08-08-2013, 04:01 AM
When would you consider the Roman army at its prime in terms of quality, manpower, tactics, strategy, equipment, and organization?
The Julio-Cladian , Trajan/Hadrian, Severan, 3rd century Crisis or Tetcharchy?
Here is what I know.
The Julio-cladian was the basis under Augustus of equal Legions and Auxilia around 250,000 strong. It saw some defeats but mostly a time of peace. How does their training and quality stack up for the lack of war?
The Trajan/Hadrian army saw more foreigners as the Auxilia numbers ranked up.
The Severan army was the Roman army at its max manpower.
The 3rd Century Crisis saw the most wars and a huge number of defeats under the Persians. Was it due to the failure to adapt to the newer system or adopting the newer system that caused those losses? By 217 the Legion/Auxilia system was disbanded and all barbarians were citizens? How did this effect the quality? Emperor Gallilus increased the number of cavalry by 258 but it had no effect on the Persians in 260.
Was the training at this time inferior?
Thoughts?
The Julio-Cladian , Trajan/Hadrian, Severan, 3rd century Crisis or Tetcharchy?
Here is what I know.
The Julio-cladian was the basis under Augustus of equal Legions and Auxilia around 250,000 strong. It saw some defeats but mostly a time of peace. How does their training and quality stack up for the lack of war?
The Trajan/Hadrian army saw more foreigners as the Auxilia numbers ranked up.
The Severan army was the Roman army at its max manpower.
The 3rd Century Crisis saw the most wars and a huge number of defeats under the Persians. Was it due to the failure to adapt to the newer system or adopting the newer system that caused those losses? By 217 the Legion/Auxilia system was disbanded and all barbarians were citizens? How did this effect the quality? Emperor Gallilus increased the number of cavalry by 258 but it had no effect on the Persians in 260.
Was the training at this time inferior?
Thoughts?
