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

Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
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

---------------------------------------------
Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
[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 ;)