Rome and its army [Archive]

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-26-2004, 23:13

Welcome, rasta3985 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I hope you enjoy the ORG

Quote[/b] ]I asked your second question recently in the monastery. The monastery is the place to be for this kind of historical questions.
But, since he is only a Junior Patron he can't post there.

As for your question, a lot of factors were responsible for it.

Their rise?

The possibility of recruiting all possible citizens to war. The fact that those conquered would soon be eligeble for citizenship, therefore allowing massive reserves of potencial soldiers. The fact that new conquests allowed to bring new citizens, new lands, new loot. The discipline and combat hability of the Romans due to their strict training. The Roman hability to adapt to different concepts and innovations...

Their downfall?

The end of their expansion cut the possibility of looting, of finding new ressources, etc. The fact that most of the population started to want to avoid the military service and the contant reliance on Feoderati (effectivilly foreign mercenaries).

A lot more could be told... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

bighairyman

01-27-2004, 01:04

well in the begining, before the conquest of spain and north africa. when rome was conquering the italian cities, there was a lot of spirit in the roman ppl. Rome adopted the greek form of fighting, the planax(sp). but soon it evloved into the legion, beacause it was more manverable.

but anyway, as everybody else was saying. the equiment and the training of the army was superb. and the fact that after 10 years of military service, u can become a citizen help recuirt many ppl form conquered lands.

in the end, the end of expansion, there was enough gold flowing in to the empire, the ecnonmy collasped, which led to decline of the army because of decline in equiment, training, pay, supply ect. the romans found it more benetifical to hire german mercanries. so that also led the the decline of the army.

and welcome to the org rasta3985 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

mercian billman

01-27-2004, 01:38

Actually you had to serve 25 years to become a Roman citizen not 10.

chris

01-27-2004, 02:14

History shows so clearly that even someone who only knows little about Rome, they were near, or truly obesive with war. They were constantly fighting, subduing, to such an extent that when they lacked the desire to conquest further into unknown territory, they fought each other in civil wars.

Most nationalities have a war lust deep inside, and I doubt that Rome was so much different. The main thing that swayed them was there outlook on war. Much like the vikings who believed if one fought, and died bravely while fighting, would be garunteed a place in the Final Battle, the Romans had an outlook on war that turned the tide.

First, before I get into that, consider this. If one has a hammer, why can another use it so much better, even if his is the same hammer. One: If one does not wish to use the hammer, but uses it only out of necessity, they will not use it as well as the one who thouroughly enjoys, and belives that they are qualified to use it. Second: They other person is more likely than not, very well trained in the use of his hammer.

Romans tought that they were better than everyone else, that the Barbarians deserved to die, or serve Rome. Their emporers were diety, and all should serve him or die. They also taught that the individual was nothing, buit that they needed every last person to work towards a common goal. If one uses all his mucles, and speed, to drive the nail, it will go swifter, and using his eyes, it will go more efficiantly. Second, history shows, they trained hard. The romans could set up an amazingly well defensive camp in an amazing short amount of time. Why? Becuase they trained to do it, and they did it every time they marched. On long marches, this meant alot of camps. They were the same way with fighting. They trained hard, they knew how to use their sowrds, and shields.

The Romans could use their hammers well, and belived they could. This is enough, I think to turn the tide.

Kaboom

01-27-2004, 04:53

Yes, one that made Roman strong is that they have strong citizen, free ones. And one that made Roman weak is that the free ones- the middle class- become weak. Just because there is too much and dirt cheap slave labor so the free citizens turn bankrupt And a bankrupted or a FAT citizen or SLAVE one don't fight well, you know

I found that explain well

PseRamesses

01-27-2004, 07:34

Besides all mentioned above I think the Romans was very good at assimilating foreign technologies and specialised troops into their army core. And their innovative engineers was really outstanding in overcoming obstacles and swiftly building fortifications.

caspian

01-27-2004, 11:56

I would have to say, it was their time. Lookit:

Roman Army: Infantry Specialty

Mongol Horde: Horse Archer Specialty

Alexander's Army / Charlemagne: Heavy Cavalry Specialty

Napoleon's Grand Armee: Musket Specialty

I could throw in English: Sea Power Specialty
or the Wehrmacht: Armor Specialty (blitzkrieg)

These were all the top of the food chain in their time. They had their defeats but generally they were the BEST.

And the Roman Gladium was a most effective short-sword and their discipline made them invincible.

Also there was no one of equal strength to subdue the whole of Rome. Even when the Empire collapsed, the Byzantines emerges from the rubble.

Oaty

01-27-2004, 12:03

Quote[/b] ]They trained hard, they knew how to use their sowrds, and shields.

So what you are trying to say here is that size doesnt matter, even thought there swords were short.......

The Roman army was trained to inflict fear upon the enemy. As a barbarian seeing multiple legions lined up up in nice formations even if they routed 1 legion another came marching forward whereas the barbarians were less unit oriented so if they could start routing them it was more likely to lead a chain route where the whole line starts breaking away. Also if it was afforded at the time Legions also had the armoured face masks simalir to the ones in gladitor so the enemy didnt see the I'm about to soil my armour look inflicting more fear. Quite true didn't matter if your troops were inferior its who scares who first

ScubaSteveDave

04-19-2004, 20:58

If you are really interested in military history, I can suggest no better source that A History of Warfare by John Keegan. It is an excellent book, and very engrossing (if you are interested). Again, really really good.

But part of the Roman's success is undoubtably from their method of fighting, and their logistical brilliance. The western way of fighting, pioneered by the Greeks, involves closing to hand to hand fighting as part of a unit and ignoring the risk to oneself. This is inherently unnatural (ever see animals do it?), and most primitive/'barbarian' cultures did not fight this way. Their way of fighting was that of the lone warrior, not the soldier. Warriors are individuals fighting in groups fighting for a cause or as a way of life, while soldiers are subsumed into a greater whole, fighting because it is what they do and they are told to. Soldiers do not make a living being a soldier and can go at it with the knowlege that they are expendable, unlike warriors, who must survive to make a living. The western way of warfare is devestating to those who face it as lone warriors, both in killing effectiveness and in demoralization. The germanic tribes fought hand to hand, although not as a unit, which may be why they were one of Rome's greatest threats.

As for logistics, consider this: a physically active man needs three pounds (1.36 kg) of food a day. Since an average human can carry only about 60 lbs (27.21 kg) for prolonged periods, and it is assumed that no armor, weapons, clothing, bedding, or tools are carried, a soldier can carry only twenty days of food, and if there is no resupply at the end, that means ten days out and ten back. What about draught animals? They eat their own weight in food in a very short period of time, unless grass is in plentifull supply, but the number of cattle needed for an army would strip pasturage bare in a day. Wagons need roads, so outside of one's territory you can't expect to use them. But the Romans built lots of roadway, this allowed fast and efficient supply over land, and there was always the Mediterainian sea. Supplies would be stockpiled ahead of an advancing army, allowing a very fast march. (Foraging, by the way, requires slow travel, and is unreliable. Think Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.)

These are some of the reasons for Rome's strength, again, it is a really good book, so read it Please.

meravelha

04-19-2004, 23:11

Congats on your first post Steve
(that's the third time I've said that today and I've only just arrived here myself :)

The question why were the Romans so extraordinarilly successful was a question every literate Greek asked himself at the time. They came to suppose that it was the constitution of the Roman State that propelled it to dominance of the mediterranean, ie. the fact that they accepted defeated cities and populations into their political framework - something no Greek would ever have contemplated. It made for a very expansionist dynamic.

But then again their habit of going to war every year in pursuit of the larger interests of the Roman State was something no-one had ever seen before. Their conquests were not so much the result of the meteoric career of a single gifted man (as the Greeks so much admired) as of dogged, institutionalised and brutal realpolitik.

The ability to maintain that policy without the sudden reversals and traumas that were common to city-state politics was perhaps the key to Rome's success. Which is again due to the constitution and political culture of the Roman people.

ancientworldnow

04-19-2004, 23:22

Rome's success was due to many factors.

A highly trained soldier was one of Rome's great assets. It meant that even if outnumbered, out commanded, or a mixture thereof, the Roman's would often win due to their highly superior soldiers. This was also an asset to a Roman general who did not need to now but one strategy, the tried manipular formation which exploited the roman infantry's strengths.

Rome also trained its soldiers equally meaning there were no bad troops, some were just better than others.

When Rome conquered a province, they would soak up their strengths and add it to their own. If say a German warband had a particualry strong bit of cavalry, the Romans would learn what made it succesful and incorporate it into their own military forces. They did this by wither duplicating training processes or taking the soldiers directly. The fact that recently conquered factions would willingly contribute soldiers shows how much the Roman army was respected.

Roman soldiers were also all outfitted with incredible armor and weapons which were imitated even up to WWII as seen in the German's helmets. The strategy of the large shield which protected the soldier as he stabbed with his short gladius or later spatha was absolutely devastating to an army used to smashing into the other and trying to split them in half.

Rome also had almost inexhaustable resources, if thirty thousand men were lost in a battle, no big deal, a blow that would cripple most countries could replaced in a few months.

But Rome's greatest strength was their commitment to win, they would go to infathomable lengths to conquer their enemy and they would conquer them in the end.

The Romans create a deolation, and call it peace

~ancientworldnow

Copperhead

04-20-2004, 01:45

Quote[/b] (caspian @ Jan. 27 2004,10:56)]Napoleon's Grand Armee: Musket Specialty
Napoleons infantry used poor quality muskets and were second rate when it came to rate of fire. They were intimidation specialists, they won battles by massing as much artillery as they could and then sending forward huge columns that scared opposing lines.

As soon as they met well trained British soldiers, who could fire four shots a minute compared to the average French soldier firing two or three, the columns were defeated because they weren't adept with their muskets.

If they were anything, it was intimidation specialists and artillery specialists. Not muskets.

Musket specialists were the redcoats.

Ashen

04-20-2004, 02:47

you might say that, but then what about the Imperial Guard? Napoleons Elite? They even struck fear into the hearts of the british.

Funny thing, the one time they retreated, only ONE TIME, cost Napoleon his kingdom and landed him on St Helena for the rest of his life.

Battle of Waterloo wasn't that? Having said that, im pretty sure the Imperial Guard were broken by Wellingtons own personal guard of 1000-2000 soldiers who just dropped and did what the british did best back then - Fired around 6 musket shots a minute. The Imperial guard were utterly annihilated. :)

SpencerH

04-20-2004, 02:50

The key to victory for any small army (or group) over a larger is training and morale not horses, guns, or widgets. That was true at thermopylae, it was true at Rorkes Drift, and it's still true today. The early Roman armies had both and conquered the world. Later they lost both and lost the world

gaelic cowboy

04-20-2004, 03:05

One other thing no one has mentioned is the very smart use of raw materials in the roman short sword. If I make 100 long swords or broad swords I can probally make 400 short swords with the same iron. Like the Zulu's and that stabbing spear it is easier to train someone to use it effectively it can take years to learn and master sword fighting. The style of fighting meant the babarians with there hodgepodge of equipment didnt have an effective counter to them until a proper cavalry started to appear in europe. I am convinced the economic is as important as the military example the modern US.

ScubaSteveDave

04-20-2004, 05:52

After taking a look at my first post, I would like to appologise for the bad writing and poor flow. I will do better.
meravehla: I think you know what you are talking about, and thanks.
Copperhead: actually, at the time of the Revolution, the French army of Italy was crap. But Napoleon knew how to motivate his men; he promised to lead them into the richest and most fertile lands in Europe, Italy. Loot aplenty. Napoleons troops had good quality muskets, outstanding morale, and an excellent general, but were not well supplied with food, clothing, regular pay, ect. The British troops were extremely disiplined, well trained and supplied, but they were lacking in sheer numbers. Only after the retreat from Moscow could the Brits and their allies hope to match him. (From an army of 600,000 men, only about 40,000 returned.) Also, by this time all the seasoned, crack veterans had been lost and were replaced with raw recruits. Had more of Napoleons seasoned troops survived to fight at Waterloo, the British lines would have broken before the Prussians could arrive to reinforce them. As for the Imperial Guard, they JUST KEPT COMING until they broke.
gaelic cowboy: actually, the Romans used the short swords because that was the most effective weapon to use with their heavy shields. They also were much easier to wield when one is being pressed up agaist the enemy from the ranks behind you.
Finally, when the Romans really began to decline, they were using defensive tactics and troops, which won't hold an empire together in the face of outside threats.
I hope I am not pissing anyone off. It's just the way I am.

PanzerJaeger

04-20-2004, 06:06

There seem to be 2 opinions about Romes success.

#1- Rome wasnt really that good, but the enemies she faced were tribal warriors and not as advanced. She was lacking when it came to fighting advanced armies.

#2- Rome was all powerful, with unbreakable legions and excellent command. How else could she conquer the known world?

I dont know enough about rome to form a real opinion, but i would guess the truth lies somewhere between the 2.

Scipio

04-20-2004, 06:27

Like somebody said near the beggining in this thread the ability to recruit citizens...During Hannibals raids on Italy Rome seemed to have endless amounts of armies to throw at them... The infantry in the roman army utilized both melee weapons and the skirmishing weapons and for that the prevailed in infantry; unfortunately they lacked the good cavalry to keep up the flanks. I still dream of a roman army with all numidian cav...*slobber* *slobber* *slobber* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif Also under the right generals the Roman army was practically invulnerable; for example nobody was able (no matter what their army size) to defeat Hannibal...Till yours truly cam around http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Congrats you made me make my first juicy post in a long time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Sun Tzui

04-20-2004, 10:12

Scipio just made a very good point that no one had yet approached Romes Generals, the brilliant and tallented tacticians that made the legions what they were, a skilled, tallented, battle hardened and deadly weapon, if used by a good General. Romes own history is full of examples of this, and during its decadence, what Rome might have needed most, would have been, more talented Generals, because they had the legions, but they lacked enough skilled officials to lead them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

ScubaSteveDave

04-20-2004, 15:50

There really is not any one or two reasons for Rome's success. It is dangerous to over-generalize about anything, and always inaccurate. (Ever hear the phrase no generalization is true, not even this one or the exception proves the rule?) Perhaps a better way to answer this question is to have more than one thread, each one devoted to a different area of debate, i.e. tactics, strategy, culture, government, infrastructure, armies, ect. But that might be two much work. But with the above warning, I think a summary of their advantages might suffice. The details of how they had an effect can be filled in later.

Rome had an efficient and far reaching administration and government structure. It's society allowed upward mobility of the deserving. At times, it's policies were quite liberal. It's citizens were devoted to the ideal of civic virtue. Its legions were usually motivated, disciplined, and well trained, paid, armed and armoured, and supplied, and was capable of amazing mobility to an excellent transportation network. The legions had large numbers of troops who fought in tightly packed formations that could chew to pieces less organized hordes of fierce barbarians. Their equipment was well suited to their usual employment, and only another legion would be able to defeat a legion on an open field (horse archers can't beat a legion, but they could not win either). The legions were skilled in seige warfare, aided by the common soldiers ability to build and dig, as well as most having a constructive specialty. Romans had the organizational capability, man power, capital, and engineering skills to engage in massive civil improvements such as aquaducts, roads, bath houses and coloseums, which still stand today.

If I missed something (I am sure I have) please feel free to add it.

ScubaSteveDave

04-20-2004, 15:57

Sorry about that, I tried to edit my posts. Didn't work.

meravelha

04-20-2004, 23:34

You're right SSD.
No edit facility on a forum.
How strange...

Is this a membership thing?

jimmy

04-21-2004, 09:47

true the roman army didnt evolve example weak cavlary but also the type of foe faced tended to be little more than tribesmen. when faced with the likes of the persians/huns/goths etc they were beaten time and time again. infact with out the help of mercinary troops or some off there allies i dont think rome would have lasted as long as it did. its total lack of understanding horse cavalary/ archers etc and then training them way to late is another example. civilwar spliting the empire in two greed complacncey there are a thousand reasons why the empire collapsed but the failure to adopt more modern day fighting techniques is certainly one of the catalysts for this to happen?

Copperhead

04-21-2004, 13:57

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ April 20 2004,02:47)]you might say that, but then what about the Imperial Guard? Napoleons Elite? They even struck fear into the hearts of the british.

Funny thing, the one time they retreated, only ONE TIME, cost Napoleon his kingdom and landed him on St Helena for the rest of his life.

Battle of Waterloo wasn't that? Having said that, im pretty sure the Imperial Guard were broken by Wellingtons own personal guard of 1000-2000 soldiers who just dropped and did what the british did best back then - Fired around 6 musket shots a minute. The Imperial guard were utterly annihilated. :)
Napoleons Imperial Guard may have struck fear into the the British, but that still doesn't mean they were any better with their muskets than the rest of the French army. They were simply the size of grenadiers in most regiments and their grenadier company's only had men in that were over 6ft2. They weren't beaten by Wellingtons personal guard. It was simply a collection of remaining regiments from the centre of the British line. Although I do agree that the Imperial Guard got pwned.

Copperhead

04-21-2004, 14:02

Quote[/b] (ScubaSteveDave @ April 20 2004,05:52)]After taking a look at my first post, I would like to appologise for the bad writing and poor flow. I will do better.
meravehla: I think you know what you are talking about, and thanks.
Copperhead: actually, at the time of the Revolution, the French army of Italy was crap. But Napoleon knew how to motivate his men; he promised to lead them into the richest and most fertile lands in Europe, Italy. Loot aplenty. Napoleons troops had good quality muskets, outstanding morale, and an excellent general, but were not well supplied with food, clothing, regular pay, ect. The British troops were extremely disiplined, well trained and supplied, but they were lacking in sheer numbers. Only after the retreat from Moscow could the Brits and their allies hope to match him. (From an army of 600,000 men, only about 40,000 returned.) Also, by this time all the seasoned, crack veterans had been lost and were replaced with raw recruits. Had more of Napoleons seasoned troops survived to fight at Waterloo, the British lines would have broken before the Prussians could arrive to reinforce them. As for the Imperial Guard, they JUST KEPT COMING until they broke.

The French: Their muskets were crap, most of the equipment they had was taken from the Austrians etc. I'm not saying that they were useless soldiers, i am saying that they were not musket specialists as someone suggested. Not once did they win a straight firefight. It was always their columns breaking through an enemy line or scaring the enemy line into running away. That is not musket speciality, musket speciality is the British firing at least 4 rounds a minute. Not once did I say that they were rubbish soldiers, you really need to look at what people say before criticising. They were good at what they did and that was intimidate enemies, their muskets were poor, their gunpowder even worse and their ability with their muskets was very limited.

EDIT: Forgot to indicate I was talking about the French... in case you thought I meant the Romans did not have very good muskets http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

Copperhead

04-21-2004, 14:09

I think you get to edit your posts once you become a Senoir Patron, don't quote me on that however because I am not sure.

ScubaSteveDave

04-21-2004, 21:16

Quote[/b] ]The French: Their muskets were crap, most of the equipment they had was taken from the Austrians etc. I'm not saying that they were useless soldiers, i am saying that they were not musket specialists as someone suggested. Not once did they win a straight firefight. It was always their columns breaking through an enemy line or scaring the enemy line into running away. That is not musket speciality, musket speciality is the British firing at least 4 rounds a minute. Not once did I say that they were rubbish soldiers, you really need to look at what people say before criticising. They were good at what they did and that was intimidate enemies, their muskets were poor, their gunpowder even worse and their ability with their muskets was very limited.

EDIT: Forgot to indicate I was talking about the French... in case you thought I meant the Romans did not have very good muskets

My apologies Copperhead, I had no intention to criticize or offend you, and I am sorry if I have done either. I thought that in a forum one posts their opinion and/or knowledge on the subject, which is what I attempted to do.
It may be that you know far more about the Napoleonic wars than I. All that I know about it I have learned from Advanced Placement European History (I have an excellent teacher, who I honor greatly), a few non-fiction books and a textbook, and a little from historical fiction. So I apologies if I have stepped on your toes, and I will try to avoid doing so again.
But this thread is about the Romans, and I shall endeavor to remain on the topic.

Quote[/b] ]jimmy Posted on April 21 2004,03:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
true the roman army didnt evolve example weak cavlary but also the type of foe faced tended to be little more than tribesmen. when faced with the likes of the persians/huns/goths etc they were beaten time and time again. infact with out the help of mercinary troops or some off there allies i dont think rome would have lasted as long as it did. its total lack of understanding horse cavalary/ archers etc and then training them way to late is another example. civilwar spliting the empire in two greed complacncey there are a thousand reasons why the empire collapsed but the failure to adopt more modern day fighting techniques is certainly one of the catalysts for this to happen?

I remember reading about the clashes between the Romans and the horse peoples of the steppe and Asia in A History of Warfare. As I recall, it was something of a stalemate as the mounted archers had little effect on the heavy shields and armoured troops of the Roman legions, and yet the Romans could not bring them to battle as they would remain safely out of reach while firing. (And yes, you are correct, the Romans relied heavily on units raised from various horse cultures.) This is the 'eastern' tradition of fighting (or non-western) I mentioned earlier in this thread. To better understand it, read A History of Warfare by John Keegan. So if I remember correctly, the Romans did not really lose to them, but they could not win either. How does one defeat an enemy that would not come to battle and had no cities to attack? For an example of this and how it compares to the 'western' way of war, I am willing to bet that in Iraq a typical clash between U.S. Marines and insurgents goes something like this: a group of Iraqis (sp?) opens fire on Marines from behind cover. The marines immediately take cover and figure out where the enemy are. They then use suppressive fire and advance from cover to cover until they have flanked or otherwise make the enemies position untenable (meaning no longer safe). Those Iraqis who are still alive and can do so probably try to retreat. Then the cycle repeats. Note the difference here: one side uses ambushes and ranged fire from (relatively) safe positions, while the other advances until it forces their opponents to rout. MTW does an good job of representing this, no?
Also jimmy, the Romans did adapt to new things, but it was primarily technologically (weapons, armour, ect.) as opposed to tactically/strategically, and they did change the composition of their armies to suit who they were fighting. So you definitely had the right idea.

Pindar

04-21-2004, 22:39

Several of the posted answers to the question bring up good points, but those same answers appear to be aspects of the central explanation. I would submit that the answer to Roman success was not anything intrinsic to the mechanics of empire as much as a cultural phenomena. To cut to the quick, I believe there were two distinct features that combined to give Rome its dominance: discipline and pragmaticism.

A simple illustration of discipline: in 216 B.C. Rome suffered the worst defeat in its history. Cannae saw the Roman leadership decimated, some possible 60,000 dead on the field and Hannibal free to march on Rome (taken as a proportion of loss to available resources at the time, I can think of few possible worse disasters). The victorius Carthaginians sent envoys to Rome to ask for terms. The Roman response was basically how would Hannible like to surrender? The bravado behind that sentiment is stunning. I can think of no other nation or people who could have recovered. This is but one example of a sentiment that is illustarted over several Centuries.

Roman pragmaticism is evident in everything from road construction, to citizen mobilization, to adopting the gladius, to the construction of the corvus, to the development of a counter to the phalanx. Unlike the Greeks, Rome never produced an independant intellectual system. Their ability to focus on the task at hand and develope a proper response however, is stunning. This feature allowed Rome to create the longest sustained Empire in history.

These two cultural traits allowed Rome the wherewithal to overcome any opposition. It would be the dilution of these same traits that would sow the seed of Rome's decline.

Copperhead

04-21-2004, 22:47

Quote[/b] (ScubaSteveDave @ April 21 2004,21:16)]My apologies Copperhead, I had no intention to criticize or offend you, and I am sorry if I have done either. I thought that in a forum one posts their opinion and/or knowledge on the subject, which is what I attempted to do.
It may be that you know far more about the Napoleonic wars than I. All that I know about it I have learned from Advanced Placement European History (I have an excellent teacher, who I honor greatly), a few non-fiction books and a textbook, and a little from historical fiction. So I apologies if I have stepped on your toes, and I will try to avoid doing so again.
But this thread is about the Romans, and I shall endeavor to remain on the topic.
Okay, if you can explain to me how the French being able to fire 3 rounds a minute makes them more specialised with their muskets than the redcoats firing 4/5 rounds a minute then i will gladly accept that you have proved your point beyond all recognition. No matter what your teacher says, thinks or does, the fact that firing more rounds with a musket per minute makes the troopes better with their muskets than their opposition. Fact.

bighairyman

04-21-2004, 23:55

Napoleon's success didn't came from the rate of fire his soldats had. it wasn't that important. WHAT was important was of course he's tactics, the armies of Napoleon's enemies still used century old tactics which used infantry rows advancing under fire. Napoleon used the column, which was far more effective, And someone said massing artillery and fire, that was right, if you checked the numbers of soldiers and equipments Napoleon's army had, often he had more artillery than his enemies. If anyone studies him, Napoleon was first a artillery commander.

And Romans, at the beginning, romans lived in villages that will later form together and became Rome, they were farmers and simple artisans. But most important of all, they were hard working, but success polluted their minds and clouded their judgment; in other words, they became greedy. If you look at the years leading to the fall, the roman government was very corrupted, bribes, assassinations were very common. The romans forgot what their founding fathers fought and died for. The rich party all day and attempted to be emperor, while the poor grew poorer, and middle classes lived in the street.

The one important issue was their society, it broke apart, add that together with crumbling economy with cheap slave labor and importing goods, with weaker military, less standards. If a roman soldier near the end fought with a soldier from Caesar's legionary, i put my money on the legionnaire. disciplined broke down. Roman soldiers near the end were nothing more than poor farmers and slaves with little training.

So don't put all the blame on the invading cavalry, although it was the superior cavalry armies that defeated the romans. A strong Roman Empire could surly Incorporated the cavalry technology and win. But all the roman emperors wanted was wine and women.

Plus the romans were defending a area the size of Continental US with only 100,000 soldiers total, heck we got more troops in Iraq right now. plus it probably took more than several weeks to a couple months to march from one corner of the empire to the other.

that reminded me of a quote: one who defends all at the end, defends nothing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

Copperhead

04-22-2004, 00:57

Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ April 21 2004,23:55)]Napoleon's success didn't came from the rate of fire his soldats had. it wasn't that important. WHAT was important was of course he's tactics, the armies of Napoleon's enemies still used century old tactics which used infantry rows advancing under fire. Napoleon used the column, which was far more effective, And someone said massing artillery and fire, that was right, if you checked the numbers of soldiers and equipments Napoleon's army had, often he had more artillery than his enemies. If anyone studies him, Napoleon was first a artillery commander.
I never said that the rate of fire was important when you look at the tactics he used. I was simply arguing against the idea someone put forward that the Grand Armee were musket specialists. I agree with you on everything you said except the marching in column being more effective when under fire. Sure the tight ranks gave confidence to the men but a roundshot going through a column killed far more than a roundshot going through two ranks. Not only was he an artillery commander, he was referred to as the Little Corporal, i think this was because he was a gunner corporal, i'm not sure however, please correct me if i'm wrong. I might go and find out for myself actually http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

bighairyman

04-22-2004, 01:36

No i meant the first military command he got was an artillery officer, He became famous in the military ranks after he thought out of a plan to put cannons on the battlements and blasted the British ships away from the city. I forgot the name of the city but it was in northwest of France.

I read somewhere that Napoleon's Column was more effective than the rows other armies used. Maybe it was more maneuverable, i will go check out the website i saw it on.

PS. my last post was directed at you, i was skimming through the thread. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Oh and here's some info on Napoleon and the military and the wars:
http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/who.cfm

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_guard1.html

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_grenadiers.html

http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_war/weapon/page_2.html

and of course one of his most famous battles:
http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_war/campaign/page_6.html

Xecthilor

04-22-2004, 01:58

I'm actually at the very end of a 300 level Roman history class this semester, so this is pretty fresh in my mind. Originally the army wasn't comprised of volunteers: service in the army was restricted to land owners. Certain measures were taken, (like splitting government land into small parcels and distributing those to the landless to increase the body of potential recruits), but this remained a part of the Roman system for quite a while. Eventually, I don't remember the exact date but its in the 130BC- onward range, pre-Julian, certain officials learned that the senate and the comitias, which made policy, could be bypassed by going to the plebian assembly, which was made up of the non-nobles. This allowed officials to bypass the senate, and someone who was popular with the people could get anything they want passed. An official, again can't remember his name, eventually got a series of laws passed removing the land ownership as a qualification of the army, and the military became a volunteer force. This vastly opened up the ranks, providing huge numbers of new men, but, being volunteers, it was expected they'd be compensated. This is where the drawback came in: those soldiers, once disbanded following a war, would look to their general to provide for them, i.e. get them land in exchange for their efforts. This was a life altering change for the Republic, as this meant the soldiers would be loyal to the general who provided for them, NOT the government. This made it possible for generals like Pompey, and later Caesar, to accomplish what they desired. Into AD, going up to Dioclatian and Constantine, this was so pronounced that it was the army which had all the power, and which chose who was emperor..

meravelha

04-22-2004, 03:53

The office you are describing is the Tribune of the Plebs who had the power to veto decisions of the elected Consuls.
A fairly radical power to have you might think, and you'd be right (the office had been extorted from the Senate in two previous confrontations between the plebs and the patricians).

But there was an unwritten 'gentlemen's agreement' within the Roman political elite that these tribunician powers would never be 'maxed-out'. That holders of the office would never challenge the authority of the Consuls (the elected executives of the Senate). That is until....

Tiberias Sempronius Gracchus, not short of native Roman political ambition, took the office of Tribune. On a campaign of land reform and debt reduction for the honest Roman farmer. Getting yourself famous on a policy like that would have been fine - it would have been within the bounds of acceptable behaviour (if abhorred by the patrician landlords).
But he used the powers of the Tribune to start blocking legislation by the Consuls and soon people (important people) were muttering that the man was a danger to the Roman State.
To cut a long story short, T.S. Gracchus was assassinated - but not before becoming obscenely wealthy.

The Romans loved this sort of competiton. Competition for political fame.
And in this competition the stakes kept rising as Rome became an increasingly dominant force in the mediterranean.

So the next Tribune you refer to is Marius ( whose praenomen and cognomen somehow escape me at the moment). And it was he, as you rightly point out, that reformed the republican legions.

Some would say that he simply standardised changes that were already occuring in the now never-ending series of overseas campaigns. But the upshot was to do away with the differently-armed components of the roman battle line (the hastati, the principes and the triarii) in favour of a standard legionary heavy infantry soldier with the scutum, the pilum armoured in chainmail. These are the troops that Jules Baby used in his own attempt to end the game of the Republic.

meravelha

04-22-2004, 04:06

(I wish I could edit these posts)

The point is that the reform of the legions was directly related to the land reform issue.
The endless overseas campaigns were keeping Roman smallholding farmers in the army for years at a time. At this time, roman soldiers were not paid - to fight was a civic duty according to your means and status.

Trouble was, that while the soldiers were away, the Patrician landlords would come in and buy up all the small farms, turn them into large farmers and run them with slaves.
Slaves that the farmer/soldiers were capturing
Large parts of Italy were being almost depopulated in this manner as the Roman elite sytematically ruined the peasantry they depended on.

Marius' solution was to remove the property restrictions on entry into the army (so he could recruit the poor urban masses) and to pay them directly from taxes.

As you can imagine, this made him very popular with the poor urban masses. That was the basis of his political support. His principal opponent in the ensuing civil war, Sulla had the backing of the rich landlords.

But you could say that the Marian faction won out. Julius Caeser was himself a part of the Marian faction and depended on the support of the urban poor and the army.

Xecthilor

04-22-2004, 04:54

Yeah, thanks for filling in the names, it would've been eating at my mind until I had to go dig through my notes from a month ago. This makes me want RTW even more now. Hail Caesar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

meravelha

04-22-2004, 05:37

*grins*

You'll need to know that stuff at least to pass a 300-level paper on the republic :)

Ave
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

ScubaSteveDave

04-22-2004, 06:32

I vote for meravelha and Xecthilor to be the Official Roman Experts. Seriously. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Gregoshi

04-22-2004, 06:36

Welcome Scuba. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

You are correct about membership & the edit/delete buttons meravelha. Those features will become available once you are promoted. Don't sweat the typos and double posts. We moderators will take care of the double posts - like I just did with Scuba's double post.

Fanty

04-22-2004, 06:37

Zitat[/b] ]What made the Roman military and political machines so effective?

I read a reconstruction.

Rome spend 80% of its total GDP for its Military.
Some economist-historians say, the real reason behind the fall of Rome was that Rome wasnt able to finance a military force like they had for unlimited time, without conquering more and more WEALTHY other empires. Wich again would have raised the need for more forces. The whole concept of Rome was doomed by the start.

Comparation to modern states:
USA: 3.5%
Germany: 1.2%

Thats for making oneself so much enemies. Hehehehe. ;)
Just imagine, the running cost of the borderfortifications at the Rhine towards Germania cost Rome 12% of its yearly GDP.

The Romans basicly gave up Britain because the costs of military occupition had been larger than the profit that the Isle gave.

The mainreason for not conquering germania was most likely that holding it would cost more money than the Romans have at all. and the land was pretty much useless.

Leo

04-22-2004, 08:48

Quote[/b] ]
So the next Tribune you refer to is Marius ( whose praenomen and cognomen somehow escape me at the moment). And it was he, as you rightly point out, that reformed the republican legions.

Some would say that he simply standardised changes that were already occuring in the now never-ending series of overseas campaigns.

Marius was consul, not tribune and his changes to the roman military where due to the invasion of the cimbri and teutons. He needed a standing army of disciplined soldiers, so instead of taking conscripts who where ill motivated to fight far off their homelands he created a new army of volunteers who got their motivation from the prospect of gaining some land after their time of service.
As has already been pointed out this lead to troops beeing absolutely loyal to their generals and to the marches on rome by sulla and caesar.

ScubaSteveDave

04-22-2004, 15:36

I love playing what-if games with history, trying to figure out what went wrong or what was not done. I have been thinking about the change from armies composed of property holders to professional standing armies, and how the loyalty of the troops change from the state to the generals. Obviously, this was an important factor in the fall of the Republican Senate and the creation of the Empire (the Emperors almost always took power with the backing of the armies, I believe), and the Empire may indeed be the cause of the final downfall of Rome, since the self aggrandizement of the emperors cause the romans to overextend their borders. But the opening of the military franchise to the non-property owners allowed more troops to be raised, allowed them to be equipped uniformly, and may well have made the armies far more effective since it was composed of full time professional soldiers. So the change was a force for good and ill.

So here is my question: what could have been done to retain the loyalty of the soldiers to the state (assuming their foresight was as good as our hindsight)?

Pindar

04-22-2004, 17:16

Quote[/b] ]Empire may indeed be the cause of the final downfall of Rome, since the self aggrandizement of the emperors cause the romans to overextend their borders.

This sentiment is problematic given the Empire lasted for over half a millennia.

Quote[/b] ]So here is my question: what could have been done to retain the loyalty of the soldiers to the state

Any polity must maintain control of its own military in order to survive. Centralized control (via pay and administration and loyalty instilling factors like court pagentry or equivalent mythos ) would have been necessary to prevent the rise of the Triumvirs.*

*Note: this was not a problem unique to Rome. The various Arab Calaphates suffered similarly as did Medieval Japan etc.

ScubaSteveDave

04-22-2004, 20:31

Yes, I know there are a lot of assumptions in the whole empire being the downfall of Rome thing, and that it is a stretch, which is why I try to include phrases like may indeed, although this is still to strong. But half a millennia is only 500 years, and Roman civilization lasted for two millennia (right?), so maybe it just took five centuries to them to finally extend too far, become committed in too many places, and have a serious threat arise far too close to home. But I don't really know, it was just a theory based on too little knowledge.

As for centralized control, pay, etc. of the armies, was not that already being done?

Fanty

04-22-2004, 23:50

Rome changed from their Legions to cheap and crap armies.

whats the reason for this?

Romes borders became protected by cheap Barbarian Mercs in the end.

Whats the reason for this?

Rome gave up Britain without beeng forced by an enemy. They disbanded it just for fun.

Whats the reason for this?

Who on earth forced Rome to exchange their superior Armies with crap?

Maybe their national depts? ;)

There is a need to expand.
Only unlimited expansion can garant survival of such system. (same with todays system. Only works with unlimited grow. A standstill kills the current system)

Rome would need to march into the middle east to survive. then India, then China.

Get riches, take more slaves. Waring and press the money for it out of the losers.

It cannot stand still. Rome was forced to stand still.
Desert in the south, Barbarians without wealth in the north.

nly chance to survive would have been further expansion to east. Wich they failed to do.

You only can suvive if your grow.
So faster you grow, so more fast you will need to grow.
One day, it colapses.

And a new small thing can grow again.

Pindar

04-23-2004, 00:05

Quote[/b] ]But half a millennia is only 500 years,

How many Empires can you name that lasted 500 years? The adjective seems misplaced.

Quote[/b] ]Roman civilization lasted for two millennia (right?),

Recognizing the name 'Roman Civilization' is inextricably tied to the polity itself: the tradition has Rome being founded in 753 B.C. The Republic lasted from 509 B.C. to 27 B.C. then followed the Empire. Determining the lengh of Roman Civilization depends on when you consider it to have been extinquished. The Empire is typically said to have fallen in 476 A.D. This is a fairly arbitrary date (particulary given the Goths still recognized the Emperor in Constantinople as titular lord of Italy, and a formal reconquest occured in the following century). If one takes the shift in title from Augustus to Basilius (the Greek for King) as the demarcation then the Empire lasted until the 7th Century. If one goes by self identification then the 'Romans' lasted until 1453. The later recognition entails seeing the empire to have lasted considerably longer than 500 years.

Quote[/b] ]As for centralized control, pay, etc. of the armies, was not that already being done?

No, it was not. During the Late Republic the financial fate of armies was tied to their leaders. There was little to no centralized control.

Fanty

04-23-2004, 04:33

Well, on paper the Western Roman Empire lasted until 1806 ;)

Under various names.

In the 10th century under the name Imperium (Empire)
In the 11th century under the name Imperium Romanorum (Roman Empire)
In the 12th century under the name Sacrum Imperium (Holy Empire)
From the 13th to 15th century under the name Sacrum Romanorum Imperium (Holy Roman Empire)

And from the 15th century to the 19th century under the name Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations

Official.... the anchestor in law, of West-Rome ;)

Pindar

04-23-2004, 09:02

Quote[/b] ]Well, on paper the Western Roman Empire lasted until 1806...And from the 15th century to the 19th century under the name Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations

I guess one has to quote Voltaire in this regared: The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

Fanty

04-23-2004, 10:00

He was right. ;)

The Holy Roman Empire (1250-1806) was no empire anymore.
(Note that the term Holy Roman Empire did only came up AFTER the Empire fall (and it fall during the 13th century). It wasnt named like that during the time when the Empire was reality.)

different to the Empire (Otto the great invented the term),
the Roman Empire (Otto Secundus Imperator Augustus (Otto II) invented the term)
and the Holy Empire (namechange by Barbarossa) ;)

But yeah, they werent Holy, since a think like Holy does not exist.

In the times of Voltair, it doesnt exist at all.
He is complete right.

Is it Roman?
Well, the Pope invented the title.
The war destroid Europe. A new Rome was needed that establishes a Pax Romana. Who ever does the job doesnt matter. Well what matters was that the guy needed to be catholic. since the bycantine Emperor was Orthodox, he doesnt fit for the job. at least in the perspective of the pope. ;)

The Pope aspected Charlemagne to conquer all of Europe and establish a new peace. And of course protect the Roman-Catholic church.

The Pope can someone rightfully make the Emperor of Rome.
So juristic its Roman.

Also:

whats an Empire?
A state that controlles people of different ethnicies.
Like the Roman Empire and the brittish empire. And so on.

when it contolled Germany, the Lower countries, Burgundy, Czechia and Italy, it was an Empire.

When it only contained German speakers, it wasnt. that would be a national state and no empire. and at that time it wasnt even that. It was nonexisting in reality.

Dunedin_dude

04-25-2004, 11:31

Quote[/b] (ScubaSteveDave @ April 19 2004,14:58)]If you are really interested in military history, I can suggest no better source that A History of Warfare by John Keegan. It is an excellent book, and very engrossing (if you are interested). Again, really really good.
Can't agree enough - brilliant book.
Another good author is Donald Kagan, especially his books on the Peloponnesian War(s).

Dunedin_dude

04-25-2004, 11:50

Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ April 21 2004,19:36)]He became famous in the military ranks after he thought out of a plan to put cannons on the battlements and blasted the British ships away from the city. I forgot the name of the city but it was in northwest of France.

I read somewhere that Napoleon's Column was more effective than the rows other armies used. Maybe it was more maneuverable, i will go check out the website i saw it on.
I think the city was Toulouse, and it was a combined British/Neopolitan force, with not enough men or ships - they were always going to get beaten.

And the column was good for manuevering, and for morale, especially with the drummers inside beating out the pas de charge[I] but no good when against a disciplined line (the British) who could simple concentrate more fire against the column, which could only fire at the first two ranks, and on the flanks

And another thing - if all of us had been in charge of the Romans, no doubt we would all be typing in Latin, 'cause the Empire would still be going strong.

ScubaSteveDave

04-26-2004, 20:23

Quote[/b] ]I think the city was Toulouse (dunedin_dude)

I thought the city was Toulon, in the provrince of Toulouse. And yeah, the British were almost always outnumered on land.

Donald Kagan huh? I'll look into it. (I'm glad someone knows what I was talking about.)

bighairyman

04-26-2004, 23:08

Quote[/b] (Fanty @ April 22 2004,17:50)]Rome changed from their Legions to cheap and crap armies.

whats the reason for this?

Romes borders became protected by cheap Barbarian Mercs in the end.

Whats the reason for this?

Rome gave up Britain without beeng forced by an enemy. They disbanded it just for fun.

Whats the reason for this?

Who on earth forced Rome to exchange their superior Armies with crap?

Maybe their national depts? ;)

There is a need to expand.
Only unlimited expansion can garant survival of such system. (same with todays system. Only works with unlimited grow. A standstill kills the current system)

Rome would need to march into the middle east to survive. then India, then China.

Get riches, take more slaves. Waring and press the money for it out of the losers.

It cannot stand still. Rome was forced to stand still.
Desert in the south, Barbarians without wealth in the north.

nly chance to survive would have been further expansion to east. Wich they failed to do.

You only can suvive if your grow.
So faster you grow, so more fast you will need to grow.
One day, it colapses.

And a new small thing can grow again.
1: the reason is that the roman government became poor, during their heyday, gold, loot and slaves pour into the empire, making it rich, during the later years, expansion slowed, so less gold, loot, slaves, plus the romans were trading with the Indians, which cost tons of gold every year. Also since all the Emperors only decide to amuse themselves using roman money, plus during the last years, there were lots of assassination, with emperor's changing every couple of years, and there wasn't a strong ruler. So discipline broke down, plus if i'm correct there was also a great plague that wipe out a lot of people.

2, since they were poor and can only train crappy units, they hired Germanic mercenaries to protect their border, cause they were better than the roman troops( not the crack troops of course, but there was only a few of them).

3 there were threats in England, the Scots from the north and other Germanic tribes from northern Europe was also threating the island, some of the famous ones are the Anglos and the Saxons http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif . plus the Gaul(France) was threaten, the romans knew to cut their losses and return home. also the truth was England was also not that rich, and provide very little money for the state.

4, yup, and some other problems

most of what you said was right, but in my view, expanding into the middle east and china is not a good idea. first of all, the with romans moving to the east to attack the middle east, that will left an open gate for the north Germanic tribes, the romans already Had enough problems deafening them with the available legions. There was also an Strong empire in the middle east. the Parthian's and later the Persians. to be able to defeat them (if at all) it would require at least 70% of the all the roman forces, again the tribes in the north.

The only good way for them is to develop their economy, change it from a slave drivening agriculutrian economy to an industrial powerhouse(not the machine industrial of course), and change their corrupted government, maybe even change back to the good old republic. with the state controlling the armies.

There was a good chance that Napoleon would ahve won at Waterloo if his other generals did what he order them to do.

meravelha

04-27-2004, 23:08

Quote[/b] ]
Rome changed from their Legions to cheap and crap armies.

whats the reason for this?

Romes borders became protected by cheap Barbarian Mercs in the end.

Whats the reason for this?

Rome gave up Britain without beeng forced by an enemy. They disbanded it just for fun.

Whats the reason for this?

Who on earth forced Rome to exchange their superior Armies with crap?

Maybe their national depts? ;)

There is a need to expand.
Only unlimited expansion can garant survival of such system. (same with todays system. Only works with unlimited grow. A standstill kills the current system)

Rome would need to march into the middle east to survive. then India, then China.

Get riches, take more slaves. Waring and press the money for it out of the losers.

It cannot stand still. Rome was forced to stand still.
Desert in the south, Barbarians without wealth in the north.

nly chance to survive would have been further expansion to east. Wich they failed to do.

You only can suvive if your grow.
So faster you grow, so more fast you will need to grow.
One day, it colapses.

And a new small thing can grow again.

In essence I agree.
It survived the Principate on a very small military budget.
When that budget doubled, they were in trouble as the aristocracy were loathe to take a drop in living standards.

Bayushi Togai

04-29-2004, 23:26

I'm not sure this will go over well in a forum of people organized to play war games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif , but the big picture of Rome's success and waning probably his very little to do with the army, or military technology, or the battles we simulate in the games.

But considering we are here to play Total War, I can understand why those kinds of factors would be the focus of most people's interest. :)

The disposative reasons are probably cultural and economic, like being able to put together a bureaucracy complex enough to run such a huge geographic enterprise, and keeping so many soldiers fed and paid, and being able to entice foreign cultures to want to become more Roman.

But its the battles that make an interesting game, so no one can be faulted for having their heart in the right place. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Impaler

04-30-2004, 11:30

Don't forget the Roman Diplomacy. Their ability to utilize the inner conflicts of nations to their own ends and the power the Roman navy had in the times of the rise. After all the Carthage began to loose when the Romans build navy. Hannibal could not hope to get reinforcement from the sea and finally he could not stop Romans to invade Carthage.
Still how can one stop them when they could allied with half a nation, use it to conquer the other half and then find a reason to beat the rest.
Plus the fact that Roman army had strong leadership and willing men to fight for spoils and glory. Tactically the legionary had the right equipment for the job. The cavalry was crap yes, but there are mainly social reasons for these as the Romans that could afford horses preferred infantry.
The reasons for falling down, lets just say that everything that give power to the Empire, starting from the very spirit of Rome, was absent in the years after Marcus Aurelius.

bighairyman

05-02-2004, 18:13

Roman Armies were crap in the early years (years with Carthage), they won due to other town's loyalties, and their huge manpower, I read from a book, that during the second Punic war, Roman Italy has over 700,000 manpower for infantry, and over 30,000 manpower for cavalry. That's Huge for an ancient empire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif . plus the Romans lost over 700 warships during the first Punic war. The reason for early roman success is their ability to bounce back from disasters. At the end, they lost that ability and the empire felled. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

The_Emperor

05-03-2004, 00:52

Ultimately Rome's demise came about from a chain of events part of which had its roots in China...

After Rome had reached its peak and its economy slowed due to the problems of long distance trade and the lack of any new conquests...

The Romans had no idea of the vast number of Nomadic Barbarian tribes who were living beyond the Danube, all the way across the Steppes to the borders of China and this is what militarily gave them their downfall.

Following revolution and the exile of the Huns in China they travelled West across the Steppes and many of the tribes that crossed into Roman territory, such as the Goths were actually fleeing the advancing Huns...

The Gothic victory against the Eastern Roman Empire was pretty much an indication to the enemies of Rome, that the Empire was getting soft and slowly but surely more Barbarians began to raid into the Empire, small raids at first, but gradually they got bolder over time.

Britain was never fully pacified by the Romans and was always a frontier province. The Romans suffered from Constant raiding from the Picts in the North, and also being an island was difficult to maintain connections with by sea... So its no surprise the Romans abandoned it in choosing to secure more of mainland Europe against the advancing Huns and their allies.

Eventually Rome's legions were so depleted they had to rely on their barbarian Visigoth Allies to help defeat the Huns, but after that campaign it was only a matter of time before they became the next threat...