Would the Roman empire from 200 BC have conquered the Aztec empire of 1500 AD if they met in battle?

Would the Roman empire from 200 BC have conquered the Aztec empire of 1500 AD if they met in battle?

Most likely, due to their military discipline and advanced strategies I doubt they would lose.

Where are they fighting?

Depends if it were a guerilla war in the rainforest Rome would have had a tough time.

this is important

did the Romans just literally sail across the Atlantic? if so, they're tired and malnourished

Roman Empire didn't exist in 200BC.

I think you mean the Roman Republic. Unlikely they would have to sail across the Atlantic into a climate and terrain no European has ever seen before or experience. Plus with the lack of the Marian Reforms. Their professionalism would not be very good either.

yes they would win, only way they would lose is if it was an isolated force such as if we considered it an expedition force across the ocean thus months or even years before any reinforcements would arrive

Aztecs used obsidian which bounces off of steel. With that advantage and most likely carrying disease across the Atlantic the Romans would have raped the Aztecs.

>full retard

>a climate and terrain no European has ever seen before or experience.
>Their professionalism would not be very good either.
You can't be serious...

If you mean Roman Republic, hell no. Aztecs had hundreds of thousands of fighters. No way 30k legionnaires could compete.

Except is right. The Roman Republic existed as an entity until it collapsed in 79 BCE. The "Roman Army" as OP is referring to existed as an aristocratic levy system with soldiers which only recently had taken control of Italy, much less the whole of Europe. Not to mention the republic is on the verge of collapse during the consulship of Gaius Marius due to the interaction with Sulla.

Would the Roman Republic of 200 BCE have won against the Aztecs? Well, yes in an open field battle. The Aztecs didn't fight like that, so they would have been crushed. But in a rain forest? Hard to say. Consider that the concept of military formations doesn't appear until the Jugurthine War described by Saullust. Gaius Marius basically invented the Roman army which everyone thinks about, but not until circa 100 BCE.

Just read Livy, Plutarch, and Diodorus and stop being an uneducated piece of shit.

Tack Polybius on that list of sources also, he describes a large portion of the Punic Wars.

most likely

Alright you fagots new question. could 2 Legions (10,000 men) defeat the Zulu army (30,000 men)
I'm talking about legionnaires ya know the non shit tier ones.

Yes

Literally advanced metallurgy than them, and this is 2100 years before the Zulus.

Superior tactics, cavalry, etc., it'd be slaughter. Could you imagine Caesar going ape on those niggers?

More advanced*

obviously. 1 and a half legions defeated Boudicca in Britania, and the Iceni (Boudicca's tribe) were way more advanced than the Zulu niggers.

The fucking nig nogs still lived in fucking huts in the 1800s while the Romans had fucking stone houses.

iron age weapons and armor paired with formation tactics and defensive engineering vs stone age weapons, no armor, no unit tactics, home ground advantage and terrain not conducive to large unit maneuvers
my money is on the Romans, even w/o their ally auxiliaries (cavalry, archers, etc)
those conditions are similar to the Germanic wars, and the Romans (eventually) won against or assimilated the Germanic tribes

i think that 1000 legionnaires would have easily beat the zulu army.

5000 at minimum

5000 legionnaires could beat 60000 zulus.

for sure. Aztec warfare was stone-age warfare-. they do not even have some kind of tactics compendium

Only if the Romans were on the Defense with a good commander.

>being educated
>frequenting Sup Forums
Choose one

Tbh i'm happy about your educated guess, but in the end Sup Forums is all about that shitposting and meta-ironic jokes.
You should know that though.

I don't understand why people in this thread think strategy that works in European climates would translate to rain forest conditions.

True. Just remember how the germanic tribes devastated the legions of the empire... and that climate change was only from mediteranian to central european. anyway as history has shown, most major powers will inevitably loose to guerilla type warfaring people...

not to mention the lack of supplies. waiting months or years for more troops and/or any basic equipment would predoom the whole expedition right from the start.

Actually the whole idea of legionaries was that they would be self sufficent anywhere. Similarly the Italian peninsula was extremely mountainous, very similar to the terrain they'd encounter in South America. It was this rocky and mountainous terrain that forced them to move beyond the phalanx formation. Finally roman infantry was very heavy armored, more so than the conquistadors, and flint weapons would prove useless against them. At the end of the day the aztecs were like crappier Gauls without metal weapons.

you mean like how Boudica liberated Britannia using guerrilla tactics?
or how the Romans had no serious interest in conquering the Germanic tribes, they just wanted to stop the Germans from raiding Roman cities, and the Roman legions succeeded in that by making a defensive line from the alps along the Rhine to the sea while annexing Colon, Baden, and pretty much all of western and southern Germany?
or how about the slave rebellion of Spartacus? their guerrilla tactics definitely won the day there

THIS

Boudicca I got slaughtered by a roman force 1/16 that of her own what the fuck are you talking about.

I do realize sarcasm is a bit hard to convey through writing
but come on user, no one is that autistic

very heavy armor in wetlands? That's a terrible idea

the majority of legionnaires wore a leather lamelar lorica
it was incredibly light for the protection it provided
and not all of central america is swampland

Eh. If it took place in Mexico they'd be crushed. It's why the Vietnamese fucked the US up.

the US had a kill-death ratio of at least 20:1
the only reason the US left Vietnam was because the government they were defending ceased to exist bc of its own political corruption

And still lost, and led to what the North Vietnamese were fighting for, a unified Vietnam. The Russians also won pretty much won WWII and beat the Germans. Battle of Stalingrad, anyone? Throw a million men at your enemy and you'll win your objective.

>And still lost
but it wasn't guerilla tactics or the terrain that caused the loss
>The Russians also won pretty much won WWII and beat the Germans. Battle of Stalingrad, anyone?
so?
the Aztecs don't have millions of warriors
>inb4 the civilian population would fight against foreign invasion
they did not against Cortez
most of the "Aztec" civilian population were conquered and brutalized tribes that had no vested interest in defending the Aztec empire and would likely aid an invading force simply because their new master could not possibly be worse than their current ones

oh hell yes

>Africans
>Beating anyone
There's a reason they live in mud huts

Iron beats obsidian so yeah

obsidian is rock
scissors are made of iron
rock beats scissors
Q.E.D. Aztecs win motherfuckers

Yes it was, in large part. The US underestimated the amount of men the North Vietnamese were willing to lose to progress with their agenda, aided by Russia and China, of course. Point being, with enough troops and fighting in an area those soldiers know well, they opposers would suffer defeat. Romans didn't have "millions of warriors" either, I wasn't aware you wanted me to scour texts and compile an average of soldier populations for those empires at the time, silly me. Regardless, the Romans would lose. And along those lines, if we're mentioning all Aztec rivals aiding the Spanish, the Chichimeca War would like to have a word with you. That one only ended after a peace agreement.

Are you a ex navy seal operator?

this is also why Julius was able to force the Senate to make him Emperor for life
the Senate's weapon was legislation, ie paper
and scissors beats paper

now if the Roman Senate were to invade central America they would win

Yes, easily.
/thread

>200 BC
>Roman Empire
>Wut

Nigger you gay and dumb.

People saying this or that but don't understand we only have half the knowledge to answer this question. Therefore if you were intelligent you'd know that we don't have enough information to answer this question. Forget Hollywood and your imagination for a minute. We know of most of the Roman's strategies from historic books. However, we do not know the exact same amount of information about the Aztecs. There weren't any historic books. We know alot about the Aztecs but alot still remains a mystery.

Well, the Aztecs never had much in the way of metal weapons or armor, so it would probably be bad for the Aztecs if they weren't on their own turf.

Also, disease.