What if: US marines vs Roman legions

[The Mad Monk]

If the Marines sit and wait in their prepared positions, I don't see the Legions ever overcoming them-- There wouldn't be the will among the common mercernary to keep going

If the Marines just sit in prepared positions, the Romans win by default.

Depends on where they prepare their positions.

Elba.

[The Mad Monk]

If it's Harriers and choppers then yes they can probably still fly for a while, but their effectiveness is vastly reduced without GPS or ground navigation. You fancy flying a Harrier with a map and a frikkin compass?

Why not? The Japanese were able to find Pearl Harbor in a well-over-the-horizon attack over open water, weren't they?

They are known to have had archers, which means that those archers were capable. Not at the standard of some other forces probably, but if you couldn't shoot straight then you weren't going to live long as an archer now, were you?

Archers were mass combat troops. Highly skilled archers that would be willing to approach alone within bowshot were few and far between.

How about negotiating with the Romans only to find that some expression or gesture you thought was positive turned out to be some hideous insult? The list of possible ****ups is literally endless.

That's already a given in the scenario.

[The Mad Monk]

My further thought is that if the Marines could hive off a sphere of influence they might get the time they need to build a walled town and start trying to modernize and building cannon or trying to find a way to make something their guns could shoot

The iron works of Elba would help with that.

[The Mad Monk]

They didn't just flip off arrows in an aimless swarm, arrows were aimed and for a well trained archer that can be extremely accurate. The main issue with them in that time would be range.

Of course they just flipped off arrows in a swarm, they're going for distance, not accuracy. Just how close to opposing heavy infantry or cavalry do you think they'd be willing to place them?

[kentonio]

Of course they just flipped off arrows in a swarm, they're going for distance, not accuracy. Just how close to opposing heavy infantry or cavalry do you think they'd be willing to place them?

Complately disagree. You can shoot an arrow at a target approaching the limits of your range without it just being a blind shot in the sky. If archery was such an inaccurate art, then it wouldn't have been so important on the battlefield for a few thousand years.

[giblets]

The United States Marine Corps are indescribably gruesome half-wits and feculent armpit-licking mean-spirited poltroons.

[The Mad Monk]

Complately disagree. You can shoot an arrow at a target approaching the limits of your range without it just being a blind shot in the sky. If archery was such an inaccurate art, then it wouldn't have been so important on the battlefield for a few thousand years.

It isn't blind, Robin Hood, it's still pointing in the general direction.

[MikeH]

Complately disagree. You can shoot an arrow at a target approaching the limits of your range without it just being a blind shot in the sky. If archery was such an inaccurate art, then it wouldn't have been so important on the battlefield for a few thousand years.

The English longbows were pretty accurate up to about 200m, but most of the damage was done at very long range where you only have to be able to hit an army, not an individual. So they were accurate enough from that point of view, but mostly the damage was done by quantity of shooting not quality.

(this remains true of firearms in most militaries, only the likes of snipers utilise both long range and accuracy)

[kentonio]

It isn't blind, Robin Hood, it's still pointing in the general direction.

Bows are not an inaccurate weapon, why would you flip off arrows in the general direction of the enemy when you can actually aim at a target?

[kentonio]

The English longbows were pretty accurate up to about 200m, but most of the damage was done at very long range where you only have to be able to hit an army, not an individual. So they were accurate enough from that point of view, but mostly the damage was done by quantity of shooting not quality.

(this remains true of firearms in most militaries, only the likes of snipers utilise both long range and accuracy)

I'd agree to a point, but those people firing the arrows would not just be firing them off in the general direction of the enemy. You'd be firing at targets, and the mass of arrows going in would mean that even if you didn't hit the particular thing you aimed at, you'd have a fair chance of hitting something/one.

[MikeH]

The target being a mass of men, not an individual man. That's all TMM was saying. Sounds like you don't disagree.

[The Mad Monk]

x-Mike'd

I think I said that.

[MikeH]

Yeah.

[kentonio]

I just tend to think we underestimate the accuracy of archery. They'd have learnt to shoot by hunting in many cases, and you don't hunt by flipping off arrows in the general direction of an animal.

[kentonio]

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.