11-27-2013, 12:47 PM
Surely the army was at its height when the Roman empire itself was at its height? The two are connected, after all...
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...
I'm not sure what you mean by that... could you explain?
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.
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.
Nathan Ross
