The Ion Cannon coming to an orbit near you!

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
I think it creates the political problems by revolutionizing military weapons.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
The purpose of all weapons is to kill, maim, paralyze or utterly destroy. A weapon is not a weapon unless it is capable of posing a threat that is serious enough to deter potential aggressor. No one builds a weapon for peace time, they build it for war. The fact that the weapon is built during a time of peace doesn't change anything. A coffin is built for a living man, not a dead one. If we waited until someone died to build a coffin then there'd be a terrible delay before you could bury them. The coffins that are being manufactured somewhere today is being put together for someone is currently alive, maybe someone you know. You can't wait until a war breaks out to start building modern weapons. A military weapon is built for war. No one builds a weapon to ensure peace. A weapon is built to ensure superiority in a state of war. I agree with the military's philosophy of investing a huge amount of money into researching the "next step" in military grade weapons and defenses. The statement referring to "fighting the next war with the techniques and mechanisms of the last war" is quite true, that statement has been borne out throughout World War 1, World War 2, Korea and Vietnam. Generals are always prepared to fight the last war. The leaders' stubborn clinging to the tactics of Napoleon during WW1 cost millions of lives on both sides of the war because they failed to see the might of the machine gun. Several nations made the horrible mistake during WW2 by not realizing that the "lightning war" was the next step of combat, they were still stuck in the defensive stationary position philosophy. Every nation's military should be prepared to fight the next war with the most modern techniques available.
 

Fatcat

Swabbie
Banned
I'm sure the intention of orbital super-weapons is to eliminate political problems.
This just creates a new series of problems. There would be lots of competition to get the design for an orbital laser, and there would have to be a whole new series of treaties to keep them from being built, like the treaties the USA signed promising not to build satellite nuclear missile gantries.
 

Aplha 1-1

Spaceman
I seem to remember an important historical figure saying something along the lines of "the best way to stay at peace is to carry the biggest stick".
I see nothing wrong with the idea. If it wasn't for the military R&D programs you wouldn't be discussing the issue over the internet would you.
And besides, unless your in the habbit of pissing off global superpowers then you shouldn't be too worried about it.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
The purpose of all weapons is to kill, maim, paralyze or utterly destroy. A weapon is not a weapon unless it is capable of posing a threat that is serious enough to deter potential aggressor. No one builds a weapon for peace time, they build it for war. The fact that the weapon is built during a time of peace doesn't change anything. A coffin is built for a living man, not a dead one. If we waited until someone died to build a coffin then there'd be a terrible delay before you could bury them. The coffins that are being manufactured somewhere today is being put together for someone is currently alive, maybe someone you know. You can't wait until a war breaks out to start building modern weapons. A military weapon is built for war. No one builds a weapon to ensure peace.
That's not true at all. The Cold War was fought around the idea that the way to maintain peace was to build and improve weapons until they were so numerous and so terrible that their very existence would prevent the powers from going to war in the first place.

A weapon is built to ensure superiority in a state of war. I agree with the military's philosophy of investing a huge amount of money into researching the "next step" in military grade weapons and defenses. The statement referring to "fighting the next war with the techniques and mechanisms of the last war" is quite true, that statement has been borne out throughout World War 1, World War 2, Korea and Vietnam. Generals are always prepared to fight the last war. The leaders' stubborn clinging to the tactics of Napoleon during WW1 cost millions of lives on both sides of the war because they failed to see the might of the machine gun. Several nations made the horrible mistake during WW2 by not realizing that the "lightning war" was the next step of combat, they were still stuck in the defensive stationary position philosophy. Every nation's military should be prepared to fight the next war with the most modern techniques available.
I don't really see how this is connected to the discussion at hand, but it is worth cutting down to size.

The idea that "fighting the last war" is a negative or a criticism is ultimately nothing more than the sort of manufactured irony that pop culture likes to throw around -- it's not a legitimate complaint about military history.

Here's the problem: you're expecting a generation of leaders to know the future. That's not "stubborness" -- it's a good old fashioned impossibility. Tactics and the process by which they are refined are a science, analagous to any -ology you'd care to name. You don't discover something new and then complain that all previous research doesn't take it into account. Similarly, you don't call a generation of leaders who studied and trained and experienced nothing but tactics based around smoothebore rifles "stubborn" for not magically understanding what the effect of rifled muskets on the battlefield will be *until it happened*. You can't call a generation of leaders familiar with nothing but cavalry tactics and trench warfare "horribly mistaken" for not appreciating a form of warfare that didn't exist until it was being inflicted upon them. It's silly, tasteless irony repeated and transmuted into something sinister -- "oh, wouldn't it have been great if they'd known that" becomes "they should have known that!" You can't expect that at all... applying history in reverse doesn't make sense.
 

Cargoman

Spaceman
Yes there would be screaming from around the globe .
"they are doing this to dominate us" Blah , Blah ,Blah ...

However it is the exact same defensive messures that won the cold war .
"If" you are capable of stopping a missle from leaving your enemies air space
so that it does not harm you . Then there is little use of him building missles
to harm you , unless he is willing to build so many that he can overwhelm your
defenses . The cost of that is what broke the U.S.S.R. . Therefore by building and
deploying such defenses you move the world into a more peaceful age .

At least that is the goal . By eleminating force of arms as a way of settling differances ,
you force diplomacy to be used .
 

RogueBanshee

Rear Admiral
Cargoman said:
Yes there would be screaming from around the globe .
"they are doing this to dominate us" Blah , Blah ,Blah ...

However it is the exact same defensive messures that won the cold war .
"If" you are capable of stopping a missle from leaving your enemies air space
so that it does not harm you . Then there is little use of him building missles
to harm you , unless he is willing to build so many that he can overwhelm your
defenses . The cost of that is what broke the U.S.S.R. . Therefore by building and
deploying such defenses you move the world into a more peaceful age .

At least that is the goal . By eleminating force of arms as a way of settling differances ,
you force diplomacy to be used .
Great if someone can nuke their enemies and believes that their enemies can't nuke them in return then the option of using nukes becomes much more tempting. That the last thing we need.

Also isn't there some treaty that specfically forbids the development of orbital weapons?
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
Only nukes are prohibited from deployment in space, courtesy of the UN. The now-dead anti-satellite agreement between the (f)USSR and the US severely restricted anti-ICBM platforms (including but not limited to allowing only one anti-ICBM missile battery per country).
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Bandit LOAF said:
That's not true at all. The Cold War was fought around the idea that the way to maintain peace was to build and improve weapons until they were so numerous and so terrible that their very existence would prevent the powers from going to war in the first place.
No, that was a secondary intent that the media and polticians loved to tout. The purpose of a hydrogen bomb is detonate and cause widespread total destruction. Its psychological effect is certainly impressive but that is entirely secondary to its primary purpose.

I don't really see how this is connected to the discussion at hand, but it is worth cutting down to size.
If you'd like to split this discussion off, definitely do so I'm more than interested in continuing this discussion.

The idea that "fighting the last war" is a negative or a criticism is ultimately nothing more than the sort of manufactured irony that pop culture likes to throw around -- it's not a legitimate complaint about military history.
It is indeed a legitimate complaint about military history and especially so in the past 100 years. I know you're a student of history as am I, however I've studied both world wars closely. One thing is extremely apparent, in both wars, military leaders have stubbornly clung to past ideals of war that are negated by modern inventions. You want examples? Ok, here's one or two: It was General Haig of the British Allied command that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives in a vain charge en masse against the fortified german positions held with powerful machine guns. Haig, Foch, French, Nivelle and many of the other Allied commanders still believed in the principles of Napoleon in wielding massed charges at critical points in a defender's position. What they failed to see, and continued to fail to see for a good three years into the first world war was the might of the machine gun. A single machine gun could mow down a hundred men. It tipped the balances in the favor of the defenders by an exponential factor. It took a change in supreme command to Petain for the allies to revert their philosophy to a defensive holding position. This is an excellent example of military leaders clinging to principles of war made antiquated. As the saying goes, "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military is getting an old one out."

Ok, fast forward two decades. We see in France another example of military leaders clinging to ideas that are now rendered obsolete. The French didn't forget the lesson learned from World war 1. They saw the value in holding and maintaining a defensive position. They had sacrificed millions in charging enemy lines only to gain a few yards. They build strong, permanent defensive positions. The Nazis taught them a fatal lesson by simply avoiding the fortifications and going around them. As General Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to man's stupidity." Times and things had changed but the French military hadn't recognized those changes.


Here's the problem: you're expecting a generation of leaders to know the future. That's not "stubborness" -- it's a good old fashioned impossibility. Tactics and the process by which they are refined are a science, analagous to any -ology you'd care to name. You don't discover something new and then complain that all previous research doesn't take it into account. Similarly, you don't call a generation of leaders who studied and trained and experienced nothing but tactics based around smoothebore rifles "stubborn" for not magically understanding what the effect of rifled muskets on the battlefield will be *until it happened*. You can't call a generation of leaders familiar with nothing but cavalry tactics and trench warfare "horribly mistaken" for not appreciating a form of warfare that didn't exist until it was being inflicted upon them. It's silly, tasteless irony repeated and transmuted into something sinister -- "oh, wouldn't it have been great if they'd known that" becomes "they should have known that!" You can't expect that at all... applying history in reverse doesn't make sense
You're right, I can't say, "Oh, they should have known that" or "They're so stupid..." but I can certainly call those who didn't recognize and adapt, "Defeated."

In war you don't get many second chances, you have to learn to adapt. I'm not saying military leaders should be able to predict the future, but I do expect them to at the very least keep up with the current! The Allied leaders in WW1 took three years before they began to recognize the power of the machine gun, even longer before they recognized the tank. Three years?!!! After charge after charge after charge!

Fortunately the advantages of highly mobile force was recognized much quicker in World War 2, so they were definitely latching on faster. I dont' expect military leaders to predict the future, but they'd damn well better be running all kinds of scenarios in the best preparation they can or I'd want a new military commander.

P.S. As an aside just to prove that there are other examples in military history, Mithridates when taking his greek/persian army of a purported three hundred thousand against the legions of Sulla (an estimated 40,000 or so). Mithridates was just another example of a military leader who still believed in old antiquated tactics. His forces were well trained in the Phalanx, which had certain values and advantages but had been shown to be rendered obsolete by several engagements leading up to this battle. Sulla's forces were well trained and spread out loosely to face Mithridates phalanxes. End result...small army routed giant army, Sulla captured Mithridates, killed his family in front of him and forced him to pledge fealty to Rome. Rough lesson.
 

Halman

PSY-YI-YI
Maj.Striker said:
No, that was a secondary intent that the media and polticians loved to tout. The purpose of a hydrogen bomb is detonate and cause widespread total destruction. Its psychological effect is certainly impressive but that is entirely secondary to its primary purpose.
No, it was roughly the primary intent. Lemme paste the good bit.

Deterrence theory is a defensive strategy developed after World War II and used throughout the Cold War. It also figures somewhat in the current War on Terrorism. Under the strategy, a government builds up or maintains military forces and weapons so that other powers will not attack it in fear of a larger retaliation.

And you're right about weapons of war only being useful for killing. Someone should tell NASA to stop taking the explosive payloads off of rockets in order to put people in space. Since, you know, rockets exist to explode and cause widespread destruction.


It is indeed a legitimate complaint about military history and especially so in the past 100 years. I know you're a student of history as am I, however I've studied both world wars closely. One thing is extremely apparent, in both wars, military leaders have stubbornly clung to past ideals of war that are negated by modern inventions. You want examples? Ok, here's one or two: It was General Haig of the British Allied command that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives in a vain charge en masse against the fortified german positions held with powerful machine guns. Haig, Foch, French, Nivelle and many of the other Allied commanders still believed in the principles of Napoleon in wielding massed charges at critical points in a defender's position. What they failed to see, and continued to fail to see for a good three years into the first world war was the might of the machine gun. A single machine gun could mow down a hundred men. It tipped the balances in the favor of the defenders by an exponential factor. It took a change in supreme command to Petain for the allies to revert their philosophy to a defensive holding position. This is an excellent example of military leaders clinging to principles of war made antiquated. As the saying goes, "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military is getting an old one out."
(I love when people say they're a student of history, because it makes me not feel bad for being a jerk)

You're right, it was downright stupid to use the only force available in any quantity(unmounted infantry, cavalry falling into disuse) to try and win the war.(Which is done by breaking through lines and taking objectives. But that is antiquated, and no one does that anymore)
I'd also argue that they, infact, did see the might of the machine gun against infantry.


Ok, fast forward two decades. We see in France another example of military leaders clinging to ideas that are now rendered obsolete. The French didn't forget the lesson learned from World war 1. They saw the value in holding and maintaining a defensive position. They had sacrificed millions in charging enemy lines only to gain a few yards. They build strong, permanent defensive positions. The Nazis taught them a fatal lesson by simply avoiding the fortifications and going around them. As General Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to man's stupidity." Times and things had changed but the French military hadn't recognized those changes.
Yeah, even though the Maginot Line worked exactly as it was designed to do. The fact that the French would have had less than a week to mobilize their entire army and respond to the invasion doesn't factor in at all. (Also, the Germans invaded through a former ally of France, so the main bulk of the invasion came against a weaker and hastily built extension of the line. Also, the Ardennes forrest was believed to be a natural defensive feature. But the line did work, since it the Germans didn't actually attack it and break through.)

A much better example would have been this..
(The continued use of tanks solely as infantry support by the British)

You're right, I can't say, "Oh, they should have known that" or "They're so stupid..." but I can certainly call those who didn't recognize and adapt, "Defeated."
Thats not really a clever observation. I can't say they were stupid, but I can the losers defeated! In many cases, it isn't even possible for the losing side in an uneven conflict to 'react and adapt'. How the hell do stone age south americans react to the rifle? I guess they all get the chicken pox and die. In most cases where the gap in tactics and equipment is large, it's so large as to negate any amount of responding and adapting they could do.


In war you don't get many second chances, you have to learn to adapt. I'm not saying military leaders should be able to predict the future, but I do expect them to at the very least keep up with the current! The Allied leaders in WW1 took three years before they began to recognize the power of the machine gun, even longer before they recognized the tank. Three years?!!! After charge after charge after charge!
I feel I need to bring up that Allied leaders were rather quicker than 3 years in their response to machine guns. Hence the massive artillery bombardments and the concentration of forces. If you have a better reaction, given the fact we're observers after the fact with all the information and the benefit of seeing how everything ended up, lets hear it. God Bless Armchair Generals.

Fortunately the advantages of highly mobile force was recognized much quicker in World War 2, so they were definitely latching on faster. I dont' expect military leaders to predict the future, but they'd damn well better be running all kinds of scenarios in the best preparation they can or I'd want a new military commander.
It's rather impossible to prepare against something like the blitzkrieg when Germans haven't invented it yet. Training reinforces whatever the modern doctrine is, so now you're encouraging them to do what you argued against earlier?

P.S. As an aside just to prove that there are other examples in military history, Mithridates when taking his greek/persian army of a purported three hundred thousand against the legions of Sulla (an estimated 40,000 or so). Mithridates was just another example of a military leader who still believed in old antiquated tactics. His forces were well trained in the Phalanx, which had certain values and advantages but had been shown to be rendered obsolete by several engagements leading up to this battle. Sulla's forces were well trained and spread out loosely to face Mithridates phalanxes. End result...small army routed giant army, Sulla captured Mithridates, killed his family in front of him and forced him to pledge fealty to Rome. Rough lesson.
Wow, an example from the classical world in your argument about dropping antiquated things.

Anyway, that isn't really a good example. Greek phalanxes were as big a part of ancient greeks as eating olives and drowning mathematicians. Ignoring the fact that no one ever really developed a great response to the legions, this is more of a bronze age/iron age thing.
 

Fatcat

Swabbie
Banned
I see nothing wrong with the idea. If it wasn't for the military R&D programs you wouldn't be discussing the issue over the internet would you.
Would you like to have some other country with an orbital battery of nuclear weapons or an Ion Cannon? I think not.
 

Halman

PSY-YI-YI
Fatcat said:
Would you like to have some other country with an orbital battery of nuclear weapons or an Ion Cannon? I think not.
Thats silly. The US doesn't have to worry about that happening, and we don't have to worry about others not wanting us to have one.. LOAF put it best.
<LOAF> Once you have a space laser you can offend whoever you want.
 

Dishwasher

Commodore
Halman said:
Thats silly. The US doesn't have to worry about that happening, and we don't have to worry about others not wanting us to have one.. LOAF put it best.
<LOAF> Once you have a space laser you can offend whoever you want.
With the US economy being solely fuelled by a out of hand european/japanese loan.. Yeah.. I would hate to see the US have this kind of weapons. That country is one big disaster waiting to happen.. god knows what they'll do when their economy finally plunges in on itself... oh well.. any moment now.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Halman said:
No, it was roughly the primary intent. Lemme paste the good bit.

Deterrence theory is a defensive strategy developed after World War II and used throughout the Cold War. It also figures somewhat in the current War on Terrorism. Under the strategy, a government builds up or maintains military forces and weapons so that other powers will not attack it in fear of a larger retaliation.
I understand the reasoning behind deterrence theory, I'm not arguing its values or merits. I'm talking soley about the specific primary purpose of a weapon. I stand by my earlier statement. Strategies as to how to employ a weapon and to what effects a particular weapon may have (other than its particular destructive/paralyzing actions) are neat to discuss but are purely secondary. Granted a weapons psychological effect may be far greater than its actual destructive ability, we see several examples of this in history as well. Flaming pigs were a great terror weapon to be used on enemy armored Elephants...the fear incited was far more destructive than the actual damage caused by the flaming pig itself. I would argue that this was created and intended to be a terror tactic, not to be used as would a traditional offensive weapon. This is a personal opinion, you dont' have to agree.

And you're right about weapons of war only being useful for killing. Someone should tell NASA to stop taking the explosive payloads off of rockets in order to put people in space. Since, you know, rockets exist to explode and cause widespread destruction.
I'm not sure you understand what a rocket is? Here's a helpful little link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket.
You'll note the distinction they make between military purposes and civilian. I will also argue you further on this and say that the first successful idea and utilization of rockets was in fact to be used as a weapon (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket#Origins_of_rocketry). Further experimentation led to other useful deployments but the original intent was indeed as a weapon. I think your point here in invalid.

(I love when people say they're a student of history, because it makes me not feel bad for being a jerk)
I don't think you're being a jerk. You're arguing your opinion, you haven't insulted me, called me names, or thrown in wild harangues so I'd say you're being very level headed in your dispute.


You're right, it was downright stupid to use the only force available in any quantity(unmounted infantry, cavalry falling into disuse) to try and win the war.(Which is done by breaking through lines and taking objectives. But that is antiquated, and no one does that anymore)
No, I'm not saying they were stupid in using what they had available to fight their war, I'm saying they were stupid in that they didn't realize how ineffective their measure were soon enough. A good resource to read that covers this quite well is the "The War in Outline: 1914-1918" By Cpt. B. H. Liddell Hart (a respected soldier with some great experience on his side). In fact there were only two major offensives in World War 1 that didn't carry a higher attacker casualty rate than defensive casualties. The fact that the Allied commanders didn't recognize this vital statistic sooner was an oversight that has been universally criticized by almost every major historian since the first great war. Generals like Foch and Haig have had their actions and orders dissected a million different ways and their explanations as to why they stuck to their offenses remain pitifully weak even based in the light of knowledge available to them at the time.

I'd also argue that they, infact, did see the might of the machine gun against infantry.
I think you'll note that if you read a couple of books, "The History of the Tank" and "The Tank in Action" you'll note how hard the army leaders fought against the introduction of the tank and measures they took to reduce its production. Sir. Winston Churchill was one of the few brilliant innovators that understood its potential and he fought for it tooth and nail. Had there not been that handicapping action the tank might have seen a much more powerful initiation. That is subjective reasoning however. My point here was that the allies threw massive charges of infantry against the machine gun long after they realized how devastating it was. That stubborn clinging to the idea of an offensive war was often times nigh suicidal in most of their offenses were nearly turned into routs. Petain, when he became the supreme commander (of sorts), realized the difference and shifted the allies into a defensive mindset...the turning point in the war. From that point onward the Germans were forced to launch costly (although much more effective attacks because of their excellent planning and foresight) offensives that drained them of critical resources and manpower.



Yeah, even though the Maginot Line worked exactly as it was designed to do. The fact that the French would have had less than a week to mobilize their entire army and respond to the invasion doesn't factor in at all. (Also, the Germans invaded through a former ally of France, so the main bulk of the invasion came against a weaker and hastily built extension of the line. Also, the Ardennes forrest was believed to be a natural defensive feature. But the line did work, since it the Germans didn't actually attack it and break through.)
Wrong, France declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland in 1939, (I believe it was in October) Germany didn't invade France until 1940. (I would plug in some dates but not really feeling like hunting those dates down for you. Feel free to research them if you think I'm wrong). The line actually didn't work either, the southern arm of the German advance did, in fact, penetrate the Maginot line. The point in this facet of the argument was that a fixed position is pointless if the enemy can simply go around it. There was ample warning of a German advance through Belgium in advance thanks to several conspiratorial German officers providing notice to both France and England in advance, in addition to the capture of a German officer with the invasion plans by Belgium forces weeks prior to the attack.


Thats not really a clever observation. I can't say they were stupid, but I can the losers defeated! In many cases, it isn't even possible for the losing side in an uneven conflict to 'react and adapt'. How the hell do stone age south americans react to the rifle? I guess they all get the chicken pox and die. In most cases where the gap in tactics and equipment is large, it's so large as to negate any amount of responding and adapting they could do.
Well I can only respond to that as how I would react if I were in their case. I would switch to guerrila attacks at night, hit supply lines, commando raids and generally do everything I could to avoid a pitched traditional fight. The point is...if something is working after a couple of times you'd damn well better change something! As for inferior resources versus larger and better equipped enemies? Let's look at Israel in the war for independence of 1948. Let's see, 5 Arab nations against one nation that hasn't even been a nation for what two hours? Israel had no tanks, like three planes and just a few guns. Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc had trained equipped armies. What do you do against that? You make molotov cocktails and you use a hell of lot of shrewd tactics and you win! That's impressive even today. I've given scenarios that weren't flexible enough to adapt soon enough, but I can also give some sterling examples of flexible winning tactics as well.


I feel I need to bring up that Allied leaders were rather quicker than 3 years in their response to machine guns. Hence the massive artillery bombardments and the concentration of forces. If you have a better reaction, given the fact we're observers after the fact with all the information and the benefit of seeing how everything ended up, lets hear it. God Bless Armchair Generals.
True, they did learn...slowly. However they learned from the Germans and how they prepared for their (typically) superbly orchestrated attacks. Their own concentration of artillery however was usually wide spread along a wide front that was much too broad to be effective. Whereas the Germans would typically favor a three pronged assault on narrow engagements areas where enemy positions were believed to be weak, the Allies believed in the "one quick blow" solution. German assaults were typically well hidden in the weeks leading up to the attack, (i.e. troops moved under the cover of darkness, or in small groups during the day). Allies offensives were painfully obvious. Massing large numbers in certain target areas were huge warning signs to the defenders, allowing ample time for reinforcing to take place. The Allies (as a whole) were very slow to learn this despite multiple warnings from the commanding officers to their staff commanders.


It's rather impossible to prepare against something like the blitzkrieg when Germans haven't invented it yet. Training reinforces whatever the modern doctrine is, so now you're encouraging them to do what you argued against earlier?
No, I suggested that they train to engage the enemy weapons that they would likely face. Just how exactly did they expect the Germans to use their tanks? I'm not trying to say, they should have done this and they should have done that...but its obvious they should have done something. There's lots of courses they could have taken. Quarto suggested one in a thread sometime back about challenging Germany earlier, say in 1936 when Germany reoccupied the Rhine. There's several theories that could be applied. I'm just saying, the French became too confident in their maginot line. In doing so they neglected a lesson from history there as well...WW1 started with Germany invading Belgium, they took the same route in WW2...


Wow, an example from the classical world in your argument about dropping antiquated things.

Anyway, that isn't really a good example. Greek phalanxes were as big a part of ancient greeks as eating olives and drowning mathematicians. Ignoring the fact that no one ever really developed a great response to the legions, this is more of a bronze age/iron age thing.
I think the German tribes came up with a pretty good answer to the legion. Hannibal had some success as well (though that was before the true formation of the "legion" created by the Marius reforms).
 
Top