How DO you defeat the romans on the open field?

how DO you defeat the romans on the open field?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You don't. Just never engage in the open field.

Archers

En masse Cavalry in the Republican era

by being a better artist

meme answer
didnt work that well for the easterners
what rabble they were then that a cavalry charge could break them

*blocks your path*

They had shit cavalry, always depending on foreign Gallic forces for them.

Satanic trips confirm, Carrhae is evidence.

*blocks your empire*

More elephants?

After the reign of Gallienus Romans had excellent native cavalry. The "Roman cavalry was bad" thing is a meme.

You mean horse archers?

>*loses to goat herders*

>The "Roman cavalry was bad" thing is a meme.
kys. Look at any work of historian you would see that roman cavalary was shitty.

Flanking with cavalry is the most reliable way to break a formation, once the Roman cavalry is dealt with the infantry are exposed and have to divert auxiliaries to the flanks and rear, weakening the formation as a whole. The hard part is routing the Roman cavalry first.

You can't win 90% of the time. Your best bet is to copy them, train your men into cohorts/legions, and pray your culture has good native cavalry.

Parthian horse archer was a meme. Horse archers didn't do much damage to legions, and Carrhae was special since they had an ungodly number of arrows.

Watch me senpai

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

The 3rd c. CE? may as well just reference byzantine cavalry at that rate

Yes user, from 753 BC until 1453 AD Roman cavalry was shitty. It was never good at any point during those 2206 years. I'm sure lots of historians say that.

Goldsworthy, Southern, Heather, Dixon and Syvänne all say that Roman cavalry after the reign of Gallienus was very good.

with mounted bowmen

Satan has spoken

this An alternative to flanking with cavalry is to ambush them.

Easy.

C
O
P
E

Well that is no longer an open battle is it smartypants

did this happen, I heard conquistadors used pikes to pole vault over an aztec canal

Live with them since childhood, learn latin, make Roman friends and earn the respect of Roman statesmen, gain their trust then lead them into a deep dark forest under the auspices of helping your "Romanized" tribe against its rivals and accomplishing the great task of civilizing the Germanic.

The record for Roman cavalry wasn't that good thou. I can recall more than a few battles where late roman cavalry broke and fled, leaving the infantry to be flanked and destroyed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg

and of course the big one

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople

Here's some elaboration on Strasbourg

> The Roman heavy cavalry now charged the German horsemen. In the ensuing mêlée, Chnodomar's stratagem paid dividends. The interspersed foot warriors wreaked havoc, bringing down the horses of the cataphracts and then killing their riders on the ground. Unnerved by these tactics, and by the injury of one of their tribuni, the cataphracts panicked and fled the field. In their headlong flight, they crashed into the Roman infantry on the right, which, however, was able to maintain formation because of the skill of the crack auxilia palatina regiments Cornuti and Brachiati posted there. The cataphracts took refuge behind the infantry lines, where it took the personal intervention of Julian himself to rally them.[72] Zosimus claims that one regiment of cataphracts refused to return to the fight and that after the battle, they were obliged by Julian to wear female clothes as punishment.

Open field, not endless desert. Still depends on the surrounding terrain desu

>
>Zosimus claims that one regiment of cataphracts refused to return to the fight and that after the battle, they were obliged by Julian to wear female clothes as punishment.
What a fucking lad

Take an officers pagan waifu away from him.

Field artillery firing sarin shells. What are you a fucking casul?

Treachery.

Checkmate.

>Romans pushing against flanking cav with crossbow fire fucking their shit.

GG

>they were obliged by Julian to wear female clothes as punishment.

I-it's not gay if it's to punish them, right?

Romans would tear through China's peasant armies and rout them killing 1000 to 1.

They would get shredded as soon as they were within crossbow range. It would be so unrelenting they simply would not be able to progress.

Give the chinese even the slightest advantage with land and it's simply done.

Macedonian phalanx + cataphracts + a whole bunch of javelin light infantry to fuck up their shields + heavy infantry scutum-esqe swords men as the Hypaspists positioned on the flanks = pwnage

Better than getting decimated.

Horse archers

>archers against a force of armored men with tower shields
>meme archers against a force of armored men with tower shields

Maneuverability. Cavalry heavy and centric militaries like the Parthians/Parni, Persians, Huns, etc...used a combination of archers and heavy shock units like cataphracts and lancers to flank and pin down heavy armored Roman/Byzantine soldiers.

>Romans had no skirmishers or flanking units

Basically alexanders army with a few addition such as having a quarter of your phalangites to thorikitai swordsman
Keep a reliable skirmisher contingent to ensure manueverability
Upgrade your cav to cataphract like the seleucids eventually did but too late
So basically its pontus

With soldiers...wtf kind of question is this?

/thread

Explain to me where this meme comes from.
US and any western allied forces absolutely dominate and shit on insurgents, but people still spout that America can't beat goat herders

>I killdeded a lawt of em so i won
Germany won world war 2

That wasn't what I was saying, but assuming it was, the current ratio of Americans killer vs ISIS fighters sits at around 1 to 15,000.
1 American death.
15,000 goat herder deaths.
Now, back to what I was actually saying. Name a single conflict in the middle east that America didn't decimate upon assault. Do you seriously believe that if right now the US Army wanted to take any city in that part of the world they wouldn't be able to if they were given a green light?

>conventional war against nations is the same as a war against resistance cells within nations
Hey dummy, the primary gauge of success against guerilla warfare is measured in body count. The point isn't trying to take or hold land, the resistance you're fighting doesn't just have some capital you can destroy and then negotiate for peace

>What's Pyrrhic victory

You become a Roman, rise in power - and conquer your homeland - after that you rise their living standards and become local governor..
...
profit?

>Hey dummy, the primary gauge of success against guerilla warfare is measured in body count.
Not him, but no it fucking isn't. The point is entirely to take and hold land, and keep it away from the soft control of the guerillas/insurgents.While the resistance might not have a capital you can destroy, they do have areas they are trying to gain control, that you can deny area to them.

Elephants obviously.

Which is secondary to body count. Insurgents aren't a nation, they don't just leave when denied land. They'll just target softer areas, making you have to move and try to hold different land. That's why capturing land doesn't work against guerillas, it's not possible to hold the entire country. Kill count is what you aim for

>trips
Of course you would know best.

But if you kill your enemies, they win.

Walk up to their ranks
Parry every attack with the flick of my wrist
Riposte one soldier to death
Roll away at a tiny cost of my stamina
Walk back
Repeat killing one soldier at a time until they're all dead

So basically the "US got it's ass beat by goat herders" is something sheeple repeat? Cool

>jewish roman wars
>declare independence from rome
>easily defeat the garrison forces
>harass them as they retreat to Egypt or Syria
>Rome returns in force with several full legions (hadrian invaded judea with 8 legions in the 2nd roman jewish war, roughly 1/3 of the entire roman military)
>too many romans to fight in the open field
>retreat to fortifications
>they besiege them
>romans are good as siege warfare
>die
>rot
what would you have done?

Missile Calvalry

Use Macedonian phalanx to hold the center, mass all cavalry on my left flank, use a loose formation of light spearmen and skirmishers on the right, some skirmisher for harassment on my left flank behind cavalry.

Use overwhelming cavalry superiority on my left to defeat the roman cavalry there, hold out against center and right flank with infantry. Use cavalry to either draw out the Roman center from behind, or smash cavalry engaging my lighter troops. Mop up with repeated harassment of Roman infantry blob grinding against my center.

This is assuming, however, that this is a flat, open field where my phalanx has superiority in length to the roman center. Also assuming that the numerical advantage of either side is minimal or nonexistent.

>nb4 meme phalanx
Find me a battle where a Macedonian phalanx lost from the front to infantry on unobstructed terrain and I will cede the point.

The real punishment was that they had to service the entire army.

Heavy cavalry, heavy infantry, and light, mobile archers. Preferrably horse archers.

the only way phalanxes are not gonna get immediately pulled apart like a sweater with a loose thread is by forming the mythical autism triangle

even then you only got so long until they get tired/pelted with projectiles until they crumble, so you better have high quality heavy infantry to support them, instead of light spearchuckers.

Not be a fucking jew thats for sure

>ungodly number of arrow

That comes with being head fucking deep inside enemy territory while refusing allied help, refusing to help your ally, trusting a paid off cunt, and then actually really and seriously thinking you can win through attrition

He couldn't buy his way out of this one and it shows

Like others said horse archers, heavy infantry and mass cavalry tactics were something that the Romans just could not counter on an equal playing field.

The Roman infantry was a deadly war machine up until Belisarius, but roman cavalry was usually composed of mercenaries and small cataphract groups that were too small as units to make standing difference on the battlefield. Its not that they didn't have specialist units like horse archers, heavy cavalry, foot archers in the Roman army, the problem was that the fight always depended on the tactical sucess of the main infantry cohorts and the other specialist units were almost always used as support. You did not have for example the mass cavalry tactics that evolved later in the middle-ages

Another and very important weakness of the Roman army was that it was only able to fight in pitched battles and in sieges, when it was ambushed like in Teutoburg, Carrhae or fought in unknown ground without knowledge of the enemy like in Yarmouk the results were always disastrous. Furthermore highly mobile enemies like the Parthians, Sassanids, Huns and Germanic travelling tribes were also deadly against the Roman military. These enemies could travel vast distances and be close to your main base in weeks, while you as a Roman general were still gathering logistic supplies, rallying your legions, and preparing your defences. Though powerful the Roman army was slow in advance and in planning large scale military operations. Just look at the Marcomannic war, it lasted 14 years even though the Romans barely left their borders to attack.

Only on an open field, and with a non retarded Hellenistic general. There weren't many of the latter.