Why is the Roman Legion always seen as superior to their opponents in

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training, exact observance of discipline in their camps and unwearied cultivation of the other arts of war. Without these, what chance would the inconsiderable numbers of the Roman armies have had against the multitudes of the Gauls? Or with what success would their small size have been opposed to the prodigious stature of the Germans? The Spaniards surpassed us not only in numbers, but in physical strength. We were always inferior to the Africans in wealth and unequal to them in deception and stratagem. And the Greeks, indisputably, were far superior to us in skill in arts and all kinds of knowledge.

 

But to all these advantages the Romans opposed unusual care in the choice of their levies and in their military training. They thoroughly understood the importance of hardening them by continual practice, and of training them to every maneuver that might happen in the line and in action. Nor were they less strict in punishing idleness and sloth. The courage of a soldier is heightened by his knowledge of his profession, and he only wants an opportunity to execute what he is convinced he has been perfectly taught. A handful of men, inured to war, proceed to certain victory, while on the contrary numerous armies of raw and undisciplined troops are but multitudes of men dragged to slaughter. -Livy

 

I notice the Romans are always seen as invincible and superior their opponents in every way. Like the quote by Livy above, the Romans weren't exactly the perfect army in military abilities, tactics, and strategies. In fact much of the time the Romans were outmatched in many essential areas! For example take armor and weapons. Generally history books make it seem that Romans had the most advanced armor and weaponry in Europe and their opponents often fought with poor armor. But if one researches the enemies the Romans fought, one will learn the Germanic tribes always outmatched the Germans in quality of armor and swords! And the Romans weren't master of tactics and strategies like history books make it out to be. Often when they fought in North Africa and in the Middle East particularly against the Sassinids, the Roman tactical and strategical abilities were significantly inferior to those of their enemies even down right foolish at times. And history books alway make the Romans seem like they were masters of Siege weaponry and engineering. If one reads , often the siege equipment the Romans used were no better than those of their enemies.

 

In fact whatever tactics,strategies, and equipment the Romans used that were incredibly effective were copied by their enemies!For example Carthage had adopted basic Roman formations and heavy infantry in their armies. When they fought the Romans their equipment was equal to those of the Romans and they used similar formations. The Sassinids were quick to create shock infantry that were heavily armored once they saw the Roman Legions hacked through their regular infantry thus the Sassinids became on par with the Romans in armory and weaponry. Heck Romans armies have time and again been easily defeated by villagers of nations they invaded. Plus their enemies training were as equally grueling as their own! Just research the training of the Celts. Additionally even the Romans themselves admitted that the Sassinids as equally skilled as the Roman Legions were in war!

 

 

Why are the Romans always made out to be the most superior army in every in the Classical Age including in weaponry,armor, and strategies and tactics?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Well for me the romans achieved such reputation not by being the very best in every realm but the best average. Their leaders were mostly average, with some above par ones (Scipio, Marius and Ceasar comes to mind for the Republican period, Germanicus or Corbulo for the early empire, etc...), their armor was good lorica hamata for the most part, with the lorica segmentata being an exceptionnal equipement but heavy in maintenance requirements and reserved for the main offensive force of the army, namely the legions (which made up, one has to remember, only 1/3rd to 1/2 of the overall forces). Their training was harsh and the literacy requirements allowed greater tactical flexibility (ability to read orders) but one has to remember that the military forces were often deployed in various small sub-units to guardposts, surveillance tasks, etc and thus not always availlable for training.

But all this they did with uniformity and perseverance. A defeat did not mean the end of an operation or of a war, and their force were probably more often of the same quality in place A and B than they might have been in other nations. They had no hastily raised militia for defense, but a stable force availlable on hand for operations.

And when they saw a deficiency in their equipment, training or tactics they did not hesitate to adapt and even adopt foreign practices like the spanish gladius, the specific lorica segmentata arm add-on for the dacian wars, the corvus for naval warfare, etc.

Thus they were probably the best army of ancient time because they were the most balanced and the one that could achieve the most results under average circumstances : they did not need a Epamimondas or an Hannibal to achieve victory on a foe, they did not need cataphract cavalry or horse-mounted archers to beat steppe peoples : they could do it with what they had, withoug having to wait for what they would like to have.

[caldrail]

The answer to the original question results from two things. Firstly, the Romans were proud of their legions and thought they were naturally the best, and tell us in their writings, so we adopt the same view without hesitation. Secondly, the legions are somewhat mythologised and the image of a miltary machine marching remorselessly against all who stand uselessly against it is a icon of strength and power that resonates with the human psyche.

 

In other words, the superiority of the legion is greatly exaggerated by reputation and image. Most commonly you'll see the legions described in glowing terms and in comparison with modern armies. A luittle idd, don't you think? In fact, the Romans themselves admit there were serious deficiencies in their armed forces. Tacitus for instance gives the game away. When the the legions in Germania and Pannonia mutiny upon hearing the death of Augustus, he simply dismisses the causes as being essentially the same as usual.

 

The legions were a two edged weapon. On the one hand, they were recruited from people regarded as fit, healthy, virile, and inherently aggressive. They wanted men who would thrust swords into men, women, and children if so ordered. But of course, men like that are hard to constrain, so the Romans tolerated a higher level of bad behaviour than we would today.

 

Any idea that the Roman legionaries were professionally behaved is not consistent with our sources. We know how willing they were to con their own colleagues, how often they tried to get off hard labour by any excuse, or obtain leave. We know how often legion supplies 'fell off the back of a cart', or how readily they 'requisitioned' civilian property. We know how easily they mutinied, retreated, deserted, and chose the wrong boss.

 

They were, in no uncertain terms, a necessary evil. But the essential truth is that glory was one means by which the Romans kept them more or less loyal. And that message survives to the modern day.

[Centurion-Macro]

In my opinion, it was because of the tight discipline. The legion was a military machine. While people such as the Celts fought for honor and as individuals, the Romans trained their army into one unit with the best training they could think of. The Romans would not only use their own tactics, but steal them from other nations to use against them. For example, the famous testudo formation, was actually learned off the Celts.

 

The Roman world relied on its imperialism, and so the military was very strong. Other nations, while they had standing armies, would usually be content with what they had. But the Romans were imperialists, and conquered a lot of peoples - therefore technically making them 'superior'.

[caldrail]

As it happens discipline was harsh, but often lax. It appears that unless there was a pressing need, such as a current conflict, it was easier for commanders to simply let their men go on leave. What might suprise some people are records that show up to half a legion were away on leave at any moment in peacetime. The big disadvantage of a standing army is giving them something to do.

 

Much depended on the legionary commander. A few were very good and notice that the best were usually only involved in running a legion when hostilities were in progress. Otherwise, a better bet was to stay in politics. There are clues that legates could be quite lazy, indifferent, and more concerned with their own lifestyles than running a military unit, which I suspect the centurions were only too pleased about.

 

As for learning tactics, the Romans weren't so willing to adapt foreign ideas. Sometimes they tried things, but in most cases they maintained good traditional roman soldiering, because they knew better than anyone else (get the point) and being a conservative people, new ideas were not encouraged (dare I say it - discipline relies on maintaining standards?). The thing,is, no army ever invents things and adopts practises because they're clever or worthwhile. They adopt things out of necessity. If you're the victor, if you have all the military strength you need, what possible need is there to change anything?

[Primus Pilus]

Why are the Romans always made out to be the most superior army in every in the Classical Age including in weaponry,armor, and strategies and tactics?

 

Simply speaking... the results of several centuries of conquests and expansion. We all know that the Roman legion wasn't superior in every engagement, battle and war, but the legacy of the military machine is the known cumulative result.

 

The Romans typically fared badly in major campaigns against eastern armies (eg Persian, Parthia, etc.) save for a few exceptions, but neither did those armies make massive inroads against Roman territorial domination... until long after the collapse of the west.

[barca]

 

Why are the Romans always made out to be the most superior army in every in the Classical Age including in weaponry,armor, and strategies and tactics?

 

In my opinion it boils down to 2 things. Simplicity and overwhelming success against the Greeks.

 

Prior to the Punic wars the Romans went toe to toe with perhaps the best that Greeks had to offer (Pyrrhus) The Romans lost 2 out of 3 battles, but Pyrrhus was so impressed by their tenacity that he decided to move on, allowing Carthage and Rome to fight over the Western Mediterranean. The Romans eventually defeated the Carthaginians, but it was very close. The wars could easily have gone either way. It was during these wars that the legions evolved into the nearly invincible killing machines that enabled them to conquer the rest of the Mediterranean. When they subsequently faced the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the East, they systematically annihilated their armies. It wasn't even close. Very impressive when you consider the legacy of the Greeks as described by Greek historians: relatively small armies standing up to massive Persian hordes; Alexander conquering all of Persia and more. Much of our knowledge of ancient history is based Greek and Roman sources, so Greeks like Polybius wrote at length about what they perceived as a superior Roman military system.

 

Simplicity: compare the Roman legion to the overly complex army of Antiochus III. It had cataphracts, chariots, elephants, phalangites, gauls, archers, slingers, horse archers, etc. If all of these unit could have been brought to bear in a coordinated effort, they could have caused a lot of damage to any army. The Roman army was much more homogeneous. The majority of the legion did pretty much the same thing, so it was much easier to keep organized from a command and control standpoint. At the battle of Magnesia, Antiochus' army became disrupted very early and wasn't able to mount the coordinated effort needed for success. The Romans maintained their cohesion, each man doing his job as the battle evolved into a total rout. Interesting when you consider that Antiochus had the title of "the great" for his previous victories. He considered himself another Alexander. Who knows what he could have accomplished if he had not run into the Roman buzzsaw.

[DecimusCaesar]

Part of the superiority of the Legion comes down to discipline, the other comes down to manpower. Thanks to massive reserves from their Italian allies and from other foreign auxilliaries, the Romans could afford to lose many battles. Look at the Second Punic War, where the Romans suffered massive casualties at the battles of Trebbia, Trasimene and Cannae. Yet they emerged triumphant in the war and defeated Hannibal at Zama. They achieved that due to better organization of manpower and resources. Hannibal lost one battle and he ended up losing the war because the Carthaginians didn't have massive reserves of men to fall back on during defeat.

 

In earlier Roman history, the Romans took a long time to conquer Italy as they neede to win over or conquer other tribes and peoples in Latium and other areas of Italy, so they did not have the strength in manpower. That's why the conquest of Italy took longer for the Romans than the conquest of the Mediterranean. In other words, some of the strength of the Legion came from the fact that the Romans could sometimes afford to lose men in some battles, while for their enemies a single loss in battle would have been their doom.

[Guaporense]

I notice the Romans are always seen as invincible and superior their opponents in every way. Like the quote by Livy above, the Romans weren't exactly the perfect army in military abilities, tactics, and strategies. In fact much of the time the Romans were outmatched in many essential areas! For example take armor and weapons. Generally history books make it seem that Romans had the most advanced armor and weaponry in Europe and their opponents often fought with poor armor. But if one researches the enemies the Romans fought, one will learn the Germanic tribes always outmatched the Germans in quality of armor and swords!

 

Are you sure about that? I would think that if anybody had superior weapons and armour would be the Hellenistic powers of the eastern mediterranean or Carthage.

 

And the Romans weren't master of tactics and strategies like history books make it out to be. Often when they fought in North Africa and in the Middle East particularly against the Sassinids, the Roman tactical and strategical abilities were significantly inferior to those of their enemies even down right foolish at times. And history books alway make the Romans seem like they were masters of Siege weaponry and engineering. If one reads , often the siege equipment the Romans used were no better than those of their enemies.

 

That depends on the enemies.

 

Carthage, Macedonia, Ptolemaic Egypt, the Seleucid Empire and other mediterranean powers had comparable technology, social and economic development to the Roman Republic. One has to understand that economic, social and technological factors determine to a great extent the military capabilities of a State. These enemies were Rome's equals because they shared the same civilization with Rome: the classic mediterranean civilization.

 

By the 1st century, the Parthians and the barbarians tribes were far inferior to Rome in terms of military strength, on all levels.

 

In fact whatever tactics,strategies, and equipment the Romans used that were incredibly effective were copied by their enemies!For example Carthage had adopted basic Roman formations and heavy infantry in their armies. When they fought the Romans their equipment was equal to those of the Romans and they used similar formations. The Sassinids were quick to create shock infantry that were heavily armored once they saw the Roman Legions hacked through their regular infantry thus the Sassinids became on par with the Romans in armory and weaponry. Heck Romans armies have time and again been easily defeated by villagers of nations they invaded. Plus their enemies training were as equally grueling as their own! Just research the training of the Celts. Additionally even the Romans themselves admitted that the Sassinids as equally skilled as the Roman Legions were in war!

 

Carthage and Rome fought each other in the 3rd century BCE, when Rome's armed forces were still developing. Sassanid Persia started in the 3dr century CE, when the Empire was weaker than during it's peak. Neither nation fought Rome at their peak.

 

Why are the Romans always made out to be the most superior army in every in the Classical Age including in weaponry,armor, and strategies and tactics?

 

Because they won. The Romans managed to defeat every enemy that stood in their way from the 8th century BCE to the 2nd century. That's nearly 1 thousand years of military glory. By the early empire nothing could compare to Rome in military power. They considered that anything outside the empire wasn't worth conquering.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Guaporense

[CiceroD]

yes SassinidAzatan you are correct to praise Sassanid martial skill. The Romans could never make any real advances into Persia. Heck there is nothing to compare with the depiction of the defeated Valerian on his knees before Shapur on the Naqsh-i Rustam! But don't treat the Roman Army too harshly. A few of your points are somewhat unjustified.

 

 

For example take armor and weapons. Generally history books make it seem that Romans had the most advanced armor and weaponry in Europe and their opponents often fought with poor armor. But if one researches the enemies the Romans fought, one will learn the Germanic tribes always outmatched the Germans in quality of armor and swords!

 

Time period on this point is very important:

 

Caesar circa 58 BCE outlines the Germans as being semi nomadic, shunning agriculture, and being in a "life of poverty and privation." None of these things, I might add, are conducive to advanced metallurgy and weapons manufacturing.

 

I cannot substantiate this but I recall that archaeology from around the time of the Teutoberg Forest(9 CE)seemed to indicate that the German Swords were made of Steel-like iron and were very soft and apt to bend.

 

I fully believe your statement is correct when it comes to the Barbarian Invasions. But this this was a time when the Empire(s)were on their way out and imperial coffers couldn't afford "the best" anymore. Furthermore it has been stated that contact with the Roman world made the german tribes more technologically advanced. I will not speculate on the truth of this without sources, but it is logical to assume that Alaric was better equipped than the followers of Hermann.

 

Are you thinking about the Gauls? It is true Romans seem to have adopted their armor(lorica hamata) and helmet design from the Gauls as well as the Sagum cloak, but I had always heard that the "good" armor, helmets, and weapons were reserved for the chiefs and their attendants. The Romans did well in this early period by having the majority of their forces equipped with armor and helmets.

 

 

And the Romans weren't master of tactics and strategies like history books make it out to be. Often when they fought in North Africa and in the Middle East particularly against the Sassinids, the Roman tactical and strategical abilities were significantly inferior to those of their enemies even down right foolish at times. And history books alway make the Romans seem like they were masters of Siege weaponry and engineering. If one reads , often the siege equipment the Romans used were no better than those of their enemies.

 

Yes and no. Admittedly the fact that senior leadership in the legions was usually by political appointment hampered them. We have plenty of references to downright inept leadership of politicians such as Varus. My issue here is with your assertion that the tactical formations of Rome's enemies were somehow better. There was nothing more tactically inflexible than the phalanx. Once it was deployed there was little chance to call it back or manouver once deployed and was highly vulnerable from the rear. Things were worse for the Northern Barbarians. There was essentially no tactics at all! gather people together... and charge! A warleader had to fight personally to inspire his men and couldn't devote himself to a plan of battle. I have to agree with Adrian Goldsworthy. The Quincunx formation the romans used had 2/3rds of the army automatically in reserve. They had multiple officers who could issue orders and secure and advatage or bring in reinforcements as required. This only improved after the Marian Reforms which allowed for Cohorts to function independently a "modular" army

 

As far as siege weapons go again the timing is important. In the early to mid-republic you are completely correct. Once Legions ceased being temoprary entities it became possible to pass down expertise. Might I also add that by the end of the Republic with all the Major mediterranean powers defeated being the best at siegecraft was not too much to boast about. I admit I do not know about the Sassanids but you have to admit that the scale of the siegeworks at Masada is a bit awe inspiring.

 

In fact whatever tactics,strategies, and equipment the Romans used that were incredibly effective were copied by their enemies!For example Carthage had adopted basic Roman formations and heavy infantry in their armies. When they fought the Romans their equipment was equal to those of the Romans and they used similar formations. The Sassinids were quick to create shock infantry that were heavily armored once they saw the Roman Legions hacked through their regular infantry thus the Sassinids became on par with the Romans in armory and weaponry.

 

Yes the Sassanid army fought the Romans to a standstill for centuries so I can certainly believe in a rough parity between the forces. But the Carthaginians had very few citizens. They depended heavily on mercenaries and despite Hannibal's successes this was a serious flaw. I don't care how they were equipped.

Heck Romans armies have time and again been easily defeated by villagers of nations they invaded. Plus their enemies training were as equally grueling as their own! Just research the training of the Celts.

 

Yes ambushes and reverses happened, but the rebels almost never were able to turn this into permanent successes. And the Romans soon returned literally with a vengeance. Also inuring oneself to pain, physical fitness, and swordplay is one kind of training Discipline is another.

 

So were they as good as their reputation. Probably not, but the real accomplishment is that during their height they defended and ruled such a populous empire with as few as they had.

[caldrail]

I notice the word 'discipline' gets mentioned a lot. I think this needs to be clarified. Most of the time people assume the legions were well disciplined because we like to think they were - it appeals to part of our psyche that wants a sense of order, plus the romantic image of the perfect army is hard to quosh. However, stdying the sources reveals that discipline was not universally applied.

 

Firstly, in peacetime, discipline tended to weaken, sometimes a lot, and we know the legions often suffered from internal disputes to a greater or lesser degree. The Romans only stress the major mutinies but if you look carefully you will find hints of persistent problems.

 

What tended to happen in imperial times was that if hostilities started (and the Romans were equally guilty as their opponents) they were likely to get a bloody nose. We like to stress training and discipline but apparently the Romans found this hard to maintain to a fine edge. Instead what happened was the emperor/senate realised something bad was about to happen and rushed a senior politician they thought was capable to take charge. There are plenty of mentions of appointed leaders getting their men into shape.

 

Now I agree that discipline was harsh when applied - it needed to be, because the soldiers were not well behaved and prone to surliness, not to mention an entire catalogue of dodges and scams - but also because the Romans employed a much more basic system of command than people generally realise. Because they needed all the members of a centurytogether for mutual strength and protection, subdivision of command was impractical and also niot preferable to the Roman mindset, which was far more in favour of direct control, thus the centurion, whilst he did have junior men with some limited authority with him, was running the century very much as the boss. Our sources indicate that it was the centurion you bribed to get off menial labour, not his subordinate officials.

 

As to whether the legions were any good, the fact is the quality varied enormously. Some of the legions sent into battle were not, in modern terms, combat ready. Others were experienced hardened men. However, the important thing was who commanded the legion. A good commander would ensure the loyalty of his men (and even Julius Caesar had to face off a mutiny or two) whereas a poor commander, such as Junius Blaesus, all but inspired one. Note the clumsy reaction of legionary commanders in Germania during the mutiny after Augustus's death. When told by letter that Drusus was shortly to arrive and expected the legate to have done something before he got there, the legate concerned panicked and arranged for a mass slaughter of mutineers.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

yes SassinidAzatan you are correct to praise Sassanid martial skill. The Romans could never make any real advances into Persia. Heck there is nothing to compare with the depiction of the defeated Valerian on his knees before Shapur on the Naqsh-i Rustam! But don't treat the Roman Army too harshly. A few of your points are somewhat unjustified.

 

 

For example take armor and weapons. Generally history books make it seem that Romans had the most advanced armor and weaponry in Europe and their opponents often fought with poor armor. But if one researches the enemies the Romans fought, one will learn the Germanic tribes always outmatched the Germans in quality of armor and swords!

 

Time period on this point is very important:

 

Caesar circa 58 BCE outlines the Germans as being semi nomadic, shunning agriculture, and being in a "life of poverty and privation." None of these things, I might add, are conducive to advanced metallurgy and weapons manufacturing.

 

I cannot substantiate this but I recall that archaeology from around the time of the Teutoberg Forest(9 CE)seemed to indicate that the German Swords were made of Steel-like iron and were very soft and apt to bend.

 

I fully believe your statement is correct when it comes to the Barbarian Invasions. But this this was a time when the Empire(s)were on their way out and imperial coffers couldn't afford "the best" anymore. Furthermore it has been stated that contact with the Roman world made the german tribes more technologically advanced. I will not speculate on the truth of this without sources, but it is logical to assume that Alaric was better equipped than the followers of Hermann.

 

Are you thinking about the Gauls? It is true Romans seem to have adopted their armor(lorica hamata) and helmet design from the Gauls as well as the Sagum cloak, but I had always heard that the "good" armor, helmets, and weapons were reserved for the chiefs and their attendants. The Romans did well in this early period by having the majority of their forces equipped with armor and helmets.

 

 

And the Romans weren't master of tactics and strategies like history books make it out to be. Often when they fought in North Africa and in the Middle East particularly against the Sassinids, the Roman tactical and strategical abilities were significantly inferior to those of their enemies even down right foolish at times. And history books alway make the Romans seem like they were masters of Siege weaponry and engineering. If one reads , often the siege equipment the Romans used were no better than those of their enemies.

 

Yes and no. Admittedly the fact that senior leadership in the legions was usually by political appointment hampered them. We have plenty of references to downright inept leadership of politicians such as Varus. My issue here is with your assertion that the tactical formations of Rome's enemies were somehow better. There was nothing more tactically inflexible than the phalanx. Once it was deployed there was little chance to call it back or manouver once deployed and was highly vulnerable from the rear. Things were worse for the Northern Barbarians. There was essentially no tactics at all! gather people together... and charge! A warleader had to fight personally to inspire his men and couldn't devote himself to a plan of battle. I have to agree with Adrian Goldsworthy. The Quincunx formation the romans used had 2/3rds of the army automatically in reserve. They had multiple officers who could issue orders and secure and advatage or bring in reinforcements as required. This only improved after the Marian Reforms which allowed for Cohorts to function independently a "modular" army

 

As far as siege weapons go again the timing is important. In the early to mid-republic you are completely correct. Once Legions ceased being temoprary entities it became possible to pass down expertise. Might I also add that by the end of the Republic with all the Major mediterranean powers defeated being the best at siegecraft was not too much to boast about. I admit I do not know about the Sassanids but you have to admit that the scale of the siegeworks at Masada is a bit awe inspiring.

 

In fact whatever tactics,strategies, and equipment the Romans used that were incredibly effective were copied by their enemies!For example Carthage had adopted basic Roman formations and heavy infantry in their armies. When they fought the Romans their equipment was equal to those of the Romans and they used similar formations. The Sassinids were quick to create shock infantry that were heavily armored once they saw the Roman Legions hacked through their regular infantry thus the Sassinids became on par with the Romans in armory and weaponry.

 

Yes the Sassanid army fought the Romans to a standstill for centuries so I can certainly believe in a rough parity between the forces. But the Carthaginians had very few citizens. They depended heavily on mercenaries and despite Hannibal's successes this was a serious flaw. I don't care how they were equipped.

Heck Romans armies have time and again been easily defeated by villagers of nations they invaded. Plus their enemies training were as equally grueling as their own! Just research the training of the Celts.

 

Yes ambushes and reverses happened, but the rebels almost never were able to turn this into permanent successes. And the Romans soon returned literally with a vengeance. Also inuring oneself to pain, physical fitness, and swordplay is one kind of training Discipline is another.

 

So were they as good as their reputation. Probably not, but the real accomplishment is that during their height they defended and ruled such a populous empire with as few as they had.

I stand corrected on the Germanic tribes-I made a flawed generalizations that all the tribes were superior to the Romans in weapons and armor. I just read some more things on the Germanic tribes and from what I recalled, not all the Germanic tribes were superior in weaponry to the Romans but not all of them were savages with barely no armor on and poorly equipped.It depends on which Germanic tribes(heck what I'm reading tells me that the Germanic barbarians weren't even a united nations but seperate factions of varying sophistication in warfare and technology depending on the tribe!). From what I read certainly some tribes' average warrior had superior weapons to the Romans but others were barely equipped with armor.

 

Other than that point on the Germanic barbarians, great informative post!

 

The reason why I made this thread is because of how the Roman Legions' abilities are often extremely exagerrated. There is common perception that the Roman Legions almost always won because they always had the most advanced technologies,had the largest population, was the richest civilizations, and had the most effective tactics and brilliant generals(one just has to get into a history forum not specializing in Roman history to see these claims)and etc.In other words people have the view the Romans were the best at everything related to warfare;I have even seen encyclopedia and sites state THAT THE ROMANS WERE LITERALLY IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS A MODERN ARMY IN ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION AND THAT MODERN ARMIES WERE MODELED ON THE ROMAN LEGIONS!However as Livy states, the Romans were not the masters of everything.

Edited March 4, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[CiceroD]

A note: I am reading Caeser's "The Gallic Wars" for the first time as we discuss this. I'm reading that going up against the Belgic Tribes Caesar fought preliminary skirmishes and "found that his (Caesar's) troops were as good as theirs!

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

A note: I am reading Caeser's "The Gallic Wars" for the first time as we discuss this. I'm reading that going up against the Belgic Tribes Caesar fought preliminary skirmishes and "found that his (Caesar's) troops were as good as theirs!

Iam really curious, what do you all think of the claim that the Romans were overall about as advanced as a modern army in everything but technology and the claim that the Romans were the first true professional soldiers in history?General history books I read in high school including basic Roman history books and popular media esepcially documentaries on the Discover Channel and the History Channel keep stating that this!

 

Also what would you say of Livy's quote that is in the First post of this thread?

Edited March 4, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[caldrail]

I'll state my objection and leave it there. No, the Roman army wasn't modern at all. Sophisticated for its day certainly, and yes, some of the things they got up to were similar to what we're familiar with - but that's the problem. People spot the similarities and automatically fill in all the blanks without checking whether they're right. It simply isn't good history to assume the Romans were exactly like us.