Org Mobile Site
Thread: roman legionary and infantry
Originally Posted by :
What if I were to disagree, and say yes it is that simple, [...]
As TheLastDays said:" Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...". Even you, in your previous post, gave several (not so simple but limited) reasons for the rise of the Roman Empire: determination, national security, Gallic collapse, and exploitation of fear.What if I were to disagree, and say yes it is that simple, [...]
A single change in battlefield tactics is useless if the whole nation, society and military hasn't reached a stage where it can use the tactic effectively. For example: Hannibal repeatedly conquered the Romans but even so Carthage didn't win the war. So although Hannibal had the correct tactics his nation, as a whole, wasn't able to take advantage of his victories.
General Aetius
Its not only about manpower when it comes to Romans. Also a great deal comes to politics and diplomacy but lets not forget the Romans were a willing people to learn from others and they had also their fair share of able generals and officers.
I think its a myth to think the roman soldier was only a tool not capable of getting the job done without a good general leading him. And its not like the romans were outnumbering their foes on every occasion.
Romans were not only muscle but they were brains (not always) as well. Its way to simple to put it on manpower alone. Hannibal was great(test) but Scipio who learned from him was in my opinion greater because he did defeat that genius and more.
Another thing the romans had was willpower (arrogance maybe) to come out on top. But now they are all gone and part of history.
It was an reply to moonburn that their secret was manpower which is true for most part (I agree) but its not the whole story.
I think its a myth to think the roman soldier was only a tool not capable of getting the job done without a good general leading him. And its not like the romans were outnumbering their foes on every occasion.
Romans were not only muscle but they were brains (not always) as well. Its way to simple to put it on manpower alone. Hannibal was great(test) but Scipio who learned from him was in my opinion greater because he did defeat that genius and more.
Another thing the romans had was willpower (arrogance maybe) to come out on top. But now they are all gone and part of history.
It was an reply to moonburn that their secret was manpower which is true for most part (I agree) but its not the whole story.
Originally Posted by General Aetius:
As TheLastDays said:" Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...". Even you, in your previous post, gave several (not so simple but limited) reasons for the rise of the Roman Empire: determination, national security, Gallic collapse, and exploitation of fear.
A single change in battlefield tactics is useless if the whole nation, society and military hasn't reached a stage where it can use the tactic effectively. For example: Hannibal repeatedly conquered the Romans but even so Carthage didn't win the war. So although Hannibal had the correct tactics his nation, as a whole, wasn't able to take advantage of his victories.
General Aetius
Yes, the whole war with Hannibal and the Carthiginians is quite important. I think that the Republic, at this time, was so competitive that an element of 'arrogance' and determination was almost inevitable, compared to the state of Carthage at that time. Carthage seems to have been at the nadir of its republican constitution, such that it had coalesced to two major power centres (The Barcids and Hanno). This wouldn't happen until much later in Rome. At the time of Hannibal's invasion power was balanced between many factions - oligarchical familial (and class based) as well as a strong Plebian mandate. There was just too much competition for power for there to be surrender. One could not risk one's position within the power structure by showing weakness.As TheLastDays said:" Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...". Even you, in your previous post, gave several (not so simple but limited) reasons for the rise of the Roman Empire: determination, national security, Gallic collapse, and exploitation of fear.
A single change in battlefield tactics is useless if the whole nation, society and military hasn't reached a stage where it can use the tactic effectively. For example: Hannibal repeatedly conquered the Romans but even so Carthage didn't win the war. So although Hannibal had the correct tactics his nation, as a whole, wasn't able to take advantage of his victories.
General Aetius
I've been playing SCII for the last couple of months and have only just recently returned to playing EB (at last!) as the Romans. My 2-cents for this thread would be that I've found the Romans to be remarkably similar to the Zerg, minus the Kerrigan. Legions, on this regard, are very similar to 'lings (not bane, since romans cannot explode). They are numerous, individually expendable, yet extremely effective (A siege tank, would be kinda like a keltoi warrior nob). Pyrrhus of Epirus would indeed be the classic example of (a protoss) being zerged by wave after wave of 'lings (and other zerg horror).
I have just finished an excellent book about Greek and Roman military, Soldiers and Ghosts - A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity.
The author argues that the Roman legions are by no means really so disciplined as everyone believes it to be, they were reckless, arrogant, self-centered, childish, they threatened to or even did disobey or at least ignore their commanders all the time. Their poor commander almost always had to appease them one way or another to ensure their obedience, no matter if he was named Scipio or Caesar.
The author argues that the Roman legions are by no means really so disciplined as everyone believes it to be, they were reckless, arrogant, self-centered, childish, they threatened to or even did disobey or at least ignore their commanders all the time. Their poor commander almost always had to appease them one way or another to ensure their obedience, no matter if he was named Scipio or Caesar.
Teleological history ftw!
And they all wore segmata...... 
And EBII was released in 272 BC but there were no computers so we never get to play it. 
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO