Invincible?

[Anthonius]

The roman military system was the most advanced at the time, they conquerored much of their known world, and put their marks on all of it. But was the roman cohorts really invincible? Through history, they where defeated several times, but why? What was their weakness? After all, they where human.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Anthonius

[Furius Venator]

Generally when they were defeated it was due to a failure of command or morale (or one leading to t'other).

 

So, yes, they were defeated precisely because they were human.

 

I don't think many people tout the Roman legions as being 'invincible'.

[caldrail]

Suprisingly many people do regard the roman legions as invincible waves of sword wielding robots. That was what the Rome wanted - a reputation that would make them hesitant about armed defiance. It amazes me that this reputation survives even today.

 

Their main weaknesses were corruption, political control, and bad leadership. Other than that, the legions were an extraordinary army in their heyday.

[Furius Venator]

You're quite right of course. I meant 'informed people'. I should have been clearer. Apologies.

[Ursus]

Main weakness? Not my area of expertise, but I agree "bad leadership" was a big one. More to the point, it was the social system that produced that leadership. Up until the Dominate it was assumed the military commanders would be the educated and wealthy landowners, regardless of their inherent military expertise. Look at all the incompetent louts that fell before Hannibal.

 

Nonetheless the legions were so well-trained, well-equiped, and thoughtfully guided by experienced Centurions they could overpower most enemies, especially if those enemies were a bunch of disorganized barbarian tribalists.

 

I do fine the new order of things under the Dominate quite interesting, the separation of civil and military command, the granting of military leadership to often illiterate but more experienced field commanders.

[AEGYPTUS]

Quick question to anyone who can answer. How come Roman/Byzantine military tactics were so ill suited to fighting tribes like the Huns for example? Was this also due to bad leadership or were their military tactics/style getting out dated?

Edited May 27, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[caldrail]

Traditional roman tactics were based on the deployment of heavy infantry, of a more flexible format than the older phalanx. The huns preferred a mobile strategy using horsemen to good advantage. Of course the later roman armies were using much more cavalry than before, but the huns were using horses that could be astonishingly hardy and quick.

 

Bad leadership had something to do with it, but it was also the reluctant nature of the late roman soldiery that didn't help. Becoming a soldier of Rome was no longer seen as a desired career. Also remember that although discipline was fierce in the legions - it had to be. Roman soldiers didn't obey without question. Mutinies were frequent and even Julius Caesar nearly lost control of his men once. A roman leader didn't just order his men to battle - he had to inspire and cajole them too. This pprobably got worse in the later roman armies although the question of cash wasn't so important (I think).

 

The increasing use of barbarian units may not have helped either. I wonder if this made the command structure worse too? The Huns had already got the measure of them in any case.

 

The Huns were aggressive, tough, and simply not afraid of Romes reputation.

Edited May 28, 2006 by caldrail

[AEGYPTUS]

The increasing use of barbarian units may not have helped either. I wonder if this made the command structure worse too? The Huns had already got the measure of them in any case.

 

I wonder would the Barbarian troops have known how to speak Latin atleast some anyway? If not communication throughout the armies of Rome that used barbarian units would have been relativley poor at best.

Edited May 28, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Ursus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't barbarians always account for about half of the Roman army ever since at least the early Principate? The only thing that changed is that by the later empire the generalissimos were increasingly of babarian stock rather than traditional Roman landowners.

[Neos Dionysos]

Bad leadership had something to do with it, but it was also the reluctant nature of the late roman soldiery that didn't help. Becoming a soldier of Rome was no longer seen as a desired career. Also remember that although discipline was fierce in the legions - it had to be. Roman soldiers didn't obey without question. Mutinies were frequent and even Julius Caesar nearly lost control of his men once. A roman leader didn't just order his men to battle - he had to inspire and cajole them too. This pprobably got worse in the later roman armies although the question of cash wasn't so important (I think).

 

The increasing use of barbarian units may not have helped either. I wonder if this made the command structure worse too? The Huns had already got the measure of them in any case.

 

It can be argued that the officers of the Late Empire were actually the best than ever before in the state's history. This is due directly because of the 3rd Century Crisis. During that time, emperors broke with the tradition whereby higher commands were reserved for senatorial amaeturs as a step in thier aristocratic careers. Promotion was from henceforth by merit, and the high commands opened up to a far wider pool of talent. This allowed the best qaulified to become the commanders of the army, and also more quickly weeded out those who could not hack it since threats constantly threatened Rome, a commander's capacity to command would easily be tested. If he failed, he was done for, if not, he had an excellent career ahead of him. So leadership is not an issue here.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't barbarians always account for about half of the Roman army ever since at least the early Principate? The only thing that changed is that by the later empire the generalissimos were increasingly of babarian stock rather than traditional Roman landowners.

 

You're right Ursus, since the days of the Augustus Barbarians were used by Rome and it just increased and increased. The issue is when people see, "Barbarians" in the army they think of disorganized rabbles and men whom the Romans could not control, this was not the case, they were trained, structured and led like Roman Armies would normally be.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Eunapius Titus]

Like all armies, the Roman army faced both its positive times and its negative times. But, as has been mentioned, these seem to rely more on leadership than on the army itself. The army remained, even when it was just levied, a stalwart and steady force, only beaten very rarely on even ground, given capable leadership. They were, however, ordinary men.

[Kosmo]

Romans had a lot of victories, but many defeats as well.

I think their main weekness was cavalry. They always had to rely on others for cavalry and when the role of cavalry increased so did the role of this auxilars.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Rome was never really defeted in military terms, I believe. Even during the late empire the military was still very effective but the empire was collapsing under the economical strain. I don't think the army was invicible however as it was defeated on many occasions.

Edited May 29, 2006 by PerfectimusPrime

[caldrail]

Strictly speaking Rome was defeated more than once. Rome was sacked in the 4th century BC was it not? Again in 410AD. Hannibal could have done it if only he'd had the foresight to capitalise on his victories and move in quicker. If you want to get serious about this, then Sulla, Julius Caesar, Vespasian, Severus Septimus - All marched on Rome in civil war.

 

What kept Rome from disaster more often than not was its huge reserve of manpower. The sheer size of the territory it ruled meant that the recruitment pool was potentially massive at any time. Just ask Hannibal...

[Eunapius Titus]

The pool of manpower was vital to Roman success. The troops at Cannae were simply a fresh, brand new levied "super legion". Everyone in that army was inexperienced, from the skirmisher to the commander. Hannibal's army was experienced, efficient and well-led. While the battle was lost, the fact that Rome had several legions abroad and still managed to levy a force of 60,000 to 80,000 men (by some estimates) in a relatively short period of time is simply amazing.

 

Rome not only won militarily, they won politically. Throughout the conquering of Gaul and Iberia, Roman diplomats and generals skillfully played upon tribal politics in order to spread their influence and military power locally. The only way that the Iberian leader Viriato was captured and defeated was by breaking a peace treaty and assassinating him at night.

 

Yes, the manipular legion was incredibly effective as a fighting force in general. But I think Rome also had something more than a simply tactical advantage, one which essentially handed them the entire world: willingness. No other culture could so endlessly throw men and resources at a given objective, until victory was essentially inevitable. After Teutoberg, the Roman army simply replaced the lost men and went back into the land they had just lost thousands and thousands of men in. No other culture was willing to lie, steal and connive their way to victory, regardless of reputation or honor.

 

The Roman army wasn't invincible so much as simply unyielding. Keep pushing, and the other side virtually always collasped by the end.