting force in history
I think that was a contemporary exaggeration multiplied by their successors seeing the past through rose colored glasses. They probably weren't much more disciplined than contemporary "civilized" states and certainly not as disciplined as modern soldiers.

>>2341454
>The equivalent of 3 cohortes conquered Mexico,
No they didnt you dumb cunt. They had a shit ton of indian auxiliaries backing them up and doing the bulk of the fighting.

>>2352424
> not as disciplined as modern soldiers.

Not sure about that, a lot of modern armies aren't the top tier you think they are.

Just look at what happened recently at Palmyra, modern soldiers routing at the first sign of battle going against them.

File: 1480958479257.jpg (91KB, 632x950px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 632x950px

>>2350833
>bronze cant harm iron lads
>kek that's why the iron age came after the bronze age right fellas?
>cuz iron is better than bronze right?
>right?
Iron is full of impurities that make it shittastically brittle very easily. One of the reasons it was ignored during the bronze age despite people knowing of it. Only superseding bronze when tin trade routes got disrupted and leading to the development of iron's better looking more focused and promising brother, steel.

Bronze is badass faggot. It will rek your shit if you underestimate it.

>>2352457
>Syrians
>modern army

The soldiers of the Arab states are quite possibly the worst soldiers in the world, and have been for the last hundred years. Syria is even worse than normal because it has effectively ceased to exist as a country. Many of its 'army' units are just the levies of local warlords with nominal loyalty to Damascus.

>>2352457
>a lot of modern armies

I mean the good ones. Look at the western front during ww1 or the eastern front during ww2. Either one puts anything the romans ever faced to shame and faggits still stayed in their fucking holes and followed orders. Sure some mutinied or ran but romans probably did the same. Just easier to hide that kind of shit back then and portray every legionary as mars' avatar on earth.

>>2352457
Romans weren't disciplined in the modern sense. The concept wasn't even the same.

>>2352468
Good iron weapons and armor are not inferior to bronze in any metric, aside from rusting. Iron was superseding bronze as a material for weapon making even when bronze was the primary for armor.

>One of the reasons it was ignored during the bronze age despite people knowing of it.
Yes, i'm sure it's not because the technology and techniques to work it hadn't yet significantly devolved.

>>2352499
Romans loved a good mutiny, rebellion, unauthorized attack, or good old fashioned murder of their CO. They were unruly shitbirds by modern standards.

>>2341454
The spanish basically took side in an native civil war + smallpox.
They had a huge amount of indigen allies.

Obviously in a relatively equal troop situation in a hypothetical fight the romans will beat any mesoamercan force.

>>2352405
>Except that's fucking wrong.
compelling refutation

>>2341099
Without smallpox it would depend if the Romans could get many allies like ceasar did in Gaul. With the Incas that's definitely not going to happen. The Aztecs may be easier to divide and conquer though. The technological advantage isn't huge, but the professionalism of the legion and their armament would make them more suitable to fight an unknown foe then the Aztecs. I think an army as professional as the legions during the reign of augustus, and as large as the one assembled at cannae might be up for the task. Assuming you could magically supply such an army so far away from home. The army would have to storm the capital quickly, disorganise the Aztec empire and ally breakaway tribes to conquer the remaining fractured state. And without smallpox the area would have to be rather autonomous with much power in the hands of the allied tribes, and require a garrison almost as large as the army that conquered it.

>>2353717
>The technological advantage isn't huge,


It actually is. An army where just about everyone has metal body armor and helmets is going to have an enormous advantage against an army where that isn't the case.

>>2352476

Palmyra was being defended by Russian troops.

Also look at how badly ISIS trashed Turkey, the second largest army in NATO.

Or look at the fuckfest that was Afghanistan and Iraq.

And then there's the entrie 90's era with Russia blundering in Chechenya and America blundering in Africa.

>>2352680
>Good iron weapons and armor are not inferior to bronze
By "good" i'm sure you mean "made with techniques developed enough to reduce the carbon content sufficiently to actually begin to approximate steel instead of iron", because no, sorry, iron is garbage and inferior to bronze because all of its base beneficial qualities, its strength and ability to keep an edge also tend to make it break under sudden impacts.

And a broken sword is of no use to anyone.

The iron age really should be renamed the proto-steel age, because that's what it took for iron to really take off. It had to begin to approximate steel.

>Yes, i'm sure it's not because the technology and techniques to work it hadn't yet significantly evolved
No, yes, exactly see you need to read whole posts and extrapolate on their logic before basically reiterating things. When tin trade routes were disrupted they had to increasingly use iron, in doing so they naturally would have developed the material and found ways to make it not suck, because it did suck. Iron fuckung sucks hard.

>>2341099
Of course, yes.

>>2353927
Are you seriously sitting there thinking that in 2 thousand years we haven't learned more about human psychology and training to produce a better soldier than the fucking Romans? Really?

And your justification is some meaningless engagement in some long forgotten ruin involving 3 less than stellar militaries?

Do you realize how fucking retarded and fanboyist you sound right now? Do you realize how, with just the premise alone, you sound like a chikd looking for an opportunity to argue?

Do you realize that? Because i don't think you do.

Let me break it down for you. By modern standards the ro ans were retards who couldn't train a fly to eat shit. By modern standards Rome was a podunk hick shantytown that the most ebola ridden capital in Africa would put to shame. Their soldier's by modern standards would require years of training to undo the retardation inflicted on them by their officers and build them up into a serviceable fighting man that might posdibly be fit to help out in some mess hall in the rear.

Fuck you fanboy.

A roman legion would route after a mortar barrage and would break at a modern infantry charge.

>>2354428
Was it autism?

>>2353927
All of those have more to do with command decisions than training and discipline.

>>2354473
Wtf isnt autistic on this site? Fuck off you memeing cunt.

>>2341894
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

There are estimates that Native populations could have ranged beyond 50 million in North and South America.

Though I do agree with your criticisms of intertribal cohesion and so on.Tenskwatawa and Tecumseh struggled to throw together a Confederation of North America's eastern tribes, not even half the continent. Some of the American peoples were significantly more or less advanced than others, and it's unlikely that the technology or systems to communicate a banding together in a unified force would have been available, much less the willingness to do so.

After the Romans gain a foothold in the continent, find some profitable reason to stay/expand, and learn the Native populations' ways and tactics, they won't have any problems on either continent beyond the Latin American empires of the Aztecs or Incas.

>Aztecs and Incas

Why do these fags keep coming up? Romans wouldn't have met either.

>>2354171
>its strength and ability to keep an edge also tend to make it break under sudden impacts.
Are you fucking retarded? Iron bends. That's the primary issue with it. BRONZE is prone to shattering, and this flaw is the reason you can't make long cutting blades with it.

>IRON SUCKS LEL
Except it can be made superior to bronze, making it a better material. That's how materials fucking work. The temporary inferiority of iron was a problem with the men working it, not the metal itself.

>>2354737
>>2354737
>Iron bends.
No iron literally shatters, steel bends. Bronze gets cuts and bends but can easily be reforged. Here's a tip for the future, the softer a material is the more likely it is to bend than break. Bronze is softer than iron. Now lets see if you can use all your brain cells on this one and tell me which is more bendy.

>Except it can be made superior to bronze
Not until it becomes a workable carbon-iron alloy or begins to approximate it. Yes it can be made superior i have said as much you moron, that does not mean all iron is better than bronze. Stop regurgitating what I've said in an effort to not seem like an idiot.

>>2354537
Because people don't know about the earlier civilizations but they still like to have opinions.

>>2341099

Native Americans in 200BC-400AD did not even have bows and arrows, but just spears and slings.

No armor.
No horses.
No fortifications.
No engineering.
No military discipline or training.

A single legion in testudo formation could probably conquered hundreds of thousands.

>>2354737
>The temporary inferiority of iron was a problem with the men working it, not the metal itself.
Yes and no. Iron ore as it is found naturally is full of impurities and these need to be weeded out. It then needs to be alloyed with carbon to becone steel for it to truly shine. It can therefore be reasonably argued that the naturally ocurring iron is a more difficult material to purify than the tin and copper needed for bronze. With the inferiority, temporary as it may be, being linked in large part with the difficulty in refining it.

>>2354853
Wars aren't won by equipment and fancy weapons. They're won by politics, production, logistics and manpower.

Rome might have better weapons, equipment, training and armor, but wgat they need are men, treaties, supplies and reliable transportation.

>>2354853
>No fortifications.
>No engineering.
not sure about that, lack of iron tools didn't stop them building a fuckton of shit

>>2354896
Good thing the americas are wonderful farming land, then.

>politics
Native tribes couldn't unite even in the face of annihilation. When they DID get together, they consistently fucked up and picked the losing side of a war. They had numerous chances to push the white man off the continent. They chose to use them for their military prowess instead. If the romans encountered a tribe that could fight worth a damn, they'd be serving as auxilia within a month.

>>2354896
>Wars aren't won by equipment and fancy weapons. They're won by politics, production, logistics and manpower.


Not the guy you're responding to, but this is mostly wrong. Wars are won by achieving political ends, mostly by application of lethality in effective manners.

"Production" is largely a meaningless buzzword in a pre-industrial or non total war; Consider things like Le Loi's revolt/war against Ming China, or the Hussite Wars. or Alexander's conquest of the Achmaenid Empire.

>logistics and manpower.

All logistics is, from a military science perspective, is a limitation of how much of your total force you can deliver to a certain point. Just because you can't bring everyone you have to the battlefield doesn't mean that what you can bring over won't be enough to get the job done, the job itself often determining what you need to do. And the Romans hardly lacked for manpower.


If you accept the rather absurd premise that the Romans can project force to the New World at all, those technological advantages are going to be huge, and almost certainly enough to parlay into political concessions against the locals.

>>2341099
The Central american tribes (MAYAN AZTEC OLMEC) were thought to be idiots by the spaniards. They thought the mayans were stupid and savage people, but the mayan people knew about how the stars alligned and they discovered things europeans hadn't. They were one with the land and new the land well enough. They were physically trained in hunting and gathering with critical thinking minds. More advanced than any african tribe or pre mesopotamian cultures. The Popol Vuh shows the hero twins using their abilities and hunters as masters at it. Their blow guns were armed with poison darts and they were clever, critical thinkers who defeated the mighty Cabrakan mover of mountains and Zipacna the monstrous killer of men along with Xibalba itself. All because they were clever and quick besting their enemies even when outnumbered and out classed. They're philosphies carried much of their culture and people. Mexican warriors could really stand a chance so I'd say about a lot

>>2342571
Divide and Conquer? Would native Americans fall for it? Especially coming for an alien who sailed ashore with +10,000 better-equipped, better-organized soldiers?

>>2341280
That club looks painful as fuck. Give me a clean death with a sword over that shit any day.

>>2354995
>spic detected
Guess what? aside from superior astroloigcal knowledge, romans also posses all of those things, along with a MILLENNIA of advancements in weapons, armor, and tactics.

>muh blowguns
Don't work so good when people wear armor and have shields.

>>2355032
Did you miss the part where that's literally exactly what happened to every single tribe in the new world?

>>2355045
>Did you miss the part where that's literally exactly what happened to every single tribe in the new world?

Yeah, I guess I am too optimistic about natives not betraying each other for an alien with false promises.

>>2355045
I said they were more advanced than mesopotamian people, but poison darts can really damage an enemy delivering more pain and a swifter death depending on the source of the poison. Even roman armor has it's weak points. Roman armor doesn't cover up everthing. You should also take to acount the change in climate and terrain. The romans would be sweating and exausted from carrying all their armor and weapons in the humid temperatures of southern Mexico.The Macuahuitl can prove to be very useful to defeat enemies as well so now they have, Distance and Combat weapons.


But the mexica's only weakness would be their code of honor, their focus on capturing their opponents, and the fact that they think foreigners are gods, having traveled miles from the endless sea.


You're not taking to account just how immense their armies were and their fighting skills.

>>2354428

>people in the past were so stupid lmao

the average fuckup in a modern developed country is terminally helpless and suicidally naive compared to the average person in the past, we work less, we work less hard, we receive stimuli and education but almost no practical experience or hands-on knowledge of anything that surrounds us.

the modern soldier is an eating, running and farting machine with minor marksman training, he is taught by drilling a set amount of scenarios just like a Roman legionary would be, but the legionaries came from an absolutely martial culture, were trained with a much harsher and unforgiving regime and dicipline and served for over a decade instead of just a few months.

i went and did my military service and i can tell you the average modern soldier is a clueless retard that is only ever effective when commanded by someone who's spent years studying.

>>2354492

precisely the point. Just because you're carrying 50kg of gear doesn't mean you're necessarily more aware of your surroundings or know how to conduct yourself in combat any better than a goat-fucking peasant.

>>2355114
>The romans would be sweating and exausted from carrying all their armor and weapons in the humid temperatures of southern Mexico.

Romans marched in armor through north africa, they could handle heat, and even their lightest armors were superior to mesoamerican ones.

>The Macuahuitl can prove to be very useful to defeat enemies as well so now they have, Distance and Combat weapons.

Romans encountered a weapon similar to the Macuahuitl that gave them trouble due to it's cutting power: the Dacian Falx. They just modified their armors to be more effective against it and adapted their tactics.

Romans also had ranged superiority, with light artillery, javelinmen screening and archer auxilia units capable of striking indirectly at massed enemies, and their arrows and javelins would prove to be absurdly lethal against the native light armors. Also their own skirmisher capabilities with pilas.

Their armors and big shields would be quite effective against poisoned darts as they cover the top of the body from any frontal or high projectile, and besides, in the ancient world archers routinely used poison in their arrows(toxic coming from the greek Toxotai, for archer).

File: CKy9yVNVAAEdTVv.jpg (35KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x600px

>>2355361
>Romans also had ranged superiority, with light artillery, javelinmen screening and archer auxilia units capable of striking indirectly at massed enemies, and their arrows and javelins would prove to be absurdly lethal against the native light armors. Also their own skirmisher capabilities with pilas.

>you will never witness roman cohorts massacring azt*cs with a massive barrage of pilas

Aztecs weren't around until the 1300's

Why do you people keep mentioning them?

>>2355298
>modern people are fucking retards lmao

We know more about training and preparing soldiers for battle than the romans did. Your argument is ridiculous.

>>2355502
>you will never witness roman cohorts massacring azt*cs with a massive barrage of pilas
Wonder why

>"Then there were excellent bows and arrows, pikes with single and double points, and the proper thongs to throw them with; slings with round stones purposely made for them; also a species of large shield, so ingeniously constructed that it could be rolled up when not wanted: they are only unrolled on the field of battle, and completely cover the whole body from the head to the feet."
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain, Chapter CXI

>"(About the estolica or atlatl) With this weapon, made of wood and about 60-90 cm long, they throw javelins with such a force that many have witnessed them pierce through a man and his coat of mail. In Peru this was the most feared weapon by the Spaniards."

- Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, History of the Conquest of the New World, Volume XII, Chapter X

>"The armor which they use in war are certain loose garments like doublets made of quilted cotton, a finger and a half thick, and sometimes two fingers; they are very strong. Over them they wear a doublet and hose all one garment, which are corded behind. This garment is made of thick cloth and is covered with a layer of feathers of different colors, making a fine effect. Some companies of soldiers wear white and crimson, others blue and yellow, and others again of different styles. The Lords wear over everything garments like short jackets, which with us are of chain mail, but theirs are of gold and silver gilt. These feather garments are in proportion to their weapons, for neither arrows nor darts pierce them, but are thrown back without making any wound, and even with swords it is difficult to penetrate through them."

- Chronicle of the Anonymous Conquistador, Chapter IV, About their offensive and defensive arms

>>2355114
>But the mexica's only weakness would be their code of honor
this was the most decisive factor by far, not only they didn't attempt to capture the Spaniards alive, but they also quit fighting after their commander's back banner was captured.

>>2352405
>>the Spanish just had to charge or shot the general and the battle was over
>Except that's fucking wrong.

Abot their battles against Xicotencatl:
>"Fifteen days we fought in that mountain and everyday we were attacked by every angle. As the mountain was round and the terrain flat, the horsemen, arquebusiers and crossbowmen, alongside the artillery inflicted many casualties among the crowded Indians"
- Brief Account of the Conquest of the New Spain, Third Jorney

>''As Xicotencatl met with no obedience from two of his principal officers,—we, on the contrary, fighting on the more bravely, and killing great numbers of their men, who, as well as the wounded, were immediately hurried from the field of battle, so that we never came to see any of their killed,—the Indians at length grew exasperated against those two chiefs who had thus left them in the lurch, and now fought with less vigour. It is, however, probable that one of their chief commanders had fallen, for they retreated in good order: our cavalry, indeed, pursued them a short distance in full gallop, but were soon compelled to return, from fatigue.''
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain, Chapter LXV

>>2355764
Neither of those accounts have the spanish simply charging down or shooting the general at will.

>>2355764
>"My advice, however, was at length followed up, and we fell so heavily upon them that they retreated as far as the wells. All this time Cortes still remained behind with the cavalry, though we so greatly longed for that reinforcement: we began to fear that some misfortune might also have befallen him."
(...)
>"In one of these moments Cortes came galloping up with the horse. Our enemies being still busily engaged with us, did not immediately observe this, so that our cavalry easily dashed in among them from behind. The nature of the ground was quite favorable for its[Pg 76] manœuvres; and as it consisted of strong active fellows, most of the horses being, moreover, powerful and fiery animals, our small body of cavalry in every way made the best use of their weapons. When we, who were already hotly engaged with the enemy, espied our cavalry, we fought with renewed energy, while the latter, by attacking them in the rear at the same time, now obliged them to face about. The Indians, who had never seen any horses before, could not think otherwise than that horse and rider were one body. Quite astounded at this to them so novel a sight, they quitted the plain and retreated to a rising ground. Cortes now related why he had not come sooner. First, he had been delayed by the morass; then again he was obliged to fight his way through other bodies of the enemy whom he had met, in which five men and eight horses were wounded."
(...)
>"In this battle we took five prisoners, among whom were two chiefs."

- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain, Chapter LXV

the spanish conquest of the aztecs reminds me of WW1 desu

>>2355794
>"At this moment it pleased the Almighty that Cortes' attention should be drawn to that part of the enemy's troops where the Mexican general-in-chief was stationed with the flying standard, clothed in the richest armour, shining with gold, and a penache of large white feathers on his head. As soon as Cortes espied him among his glittering retinue, he cried out to Alvarado, Sandoval, Oli, Avila, and many other officers, "Follow me, my brave companions; these are the men we must attack!" The words were scarcely out of his mouth, when they commended themselves to God, and gallopped among the enemy; Cortes poised his lance, and made a rush at the Mexican commander-in-chief, who dropped the standard; our other officers at the same moment cutting down the other chiefs, by whom he was immediately surrounded."
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain, Chapter, CXXVII

>>2341847
>Romans barely had the naval technology to leave sight of shore.
Jesus fucking Christ the number of times... STOP USING SID MIER'S CIVILIZATION FOR FUCKING HISTORY ARGUMENTS YOU RETARDED CUNT

>>2355813
Mediterranean doesn't count desu

File: 1430290265679.jpg (15KB, 200x214px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x214px

>>2355785
>''It is, however, probable that one of their chief commanders had fallen, for they retreated in good order:''

>"In this battle we took five prisoners, among whom were two chiefs."

>"Follow me, my brave companions; these are the men we must attack!"

File: CmpH1LnUkAAg1UJ.jpg (235KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1200x1200px

>>2355806
The fall of Tenochtitlan was the most awesome battle of all time seriously. About 500 000 men involved, skirmishes on every canal just to pass from one street to another, people dresed as jaguars, eagles, butterflies and skeletons with obsidian swords fighting reinassance armored guys on the causeways while slingers and arquebusiers shot from the top of the houses and palaces and brigantines were fighting canoes at the background, trebutchets still used in the 16th century ...
It was absolutely crazy

>>2341801
>On one side you have a disciplined and professional army with metal weapons, shields and above all actual tactics and strategy. On the other side you have smelly stone age savages.
and yet they defeated reinassance soldiers even captured them alive

>"The wheel of fortune now suddenly turned against Cortes, and the joyous feelings of victory were changed into bitter mourning; for while he was eager in pursuit of the enemy, with every appearance of victory, it so happened that his officers never thought to fill up the large opening which they had crossed. The Mexicans had taken care to lessen the width of the causeway, which in some places was covered with water, and at others with a great depth of mud and mire. When the Mexicans saw that Cortes had passed the fatal opening without filling it up, their object was gained. An immense body of troops, with numbers of canoes, which lay concealed for this purpose in places where the brigantines could not get at them, now suddenly rushed forth from their hiding places, and fell upon this ill-fated division with incredible fierceness, accompanied by the most fearful yells. It was impossible for the men to make any stand against this overwhelming power, and nothing now remained for our men but to close their ranks firmly, and commence a retreat. But the enemy kept rushing on in such crowds, that our men, just as they had retreated as far back as the dangerous opening, gave up all further resistance, and fled precipitately. Now the awful consequences of the neglect to fill up the opening in the causeway began to show themselves. In front of the narrow path, which the canoes had now broken down, the Mexicans wounded Cortes in the leg, took sixty Spaniards prisoners, and killed six horses."

>>2341847

>had to stay within sight of shore
>Apicius sails to Tunisia from Italy just to look at shrimps

>>2355044
Ain't nothing clearn about getting stabbed to death or having a limb hacked off.

>>2344850

>Boudica
>Picts

>>2355913
They defeated men they outnumbered a hundred to one. Men who were NOT regular soldiers, but adventurers, with the consequent shitty equipment.

Not only that, but this takes place in Tenochtitlan.

The spanish fucking slaughtered the aztecs at otumba, despite being badly outnumbered by literally any account.

>>2355820
All of which involve long battles beforehand, or are part of fast running skirmishes. There isn't a SINGLE occasion where the aztecs take the field just to be instantly routed by cavalry walking through them at will the way the other anon implies.

>>2355924
Picts or it didn't happen.

>>2355954
>There isn't a SINGLE occasion where the aztecs take the field just to be instantly routed by cavalry walking through them at will the way the other anon implies.
Fuck off strawman, I said that Spaniards only survived battles because, unlike the Aztecs, they had cavalry and artillery to kill the general and end the battle. They certainly were outnumbered and would have fallen by exhaustion.
As Otumba proves it, they wouldn't have survived without cavalry nor against the Tlaxcaltecs without artillery.

>They defeated men they outnumbered a hundred to one.
Which stills a fucking feat considering the technological gap

>Men who were NOT regular soldiers, but adventurers, with the consequent shitty equipment.
Which still had steel weapons/armor cannons, arquebusiers and horses

>Not only that, but this takes place in Tenochtitlan
The Aztecs and Spanish literally fought only two times, in Otumba, where they literally encountered cavalry for the first time, and Tenochtitlan.

>There isn't a SINGLE occasion where the aztecs take the field just to be instantly routed by cavalry
>outnumbered by literally any account
lmao nice wording, still doesn't make your statement more valid

>>2341099

Aztecs and Inca wernt as powerful if at all in existence at the same time as legionnaires.

Possibly Mayans, in which case yeah, they'd conquer them quicker than Rome fled Britannia

>>2356051
>that name
>post claims Mayans would have fared better than two actual empires

this fucking board

>>2355631

For modern battle which isn't the same as organized formation melee.

We don't do that in practice anymore so there's untold amount of intrincancies about organization and posturing we just don't know about. They achieved this without radios, without anything resembling accurate maps or even ink and paper. They had their societies entirely built around conditioning the most men for this from childhood to adulthood and it was intertwined with their political and administrative institutions, on top of military training itself. Meanwhile mustering forces for modern military service is a huge task, and usually a fruitless one since conscripts and militias with even a whole year of training are little more than speedbumps for a mechanized war machine.

Romans were definitely better at doing what they did than we would be if we were thrown back in time and told to do the same. A modern general would call it quits as soon as he saw the contents of his tent.

>>2356805
Meanwhile, roman forcesunder Julius fucking Caesar did things like
>attack against orders and FUCK Caesars plans massively in the process and losing alot of men
>they also killed allied gauls
Result: Lecture.
>pressure a trumpeter on the opposite wing into giving the attack signal early, fuckign up his plans
Result:Caesar signals good fortune, joins attack
He also had to deal with MULTIPLE mutinies.
>two centurions openly disobey orders to not leave the walls, jump off them to fuck around in front of the men, nearly die
Result: He wrote down their names to be remembered forever.

This is probably the most well regarded general rome ever had, and his men got away with shit that would see any modern soldier rotting in prison. Other generals had to deal with worse. Like men getting piss drunk and assaulting a fortress on a bet, or fucking wandering off of SENTRY DUTY at night because they were sick of being stuck in a siege.
Or trying to force their general to let them rush headlong into pikes despite being utterly exhausted after a route march.
Or threatening to kill their CO if he won't let them sally, and then proceeding to lose half their men on a fools errand.

Roman soldiers were ROUTINELY disobedient, overly aggressive, and exceedingly prone to mutiny or rebellion. Their discipline was absolute shit by modern standards. This isn't surprising, because "disciple" was a completely different fucking concept to them, and didn't even serve the same purpose.

>MUH FORMATIOOONS
You can teach band geeks to fucking move in complex formations. In the ancient world, greeks could and did march in formations far tighter than those of romans, as did the successor state armies, and the greeks didn't even have a real concept of "superior officer" for much of their history. Alpine tribes of fucking gauls were able to maintain good formations.

Your argument is retarded, and you clearly have no understanding of how the legionary actually thought beyond pop shit.

File: roman-empire.gif (51KB, 520x346px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 520x346px

>>2356879
Oh look, cherry picking.

MEANWHILE

>>2357204
>Cherryy picking
No.

Tell you what, you go argue with J. E. Lendon that he's wrong and you idiotic pop history view of the romans is right.

>>2357257
Classic /his/
reads Soldiers and Ghosts,
barely can write in english,
becomes resident expert on trash talking romans. kys

>>2341099
Roma conquest of the americas is my alt history wet dream.
>what would they call it?
>would it last?
>what would they get from them
>which is the most likely geographical area to land in first
>coud they live in peace with the natives?
>how would it have changed history?

>>2341823
I am pretty sure he was referring to the Boudicca rebellion you autist

>>2357257
That guy is an edgy revisionist faggot and you apparently like sucking his cock for some reason, so therefore you are also a prancing queer.

>>2357617
>>what would they call it?

Hesperidia

yes roman legion were very good at taking on disorganized enemy's just look at gaul

>>2356879
You are taking shit out of context and making it sound like a bigger issue than it is. Also from me it sounds like your "primary source" likely came from Lucan's Civil war, which is fucking hilarious. Many of these instances took place during a fucking civil war, meaning a lot of the soldiers were very battle hardened, and bloodthirsty. Soldiers were a different class than citizens, they were considered more violent than plebs and essentially a menace to society. But this is when they were not fighting.

Something else you have also take into consideration is that as Caesar was one of the greatest generals Rome had, he also had spent the majority of his military career corrupting his army to be loyal to him personally. He had taken from the book of Sulla, and had essentially fed his armies the blood of Gaul, which he did in order to make a power grab. If you expect me to believe these soldiers were representative of soldiers who had not been for 8 years manipulated intentionally to lose their morals and civic virtue, you are fucking retarded.

All this being said, Roman soldiers were scum, but it doesn't matter, because they were very good when it comes to killing. The only anecdotes you presented was the trumpeter, (straight from Lucan's Civil war) and the two centurions who you refused to cite. I do understand when you don't cite your sources though, as your sources seem to be epic poetry, from someone who hated Caesar.

>>2357617

Im more interested in how a Romanized mesoamerican civilization would develop.

Imagine an Incaic Byzantine equivalent.

>>2359368

Kind of like now, but speaking Italian

>>2348551
>if the Macedonians didn't have Alexander they would have won a single battle
>if the colonial powers didn't have guns they wouldn't have won a single battle
>if the mongols didn't have horse archers they wouldn't have won a single battle
Literally retarded

>>2359613
>>2355719
>>2355810
There, I posted every battle of the conquistadors and all of them were barely won by cavalry and artillery, had the Aztecs got artillery and cavalry to capture or kill Cortes the whole expedition would have routed. Not even with all the military expertice of the Old World Cortes' expedition would have won a battle had the Aztecs had steel weapons, armor, cavalry and cannons.

>if the Macedonians didn't have Alexander they would have won a single battle
certainly wouldn't have got near as far

>if the colonial powers didn't have guns they wouldn't have won a single battle
colonial powers without technological advantage certainly wouldn't have been as succesful

>>2341099
That faggots even don't conquer an Africa

>>2357675
>and the two centurions who you refused to cite
If you seriously don't know who vorenus and pullo were, why are you even commenting?

>as your sources seem to be epic poetry, from someone who hated Caesar.
I'm sorry, but who exactly do you think wrote Commentarii de Bello Gallico?

>>2359722
They literally conquered every part they could reach.

>>2341431
Germans
>sword
>spears
>axes
>horses
>Roman tactics
>big joocy Germans vs manlets
Americans
>no armour
>shit tactic
>wooden clubs with glass
>skinny manlet American natives vs thick Italian sausage.

>>2361299
There's also the fact that the 'germans' got fucking slaughtered by rome far more often than not.

>>2361315
Are you saying that they weren't Germans?

Maybe, maybe not. You might say the Romans has a better military than the azteks, mayans or the incans, but desu they also had a better military than the "barbarians" of the north but lost to them numerous times. Then you have to take logistics and manpower into consideration. If Rome was invading the Americas, those would be big issues.

>>2354853
>No fortifications.
>No engineering.
>No military discipline or training.

Are you fucking memeing? I hope you are.

The romans really hated treeniggers of any sort.

>>2341280
It can chop off a horse head.
Can a gladius?

>>2342136
Here's a thought.

The natives win an early battle and take the weapons of the Romans and learn how to employ them? What then!

Furthermore, the jadeite ore around Mexico is harder than steel.

>>2342430
Your retarded analogy proves you are not a student of history. If the Romans had fighter jets, it would be accurate.

Instead it's a simple knife fight.

Why do people keep on making these retarded "could x beat y" threads when it's completely absurd and borderline impossiple to imagine a situation where these fights would actually happen?

You are like kids comparing their favorite anime characters and asking stuff like, could goku defeat this and that character or could my favorite FPS hero take on your favorite JRPG character
The only difference is that you people supposedly know something about history and should be smart enough not to make these threads (except when you troll) whereas kids are just kids

>>2362058
Maybe, but more importantly, a gladius can efficiently puncture your internal organs. That glorified bat with some nails stuck in it cannot.