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

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

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.

Its very dangerous to make generalizations without getting into the specifics. Unfortunately it seems that the Roman Legion is one of those subjects were fatal generalizations are accepted as facts without getting into specific details of the Legion itself.

 

In fact in my research on the net, I seen people claim that Roman soldiers had superior discipline and tactics to Medieval troops and later armies(but that is a topic for threads specilizing in those specific periods and armies of those periods).To put as an example, here is a thread of Romans VS Medieval Armies.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread178897/pg1

Edited March 24, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[diegis]

Well, if we read what Vegetius i think, writed, and many others, Roman Army was indeed what might call an example for today armies.

 

Discipline was harsh usualy (ofcourse, less during peace time but much more during war), training was hard, including runing, marches (even swiming) with all equipment on the soldier, wrestling, boxing, use of individual weapons (and colective ones as balistae and catapults) and fight in bigger formations as well, engineering works etc.

This is exactly what a modern army do as well

 

Organization was clear and flexible (decuria, centuria, cohors, legions etc. similar with group, platoon, companies, battalions, regiments/brigades/divisions), there was a chain of comand quite well established, signals was used on the battle field, both visual and in sounds, to give orders during battle.

This again is similar with modern armies

 

Logistic was very good, soldiers have with them all their personal stuffs, weapons, tools extra clothes, armour and food for a period of time, and they was trained to march quite long distances equiped like that (this is quite above average armies today, as physical request)

 

They used even specialized inteligence networks, use spies, bribes and politics to resolve some problems, again, as modern powers do.

 

Soldiers was all profesional and equiped by state, again as modern armies, which inspire quite a lot from Romans.

[caldrail]

Not in Vegetius's day it wasn't. That gentleman was well aware of the deficiencies of the late empire armies and wrote a manual describing all the things the Romans ought to be doing, based on his appraisal of activities that various legions had done here and there. De Re Militaris is often used as a model of the Roman legions but it represents nothing of the sort, and in fact, distorts the true picture of how the legions behaved because it includes all the best bits lumped together.

 

Discipline is another case. It was harsh, no question, but this was out of necessity, because in the first place the ROmans recruited virile tough men by preference, secondly that these men were hard to control, being superstitous and naturally unruly, and thirdly because it suited the somewhat brutish command structure of the legion. When properly applied the legions behaved valiently on the battlefield, but if that leash was lengthened at all for any reason the poor behaviour of Roman legionaries soon made itself apparent.

 

The way you describe organisation shjows a clear desire to see a sort of perfection about the Roman legions. This is quite common, but illusory, because I don't believe the Romans used the same pyramid system we do today, nor was it as coherent as you imagine. I've done a number of posts on this subject, so I won't go into detail, but basically it appears under close examination that the Roman system was much rougher and readier than we might assume. Everything revolves around the centurion - he is taking on the role of a war chief of a small raiding band, albeit in a formalised manner. When the ROmans managed events to their own advantage, the Roman system usually worked well enough. Put them under pressure or in a chaotic ambush situation, the much vaunted Roman command system collapses like a house of cards.

 

As for logistics, it worked because the Romans tried to do without it as much as possible. They didn't want to be tied down to vulnerable baggage trains. It may be the case that Roman legionaries marched further than their modern counterpart in most cases, but bear in mind this also affected their battle readiness. You cannot march long distances with heavy loads and expect to as fighting fit as your opponent, and indeed, part of the disgruntlement that led to serious mutinies in Germania and Pannonia was the ill-effect of such a ifestyle.

 

Beware of the supposed professionalism of Roman legions. That has modern connatations that don't apply to the Romans. I agree the legions were 'professional' in that a man volunteered for twenty five years service and thus became an indentured warrior by vocation, but don't expand this to include modern professional behaviour, which was identifiably lacking in among the Romans.

[Metella]

I think the one thing that may be missing from this discussion is "standing army"

 

As far as I remember, the Romans under Marius were the first to have Professional Citizen Soldiers. It is the difference between a Buddhist Monk who can train 17 hours a day on one thing and awe us all; and someone learning to kick and hit and swing n-chucks for 2 hours a week at a local karate studio.

 

In the Late Republic and then onto the Empire's days - the Romans were professional soldiers, mirroring today's modern armies. They usually fought forces that were put together for local defense or for a specific invasion - therefore they had much less training. Being made up citizens or promised citizenship after their service, created much more loyal and determined soldiers than mercs.

 

In that sense I would call the Roman army modern except in technology. Sure there is always more to develop; but this is why I think they get description.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Metella

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

I think the one thing that may be missing from this discussion is "standing army"

 

As far as I remember, the Romans under Marius were the first to have Professional Citizen Soldiers. It is the difference between a Buddhist Monk who can train 17 hours a day on one thing and awe us all; and someone learning to kick and hit and swing n-chucks for 2 hours a week at a local karate studio.

 

In the Late Republic and then onto the Empire's days - the Romans were professional soldiers, mirroring today's modern armies. They usually fought forces that were put together for local defense or for a specific invasion - therefore they had much less training. Being made up citizens or promised citizenship after their service, created much more loyal and determined soldiers than mercs.

 

In that sense I would call the Roman army modern except in technology. Sure there is always more to develop; but this is why I think they get description.

 

Its not true the Romans had the first professional standing armies-the Chinese had professional standing armies too around the time of the Romans(and the Art of War by Sun Tzu implies that centuries before the Marian reforms that the Chinese had standing professional armies).

 

I don't disagree the Roman Legion was sophisticated for its day,but like Caldrail said to compare the Roman Legions with modern army is ludricous and absurd-modern armies as far as the time of Louis XIV(commonly called the Sun King) already surpassed the Roman Legions in military doctrine, tactics and strategies, and even DISCIPLINE-Google Jean Martinet to see an example.

Edited March 31, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

Not in Vegetius's day it wasn't. That gentleman was well aware of the deficiencies of the late empire armies and wrote a manual describing all the things the Romans ought to be doing, based on his appraisal of activities that various legions had done here and there. De Re Militaris is often used as a model of the Roman legions but it represents nothing of the sort, and in fact, distorts the true picture of how the legions behaved because it includes all the best bits lumped together.

 

Discipline is another case. It was harsh, no question, but this was out of necessity, because in the first place the ROmans recruited virile tough men by preference, secondly that these men were hard to control, being superstitous and naturally unruly, and thirdly because it suited the somewhat brutish command structure of the legion. When properly applied the legions behaved valiently on the battlefield, but if that leash was lengthened at all for any reason the poor behaviour of Roman legionaries soon made itself apparent.

 

The way you describe organisation shjows a clear desire to see a sort of perfection about the Roman legions. This is quite common, but illusory, because I don't believe the Romans used the same pyramid system we do today, nor was it as coherent as you imagine. I've done a number of posts on this subject, so I won't go into detail, but basically it appears under close examination that the Roman system was much rougher and readier than we might assume. Everything revolves around the centurion - he is taking on the role of a war chief of a small raiding band, albeit in a formalised manner. When the ROmans managed events to their own advantage, the Roman system usually worked well enough. Put them under pressure or in a chaotic ambush situation, the much vaunted Roman command system collapses like a house of cards.

 

As for logistics, it worked because the Romans tried to do without it as much as possible. They didn't want to be tied down to vulnerable baggage trains. It may be the case that Roman legionaries marched further than their modern counterpart in most cases, but bear in mind this also affected their battle readiness. You cannot march long distances with heavy loads and expect to as fighting fit as your opponent, and indeed, part of the disgruntlement that led to serious mutinies in Germania and Pannonia was the ill-effect of such a ifestyle.

 

Beware of the supposed professionalism of Roman legions. That has modern connatations that don't apply to the Romans. I agree the legions were 'professional' in that a man volunteered for twenty five years service and thus became an indentured warrior by vocation, but don't expand this to include modern professional behaviour, which was identifiably lacking in among the Romans.

Your posts sums up why I created this thread-I always keep hearing of how the Roman Army was the unstoppable invincible most advanced military force of its time and how it was a "modern" army.But like you and I agree on, the Romans were nothing close to how a modern army operated and its a myth they were the most advanced in every aspect of warfare in their time.I really wanted to discuss this as this is one misconception I really get annoyed by that never seems to go away except in Roman based forums.

[diegis]

Not in Vegetius's day it wasn't. That gentleman was well aware of the deficiencies of the late empire armies and wrote a manual describing all the things the Romans ought to be doing, based on his appraisal of activities that various legions had done here and there. De Re Militaris is often used as a model of the Roman legions but it represents nothing of the sort, and in fact, distorts the true picture of how the legions behaved because it includes all the best bits lumped together.

 

Yes, he talk mostly about what was in the prime time of the legions, he mention even foreign nations from which Romans of his time can inspire, Dacians, Thracians, Macedonians, and couple more others.

Fact is that those things was usualy done in Roman legions, and wasnt Vegetius inventions

 

Discipline is another case. It was harsh, no question, but this was out of necessity, because in the first place the ROmans recruited virile tough men by preference, secondly that these men were hard to control, being superstitous and naturally unruly, and thirdly because it suited the somewhat brutish command structure of the legion. When properly applied the legions behaved valiently on the battlefield, but if that leash was lengthened at all for any reason the poor behaviour of Roman legionaries soon made itself apparent.

 

Sure it was a necessity, and this discipline (sometimes or usualy less harsh today) is still imposed in modern armies, and have its roots to the legions. From perfect marches to clean up your guns or your uniform, your boots, until they shine (especialy on inspections or parades), to punishments for diysobeing the orders or not doing your mission. Sure, not like decimation or lashing or beatings (this last one might still be around in many armies)

 

The way you describe organisation shjows a clear desire to see a sort of perfection about the Roman legions. This is quite common, but illusory, because I don't believe the Romans used the same pyramid system we do today, nor was it as coherent as you imagine. I've done a number of posts on this subject, so I won't go into detail, but basically it appears under close examination that the Roman system was much rougher and readier than we might assume. Everything revolves around the centurion - he is taking on the role of a war chief of a small raiding band, albeit in a formalised manner. When the ROmans managed events to their own advantage, the Roman system usually worked well enough. Put them under pressure or in a chaotic ambush situation, the much vaunted Roman command system collapses like a house of cards.

 

Well, if you dont believe is one thing, but they surely existed, because other way they wouldnt be mentioned. And their paralels with modern armies are clear.

 

About a chaotic ambush situation, i dont think any modern regular army unit will do much better then a Roman legion back then.

 

As for logistics, it worked because the Romans tried to do without it as much as possible. They didn't want to be tied down to vulnerable baggage trains. It may be the case that Roman legionaries marched further than their modern counterpart in most cases, but bear in mind this also affected their battle readiness. You cannot march long distances with heavy loads and expect to as fighting fit as your opponent, and indeed, part of the disgruntlement that led to serious mutinies in Germania and Pannonia was the ill-effect of such a ifestyle.

 

Yes, but more times this helped them and surprised the enemies. I think Caesar said that Germans for ex. was quick runners, but have a weak resistance or stamina, and wasnt able to stand much physical work, especialy compared with his legionars.

I think a guy called Nero (not the emperor ofcourse), if i am not mistake, made a spectacular quick (and long) march with his army, from Rome to somehwere north of Italia, and took by surprise the Carthaginian army led by Hanibal brother (Hasdrubal was his name if i remember correct) who come in his help from Hispania. This Carthage army was destroyed, and Hannibal lost all his reinforces. So yes, Roman soldiers (still not "profesional" at that time) was able to fight even after those marches, but usualy was not the case that a battle to start imediatly after a march

 

Beware of the supposed professionalism of Roman legions. That has modern connatations that don't apply to the Romans. I agree the legions were 'professional' in that a man volunteered for twenty five years service and thus became an indentured warrior by vocation, but don't expand this to include modern professional behaviour, which was identifiably lacking in among the Romans.

 

I think modern professionals arent too diferent from Roman ones. Sure, diferences exist, but Romans are somehow the roots for any profesional force

Edited March 31, 2011 by diegis

[diegis]

I think the one thing that may be missing from this discussion is "standing army"

 

As far as I remember, the Romans under Marius were the first to have Professional Citizen Soldiers. It is the difference between a Buddhist Monk who can train 17 hours a day on one thing and awe us all; and someone learning to kick and hit and swing n-chucks for 2 hours a week at a local karate studio.

 

In the Late Republic and then onto the Empire's days - the Romans were professional soldiers, mirroring today's modern armies. They usually fought forces that were put together for local defense or for a specific invasion - therefore they had much less training. Being made up citizens or promised citizenship after their service, created much more loyal and determined soldiers than mercs.

 

In that sense I would call the Roman army modern except in technology. Sure there is always more to develop; but this is why I think they get description.

 

Yes, and we might add as well the medical services that legions had, including what we call today "field doctors" who go on battlefield or close by and treat the wounded right there, then evacuate them to what we can call hospitals.

Where even surgery (and sometimes quite complicate interventions) was done for the wounded or sick legionars

[diegis]

 

Your posts sums up why I created this thread-I always keep hearing of how the Roman Army was the unstoppable invincible most advanced military force of its time and how it was a "modern" army.But like you and I agree on, the Romans were nothing close to how a modern army operated and its a myth they were the most advanced in every aspect of warfare in their time.I really wanted to discuss this as this is one misconception I really get annoyed by that never seems to go away except in Roman based forums.

 

Well, it wasnt unstopable or invincible, but for sure had for quite a long period, a crushing dominance.

 

I must say that Assirians for ex, employed first trully multifunctional army, with rapid deployment of assault chariots, psichological warfare, dedicated engineers units who provide suport for crossing rivers, or build all kind of stuff, use of incendiary weapons as burning pitch tar and so on, but Romans set a kind of standard who have many similarities with modern times, or is praised in modern times.

[caldrail]

There seems to be a fashion for describing ancient armies in modern terms right now. That's not something I recommend because it introduces concepts and ideas that are anachronistic and unrealised by people in classical history. Personally I think imposing modern concepts and behaviour on classical times is one of the worst mistakes you make.

 

Multifunctional? What exactly is an army used for? To defeat opposing armies, conquer territory, and keep the peace afterward. In what way were the Assinians different?

 

Rapid deployment? That was an alien concept in classical times. Certainly getting somewhere before the enemy was a useful idea and one often employed, but essentially your army moved at two speeds - march and forced march. In general, cavalry kept pace with infantry because they needed to remain part of the whole and in any case, horses are not machines and get tired too if ridden at the trot or gallop excessively. In what way was rapid deployment facilitated? The Assinians went places as fast as anyone else could.

 

Assault Chariots - Chariots are not tanks. They do not 'assault' the enemy. The idea of a chariot is a fast moving vehicle for throwing missiles and intimidating the enemy. One at a standstill, the chariot is all but useless. Chariots attack by riding along a side of an enemy unit, forcing the troops back in the same way a cavalry charge threatens their well-being, and in the case of those chariots fitted with scythes, to take out a number of troops too slow to get out of the way. In other words, chariots mount harassing attacks, not assaults.

 

Psychological Warfare - The ancients had no psychologists to advise their leaders and thus using the term is giving the Assinians techniques they never had any idea of. That doesn't mean they didn't try to reduce the enemy morale by one means or another, but that tactic was in common use anyway. Army leaders everywhere were well aware of the necessity to maintain morale, and how vulnerable an opposing army could be if their morale suffered.

 

Incendiary weapons - Fire has been a factor in warfare since mankind invented it. Granted the use of substances to incite conflagrations was rare as opposed to the direct use of fire, but that depended on there being people who had discovered that technique among them - it wasn't a cultural phenomenon.

 

The Romans have a reputation for being 'a military machine'. I used to say the same things, but that's a rather impersonal and mechanisrtic view of their campaigning. Granted they were better organised than many other forces but to see them as utterly efficient and obedient is no more than a fantasy. They were anything but. In fact, the legions were in some respects a necessary evil in Roman society and the Romans themselves hint at that attitude. Without strong leadership the legions quickly devolved to little more than an armed rabble. If you study their command structure closely, you will see that the obedience of the Roman legion depended more on social superiority than military authority, although a few lashes of a vinestaff usually kept order when the politician leading the legion found troublemakers among his warriors.

 

There are some that will argue that there's no functional difference between fighting now and then. That's an idea that relies utterly on emphasing the similarities between era's and ignoring the differences. The Roman legions may have been better organised than other military factions of the time, but they were essentially doing exactly the same things as their opponents albeit in a different style.