Re: In A Perfect Game: SG/DS/RPG's - Experience Vs. Training

 Karl

 As we do not know that much about the Gauls or Germans, it is difficult
to
 judge how much experience or what kind of training they had.

Perhaps so but allot can be ascertained by the methods and evolution
of the Roman units that were said to have adopted many of their enemies
tactics and weapons.

 The battle of Teutoburger Wald was more of a large-scale ambush in
terrain
 where the Romans could not deploy properly. Plus, the battle-site has
been
 found and the Germans had prepared the area with field fortifications.
 Remember, too, that their leader, Arminius, had served as an officer in
the
 Roman army, as, probably, did some of his men. However, they can not
have
 all been trained in the Roman manner.

I think that we are confusing types of training for the generic term
training.
There are many cases were well trained units were outclassed by their
opposition because the enemy used completely unknown methods.The
advantage (over time) to disciplined trained units is their
adaptability. In
fact
when you look at history it is the people that stick to the one tried
and
true
method no matter what, usually suffer defeat at some point. This can of
course happen to trained units also (Little Bighorn, Isandhlwana) but in
the
norm the better trained and equipped units win. This is also apparent
with
battles involving troops of the same tech level. The excellent troops of
the
British Expeditionary Force in the skirmish before Mons gave their
opponents an agonizing encounter with British rapid fire marksmanship.
Sadly these fine troops were wasted and were replaced by half trained
conscripts directly leading to more losses. I do believe that training
can
overcome most obstacles and a well trained unit is it's own best morale
builder. I say this knowing full well that training is but one fascit to
the
morale
of a unit and there are many others as a leader that you must deal
with....

Don