11-28-2013, 01:45 PM
I am one of those voting adoptive era, but I do so knowing it is not the easy, simple answer. Good points have been made throughout the thread here. For instance, I do think that the later roman army had a more diverse set of enemies, generally better equiped and highly motivated, than the enemies during the adoptive emperors.
Another point I find when going through sources is that (even though some authors greatly exaggerate) easy times and rest usually meant a disaster was imminent for the roman army. The legions, at least in some parts of the empires, saw a lot less action than its later counterparts, the later ones fighting both romans and enemies well versed in the roman ways of war.
I myself have always been a stout supporter of Auelian and his acheivements on the battlefield - the army of this era seems to have performed well, including the important battle of Naissus. So if I could I probably would have changed my vote now that I think about it. Alas...
Another point I find when going through sources is that (even though some authors greatly exaggerate) easy times and rest usually meant a disaster was imminent for the roman army. The legions, at least in some parts of the empires, saw a lot less action than its later counterparts, the later ones fighting both romans and enemies well versed in the roman ways of war.
I myself have always been a stout supporter of Auelian and his acheivements on the battlefield - the army of this era seems to have performed well, including the important battle of Naissus. So if I could I probably would have changed my vote now that I think about it. Alas...
