What if: US marines vs Roman legions

[Ecthy]

I think he's referring to the battle situations: Tenochtitlan and Cuzco.

[The Mad Monk]

Elba works better than Sicily or Corsica. Small, but not too small, pleasent climate , good for agriculture and, best of all, the major iron mining and smelting center for the Empire. Close to the coal fields of Liguria, too.

[BlackCat]

Honestly, a single Chinook, with some Cobras provided overwatch, could probably drop a single PLATOON of Marines on the Capitoline, take the forum, hold Augustus and the Senators hostage, while digging in on the hills. What are the Romans really going to do?

They would do a "Hannibal" and win

[Elok]

Cortez and Pizarro had no problem keeping their 'superhuman' soldiers, deemed as gods by the locals, equipped with firearms, together on a whole another continent which was filled with things that the Spaniards had never conceived of.

It's immaterial in any case, but I believe Cortez's men actually had very little in the way of firearms. Maybe a dozen crappy matchlock muskets supplementing the much more common crossbows and sabers--remember, this was the early 1500s. Their superiority was due partly to steel weapons and armor and partly to Cortez's adroit manipulation of local rivalries.

Oh, and they had horses, too, but I don't know how big a difference those made.

[Ecthy]

And several cannons which were about the only useful firearms around there. Thinking about it, they may have had as little as 1 or 2 cannons, which stil could have been enough to create a psyhcological effect. Anyone who thinks those Spaniards actually inflicted any battleground damage with firearms is obviously mistaken. I feel sorry I didn't spot that error of Al's earlier on.

[Donegeal]

If we are going to argue about what modern viruses would do to the Romans, we need to argue about what accient viruses would do to the Marines. How many viruses died out in the 2000 years between these two combatants? Would modern immunities be able to combat viruses that don't exist in our time but were nothing more than the common cold back then?

[The Mad Monk]

Another good reason to start small. No point in going all Predator on their asses if it ends with them going all War of the Worlds on our asses.

[Felch]

And several cannons which were about the only useful firearms around there. Thinking about it, they may have had as little as 1 or 2 cannons, which stil could have been enough to create a psyhcological effect. Anyone who thinks those Spaniards actually inflicted any battleground damage with firearms is obviously mistaken. I feel sorry I didn't spot that error of Al's earlier on.

You mean that because the Marines would have modern rifles, they would be at a disadvantage compared to the Conquistadors?

[Al B. Sure!]

And several cannons which were about the only useful firearms around there. Thinking about it, they may have had as little as 1 or 2 cannons, which stil could have been enough to create a psyhcological effect. Anyone who thinks those Spaniards actually inflicted any battleground damage with firearms is obviously mistaken. I feel sorry I didn't spot that error of Al's earlier on.

You're only proving my point more! The technological gap between the Spanish and the natives was small relative to Marines vs. Romans and if the Spanish decimated the natives, what do you think the Marines would do to the Romans?

[Al B. Sure!]

If we are going to argue about what modern viruses would do to the Romans, we need to argue about what accient viruses would do to the Marines. How many viruses died out in the 2000 years between these two combatants? Would modern immunities be able to combat viruses that don't exist in our time but were nothing more than the common cold back then?

Modern hygiene and quarantine habits would help a whole lot, though, to minimize the effect of disease on the Marines relative to the Romans.

[Elok]

A large part of Cortez's victory was due to his skillful manipulation of local rivalries, though. The Aztecs were surrounded by tributary states which mostly hated them, and Cortez's ragged little band was able to enlist a large group to help. As for Pizarro, Cajamarca was due almost entirely to technological advantage--but it was also over in a relative flash, when they captured Atahualpa. Neither comparison is likely to be accurate in this (extremely nerdy and hypothetical) situation.

[The Mad Monk]

Disagree. remember the empire very nearly fractured after the assassination of Julius Ceasar, and the infighting that accompanied every succession shows those rifts existed to the end. Playing sides off each other would definately take place, especially as the Marines' advantages became well known.

[Al B. Sure!]

A large part of Cortez's victory was due to his skillful manipulation of local rivalries, though. The Aztecs were surrounded by tributary states which mostly hated them, and Cortez's ragged little band was able to enlist a large group to help. As for Pizarro, Cajamarca was due almost entirely to technological advantage--but it was also over in a relative flash, when they captured Atahualpa. Neither comparison is likely to be accurate in this (extremely nerdy and hypothetical) situation.

How so? Judging from the original scenario which had this take place ~20 BC, the Social Wars were only 60 years prior and there was still plenty of division among the Romans themselves (Augustus had just recently defeated Marc Anthony), especially among Senators with pro-Republic sentiments.

Pizarro's success was in his rapid taking of Atahualpa... what do you think the Marines could do to Augustus, with the benefit of helicopters and humvees? They could seize Augustus and the entire Senate with as little as a platoon of Marines dropped onto the hills of Rome and do it within minutes.

Consider the immense mobility and communications advantages the Marines have in a time when messages had to be sent by hand with a guy on a horse...

[kentonio]

Good point. The communications advantage could actually be worth more than the guns.

[Felch]

Why do people assume that the Roman factions wouldn't scramble to ally themselves with the U.S.? Romans were pragmatic, above all else.