Roman Legions seem too weak

[Frostwulf]

@ Frostwulf: Have you found some numbers concerning the minor battles/guerilla in Spain?

Not knowing the facts, I'd guess the Romans had a real hard time at trying to pacify it and lost most of their troops after the conquest of Spain. Well, this reminds me a bit of a modern-day situation: the second US-Iraqi War and its aftermath.

Yours, T.

From my understanding the Romans had a real tough time with Spain, especially in the 150's. The ones I listed in the 190's goes a little in the detail on some of these but not much. I have listed the 3 main battles at the bottom of this post.

The Roman army was never exceptional in our period, but it's standardisation and it's homogenisation meant it lack serious weaknesses in it's core element. The infantry. Having said that, the chronic problems on missile troops and cavalry were only solved at the end of our period.

The Infantry is who I was mainly referring to considering the good cavalry and missile troops tended to be mercenaries(for the most part). The infantry I do think was exceptional(by Caesars time for sure), not the greatest but they were certainly good not just "they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals."

Roman success had two causes; brute force through superior numbers, and ALWAYS maintaining a reserve force.

I know for the battles with the Celts the Romans in general were outnumbered. As far as against the Samnites,Greeks etc. I'm not sure I agree with you, I haven't read enough of the battles yet to make that conclusion. The reserve did play a big part but so did the Roman discipline and triplex acies.

Frostwulf, go home. If you want to ignore something like three or four discussions in recent history on the topic then be my guest. I don't want to see this collapse into the same miasma of suck that you turned the German and Celtic threads into.

I don't recall any of this discussion before except one that dealt with Roman culture, not the soldiers or army. As far as the German(which I started) and Celtic threads how is it that "I" turned them into a "miasma of suck"?

Well that's what you get when you cite:

195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0

I posted this part:

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines.

Because c) You post a list which is worthless as source material because it gives you no sort of 'window' to refer to. The list doesn't contain casualties, army make up, terrain advantage for either side, etc. etc. And if history teaches us anything about military efforts, than it is that those tell us a lot more about succes or failure than the amount of battles you won or lost. And for the record: the campaign of Hannibal was one grand failure: IIRC about 50% of his troops were either gone or seriously ill before he even could begin with accomplishing any sort of objectives he had in mind. (Those 50% fell to: 1) Iberians who didn't like the Carhties crossing the borders; 2) Gauls who didn't enjoy it either; 3) Winter.)

My list as said above was basic and made just to show the following post as wrong:

The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already.

The Romans did win more battles then they lost.


@Sarcasm-I'm not ignoring your post, I just feel that I answered you from my above reply.
For your second post:

Roman troops were, as far as I can tell of good quality, though certainly nothing extraordinary in the early period. They were brave, possessing a mentality that I sort of see expressed in later Italian armies made up of essentially high quality militias (much like the hoplites a couple centuries earlier). Certain periods of the early legion produced abnormally good quality legionaries during great wars (namely the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, along with the Makedonian Wars). Later, professionalizing the army made a great impact on the quality of the individual soldier and that *is* shown

I concur completely with you on this, I believe I have said something along the same lines as this in the Celtic overpowered thread, I believe I said they were militia/conscript army.

On the sources, there's plenty of Greek and Roman documents that check just how many defeats the Romans suffered during some periods. Meaning, that list is basically bogus. Again resorting to the Iberian scenario, the period of the Celtiberian and the Lusitanian Wars are prime examples with various praetorian and consular armies being defeated several times.

I stated my list was basic and didn't get into those much. Here is what is written during the Spanish Wars of the 190's.
Turda(195)-Spanish Wars
During the Second Punic War the Spanish tribes fought for one side or the other(or both in turn). Soon after the cessation of hostilities they began to fight for themselves-against the Romans. In 197 the Romans divided the administration of the conquered part into two praetorian provinces, Hispania Citerior (Hither Spain) in the east and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain ) in the south. In the same year there was an insurrection in Hither Spain in which a Roman army was routed at an unknown place and the praetor Tuditanus died of his wounds. After this, the Spaniards appeared to simmer down until, two years later, the praetor Minucius routed two Spanish commanders in a pitched battle near Turda (probably Turba), inflicting 12,000 casualties and capturing one of the commanders. It is unsaid but may be presumed that the Spaniards started the fight. Livy, 33:44(4-5) pg.197

Iliturgi(195)-Spanish Wars
Marcus Helvius was retiring from Further Spain with 6,000men at the end of his tour of duty. A large force of Celtiberians, estimated at around 20,000 in number, fell upon him in the vicinity of Ilitugi [near Cabanes]. About 12,000 of the Celtiberians were said to be killed. The town was seized and all the adults were put to death. Livy, 34:10(1-2) pg. 197

Emporiae(195)-Spanish Wars
The senate decided that the escalation of the war in Spain necessitated a commander of consular rank instead of praetor. The province of Hither Spain was assigned to Marcus Porcius Cato, wo landed at Emporiae[Ampurias] just south of the Pyrenees and encamped nearby. While he was there, representatives of the Ilegetes, who were allies of Rome, came to complain that they were being continually attacked by hostile tribesmen and they asked for help. Cato was in a dilemma. He was unwilling to refuse aid to his allies but thought it equally unwise to weaken his modest force. He solved the problem by ordering the embarkation of a third of his force n full view of the delegates. When the latter had departed to report the 'facts', which were also certain to reach the enemy ears, he ordered the disembarkation of the troops. After a period of intensive training, he took his men out one night and led them past the enemy position. At daybreak he drew his men up in battle order and sent thee cohorts up to the ramparts. When the enemy saw them, Cato recalled them as if in flight. The ploy succeeded in enticing the enemy out of their defenses, where upon Cato ordered the cavalry to attack them on both flanks while they were still in disorder. Even with this advantage, the fighting was indecisive. The cavalry on the right were driven back, causing some panic, and so the consul sent two cohorts to outflank the enemy on that wing and attack them in the rear. This redressed the balance. When his men became exhausted, the consul put in fresh reserves who made a vigorous charge in wedge formation. This force the enemy back and then put them to flight back to their camp. When Cato saw this, he ordered the second legion to advance at full speed and attack the camp. The fighting was still robust and the camp was vigorously defended until the consul noticed that the left gate was only thinly manned. He directed the principes and hastati to the weak point, where they burst inside the camp. After that, it became a massacre as the Romans cut down the enemy who jostled and scrummed at the approaches to the gates. The enemy losses were 'heavy'. In consequence of the battle the Spaniards in that area surrendered, as did many other towns along the consul's route until the whole country north of the Ebro had been subdued. Livy, 34: 11-16920; Appian, Spanish Wars,40 pg.197

These came from :Battles of the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Chronological Compendium of 667 Battles to 31Bc, from the Historians of the Ancient World by John Drogo Montagu.

Here is a list from another forum, though I don't know how exact it is.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=15563