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  <1 23456>
Author
John the Kern View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 08-Mar-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 137
  Quote John the Kern Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Romans = great warriors???
    Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 14:51
Regarding the Roman as a Soldier: Good Discipline, Trust in Comrades to stand and pride in the legion, gave "Marius's Mules" a generally higher morale level and beleif in victory than your average barbarian army. Regarding the Romans as a "warrior" in the sense of martial skill, there is not a superior fighting style, if there was it would spread quickly we would all be using it, there are only different levels of skill. of course good equipment helps, and the romans ensured at least in the late republic early empire that their soldiers had the equipment they needed to fight.
My peoples tale is written in blood
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: 28-Jun-2007 at 18:22
Originally posted by John the Kern

Regarding the Roman as a Soldier: Good Discipline, Trust in Comrades to stand and pride in the legion, gave "Marius's Mules" a generally higher morale level and beleif in victory than your average barbarian army.


I wouldn't say that. Germanic groups had an equivalent system; the comitatus or war-band described by Tacitus. " To survive the leader and retreat from the battlefield is a lifelong disgrace and infamy." The comitatus was the base out of which feudal military organization developed in the middle ages.

Celts had similar forms of military organization, though not quite as apparent.

Originally posted by calvo

In my humble opinion, the Romans had one of the most sofisticated fighting forces in the pre-modern period.


I wouldn't say that either. Medieval armies were effective and featured technology in excess of anything known to the ancient world, including cannons such as culverins and bombards, advanced metal armours and superior metallurgy, excellent heavy cavalry, axe and pole weapons of complex design such as hooked bills, gisarmes, partisans, etc. Effective and highly flexible unit postures were known even from the Dark Ages - such as the skjaldborg or the svinfylking (which was particularly effective in overwhelming shieldwalls). Roman forces would have been as archaic and outclassed in the middle ages, as phalanxes were in Roman times.

Edited by edgewaters - 28-Jun-2007 at 18:53
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: 28-Jun-2007 at 19:36
Originally posted by calvo

In my humble opinion, the Romans had one of the most sofisticated fighting forces in the pre-modern period.



true, we have to wait for Napoleon before something similar comes out.



Of course, the Roman army evolved through several stages: from a citizen miltia consisting of part-time conscripts to a fully-professional institution by the end of the Republic and the Principate.
Following the 3rd century it began a slow but constant decline, a process closely linked to the economic recession and social inestability of the empire itself; but the army's prestige was not only defined by its victories, but by its organization, tactics, and flexibility to adapt to the times.


yes yes, many people belive the romans were the always the same since emperor Agustus, all loricated with segmentata and gladius along with pila.
 No they evolved to, later they needed more "multitask" weapons, like the spear, the pike, the spatha. As soon the task of the army changed, so did the equipment.
 

Through tactics, discipline, and organization, they were capable of defeating barbarian forces several times stronger while suffering relatively few casualties.


yes, otherwise it's hard to understand how could the romans just go from victory to victory against so different enemyes.


Maybe the individual soldier was not as tough, strong, or aggressive as a German or Celt; but their ability to fight together as a group, maintiaing formation and rotating ranks in the midst of an engagement made them a supreme war machine.


i dont want to underestimate the fighting ability of the single legioneer, but when the romans fought in formation, they were unstoppable.

 
 
Much of the organization of modern armies had been inspired by the Roman Legion.


true. When I see modern armys I cant stop thinking of the roman legions.
Officers, underofficers, engierneers, training center  ect.

Damn you Odovacer Angry


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: 28-Jun-2007 at 19:46
Originally posted by edgewaters



I wouldn't say that either. Medieval armies were effective and featured technology in excess of anything known to the ancient world, including cannons such as culverins and bombards, advanced metal armours and superior metallurgy, excellent heavy cavalry, axe and pole weapons of complex design such as hooked bills, gisarmes, partisans, etc. Effective and highly flexible unit postures were known even from the Dark Ages - such as the skjaldborg or the svinfylking (which was particularly effective in overwhelming shieldwalls). Roman forces would have been as archaic and outclassed in the middle ages, as phalanxes were in Roman times.


hmm I dont agree Edgewaters, IF the roman empire survived, dont you think they would also have those tecnology (lets be honest)? Im pretty sure any legion could easely wipe out any medieval army (peasant or not) Wink


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: 29-Jun-2007 at 00:17
Originally posted by Mumbloid

hmm I dont agree Edgewaters, IF the roman empire survived, dont you think they would also have those tecnology (lets be honest)?


Sure, if they were still around they'd probably have fighter planes. But it's a "what if" scenario. Who knows what Carthaginians would have IF they survived? It doesn't matter - they didn't.

Im pretty sure any legion could easely wipe out any medieval army (peasant or not)


I strongly doubt it. They just didn't have the technology, nor were Roman legionary tactics particularly effective in combination with medieval technology. So, if the Romans had survived, and they did adapt to the new technology - their armies would look like any other medieval army.

And as a matter of fact, the Roman military in its final stages began to look like a prototype of feudal armies, especially after the Battle of Adrianople - a signal victory for the Goths against more numerous Roman forces, which showed that the Roman army, and especially the Roman infantry, had become poorly adapted to the battlefield realities of the late 4th century.

And ... if you really want to know what the Roman military would have looked like in the Middle Ages - look no further than the Byzantinians. In that sense, the Romans did adapt and persist into the Middle Ages, though the armies looked nothing like Imperial armies, and were powerful and effective but far from supreme. Not to mention that some of the most elite elements were barbarian units, such as the famed Varangian Guard, the elite unit of axe infantry which protected the Emperor.

Edited by edgewaters - 29-Jun-2007 at 00:40
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 01:44
I agree with edgewaters. The Romans were the one of first armies to learn by the benefit of hindsight. They kept records of all their battles and worked out how and why they lost and strengthened that area in the future. But that iin itself was a flaw. If the enemy did something radically different then they had no answer.

For instance the Pictish lightening attacks on outposts and then withdrawing without a trace had the Romans tacticians rattled. As at the German borders, the natives perfected a form of guerrilla warfare for which there still is no answer except to move in and to kill off suspect civilian population. Even that was tried but only brought more revolts in other places.

But we are talking about tactics. Had an unadapted Roman legion somehow moved into the Middle Ages they would have been beaten , for those of the future had learned their tactics from the past and improved upon what had gone before.
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 03:09
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Mumbloid

hmm I dont agree Edgewaters, IF the roman empire survived, dont you think they would also have those tecnology (lets be honest)?


Sure, if they were still around they'd probably have fighter planes. But it's a "what if" scenario. Who knows what Carthaginians would have IF they survived? It doesn't matter - they didn't.


but of course we are in the what if world. You started it Wink




I strongly doubt it. They just didn't have the technology, nor were Roman legionary tactics particularly effective in combination with medieval technology. So, if the Romans had survived, and they did adapt to the new technology - their armies would look like any other medieval army.



Sorry to contradict you, but let me ask you witch part of medieval do you refer? are you thinking of the peasant armys (poor people who used farm tools as weapons? supported by few knight?) or the visigoths who got kicked out of Spain by the Arabs? im pretty sure the romans would eat them at launch, after all (and lets be honest) generally was the early and late roman imperial legioner better equipped and trained than those footpeople.


And as a matter of fact, the Roman military in its final stages began to look like a prototype of feudal armies, especially after the Battle of Adrianople - a signal victory for the Goths against more numerous Roman forces, which showed that the Roman army, and especially the Roman infantry, had become poorly adapted to the battlefield realities of the late 4th century.


this is discutable, IMO it's unfair to lay on the roman infantry the responsability of the disaster of adrianople, after all since Aurelius all the way up to AD, no barbarian army has been capable to "disturb" the romans. So the roman inf. was effective. But of course, no matter how good your army is to win you need a good leadership and preparation witch lacked (IMO the romans also underevaluted the goths and together with a poor inteligence this could be a much rational explanation for the end of the battle).


And ... if you really want to know what the Roman military would have looked like in the Middle Ages - look no further than the Byzantinians.


No, the western romans would have chosen another path, what kind of path we can only guess, but i surely doubt they would be a replica of the byzantines.


In that sense, the Romans did adapt and persist into the Middle Ages, though the armies looked nothing like Imperial armies, and were powerful and effective but far from supreme. Not to mention that some of the most elite elements were barbarian units, such as the famed Varangian Guard, the elite unit of axe infantry which protected the Emperor.


must of the medieval  and byzantine armyes were made of mercenaries to, this was a true fascion in those days, we had to wait for the national armyes to see this habit dissapeer.




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: 29-Jun-2007 at 03:20
Originally posted by elenos



For instance the Pictish lightening attacks on outposts and then withdrawing without a trace had the Romans tacticians rattled. As at the German borders, the natives perfected a form of guerrilla warfare for which there still is no answer except to move in and to kill off suspect civilian population. Even that was tried but only brought more revolts in other places.


the pictish were stopped by a nice long wall, and they were also known to be easely scared away. But the only way to stop the pict was to invade the north and this was impractical and expensive. IMO the so called guerrilla is overrated (maybe by nationalist propagandist) because the romans occupyed (and in many cases romaniced many places) without great trouble.


But we are talking about tactics. Had an unadapted Roman legion somehow moved into the Middle Ages they would have been beaten , for those of the future had learned their tactics from the past and improved upon what had gone before.


you forgot to mention what kind of legion and what medieval opponent they had to face.





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: 29-Jun-2007 at 04:12
Originally posted by Mumbloid

Sorry to contradict you, but let me ask you witch part of medieval do you refer? are you thinking of the peasant armys (poor people who used farm tools as weapons? supported by few knight?


Outside of sieges, peasants were almost never used in medieval warfare, with a few exceptions, like the English longbowmen (who happened to be very efficient). Feudal rulers regarded armed peasants with distaste.

or the visigoths who got kicked out of Spain by the Arabs? im pretty sure the romans would eat them at launch


Well, no. The Visigoths actually crushed the Romans in the Gothic War, inflicting several decisive defeats even when Romans had the advantage of numbers (eg Battle of Adrianople). Emperor Valens was slain during the massacre, and Rome was forced to make concessions in land to secure peace. A decade later war broke out again, and the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410.

after all (and lets be honest) generally was the early and late roman imperial legioner better equipped and trained than those footpeople.


Visigoths were not exclusively footpeople; they had better cavalry than the Romans (illustrated in the Battle of Adrianople). Moreover, by this period, Roman infantry had more or less the same equipment as their opponents. By the late 4th century, equipment among the barbarians was very good relative to earlier periods.

Compare and contrast:

http://strategicsimulations.net/catalog/images/SSHAT8087.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/warriorgothic.jpg

So the roman inf. was effective.


That it was effective in earlier periods, does not mean it was effective in later ones - Adrianople showed that the Roman infantryman was outdated. When the Eastern emperor reformed the eastern forces in light of that defeat, they became vastly superior to the unreformed armies of the West, as demonstrated at the Battle of the Save.

No, the western romans would have chosen another path, what kind of path we can only guess, but i surely doubt they would be a replica of the byzantines.


Much to their loss, the path they chose was not one of change - and they paid for it. Only 32 years after Valens' defeat at Adrianople, the city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths and the Western empire never really regained its power.

must of the medieval and byzantine armyes were made of mercenaries to, this was a true fascion in those days, we had to wait for the national armyes to see this habit dissapeer.


The point is that the most elite unit of the Eastern Roman Empire in the middle ages was a barbarian outfit, made of Viking axemen and Saxon huscarls.



Edited by edgewaters - 29-Jun-2007 at 04:42
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 04:36
Originally posted by edgewaters

  Sorry to contradict you, but let me ask you witch part of medieval do you refer? are you thinking of the peasant armys (poor people who used farm tools as weapons? supported by few knight?


Outside of sieges, peasants were almost never used in medieval warfare, with a few exceptions, like the English longbowmen (who happened to be very efficient). Feudal rulers regarded armed peasants with distaste. [/quote]

but they were usefull Smile



Well, no. The Visigoths actually crushed the Romans in the Gothic War, inflicting several decisive defeats even when Romans had the advantage of numbers (eg Battle of Adrianople). Emperor Valens was slain during the massacre, and Rome was forced to make concessions in land to secure peace. A decade later war broke out again, and the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410.


Well I already stated my opinion on Adrianople, number or weapons not always matters, the romans made some big mistakes and they pay for them. but that doesent mean the roman inf was crappy or the goths were better soldiers.



Visigoths were not exclusively footpeople; they had better cavalry than the Romans (illustrated in the Battle of Adrianople).


at the battle of Adrianople? yes. Generally no! Climbanaries, catafrattari, Scholaes was much better.



That it was effective in earlier periods, does not mean it was effective in later ones - Adrianople showed that the Roman infantryman was outdated. When the Eastern emperor reformed the eastern forces in light of that defeat, they became vastly superior to the unreformed armies of the West, as demonstrated at the Battle of the Save.


how can the roman inf. be outdated? please! as I mentioned before, the roman inf was not responsable for the defeat of Adrianople, actually this is a semplicistic (and that means wrong) explanation. Actually despite the limitation the roman inf (not the mercenary) did quite well. But if wall are crushing what use is to hold the door closed?




Much to their loss, the path they chose was not one of change - and they paid for it. Only 32 years after Valens' defeat at Adrianople, the city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths and the Western empire never really regained its power.


actually the reasons of defeat layed not in the strengt of the Goths, but in the madness of the imperators.....who killed the man that could have changed the tide of the war? im talking about the tragic dead of Stilicho who killed in the same way Aetius?
Anyway sacking Rome was just a simbolic measure, the powercenter of the empire was now at Ravenna.



The point is that the most elite unit of the Eastern Roman Empire in the middle ages was a barbarian outfit, made of Viking axemen and Saxon huscarls.



must of the elite unit before Adrianople and after were Palatinians, that doesent mean there were no mercenarys.


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: 29-Jun-2007 at 04:58

Mumbloid; The Picts were stopped by a ridiculously long wall that some still call Hadrians Folly. And what was the purpose of this folly to keep off a bunch of disorganized irregulars who were easily scared away? Something is being missed here. The Picts knew they couldnt win an open battle, but shrewdly continued to use hit and run attacks until the Romans withdrew.

 I already said about why it was impractical for the Romans to invade the North! As a matter of fact they did invade. When the Boudicca revolt broke out the ninth Legion was rushed over from Germany to quell the natives. After a successful campaign in the South the legion went north to invade Scotland and never seen again. Rome suffered an ultimate humiliation, the loss of an entire legion with not one man returning.

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: 29-Jun-2007 at 05:13
Originally posted by Mumbloid

Well I already stated my opinion on Adrianople, number or weapons not always matters, the romans made some big mistakes and they pay for them. but that doesent mean the roman inf was crappy or the goths were better soldiers.


It's hardly just Adrianople though. The Romans were defeated in numerous engagements throughout the 5th century.

how can the roman inf. be outdated?


Time and tide wait for no man.

Technology never stood still, and basically - the barbarians caught up and gave birth to a new age, the feudal era. At the same time Rome stood still, and slipped into oblivion as a result.

actually the reasons of defeat layed not in the strengt of the Goths, but in the madness of the imperators


Poor leadership is hardly an excuse. In times when the Roman army enjoyed a wider advantage over its foes, they succeeded under poor leadership often. Similarly, when we look at the defeat of the Britons, we don't make excuses like "they had poor leadership" or "there was some disorder in their lands" or "they were hampered by intrigue among the leaders" ... all of which were true ... we simply note that the Britons were not equal to the task and had not adapted to the challenge, and were therefore an inferior army on the battlefield; thus they lost.

Armies that can win under exceptional leadership are not, necessarily, themselves exceptional. Truly great generals can produce victory where victory would not normally be; otherwise they would not be great generals. Armies that can win despite poor leaders - those are exceptional, and at one time, Rome featured such armies. But not in the late 4th and early 5th century.

Anyway sacking Rome was just a simbolic measure, the powercenter of the empire was now at Ravenna.


The capitol of Rome was at Ravenna; but it was hardly the economic heart of the empire or anything, that remained Rome. Stilichio had the wisdom to move the capitol to Ravenna only 8 years prior to the Sack of Rome because it was a safe location, not because it was a "powercenter" but because it was surrounded by swamps. Roman armies could not guarantee the safety of the Roman capitol in its previous location at Milan. Stilichio realized this because he was an intelligent general.

Edited by edgewaters - 29-Jun-2007 at 05:32
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 05:45
well Elenos, let's do a little preliminary work...shall we?

First it was not a ridicolous long wall, it was a optimal defensive sistem.

second, it was difficoult for the romans to keep a stabile contact with the island (from november to april it was not possible for the romans to reach the island). And this means the romans was forced to keep a considerable number of soldiers in bretain, even in summer the roman troop dislocated in Germania superior and Inferior could SLOWLY reach the britannic fleet (that was how the r. name it) dislocated in Gesoriacum (Calais) for reach the island.

But who was the romans supposed to fight in the island? first there were the Britons, then Picty, the scoty and the hiberni.
 The Britons after the rivolt of Boudicca (bodicea) rarely revolted, but they were slow in romanitation (actually they never completely romanitated) the britons were restless especially in Wales, and that means Wales need to be guarnitioned.
 The Picty and the scotty neverless what we belive were wery scase enemy, letters of roman officers describe them as poor fighters. This is also the reason why the wall was a good defence line, it would be a suicide angainst the partii and the Persian, no doub, but against people without siege equipment there were no problem.
 Without forgetting the Caldonia Ulterior and Citerior were poor land and difficoult terrain to manovre even for the roman soldiers.
 And then we have the Irish who used to do piracy and raid the area around Wales.

Lets see now the roman forces:

The roman army back to (260) was mainly infantry, and that means it was difficoult if not impossible to keep a mobile reserve. The terrain in Britain was difficoult for the use of the Climbanarii, and on all the island there were one single wing of cavalry (500 cav.).

what was important:

1) keep the troops not much sparse on the territory.
2)guard the strategic places
3)keep wales militariced.
4)push back the picty and the scotty
5)keep a guarnigion on the western coast because of the irish.

There were thre legions and they were placed at:

the VI  Victrix dislocated at Eburacum with the duty to guard the western coastes and wall.

the XX Valeria Victrix at Deva beacuse of the irish.

II Augusta at Isca in wales.

the legions were quite close and in case of need they could support each other. For all the time the romans occupyed Britain let me say, this was a succes.


If the romans wanted to conquer ALL the island?

first it would be wery expensive, second you have to guarnigion scotland to (not only the south) the terrain were wery hostile, no ports, no road to many hills and forests...no richdom. Why should the romans go up north?

Anyway, let us say a mad imperator did that and for the sake of the discussion the romans conquer Schotland.
 What was needed then?

First more troops, many more troops (and that means at expence at the other province of the empire) the other frontiers would be weakned (because you have to move legions in britain).

The VI  Victrix  needed to be moved north at expence of the wales, and wery slowly the reinforcements would come from Gerosiacum.
 The VI victrix that now is located far up north now would no more be able to support the legion in wales and keep the eye on the Irish. And this could well mean the end for the roman rule in britain.

So more legions needed to be placed in Britain, as I said before at expence of the security of other places of the empire (who will guard the borders?). Perhaps more legions needed to be raised, and what would that cost to rome?
 
So in sintesis the defensive line of the romans worked perfectly, of course some times there would be some problems, but nothing the legions in Britain could take care of.
 The romans left britain not because the were scared away from the native population, but becasue the legions were needed somewere else.

About the ninth legion, I know about the IX Hispana who rushed to fight the against the people to Boudicca and was nearly wiped out. Later it was reinforced with troops from germany and moved in germania inferior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_IX_Hispana



 





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: 29-Jun-2007 at 06:04
Originally posted by edgewaters

[

It's hardly just Adrianople though. The Romans were defeated in numerous engagements throughout the 5th century.


perhaps but they also got victories...yet it has nothing to do with the inf. who performed wery well during the famous battle.



Time and tide wait for no man.

Technology never stood still, and basically - the barbarians caught up and gave birth to a new age, the feudal era. At the same time Rome stood still, and slipped into oblivion as a result.


hmmmmmmmmmm i wouldn be so sure..... the shape of roman army changed a lot, and not only because of the influence of barbarians.
Let me say, I dare to postulate that the barbarians improved thanks to the contact with rome. And yet no sign about the obsolecense of the roman inf is seen.




Poor leadership is hardly an excuse. In times when the Roman army enjoyed a wider advantage over its foes, they succeeded under poor leadership often. Similarly, when we look at the defeat of the Britons, we don't make excuses like "they had poor leadership" or "there was some disorder in their lands" or "they were hampered by intrigue among the leaders" ... all of which were true ... we simply note that the Britons were not equal to the task and had not adapted to the challenge, and were therefore an inferior army on the battlefield; thus they lost.


im afraid i do not agree...leadership IS ALWAY (almust) the reason for victoryes and defeats. As leader, you know the true strengt of your troops, you know what they can and what they cant. It is also your duty to know who are your enemys and how they perform (this was not the first clash the romans had against the goths). Since Valens didnt care to use a efficent inteligence, and since he underestimated them (especially the cavalry) it is also the task of the leadership assure that you will adapt to the "new world". Since everything failed, who is the responsable? the legioneers? they did only what they were told to....and tryed their best. The cavalrly? who got caught of surprise? who is responsable? who gave wrong orders? who taught to gain a easy victory? why got the roman cavalry surprised?

The same we can say for the revolt of Boudicca, they were so close to the victory that she could spit on it. But instead she wasted what she gained only because she was sure to win (same mistake of Valens). If she was more widesighted she wouldn fight the romans in the terrain their choosed (come on she knew the romans, she knew what they were capable of) if she was smart she could take roman citicens as hostages.
 But no! victory is out there and we only need to grasp it. (morale, Never ever underestimate your enemy)


Armies that can win under exceptional leadership are not, necessarily, themselves exceptional. Truly great generals can produce victory where victory would not normally be; otherwise they would not be great generals. Armies that can win despite poor leaders - those are exceptional, and at one time, Rome featured such armies. But not in the late 4th and early 5th century.


this is also true, but the roman army of the time you mention was another kind of army. It was a defensive army not a offensive. This is something the roman commanders tend to forget. So they could not be used as the ancient legioneers. But that does not mean the inf was obsolete (how can they be obsolete?) only different.



The capitol of Rome was at Ravenna; but it was hardly the economic heart of the empire or anything, that remained Rome. Stilichio had the wisdom to move the capitol to Ravenna only 8 years prior to the Sack of Rome because it was a safe location, not because it was a "powercenter" but because it was surrounded by swamps. Roman armies could not guarantee the safety of the Roman capitol in its previous location at Milan. Stilichio realized this because he was an intelligent general.


yes I agree and he got killed guess by who?
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 06:50
"Well Elenos, let's do a little preliminary work...shall we?"

After you doing all that headbanging preliminary work what can one say except tell of another famous loss. Varus, Varus, give me back my troops!
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 06:52
Originally posted by elenos

"Well Elenos, let's do a little preliminary work...shall we?"

After you doing all that headbanging preliminary work what can one say except tell of another famous loss. Varus, Varus, give me back my troops!
 
ok since now we are going ot why not saying Veni Vidi Vici Wink
 
 
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 07:23
Them's fighting words, Roman! Vae Victus! Woe to the conquered!
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 08:22
lol what is this a contest? then EAT THIS
 
In Hoc Signo Vinces
 
(from a roman to another roman, with this sign you will win) God to Constantine! Wink
 
 


Edited by Mumbloid - 29-Jun-2007 at 08:28
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 08:45
You Romans make a desert and call it peace!
elenos
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 11:14

You cannot come to the conclusion that Rome's military might was inferior to the barbarians just because they suffered several defeats in the 5th century.

The Roman army, as well as the civilization as a whole, had been in decline since the 3rd century. Through corrupt governors, civil wars, coups, plagues; the population declined, people fled from the cities from the countryside, literacy rate dropped, and much of the countryside fell into the hands of powerful landlords with their own private armies.
 
As for the army, ever since the crisis of the 3rd century, the moral had greatly declined, as well as the quality of the individual soldier.
Back in the Republic or the Principate the Roman soldier was highly motivated and fought for a purpose: either to defend his rights as a citizen (as in the Republic), or as a military career which could lead to social mobility (as in the empire); and in the case of the auxilaries, a means to gain Roman citizenship.
Most soldiers were volunteers who were highly disciplined with a strong corporate spirit. Military service was by then, a highly valued career.
 
Throughout the 3rd century the army's prime purpose was no longer to defend its borders, but more as a tool for ambitious generals or politicians to usurp power, or for junior officers to incite mutinies against the senior commanders. For more than 50 years the empire was ransacked by civil wars and military coups.
 
After Diocletian's reform, the army took on a new shape; and by that time military service was no longer considered a desirable career.
In order to defend the empires borders and the crush internal unrests at a time when the population was in decline, sons of soldiers were forced to enlist in the army, and the numbers were further rounded up by conscription; which many tried to avoid by cutting off their thumbs.
The quality of the average Roman soldier greatly declined and many powerful landlords and local authorities used the levy as a means to rid themselves of the most problematic members of their community.
The hereditary soldiers apparently passed their rank onto their sons, making much of the military heirarchy dead water, blocking any promotion opportunities for new enlistees.
Many of the draft dodgers paid for substitutes: most of them German volunteers from outside the empire who were barely Romanized, although they were good warriors. 
 
The Romans certainly were capable of adapting to the times. Initially they fought in a phalanx like the Greeks, then in the more flexible maniples, and later on in cohorts. After contact with Persians, Sarmatians, and Huns, the calvary replaced the infantry as the main force.
Prior to contact with the Cathaginians they didn't even have a navy, but they managed to build one pretty quickly....
 
In my opinion. Rome was defeated by barbarians not because its army was obselete, but because the empire was rotten already from inside out; and the vultures only came to eat the flesh of the dying beast.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

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 0.156 seconds.