Just doing some pondering lately about Rome and came up with a question. What made the Roman military and political machines so effective? And why and/or what caused the combination to break down and eventually be defeated? Thanks for the help ~Ryan
Just doing some pondering lately about Rome and came up with a question. What made the Roman military and political machines so effective? And why and/or what caused the combination to break down and eventually be defeated? Thanks for the help ~Ryan
Hello rasta3985Originally Posted by [b
, welcome to the org.
I asked your second question recently in the monastery. The monastery is the place to be for this kind of historical questions.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
military wise it didnt adapt especially regarding cavalry.
it never learnt the lessons of facing hannibal. and the same deficiencys were stil present against the goths/huns and persians. it had faced mainly tribal armies gauls britons etc so when up against a well balanced army with a strong cavalry support it was found some what lacking and suffered some serious defeats. even though it tried to integrate these very factions it to its army it was way to late. there are many other reasons besides this for both its military and political failings this being one of many reasons the empire declined? [in my humble opinion]
Welcome, rasta3985
I hope you enjoy the ORG
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...
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
No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards dying for their country.
The draft is white people sending black people to fight yellow people to protect the country they stole from red people.
why would anybody want to touch a girl's butt? Bart Sim
Actually you had to serve 25 years to become a Roman citizen not 10.
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.
All those who wander, aren't lost.
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
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.
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.
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
When a fox kills your chickens, do you kill the pigs for seeing what happened? No you go out and hunt the fox.
Cry havoc and let slip the HOGS of war
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.
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.
.increase the peace
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
"Oft he that doth abide Is cause of his own paine, But he that flieth in good tide, perhaps may fight again..."
"He stands erect; his slouch becomes a walk; He steps right onward, martial is his air, His form and movement."
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.
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. :)
HOF Winner 2003 - Sig Maker
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
E Tenebris Lux
Just one old soldiers opinion.
We need MP games without the oversimplifications required for 'good' AI.
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.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
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.
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.
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*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
Congrats you made me make my first juicy post in a long time
When a finger points at the moon, the imbecile looks at the finger.
-- Confucius
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
In war, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
Sun Tzu on the Art of War
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.
Sorry about that, I tried to edit my posts. Didn't work.
You're right SSD.
No edit facility on a forum.
How strange...
Is this a membership thing?
.increase the peace
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks