Greetings,
First of all let me say I'm very impressed by this forum and the range of knowledge shared here. I'm by no means no expert on the Roman army or Roman history in general; on the contrary I have just recently taken a more profound interest in this period, but there's one question that has been bugging me for some time now: why did the Romans so often (it seems) have difficulties when facing the supposedly inferior "barbarian" armies, mainly the Celtic and German tribes?
After reading up on Roman history and their military exploits, I'm under the impression that while the Romans fared very well against other Mediterranian armies (such as the neighbouring Italian tribes, the Hellenistic armies of Macedonia and the near East, and in the end even the Carthaginians and Parthians) they had a tougher time beating less advanced peoples in Central Europe. I'm a bit perplexed by this to be honest, especially since I have grown up being fed the notion (by documentaries, magazines, books, education) that the Roman armies were especially successful against "primitive barbarians".
Nontheless, I keep reading about Allia, Arretium, Faesulae, Noreia and Arausio. I'd also like to add the battles of the third Servile war here where even the post-Marian legions were humiliated by "mobs" of slaves. What are the explanations to these defeats? The Cimbrian war in particular stands out as a disaster, as the Cimbri-Teutones coallition seems to have defeated Roman armies with ease and at will until they went up against Marius.
Yet these warriors along with the Celtic tribes are described not only as primitive in regards to military technology and organization, but also individual-minded warriors who fought for personal glory and thus neglected co-ordinated manoeuvres and tactics.
With all their superior weaponry, armour, command structure, discipline and organization, one would expect the Romans to easily crush such a "primitive" opponent even under unfavorable terms and circumstances (bad commanders, outnumbered, enemy ambush etc). In comparison to these examples, the defeat in the Teutoburger forest is way more comprehensible as the thinly spread-out Legions were battered and worn down by repeated ambushes in difficult terrain after several days of heavy fighting against an enemey commander who knew the Roman art of war. In the above examples though, the "barbarian" hosts seem to have destroyed Roman armies "fair and square" in the open, in a matter of hours.
So what went wrong? Could it be that our understanding of Celtic and Germanic warfare is more deeply flawed than commonly thought (based on Roman propaganda)? Were Republican Roman legions really always that well armed, well-deployed and well-disciplined? I have a very, very hard time believing that individual warrior-skills or some kind of romantcized Furor Celtica could trump superior weapons and tactics, and that it must be more to it. I hope some of you guys could enlighten me on this topic. Please note that my intention is not to provoke you or start a flame war with my "Roman-bashing", but my purpose with starting this thread is to learn and get educated.
/Mikael
I think Romans had problems with Celts mostly at the begining, when Rome was still a small town with some agriculture lands around in the middle of Italy. Once they started to grow they administrated them a solid defeat and conquered any Celtic lands and people they thought is worthy. Surely Celts werent as barbaric as some may think but neither a big problem after Rome get on her feet and start the expansion.
I mean if we look at the purposed numbers involved in Caesar vs Vercingetorix or the Boudica rebellion we see that Romans were badly outnumbered but they still crushed the enemies armies
About Germans, the problem was more like the comand structure and some internal problems that lead to the disaster at Arausio. After that and after Romans fixed that and appointed an able (I can say a great) general as Marius they easily defeated the much larger Germanic tribal armies.
Caesar seem to not have huge problems in defeating the Germanic tribes that he clashed with (Suebii of Ariovist and such).
Before Teutoborg Roman armies reached (I think even passed over) Elbe river. After Teutoborg Germanicus reached the North Sea and defeated every time the armies of Arminius.
Even in III century AD Roman armies were traveling as far as northern Germany and were beating the Germanic tribes there. The big part of Germania over the Rhine was usually not included as Roman province because it wasn't considered quite worthy. The investment needed to make that a clasic Roman province was considered to big compared with what they could extract from there, as resources and economy,
Teutoborg was an exception as Arminius was a trusted Roman and considered loyal by Varrus. I think Arminius had even the rank of Tribune at some point, or officer in Roman army. That helped him a lot I think, but still he wasnt able to resist to the onslaught done by Germanicus and his army, despite he had under his command most of the Germanic tribes (except Marcommani)
Then Spartacus, the leader of the slaves army was again a special character. He was a Thracian warrior, so already a very good soldier and accustomed to Thracian way of warfare. Then he served as a auxiliar in Roman army I think, and trained and get used with the Roman way of doing war (as Arminius was too, later).
In my opinion Spartacus was trully one of the greatest commanders of ancient times. He managed to rise an army of tens of thousands (if not more then 100,000 at some point), going from 73 people (including his wife). He bring those people together, men, women, probably elderly and kids too, various nations and beliefs, and take care of their needs as well (food and shelter) and defeated too several times the Romans, including some consular and proconsular armies.
But he used the experience of both Thracian and Roman warfare, combined guerilla and surprise attacks with Roman organization and training, knowing as well how Romans will probably act.
I think that if those previous 2 army corps that departed from his army would have been with him in the last battle he had very good chances to defeat Crassus as well.
As a conclusion, Romans were maybe defeated or surprised at first, then rise up and won whatever war they had with their enemies. The worse defeates they suffered when Rome was still small or less refined as military, or when the enemy had some intimate knowledge of how Roman army work, and even trained his own troops in Roman style, and was able to combine what he had good on his own with what he learned from the Romans.
Sure, I am not talking here about the (very) late period of Roman empire, when the economic (including the fall of commerce with Asia and Far East) and other internal problems (including the power struggle betwen various generals, wannabe emperors and emperors) weakened them too much and allowed those to combine with external pressure and bring them down eventually
Very often it was a question of leadership. Romans were seldom outfought but they sometimes got outgeneraled. No matter how disciplined and expert your army is, if your commander is a fool and the enemy is capably led, you're going to lose. This was especially true of the Republic, with its amateur political generals who had to surrender their commands after a year. On top of that, propraetors and proconsuls had many duties besides the military, and were distracted by the need to conduct courts and colonial administration. Only in the last century of the Republic, with the rise of virtual warlords who spent many years with their legions, winning their confidence and loyalty, did this begin to change, though at some cost to the Republic itself.
But the political nature of these armies was also a strength. The Romans were the first people to understand warfare as an extension of politics. Their victories over the "barbarians" were as much political as military. They spent more time negotiating alliances than fighting. Caesar's conquests were never a matter of Romans against Gauls. They were about Romans and their Gallic allies against other Gauls. Romans always tried to fight in alliance with other nations and peoples. At the end of the game, it was always the Romans who picked up all the marbles. This was the triumph of politics.
One overlooked fact, when comparing Roman legions is amount of experience they had. Legions that crushed Macedonians at Cynoscephalae, were full of Zama veterans, soldiers with years of combat experience. Same soldiers were present also at Magnesia.
For Pydna, new generation of Romans was drafted, veterans present, were men with combat experience from small war in Iberia, but they had no experience facing disciplined enemy in large battle. For that particular reason, a lot of older men (men who fought at Magnesia and Thermopylae) were drafted again into legions, and spread out across the maniples to train younger men.
Anyway, armies that faced Germans had no real previous combat experience, even veterans (Principes and Triarii) had no real combat experience, so they were not as effective as Legions full of Zama veterans.. Only when Marius reformed legions and enforced combat training things improved. For example, in new legion, only men with real combat experience were put into prominent Veteran cohorts, such position was not guaranteed just based on age.
The Romans lost plenty of battles throughout their history: there was seldom a period when they didn't suffer some military reverse. In an age of hand to hand fighting, with not much in way of battlefield technology, even a well trained and equipped army could be beaten.
So the idea that the Roman army was an invincible military machine doesn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny. What the Romans did have, and what made them so effective in the long run, was an unbeatable supply and logistics network that allowed them to replace losses and reinforce armies in the field.
Even after some of the terrible defeats of the Punic wars, or Varus's disaster, or Abrittus in AD251 when the emperor himself was killed, the Romans still managed to rebuild their armies and regain lost territory. They could also learn from their mistakes, and were very tenacious. So while the Romans often lost battles, they seldom lost wars...
Quote:One overlooked fact, when comparing Roman legions is amount of experience they had. Legions that crushed Macedonians at Cynoscephalae, were full of Zama veterans, soldiers with years of combat experience. Same soldiers were present also at Magnesia.
For Pydna, new generation of Romans was drafted, veterans present, were men with combat experience from small war in Iberia, but they had no experience facing disciplined enemy in large battle. For that particular reason, a lot of older men (men who fought at Magnesia and Thermopylae) were drafted again into legions, and spread out across the maniples to train younger men.
Anyway, armies that faced Germans had no real previous combat experience, even veterans (Principes and Triarii) had no real combat experience, so they were not as effective as Legions full of Zama veterans.. Only when Marius reformed legions and enforced combat training things improved. For example, in new legion, only men with real combat experience were put into prominent Veteran cohorts, such position was not guaranteed just based on age.
Like the rest of Rome's history, the late 2nd Cent BC saw Rome in a constant state of warfare. Those that fought at Arausio against the Cimbri/Teutones would have included veterans of the Gallic wars of the 120s, the various occupation armies in Gaul and Spain squashing rebellions and banditry, the wars against the Thracians and Scordisci in Illyria, as well as campaigns to quell uprisings in Sardinia and of course Jugurtha's War in Numidia. Further in 109, a number of previous laws that had restricted service limits were rescinded, which would have filled the Legions with even more veterans (though many unwillingly conscripted).
Thanks for your replies, they're much appreciated!
Lack of experience among the recruits seems like a plausible explanation, although I see that this hypothesis is being questioned. I totally agree that the Romans seldomly lost wars and that their perhaps most important advantage was their ability to raise new armies even after devastating losses. Still though I do expect more from an army that went to such lengths to arm, train and organize their armies. To me, the legions (both manipular and post-Marian) with all their highly developed armour, weaponry, training, command structure and also numbers really do seem invincible, at least in theory.
Meanwhile, the "Barbarian" armies are almost portrayed as some kind of primitive hunter-gatherer war parties straight out of the Paleolithic. However, judging by how these societies functioned when they went to war they seem to be cut of a very different cloth. Apart from the fact that they managed to beat the Romans on a number of occasions, Celts and Germans obviously had the capacity - not only in manpower but in organizational skills - to field armies large enough to stand up to large Roman armies (although I put little faith in reports of hundreds of thousands of men as claimed in ancient chronicles, they must have been fairly large, even by ancient standards). Keeping such a large body of men together and let alone manoeuvre them in battle would require a pretty well-developed command-structure. (Even in the late Middle Ages and up until the early Modern period, most western European commanders had difficulties to muster and control armies of >20,000 men)
I will refrain from pushing the relativist notion that the "Barbarians" were supposedly just as advanced (or even more advanced) than the Romans, but their military technology was apparently good enough for the Romans and Greeks to copy - I'm thinking of Celtic/Gallic coolus-type helms, maille and thureos-type shields (please correct me if I'm wrong).
So would it be wrong to assume that "Barbarian" armies were more evenly matched with the Romans than commonly thought, not only in terms of military technology but also on an organizational and tactical level? Besides that, are there any signs of a decline of the Roman army after the late 2nd century BC which could explain their difficulties against the Celtiberians, Numidians and Celto-Germans? After all, there's at least one generation between the third Punic war and Noreia.
Quote:So would it be wrong to assume that "Barbarian" armies were more evenly matched with the Romans than commonly thought, not only in terms of military technology but also on an organizational and tactical level? Besides that, are there any signs of a decline of the Roman army after the late 2nd century BC which could explain their difficulties against the Celtiberians, Numidians and Celto-Germans? After all, there's at least one generation between the third Punic war and Noreia.
Most online sources gloss over Roman military history between the 3rd Punic Wars and the Numantine Wars and the Jugurthine and Cimbri Wars. Don't ask me why, but a quick google of Roman wars rarely shows any campaigns. But that isn't to say much didn't happen during that time period. The 120s saw massive campaigning in Transalpine Gaul, where numerous Gallic tribes were defeated and a whole new Roman province was formed (as well as military colonies such as Aquae Sextiae and Narbo). Additionally, during this time there included occupation duty in Spain, which was never boring, crushing revolts in Sardinia, fighting invading Thracians and Scordisci tribes in Illyria and Macedonia. All told, Rome at the tail end of the 2nd Cent. BC was just as busy as ever, if not more so, as many of Rome's provinces needed not only occupation armies for internal security but additional armies for fighting off invading tribes on the borders.
I think the military issues faced by Rome during that time period were two fold. One, is that at this point the Republic had essentially turned into an oligarch, where only a few of the most powerful families could produce Consuls (and thus generals and senior governors). This let to a stagnation of military ability, as money and ancestry do not always equal competence. Second, in a very short period of time, in the last two decades of the 2nd Century BC, Rome had at least seven consular armies and at least one praetorian army either destroyed or heavily defeated in battles against its various enemies. While not as bad as during the 2nd Punic War, it was a time where the average Roman would have probably lost many relatives in fruitless campaigns. Some due to incompetence, some through bad luck, some through skill enemies.
This negative public opinion culminated after the battle of Arausio, which for the Roman People (and even the Senate), was the last straw. This desperation allowed a relative nobody ancestry-wise like Marius to be elected as Consul in absentia, and for his five consecutive Consulships (104-100). Additionally, the necessity for victory, coupled with a few new military reforms instituted in the closing of the 2nd Cent BC, along with successes by the armies which used those reforms, led to a overall reform of the Roman military and politics. Many of these military traditions, like a focus on training, coupled with maintaining discipline, were adopted by many of the more successful generals of the 1st Cent BC. Those who spent the time to train and organize their armies often had success. Those who didn't often lost. Meanwhile, Rome won some battles and lost some too.
Taxiarches, (would like to have your name normally by forum rules we have to put t in the signature)
you can see how effective propaganda the romans had, it works even today, I fully agree with Nathan when he said the never lost a war even though they lost battles, if you look at facts this is true, if you look at propaganda, that still lives through the modern historians, they only see the wars and not the battle.
It's my opinion that amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics. You can have the most experienced, best-equipped army that time and money allows, but if you can't get the crap where it needs to be, then you might as well ask for peace. Think of WWII; that was a war that one could argue was decided in the factories. The M4 Sherman tank was entirely outclassed by the Pz. VI Tiger, but the US could and did build twenty Shermans for every Tiger, and got them where they needed to be. The Liberty ships probably more than anything else put the US on track to win the war.
To make this more relevant, the Romans simply had better logistics. Their road system comes readily to mind; they could get their crap to battle much easier than their enemies, which was part of them being able to simply outspend all their enemies.
I don't know a whole lot about the slow fall of Rome, so I won't comment on that. Feel free to disagree with me or call BS if you see it, I'm not a military officer :-)
To augment what Nathan said, the Romans were to the best of my knowledge the only people of antiquity who were not demoralized by defeat. They did not consider defeat a sign o the gods' displeasure. They knew that defeat came about because men made mistakes - tactical, strategic, political or other. After a defeat, they analyzed what had happened and tried not to make the same mistake again.
Unlike the Spartans, they did not cultivate a myth of absolute invincibility. The Spartans actually seemed invincible until Leuctra, where their myth was shattered. After that they suffered defeats regularly. The Greeks no longer deemed them invincible and neither did the Spartans themselves. The romans always came back from defeat, even multiple, successive shattering defeats in the 2nd Punic War, and plodded on to win the war. That is what kept them the dominant power for so long.
Quote:... I fully agree with Nathan when he said the never lost a war even though they lost battles, ...
Nathan said "they seldomly lost wars". Because they lost some!
just a few examples:
- Augustus lost the war against the Himyar in Southern Arabia.
- Tiberius lost the war against Arminius
- Trajan lost the war against the parthians.
And as already mentioned above, the romans lost battles frequently. Against barbarians they did not so bad, especially if you look to the late roman empire.
Thank you for valuable input. If we focus on battlefield conditions, am I right in my assumption that the Romans were more successful when fighting other "civilized" opponents (with the exception of the Carthaginians)? To my (limited) knowledge, the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean stands out as a catalogue of victories against once powerful military states like Macedonia and the Seleucid empire.
Although I’m fully aware of the fact that there are more to winning wars than simply winning battles, the legions’ performance against these opponents truly are impressive. Thus it comes to me as a surprise that they at the same time failed against supposedly inferior “Barbarian” enemies. Sure, the Romans’ most often won in the end, but not until they had been taught a valuable lesson through defeat. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this does not seem to have been the case when they fought their Mediterranean neighbors. Even in their initial defeats against Pyrrhus, the Roman armies were never completely destroyed and they still managed to deal a heavy blow to their opponents in the moment of defeat. When facing the northern “Barbarians” and rebellious slaves however, one gets the impression that the legions more often than not were completely annihilated with few casualties on the behalf of the victors.
The problem is that we are talking about a long time period here... Romans had much problems with earlier Celts, Celtiberians, Chartage and Pyrrhus, and that is all before the Marian reforms. The only opponent they had few problems with seem to be Greeks and Macedonians, and I'm not sure if that tells more about Romans or Greeks/Macedonians. In the 2nd century BC little was left of former Hellenistic glory, they were too deep in their internal hellenistic wars, they relied on phalanx in battles against similar opponents and they forgot how to do proper combined arms tactics of Alexander and his generals... And post Marius Romans seem to have little problems with barbarians...
Just to make sure you are aware the term "barbarian" doesn't have anything to do with "primitive". It comes from the Greek "barbaros" and more or less means people who don't speak Greek because foreign languages sound like people saying 'barbar bar barbarbar' . My wife isn't awake so I don't know the Latin but the Romans applied the idea as well. Non Latin speakers are barbarians or to use a better non direct translation of "foreigner".