Unstoppable Army

[Gleemonex]

The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.

I'd be content to leave the subsequent post be, but this thread is called "Unstoppable Army". [1]

The Romans had a uniform army that was exceedingly skilled with the Roman sword-fighting techniques, the most effective in the world.

They had a uniform army with standardised training. [2]

Modularity and logistics.

Each piece of their equipment was specially designed for a specific purpose. Their sword, the gladius, was not too long, both slashing and thrusting, but primarily used for thrusting, which inflicts the most damage.

Idea taken from the Celtiberians. (Hint: Its full name is Gladius Hispaniensis)

Adaptability.

Their shield, scutum, was very large and practical, being rectangular, with curved edges to better deflect blows. The shields were relatively light but yet strong, with an iron boss.

The scutum was effective but unremarkable on its own. I would hope it deflects blows -- it's a shield!

The helmets, specifically the Coolus and Imperial Gallic type were masterpieces of their own, especially with the front ridges, to protect from overhead slashing strokes and with the large ear/cheek pieces that covered most of the face.

The Coolus and Imperial Gallic were both adapted from Celtic designs.

Adaptability and logistics.

Similar things can be said about the armour as well. In general, Roman equipment outclassed the enemies'.

Because it learned from its enemies -- usually after the Romans getting their asses handed to them in the initial encounter.

Adaptability.

The enemies of Rome possessed very few select units that were superior to, the early imperial legionaries, for example.

Early Imperial Legionaries knew better than to wander into Parthia.

The Romans, on the other hand had legions and legions of their standardised soldiers in addition to the supplemental auxilia, which was often just as numerous.

Modularity and logistics.

Even if the enemies did happen to have superior soldiers, the Roman fighting style (as well as tactics for that matter), in my opinion, far outclassed anything their enemies used, especially the more individualistic fighting styles of the northern barbarians.

I can grant you that opinion, but that alone doesn't prove that the Roman Army was "unstoppable". As I said in my previous post, the Roman Army was famous, but its combat prowess alone wasn't the source of that fame.

-Glee

------------------------------------------------
[1] I should point out that I wasn't trying to damn the Roman military machine with faint praise, as you seem to have taken it. Logistics is arguably the most important aspect of generalship! And its modularity allowed generals like Scipio Africanus to fully exercise their genius.

[2] Also, I'd be exceedingly surprised if anyone knew more about Roman sword-fighting techniques than the Romans.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion. Superior equipment of the Romans is a result of adaptability, but then again, all good choices are based on adapting/learning from experience. If Romans just straight-copied from other people, then why were they the only ones to do so in such an extensive way? Lot of their equipment was somewhat innovative.

---------------------------------------------
[1]You're absolutely right about logistics being important though. As they say, smart generals study logistics and stupid ones study tactics.
[2] ??? What do you mean by that?

[Gleemonex]

Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion.

Perhaps. It's hard -- for me at least -- to draw clear lines between logistics and equipment readiness and training regimens and discipline and combat readiness. I think (in my own opinion of course) that I have adaptability nailed though.

-Glee

[Aemilius Paulus]

Notice I edited my last post while you were typing yours.

[Gleemonex]

Lunch break almost over, but I have time to address this.

Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion. Superior equipment of the Romans is a result of adaptability, but then again, all good choices are based on adapting/learning from experience.

True. But this was a singular quality among Romans in Classical Antiquity. Change and adaptation was generally slow and/or misguided in the face of slow, unreliable meatspace communication (Blemmyes anyone?) and the cultural importance of respecting stodgy old traditions.

If Romans just straight-copied from other people, then why were they the only ones to do so in such an extensive way? Lot of their equipment was somewhat innovative.

Well, they didn't straight copy -- they were excellent at adapting and improving what they saw. But it's hard to argue that they were more innovative than the peoples that invented the original product in the first place.

Hrm.. how to bring this back on topic. What army composition is best for taking out an army of well-led Romans?

-Glee

---------------------------------------------

[2] ??? What do you mean by that?

I was being sarcastic. For instance: The Gauls probably didn't know much about Roman sword-fighting techniques, but I'll bet anything that they were pretty good at Gallic sword-fighting techniques ;)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hrm.. how to bring this back on topic. What army composition is best for taking out an army of well-led Romans?
)

An all phalanx and a bit of cavalry army or an all-HA (preferably some heavy cavalry with bows as well, in addition to the light HAs) army would do very well against the Romani in EB.

[SwissBarbar]

An all phalanx and a bit of cavalry army or an all-HA (preferably some heavy cavalry with bows as well, in addition to the light HAs) army would do very well against the Romani in EB.

all HA - yes

all phalanx - nay. Phalanx - even elite ones - are too slow and immobile. Roman heavy infantery would just hold the phalanx in melee, killing the few cavallery (not a problem even against heavy cavallery, with some triarii and some pedites-javelins thrown in their back). Without flank-protection even the hugest phalanx army is easily outflanked. A charge in the rear of the phalany and the battle is over.

Example:







edit: OK, i just see.... against the stupid AI you would do well with an all phalanx army, thats right

[Aemilius Paulus]

all phalanx - nay. Phalanx - even elite ones - are too slow and immobile. Roman heavy infantery would just hold the phalanx in melee, killing the few cavallery (not a problem even against heavy cavallery, with some triarii and some pedites-javelins thrown in their back). Without flank-protection even the hugest phalanx army is easily outflanked. A charge in the rear of the phalany and the battle is over.

I'm talking about defeating an AI Romani army.

[Gleemonex]

@Pontius Pilate: All basically true, minus the overly-simplistic barbarian stuff. And none of that contradicts what I said; else verily confirms it.

Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?



-Glee

EDIT: Thanks, Aemilius Paulus! I imagine that would do the trick.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?

I already did, you just forgot to hit the 'Refresh" button. Apparently you were still typing our answer while I posted mine.

[Pontius Pilate]

@Pontius Pilate: All basically true, minus the overly-simplistic barbarian stuff. And none of that contradicts what I said; else verily confirms it.

Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?



-Glee

EDIT: Thanks, Aemilius Paulus! I imagine that would do the trick.

none of that condradicts what you said, but it confirms it? so what are you trying to say exactly? are you not trying to press the point that Roman army was not unstoppable? so explain how my last post helped you explain how the Roman army was not unstoppable. for anything, I think it did show how the Roman army was unstoppable.

On the barbarian note, did they not have a fighting style that emphazied the role of heroic and individual combat? I mean come on, it is not like every barbarian army was pulling off tactical maneuvars and was as well organized as the Romans.

[Gleemonex]

I think it did show how the Roman army was unstoppable.

How exactly did the Roman war machine it learn from its mistakes if it never made any (ie was never stopped)?

On the barbarian note, did they not have a fighting style that emphazied the role of heroic and individual combat? I mean come on, it is not like every barbarian army was pulling off tactical maneuvars and was as well organized as the Romans.

GJC himself observed a Germanic phalanx. The phalanx, or anything resembling it, required plenty of discipline to use. As far as emphasising individual combat, that was actually pretty smart as they were superior individual combattants, as well as it being equally applicable in heavily-forested terrain.

And despite the barbarians "just throwing themselves at the [superior] Roman shield wall", they managed to sack Rome herself three times.

-Glee

[Pontius Pilate]

How exactly did the Roman war machine it learn from its mistakes if it never made any (ie was never stopped)?

GJC himself observed a Germanic phalanx. The phalanx, or anything resembling it, required plenty of discipline to use. As far as emphasising individual combat, that was actually pretty smart as they were superior individual combattants, as well as it being equally applicable in heavily-forested terrain.

And despite the barbarians "just throwing themselves at the [superior] Roman shield wall", they managed to sack Rome herself three times.

-Glee

Yes, Rome was defeated many times but in the long run it defeated almost all of its enemies. Also, whenever a legion was destroyed another would be raised to take its place, which to Rome's enemies must have looked pretty unstoppable. and remember, in the ancient world raising multiple armies to replace lost ones was something many factions could not do.

true, the germans did use a phalanx but don't get the impression it was the same type of phalanx the greeks or makedonians used which required way more disciplined. As for the notion that the barbarians using individual combat was pretty smart, well I think GJC himself would have to disagree with that one after he conquered Gaul and a million Gauls were slain.

Yes, the barbarians did manage to sack Rome many times, but every civilization has its high and weak points in its history, every civilization declines, and no civilization lasts forever.

EDIT: Anyway, to stop this from turning into another Rome vs. the Barbarians thread (which I don't mind by the way) here is my unstoppable army composition:(spelling might be off)
1 equites singulares
1 imperial legionary first cohort
8 imperial legionary cohorts
4 imperial auxillaries (2 western and 2 eastern)
2 pretorian guard cohorts
1 imperial cavalry wing
1 pretorian guard cavalry
2 imperial eastern archer auxilia

[Pontius Pilate]

I'd be content to leave the subsequent post be, but this thread is called "Unstoppable Army". [1]



They had a uniform army with standardised training. [2]

Modularity and logistics.



Idea taken from the Celtiberians. (Hint: Its full name is Gladius Hispaniensis)

Adaptability.



The scutum was effective but unremarkable on its own. I would hope it deflects blows -- it's a shield!



The Coolus and Imperial Gallic were both adapted from Celtic designs.

Adaptability and logistics.



Because it learned from its enemies -- usually after the Romans getting their asses handed to them in the initial encounter.

Adaptability.



Early Imperial Legionaries knew better than to wander into Parthia.



Modularity and logistics.



I can grant you that opinion, but that alone doesn't prove that the Roman Army was "unstoppable". As I said in my previous post, the Roman Army was famous, but its combat prowess alone wasn't the source of that fame.

-Glee

The thing that made the legions great was that all of them were trained to an equally high standard. In the other factions you have usually had alot of levy units with poor quality equipment and then you had the elites who were highly well trained and good fighters but there were few of them at best. The legions were not elites and yet were not levies. The thing that made the Roman's fighting style superior to the barbarians like say the gauls was that the Romans all fought as if ONE, while the barbarians just threw themselves at the Roman shield wall due to their individual fighting style, for the barbarians there was no plan B, they would either have to break the shield wall or flee.

Yes many of the Roman's equipment is originally from other cultures like Celtic, but the Romans then took the design, improved it, changed it, and perfected it into their own needs, created something uniquely Roman.

Yes, the Romans lost many battles, but then they learned from their mistakes and eventually defeated their enemies a.k.a-adaptablility, a trait very useful for an army.

And yes the Parthians and Germans defeated Rome a few times in battle. But Parthia didn't sack Rome like Rome sacked the Parthian capital multiple times. and the only famous battle of Germans defeating Romans is Tetuburg, (granted their were more) but do you know how many Germanic armies the Romans defeated?

Finally, in the end Rome did conquer most of the factions in Europa Barbarorum and this should say how unstoppable the Roman army truly was.

-Pontius Pilate