Quote Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar View Post
I have only just begun reading it, but this struck me as a fairly odd point to make, the Romans clearly had a grasp of an Empire wide strategy and I do not think we should be caught up in vague terminology.
Perhaps you can debate with him on that forum? Given that he intended to make his post as an argument in a debate thread. If anything, I can help you contact him if you want.



Really? I know that is campaigned very agressively in the east, but I do not think its rate of expansion matched the intesity of its armed conflict.
I also thought that Hadrian pulled back from Mesopotamia because such a position was impossible to defend? If the Empire was stretched dangerously thin along the Rhine and the Danube in times of civil war and the removal of Legions from the region, how could the Empire have afforded to expand that far into the east and not seriously compromise its defense? Where would the Legions come from?
Vexillation? The Romans emperor did not pull back entire legions to fight in a civil wars, often, they would only draw several cohorts from different legions to form an army.

Also, those emperors do raise new legions when necessary.