User blog comment:Deathblade 100/Conquerors, Legions and Blood: Roman Empire vs Alternate Aztecs (Crusaders Kings 2)/@comment-27358240-20200213133649/@comment-39845974-20200213191132

While I can see were your coming from, I've gotta call you out on something. I respect your conclusion, but your rant is very much so flawed in what is states. You said that the Romans only ever won battles against larger groups when being commanded by Caesar, with you Saying "Let's not forget, however, that just because the Romans could beat the Gauls when fully outnumbered, it didn't mean they always did. The only time this happened was under the military genius of Gaius Julius Caesar, greatest Roman general to ever be birthed from the empire/republic. ". But was a basic search of history will tell you, this isn't true. A prime example of this is the battle of Aquae Sextiae, a battle which took place years before Caesar was born, were the Romans won against insane odds (at most 40 thousands romans against estimates reaching 200 thousands Germanics). And the Romans won that battle dramatically, either killing of capturing like 99.9% of the Germanics. And like I said, Julius Caesar hadn't even been born at this point. We also see battles like Ilipa and Zama were the Romans humiliated even organized and well trained groups of out numbering enemies. Estimates say that the Romans were out numbered by between 10 to 20 thousand enemies at Zama, and estimates say that they were out numbered by around 25 thousand men at Ilipa based on Polybius' records, and since he lived closer in time to the battle I'm more likely to side with him over Livy. And these are only a few examples of many battles were the Romans won against much greater odds without the help of "The greatest Romans general to ever be birthed from the empire/republic" to put it in your words. I also find that your roasting of Boudicca was a little over the top, but I also kinda agree with you on that front.