A friend of mine sent me a YouTube link a few days ago. The video asked the question: "Can 43 US Marines defeat a Roman Legion?" I usually get annoyed with this type of hypothetical, unrealistic waste of time on the internet. So, I put it aside - it was even more senseless than I thought - going to on my business.
But, after thinking about it, I wrote back to my friend. I suggested we formulate the question in another way, making the question more interesting and perhaps offering the opportunity for more in-depth reflection. "Can a well-organized, well-trained, and logistically strong force be disrupted by a non-conventional, tiny unit equipped with new unconventional weaponry, superior firepower, and adopting new tactics?"
The answer is yes if the commanders of the most potent unit do not understand that it is necessary to change the usual tactics and - rapidly - adapting to the new threat. No, if the commanders are better strategists capable of elaborating new plans that include:
a) getting the maximum of information about the new opponent.
b) attempting to cut off the contacts of the opponent from any support from the local population or resupply;
c) using the weaknesses of the opponent AND the terrain against them;
d) increasing the friction to induce the opponent to consume excessive ammunition and supplies.
The commanders accept that there will be heavy losses. But, it can work.
The video assumes that there will be an emotional response from the Romans, not unaccustomed to the heavy blasts. Then, it implies that the Romans would likely adopt traditional XVII or XIX century front assault tactics as the first choice of the Legion. Romans would have never responded in that way. Evidently, the video's author knows little about Roman military history. And possibly never heard about Caesar’s tactics and his capacity to use and transform the territory to his advantage, as he did in Alesia and Ilerda. The Romans knew that it is possible to win battles using force. Still, the keys to winning a war are adaptation, logistics, and engineering. It seems forgotten that Romans invented, at least in Europe, the units known as explorers and LRPP.
After a first (probably heavy) impact with a new antagonist using superior firepower and mobility, the Romans would have turned to adaptive tactics in this hypothetical battle. The Romans would likely have enclosed the area of the operations. Then they would have worn out the odd opponent using themselves higher mobility and non-conventional maneuvers. They would probably have forced the movement of their opponents into specific corridors, trapping other areas to make those off-limits or dangerous. The Romans, anyway, would never have performed a frontal attack in a testudo formation or a line. They would never have engaged their troops as Gen. Lee did at Gettysburg, nor like Lord Raglan at Balaklava. The Romans soldiers were more intelligent than being Clausewitzian – had they not, the Roman Empire would not have existed.
Roman Legions always adapted by using the terrain, transforming it when opportune, and building alliances with local tribes to preserve the core of their forces. Romans only directly confronted their antagonist if necessary.
The Marine's Platoon commander would have been intelligent, for sure. He would have understood that forcing an attack on the Legion would result in a long-term defeat with consistent losses. For him, the key to a possible victory is a deep knowledge of the resources available on the territory. Then, by interrupting the logistical train of the Legion – and preying on it whenever possible, and avoiding the local tribes. Only if the Marines use Civil Affairs tactics could the locals secure solid support for their actions, not unlike what happened to partisans and guerrilla units in the past. De facto is a long-term strategy. Of course, hoping that Rome would not send more forces to control the area better.
Now, considering actual history, what happened when a stronger Army collided with a determined opponent using non-conventional new tactics - but not necessarily superior logistics and firepower?
So-called weaker armies prevailed in Afghanistan against the British in the XIX century. The same thing happened in Vietnam against the French and the Americans. And what about Afghanistan today?
The Americans have proved to be weak in understanding the need for rapid change of tactical paradigms. The American Armed Forces principally rely upon their logistical and operational superiority. However, they often showed a lack of flexibility. The Americans demonstrate that, unfortunately, they do not understand Sun Tzu.
NATO follows. Both the US and NATO are in the position of the Roman Army. They can become vulnerable to "stones," but not to hi-tech weapons. In Vietnam, the USA measured its achievements quantitatively through the McNamara Doctrine and the Clausewitzian thinking of Westmoreland, which has been fatal mistakes that doomed their Army to defeat and so many good Soldiers to their death.
This forces me to consider the confrontation between China and the USA. I think as others do that a direct military clash will not happen. It is possible, but it is not within the strategical philosophy of the two contenders, who are now confronting each other using both the economy and technology.
China is already winning, and it is leading the battle rhythm of the confrontation. For now, they do not need strong allies, nor do they have to follow market and consensus rules as their opponents do. China uses human power, resources, social cohesion, vision, and a long-term plan.
The United States and its Western allies have to reverse their process to gain control of the battle rhythm again, especially in the long term. To do so, they must change their global operational strategies. The EU should be reinforced and supported: the White House has made costly mistakes by exerting pressure in the last four years in the wrong way. Africa and South America should be placed at the center of new political and economic plans. But this would require changing some fundamental concepts of the capitalistic economy to "give" them more than "take," as it happened until now.
Russia is a significant variable that could become economically desperate. It is directly menacing the EU by using proxies such as Turkey to control the Mediterranean and other areas. They also use heavy psyops to manipulate European public opinion. Plus, profiting on many internal actors in the Western Block, paid or having vital interests against their own party.
Climate Change will weigh more and more on the global situation, such as forced migrations, health issues, loss of food, resources, water, and the significant loss of coastal territories in a not too distant future. The confrontation between India and China and the Tibetan affair are already more the result of the competition for controlling the enormous water reservoir in the mountains of that region than of a direct economic-military confrontation or a religious/cultural issue.
"May you live in interesting times" is an ancient Chinese verse that we most definitely live within.
Comments