+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: When was Roman army at the height of its power? (/showthread.php?tid=22504)
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - ValentinianVictrix - 11-26-2013
I just do not know what version of Ammianus some if the posters such as Diocle are reading because it's obviously not the same as my three volume Loeb translation! Ammianus gives many accounts of Late Roman armies numbering well over 20000 men. The army under Julian's command at Argentoratum numbered between 12000 and 15000, and Ammianus implied that was not the normal sized army used on a campaign, it being considered too small for the task. Indeed, from Ammianus it can be inferred that a typical field army on campaign was approximately 25000 men strong. Ammianus mentions a number of battles where the 'barbarian' armies were 30000 strong, typical barbarian 'units' being between 3000-6000 strong.
Simpler helmets and weapons do not mean an army was poor as a result, it just proves how efficient the Romans became at mass production. As Evan pointed out, barbarians had served in Roman armies since the time of Caesar, if not before, so by that standard were those armies also poor?
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-27-2013
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/home.html
I use this one, great translation too.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Ovid - 11-27-2013
I voted Augustan because well that was when they were at the height of their power. The Trajan legions would be my second choice.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Macedon - 11-27-2013
I might be the only real admirer, it seems, of the Roman military prowess in the times of Sulla, Julius Caesar, Pompey and Sertorius among others. The quality and experience of the armies was awesome, the commanders of the time may have been the shrewdest bunch of them all, the number of campaigns, armies, exploits crazy. Especially when attaching to them some years of the pre Marian and early Augustan periods, I think the Roman military power then was unparallelled.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Epictetus - 11-27-2013
This is a tough question. An army is part of society, so it is impossible to divorce one from the other. The underlying culture and economy has an impact on the military, so it is hard to just look at training, strategy, logistics, leadership and equipment of an army, for instance.
I voted Adoptive primarily because of the big picture (and Trajan, of course). But if Scipio or Caesar was fighting the Marcommanic Wars, would his army have done better than Marcus Aurelius? I think such a case could be made.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-27-2013
I voted Flavian, that's the era our Legion represents.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Nathan Ross - 11-27-2013
Surely the army was at its height when the Roman empire itself was at its height? The two are connected, after all...
Quote:Julius Caesar's armies of the Gallic campaigns and the following Civil Wars are Rome's greatest military force.
Caesar's veteran legions from the Gallic campaign might have been the most effective single force Rome ever fielded, but they still mutinied in 49 and 47. Besides, the question surely concerns the army as a whole, not a select part of it - the same army lost at Carrhae, and many of the legions of the civil wars were pretty shoddy creations...
Quote:Legions of 5000 men were vanished only to be replaced by tactical units of 1000 or 2000 men, we cannot forget that this idiotic choice was taken only for internal political reasons!
I'm not sure what you mean by that... could you explain?
Quote:if Scipio or Caesar was fighting the Marcommanic Wars, would his army have done better than Marcus Aurelius?
Funnily enough, the army of the Antonine era, Hadrian-Antoninus Pius, probably was at the height of its power in one sense - practically unchallenged, well trained, housed and supplied, well equipped with the blingiest gear, a supremely effective mechanism for imperial control and a sort of world of its own - the apogee of the old legion system as developed under the Republic.
But during the Marcomannic wars this beautiful edifice seems to have fallen to pieces, requiring some major overhauling in organisation, equipment and leadership.
The army of any era is a response to the specific challenges of its day. As I've said before, the Roman army had its weak moments, but generally caught up pretty quickly.
I'm not voting due the spelling issue (
) - but if I did I might go for the tetrarchic army. For strategic and tactical versatility, and for defeating virtually the full spectrum of Rome's enemies, they'd be hard to beat.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Alexand96 - 11-27-2013
Quote:Surely the army was at its height when the Roman empire itself was at its height? The two are connected, after all...
Alexand96 post=347177 Wrote:Julius Caesar's armies of the Gallic campaigns and the following Civil Wars are Rome's greatest military force.
Caesar's veteran legions from the Gallic campaign might have been the most effective single force Rome ever fielded, but they still mutinied in 49 and 47. Besides, the question surely concerns the army as a whole, not a select part of it - the same army lost at Carrhae, and many of the legions of the civil wars were pretty shoddy creations...
Point taken. But many of these shoddy creations of Caesar went on the become battle-hardened legions capable of pulling off stunning victories over better equipped forces that outnumbered them, did they not?
Quote:I might be the only real admirer, it seems, of the Roman military prowess in the times of Sulla, Julius Caesar, Pompey and Sertorius among others. The quality and experience of the armies was awesome, the commanders of the time may have been the shrewdest bunch of them all, the number of campaigns, armies, exploits crazy. Especially when attaching to them some years of the pre Marian and early Augustan periods, I think the Roman military power then was unparallelled.
You're not alone here my friend. I previously nodded to Caesar without bringing up my personal favorite Roman commanders (Scipio Africanus, Gaius Marius, Sulla Felix) due to lack of time. To be perfectly honest, perhaps I do not know enough about Imperial and late Rome to propose a valid opinion on the matter, but are we honestly saying that the legions of Rome were as strong in the later Imperial period as they were when they were expanding Roman territory at a shocking pace in the late Republic? Yes, yes, I understand the point that people bring up about them having some very good commanders (Aetius), and being capable of dealing with the problems and enemies of the day (revolts, incursions/invasions by vast tribes, etc.), but honestly gentleman, we really are talking about an organization that has lost its ultra-feared status, are we not? Actually, I believe you can point out certain events even in the 1st century AD that contribute greatly to the tarnishing of the legions' status (Varus disaster, Jewish revolt and crushing of the 12th legion). And yes, the defeat of Crassus at Carrhae was without doubt a Roman disaster, but it was more or less entirely brought about by the ambitions and financial capacity of one man, one man who was not up to the task of tangling with the Parthians. Need I bring up the endless "what if?" debate of Caesar invading Parthia to exact his revenge for the loss of Crassus?
I hope not to rile any feelings of anger amongst my late Roman friends here - your dedication to this confusing but fascinating period always makes me want to learn more. However, I just cannot shake the feeling that the further we move into late antiquity, something very deep, something very important to the men standing under the standards of Rome has changed forever. Regardless of how hard or effectively they fought, the Glory of Rome was more a figment of the past than anything connected to the then present. The Glory of Rome was replaced with a fight for survival. At least, that's always the sense I get from reading about anything past Marcus Aurelius. Perhaps I need to go to the source material myself instead of letting the likes of Goldsworthy affect my thinking?
Still, I've got to say gentleman, debates such as this are quite ridiculous (we're talking about hundreds of years of history with great dark spots of information here!!), but I love them nonetheless. Many interesting perspectives.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Timianus - 11-27-2013
[quote][quote="Nathan Ross" post=347211]
I hope not to rile any feelings of anger amongst my late Roman friends here - your dedication to this confusing but fascinating period always makes me want to learn more. However, I just cannot shake the feeling that the further we move into late antiquity, something very deep, something very important to the men standing under the standards of Rome has changed forever. Regardless of how hard or effectively they fought, the Glory of Rome was more a figment of the past than anything connected to the then present. The Glory of Rome was replaced with a fight for survival. At least, that's always the sense I get from reading about anything past Marcus Aurelius. Perhaps I need to go to the source material myself instead of letting the likes of Goldsworthy affect my thinking?
.[/quote]
[i][i][i]Couple of random musings on my part.
1. I think it is inherently unfair and silly to compare the military establishments of distinct eras--eras which had very different economies, resources, internal political structures, societal make up, and external threats. Unfortunately, arguments of this sort seem to me to resemble the great debates I had as a teenager on wether the Enterprise could take out an Imperial Class Star Destroyer.
2. What is fascinating to me about the late roman period is that you have a military that (for the most part) is still tactically superior to its enemies, but unable to perform its strategic mission (defense) due to a variety of internal and external factors.
3. Lets not over-aggrandize the "glory of rome." "The glory of rome" was accomplished by threatening, murdering, and stealing from other cultures. Indeed, IMHO the "glory of rome" is what led to her demise, viz., when the romans ran out of other people who had riches to conquer and steal from, they turned on themselves.[/i][/i][/i]
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - AMELIANVS - 11-27-2013
Quote:arguments of this sort seem to me to resemble the great debates I had as a teenager on wether the Enterprise could take out an Imperial Class Star Destroyer.
Exactly :wink: !
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Alexand96 - 11-27-2013
Quote:Tim post=347213 Wrote:arguments of this sort seem to me to resemble the great debates I had as a teenager on wether the Enterprise could take out an Imperial Class Star Destroyer.
Exactly :wink: !
Which is kind of what I love about conversations such as this. Just being honest.
Definitely going with the Star Destroyer, btw.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-27-2013
Okay I'm a 100% Trekkie and 100% Star Wars nerd here, and that is indisputable. Do you know how many Heavy Turbolasers are on an Imperial Star destroyer? It's 1 mile long and the enterprise is only 300m (the one in the 2009 and 2013 is 700m). It's like a smart car getting hit by a tractor trailer.
"Kirk and his away team beam down to the Death Star. A stormtrooper fires and misses completely. The redshirt dies anyways."
Now that that's settled...
I have to say Nathan brings up an excellent point, the Roman Army seemed to be unrivaled and unmatched under Hadrian. The Sassanid Persians hadn't arisen yet, so there was no organized threat to Roman stability.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - Alexand96 - 11-27-2013
Quote: It's like a smart car getting hit by a tractor trailer...
I have to say Nathan brings up an excellent point, the Roman Army seemed to be unrivaled and unmatched under Hadrian. The Sassanid Persians hadn't arisen yet, so there was no organized threat to Roman stability.
First off, I like the comparison used there. I'll take it.
Second off, dude, didn't you see "Centurion??" The ninth legion was totally "rivaled" by Olga Kurylenko...and it was all Beloq's fault, IMO. Greedy bastard!
But in all honesty, I can see the point that Nathan is making about the period from Hadrian to Antoninus Pius. I think if I were to be convinced that this was the apogee of the Roman military, you'd have to include Trajan's reign in there too, right? Or am I completely unaware of any large Roman defeats during his campaigns in Dacia or elsewhere? As I've always stated before, most of my reading extends not much farther then the first Jewish revolt. I wish there were more surviving material on Trajan's military campaigns - from what I understand, the sources here are limited.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - ValentinianVictrix - 11-27-2013
You could arguably say that if we are using sheer numbers of people, plus the size of the military forces able to be used, plus the total territory of the Roman Empire , then it might well be the period from when Constantine reigned to the death of Julian was when Rome was at its zenith. Apart from the old province of Dacia, which had been abandoned before the reign of Constantine, the Empire was at its greatest extent during that time frame and stretched from the border of Scotland in Briton to the banks of the Euphrates in the Middle East.
When was Roman army at the height of its power? - FarDarter - 11-27-2013
I would think that the Roman army(not Rome itself) was at its height probably around 200-50 BC. That was essentially the same army which had defeated the Diadokhi and the barbarians in north-west Europe and subdued Britannia; after that, there was no need for massive armies because virtually nothing remained to conquer, so the army became more of a police force.