What if: US marines vs Roman legions

[Al B. Sure!]

Testudo has real limitations too though, not least that it makes you slow as hell.

Or, alternatively, they could charge the archers, as Julian II did later in the Empire:

The work of Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus offers a detailed description of the Persian campaign, including the quick charge by the heavy Roman infantry under Julian.
"To prevent the preliminary volleys of the archers from disrupting our ranks he (Julian) advanced at the double and so ruined the effect of their fire ... Roman foot in close order made a mighty push and drove the serried ranks of the enemy before them ..."
Marcellinus's commentary also sharply contrasts the fighting spirit of the Persian infantrymen with those of Rome, stating that they had "aversion to pitched infantry battles."[74] In an earlier engagement outside the walls of Ctesiphon, Marcellinus again notes the value of the quick advance by the infantry:
"both sides fought hand-to-hand with spears and drawn swords; the quicker our men forced themselves into the enemy's line the less they were exposed to danger from arrows."[75]

[The Mad Monk]

Just how close to opposing heavy infantry or cavalry do you think they'd be willing to place them?

[kentonio]

Or, alternatively, they could charge the archers, as Julian II did later in the Empire:

Sure you can find examples of them winning against archers, but then you have examples like Crassus getting his ass handed to him. Noones saying an army composed soley of archers would be a good idea, but they were a damn handy thing to have around, and the Romans used them.

[Hauldren Collider]

Also bear in mind that one of the reasons why muskets became so popular is because you don't need nearly as much training to point and fire a musket as you do to learn to be a decent bowman.

The same is true for crossbows.

[kentonio]

The same is true for crossbows.

True.

[Al B. Sure!]

The Romans didn't make much use of archers, though. The core of the early Empire was the heavy infantry.

Even when out-ranged by Parthians, the Romans continued to be reliant on heavy infantry (as Julian II who had them charge the Parthians). The Romans were very inflexible in their military thinking in this regard.

[Al B. Sure!]

The Romans placed their archer auxiliaries in the rear of their formations. The archers were not supposed to be accurate shots (how could they be when they could not even see the enemy with an entire legion in front of them?). Their purpose was to wear down the enemy with a volley (for this they made use of darts, rather than arrows).

The legions would approach, hurl their pila, and charge the enemy, while the archers in the rear would shoot volleys to the rear of the enemy ranks.

[Lorizael]

I have confirmed this in Rome: Total War.

[Al B. Sure!]

I have confirmed this in Rome: Total War.

[kentonio]

[Hauldren Collider]

I have confirmed this in Rome: Total War.

[Flubber]

Archers-- who cares?

I am assuming there might be at least one marine that recalls Legion tactics-- When they form up and the Archers are identified you send out an armoured personel carrier to run them down and shoot them--Two hours gas and I think you decimate a legion and they run-- Have a few snipers on their retreat paths and kill every officer-- the common soldiers will be terrified


The romans would face something they never faced before -- They would not see any men-- maintain the aura

Any archers or firey oil weapons or attempts to trap the marines would be revealed by binoculars or occasional air surveillance.

[The Mad Monk]

Archers-- who cares?

Pluck yew.

[The Mad Monk]

It occurs to me that the Romans might indeed be fighting dragons.

[Sava]

Compared to an M4, a bow is worthless.

the bow is certainly more reliable