In almost every battle against primitive forces the legions of civilization have been largely forced to give up their own tactics (as seen in those between states) if not defeated and crushed outright (in circumstances of similiar numbers). For example, it took many roman legions almost 200 years of constant warfare to break into the interior/northern spain, one of the first displays of spanish brilliance at small-scale warfare.
Another example is that while we tend to focus on the warfare of europeans, many of their actual ‘impressive’ victories weren’t even won by them, but by smallpox. After watching dozens of family/friends die from sickness, many of these Indian tribes were shattered already, many of the new world groups.
For example, in other areas, areas of tropical africa, europeans didn’t even put much effort into trying, despite the fact these tribal groups were massively wealthy and closer to fight and etc. The reason was they had immunity to many European illnesses and had a few that the europeans were particularly weak against.
Theres many examples of civilized forces beatign primitives, almost always through adopting primitive tactics of warfare. I’ll give some examples in a bit.
Either way civilized armies are a lot more impressive fighting civilized armies willing to fight en masse, otherwise the tactics are largely ineffective against primitives.
Despite repeated attempts by one of the best military forces in the world Scotland was never conquered Ireland was largely left alone. (by romans)
(4 to 6 roman legions of 28 needed for centuries of continuous war in spain, as many used to guard against persian empire).
14th century Neolithic Gaunche with throwing rocks/wooden spears stomped a few Spanish, French and Portuguese campaigns of conquest. One group held out against various groups of would be conquerers for almost a century and a half. (1342-1485)
If I might make a suggestion; civilizations chew up and spit our primitives until they rot from their own corruption… The Romans defeated many German and Gaulish tribes, The Greeks the Jews and al the tribes of North Africa… They fed upon slave populations until no one, noteven their own would fight for them… Collapes is correct… They imploded…All civilizations are built upon conquest… All empires are built upon the conquest, first of ones native population, and then the world… Empires are slaves making slaves of others… Now, they are are beat in turn by vigorous tribal peoples, like the Germans, The Macedonnians, or the Turks, or the Arabs… The Franks were beat, but in the tribe they had the basis of all freedom, as their name means, free…
The thing is; once people have law, as a form, then for the peace they give they should get justice; but they find that disarmed they are made the victims of injustice until they are chewed up and killed, or destroy themselves because they feel their lives are meaningless… Rome depopulated itself… It killed people out right, enslaved them or made sport of their deaths, but also people denied their wealth and produce did not breed, and would not have children…Male children when castrated where a source of wealth…Girls could be made slaves or prostitutes… Greece depopulated itself too…The worth of a woman as a protitute was great, to herself…The worth of a woman as a wife was slightly above a slave… So women would not reproduce their misery, but would expose their chidlren to the elements… Men thought nothing of women… Or of exposing them to die…So their house holds fell empty, and the civilization became an empty shell… It is always the case…And it is happening to us… Without our imports of people our populations would be in decline… The society is feeding on us… It takes our lives and our vitality…
Romans, hah. Look at Sabinus’s reinforced legion in 54 BC or Varus’s 3 legions against germans /celts, didn’t go well. After the brits snapped some of the finest military groups of the day, after caesar’s defeat it was a cenury before anyone looked at them again.
With the choice of battle fields, no barbarian was a match for the Roman Army…It was no acciddent they beat so many of them… How do you think they did it??? Is it a mystery???
Hah with a choice of battlefields which rarely happened. They won by adopting more primitive tactics of war, and superior logistics and they suffered huge losses for it again and again. Many primitives were never conquered and those that were oftentimes required many roman legions sacraficing a lot.
How do you think they got massively crushed many times and essentially gave up on many.
One reason is dedication, they spent 200 years of bloodshed in spain. They did waaay better against other civilized/state armies.
Bushet… It almost always happened that the Romans would not fight until they had the battle field of choice… The Teutenburg forest was not their sort of battle field…
states choose battlegrounds very rarely against nonstates because nonstates warfare avoids bulky mass legions often times in favor of ‘smaller’ multiple groups of raiding parties, when they did mass it was for surprise massacres. Like in the forest or in defence.
I’m not saying rome sucked only did terrible against primitives in comparison with the civilized nations they easily crushed. Choosing battlegrounds against primitives as an invading army largely fails. The brits/scots/irish were never taken, rome suffered defeats there. big failures.
4to6 legions and 200 years to crush the tribes of spain. So when they did win insane dedication played a good role. Many other examples exist of the primitives doing exceptionally well against the roman armies. (and every other civilized force. American indian war, mainly the europeans learned war.
Again and again civilized armies are forced to adopt the tactics of total war that their enemies routinely used, adopting more ‘primitive’ warfare techniques.
The romans chose battlefields they lost. Brits, Scots. They tried to invade and were thwarted. Maybe they could have massed before Rome for convenience?
Same with the forest raid and destruction of those 3 legions in 9ad. They were an invading force by definition they were choosing a battlefield by stepping onto tribal territories. States ‘choose’ battlegrounds to primitives theres no point (they use tactics don’t get me wrong ) the whole land is a battlefield for them. That spawned a war that left the germanics a free people but gave rome a well defined boundry for the next 400years.
No real further attempts were even really made. They gave up against primitives again and again.
Let me tell you how they won when they won…When the Romans could limit their front, they could fight almost indefinitely with eschelons six or more men deep… Man to man they were no better than barbarians; but the barbarians, in spite of what we think of them, where individuals who prized their individual honor…They would fight till they dropped, and another would take their place…The Romans would fight until on line grew tired, and they would duck under the arms of the row behind…They fought as a machine, and not as individuals… The honor for the Romans belonged to the whole legion… We might take a lesson from them, and from the primitives… Today we see so many individuals standing as individuals against corporations and government when government or corporations goe shoulder to shoulder against them… We are culturally individuals…We have a philosophy of the individual…We have a contempt of communism, and the herd; but we do not see, in part because we are never taught, that primitives survived as groups, and suffered destruction by standing as individuals…When people stand as unions, when they form associations, or communities based upon a common defense of rights what they are doing is trying to make up for their government (US) which is not doing the task it was formed for…Read our preamble to our constitution and tell what goal it has approached??? Not one…Our government is a complete failure, and the proof is that we must defend our rights from the very people whose job it is to defend our rights…We will learn to join together, to cooperate, to share…But we should not learn that until we turn our individualism against the government…Forget organizing…First disorganize…Tear the old down, and then build up…
My point is that civilized/states fight differently and sometimes dumbly. What you’re saying is partially true, but not really. They won because they kept that many people well fed and consistant. Superior logistics mainly. An impossible feat for tribes due to the social organization and lifestyle.
I disagree, again…Look at when the Romans be Bodacia in England… The general traveled and traveled until he found the battle field of choice; and once that was done, the battle was won… Look at Cannae…Look at the Varro in the Teutoburg forest, strung out for miles, all front and no back… They were successful when they could turn an offense into a defense… The said their shovel won more battles than their generals…Look what they did to Versingetorix…He thought he was king of the mountain and they turned him into a captive… You could stand to study military science…
They were successful when turning to defence esp fortifications. Are you denying Rome had massive issues conquering many tribes compared to states rome effortlessly crushed? How could they have lost so many battles? Its the logistics that helped rome, tribes could not feed armies or press advantages in the same ways. To conquer spain took 4to6 legions 200 years of constant battle, thats how, not consistant superior military tactics, but the ability to feed a 200year war.
Though didn’t primitive hordes sack Rome eventually?
I’m sure they played a role, though the numerous defeats and being repulsed again and again could have made the civilization unrestful. We can argue that Rome was impressive, but in wars they generally did much better vs other states compared to tribes. Why should savages hold back conquering attacks for over a century if the attackers had superior military skill/weaponry? They didn’t just endlessly better logistics. Even still many tribes were never conquered. Name states that Rome went to war with that put up200 year struggles? Or states which just pushed them out effortlessly (Brits, Scots) etc.
juggernaut, this is one of the most insightful and meaningful posts i have ever read on this site. thank you for posting, it is not lost on total deafness, no matter what may seem to be…
juggernaut, this is one of the most insightful and meaningful posts i have ever read on this site. thank you for posting, it is not lost on total deafness, no matter what may seem to be…
juggernaut, this is one of the most insightful and meaningful posts i have ever read on this site. thank you for posting, it is not lost on total deafness, no matter what may seem to be…
I have read many histories of Rome…They suffered some defeats, but knew almost total victory…Until near the end with the Goths and then some others, like the huns, their defeats were few and far between… When ever they went anywhere, even over night they invariably built a caster, from which england gets its chesters… They made every offense a defense… They bought peace, and paid for division…Divide and conquer was not the motto of our government until they learned it from the Romans… Look at the facts; in the East the Roman Emperors lasted until the Turks took them over, in what, the thrteenth century…Is that a mark of failure???.Is giving Europe their laws a mark of failure???Certainly the west has of reproduced their failure in their many states, but also their successes…