# Let's go back in time....



## WaylanderToo (Aug 25, 2015)

Let's say we go back in time with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), since the numbers of members and equipment is listed for our convenience in this Wikipedia article, could we destroy all 30 of Augustus' legions? 

We'd be up against nearly 330,000 men since each legion was comprised of 11,000 men. These men are typically equipped with limb and torso armor made of metal, and for weaponry they carry swords, spears, bows and other stabbing implements. We'd also encounter siege weapons like catapults and crude incendiary weapons. 

We'd be made up of about 2000 members, of which about half would be participating in ground attack operations. We can use our four Abrams M1A1 tanks, our artillery and mechanized vehicles (60 Humvees, 16 armored vehicles, etc), but we cannot use our attack air support, only our transport aircraft. 

We also have medics with us, modern medical equipment and drugs, and engineers, but we no longer have a magical time-traveling supply line (we did have but the timelords frowned upon it, sadly!) that provides us with all the ammunition, equipment and sustenance we need to survive. We'll have to succeed with the stuff we brought with us.

So, will we be victorious?


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 26, 2015)

With that kind of hardware It would be massacre of epic proportions. The Romans would no way of coping or even understanding our type of warfare and tactics or technology .  On thing you could do is offer them a chance to surrender, after you bloodied them a little.  


An alliance possibility? No and especially not with Augustus Caesar.  Augustus(Octavian) was a very brilliant man, more so then Uncle Julius Caesar and also far more ruthless. You could never trust him or turn your back on him.  You'd have eliminate him and his allies otherwise they eliminate you.


----------



## Mad Alice (Aug 26, 2015)

WaylanderToo said:


> Let's say we go back in time with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), since the numbers of members and equipment is listed for our convenience in this Wikipedia article, could we destroy all 30 of Augustus' legions?
> 
> We'd be up against nearly 330,000 men since each legion was comprised of 11,000 men. These men are typically equipped with limb and torso armor made of metal, and for weaponry they carry swords, spears, bows and other stabbing implements. We'd also encounter siege weapons like catapults and crude incendiary weapons.
> 
> ...



Wasn't this idea posted upon an internet news site? Then the one who answered the question got asked to make a film script of his answer?
 Are you hoping for lightning to strike twice?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 26, 2015)

WaylanderToo said:


> So, will we be victorious?



If there was immediate fighting, the Marines would win. But the Romans would not be defeated, merely regroup.

During that time, the Marines would face a severe shortage of food, water, ammunition, and fuel - the latter increasingly making all vehicles and armour effectively useless.

So the Marines could not win any prolonged conflict.

Also, wars are usually fought for specific objectives - political objectives, which decide tactical objectives. Any sensible modern army, time travelling to any past period, would benefit most from seeking alliances, rather than conflict.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Aug 26, 2015)

Mad Alice said:


> Wasn't this idea posted upon an internet news site? Then the one who answered the question got asked to make a film script of his answer?
> Are you hoping for lightning to strike twice?




I must admit that I didn't realise this when I posted (shamelessly stolen from another site since I think it suits SFF) - since then I've seen the reddit and started reading. It is interesting but there are several 'givens' that negate the absolute slaughter that it c/should be, chief among them being the immediate realisation that flying machines are just machines and that there is no aerial firepower (I guess that this is necessary as otherwise it would be a walkover IMO)


----------



## Vladd67 (Aug 26, 2015)

WaylanderToo said:


> I must admit that I didn't realise this when I posted (shamelessly stolen from another site since I think it suits SFF) - since then I've seen the reddit and started reading. It is interesting but there are several 'givens' that negate the absolute slaughter that it c/should be, chief among them being the immediate realisation that flying machines are just machines and that there is no aerial firepower (I guess that this is necessary as otherwise it would be a walkover IMO)


Sounds like one of the endless X versus Y threads on Historum


----------



## Mad Alice (Aug 26, 2015)

WaylanderToo said:


> I must admit that I didn't realise this when I posted (shamelessly stolen from another site since I think it suits SFF) - since then I've seen the reddit and started reading. It is interesting but there are several 'givens' that negate the absolute slaughter that it c/should be, chief among them being the immediate realisation that flying machines are just machines and that there is no aerial firepower (I guess that this is necessary as otherwise it would be a walkover IMO)


I was actually wondering if you were attempting this as a participatory writing exercise. 
 I thought personally that the idea deserved a better audience, and did wonder what people here would have done with the exercise when I saw it.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 29, 2015)

You'd initlally succeed, but once the opposition knew they couldn't win in a head-on collision, they'd fall back. That is, until fuel ran out for the vehicles. Then with dwindling supplies, malfunctioning equipment and lack of replacement ammunition they would be worn down. There are many instances of less techinically-advanced forces winning, even more-so when you consider the difference in numbers and being entirely within enemy territory.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 29, 2015)

paranoid marvin said:


> There are many instances of less techinically-advanced forces winning, even more-so when you consider the difference in numbers and being entirely within enemy territory.


Actually don't they always win ... eventually?


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 29, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Actually don't they always win ... eventually?



The key to any possible victory short term and long term over the Romans is that you have to secure Rome and depose and eliminate The Roman Emperor and as much of the Roman aristocracy as possible. Take them  out of the picture and the The rest of population would quickly fall into line.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 30, 2015)

Or alternatively you could be then facing all Rome's enemies next if you did it.
Really it's a pointless scenario


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 30, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Or alternatively you could be then facing all Rome's enemies next if you did it.
> Really it's a pointless scenario



One enemy at a time.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 30, 2015)

Why fight? Why not use diplomacy (or become mercenary) and install yourself as an ultra-special praetorian guard (and with Machiavellian influence make the Roman Empire do what you want...or just let go and enjoy yourselves at the top of the Roman Empire with the Emperor )


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 30, 2015)

Mad Alice said:


> Wasn't this idea posted upon an internet news site? Then the one who answered the question got asked to make a film script of his answer?
> Are you hoping for lightning to strike twice?




It would definitely make terrific film.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 30, 2015)

Upon successfully conquering the Rome.  My first act would be to replace the Roman Numeral system  with our numbering system with the concept of 0. That alone would have far reaching effects on the empire and history. Then I would introduce the printing press, public libraries  A public education and university education system to make sure that the new knowledge wouldn't be lost. I would show them practical application for steam engine technology ( Railroads  and steamship down the road?) Better Metallurgy, Lens grinding.  I would give the Romans gunpowder  and firearms technology . 19th century Sailing ship designs, to start.  I would fix the plumbing system so to reduce the Lead content  of the water.  I would  tell them about the Americas north and South  and that they could be colonized, But I would make sure the natives were treated fairly  and not exploited.

A bit of epic pipe dream on my part.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 31, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> My first act would be to replace the Roman Numeral system with our numbering system with the concept of 0.


Oddly Zero and modern number system pre-dates Rome.
Also the Romans did use an Abacus style device (stone based , Calculi, hence Calculator was someone that did arithmetic) which has the concept of zero and place based system like we use.

I read "From One to Zero" over 20 years ago. I have a copy.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140099190/?tag=brite-21
There is s newer version in multiple volumes:
The Universal History of Numbers  (I have three volumes)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Universal-History-Numbers-Prehistory/

A nice companion text is the "History of Writing" (I've had it since 1980s, so my not be in print)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 31, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Upon successfully conquering the Rome.  My first act would be to replace the Roman Numeral system  with our numbering system with the concept of 0. That alone would have far reaching effects on the empire and history.



Very nice but the Romans probably wouldn't have given a fig for your advances in maths - they were doing nicely beforehand . Also as Ray says the concept of zero was around and right from the start (from Sumerians at least, I believe) everyone knew about the importance of the 'no number' in arithmetic.



BAYLOR said:


> Then I would introduce the printing press, public libraries.  A public education and university education system to make sure that the new knowledge wouldn't be lost.



Well I'd invent cheap paper first...however again there were already proto-universities around - Plato's Academy for one. The question is who do you educate? The later monastery system became ideal for the storage and transmission of information, admittedly centred around the Bible (the cash cow I suppose that funded the whole venture!) and they eventually became the medieval university system. But do you educate a farm hand? Or the millions of slaves. Who pays for all these new schools and universities churning out people who will probably be toiling in back breaking jobs for the whole of their lives...



BAYLOR said:


> I would show them practical application for steam engine technology ( Railroads  and steamship down the road?)



Why look for efficiencies when you have millions of slaves to do everything for you anyway? Steamships/better ship technology would probably be a boon, although I'd guess it'd take a while to get the people with the necessary skills to cast material for ship building. As for railroads - easy for bandits to dig up and turn into swords (we see that nowadays even in the UK with the theft of copper wire from transmission projects not to mention other parts of the world. Copper today is valuable as is iron then. Leaving it lying about unattended in a very nice state - you might as well give it to your enemies rather than lay it...)



BAYLOR said:


> Better Metallurgy, Lens grinding.  I would give the Romans gunpowder and firearms technology.



Yeah I agree that would be a benefit. Better weapons technology essentially. 



BAYLOR said:


> I would fix the plumbing system so to reduce the Lead content  of the water.



What would you replace it with? Invent plastics? Mmmm you'd need oil/gasoline/petroleum probably. Luckily you know of an area rich in oil that you could use to make plastics that you can invade and control... 



BAYLOR said:


> I would  tell them about the Americas north and South  and that they could be colonized, But I would make sure the natives were treated fairly  and not exploited.



You're already living in an economy supported by dirt poor 'serf' farmers and slaves, true anyone could become a Roman citizen but it's a pyramid scheme really...

Oh, plus why did Julius Caesar take Gaul. For the glory, yes. To increase his standing in Rome, yes. For the wealth in gold that the Gauls had? Absolutely. In fact I think it was part of his reason for landing in Britain too. He needed Gaulish gold to fund his armies...so telling them about the vast continents to the West, would probably just replicate the Spanish conquest of the new world but a good 1500 years beforehand 

Maybe all these invented things came along at the right time for their use!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 31, 2015)

The Romans "hired" (or bought slaves) to do "hard sums", writing etc. Typically Hebrews, Greeks, Egyptians, Phoenatians, maybe other people, etc. 
An early famous "Roman" playwright was actually a Celt! (They had writing too, but the Druids didn't write any of their beliefs or knowledge).
The Romans had concrete, but not steel reinforcing, so invented Building Regulations (so apartment blocks wouldn't fall down). Their giant crossbow like catapult thing could put a stake through a stone wall, using cattle sinews as the "spring", no other material is as strong.  They would bring the treated sinews with them and then use local timber.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> The Romans "hired" (or bought slaves) to do "hard sums", writing etc. Typically Hebrews, Greeks, Egyptians, Phoenatians, maybe other people, etc.
> An early famous "Roman" playwright was actually a Celt! (They had writing too, but the Druids didn't write any of their beliefs or knowledge).
> The Romans had concrete, but not steel reinforcing, so invented Building Regulations (so apartment blocks wouldn't fall down). Their giant crossbow like catapult thing could put a stake through a stone wall, using cattle sinews as the "spring", no other material is as strong.  They would bring the treated sinews with them and then use local timber.



They also had things public bathrooms. Their bath houses for their time , were simple amazing . Some of them had heated water.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Sep 13, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Their bath houses for their time , were simple amazing


They  had ground floor central heating too. I'm not sure why the Hypocaust was so deep. Perhaps to allow cleaning.
But the pre-Greek Minoans had running water, glass for plates and drinks and obsidian cutlery. Also flush toilets.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> They  had ground floor central heating too. I'm not sure why the Hypocaust was so deep. Perhaps to allow cleaning.
> But the pre-Greek Minoans had running water, glass for plates and drinks and obsidian cutlery. Also flush toilets.




The Romans were great at engineering. My favorite Roman building is The Pantheon, It's a magnificent feat of engineering and  For centuries it was the largest free standing domed building in Europe. One story ive heard was when the Vandals sacked Rome  they came to the Pantheon , went inside and so were amazed by it that they left it standing.  It's the most perfectly preserved of the Roman buildings.


----------



## nzreader (Apr 22, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> Let's say we go back in time with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), since the numbers of members and equipment is listed for our convenience in this Wikipedia article, could we destroy all 30 of Augustus' legions?
> 
> We'd be up against nearly 330,000 men since each legion was comprised of 11,000 men. These men are typically equipped with limb and torso armor made of metal, and for weaponry they carry swords, spears, bows and other stabbing implements. We'd also encounter siege weapons like catapults and crude incendiary weapons.
> 
> ...


Kill the command structure and manufacture poison gas you might get away with otherwise nah....


----------



## Mad Alice (Apr 23, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> The Romans were great at engineering. My favorite Roman building is The Pantheon, It's a magnificent feat of engineering and  For centuries it was the largest free standing domed building in Europe. One story ive heard was when the Vandals sacked Rome  they came to the Pantheon , went inside and so were amazed by it that they left it standing.  It's the most perfectly preserved of the Roman buildings.


In order to make the dome from cement, which was too heavy to be supported by the structure, the usual gravel was replaced by the lighter more porous lava rock.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 23, 2016)

Mad Alice said:


> In order to make the dome from cement, which was too heavy to be supported by the structure, the usual gravel was replaced by the lighter more porous lava rock.



Im not sure but , I think that Roman Cement incorporated volcanic rock or ash in its mixture which is one of the reason for its strength and durability.


----------

