How large of a numbers advantage would Julius Caesar need in order to defeat a modern army, equipped with the modern armaments of a regular U.S. infantry battalion.
Assuming that neither side can call on air support, or has a major tactical advantage.
10:1?
20:1?
100:1?
There is no circumstance under which a Roman army under Julius Caesar of any size could beat the Americans unless they ran out of ammunition. I imagine that the Romans would either surrender or start to flee after the first few minutes of coming under fire.
A Roman Army of the 4th or 5th century miiiiiiiight stand a marginally higher chance of surviving slightly longer because of how much better their ranged weapons and anti-personnel siege weapons were but it's still only a matter of minutes, they just might actually be able to inflict a couple of casualties.
Shaka Zulu achieved the same. And to be honest, if the dude was anywhere in Afghanistan, the US would be destroyed with how poorly they're fighting
You're retarded if you think guns are as effective as you think, considering we're talking about post-Marian legions vs a bunch of companies without heavy MGs, I'd say 4:1. A lot less if Cavalry, missile and Roman artillery, fuck man, Romans had artillery, why did Europe fall so low after the fall of Rome?
Oh good, now we can have a new Romeaboo quote
>With cavalry, missile troops, a 2:1 numbers advantage and artillery; a Roman army from 0AD could beat a modern army battalion! Rome truly is great.
>Shaka Zulu fought against an army equipped with assault rifles and mortars
How fucking retarded are you exactly?
>infantry battalions dont carry heavy MGs
Seriously did somebody put his dick inside your brains and fucking them to shit?
He wouldn't win, a more interesting question would be something along the lines of a modern US infantryman versus a Roman veteran of the Gallic wars in close combat.
You don't need heavy machine guns if your standard issue assault rifle can kill 30 enemy troops before needing to stop firing at three times the distance of their longest ranged weapons. That's not to mention light machine gunners, mortarmen and grenadiers.
The Romans would lose hundreds of men in the first few seconds of being fired upon. The best case scenario is if it's a Late Imperial army and their archers and field artillery manage to inflict a few casualties on the Americans before being torn to pieces.
You're all fucking retarded, what do you think the TESTUDO formation was for, retards?
>Julius Caesar
>Roman soldiers from the mid imperial era
Not even a Romaboo m8, you need to remove that professional American army mentality, only 2% of shot fired in WWII actually did damage, if we're talking about a professional American amry, they'll probably beat them without even needing MGs.
Well, with MGs, they'll easily mow them down, I know that machine guns are an essential part of a plattoon, but just for imagination sake, I was simply trying to put into perspective that guns aren't that good, specially in an untrained army.
We've gotten a lot better at getting infantry to shoot to kill since WW2, making targets look more human and all that
It's what I'm refering to, actually, the modern American army shoots to kill, rarely backs off, takes stategic positions, shoots accurately, OP didn't specify if the army is American.
Saudis use American gear, yet the houthis has been kicking their ass many times, again, post-Marian armies are also professionals, If it was Saudis fighting post-Marian reform legionares, with the latter having the battlefield advantage, and a bunch of cavalry...Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead abd bet on the Romans.
I sincerely hope the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all continue to take mercy upon your soul, for I fear you might just forget how to breathe and choke to death otherwise.
Leave this board now, that the rest of us may continue to lead our peaceful lives without having to gape in awe and horror at the rotten depths to which humanity can, and in your case does, sink.
Ah yes, those sword-armed Houthis
You're retarded
This is delusional. The modern army don't need to be well trained or great marksmen. If a few dozen of them pointed in the general direction of the Roman lines and just mag dumped they would kill hundreds of them in a matter of seconds.
>, only 2% of shot fired in WWII actually did damage
Because they had to do enormous amounts of suppressive fire to keep the enemy's heads down in order to either advance or get into a position where they could fire for effect. The Romans don't really have the ability to countersuppress the modern troops, so they're just going to die in droves.
>t. military history brainlet
Let me break it down for you.
For the >10,000 years of human warfare up until WWI, you could conceivably overwhelm an enemy with numbers because of shock. This is because of human psychology: if you can eventually close with an enemy, you can rout him, because humans are not robots and will get extremely unnerved by enemies charging at them in close quarters. They will break ranks, which will turn into a rout, which will end in your victory if you pursue them before they can reform.
See: Little Round Top in the Battle of Gettysburg for the quintessential example.
Technology was not sufficient to save you. Armies equipped with muzzle-loading rifles could, at great cost, battle and defeat armies equipped with breech-loading/bolt-action rifles.
On a related note, it was rare that a large army unit would get entirely annihilated. They almost always broke and ran away first, and while they might get pursued and reduced as a fighting force, most of them men would not die in one battle. Even the Charge of the Light Brigade, used as the epitome of a unit getting butchered, escaped with over 50% alive. There were exceptions; IIRC there was a battle in Napoleon's invasion of Russia where the Russians parked a bunch of concealed cannon axle-to-axle on a tree line facing an open field, and opened up extremely close range with canister/shell. Wiped out an entire battalion out to a man. But that was the exception, enough to be noteworthy.
You with me so far? With sufficient manpower a charge would ALWAYS work, for >10,000 years of human conflict. Until 1914 or so.
If you give me an entrenched position with barbed wire, manned by 1-2 rifle companies with grenades, machine guns, mortars and enough supplies, then you will never reach my position. NEVER. Not one of you will ever get anywhere close to sword range. You will eventually get exhausted crawling over a 10m high mound of corpses just to get within 150m of my trenches.
>OP didn't specify if the army is American.
>U.S. infantry battalion
Yes he did.
No he didn't, read again
Only regular U.S. infantry battalions are equipped as regular U.S. infantry battalions.
>hw would need an alesia type situation except no additional reinforcements from the enemy
1:1
the great muslim warlord Ghuliam Qaysar will deploy a sturdy testudo wall to deflect gun fire
Sagitarius armed skirmishers will pepper and supress machinegunners,scorpions and ballistae will counter fire any artillery the americans have
the weak willed americans will be hacked down to roman superiority in close quarter combat
Depends how big the forces are. If its a single US platoon then i think a 100:1 advantage would guarantee a Pyrrhic victory for caesar
Adding more US soldiers would rapidly spiral into 0 chance of ever winning for the romans though
It simply doesn't matter the ratio. Any such field battle would go like this
>US deploys scout sections in cover 1km in front of hq / mortar section
>Caesar assembles troops outside the camp
>Caesar gets sniped in the head
>scout sections call in mortar strikes a second later, start picking off tribunes and centurions
>mortars reak havoc on tightly packed romans
>the romans have no idea what just happened and run
>get ambushed and picked off by a flanking section
The Romans would have no answer to or even comprehension of what has happened to them and would die like the Chinese in the Opium Wars. Actually just a couple mortar strikes from a concealed position would make them rout because they would think it's a divine intervention.
What would be more interesting would be an assault by lets say a heavy infantry (non motarized) company, with no heavy artillery, on a well fortified city. There's a few more possibilites for what might happen especially if there were time or ammo restrictions on the attacking force.
Romans could totally have a chance in a night-time ambush. In fact it almost doesn't make any sense for one side to have a great leader and yet no tactical advantage.
>what is night vision
>what are flares
Only thing he needs would need is one nubian.
Flares and night vision would help but, as with every version of these 10,000 'Roman vs Modern' scenarios it really just comes down to whether the Romans can close the distance.
The word 'ambush' implies surprise and an advantageous position. In this case, probably something like a forest. This is then presuming they're not spotted by any night vision prior to the ambush being set off. That scenario with say an 8:1 manpower advantage gives the Romans a chance I think.
>watches GATE once
Caesar wouldn't fight the Americans in open conflict, he'd defeat them through making alliances with America's enemies as well as the elements within NATO and America itself that would profit from a change to the status quo.
Caesar would start by offering protection the countries of the Near East by defeating ISIS, probably with assistance from Turkey, Russia and Syria who would welcome the third-party solution. The new Roman Army cum Imperium Julii, armed and trained by foreign experts, would be able to place leverage on the governments of Iran and Israel, playing them against each-other enough to increase America's presence in the region. At this point Caesar, aided by Putin, will transport his army to Manchuria, where he will strike a deal with the Chinese and North Koreans to exploit American weakness in the region to seize the South China Sea and Korean Peninsula.
At this point the Americans are in a crisis. The Sauds demand they stay in the Middle East while Sth Korea, Japan and Australia are demanding they shift the bulk of their carrier squadrons back to the Pacific. The POTUS knows that he cannot afford another war. Now the final act begins. The Romans, armed with state of the art Russian weaponry and aided by the Pakistanis sweep through India, reaching New Delhi in under a week and Dhaka in three. The country is split between a new, greater and United Pakistan and a Roman-Dravidian State in the South. With this display, the European Member states of NATO, who have been successfully wooed by the cultured Roman Embassy to the EU, demand that the Americans either concede to Caesar's demands or face a full and unilateral withdrawal from any and all military treaties with the United States of America.
The Americans have lost.
A month later Caesar receives the symbol of America's surrender, the POTUS kneels and the Washington Monument is transported to his new temporary capital of Mumbai on a defanged USS Gerald R. Ford.
sick
/thread
During the Siege of Jadotville, a small group of Irish UN Troops (roughly 100 or so) held off a group of highly trained mercenaries as well as hundreds if not thousands of African militia and armed natives.
The Irish troops had never seen combat before, and ran out of ammunition toward the end of the fighting at which point they surrendered, having killed hundreds and having wounded or routed roughly a thousand of them.
Their support was nonexistant, the 500 Irish and Swedish soldiers never reached them but rather tied up thousands of other soldiers who were attempting to also attack the Irish troops holding back the horde.
This was decades ago.
If you hundreds or even thousands of men with such primitive weaponry can even scratch a battalion of US Soldiers, never mind a fucking army, you are utterly and entirely delusional.