Roman Legion Victory Record-Was it as impressive as we tend to assume?

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Recently getting into the Mongolian Military history, I was lurking around the net for information on the Mongols and found this interesting thread.

http://www.historum.com/speculative-history/6617-would-mongols-have-conquered-western-europe-5.html

 

In particular, this comment about the Mongols amused me:

The Mongol's had not just great Horse archers' date=' but good foot troops as well.

But they had the best mounted archers EVER, and with there tactics, made them the better in the open dry fields.

 

Most enemies they faced were defeated.

mostly though to under-trained or untrained enemies

What spoils it is mongol empire worshipers who think they never lost or are unbeatable .. they lost many battles, maybe not much so in the open fields with a huge army, but they lost many small and large siege battles to good trained foes, sometimes giving up and just turning the raids to another front.

 

http://www.historum.com/speculative-history/6617-would-mongols-have-conquered-western-europe-5.html#post357716?postcount=41[/quote']

 

 

So this post inspired a question from me:"Was the Roman Legions' Win-Lose Ratio was impressive as popular media and general history tend to portray?Were the Romans as sucessful militarily on the battlefield as we tend to fantasize?Winning majority of the battle they fought?"

 

Or is the so notion of the Roman Legions winning most of the battles they fought a false presumption?

 

Also how about their win-lose ratio in wars?Was it as unblemished as we think? A common notion about the Romans is that:

 

"They may lose battles but they ultimately won the wars."

 

How true is this notion?

 

 

Or did the Romans lose many more battles and even wars(however minor they were) then Romanophiles and Roman-Empire worshippers tend to imagine(reference to the quote above on Mongol-Empire worshippers seeing the Mongols as unbeattable or never losing )?

Edited July 25, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Centurion-Macro]

The Romans suffered some of the worst defeats in military history, and no doubt they lost many skirmishes and small battles in their centuries-long existence.

 

Many a time the armies that Rome faced were untrained and ill-equip for the legions, but many of their enemies were very competent in warfare. Many a time the Roman army showed great resourcefulness and strategy to defeat their enemies even on unfavorable terrain. You just have to read about the defeat of the Veneti fleet to see the skill of the Romans in defeating their foes (no matter who they were).

 

Yeah, they lost a lot. But they conquered an empire, and we should not forget that. The Romans had many defeats, but I still think their legions are among the best soldiers of history.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

The Romans suffered some of the worst defeats in military history, and no doubt they lost many skirmishes and small battles in their centuries-long existence.

 

Many a time the armies that Rome faced were untrained and ill-equip for the legions, but many of their enemies were very competent in warfare. Many a time the Roman army showed great resourcefulness and strategy to defeat their enemies even on unfavorable terrain. You just have to read about the defeat of the Veneti fleet to see the skill of the Romans in defeating their foes (no matter who they were).

 

Yeah, they lost a lot. But they conquered an empire, and we should not forget that. The Romans had many defeats, but I still think their legions are among the best soldiers of history.

Yeah, while nowhere close to a modern army like people tend to exaggerrate, Romans were without doubt among the best pre-18 century armies.

 

I was just curious about whether there records was as unblemish as we tend to think.Afterall, what I learned about the Mongols is that they were no where as efficient as people tend to romanticize, and while they won much of the time, their military records contains far more defeats in battles and and losses in war than we tend to romanticize.And I was wondering if its the same with Romans considering the performance of their legionry is already absurdly exaggerrated.

Edited July 25, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Northern Neil]

I wonder to what extent these days the efficacy of Roman troops actually is exaggerated. Sure, the general public who are only mildly interested if at all probably assumes that in their day, the legions were unbeatable, largely due to TV and films. However, battles such as Cannae, Teutobergerwald and Adrianople figure in quite a lot of non - academic literature, and even TV and films are coming round to the view that Rome didn't win all the time ( as seen in 'Centurion').

 

(I would also consider Frigidus as a defeat of the legions, as Theodosius 'The Great' had mostly German mercenaries on his side.)

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

I wonder to what extent these days the efficacy of Roman troops actually is exaggerated. Sure, the general public who are only mildly interested if at all probably assumes that in their day, the legions were unbeatable, largely due to TV and films. However, battles such as Cannae, Teutobergerwald and Adrianople figure in quite a lot of non - academic literature, and even TV and films are coming round to the view that Rome didn't win all the time ( as seen in 'Centurion').

 

(I would also consider Frigidus as a defeat of the legions, as Theodosius 'The Great' had mostly German mercenaries on his side.)

How about wars? We all know the notion

"Romans may lose battles but they always won the war in the end."

 

Which I truly doubt considering even the Mongols(almost always portrayed as invincible in General History Books,Movies, and History Documentaries) actually had a surprising number of minor wars lost.And note this is the Mongols who even some people well endowed in the Roman Legions claim are superior to the Romans!

 

So for win-lose ratio in regards to wars, I assume the Romans lost much more minor wars and wars in generals than we tend to think?Also I appreciate if someone can list some of the minor wars Romans lost so I know their names and will be able to research these disasterous wars.

[Centurion-Macro]

I wonder to what extent these days the efficacy of Roman troops actually is exaggerated. Sure, the general public who are only mildly interested if at all probably assumes that in their day, the legions were unbeatable, largely due to TV and films. However, battles such as Cannae, Teutobergerwald and Adrianople figure in quite a lot of non - academic literature, and even TV and films are coming round to the view that Rome didn't win all the time ( as seen in 'Centurion').

Well we must put these battles in perspective and remember that hundreds of years separated them from one another. Yes, they were horrendous defeats, but they were many generations apart.

 

~We just have to remember that history is written by the victors. And the writings that have survived about the Roman army don't quote individual skirmishes and small fights. So we will never gain a clear picture. However, we do know the Romans were a disciplined army that conquered and held a republic (and then empire) together for hundreds of years. They fought countless wars in their time, and they won many victories as well as suffering horrendous defeats at time periods in their history. But to judge the legions we just have to judge the place of Rome in the world - which was the best place. The legions were disciplined, courageous and under good leadership from their centurions.

 

So while they weren't the invincible soldiers that TV often says they were, they were a tough army with a lot of skill, that forged an empire out of a small cluster of villages and held that empire together for many centuries.

[Northern Neil]

Related to this question is the fact that Rome's army was more advanced and disciplined than most of its foes, the exception being the Macedonian Phalanx. Still, they no doubt had the logistical and disciplinary edge over most of their opponants, and also a technological one up until the 4th - 5th century, when I suspect Roman fabricii managers, out to make a quick buck, possibly sold much equipment to barbarians. One thing I would like to ponder though - was this superiority on a par with the superiority of, say, colonial armies against Zulus, Arabs, Apaches etc, or was the advantage much less marked?

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

One thing I would like to ponder though - was this superiority on a par with the superiority of, say, colonial armies against Zulus, Arabs, Apaches etc, or was the advantage much less marked?

I too am pondering this and trying to do research. Surprisingly, records of lost wars don't exist at all among the Roman Legions which is impossible to believe considering even the Colonial powers,who were WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more advanced than their enemies were defeated in some minor wars(but often came back with more troops). In my research of the Mongols alone, I discovered a surprising amount of minor wars and conflicts that they lost.

 

Quite odd, the only military superpower in history that I read that never suffered any minor defeats according to the existing records and published history books were that of the Roman Legions prior to the end of the Pax Romana.Even if the Romans were as great a "Military Machine" before post Pax Romana as we think, it is virtually impossible they have not lost minor overseas conflict and wars-the closest thing History Books list is the "stalemate" against the Sassinids in the Persian-Romano Wars(even this is debatable according to neutral observers of the Persian-Roman Wars). Considering Superpowers in later History who were more advanced and better organized than the Romans were such as the Mongols and Colonial Armies lost more wars than we tend to think, I find it impossible that even in disasterous defeats, "the Romans always ended up as the victors of wars".

 

Very hard to find information on this topic(much easier for the Mongols though).

 

=EDIT=

 

Also another question that came into my mind upon researching the Mongols:

Most enemies they faced were defeated.

mostly though to under-trained or untrained enemies

What spoils it is mongol empire worshipers who think they never lost or are unbeatable .. they lost many battles, maybe not much so in the open fields with a huge army, but they lost many small and large siege battles to good trained foes, sometimes giving up and just turning the raids to another front.

 

 

I think the same thing may have applied to the Romans-when they fought the Sassinids(who were on par or at least nearly on par as the Romans were in technology and military prowess), they suffered great defeats and were unable to end the conflicts with the Sassinids with a decisive outcome.

 

I mean, later on when Barbarians began to adopt Roman weapons and possibly began learning Roman Warfare, the Romans began to suffer more and more defeats as tehrir opponenets now used similar technology and tactics as they did. A great example is the Huns after their defeat in Chalon-adopted Heavy Infantry(or at least got the help of heavily armed Germanic barbarians)and got Roman Siege Equipment.

Edited July 27, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Ursus]

One thing I would like to ponder though - was this superiority on a par with the superiority of, say, colonial armies against Zulus, Arabs, Apaches etc, or was the advantage much less marked?

 

 

 

I believe Roman arms and armor were often mere improvements upon Celtic products, ne? In any case, the technology gap between Romans and Barbarians doesn't seem to match the technology gap between Europeans (who had gunpowder) and Natives (who didn't).

 

Rome's main advantage seems to have been the discipline and organization wrought from a cold blooded "professional" force dedicated to geopolitical domination, rather than loose groupings of tribal warriors out for mere plunder.

[Melvadius]

.... Surprisingly, records of lost wars don't exist at all among the Roman Legions which is impossible to believe ....

 

I don't understand what you find suprising about this fact.

 

It is well attested that we only have limited written sources for the entire period of the Roman empire with the third century particularly patchy and irrespective of the period even major battles sometimes are only mentioned in outline. You just have to consider, despite the long term interest among scholars, how limited our sources are on military actions in somewhere like Britain and the battles fought there.

 

Trying to find out about what were probably minor skirmishes, so much less likely to be recorded therefore seems a project likely to be without much success.

[Virgil61]

The Roman Legions or more exactly their armies were of course impressive. In consistency of quality from the Republic to the very end Rome could field armies that could pack a punch.

 

The impressiveness comes from comparison to other great armies of history. Alexander's Macedonians, the Spanish armies in the 16th century, the German Wehrmacht, the modern Israeli army, the Mongols for example are among the other contenders for greatest armies in history.

 

In comparing the combination of % of successful campaigns and longevity of existence w/other armies the Romans look pretty good. The Roman 'system' (culture plus institutional knowledge among the legions) could produce competent and trained armies (well with glaring screw-ups) with some consistency.

 

They only had to be better (and/or better led) than the armies they were fighting and they generally were. But they weren't invincible as Cannae, Hannibal and Teutoburg Wald show.