Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Roman army vs. Modern Marines  (Read 23008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Apostle

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« on: November 17, 2011, 01:38:32 pm »
Found a link to this on Twitter and thought is was interesting.

Rome, Sweet Rome: Could a Single Marine Unit Destroy the Roman Empire?
 Popular Mechanics ^ October 31, 2011 Alyson Sheppard

Rome, Sweet Rome: Could a Single Marine Unit Destroy the Roman Empire?

It was a hypothetical question that became a long online discussion and now a movie in development: Could a small group of heavily armed modern-day Marines take down the Roman Empire at its height? We talked about the debate with James Erwin, the man who scored a movie writing contract based on his online response, and ran the ideas by Roman history expert Adrian Goldsworthy.

James Erwin was browsing reddit.com on his lunch break when a thread piqued his interest. A user called The_Quiet_Earth had posed the question: "Could I destroy the entire Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus if I traveled back in time with a modern U.S. Marine infantry battalion or MEU?"

The question struck a chord with the 37-year-old Erwin, a technical writer from Des Moines, Iowa, who happened to be finishing a book called The Encyclopedia of U.S. Military Actions (Through Facts on File). Erwin tells PM that he wasn’t impressed by other users’ early attempts to answer this question, and so, posting under the username Prufrock451, he came up with his own response. Erwin wrote a 350-word short story chronicling the fictitious 35th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), which suddenly disappears from modern-day Kabul and reappears on the Tiber River in 23 B.C. Erwin posted the piece, finished his meal, and went back to work.

After work, Erwin checked reddit. Thousands of users had read his post and they demanded more. Excited and overwhelmed, Erwin continued submitting pieces of this growing Internet phenomenon. The next day, Los Angeles–based management firm Madhouse Entertainment contacted him about representation. Within the week, after Erwin had put just more than 3500 words to screen, Warner Brothers Studios bought the movie rights.

Erwin’s story, which he titled Rome, Sweet Rome, has a cult following among reddit members, its own subreddit on the site, and has inspired fan music and art. But from the beginning, his posts received comments critiquing the accuracy of his conjured tale. Other redditors commented. Historians commented. Marines commented. "You can definitely tell that the story was something that I dashed out on my lunch hour without doing a lot of research beforehand," says Erwin, an encyclopedia writer and two-time Jeopardy! champ. "Any Marine is going to see mistakes in it, and I’m sure if there were Romans around, they’d say the same thing." He plans on doing intensive technical research during the screenwriting process.

So—disregarding troubling questions about time travel and just why some temporally displaced Marines would feel compelled to destroy an empire——could a single MEU destroy the Roman Empire? To sort through the flood of online responses, PM talked to a Roman military expert and found out how the two sides would line up.

Infantry

An MEU typically contains about 2200 troops, along with their artillery and vehicles. According to Erwin’s original reddit story (which will be altered for the movie), the Marines are transported back in time with what they have with them, including M1 Abrams battle tanks, bulletproof vests, M4 rifles, and grenades.

The year Erwin chose (23 B.C.) falls in the reign of Augustus, great-nephew of Julius Caesar and considered the first Roman emperor. His legions numbered nearly 330,000 men. They wore heavy leather and metal armor, carried swords and javelins, and operated catapults. They would have never heard the sound of an explosion before. "Obviously, there is a massive difference in firepower," says Roman military expert and author Adrian Goldsworthy. "Not only would Roman armor be useless against a rifle round—let alone a grenade launcher or a .50 caliber machine gun—it would probably distort the bullet’s shape and make the wound worse."

In the reddit story, however, Erwin said the Marines would not be resupplied with bullets, batteries, or gasoline from the modern world. "There would be no way of obtaining replacements for these supplies in the ancient world," Goldsworthy says. "An average unit of Marines is not likely to be able to make an oil refinery, start generating electricity, or create machine tools to make spare parts for equipment." And even if they could figure it out, it would take many months or even years. So, as soon as the Marines ran out of gas, their tanks would become little more than hunks of metal.

"In the short term and in the open, modern infantry could massacre any ancient soldiers at little risk to themselves," Goldsworthy says. "But you could not support modern infantry. So all of these weapons and vehicles could make a brief, dramatic, and even devastating appearance, but would very quickly become useless. Probably in a matter of days."

Reinforcements

Erwin’s reddit story stipulates that no more Marines will come back in time, although they may recruit in the ancient world. The Marines would have to; even at their lowest periods, the Roman Empire could conscript hundreds of thousands of soldiers whenever it wanted.

"A Roman centurion would say ‘Let’s take 1000 of these guys. Five hundred of them don’t come back? Get another 500 guys,’" Erwin says. "Americans have never been very good at sending people out as cannon fodder. Marines are better trained and are much harder to replace. No Marine sees himself as a cog, and no Marine is."

Both sides pride themselves on having competent leaders down to the smallest unit level. Goldsworthy says the battle would depend on who had the better officers. Erwin believes it would be shock and awe versus numbers.

"Marines are the best warriors ever trained," he says. "But they can’t fight an endless wave of soldiers. No one can."

Tactics

The Roman legions and Marines are both highly trained with a clear unit structure and hierarchy of command. They emphasize aggression, dominating the opponent, unit cohesion, and being flexible on the ground. "It’s easy to arrange people like chess pieces and march them in a direction," Erwin says. "But when you’ve got basically huge gangs of people going toward each other at knifepoint, it’s very hard to maintain a plan. So they have to improvise."

Romans depended on intimidation to psych out their opponents. They marched in unison and appeared as big and conspicuous as possible, overlapping shields to protect each other from attack. But wearing bright colors and lining up straight isn’t going to do much good against a unit of Marines, who would be best off attacking guerilla-style while the Romans marched.

One advantage for the Marines: a knowledge of military history. The Marines would know from Rome’s history that its legions could be susceptible to ambushes, such as the one that led to their crushing defeat at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. The Marines would have serious disadvantages such as navigation, Goldsworthy says. Besides losing all satellite navigation, their modern maps would be practically useless—everything from the course of rivers to the placement of forests would be different. But, at least in their first encounters with the Marines, the Romans probably wouldn’t know that.

The key for the Marines would be to stay on the move and avoid getting bogged down in one place. If they stood still, Goldsworthy says, the Romans could easily surround them and then take advantage of their huge numbers advantage. The Romans would probably use a variety of nasty siege weapons on the Marines, such as the scorpion, a large crossbow that rapidly fired long bolts. Romans were also known to cut off opponents from water and food supplies, forcing them to surrender or die.

Who Would Win?

Historian Goldsworthy says the MEU would probably lose in the long term—without the ability to resupply their modern weapons, they simply wouldn’t be able to overcome the Roman numbers. However, he says, they could destabilize the Roman Empire, encourage civil war, and initiate regional fracturing. "[The Marines] might discredit the Emperor by defeating the closest army to Rome," he says. "But they would lack the numbers to control Rome itself—with a population of a million or so—let alone the wider empire."

What about in the film? Erwin says he knows the ending, but won’t reveal it anytime soon. He’s currently on leave from his technical writing job to work on the screenplay full-time. A release date for the film version of Rome, Sweet Rome, or what it will be called, is still unknown.

Offline cicerokid

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2011, 03:22:23 pm »


Whilst just the appearence of the Roman army would fascinate a modern millitary unit we would know what to expect if only through the film "Gladiator", vice versa though would be a complete unknown to the Romans. So a small bit of longish range sniping of top brass, from a raised position should do the trick day or night, rain, snow or shine ,,for a few occasions and let terror do the rest.

No need for close to close and we have body armour that would/ should easily cope with spears and arrows but possible not a ballista bolt - but why get that close!

I doubt if more than a few hundred well placed bullets would be needed. The long range killing of commanders, kings, princes, emperors etc would be immeasurably more effective than mounted horses against the Aztecs, ( who soon got used to them).

Easy.
Timeo Danaos afferentem coronas

Offline SkySoldier

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • My Gallery
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2011, 04:31:43 pm »
This is an interesting mental exercise, and as I was reading, the first thing I thought of was the problem of resupply and maintenance.  The MEU, as well as the smaller MEB, has it's own air support in the form of rotary wing and fixed wing (Harriers).  Even a platoon sized unit, Army or Marine, goes through a tremendous amount of expendable parts (known as classIX), so in a very short time, and in a field environment, everything would eventually become ineffective from lack of parts.  I agree with Goldsworthy's analysis that it would only be a matter of time before the weapon advantage would be negated.  I think the more fascinating aspect would be in examining how the members of this MEU would adapt to their new circumstances.  Speaking as an Army officer having worked with USMC units in various environments, Marines of all ranks are smart and adaptable; the officer corps is top notch.  So how the unit would meet this challenge of adaptability will be the most interesting aspect of any movie or story.

This was a cool post.  Thanks for sharing it.

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2011, 04:45:48 pm »
The weapons they were most familiar with would soon become unusable. They'd then be using weapons they were less used to, against people who'd been using them, in some cases, since they were big enough to swing a blade. They'd also be strangers, unable to speak the language. Guerilla forces usually succeed when they have the support of the population. I don't think they'd last long!
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline David Atherton

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4711
  • The meaning of life can be found in a coin.
    • Flavian Fanatic Blog
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2011, 06:47:29 pm »
They'd also be strangers, unable to speak the language. Guerilla forces usually succeed when they have the support of the population. I don't think they'd last long!

I was thinking the same thing. Most Americans don't know any Latin, let alone ancient Greek. Running out of supplies, unable to meaningfully communicate with the local populations - it would only be a matter of time until the well supplied, larger Roman forces would win.

I wonder if the film will end in the arena?

Offline Jay GT4

  • Tribunus Plebis 2021
  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7003
  • Leave the gun, take the Canoli!
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2011, 10:04:18 pm »
I was thinking along the same lines.  Especially diet. Roman soldiers could forage and know which plants they could eat, which water they could drink and would be accustomed to a much harder life day in day out.  They'd have supply lines and know the terrain. I think the Marines would have a lot of trouble with parasites and food supply.   Not taking anything away from the Marines but I think modern soldiers rely a great deal on modern technology.  I think at first they'd be unbeatable, but as days and weeks passed they'd be done.  I don't think the Romans would ever give up...ask Hannibal. 

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2011, 07:10:12 am »
As pointed out, one key to winning a war is good supplies.

The Romans were a bright lot. I imagine the could quite successfully reverse engineer an M-16. While they would lack the machining technology to produce an exact replica, they would master the basic principles of the weapons operation, and produce a musket and cannon!

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2011, 04:47:50 pm »
As long as they could work out how to make the bang. You wouldn't be able to work back from a modern round to black powder. You're right though; basic guns are simple tech, and no doubt they'd have been able to make them if they'd had the idea.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline gallienus1

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
  • Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2011, 05:28:04 am »
Being a Science Fiction fan I love mental exercises like this.

It is nice to read in the replies that we are in broad agreement on a Roman victory in the end.
I think there is no doubt the Romans would have won ultimately. They would have suffered terrible initial defeats but eventually they would have worked out that their enemies are human, and therefore not immortal or invincible.

Something like this mental exercise really did happen a number of times in the 19th century. The true advantage of modern industrial society over a pre-industrial one it not really the weapons they possess but the organization and scale of resources they can bring to bear. Custer lost to Sitting Bull and Gordon to the Mardi. But in the end the massive resources that the United States and the British could deploy enabled them to win in the end.

As our time traveling U.S. Marines are cut off from their industrial support locked away in the far future, they would eventually be defeated. The Zulu Wars are a good example of how technology is not a guarantee of victory.

Lord Chelmsford led a modern British force and was the inheritor of over two thousand years of Western military experience. He was up against an Iron Age army with technology comparable to the ancient Celts. Overconfident of his technological advantage, he made the decision not to defensively establish his main camp, contrary to long established British doctrine. In the Battle of Isandlwana that followed Chelmsford suffered a devastating defeat, leaving him no option but a hasty retreat from Zululand.

Best Regards,
Steve

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2011, 10:21:03 am »
Being the sick and twisted person I am I immediately thought of the reverse scenario.

Drop a Roman legion into any modern city and I suspect we would have a lot more bloodshed.  Definitely a much shorter scenario but with lots of blood before the end.

An appearance in Afghanistan or Fort Hood would be one thing, but having been involved in government emergency response planning (and no, "Roman invasion" is not in any planning book I know of), I am convinced that it would take many, many hours to get any sizeable armed contingent on the streets in a modern Western city.  No city would have enough well armed police to take on a legion.  Even if there were military units near by with well oilled mobilizations plans - again not a given in a Western city - the organizing and granting of "Aid to Civilian Power" agreement can be quite involved and often requires the approval of the Head of State, Cabinet and / or Parliament.

Of course I am assuming that the Romans quickly find something to fight about.  If they wandered into a museum, a shopping mall or a Hooters restaurant things might end on a more peaceable note.  More "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" than "Gladiator"!

Shawn
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2011, 05:58:24 am »
Quote from: gallienus1 on November 22, 2011, 05:28:04 am
Being a Science Fiction fan I love mental exercises like this.



Lord Chelmsford led a modern British force and was the inheritor of over two thousand years of Western military experience. He was up against an Iron Age army with technology comparable to the ancient Celts. Overconfident of his technological advantage, he made the decision not to defensively establish his main camp, contrary to long established British doctrine. In the Battle of Isandlwana that followed Chelmsford suffered a devastating defeat, leaving him no option but a hasty retreat from Zululand.

Best Regards,
Steve


Although you should have mentioned the famous Battle of Rourke's Drift!  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI


Offline mwilson603

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2011, 12:02:10 pm »

Although you should have mentioned the famous Battle of Rourke's Drift!  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI


I had thought the same Will.  After reading the line "Marines are the best warriors ever trained," in the opening post, I decided that whilst it was an intriguing idea, it hadn't been researched, or thought out, properly :)  However I figured discussing the merits of other warriors wasn't the idea of this thread so I held back :)
regards
Mark

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2011, 04:39:41 pm »
Quote from: gallienus1 on November 22, 2011, 05:28:04 am
Custer lost to Sitting Bull and Gordon to the Mardi. But in the end the massive resources that the United States and the British could deploy enabled them to win in the end.

As our time traveling U.S. Marines are cut off from their industrial support locked away in the far future, they would eventually be defeated. The Zulu Wars are a good example of how technology is not a guarantee of victory.

Lord Chelmsford led a modern British force and was the inheritor of over two thousand years of Western military experience. He was up against an Iron Age army with technology comparable to the ancient Celts. Overconfident of his technological advantage, he made the decision not to defensively establish his main camp, contrary to long established British doctrine. In the Battle of Isandlwana that followed Chelmsford suffered a devastating defeat, leaving him no option but a hasty retreat from Zululand.

Best Regards,
Steve


Chelmsford made the classic mistake of dividing his forces in the face of the enemy. He had troops all over the map, and when there was a report of a large number of Zulus closing in, it was ignored. Dead junior officers were blamed until a copy of an order was found showing that the defence of the camp was exactly as ordered. The Brits beat the Mahdi's sucessors (the man himself was dead by that time) by industrial might; they built a railway south from Egypt to establish a supply line. A detachment of marines couldn't match that!
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

MidWestGuy

  • Guest
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2011, 10:48:52 pm »


  Remember, back then Rome has slaves and lots of slaves.  Also remember how much trouble the Spartacus rebellion caused.  If I were leading the Marines, I would free the slaves and let them be the main force and only use the Marine firepower to give the big final push in battles that would guarantee we win. 

Offline gallienus1

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
  • Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2011, 06:25:03 am »
You are quite right MidWestGuy, the Marines would soon realize the only way they could win would be by adopting Rome’s enemies as allies.

Something like this of course has actually happened. The fall of the Aztec Empire to a tiny force of Spanish conquistadores.

At first Cortés had a force of only about 100 sailors and 530 soldiers along with some horses and a few cannon. He was later able to add another nine hundred Spanish soldiers who defected to him from the Commander sent by the Spanish authorities to replace him.

 Of course this minuscule force would never have won but for many thousands of Tlaxcala warriors keen for revenge against the Aztecs, an Indian woman whom Cortés called Doña Marina, who acted as intelligence officer and interpreter and the deadly biological weapon of smallpox.

Best regards,
Steve

Offline benito

  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2635
  • quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2011, 06:45:44 am »
Any proof that  smallpox was used as a biological weapon ?

Offline gallienus1

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
  • Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2011, 07:23:29 am »
Not at all. It was the weapon he didn’t know he had!

Best Regards,
Steve

Offline benito

  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2635
  • quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2011, 07:33:11 am »
That was really unfortunate, like the plague in Europe.

Offline ickster

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2011, 01:58:30 pm »
Any proof that  smallpox was used as a biological weapon ?

I'd have to go back and read some of my old books, but Jeffrey Amherst, around 1754, ordered the distribution of "smallpox blankets" (blankets that had been used in the wards of small pox victims), The intention of germ warfare is clear, and surely at least contributed to the resulting epidemic that killed more than 100,000 people.

I recall seeing that Champlain had also given a similar directive in the early 1600's.

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12146
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2012, 06:23:28 pm »
A MEU would easily take over the entire empire.  A MEU includes people with all sorts of training and education.  They would be much too smart to use their resources before they could figure out how to replenish them or replace them with simplified version they could maintain.  They would fall eventually, of course, just as all rulers do, just as the Romans did.  They would probably divide, form empires like Alexander's generals and end up fighting each other.  
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Bill S

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2012, 08:45:18 pm »
Quote from: gallienus1 on November 29, 2011, 07:23:29 am
Not at all. It was the weapon he didn’t know he had!

Best Regards,
Steve
I hadn't noticed this thread when it first appeared, but I'll offer this late observation - related to the comment above.  There were many diseases and plagues in ancient Rome.  The Roman soldiers would have been resistant to many of the common diseases of their times, while the newly arrived Marines would be a "naive population", and could very well fall as easily to Roman diseases as the Aztecs did to smallpox.  Modern people tend to think that we've developed immunities and vaccines to handle diseases - but these immunities and vaccines are to the modern variations of the diseases, not to those of a thousand or two thousand years ago.  Diseases mutate and evolve over time, so modern strains are often different than ancient strains. 

Offline gallienus1

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
  • Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2012, 06:31:11 am »
Excellent point Bill S. What an irony if our modern marines were to demolish all opposition with their technologically superior weapons only to meet the same fate as  H. G. Well’s Martians!

Best Regards,
Steve

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2012, 04:04:48 pm »
I wonder what the Roman equivalent of Delhi belly was? Something as simple as that could potentially lay them low.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Dk0311USMC

  • Conservator
  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
    • My gallery
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2012, 05:39:54 pm »
Off the top of my head without much prior planning, I think a successful strategy might be for the Marines to land directly in the city of Rome.  A true shock and awe campaign in the heart of the empire.
They could set up an LZ in the field of Mars, fast rope in other areas of the city and probably secure it relatively quickly. Amphibious units from the MEU could hit the coast and work their way up to the city gates choking off and controlling supply routes and other important supply areas and ports.  A raider team could even go up the tiber in small water crafts.  After taking control of the grain stores and other supply areas around the city, freed slaves might be useful and wiling to be of service in Rome under new management.  The rest of the empire would become in disarray and not even know what happened.  Rome would become the main operating area with a perimeter set up around it and all supply routes around controlled.  With the treasure and major food stores controlled, establishing contact with trade routes and other countries would come in time.  An effort would be made to have business run as usual to a certain extent, to to keep up trade and food supplies. Other regions would probably be intrigued and fearful, so they would cooperate.
    Officials and Generals around the empire may eventually gather and try to retake the city, but I am guessing that a minimal amount of firepower would have been needed to quickly secure the city in a surprise attack, so there would probably be plenty left over.  Once Rome is secured a good defense with forward observers, mortars and artillery would keep invaders far away and if they did make it to the walls they wouldn't make it much further.    That is just my idea off the top of my head.

They always say Marines improvise, adapt and overcome...

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
Re: Roman army vs. Modern Marines
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2012, 07:08:43 pm »
Taking Rome is not taking the Empire. They would need to blitz Alexandria too, to secure the grain supplies that Rome depended heavily on. This would be accomplished quite quickly as well, but it would be a one way trip for the UH-60 Black hawks, due the scarcity of JET A1 fuel in the ancient world. :)

Oh, and they'd need to learn how to use carrier pigeons to announce the victory. No satellite radios in the 1st century either! (Well they'd have VHF as long as the batteries last.)

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity