why the fuck don't we have these yet

your argument against is 1) trying to prove a negative which science doesnt' allow and 2) subjective as just explained

this @Jokerfaic

clearly meant to be carried and moved with those handles

in order for there to exist a 'burden of proof' something MUST be proveABLE

Because static ground infantry in modern combat is a death sentence.

Roman infantry really wasnt that good

Auxillary's

@ManAnimal how was that proving a negative. God need not apply to anything

demading someone prove the improvable is like asking one to divide by 0

>static
what part of carried and moved wasn't clear

N U T @Skellybrote

it's undefined by that ruleset

roman infantyr was good when you were fighting other infantry

They just got their foot in the door when everyone else was mostly tribal and disorganized

Modern javelin support

Armored static infantry is Prone to IEDs, drone strikes, artillery, etc

Titus

Get the Pila

but as you can see not agaisnt horses

When other people got organized, or had calvary they got fucked

>static
nigger what are not getting about CARRIED and MOVED

old gunnery legionnare

YESSSS

just look at how often the persians decimated the romans with their cataphracts

YES

Roman infantry was fatal to disorganized mongal hordes.

MONGOLIA STRONK

@Skellybrote 40K Roman Legions?

Which happened to be 90% of their opposition

@Mersenne "disorganized"

Ah yes argument by fallacy good to know God is that important for you to defend when he is intangible and unproven

thats just wrong

part of the disconnect is because you don't seem to reconginze the difference between things 'science doesn't know' and 'things YOU don't know'

especially when talking about the mongols

@Auctor no just modern legionnares