12-08-2015, 01:37 AM
(12-07-2015, 09:26 PM)Dan Howard Wrote: Romans lost at least as many battles as they won. The main difference between Romans and their opponents is their ability to raise another army and come back for another fight.
You're saying the Roman lost more battles than they won? Cmon! Most victories were skirmishes, small battles, sieges, and engagements not worthy of note in history. The Romans won most of those. The contemporary population had the vision of Roman military might being nigh invincible around 200 AD and the sources we have say as much.
The Romans won some absolutely amazing battles, outnumbered against hopeless odds (Marius vs the Gauls). The Romans won FAR more battles than they lost, it's just the disastrous defeats were more likely to shock the populace and be recorded by historians of the day.
Seriously no offense, but implying the Romans had less than .5 victory record is one of the most ridiculous things I have read. You've named ten disastrous battles in the span of 2,500 years. That's one every 250 years.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
