In Perspective

[caldrail]

The image we have of roman legions is seductive. Massed ranks of armoured men marching like steamrollers across anyone who dares oppose them. How true is that?

 

Not very.

 

Despite the roman talent for organisation and a training regime that was way ahead of its time, we see an impressive list of defeats. Most aren't studied closely but when you read histories written by romans they do mention them. It appears the roman steamroller wasn't quite as sturdy as imagined.

 

Why?

 

The reason is staring us in the face every time we read those histories, but I'll get to that.

 

Romans and non-citizens join up for various reasons, but for most the legion offered a secure living. Remember that war was infrequent during many periods so a roman soldier, given the excellent health care and benefits, could easily expect to outlive his civilian opposite. Many of these men were hardened by life before they joined. Life in the ancient world could be harsh.

 

Once the initial examination and interview was done the recruit was given a small sum of travelling money and sent to his training camp in the care of a few serving soldiers, who often delighted in making sure the travelling money went into their pocket. Was it like a modern army? In some ways yes, in others no. We would recognise many of their activities as similar.

 

A recruit was trained to fight, to obey orders, to remain calm in battle, and to endure hardship. He might be trained in artillery, to ride horses, to swim, and if he had an education or a trade, a chance to avoid the fatigues that his fellows were ordered to complete. There lies the first clue. Life as a legionary wasn't as grim as might be imagined but it was hard graft. A commander was wise to keep his men occupied with labour or civil engineering projects. His men had no intention of breaking their backs building aqueducts unless they could help it. There is definitely a quiet reluctance to volunteer that I see. So how does that affect things?

 

In order for the legion to function effectively it required strong leadership. Not just the legate (general) but his centurions and optio's too. This is why Julius Caesar was such a good general. Despite some poor choices of strategy he leads from the front, maintains good relations with his junior commanders, and clearly demands the best from his men. Since his victories put cash in their pockets, they were usually keen to follow him. And there is the second clue - Money.

 

Now when we read the prose left to us by roman authors they concentrate on personalities - the focus of their story. So we read about commanders and a few heroic men who stood out briefly. The great mass of men who reluctantly did their bit for pay and reward do not figure in these tales unless they massacre, moan, or mutiny.

 

However, every so often we read a passage that shows a more human side. Like men ordered to prepare the circumvallation at Jerusalem in 70ad for instance. They groaned, put their weapons down, and started building work. The jews attacked at that moment because the romans clearly weren't being too alert, and it was nearly a disaster. Or that moment when a young jew stole water from under the annoyed noses of the roman sentries. Boy did they feel like a bunch of suckers!

 

The whole point is that our perception of the roman legion is coloured by fantasy. The truth is that we should see a bunch of hardened men, often corrupt, careless, callous, and mutinous. They were sometimes indifferent fighters. They were easily bored and prone to crafty dodges. Strong leadership, discipline, and punishment never eradicated these traits, merely contained it.

 

The real success of the roman legions was its logistical ability. Good organisation, effective distribution of resources, and a seemingly endless supply of replacement recruits. Without the ability to equip and supply up to 350,000 men across the face of Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, Rome would never have triumphed.

 

Unless of course, you have different opinions?

[Neos Dionysos]

Well you double-posted for one... lol.

 

 

But to comment on your perspective, I don't think many of us here beleive the Roman Legions to have been a steamroller that just walked over all foes before them and the only defeats attributed were by 'great leaders' (Hannibal etc). Perhaps those with only mild interest or knowledge of Roman history clings to the idea that the legion, unless ambushed or led by a moron, was invincible and the people who cling to that sadly tend to be the majority. These same people are those who know the name Augustus, or Caesar maybe Constantine but that's about it.

 

It's a very nice perspective and I like it and agree, but I think we're the wrong audience... this would be something for those outside the civilzed and educated walls of UNRV,

[Pertinax]

The "double posting " has gone to Tartarus-not your topic!

[Primus Pilus]

The "double posting " has gone to Tartarus-not your topic!

 

Then I moved it back, and realizing the error, simply deleted the extra thread. I also edited the thread title to help out a bit.

 

Now hopefully discussion will emerge.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

When I think of the legions, I think they were great not because of "steam-roller-action," but because of the extreme ingenuity, wit, and sheer determination they displayed.

 

For ingenuity, we have the corva, adoption of gladius, fort design... the list goes on. They adapted when need be, and turned sieges into an art. They went by a strict organizational system, yet bent the rules at times to achieve victory. If an army was decimated, they would raise another, and usually learned from their mistakes to return like avenging angels.

 

Of course there were many times they didn't show their good side, or their smart side either. Not all men who joined the legions were corrupt though- some just loved the army or wanted steady pay. I do agree with the statement about civil engineering though. There is nothing worse than a standing army with nothing to do.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[Virgil61]

The image we have of roman legions is seductive. Massed ranks of armoured men marching like steamrollers across anyone who dares oppose them. How true is that?

 

That's the popular image, I doubt any long time members here would subscribe to it.

 

Despite the roman talent for organisation and a training regime that was way ahead of its time, we see an impressive list of defeats. Most aren't studied closely but when you read histories written by romans they do mention them. It appears the roman steamroller wasn't quite as sturdy as imagined.

 

Why?

 

Remember the Roman advantages are relative to their contemporaries. Training is a perishable commodity, good training during a campaign five years ago isn't much good if you've been sitting fat and happy since. For all the advantages of the Roman system there's also evidence that it wasn't always at the same level of quality across the board for every legion in every posting. Leadership decisions is among the most crucile variable as well.

 

The imagined steamroller is a product of more popular imagination not of a serious student of military history.

 

The whole point is that our perception of the roman legion is coloured by fantasy. The truth is that we should see a bunch of hardened men, often corrupt, careless, callous, and mutinous. They were sometimes indifferent fighters. They were easily bored and prone to crafty dodges. Strong leadership, discipline, and punishment never eradicated these traits, merely contained it.

 

I'm not sure whose fantasy you're describing, but you've presented a negative one-dimensional view of the Roman legions who spanned an era from citizen call-ups to late antiquity. Any group of male soldiers--Roman, American, Brit, you name it--not kept busy with work, training and other tasks will descend into less desirable or plain careless activities.

 

Discipline and punishment are a narrow set of tools for leaders to effectively prepare soldiers for war. The Romans thought so as well which is why they utilized rewards as well. Again, there was no Army IG who inspected and maintained all Roman legions to a certain standard so quality varied.

 

The real success of the roman legions was its logistical ability. Good organisation, effective distribution of resources, and a seemingly endless supply of replacement recruits. Without the ability to equip and supply up to 350,000 men across the face of Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, Rome would never have triumphed.

 

Unless of course, you have different opinions?

 

I guess it was part of the equation for success. Give a unit all the bread and wine they can eat and drink, if they aren't drilled, trained and led to a standard it really won't matter. All you'll have is well-fed slaves for the enemy.

[Lost_Warrior]

When I think of the legions, I think they were great not because of "steam-roller-action," but because of the extreme ingenuity, wit, and sheer determination they displayed.

 

I agree. I also think that alot of it has to do with the time period. The things Caldrail mentioned have been present throughout the history of the Roman legions and through other armies as well, but I think that in later times the situation was much worse. there was a difference between someone who believed in fighting for Rome and someone who is doing it only to gain political standing or because it is "expected of them". It is my belief that in the later part of the empire there were less who fought because they loved Rome and more who fought because they had to.

[caldrail]

That's the popular image, I doubt any long time members here would subscribe to it.

 

Thats what I mean though. The image is pervasive and I have read elements of it on this site occaisionally. In some respects it would appear that the romans themselves were keen to present themselves as an unstoppable army and via inaccurate history and fiction, not to mention hollywood epics, this image persists to this day in the popular imagination.

 

Remember the Roman advantages are relative to their contemporaries. Training is a perishable commodity, good training during a campaign five years ago isn't much good if you've been sitting fat and happy since. For all the advantages of the Roman system there's also evidence that it wasn't always at the same level of quality across the board for every legion in every posting. Leadership decisions is among the most crucile variable as well.

 

The imagined steamroller is a product of more popular imagination not of a serious student of military history.

 

Agreed - but the legions did practice their skills and were required to perform route marches to aintain their edge. I don't know how often this was adhered to - it would depend on the commanders. Variable quality is a point well made.

 

I'm not sure whose fantasy you're describing, but you've presented a negative one-dimensional view of the Roman legions who spanned an era from citizen call-ups to late antiquity. Any group of male soldiers--Roman, American, Brit, you name it--not kept busy with work, training and other tasks will descend into less desirable or plain careless activities.

 

Discipline and punishment are a narrow set of tools for leaders to effectively prepare soldiers for war. The Romans thought so as well which is why they utilized rewards as well. Again, there was no Army IG who inspected and maintained all Roman legions to a certain standard so quality varied.

 

The fantasies I describe come largely from fiction and hollywood as I mentioned before. The apparent uniformity of roman units give them an image of faceless coherence which does have some basis in truth. They were after all well drilled (usually) and obedient. However, the writings of romans give a slightly distorted picture of roman capability. Julius Caesar was an extraordinary leader but he did exaggerate his victories for instance. I suspect a general proudly announcing his victory before the senate also indulged in a little over-statement. This has transferred through generations of history teachers who were keen to present the romans as the pinnacle of civilisation ( which to me seems odd given the view that they are also presented as decadent and mad by moralistic storytellers)

 

I guess it was part of the equation for success. Give a unit all the bread and wine they can eat and drink, if they aren't drilled, trained and led to a standard it really won't matter. All you'll have is well-fed slaves for the enemy.

 

I meant something more than simply providing food. Yes they did that although some roman units went short from time to time. What I also meant was that because the romans could raise another unit of replacements quickly the enemy could lop off as many arms as they liked, sooner or later they were going to get another punch in the face.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

The fantasies I describe come largely from fiction and hollywood as I mentioned before.

 

Well, what else do you expect from a fiction or hollywood writer?

 

As for the legions making an image of themselves as 'steamroller action,' it's a little thing called prevention. I'd rather have peace through intimidation than constantly be attacked because my army looks weak. The first image usually sticks though. Native Armericans were always regarded as savages because Colombus said so, and everyone had to believe him. Through time we get the full picture.

[WotWotius]

Now when we read the prose left to us by roman authors they concentrate on personalities - the focus of their story. So we read about commanders and a few heroic men who stood out briefly. The great mass of men who reluctantly did their bit for pay and reward do not figure in these tales unless they massacre, moan, or mutiny.

 

However, every so often we read a passage that shows a more human side. Like men ordered to prepare the circumvallation at Jerusalem in 70ad for instance. They groaned, put their weapons down, and started building work. The jews attacked at that moment because the romans clearly weren't being too alert, and it was nearly a disaster. Or that moment when a young jew stole water from under the annoyed noses of the roman sentries. Boy did they feel like a bunch of suckers!

 

They are actually many examples of mutinous legionaries, just read Tacitus. In the Agricola, he refers to the ample amount of mutinies taking place in Britain during the 60s AD.

 

Additionally, in his Annals, Tacitus gives an excellent account of how during the rule of Tiberius, unrest was stirred up by Roman soldiers on the Rhine wanting to be discharged. If my memory serves, I do believe there is a story in there which talks about legion cementing their eagle into its podium; so when the men were called to arms, they passed off the fact that the eagle couldn't be moved as a sure sign that the gods did not want them to fight.

[Sztripi]

The roman army changed through the ages. It changet a LOT. The roman society changed. It change a LOT. The army had it's great sucesses and also it's great disasters. At some point it was a steamroller, and at some point it was a pale shadow living on past glories. Not to mention the leadership or the lack of it (an army of lions lead by a deer or an army of deears lead by a lion). Or the decaying roman society at the latter days of the empire. Let's try to look at the early protectorate age legion. It regulary fought and won against numericaly superior enemies. Then again Valrus managed to lose three legions in an obvius ambush. What I am trying to say that there is never a simple answer. Simple answers can only be found in movies... But what I hate is when people dismiss centuries of change and development in a single sentence. Legions changed. They changed a lot through the centuries. At one point for the better and at one point for the worst.

[brotus maximus]

The roman army changed through the ages. It changet a LOT. The roman society changed. It change a LOT. The army had it's great sucesses and also it's great disasters. At some point it was a steamroller, and at some point it was a pale shadow living on past glories. Not to mention the leadership or the lack of it (an army of lions lead by a deer or an army of deears lead by a lion). Or the decaying roman society at the latter days of the empire. Let's try to look at the early protectorate age legion. It regulary fought and won against numericaly superior enemies. Then again Valrus managed to lose three legions in an obvius ambush. What I am trying to say that there is never a simple answer. Simple answers can only be found in movies... But what I hate is when people dismiss centuries of change and development in a single sentence. Legions changed. They changed a lot through the centuries. At one point for the better and at one point for the worst.

i apsalutly agree

at one point the roman army was quite possibly the best army not to mention not to be messed with but still even then they still had their defeats as every other major army in history has had at their prime you just dont here about those defeats as much when they are constantly winning becuase their winning over shadows the defeats and there for are less mention, ya the defeats are mentioned(or at least some of them) but in minor details that make it look even less like a defeat and more like a scrap that a few auxil troops had. Not to mention that because of the awesome look of the army it became a over gloryfied killing machine and was expected to win every battle they went into. which points out to another forum post sort of

the fact that as the ages progressed the army was becoming more and more less trained and prepared to go into battle becuase the main units that were being put in were more and more auxilary fighters till they became the main unit for the army and i think thats what helped them become the "shadow of the glory days of old" becuase they kept losing more and more battles and kept losing more and more troops (along with more and more money) so they besicly created teir own downfall if they were known as "steamrolling over their enemys"

[caldrail]

Yes - without shadow of a doubt the roman army changed. Well it would, it was around for more than a thousand years not including the byzantines. First we have the tribal armies, then the greek style, then the republican, then the principate (which is the classic roman legion we immediately think of) then the 'dark age' style army of the collapsing west.

 

Don't be fooled though, the romans lost a lot of battles early on, not just in their declining years. They had to bribe the gauls to go away in the 390's BC. Hannibal repeatedly ruined roman prestige, and just to emphasise the point, more than one bandit on the loose ran rings around the generals sent against them.

[Sztripi]

Yes - without shadow of a doubt the roman army changed. Well it would, it was around for more than a thousand years not including the byzantines. First we have the tribal armies, then the greek style, then the republican, then the principate (which is the classic roman legion we immediately think of) then the 'dark age' style army of the collapsing west.

 

Don't be fooled though, the romans lost a lot of battles early on, not just in their declining years. They had to bribe the gauls to go away in the 390's BC. Hannibal repeatedly ruined roman prestige, and just to emphasise the point, more than one bandit on the loose ran rings around the generals sent against them.

 

Yes we are in agreement. One has to see the whole picture.

 

And oh yes. They lost quite a few battles. It is quite interesting really. The republican legion: An unprofessional army made out from volunteers. Disbanded after the campaign. All its accumulated knowledge and experience lost. And when needed a new army is created, with no experience. The old veterans are long gone or not fit to serve. So it has to learn all over the art of war. Many defeats. Many bloody defeats. But the army is just an extension of a society. If the society is vibrant, and strong the army it fields will also be vibrant and strong. And patriotism of the citizens and their vilingness to adhere to a strict military life and a loss to their civil liberties made the legion strong.

 

Now the Protectorate age legion is different. Quite different. A brutal and efficient force, with strong unit cohesion. But with no loyality to the state or the senate (the selfish and greedy senate). But the roman civilization is still vibrant and strong. It is at its hight. So the army is also at its hight. But even then there where great victories and great defeats.

 

And then the decline... So the army starts to decline to... Interesting really... But even so there where victories too even against very strong opponents.

[caldrail]

One thing that we need to understand about war in the ancient world is that it was up close and personal. It takes a fair bit of nerve to stand in front of someone armed and armoured just like you and go toe to toe for ten or twenty minutes before one of you gets too tired or makes a mistake. Face it, the result can be very fatal. In order to get men to fight like this you need to inspire them - they need to feel they need to do this and that they stand a chance of victory (even a courageous last stand can be seen as such). The great victories were won not so much by the men themselves, but the leaders who won their hearts and minds and made them believe they could do it. This is why armies in the ancient world are so hit and miss. Without the essential leasdership factor they become a hesitant armed mob.