What's Up With That?!

[rvmaximus]

Most professional armies take awhile to grind down an enemy, especially if the enemy is somewhat professional.

The only time you will have lightning wins if the enemy is: a lower caliber, vastly out numbered, or poorly supplied.

 

Think the Romans had many lightning wins against the Celts and Germanics while they were alwys outnumbered it seems in foreign terain. I do not think they were so much better trained as many feel over the Celts or Germanics. These groups have a training system for the soldieer too...from just about after birth they learn to fight and more orgainized than many previously thought. Also, their weaponry may have been at least as good as the Romans. Celt(Germanic could be too)chain mail..etc. and metal making skills(harder blades) led the Romans to copy much from them. Plus we know their cavalry was superior to the Romans,that is why the Romans used them later in their legions.

[Jaden]

Think the Romans had many lightning wins against the Celts and Germanics while they were alwys outnumbered it seems in foreign terain. I do not think they were so much better trained as many feel over the Celts or Germanics. These groups have a training system for the soldieer too...from just about after birth they learn to fight and more orgainized than many previously thought. Also, their weaponry may have been at least as good as the Romans. Celt(Germanic could be too)chain mail..etc. and metal making skills(harder blades) led the Romans to copy much from them. Plus we know their cavalry was superior to the Romans,that is why the Romans used them later in their legions.

 

Its important to understand the difference here between soldiers and warriors. Celts and Germanic armies during the Roman era, like the majority of those of the middle ages, were made up of a massive collection of these 'warriors'. While they were certainly effective fighters as individuals, what they distinctly lacked was the discipline to work together as a unit to defeat their foe. Like the Greeks before them, the Romans possessed this quality, just another reasons they were able to conquer the majority of the known world.

 

In regard to the original question, by and large, the Romans were actually incredibly effective in their initial conquests, usually completely overwhelming any foe and taking control of the disputed region. However, as the trend went, there would often be a rebellion, and a second (usually more vicious) war would take place that would truly decide the fate of the potential 'province'. This can be seen in the conquest of areas like Britannia and Dacia among others.

[Centurion Legioneer]

The vastness of Roman Empire caused the military forces of the romans to be spread out, in which the romans had trouble concentrating forces on hannibal, while others (Gaul, Celts, etc.) attacked the borders. Also, althought the Romans were the best trained, best equipped, Hannibal was an expert tactitan and came over the alps, catching the Romans off guard. Though in the end, the Romans destroyed his army and eventually him.

[caldrail]

The vastness of Roman Empire caused the military forces of the romans to be spread out, in which the romans had trouble concentrating forces on hannibal, while others (Gaul, Celts, etc.) attacked the borders. Also, althought the Romans were the best trained, best equipped, Hannibal was an expert tactitan and came over the alps, catching the Romans off guard. Though in the end, the Romans destroyed his army and eventually him.

 

I think its often forgotten that they didn't have modern communications back then, and that an armies mobility was limited by terrain, forage, and local intervention. In order to fight your enemy, you had to find him. During the Punic wars romes borders were much smaller, their forces more centralised than the frontier lines of the imperial times.

 

Don't forget also that Rome's generals were amateurs. They were often political appointees who knew as much about warfare as I do about quantum mechanics. Time and again the first battles of a campaign were disasters. Only Rome's larger enlistement pool gave it enough breathing space for the generals to learn from their mistakes.

 

Also, troops of both sides would much rather sit the winter out. Some armies would go home in autumn for this reason.

[Centurion Legioneer]

Good point caldrail, I should have made sure, my info in my post was correct, thank you for correcting me. But yes, it is over looked that finding them was a part of warfare, as was the experience of an armies generals.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Don't forget also that Rome's generals were amateurs. They were often political appointees who knew as much about warfare as I do about quantum mechanics.

 

That's an exaggeration. Roman aristocrats who intended on a military career generally served as military tribunes quite early in their careers and their subsequent assignments allowed them to develop a fair amount of military skill before they were entrusted with commanding a whole army. It's true that they weren't all professional soliders full time, but it takes more than good sword-work to raise, equip, lead, and field an army.

[P.Clodius]

The romans were taught from an early age about the military. The cursus honorum required some miltary service.

[Centurion Legioneer]

Yes the Romans were taught about the miliatry from an early age. But certain Roman commanders, lacked actual combat experience. Thats a good thought you brought up though.

[caldrail]

I've learned about military matters from an early age too, but put in front of a legion and told to win this battle - I probably wouldn't! Experience in combat is vital and hard won. Some people have talent for battlefield command, others never will whatever education they had.

[Centurion Legioneer]

Yes generals may look good by what they have learned from books and school, but commanding, and winning a battle is the ultimate test. When a general does that, they are now(in my opinion, worthee of commanding the fine roman soldiers)

[caldrail]

Can you imagine? There you are, commanding your first battle. You've handed out orders, the troops are in position, and the enemy begins to manoever. At this point you feel excited. You're probably confident of victory. Then it all starts getting out of hand. A unit breaks, others chase the enemy, some are clearly in the wrong place sitting on the hill chewing grass stems. Officers are shouting at you for orders and you discover the enemy prepared a suprise attack. Its at that point that your suitability for battlefield command really does get tested - or are you up to it? Is there a senior officer taking initiative from you to save the day? Or is this a disaster for Rome?

 

Armchair debates about battles are great because no-one gets hurt!

[Neos Dionysos]

Armchair debates about battles are great because no-one gets hurt!

 

A major inheirent problem though is the sense of the 'Monday Morning Quarterback'.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I've learned about military matters from an early age too, but put in front of a legion and told to win this battle - I probably wouldn't! Experience in combat is vital and hard won. Some people have talent for battlefield command, others never will whatever education they had.

 

So what? That doesn't mean education and training isn't necessary. I'd rather have a well-educated and well-trained aristocrat of moderate experience than an illiterate legionary with tons of battle experience leading my army. Again, there's more to winning a war than just sword-play. If you can't feed your army, you're done for.

[caldrail]

I'd be more interested in the guy who knows how to win a battle and inspire men to do just that. Your viewpoint is probably similar to the romans, but then some roman commanders had indeed risen from the ranks. An emperor or two as well.

[Germanicus]

I believe Cato made the initial point that most Commanders had served as Military tribunes well prior to their first command. This means they had both theoretical practice and in most cases, plenty of first had "experience".

 

That being said, you can't teach a dog how to fly. My implication being that certainly, there were, and still are some people that have no talent for command, just as there are some with no talent for writing.