Roman Military Superiority

[Kosmo]

After Marius Rome had no serious opposition, but I vote for training.

[roman wargamer]

Come on Roman wargamer I know you know better than that :- Germanicus

 

reply: my note say's Marius was married to J. Caesar aunt.

i err, although it is big to you, it is minore to me,

my time frame on Rome have many minor gaps.

 

my note say's

 

note 1. foundation of Rome , ( become national )

begin at the consolidation of Italia

ended at , when Etruscan king was dethroned and republic founded.

Brutus was now known.

 

note 2. expasion of Rome , as superpower ( become international )

Punic War 1 and 2, it is almost the story of Scipio clan,

and Hannibal , the worst enemy Rome ever known and meet.

it ended at Hannibal suicide.

 

note 3. battle for the control of power

begin with Marius , with his reform, and many battles.

Spartacus, Crassus, Sulla , etc.

it ended when Octavian became Imperator.

 

i know no more after this event , Varian and Lollian defeat.

 

most of my readings after this era was base more on Roman Catholic history.

 

maybe my err and fail memory was cause by over fatigue and stress, been working in construction work

from 8 am to 8 pm , even Sunday since last week of January.

 

then last week a land slide happen that claims a thousands live including 250 student at school.

i can monitor only it at the night late news around 1130 pm. to study the causes.

 

then 3 days ago our President, declare a state of emergency. almost lock a newspaper,

arrested few left leaning congressmen and few retired generals.

 

then yesterday, some people arrived in front of military headquarters to protest and protect

some seems to be arrest of actived military officers, that turn out to be some show of sympathy

to unwarranted and imformal turn over of command of the Marines, those active officers seem

to be as suspect or PGMA do not trust in crisis.

 

but as i watch all those event every night, it seems to me as a pre emtive strike to those people,

political, military, press and business, who want the president to step down.

to curtail their momentum to gather enough forces or as strong warning that they will use also force.

[Furius Venator]

Training undoubtedly. The post Marian army had the colossal advantage over its opponents of being made up of well trained long service professionals. Good training is a (the?) key element in morale.

[Castor]

Thats a close one. I'd have to say either manpower or tactics. manpower because the generals now paid their soldiers and i believe provided armor, weaponry and equipment. This also resulted in the armies being more loyal to their commander. On the other hand, good tactics were developed to out manuever the enemy. (someone please correct me if i'm wrong)

 

Off topic (sorry): speaking of tactics, was the phalanx considered obsolete by the time of marian reforms or no

[Neos Dionysos]

Thats a close one. I'd have to say either manpower or tactics. manpower because the generals now paid their soldiers and i believe provided armor, weaponry and equipment. This also resulted in the armies being more loyal to their commander. On the other hand, good tactics were developed to out manuever the enemy. (someone please correct me if i'm wrong)

 

Generals did not 'pay' their troops, they gave them a cut of the booty from compaigns and perhaps on a rare occasion they were given a bonus from thier generals, (rare, they usually only got donatives from Emperor's upon acsension), the state paid thier wages, and supplied them with arms and equipment. The only difference was now troops were professional and so depended on their generals to see to thier well-being after retirement. This did increase loyalty, though how could this be an advantage if the enemy had an army just as loyal as them? What I mean is, the way you stated it, you sound as if you are assuming enemies or cheiftans of barbarians held no loyalty amongst thier troops which I think is a very false statement.

 

The manpower option entails that Romans had a vast amount of troops to call upon in the republican and imperial days. If an army was destroyed they could raise another and even larger force, few other states in the age could boast such a feat.

[Germanicus]

Generals did not 'pay' their troops, they gave them a cut of the booty from compaigns and perhaps on a rare occasion they were given a bonus from thier general

 

I posted a new topic on this Neos, interesting...

[Furius Venator]

But of course the troops WERE paid by the state. After deductions for living expenses and equipment they probably didn't see much money but throughout the Republic the common soldiers received state pay. They made their money from their share of booty handed out by their general and their general was also responsible for their donative (be it land or whatever) upon discharge.

[caldrail]

"Their drills were like bloodless battles; their battles bloody drills."

 

I'm not sure what time period this quote comes from, but I chose training.

 

Edit - fixed quote. Also, I think this might have been Suetonius, speaking of Hadrian.

 

That was from Josephus if I remember right, so about the time of the Jewish Revolt.

[Castor]

Oh

thanks for the correction

I'm going to side with training and movements now.

[Germanicus]

Training with 64% of the current vote !

[Centurion Legioneer]

I chose the Training and Movement tactics, because your army may have good leadership, or weaponry and armor, but without the necessary training. Your army will never be able to fight to its full potential.

[tvihiocus]

Training. On the level of ordinary troops that's what matters the most. The best of leaders can't do much with bad troops, like happened with the decisive battle between Hannibal and Scipio where the majority of Hannibal's troops was very inexperienced etc, while Scipio's forces were battle-hardened veterans for the large part. Even with a bad leader good troops can hold out for a while at least. Still, skilled leadership counts for much (after all, Rome's legions supposedly were, soldier for soldier, better than Hannibal's men even when they fought in Italy). In the best of times, it was the whole package that counted - good training and equipment combined with some of the best military geniuses in history, like, obviously, Julius Caesar.

 

Off topic (sorry): speaking of tactics, was the phalanx considered obsolete by the time of marian reforms or no

No, it wasn't. Even the Eastern Roman Empire adopted the use of the phalanx in the 3rd century AD. Also, titled the "last noteworthy action of the Spartans", the Spartan phalanx defeated raiding Visigoths following the defeat of Romans in the battle of Adrianople. I suppose the Spartan hoplite phalanx troops would've been a lot more influential even after 300BC if their number of citizens hadn't shrinked to very small numbers, and hence after a defeat at Leuctra and another battle some years after they couldn't recover enough to be anything but a footnote on the events after that. Still, their hoplites were some of the best even after that, just too few in number to really matter.

 

Anyway, that's sidetracking already, but what I meant was that the phalanx still was a fully valid formation long after Marius. Heck, it seems that some sort of variations of the phalanx were used even in the middle ages, namely the Scottish schiltron at least in the 12th century as well as the Swiss pike square in the 15th century.

 

If you think about it, as long as combat is done mostly with melee weapons, the phalanx really is quite effective.

[Primus Pilus]

Also, titled the "last noteworthy action of the Spartans", the Spartan phalanx defeated raiding Visigoths following the defeat of Romans in the battle of Adrianople.

 

Or so goes the legend. Unfortunately there really aren't any real historical accounts of this event.

 

At any rate, yes the phalanx continued in some form of mild effectiveness (given appropriate circumstances) beyond Marius, but it was hardly a mainstay of military tactics anymore... At least not until those later pike style formations of the middle ages you mentioned.

[tvihiocus]

At any rate, yes the phalanx continued in some form of mild effectiveness (given appropriate circumstances) beyond Marius, but it was hardly a mainstay of military tactics anymore...

Indeed, it is not really an universal formation, apparently many of the later uses of the phalanx were unsuccessful because the armies wielding them relied too much on phalanxes alone, which is what Alexander, for example, seemed to try to avoid. Used correctly with other units in the right place it still would have been quite effective a lot longer even in the Roman era.

[Neos Dionysos]

At any rate, yes the phalanx continued in some form of mild effectiveness (given appropriate circumstances) beyond Marius, but it was hardly a mainstay of military tactics anymore...

Indeed, it is not really an universal formation, apparently many of the later uses of the phalanx were unsuccessful because the armies wielding them relied too much on phalanxes alone, which is what Alexander, for example, seemed to try to avoid. Used correctly with other units in the right place it still would have been quite effective a lot longer even in the Roman era.

 

The key difference is, Alexander used the phalanx to pin an enemy down and make it stand and fight unable to really move, this then allowed the Macedonian Cavalry, which played the key roles in almost every engagement of Alexander, to give the decisive blow to the enemy and turn the battle in his favor. The phalanx was used kinda like a fulcrum, the battle would shift and change but the phalanx was meant to be that stable holding force designed to prevent the enemy main force from moving.

 

In contrast, later hellenic armies used the phalanx as more of a steamroller. Instead of using it as a force to pin down an enemy formation and allow the use of heavy cavalry to decide the battle, they instead relied on the phalanx to simply rollover the enemy which was a poor tactic when employed against the legions and republican manipulies. Perhaps had the armies of Philip V or Peresus used the phalanx as a stationary force and employed heavy cavalry things might have turned out different.