Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What\'s the strength of Roman Army?
#16
are we contuing to perpetuate a myth?<br>
<br>
was there something of a myth, certainly by the Imperial period of Roman military ability?<br>
<br>
was the Roman army <i> really</i>that much superior than its opponents?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#17
THere is a lot to be said for Rome just being bigger, and having greater reserves to overcome her enemies.. By the early imperial period i think it is fair to suggest that in most cases it was superior to any enemies it came face to face with in a set piece. However, Rome was operating witihn security established earlier. the civilised world capable of facing her legions in battle was largely under her control.The Greek states didn't have the resources to defeat Rome, and couldn';t match the flexibility of her legions. Parthia ,as demonstrated by Carrhae, could inflict massive defeats on late Republican armies and hence in theory on early imperial ones. However, Rome wasn't in danger of losing territory to the Parthians.<br>
<br>
THe legions flexibility shouldn't be underestimated, it did conquer the entire mediterranean basin, whilst still being able to carry out effective offensives against less structured barbarian armies.Numbers could play a huge issue, as demonstrate by 2PW, but the troops were capable of defeating any enemy they came up against when commande properly, and in many cases when generaled badly.<br>
<br>
Sorry for the broard brush approach, but i think it has some value in a forum <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
Reply
#18
Slave,<br>
<br>
The Romans did not stop after defeat, they usually came back again and again if necessary before gaining the upper hand. Overall performance of her armies was pretty good, but its record shows an uneven courrse. There has certainly grown a myth about the capabilities of the Roman army and in particular around the army of the first and second centuries AD. The Roman military machine as presented in many popular works is an idealised image of invincibility. The source material is however clear that the army throughout its history was often defeated, though it still scored more victories (and it is ofcourse important to win the last battle, which can negate all prior defeats). The level of discipline and training ascribed to it are at times overstated. The strict enforcement of discipline and hard training was not very evenly maintained. In my opinion the army deserves credit for achieving what it did despite its flaws and frequent setbacks.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#19
As an analogy Hitler's tanks were inferior to France's in both quality and number. The method in which they were employed made all the difference in battle.<br>
<br>
The Roman Legion, properly deployed, demonstrated itself superior to it's contemporaries. Solid armor, sound weaponry, judicious deployment, adequate logistics, superior engineering, any one of these could provide the decisive edge and, when properly used, the Roman Legion had all of these to employ. Alesia was won by engineering, Carrhae was lost to logistics, Zama was won by logistics and deployment. it's the little things that add up..hehe <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#20
One should remember how effective a fighting force the particular Roman soldier was.Trained from a very young age in the rudiments of warfare,each Roman soldier was a formidable task in itself against an opponent.Their training ensured them as very strong men,bred to great strength & endurance.It was only the brilliance of Hannibal that tremendously dampened Roman morale;the Carthaginian soldier perhaps may have been a match with a legionnaire,but he only comprised half of the punic army,sometimes not at all.Half or most of The Carthaginian army were composed of mercenaries,& while the Gauls,Africans & Spaniards of Hamilcar & Hannibal's force had their strengths,they were no match for the legion in pitched battle.With their pride & martial success in conquering Italy & defeating the Carthaginians in the 1st Punic War by beating their rivals in the Carthaginians greatest strength,their navy,one could imagine the pride & confidence they had when Hannibal started his march to Italy.This was clearly shown in the attitudes of Sempronius,Flaminius & Varro in the early phases of the war.After these same men subjected Rome to her worst defeats,another strength of the Roman side emerged:their tenacity.They just would not accept defeat.Another race would have succumbed.Overflowing resources made this possible too,of course.They were resourceful too.In the 1st war with Carthage,they grounded their sea coast cities to dust with endless taxes just to maintain a fleet in defeating Carthage.They came up with a device in naval warfare that bested the sea-experienced Punics.And whenever they lost a fleet they would come up with more.Like an ever reliable battery they just kept on going, going,& going. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#21
The roman army was better, before it decayed away too much, than those of its opponents because it was precisely an army! Units had a tradition and lasted for many many years (sometimes centuries). I think the myth has a basis because everyone recognized in romans the ability to project a constant pressure on the enemy that other peoples and their "armies" of that period didn't have. The Gauls didn't have it, neither the Germans. Certainly the Parthians didn't. The Sassanians were by far the most serious threat if one reasons in terms of "armies". The Carthaginians lost three wars (if you want to count the third and last one). That does mean something! Accidents do occur even to great armies and commanders but when there is something systematic about loosing then something is wrong. Don't you think? The Macedonian army was only a shadow of that of Philip the Great. The Hellenistic kingdoms were also pale relics of Alexander. The romans were not invincible nor perfect but in terms of winning wars they definitely had the advantage. The wars against the germans and the later goths maybe falls into a different scenario. But even then I think the roman army performed admirably well even against those difficult and unconventional enemies sometimes even out performing them at those tactics that one naively associates only to "barbarians" (ambushes and flexible deployment of resources). The roman myth can be reasonably down sized and one can still be left with a profound admiration for the roman army achievement. I actually think that the "german" myth has been overstated. A point of equilibrium in between would be the healthiest attitude. <p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Dacian Wars: Strength of Trajan\'s Army Lucius Galerius Falconius 11 4,074 03-09-2008, 08:57 AM
Last Post: Gaius Julius Caesar
  Strength of Roman fleet Jona Lendering 11 2,801 08-28-2006, 02:20 PM
Last Post: Praefectusclassis

Forum Jump: