Comments by "" (@retagainez) on "Could a Marine platoon defeat a whole Roman Legion?" video.

Yeah seems like everyone in this comment section accounts for roman's longbows, artillery, their bulletproof armor apparently, but not 1000 rounds PER SAW gunner. LOL.
5
@alandean9674 If they get in range, you're not wrong.
2
Armored but not bulletproof.
2
@SaintGhost0794 Actually arrows pierce things like kevlar pretty easily, metal on the other hand probably not. Edit: If the longbows had to charge into position while getting mowed down by the opposing machine gunners, they would most certainly disobey orders or simply retreat upon realizing that half their brethren died in seconds. I would be pissed at my leadership if they told us to charge into something like that.
2
Excellent writeup to the original post, even mentioning (albeit a one-sided) scenario where the platoon would lose. Seems like a lot of people forgot how important to consider the intel. Severe lack of insight and depth to this scenario with this video and just overall in the comment section. Lol
2
@Andrew85or Most people don't seem to get that the marines wouldn't have to KILL anyone either. They can simply wound the enemy, good use of the 5.56 where it may require two or three men to rescue one wounded.
2
@alandean9674 War has to deal a lot with practicality, carrying a large tree that can just be blown up by rocket launcher or outflanked and outmaneuvered defeats a lot of that practicality, please try again.
1
@Orneyrocks1609 You seem to forget that marines do not have the disadvantage of being stuck in history and without written accounts of common Roman tactics.
1
@Orneyrocks1609 I mean if they are somehow stuck on a mountain that they couldn't really reach without helicopter support, you may as well consider giving them helicopter support to reposition or resupply. As for your comment about marines only being successful because of their technology, sure it can be a big factor that one SAW gunner can carry around ~1000 rounds of 5.56, but it could realistically take only a couple of bullets to kill one leader as well; killing the leadership can be the quickest way to end the battle.
1
@Orneyrocks1609 Yes exactly, killing leaders will not only severely affect morale, letting troops question whether to continue their orders due to a lack of punishment for deserting, but the movements will become chaotic at best. The leaders need to be closer to relay orders since they do it by speaking to each other and not radio. As you described it, the legates will not be describing orders directly unless they're otherwise on the battlefield. Further, if the leadership is unable to quickly relay orders, any changes to the plan will surely be slow, allowing the platoon to outmaneuver the enemy easily. Hypothetically let us say that the legates never choose to come to the frontlines to relay orders and analyze the field. If this is done, the understanding of the current situation is limited to their ability to understand the messengers between subordinates which can affect planning. Additionally, you leave an extra vulnerability of how do you successfully send and receive messages without simply having them get picked off by marksmen?
1
@Orneyrocks1609 Any marine can be a marksman, they are capable of reaching out to long ranges. Even if there are multiple positions of leadership you fail to acknowledge that loss of any of these will lead to disarray and lack of communication. As an example, since you lack the foresight to come up with simple and possible outcomes, if one of the upper figures of leadership is killed (no matter if he is the highest or not, but any of the high ones), who holds the men accountable, who is to say that men won't start deserting when their numbers begin to drop by the hundreds? This kind of psychological warfare can easily multiply as more and more men die and more and more men desert or retreat. They do not even have to be intentionally targeting leadership, it can just happen. Don't forget, not all men will be outright killed, many will be wounded by the 5.56, men will have to tend to their wounded, causing a severe shortage in manpower and supplies.
1
@Orneyrocks1609 Well just give the Romans guns and there's no technological edge. What's the point? You're changing the whole point of everything by saying that. Romans had tactics and strategies based on their current technology, not just because; the same applies to the platoon. Steel shields, sure it can work but it will be heavy and does not guarantee protection to vital locations, the platoon can retreat since they will have a much lighter load; this problem expands when considering steel armor. Hypothetically speaking, as you mentioned with javelin volleys, if you have thousands of troops 20 meters away from a platoon of anything, of course, the thousands of troops win. Without any more hypotheticals, how do you get those troops to advance towards the platoon, hundreds if not thousands of yards away without suffering any of the morale or mobility issues that I mentioned (Not even accounting for the hypothetical idea of steel armored Romans which surely adds a significant amount of weight)? You continue to not acknowledge that the loss of a leader leads to disarray. Having a system of leadership does not guarantee that all the leaders think in a hivemind. Different leaders have different approaches, tactics, ways of problem-solving, leading to chaos or disorder since you cannot really predict which leader will fall. The purpose of a leader is to coordinate movements and to relay information, not to just simply exist and pep talk everybody. How can you achieve this when the leader is dying at an unusually fast rate? How can you rely on the soldier to follow when he sees the foundation of his military strength crumble around him? And this all occurs before the Romans can even have the possibility of reaching the platoon in time. How can you rely on the next leader in line to continue the order to charge with the imminent risk of quick and sure death? They are the new leader after all, RETREAT AND LIVE TO NOT FIGHT ANOTHER DAY!
1
@Orneyrocks1609 Ancient Rome is history, leave it at that. You don't have to kill all the leaders to affect morale only a few which is likely in any normal situation. Anything with 2000 years would perform better. I'm not introducing 'too many things' such as "Orneyrocks 1 day ago @Johnathan Busse I know, but for example, they are both stuck in a mountain... " USMC platoon also has utility, they build outposts, foxholes, fortifications, etc, if they need to. Alright forget about leaders, the platoon can set up a formation that is effective and will just mow down enemy troops so badly from long range so that they just call a retreat since they think the platoon will kill them all. Simple as that can't go wrong with it.
1
@theira9663 If you have mortar shells you probably don't have to run, if you don't you probably can bound backwards for as long as you have to.
1
@SaintGhost0794 I cannot comment on the effectiveness of ancient bows and arrows on kevlar, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since the tip of the arrowhead most likely would have been duller than today and the bow itself provides less force than modern bows. Whether there was enough difference between now and then so that it would affect the cutting of kevlar enough, I'm not sure, not a bow/arrow and kevlar expert. Anyway, this is a silly assumption by the original poster since it doesn't consider how the longbows would reach 200 yards, and that they just magically appear there and the platoon was stationary.
1
@theira9663 More like marines when they pass out for two days straight after partying too hard.
1
@isuckedsatanoffforaciggare4563 You don't have to die to help others. Just try to be the best person you can, that's all it takes to be a good person, the act of trying. No need to get hung up on impressing one person, there are many paths to success and that is not the only one. Good luck man and keep your head up.
1
@isuckedsatanoffforaciggare4563 I understand, just don't forget that it can be a long and arduous path. You may understand that and if you are deadset on becoming a soldier, go for it, nobody can stop you. Being a soldier can be a very complicated thing, especially for those who see action daily. I doubt you want to hear it from anybody about how it can be really tough but it's definitely a big part of it. The only reason I commented is just to show that, from one person to another, there are many paths to success. Sometimes rushing to one isn't always the best choice, a lot of it can take time for it to naturally play out on its own. A lot of people, me myself included, don't have the ability to see that far into the future. Just because we feel like you aren't contributing currently, doesn't mean you won't later. If you want to be able to take care of your daughter, you have to preserve yourself and keep yourself alive most of all. Anyway, good luck.
1
@isuckedsatanoffforaciggare4563 That's good man, most recruiters will be like that from what I've heard. Just don't forget, it's what they're supposed to do. They don't know what's necessarily best for you, you know what's best for yourself, do the research yourself if you want to make the most out of it.
1
@Mytoothmission Lots of things to consider but it's your fault for considering all these variables and complicating it. If you keep it simple and say it's just an open field with two opposing sides and a mile or a couple in between, the platoon will do very well. If it's not an open field, the platoon has the ability to retreat until they put themselves in a position that is favorable towards them, simple.
1
Yes, yes. That's why the Native Americans are infamous for how terrible of people they were for unfairly treating the U.S. Army instead of the common perception that the U.S. mistreated the Native Americans, the trail of tears for example. Where's the history lesson man? The name "Templar" is a huge contradiction to what you just commented, sounds like a fad to me!
1
@Templar-jj3ig No, my point stands, both sides were fighting each other fiercely. It was an unconventional war.
1