Sztripi

Yes well, the problem in your reasoning is that the state didn't cared about its soldiers. The senate by the time of the late Republic became a self serving institutuion that used its power to enrich its members, not to represent its own people. Any attempt to pass any legislation to refom the state or to change the status quo was blocked and usually the reformists were murdered. The soldiers only hope was that their own commanders will keep their word and give them pension or land. I read somewhere that the senate not once but many times declined to give pensions or land to the solders when they were discharged form the army even after repeated promises. You live in a state that does not care about its citizens. Why woud you be loyal to that state? It changed after Augustus who did enact reforms and ensured that the soldiers receved pensions and land after discharge... And the army was loyal to him. No more revolts... Your solution by the way woud totally destroy the army. Shufling the sub units or soldiers dramatically decreases unit cohesion. This is why it isn't done even today...

Yes we are in agreement. One has to see the whole picture. And oh yes. They lost quite a few battles. It is quite interesting really. The republican legion: An unprofessional army made out from volunteers. Disbanded after the campaign. All its accumulated knowledge and experience lost. And when needed a new army is created, with no experience. The old veterans are long gone or not fit to serve. So it has to learn all over the art of war. Many defeats. Many bloody defeats. But the army is just an extension of a society. If the society is vibrant, and strong the army it fields will also be vibrant and strong. And patriotism of the citizens and their vilingness to adhere to a strict military life and a loss to their civil liberties made the legion strong. Now the Protectorate age legion is different. Quite different. A brutal and efficient force, with strong unit cohesion. But with no loyality to the state or the senate (the selfish and greedy senate). But the roman civilization is still vibrant and strong. It is at its hight. So the army is also at its hight. But even then there where great victories and great defeats. And then the decline... So the army starts to decline to... Interesting really... But even so there where victories too even against very strong opponents.

The roman army changed through the ages. It changet a LOT. The roman society changed. It change a LOT. The army had it's great sucesses and also it's great disasters. At some point it was a steamroller, and at some point it was a pale shadow living on past glories. Not to mention the leadership or the lack of it (an army of lions lead by a deer or an army of deears lead by a lion). Or the decaying roman society at the latter days of the empire. Let's try to look at the early protectorate age legion. It regulary fought and won against numericaly superior enemies. Then again Valrus managed to lose three legions in an obvius ambush. What I am trying to say that there is never a simple answer. Simple answers can only be found in movies... But what I hate is when people dismiss centuries of change and development in a single sentence. Legions changed. They changed a lot through the centuries. At one point for the better and at one point for the worst.

Prestige in miltary terms is not a function of ability - thats a misconception. There are plenty of prestigous units around the world today who couldn't hope to live up to their reputation against determined opposition. Does this unit get any perks? Extra pay? Lighter duties? Better food? Is their vital duty onerous? Do they have a record of victory or defeat? Do their soldiers get promotions? Are their officers senior members of society? Prestige is a matter of perception. Roman cavalry wasn't brilliant. If it was they'd have gone to more effort with it. Only with the decline of the heavy infantryman and the need for mobility against a mobile enemy was cavalry seen to improve. Julius Caesar for instance used gaulish allies as his cavalry. These men rode expensive pampered horses and weren't too keen on getting to grips with the enemy both for that reason, and also because they all really wanted to ride home and extort tolls from travellers. Auxillaries weren't always capable. When we look at the roman legions its easy to see them as an invincible war machine that crushed opposition like a steamroller. Not so. They fought long and hard to achieve the pax romana and without capable leaders in the field (military ability not being a prerequisite for roman command) Rome would have fallen much earlier. It was their ruthless determination - their competitiveness as a society - that saw them through. Hmmm... You got a good point there... But I have read from many separate sources that the Protectorate age roman legion where capable to move greater distances then a pure cavalary army ot the same age... Wheather you belive or not the limiting factor for the speed of the roman advance was their pack animals. Another misconception is that the leadership was brilliant. It was usually sub standard. Because the legates where chosen not by ability but by other considerations. No West Points. But the command structure of the legion greatly alliviated the leadership problems. But i see that we agree on that. And I absolutly agree on your analysis of the basic and main strength of rome was it's own society. But I am geting off topic. I belive that roman legions had an effective cavalry support. Rome faced many mounted enemies, and fought them effectivly. It is not possible without effective cavalry support. The cavalry where effective especially afther the reforms enacted by Augustus.

Now I agree to an extent... There where many reasons why did the Roman legion decline (one among other things was the latter emperors inability to control them effectivly so they downgraded them - less money less equipment). Even so the roman soldiers where regulary better equipped then their opponents. In my opinion the lack of training is the major factor. In the medievial society the nobelmen or horseman had a single occupation - to train for war. As for the shock value you are right the cavalary has a major shock value, but infantry can resist a cavalary charge. And once the charge is broken the tables are turning... But cavalary has one HUGE advantge over infantry. It can run away from the infantry to fight another day. The infantry can't.

Well I wasn't disputing the walue of the infantry. If well trained and motivated the most important part of any army. I was expressing my opinion that the Roman cavalry was indeed an effective force. That it is a misconception that the legions were week in cavalry. "I agree with ya, the equites were prestigious, but there is a difference between prestige and effectiveness." Now sorry but this is bullocks. A prestigious unit in any army is prestigious because it's combat value is very high, or because it is perfoming a vital duty. "Ditto. Also, there are only so many nobles." Well you make that remark based on what? Being a noble was wastly different in Roman society than it was in medieval societies. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus, the rank of equite was officially defined. One could become an Equestrian when one had some 400,000 sesterces. However if one lost his fortune he immediatly lost his status too. Only during the secound century AD. did the Equestrian class changed into more like a class of bureocracy. And one more misconception. The Auxilliary units where also effective, and loyal units. It was one of the most original and effective method of Romanization (it is debated wether it was intentional or not)...

All right. I am a new one. I thought that I will add bits of my own wisdom (or possibly demonstrate the luck of it ) to the discussion. The main strength of any army in any time is discipline and training. That said usually the more disciplined army triumphs in a battle. The roman army was a very disciplined and well trained entity during the early protectorate and late republic era. But during the latter years of the empire it was only a shadow of itself. So the Huns lead by Attila were facing a weak enemy. At the time they were a very effective and disciplined force, with sophisticated culture and even technological superiority in some areas. Far from being a simple barbarian nation. By the way at the same time the cavalry also became dominant force in the eastern and western empire as well... The decline of the infantry was evident long before that. I have read in many sources that the prestige of the infantry plummeted along with their status in the army. Therefore the quality of training and equipment also declined. Why was the roman army so week? Many reasons (but I don't want to hijack the topic). There are many misconceptions about the roman legions. First of all about the status of the cavalry. In the republic cavalry was a very prestigious part of the army. Only man with noble birth were allowed into the ranks of the cavalry (or only they coud afford the cost for their equipment) units. The rank Master of horses also gives a very important clue. It was one of the most prestigious ranks in the early as well in the late empire also... So it seems to me that the cavalry was a very prestigious arm of the army during its entire existence... I personally don