EU vs US: The battle of 500 BCE

Thessalonian · Aug 11, 2011

The ancient armies of Gauls, Romans, Greeks and Picts attack America, with the sole purpose of colonization. The Maya and several other American native tribes heard the news and prepare for an epic battle.

2000 European ships carry approximately 200,000 troops. A similar number of American troops have been mustered for this clash.

What will happen? The meeting point of those troops will be Mitla, Mexico.

Zeno · Aug 11, 2011

I think i'm gonna need some data on America, Maya's etc. in 500BCE...
Please provide.
Do it now.

Mohammed the Persian · Aug 11, 2011

And the Aztecs and Mayans hear of this and have sent a combined 50,000 Jaguar and Eagle Warriors Expedition

Guaporense · Aug 11, 2011

500 BCE?

Why not 1 CE?

Ridiculous easy victory for the Romans. Spain needed 2,000 men to conquer the Americas in the early 16th century.

Thessalonian · Aug 11, 2011

Zeno said:
I think i'm gonna need some data on America, Maya's etc. in 500BCE...
Please provide.
Do it now.

Use your imagination, or.... wikipedia

Thessalonian · Aug 11, 2011

Guaporense said:
500 BCE?

Why not 1 CE?

Ridiculous easy victory for the Romans. Spain needed 2,000 men to conquer the Americas in the early 16th century.

500 BCE is better. It means no sarisa was used! I just make it a bit harder for the Europeans.

Lord_of_Gauda · Aug 11, 2011

Easy victory for the Americans.
First off, the 'European armies'- be it 500 BCE, 300 BCE, 50 BCE, 1 CE- all the way up to 1300 CE- would suffer casualty rates of 50-80% from the voyage alone.
Romans and Greeks did not have ocean-worthy vessels: we don't have a single Roman/Greek vessel that is not the Trireme/quinquereme design and those ships would simply not make it across the atlantic.
Even if it did, the only possible route, is the viking way: stopping over at Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland and then mainland America.
That route is ice-berg free for 4 months a year.

So the Gauls/Celts/Germainics/Greeks/Romans/Byzantinians arrive with 50% of their armies decimated by the voyage, on a completely unknown land, with unknown foods (what are they gonna forage ? North America didn't have wheat,rice, barley, cows, goats, sheeps. They certainly arn't just gonna show up and figure out how to grow quinoa and corn within a few months and churn out supplies) with completely unknown strategic/tactical parameters of North America.

In short, they'd pull a british vs Americans: better euipped, low on morale and complete lack of tactical and strategic knowledge of the continent leading to a rout by the native forces.

Mohammed the Persian · Aug 11, 2011

What if they enlist the aid of the Vikings ?

Isoroku295 · Aug 11, 2011

America. Why? because 2000 ships? really? By the time they get there, they will have used most their food. Then they will have to get more, which means working along time to obtain it, with Amerindians fighting a likely gorilla war against them. It would be like Britain trying to colonize the place. By the time the ships return (many likely destroyed after 3 voyages), the force will be demoralized by its little food and such. 200,000 men would also have to be highly divided in order to even hope to feed them all.

Just in general they could not supply it, so they would have to withdraw, with most the Europeans dying by the time they make it back (shortest time would be 4 voyages worth of time...), and thats without fighting.

If they make new attacks, they will be fighting a likely more ready force of Amerindians using the Europeans weapons. So that, plus the fact that they will run out again, will lead them to realize their massed attacks won't work. Eventually they will land smaller (at most legion size) forces spread out, and have them build up and area for future landing. From here they fight a real fight against the amerindians.

EDIT: Dang Gauda beat me to it.....................

and who was it that posted that 2,000 Spanish conguered the land? Does he not realize that they had guns!! And that they were reinforced by armies of the Aztecs own enemies?!!

The Alani Dragon Rising · Aug 11, 2011

The Europeans had horses, the Americas didn't. Could be a bit one sided.

Isoroku295 · Aug 11, 2011

The Alani Dragon Rising said:
The Europeans had horses, the Americas didn't. Could be a bit one sided.

horses? Even worse for the Europeans! More mouths to feed. Dear God 200,000 men alone is millennium beyond Europes efforts to feed from that distance! imagine adding Horses!!

Lord_of_Gauda · Aug 11, 2011

The Alani Dragon Rising said:
The Europeans had horses, the Americas didn't. Could be a bit one sided.

Europeans did not begin to use horses as the main unit of war till medeival times.
The Romans used cavalry as auxillary 'harassment/scouting' forces and Alexander used his companion cavalry against chariots & other horses, rarely engaging the infantry.
It wasn't until the Persians started using heavy cavalry (savaran and cilbanaari), annihilating Roman legions, that the Europeans made any genuine effort to have cavalry as a line unit.
And even then, that was made possible only after 400s CE, when the Europeans finally discovered the stirrup: an Indian invention that the Persians and the central Asians were privvy to much earlier and Europeans only realized this after the first major 'central Asian steppe' arrival into Europe: the Avars.

So, if its pre 400s CE cavalry, i doubt even the Europeans would bring them around to be nothing more than a scouting force. Even if they did bring horses, thats only more mouths to feed, more flesh to rot on ships and more expenses accrued.
Pre-1300s Europe was thoroughly incapable of conquering Americas.
The Romans, even at the peak of their might, against the Parthians, chose to abandon Mesopotamia because of logistical inability to maintain forces there. What that means, is that logistically, invasion of the Americas was out of the question for the most logistically capable European power of that timeframe.
Nevermind the Celts, Germainics or the Greeks.

Son of Cathal · Aug 11, 2011

Mohammed the Persian said:
What if they enlist the aid of the Vikings ?

Because than they'd have to wait about 1300 years. I don't think they'd have the patience

bluesman · Aug 11, 2011

Do we have records of American civilizations existing so early? When did the Aztec and the Maya rise to power? The great northeastern tribes, such as the Iroquois Confederation, wouldn't exist for over a thousand years. Someone else was certainly in charge up here, but I don't think we have any way of knowing who.

Thessalonian · Aug 12, 2011

The Inca and the Aztecs appeared much later but the Maya were present back in 500 BCE. There are some other tribes that flourished since 3000 BCE.

jeroenrottgering · Aug 12, 2011

The Europeans of course. The weaponry was already more advanced. Oh and to the people who keep talking that most won't survive the trip must listen to the OP. He says if 200,000 landed on the shores. So this is the exact army with which they fight.

I think the engineering, tactics, weaponry and strategies of the Greeks and Romans will sweep away the unorganized Aztecs and Inca's.

Alcibiades · Aug 12, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
Easy victory for the Americans.
First off, the 'European armies'- be it 500 BCE, 300 BCE, 50 BCE, 1 CE- all the way up to 1300 CE- would suffer casualty rates of 50-80% from the voyage alone.
Romans and Greeks did not have ocean-worthy vessels: we don't have a single Roman/Greek vessel that is not the Trireme/quinquereme design and those ships would simply not make it across the atlantic.
Even if it did, the only possible route, is the viking way: stopping over at Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland and then mainland America.
That route is ice-berg free for 4 months a year.

So the Gauls/Celts/Germainics/Greeks/Romans/Byzantinians arrive with 50% of their armies decimated by the voyage, on a completely unknown land, with unknown foods (what are they gonna forage ? North America didn't have wheat,rice, barley, cows, goats, sheeps. They certainly arn't just gonna show up and figure out how to grow quinoa and corn within a few months and churn out supplies) with completely unknown strategic/tactical parameters of North America.

In short, they'd pull a british vs Americans: better euipped, low on morale and complete lack of tactical and strategic knowledge of the continent leading to a rout by the native forces.

One can see that you are not intent on inventing new ways in which European armies can lose any and all potential wars(before 1500 AD,of course),and that you are not willing to talk s**t to accomplish that.
Alcibiades

bluesman · Aug 12, 2011

I wouldn't say the natives are unorganized. Don't take them to be unsophisticated due to a lack of metallurgy. That being said, I agree that the Romans and Greeks would have a decided advantage- in the correct terrain.

HOWEVER, the OP clearly states this is an invasion force, fighting on the American continent. The terrain in the concerned area is rough jungles, hills, and generally nasty terrain. In these cases conventional armies don't work as well- I'd say the natives would probably win.

Sure, the Spanish cleaned house, but gunpowder is just a huge advantage over not-gunpowder. Look a the Teutoburg disaster- low-tech forces can eviscerate better equipped forces if the situation is favorable.

Death by bad terrain.

Alcibiades · Aug 12, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
Alexander used his companion cavalry against chariots & other horses, rarely engaging the infantry.

Rarely indeed.Only on every major battle he ever fought.
Alcibiades

Thessalonian · Aug 12, 2011

Alcibiades, sometimes I wonder which sources he uses.... in order to say those things about Alexander...

Search

Search

EU vs US: The battle of 500 BCE

Thessalonian

Zeno

Mohammed the Persian

Guaporense

Thessalonian

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

Mohammed the Persian

Isoroku295

The Alani Dragon Rising

Isoroku295

Lord_of_Gauda

Son of Cathal

bluesman

Thessalonian

jeroenrottgering

Alcibiades

bluesman

Alcibiades

Thessalonian

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions