Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.
But they were still constantly under arms, like the Pre-Marian legions earlier.


There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.

At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.
Does that make the Greeks superior to the Romans as in EB? Actually, the Greeks also suffered a lot of defeats that went to history, and their level of training was quite even.

See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.
Yet these are only the elite corps of the army. The great majority of the rank-and-file soldiers was only mobilised during an emergency, and as such they can't be classified as "permanent" soldiers.

When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.
Great when you talk in equal terms. The Pre-Marian army wasn't permanent, yet they reached a great level of experience with the continual fighting during the 3rd and 2nd Centuries B.C., particularly with Scipio in Zama.

Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.

Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.
We all accept that Roman cavalry really didn't have the level of Macedonian Cavalry, yet we're talking about different situations here. As said, if Alexander chose to fight Caesar, then the number of possibilities is great.

Plus, later on the Romans adopted auxiliaries to fill supporting roles to heavy infantry. But in-game, timing isn't relevant as the Macedonian army was pretty decadent in 272 B.C, and the Romans still relied heavily and solely on infantry.