10-25-2007, 08:31 PM
Quote:I am a bit heretical here in my belief that the Roman army's standard of professionalism was less than advertised.
Well, they can burn me as well then!! I'm also doubtful that the Roman army had the standards of training and professionalism that many modern commentators suggest in either the Republic or even in the standing army of the Imperial period. Even allowing for Tacitus' exaggeration about the 'laxity' of the Eastern legions, Corbulo seems to have found it necessary to put his troops through a training and hardening programme before taking them out on campaign against the Parthians.
There is a great deal of evidence - both archaeological and literary - for training in the Roman army, and non-Roman historians such as Polybius and Josephus are particularly impressed with the 'professionalism', discipline and preparedness of the army, but I wonder to what extent this admiration is relative to other contemporary armies? I suspect that it was very much down to the unit commander and / or provincial governor as to how well trained / prepared their units were. Frontinus reports Corbulo disciplining a cavalry praefectus in Armenia for keeping his unit inadequately equipped (Stratagems 4.1.28 ), and I doubt that's an isolated case. In terms of training, discipline and 'professionalism', I suspect that one of Rome's biggest advantages was that relatively speaking, she was a long way ahead of the vast majority of societies she was fighting against in the late Republic to high Empire. I seriously doubt Roman units took training as seriously as modern armies do, or that their soldiers were as fit.
