Ancient Armies

Rome by far had the best army of all time because of its organization and discipline and the fact that from the second century B.C. through the second century A.D. it domanated three continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa).                    

 

 

                                                                        

 

 

                            

                                  

                                          

 

 

Edited by Rome

 Rome would woop any asian army in its path during the time of Augustus.

 

Edited by Rome

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Yes Augustus mad Rome a super power when he had to make a peace with Phraates after the disgraceful defeat of Mark Antony in Battle of Phraaspa, as you know Mark Antony began a campaign against the Parthians in 33 BC. His army numbered more than 120,000 men, including no less than forty thousand cavalry whenas Phraates could collect only thirty thousand men. Roman general was defeated in this battle definitely and had to retreat after losing fifty thousand of his best troops. It also said that the return of the Roman standards captured by Orordes in the more disgraceful Battle of Carrhae (53 BC) was a victory celebrated by Rome with numerous honors for Augustus.

To be fair, the Romans pushed the Parthians out of Syria in 39 BC, killing the king's son Pacorus. They also forced the Parthians and a rebel Roman commander out of Asia Minor. They began to learn how to deal with the Parthians. In the 1st century, under Carbulo, forced them to come to a treaty over Armenia. Under Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Severus they sacked the Parthian capital three times in a century. Everyone remembers Carrhae, they tend to forget the Romans ended up giving the Parthians as many headaches as the Parthians gave them.


Edited by Virgil

Originally posted by vulkan02 a Chinese army would probably beat the Romans though i don't know a whole lot about Chinese armies back then

At some point they had a great use of chariots (till 3-2 century B.C. before cavalry was introduced). About 3 men were on the chariot - driver (or however it's named), an axe yeilder or a spearman and bowman. Later chu-ko-nu made quite an impact because 10 arrows could be reloaded faster than a regular bowman would do that. And still the chinese warfare counts much on archery, and Romans would have difficulty countering it. A constant turtle formation is probably going to work, yet the units wouldn't see a charging melee army all that well, don't know it's all a fantasy poll anyway - may be it's best solved in pc games (Rise of nations, Empire Earth II).

Originally posted by Belisarius The Chinese had superior logistics and technology, as well as a greater supply of manpower, over any of these other civilizations. I would say the Romans could give them a fair fight but they would be hard pressed to win enough victories to force an armistice. On the other hand, the Chinese would not have been able to conquer all of Rome, despite the superior logistics and technology. In a battle where the capablities of singular Roman and Chinese armies were deployed to the fullest, the Chinese would have won.

Good post, although I disagree with the final sentence. Roman legions were usually much more balanced undertakings than the infantry only formations people envision, with cavalry, archers and light infantry auxiliaries.  This can make it frustrating to envision the typical Roman army on the move since it was dependent on the auxiliaries available, the frontier and the enemy encountered. After ten years in the military I'm less a believer in the "well the name-your-army compound bow can fire 1,000 meters and penetrate..." school of military analysis than in the influence of effective training, chain of command at all levels and flexibility, which is why I think so highly of Roman armies in general. 

what about babylonian army and assyrian army

Did any European army ever defeat a Roman army in a pitched battle from 150BC - 150AD?

Originally posted by Rome   I would say that yes the roman army could beat the Chinese and that the chinese did have many archers and thats how they fought but Rome drilled its armies practiced with them and they had beater decipline then the Chinese. The Chinese never had a full time Pro army.

Erm...

1.  The Chinese army (Let's say Han dynasty) wasn't simply archer based.
2.  Roman amies had better discipline?  What's your source or basis for that, other than what would seem like a major bias?
3.  The Chinese never had a full time Pro army?  I beg to differ.

There's a similar thread at CHF if ya'll are interested.  It focuses more on a potential conflict between Rome and the Han Dynasty.  I think everyone's tried to be fair, but be prepared to encounter some bias.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=185

Perhaps more consideration should be made to WHEN the various armies are compared because their fighting power changed over the course of time.  This is an important consideration if real accuracy is being sought.  The Roman military did finally grow static and crumble.  So, it was not a very good fighting machine after it became Christianized.  Christians were not then particularly fierce fighters!

Also, the Macedonian army was far superior to the Persian army but only because by then the Persion civilization was in decline.  The Chinese military machine underwent similar gyrations or cycles with each dynasty.  Its strength depended upon the condition of the Chinese faith and society at the time.  When a society becomes corrupt, the army draws upon mercenaries and compulsion.  It fills with deadbeats and dropouts.  It becomes a big mass of fighters who are quick to find a reason to retreat.    Frankly, to me it is far more interesting to analyze this and why armies change in strengh than it is just to say, arbitrarily, that one was better than the other.

When this is all taken into consideration, it might tell us something out our own military future . . .

charles

http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

 

I was researching Shi Huang De and apparantly the Chinese armies of the 220s BC were still using chariots (by that time very outdated in the West) and still used typically bronze armor. The Romans if i recall correctly had moved on to using superior iron armor. If you were to place Rome and China side by side then of course China would win thanks to vastly superior manpower, but man for man I am not so sure the Chinese armies had vastly superior equipment. Indeed, during the Warring States period many of the soldiers used were conscripted peasants (though the Chinese states all had a professional core of full time soldiery). The Roman soldier was meant to be a full time professional who served for about 20 years.