Was Rome\'s the best army in 1AD?

[Anonymous]

In terms of tactics, equipment and weapons technology, which was the best army in the world in 1AD? My top choices are:<br>
<br>
1) Rome’s Legions<br>
www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romanarmy.html . The Romans built an army that in 1AD ruled an empire from Lusitania to Judeau, fielding a level of discipline in battle, tactics and weapons technology of the top order. Scenes of Rome’s Legions armoured in lorica segmentata (plate armour) and scutum (shield), and armed with pilum and gladius (short sword) are famous in history books and movies. By 1AD gladius were generally made from a mix of low carbon iron and carburnized steel, thus hardening the weapon, allowing for slashing, as well as the intended thrusting.<br>
<br>
2) China’s armies of the Western Han Dynasty<br>
dana.ucc.nau.edu/~msb46/W...hina.html. With the lessons of Sun Tzu, (c.500–320BC) still understood, the Han Dynasty in 1AD fielded armoured cavalry and foot soldiers armed with steel weapons, such as dao (broadsword). ancienthistory.about.com/...questa.htm “…during the reign of Emperor Wu Ti (beginning in 140 bc)… Wu Ti transformed Chinese military tactics. He armed his new military with iron and steel swords, plate or scale mail and crossbows.â€ÂÂ

[Anonymous]

1. Professionalism--just beginning in 1AD but better than any army at the time--junior officer corps professional and experienced, melee-missile training, battlefield unit tactics/cohesion, soldiering techniques/skills(marching, packing and carrying gear--Marius), engineering(marching camp) all part of Roman training regimen well before Augustus),<br>
2. size--Omnipresent if they needed to be<br>
3.adaptability-- both tactical and strategic<br>
4.logistical support--organized and massive<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://b30.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/22/04 5:35 pm<br></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

hmm, All three had powerfull armies. But i must also choose for Rome. I think that the overall quality was higher then the others.<br>
But the Chinese cavalry would be a real challange to the Romans... <p>Professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the ark<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://b30.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pelgr003>pelgr003</A> at: 4/23/04 10:25 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

-Yes<br>
-Why?<br>
-Because Rome had an ideology and a political system that was miles ahead of anything else that existed at that time. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

"...they were miles ahead of anything else..."<br>
<br>
Miles...Hey that's funny! Get it? Miles? That's a good one! <p></p><i></i>

[Gregg]

Intriguing question, in a kind of “Who’d-win-in-a-fight-Superman-or-the-Incredible-Hulk?â€ÂÂ

[Anonymous]

Well, now we're moving towards the question of which was the most powerful state/empire. I'm more interested in the micro than the macro, in that all three (or four) had weapons, tactics and equipment designed to be the best available.<br>
<br>
If a Roman Army in 1AD met a Han Army, regardless of who will win the war on logistics, resources...the question is, who will win the battle? <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

You can't answer the question in a vacuum. It is unreasonable to restrict discussion to exclude logistics, resources, commander ability, etc. Often a battle was won before a blow was exchanged through these aspects. Sun Tzu acknowledges that the best way to win a war is not to fight any battles. Who says that his way is *better* than a commander who wins through attrition? It would depend on what your goal is. It might suit your purpose to lose thousands of men provided that the enemy also loses thousands of men. In another instance it might suit your purpose to conserve your manpower and attempt a political solution. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://b30.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 4/26/04 11:29 pm<br></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

Indeed,<br>
<br>
As Sun Tzu also says: 50% (or more) of a battle is already won (or lost) before the battle has begun.<br>
<br>
I think the type of terrain is very important. As i understand, the Han had a lot of cavalry. If the battle is fought in rough terrain, the Romans would have an advantage. But propably the Romans would be defeated the first time, reform their army and strike back. <p>Professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the ark<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

You forgot about the Parthians. Perhaps you overlooked them because they're so familiar to romanophiles and thus seem more prosaic. But remember that neither empire ever seemed to really be able to inflict a final defeat on the other.<br>
<br>
I forget where, but I remember reading somewhere that the wars between Rome and Parthia/ Sassanid Persia were like a fight between a whale and an elephant; neither could really seem to come to grips with the other outside their own element. The legions just didn't have the right weapon mix or tactical system for defeating the horse-archers and the Persians just didn't have the seige warfare capabilities, naval capabilities and ability to hold ground that would be necessary to conquer Rome.<br>
<br>
All of which points to the fact that "best" has to be seen in the light of a specific strategic/ tactical/ operational situation. It may be a cop-out, but I would venture to say that each one of these four empires was the best army in the world at the time... for coping with their own unique military challenges. <p></p><i></i>