Romans = great warriors???

Why have the romans earned the reputations as great warriors, when they in fact constantly suffered terrible defeats? Cannae, Carrhae, Gergovia, Teutoburgerwald, Arausio, Adrianople, Sarmizegetusa, the battles against the helvetii, Arretium, Rhandeia, Hatra, Nisibis, Abrittus, Edessa, Placentia, Reims, Amida - the list is of defeats is never-ending. Most roman "victories" were in fact victories against other roman armies or against other mediterranian armies who fought in an old-fashioned way. Most times when the romans engaged in battle with "barbarians" they were bested, and the occasional victories over the "barbarians" were small and pathetic in comparison with their huge and catastrophic defeats

To me the romans were lousy warriors. Despite their extraordinary training, great numbers, discipline and organisation they were crushed. Just like the equally advanced Chinese were crushed time and time again by nomad hordes or other foreign powers. The greater the civilisation and culture are - the lousier the warriors were...

 

Edited by Mangudai

No, size isn't everything. The Persian Empire was bigger than the Roman Empire.

The Romans probably fought other Romans more than barbarians, but I think they did win more battles than lost. In most cases, their defeats didn't really mater until maybe Adrianople.

http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/battles.html

 

Originally posted by azimuth Sorry for changing the subject but who is the 1st greatest murderer of all times? stalin?

Hitler.

but let's not hijack this interesting thread with "who was worst, hitler or stalin" - if you are really interested open a relevant topic. Alright?

Originally posted by Mangudai Why have the romans earned the reputations as great warriors

may be they were great warriors

or

may be because their Great grandsons are the strongest countries in the world now,  from the human nature is to be proud and show "How great our ancestors were"  

but  I think such achievements they left wont be possible if they were Losers.

so i think they were one of the strongest at their times with the persian and the far eastern.

 

 

 

I think khakhan said it best.  None of their defeats were crsuhing.

And besides, you have to take into account the advanatage in numbers 'barbarians' often had, and that they eventually were defeated by the Romans anyway.  You'd also have to consider that Roman arms weren't necessarily better than the arms of their barbarian counterparts later on.

And it goes without saying, that the longer a potentially histile empire is around, the more defeats it is doomed to have at the hands of fearful neighbors.

Edited by Lannes

I have a friend who maintains (stolen from Black Adder, I think) - that Roman success - like some European colonial success - had to do with choosing only enemies who were armed with sticks and sharpened guava fruit. 

I think much of their military success had to do with organization - the ability to control their troops, resupply, reinforce and communicate over distances that allowed them to absorb the defeats and keep fighting.  This level of organization was not seen in many of their opponents, even in the Mediterranean basin.  Attached to this is the "Romainzation" of the areas that were conquered.  As in Persia,  they recognized the importance of communication and movement.  They invested much of their effort into improving the roads, establishing forts, then towns - as quickly as possible - which brought the conquered areas into closer contact with the whole empire.  This also allowed the economic benefits of being part of the empire to be shared (a bit, at least) with the conquered peoples.  After a generation or two - the benefits for many inhabitants in areas like Gaul, Iberia and Britain far outweighed any thoughts of returning to isolation.

As has already been pointed out - they lost many battles - but the level of organization allowed them to constantly regroup, and as a result they won the wars.

Edited by vagabond

You count the many defeats of Rome, but you fail to account for the many, and astonishing victories of Rome:

Zama and the Great Plains (The Second Punic War)
Ecnomus and Aegetes Islands *plus numerous land victories on Sicily* (First Punic War)
Aqua Sextae and Vercellae (Dual victory against those had inflicted the defeat at Arousio)
Caesar totally destroyed the Helvetii
Locus Mariacus (452 A.D. - Aetius defeat of Attila)

I can go on and on....

Aetius couldn't command the army.  The administration of Rome was jealous of him, and in any case, he would be assassinated by the Emperor months later.

no they are not, you know nothign about Islam and central asia, otherwise you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement.

 

besides, most of aetius troops were foederati troops, Rome in fact didn't had an army anymore at that time, Rome can considder itself lucky not have become a ruin, then we wouldn't have to do this legacy discussion...

i didn't said that but the legacy of the caliphate is much stronger than any other empire in the world, that's a no-brainer. there are also too many alexander and Rome fanatics in the neighbourhood, I just do soem balancing...