Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Romans = great warriors???

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Romans = great warriors???
    Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 06:28
Originally posted by Mumbloid

SOMETIMES the celt fought in nice formation (especially if guided by a valent commander, es Brennus or Hannibal) and SOMETIMES NOT, ancient writers as lyvi, Florus, Strabo, Pausanias describe them fighting like animals and other times the opposite happens .


Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about an orderly formation here, just a dense mass of men - like a mob. They would pack themselves very densely and charge, using the weight and speed to give impetus so they could overcome the enemy line. They were armed with thrusting weapons. In principle, this isn't entirely unlike the basic idea behind the phalanx, just much shorter weapons and counting more on speed and ferocity than the weight provided by formational structure.

carefull with that, I dont say there are no celtic influence, but there are also saminte and other central southern italian influence. Dont forget Romans were italians so it is much more easyer they adopted it and adapted to their own use by other italic people.


Well, Samnites were borrowing the same things from the Celts - the technology belongs to a material culture known as "La Tene" which originated in Cisalpine Gaul.

come on, you know were we got that from. From the people who fought with them and against them. Even if it is challenged by modern historian, but we should not underestimate the people who witness them in battle.


Can you name any that describe them that way? Tacitus, who describes a host as "close embodied, and prepared for action"?

No, the Romans never described them fighting with wide spacing or using heavy cleaving weapons in battle at all, except in single combat duelling between leaders - a Celtic institution used as a substitute for battle. They described their method of battle quite differently. Celts just didn't use huge cleaving weapons in battle; they used big daggers, short thrusting swords, and spears. The only exception is the Falcata - which, as I mentioned, is something they seem to have borrowed from the Greek kopis via the Etruscans (or possibly via Massalia) and was known only in Spain.

There just aren't any descriptions of Celts fighting in dispersed masses or having widely separated spaces, or of heavy weapons being used in actual battle (only in single combat duelling).

Celts were not Norse or Germans. They were more closely linked with the Meditteranean cultures, having had contact with the Greeks and Phoenicians since the earliest times. They even fought as mercenaries in Egypt, long before Rome existed. Their fighting style evolved in the context of warfare of that period; thrusting weapons used with impetus of the host. When the Romans developed the maniple, it was a revolutionary approach to fighting, and yes, it not only rendered the phalanx obsolete, it rendered the Celtic method of battle totally obsolete (except for the Gallic cavalry).

Germanic warriors - and later some Celts who were influenced by the Norse (particularly the Scots, with their claymores and sparths) - were the ones that used larger cleaving weapons in battle. This was because heavier armours were more common and most members of the warrior class had them (eg Saxon huscarls; not many of the fyrd, but most of the huscarls). This allowed them to forego the protection of the shield and use both hands. Celtic warriors were by and large unarmoured and depended solely on the shield for protection, so heavy cleaving weapons were uncommon. Though Celts did invent chainmail, it was rare - powerful chieftains would have it, which is why the Celtic longsword was a weapon used almost exclusively by chieftains, and why it features in accounts of single combat between leaders of two hosts. Most Celts (the infantry, anyway - the cavalry might have used longswords I suppose) had a weapon that was a dagger or small daggerlike sword, spear, and shield, or they were darters with javelins; no armour and no heavy weapons.
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 05:23
okydoky im going to vacation, so i will not be looking at this thread uintil few weeks.

Nice discussing with you Edgewaters Smile




The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 04:34
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Mumbloid

I think this is irrilevant, since the celts used them in another way....


Yes and no ... it was close-order swordfighting by the Celts that put the phalanx out of business ... 


from the roman side it was the because of the Samnite...they adopted the samnite manipular system and used it against the gaul, who got defeated!
 But if you ask me, I say a mix of both battle system; initially they fought in Samnite style, actually mixing the oplite with the "new" and more flexible tactic. Later (IMO) they improved it with similar celtic tactics....



From what we know of them, the Celts fought in very dense concentrations, tightly packed. It's more likely there'd be 2-3 Celts in the same space as a legionary,



SOMETIMES the celt fought in nice formation (especially if guided by a valent commander, es Brennus or Hannibal) and SOMETIMES NOT, ancient writers as lyvi, Florus, Strabo, Pausanias describe them fighting like animals and other times the opposite happens . The big trouble Romans and greek had against the celts were their imprevedibility....it was hard to figure out what they were doing. Many times they charged screaming with claws other times not.



 and the Romans used this to their advantage - one of their most effective tactics was to form a series of wedges like the teeth of a saw, and trap masses of men between the "teeth" where they would be pinned


that was also the way Boudiceas revolt was tamed....with the near extermination of the entire tribe.


 

Incidentally, this is why the Roman shields are like the Celtic shields, only about twice as wide - the Celts used a narrower shield because their line was more dense and they could provide the coverage with a narrower shield.


carefull with that, I dont say there are no celtic influence, but there are also saminte and other central southern italian influence. Dont forget Romans were italians so it is much more easyer they adopted it and adapted to their own use by other italic people.

AND

we should not forget the influence from the gladiators....




The reason they didn't fight more loosely and allow room for men to return behind the front ranks was because they basically fought like a mob


like a mob?


I don't know where people get this picture of Celts fighting with huge swords and axes from.


come on, you know were we got that from. From the people who fought with them and against them. Even if it is challenged by modern historian, but we should not underestimate the people who witness them in battle.




It's not like the later Celts couldn't beat the Romans. They inflicted a few major catastrophes in Spain, for instance. But just generally, they lost.


perhaps the romans made them obsolete Wink

Just kidding....or perhaps not.

There are good reasons about why the romans won, and it is not ONLY because of the battlefield.....



The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 13:35
Originally posted by Mumbloid

I think this is irrilevant, since the celts used them in another way....


Yes and no ... it was close-order swordfighting by the Celts that put the phalanx out of business ...

From what we know of them, the Celts fought in very dense concentrations, tightly packed. It's more likely there'd be 2-3 Celts in the same space as a legionary, and the Romans used this to their advantage - one of their most effective tactics was to form a series of wedges like the teeth of a saw, and trap masses of men between the "teeth" where they would be pinned between the weight and impetus of their own host (as impetus/shock was their chief form of attack) and the shield-wall of the legionaries. Had they fought in a more dispersed style, this wedge-saw formation wouldn't have had the same effect. Romans actually fought more loosely than the Celts - the maniple, for instance, was developed to give enough room for the light hastati infantry in the front line to melt back through the heavier principes, and even the triarii, if necessary.

Incidentally, this is why the Roman shields are like the Celtic shields, only about twice as wide - the Celts used a narrower shield because their line was more dense and they could provide the coverage with a narrower shield. The reason they didn't fight more loosely and allow room for men to return behind the front ranks was because they basically fought like a mob and stampeded; they wanted weight for the impetus of their charge, not unlike the phalanx.

I don't know where people get this picture of Celts fighting with huge swords and axes from. They did have a longsword - but it was not a battle sword, it was a duelling weapon for single combat. Longswords are often found in burials of important personages, but in other digs they are very, very rare - one or two might be found in a cache of hundreds of daggers and swords. Celtic battle weapons are almost universally thrusting weapons - chiefly spears, large daggers, and short swords (which were basically evolved out of daggers - the "daggers" are about 25 inches, the "swords" are usually about 30 inches). They did have a cleaving battle sword, the Falcata - but it's thought that they copied this from the Etruscans or the Greeks.

It's not like the later Celts couldn't beat the Romans. They inflicted a few major catastrophes in Spain, for instance. But just generally, they lost.

Edited by edgewaters - 10-Jul-2007 at 13:47
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:08

Tactics they learned from Brennus ...
 
improved by Marius....
 


Where do you think they got those shields and swords? 
 
I think this is irrilevant, since the celts used them in another way....
 
 
 
 


Edited by Mumbloid - 10-Jul-2007 at 12:13
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:04
Originally posted by Mumbloid

About the celtic warrior class, warlike or not I think the legions would slaughter them anyway, roman tactics did not allowed to much space for the celtic warrior to wheel with he's sword or dagger. While on the same spot required for a warrior there cuold be two legioners equiped with large shields, and short sword stabbing down everything they meet


Tactics they learned from Brennus ...

Where do you think they got those shields and swords?
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 09:26
No metter how many time you attack it, in the end it grounds you down to dust...so was with the romans...Hannibal won Trebbia, Lake Trasimene, Cannae....but in the end he was defeated and Hannibal could do nothing....
the roman strength was in discipline, every single barbarian fought for it's own(like the greeks before the phalanx formation)
and i never heard they were great warriors...
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 06:38
Originally posted by edgewaters

[QUOTE=Mumbloid] ...

Disunity was key to the success of Germanic barbarians against the Romans, as well. If the Germans were united under a single institution of some sort, a kingdom or the like, it would have been a simple matter for the Romans to engage them in a series of set-piece battles and establish dominance. Disunity did not favour the Celts because by the time of Caesar's conquest they simply weren't as warlike as they had once been - trade and particularly agriculture had improved so much for them, and that's what they were focussed on. While the Germans were composed of wandering tribes, the Celts were huddled stationary in their oppidum - it was just a matter of sieging them one by one.


Nooo you misunderstood me, when i say political disunity, I dont mean fragmentation toward one goal, but I mean opposing view. Some celt worked with the romans, other against. That is what I mean!

About the celtic warrior class, warlike or not I think the legions would slaughter them anyway, roman tactics did not allowed to much space for the celtic warrior to wheel with he's sword or dagger. While on the same spot required for a warrior there cuold be two legioners equiped with large shields, and short sword stabbing down everything they meet (as we could also see during the revoult of boudicca, there was nothing the britons could do to stop the romans). The only way they could defeat the romans, IMO was to catch them unprepared (see teutonforest).
 I know the romans lost several clashes, but when it was determinant they won, even agaist great odds (see Alesia).


 
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 10:29
Originally posted by Mumbloid

... this is partially true, but remember that before Adrianople Romans didnt have trouble dealing with German warbands. ... this...."mistake" will be repated over and over again uintil modern times (pre- and - post ww1)


Set-piece battles worked well in some periods, while the loose system of open field battles did not always work well. Alot had to do with technology, social organization, and population patterns. The barbarians faced by the Romans during their height of power, were not adapted well to *that* period - the Roman system of set-piece battles worked far better. But with changing technology and changing society, set-piece battles started to lose relevance. What good were huge formations when you had to deal with the banditry of many dozens of small fighting forces across a front that was hundreds of miles long? Relatively small tribes were able to take tribute from Rome (the notion of "mercenary" is often a fiction - it was tribute) because Rome had no other means to respond; they were infiltrated and overwhelmed.

Infliltration continued to be a succesful well into the Dark Ages. The Vikings, for instance, were masters of it - they had the mobility to strike anywhere without warning. It wasn't limited to them though. The Franks used it - that's why the Danevirke had to be built. The Saxons used it - which is why the Romans hastily constructed the Saxon Shore fortifications in England, which continued to be used after they left.

I think this is a littlebit semplicistic, there are lot of factor that goes trough, about the celts, the lack of political unity (witch waslargely used by the romans against the Celts) wasdeterminant.


Sure, but they hadn't always been so disunited. They were able to field quite large, and apparently somewhat organized, fighting forces under a powerful leader in earlier times - Vercingetorix was just a shadow of the kind of power that the two Brennuses must have held, a leader produced by desperation rather than will to conquer. When the Celts swept down on Italy and Greece, they found both places lacking political unity ...

Disunity was key to the success of Germanic barbarians against the Romans, as well. If the Germans were united under a single institution of some sort, a kingdom or the like, it would have been a simple matter for the Romans to engage them in a series of set-piece battles and establish dominance. Disunity did not favour the Celts because by the time of Caesar's conquest they simply weren't as warlike as they had once been - trade and particularly agriculture had improved so much for them, and that's what they were focussed on. While the Germans were composed of wandering tribes, the Celts were huddled stationary in their oppidum - it was just a matter of sieging them one by one.
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 09:24
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Mumbloid

as i told you it was a matter of tactics and preparation and inteligence.


And tactics don't reflect on the state of a military?
 
No not always....


German forces did not fight in the style of the Romans. Command was much less centralized, which had its advantages well into the Middle Ages. If command is centralized, it is possible to control troops and execute strategies with more efficiency, but it is also a weakness - if the commander is a poor strategist or leader, for instance, but also the army is vulnerable to disruption of communications. A Germanic war-band was flexible; if they were cut off from the main host or if the leader of the host was killed, they were not thrown into the same disarray as Roman forces under the same situation.
 
this is partially true, but remember that before Adrianople Romans didnt have trouble dealing with German warbands.



They changed alot, yes, but their military culture simply couldn't adapt in some ways. For all the changes in equipment and strategies, they were never able to quit the notion of such strong reliance on acting according to a plan set in motion and guided by a singular leader. The army was still viewed as a machine, directed by a single man, with the men as cogs in the machine. This way of thinking about battle was not useful again until the late middle ages or early modern age, and died out once again in the trenches of WW1. Today we fight like the barbarians did - there is still a leader and a plan, but small units are flexible and capable of acting without any direction.
 
well I dont know you have a point, no doubt, but this...."mistake" will be repated over and over again uintil modern times (pre- and - post ww1)
 
 


If you choose to look at it that way - and I think it is a valid interpretation - then yes, military failure is only symptomatic, but it applies across the board - not just to Rome. When the Romans began to inflict major losses of territory on the Celts, it was the result of a warrior class softened by Roman luxuries and lifestyle and a society rendered decadent. Where Romans had once written that Celtic warriors were capable of "living on grass" in the field, and described Roman legions actually fleeing the field in fear at the mere sight of Brennus' forces at Allia, the situation was reversed in time. Tacitus writes of a battle, much later, between Agricola 
 
I think this is a littlebit semplicistic, there are lot of factor that goes trough, about the celts, the lack of political unity (witch was largely used by the romans against the Celts) was determinant. Actually the lack of good and competent political leadership (beside few good celtic leaders) can determine if a war can be won or lost, no matter how good or tough your warriors/soldiers are.

Lets go back to Adrianople, the romans initially had a good grip against the Goths (surprise attacks, ambushes and other tactics of guerrilla warfare) but it was also clear that the goths were much more tougher than the other "traditional" german opponents and much more organiced. The romans fought them using their strategy of containment and attritionwar, who worked initially quite well, but that alone could not lead to the victory. A decisive battle was needed and here we come to Adrianople.
 
Emperor Valent management of the battle was disastrous, he underestimated grossly the Goths numerically (also due to bad inteligence work) since he outnumbered them he dreamed of a fast victorious and easy battle.
 He pushed hes troops to hard, with incredibly long marches (under the hot sun) without pauses and almust no food and water.
 This contrast with the traditional roman way of fighting always with fresh troops, so when the soldiers arrived at the decised point they were exsausted.
 The organisation of the roman formation was exagerately disorganiced, there were almust no reserve collum ( traditional roman strategy ) and there were to much space between the wings.
 
When the gothic cavalry charged the left wing, the roman formation was not entirely deployed, so the roman cavalry just as the infantry was cought at surprise and without sufficent reserves to support them they were easely defeated.
 
The romans in other words were cought with their pants down, all the best soldier valent had did their best, but they were all sl*ghtered. The lanciarii and the mattiaci fought to the last, but they couldn change the situation.
 The romans apparently lost the battle because they didnt employ the common roman way of formation and manovre. They were disorganiced, confused, exsausted, slow and undisciplined, many units charged the goths (especially the promontori and the sagittari)at their own initiative (and they were easely defeated)...breaking their formation and leaving the entire area vulnerable to Goth initiative.
 
Ammianus describe the battle wery well, the roman charged from all sides and sourronded could not manovre, they kept stand uintil it was humanely possible. Many dyed from both sides, included emperator Valent, hit by a arrow (say some) or burned alive in a house were he was trying to hide (say others).
 
Adrianople was a masterpiece of incompetence and disorganitation. if the romans were fighting in their traditional way of order and discipline, the disaster would not be roman but goth.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Mumbloid - 08-Jul-2007 at 09:28
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 21:00
Originally posted by Mumbloid

as i told you it was a matter of tactics and preparation and inteligence.


And tactics don't reflect on the state of a military?

yes i know, but the barbarians rome fought at the end of the empire, was not the same kind of barbarians Marius, caesar and other fought at the beginning. The Germans, learned what the romans knew about war and they adapted it to their style


The Germans adapted to a Roman lifestyle - but they took remarkably little from Rome in war. It was the Romans, who adopted their equipment, not the other way around - same with tactics like the increasing reliance on heavy cavalry and skirmishers.

German forces did not fight in the style of the Romans. Command was much less centralized, which had its advantages well into the Middle Ages. If command is centralized, it is possible to control troops and execute strategies with more efficiency, but it is also a weakness - if the commander is a poor strategist or leader, for instance, but also the army is vulnerable to disruption of communications. A Germanic war-band was flexible; if they were cut off from the main host or if the leader of the host was killed, they were not thrown into the same disarray as Roman forces under the same situation.

This method of fighting was well-suited to the conflicts of the age, in which set piece battles had given way to open field battles (not unlike what happened in the 20th century).

nonono, the romans adapted...they changed their army completely, so much that you could barely resemble them.


They changed alot, yes, but their military culture simply couldn't adapt in some ways. For all the changes in equipment and strategies, they were never able to quit the notion of such strong reliance on acting according to a plan set in motion and guided by a singular leader. The army was still viewed as a machine, directed by a single man, with the men as cogs in the machine. This way of thinking about battle was not useful again until the late middle ages or early modern age, and died out once again in the trenches of WW1. Today we fight like the barbarians did - there is still a leader and a plan, but small units are flexible and capable of acting without any direction.

But the problem with rome was mot military, but moral and economic. The reason of the fall of Rome has not to be found in the army, but by the politicians (who many times also were generals).


If you choose to look at it that way - and I think it is a valid interpretation - then yes, military failure is only symptomatic, but it applies across the board - not just to Rome. When the Romans began to inflict major losses of territory on the Celts, it was the result of a warrior class softened by Roman luxuries and lifestyle and a society rendered decadent. Where Romans had once written that Celtic warriors were capable of "living on grass" in the field, and described Roman legions actually fleeing the field in fear at the mere sight of Brennus' forces at Allia, the situation was reversed in time. Tacitus writes of a battle, much later, between Agricola and some Britons:

"These are the men who last year attacked one
legion like thieves in the night—and you defeated them by raising the battle-cry. There are the greatest runaways of all ..."

Caesar wrote of a Celtic tribe dwelling on the fringes of Gaul near the Germanic frontier:

"Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are farthest from the civilisation and refinement of[our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind"

Edited by edgewaters - 04-Jul-2007 at 21:05
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 07:59
I said that in the next paragraph edgewaters! Never mind, perhaps the way I put it. I further suggested they dumped Roman rule to do a deal with the barbarians and so took advantage of the situation to suit their own ends.
elenos
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 06:12
Originally posted by elenos



<p ="Msonormal">Gentlemen, there in a nutshell is the greatest problem <st1:City><st1:place>Rome</st1:place></st1:City>
ever failed to face. The latifundia, the vast estates worked by armies of slaves
for the profit of the few, had passed their use by date. To have lands worked
by free men would have been far more efficient, but would have meant sharing
the profits, something the ruling class, the central authority, could never
allow.


Actually latifundia more or less survived on after Rome - they just evolved into manorialism.
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 05:58
Originally posted by elenos

Even the greatness of the Roman armies could not hold back the tide of those barbarians who, on the whole, didnt want to bring down the system of law and order, but were demanding a fairer share of the lands. However the land barons seized the chance to set up their own form of goovernment and took the side of the barbarians for a while at least.



I consider the military secundary to politics and economics. IF Rome was still strong politically (political stable with few or no division) and economically florid. No barbarian or civiliced army, could overrun rome.

It is not a coincidence that during the time rome was in strengt it was almust invincible. just look in more than tousand of years of military history Rome only got few decisive defeats (with decisive I mean battle who forced rome in the corner, im not talking about skirmishes) and this proff the Roman military at it's height was one of the must marvellous military warmachine the ancient world ever saw.

When Rome started to lose weight economically and economical crisis came, it was the start of the end.
 About the military, for Rome it was cheaper recruit mercenaryes when it needed rather than use time to train legionaries. The quality of the troops was wery low, must of them was germanic, eastern mercenaryes and with the loyality doubius.


 


Edited by Mumbloid - 02-Jul-2007 at 18:00
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 04:57

Gentlemen, there in a nutshell is the greatest problem Rome ever failed to face. The latifundia, the vast estates worked by armies of slaves for the profit of the few, had passed their use by date. To have lands worked by free men would have been far more efficient, but would have meant sharing the profits, something the ruling class, the central authority, could never allow.  

Even the greatness of the Roman armies could not hold back the tide of those barbarians who, on the whole, didnt want to bring down the system of law and order, but were demanding a fairer share of the lands. However the land barons seized the chance to set up their own form of goovernment and took the side of the barbarians for a while at least.

elenos
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 04:04
Originally posted by calvo

Since the crisis of the 3rd century, the Roman empire evolved towards a feudal state by all means. The classic social system based on citizenship, law, and paterfamilies had all but phased out and the powerful landlords that dominated the countryside were the predecessors to the medieval feuds. All the barbarians did was deliver a final blow to the "nominal" central authority.

true the latifundia structure was the fundament of the feudal society. And the latifundia has also a major role in the weaknes of rome.


The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 04:02
Originally posted by edgewaters



The Roman infantry at Adrianople were run down and slaughtered by cavalry; that's not "performing very well". If they performed well, they would have won; they outnumbered their opponents two to one, and did not lack cavalry forces themselves.


as i told you it was a matter of tactics and preparation and inteligence. The romans underestimate the goths also thanks to their past victories.
And this flaws are more than enough not only to lose a battle but a entire war. As for the inf running, (first not all run) second what do you want them to do, the battle was lost....at that point everybody would run: no matter if roman, germans, greek ect.


Absolutely. But the reverse is also true, and had been from Rome's inception. Where do you think the gladius or the bossed shield or chainmail or the Roman helmet came from?


yes i know, but the barbarians rome fought at the end of the empire, was not the same kind of barbarians Marius, caesar and other fought at the beginning. The Germans, learned what the romans knew about war and they adapted it to their style (eks. Arminius served under the roman comand). Pretty much all the barbararian who crossed the rhine were already romanicised. Look at the ostrogths when they occupyed italy, it was hard to see the difference by a native italian and a goth invader only by the customs.





Yes, there was. Western Roman armies became anachronisms, as demonstrated by the Eastern empire in the Battle of Save (not to mention numerous barbarian groups).


I sincerely doubt you know what a anacronism is. WRE army was more or less the equivalent of their opponents (the link you gave me with the late romans and the goth warriror remember?) the fall of rome was not a military matter but a politcal one.



Because they didn't adapt to new fighting styles, the appearance of new threats, and a changing battlefield. Infantry itself wasn't obsolete, just the Roman infantry doctrine (in the Western Empire, anyway).


nonono, the romans adapted...they changed their army completely, so much that you could barely resemble them. But the problem with rome was mot military, but moral and economic. The reason of the fall of Rome has not to be found in the army, but by the politicians (who many times also were generals).


The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 01:12
Originally posted by elenos

Let me explain further, Rome was on top of a sewer and water system, built before the first brick was laid.


Not quite.

Just look up Cloaca Maxima - those are the oldest sewers in Rome. Mostly they are just modified natural streams, and didn't exist until 600 BC - by which time Rome was certainly settled. Some of the buildings in the Forum, like the Regia, would have been over a century old by then.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 22:21
I've always wondered about Rome not being built in a day, for many indications show how it was. Let me explain further,  Rome was on top of a sewer and water system, built before the first brick was laid. How can that be? This shows the original builders were working to a pre-arranged and professional plan where cost was no object and experts gave advice. This is not what Roman history tells us, of Rome rising from a group of farming villages. The building of Rome was therefore very swift, and built in day or the blink of an eye so to speak.
elenos
Back to Top
Praetorian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 190
  Quote Praetorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 19:35
Originally posted by retaxis

I do not know much about Roman history in comparison with Asian history but i am thinking what countries did the Roman's conquer? Who did they have to fight against to be named such great warriors. I know back two thousand years ago there wasn't many Euro nations such as France/Germany/Poland/Britan etc etc. So honestly was it just a few Barbarians that the Romans had to conquer?

Compared with the East the Chinese fought technologically equal or advanced civilizations such as the Korean's and the Vietnamese and the Japanese.

P.S Hitler isn't the biggest murderer, i believe Chairman Mao is. Deaths over his rule is estimated between 50-100mil whereas Hitler is ~20 from what i heard. I can most definitely be wrong.
 

Japanese technologically equal?  I think thats wrong; China was way more advanced then the Japanese during the Roman/Han times.  Now I can see what your saying in later times, Germany became advanced later on

 

Well Germany was around, and some others as well

 

 No it was not just a few Barbarians that the Romans had to conquer, there were many others as well, and just the Barbarians alone were overwhelming to deal with for any Empire! And not all Barbarians were savage homeless people  

 

As for technologically equal or advanced civilizations, the Romans too had to fight agents. 

 

Name a few:

 

The Etruscans

 

The Carthage Empire 

 

The Greek Empire

 

Macedonians

 

Egypt

 

And many, many others!

 

These civilizations were at one time more advanced then the Romans, and even during Roman conquest they were as or more advanced!   Like they say Rome was not built in one day.  The Roman became the most advanced civilization in Earth OVER TIME not over one day!   And even to this day Roman accomplishments are still marveled and effected the way we live! 

 



Edited by Praetorian - 01-Jul-2007 at 19:37
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris
--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.

"game over!! man game over!!"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.092 seconds.