What\'s the strength of Roman Army?

[Anonymous]

I wonder what's the strength of Roman Army. Is it discipline, tactics or their strategy, technology? <p><IMG HEIGHT="75" WIDTH="60" SRC="http://simaqianstudio.tripod.com/zhaoyun1.jpg"><br>SMQ President of <A href="http://pub44.ezboard.com/bsimaqianstudio"> Simaqian Studio</A>
</p><i></i>

[Catiline]

It really depens on when you're talking about. A very quick overview then<br>
<br>
Mid Republic (Hannibal)- massive manpower resources. there were reserves of about 700, 000 men qualified to serve according to Polybius. About 250, 000 were mobilised in the war against Hannibal. This meant Rome could take massive defeats like Cannae that would have knocked out most Hellenistic states, an keep on fighting.<br>
<br>
Aftere the refoms of Marius the Legions ogf the late Republic were longer serving and professional. So you ha professional troops, uniformly and well equipped. More importantly though a trained officer class coul develop, veteran Centurions who could turn Green troops into effective troops within months. They were the strength of these legions,who provided the discipline and the leaership.<br>
<br>
There are many other reasons for Rome's strength, you can go on for hours, logistical prowess, speed of march, organisation... <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Well general, discipline comes first. <p></p><i></i>

[JRSCline]

Interesting question, this.<br>
<br>
Yes, I agree with Tenchi that discipline was the bedrock of Roman military success. However, it didn't save them at Cannae. Neither did their rather conventional, frontal-meatgrinder tactics. Roman generals are often lampooned for a lack of imagination! In some cases this was not fair, but I think in the main the charge stands.<br>
<br>
Romans focused on a few core concepts that worked, then perfected those methods through iron discipline, endless drill, and lots of practical experience.<br>
<br>
One victim of the Roman war machine was Josephus, a Jewish statesman who was held under house arrest in Rome for some time following the Roman conquest of Judaea. He drew on his own bitter experiences with the Roman legions to write:<br>
<br>
"Indeed one would not be wrong to say that their drills are bloodless battles, and their battles, bloody drills." (Jewish War, 3.76)<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Catiline]

And who's in charge of discipline and training... you're very own frindly uncle Centurion. 'Glad you joined up Tiro?' <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

One mustn't forget that the Romans were, stereotypically, a people of engineers. Their army, with all their siege engines and fortifications, reflected this trait.<br>
<br>
Read Caesar's <i> Commentarii del Bello Gallico</i>: the war against the Gauls was all about sieges, executed in style. Assault ramps, mining, catapults... Even the Europeans of the medieval age weren't this creative. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Hi everybody! New here...nice place, lots of space! ; ) The Section's here to talk yer leg off! <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=thecaesariansection>The Caesarian Section</A> at: 1/25/01 3:03:15 pm<br></i>

[JRSCline]

Welcome Velius -- always glad to have new recruits. Just a word of guidance for tirones: please restrict off-topic posts to the Off-topic Forum. That way the discussion areas stay tidy and I don't have to delete any frivolous posts.<br>
<br>
Repeat offenders will be thrashed with the vitis. EM (As soon as one of our members reaches Centurion, that is...) <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Discipline, definately a strength that set them apart. That's a word that comes-up practically every time the subject of the Roman Army is brought up. Also, it would seem, aemulatio familia. <p>Vale, Velius</p><i></i>

[richsc]

Discipline, tradition, logistics, tactics, are all one side of the strength equation. Money is the other. Money for training, staff, weapons, forts, roads, pay, quartermasters, animals, retraining, maintenance. Wasn't it Napoleon who said that all you need to wage war was "money, money and more money"? The Romans could outspend any rival. When they reduced spending, the other side of the equation was also reduced. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
The strengths of the Roman army can be summed up in two words: morale and logistics. Superior logistics enabled them to reach the battlefield and superior morale allowed them more often than not to overcome their enemies on the battlefield. The factors mentioned above were all part of or contributed to these two central strengths. Superior logistics were based on better social organisation, greater wealth and a large population base. Superior morale was derived from good training, good equipment, good organisation and good leadership at tactical levels.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Their better weapon should be a fact, too. Iron shield and iron swords are always better than those copper weapons the Egyptians used. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Superior weaponry in itself is not much use when the soldier equipped with it has no will to fight. Apart from torsion artillery the Romans had in fact a negligible technological superiority over their enemies. The same types of weapons and equipment was available to their opponents, they just had loads more of it. In the Roman army all soldiers and even part of the military servants had body armour and helmets available to them, in barbarian societies just the social elite and their immediate following. This reflected the better social and logistical organisation of the Roman army. Enemy weaponry could be superior and the Romans readily copied superior enemy equipment for their own purposes. Helmets and body armour followed Celtic and Hellenistic examples, shields and javelins were taken over from Italic enemies, swords and daggers were of Iberic or Celt-Iberic origin. Thus many of the weapons and equipment considered to be typically Roman were taken over from others.<br>
<br>
The differences in performance of weaponry were not as great in ancient times as nowadays. Also it must be taken into account that their effectiveness is considerably influenced by the state of the person using it. Tired, frightened or wounded soldiers and warriors would all use their weapons to somewhat less than their full effect.<br>
<br>
In addition much of the results of a battle is due to morale rather than butchery pure and simple. It is because of one side perceiving it is not going to win that engagements are often decided. Recent research of Roman battles suggests that battles would consist of long periods of inactivity, both sides trying to intimidate their enemies and building uptheir courage for charging, and occasional breaks between such stand-offs in which one side or both sides would try to close to force a fight. This would even then often result in one side giving way before the other before actual contact rather than resulting in a bloody clash of hand to hand fighting.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 2/8/01 4:34:12 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Its sort of scary for a lowly tiro to disagree with a co-editor but I must differ with your arguments about morale. After Cannae for example, Roman morale was horrible but they were still able to continue to fight back and eventually win. Which was probably more of a stregth of their disiplince and their tenacity than their morale. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
A tiro has as much right to voice his opinion as anyone else. There is no reason to be intimidated and not post a reply. Since this is meant to be a discussion, I will appreciate it if you do.<br>
<br>
I have neglected to explain my position sufficiently. You are absolutely right about morale being low after Cannae, but then the Romans adopted a policy of avoiding open combat with Hannibal as much as possible, a policy advocated by Fabius Maximus Cunctator. It was only after morale was restored that they offered battle again. They remained determined to win (for Rome wars ended with surrender of the enemy rather than a negotiated compromise), but on the other hand commanders were smart enough to wait until the confidence of the troops to win battles was restored.<br>
<br>
Morale was slowly rebuilt and improved discipline was achieved by keeping legionaries under arms for years at end. Previously many troops would have assembled for campaigns lasting a single season and would be trained on the march towards the battle grounds. Now troops would be trained for prolonged periods and bonds among soldiers would be strengthened through longtime service. Scipio first blooded his troops in Spain and proved that the Carthaginian armies could be met in battle and defeated. Only after that Roman troops had the confidence in their own abilities and that of their commanders to give battle to Hannibal and beat him. Because the troops with Scipio had remained in the field for many years their discipline and training were better than the hastily assembled and half trained militiamen which faced Hannibal in the first years of the war. This greater discipline contributed to a higher morale. Scipio's legionaries did not have to deploy in great depth, as the Cannae troops had done, and were confident enough to hold their own not to be disturbed with manoeuvres that had the backup lines removed for enveloping actions.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 2/13/01 8:54:49 am<br></i>