Rome?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've avoided this mainly because of topic fatigue but I have to agree with Goldsworthy on this one. The defining factor in Roman history was sheer bloody-mindedness. Destroy a Roman army? They send another, and another. The Legions also made use of a much wider section of the population than the successors.

When you look at the way the Legions functioned they weren't that impressive, it's a lot to do with just how poor their enemies had become. By the time of the Macedonian wars the phalanx had moved from a highly mobile defensive formation to a pointless and wasteful meatgrinder without any real flexability. The Cavalry were almost utterly degraded and the support troops, including the Shieldbearers, were virtually non-existant.

Perseus failure to have his cavalry in position at the start of the battle is symptomatic of the catastrophic collapse of the Macedonian army.

Philip II and Parmenion were likely spinning in their graves and I'm sure Alexander would too if his body wasn't enbalmed.

At the end of the day though the Romans were just another Philhellenic city State and luck has an awful lot to do with their rise, and their fall.

[kalkwerk]

generally you look too much into aspects like military organization, weapon technology and fighting spirits (no wonder as rtw players). i think the decisive points are of economic, geographical and political matter: wealth and organization were the driving forces. perhaps the punic wars shouldnt be remembered for the good leadership of hannibal but for the poor leadership of most roman commanders. and still they win. fighting spirit? morale? no. population!

[Beefy187]

I think Emperor Claudius (the emperor after Caligula i think) made a nice speach to sum up the reason why Rome became soo strong.