How did manlet armies win in ancient warfare?

You look at the Romans, and they're 5'6" men fighting against German savages that are 6'+ and 180-200 lbs. You look at Japan, and they're like 5'3", so it's just like how did they have these amazing armies? How did the Romans beat down guys with a 50+ lb weight advantage and 8+ inches of reach on them?

Organisation, supply chains and roads to facilitate rapid troop deployment.
 
You look at the Romans, and they're 5'6" men fighting against German savages that are 6'+ and 180-200 lbs. You look at Japan, and they're like 5'3", so it's just like how did they have these amazing armies? How did the Romans beat down guys with a 50+ lb weight advantage and 8+ inches of reach on them?
If there are 1000 manlets, it'll still suck to fight them even if you have 1000 giant men. A man is a man regardless of height or weight
 
Folks were smaller back then. Was pretty much only the Vikings with close to modern day size... that's why everyone wanted to hire Vikings as gaurds n soldiers.

1400 n earlier D. JOHNSON would be a average body build or bigger than average in most cultures
 
Most effective fighting style tho was what tbe Mongols used called hit n run .
 
Neanderthals are manlets who would whoop regular sized humans today:

Neanderthal-VS.-Homo-Sapien-2.jpg

Nah, modern human would pull out a gun and shoot his caveman ass.
 
Quite honestly in the case of the romans I suspect they had numerical superiority in most cases and they certainly had the ability to supply their armies with provisions in a way that the newer/smaller societies largely lacked.

Nope. If you look back through military history records, they were regularly outnumbered, in some cases by huge margins. They won by the quality of their troops, organisation, weaponry/armor and leadership.

A well organised and professional army that is well co-ordinated can wreck much larger numbers of disorganised rabble.
 
Nope. If you look back through military history records, they were regularly outnumbered, in some cases by huge margins. They won by the quality of their troops, organisation, weaponry/armor and leadership.

A well organised and professional army that is well co-ordinated can wreck much larger numbers of disorganised rabble.
The historical record isn’t super trustworthy though. The victors almost always said they were outnumbered by a ridiculous margin and lost very few men.

I don’t doubt that oftentimes the more settled societies were numerically outnumbered on the battlefield though. Obviously having supply trains, battlefield discipline, etc are force multipliers.

There is crazy variability to the enemies and situations though.
 
How are fans of MMA so stupid and make idiotic posts like this. Royce Gracie proved that it doesn't matter if you're the biggest guy if you knew strategies smarter than the bigger fighters who didn't really know what they were doing. Same applies between better trained Roman armies who also have bettter weapons and strategies. Please stop being knuckle dragging idiots with this manlet stupidity.
 
This is not what you are asking about. This was very recent, at least in comparison with what we are talking about here. But interesting when it comes to creating forces for your purpose:

And I know we have Italian members here. Note, I am not a historian. I got most of my stuff from first hand talk in Ethiopia. If Bacco or any other Italian members want to say something, that is great. Just something interesting from history and it is generally seen as tge underdog coming out on top.
 
Back
Top