What made the Roman Army so dominant? - Page 2 - Historum

Diadochi · July 13th, 2011, 04:27 PM

Rome's training and persistance. Rome played for keeps and carried the attitude of life or death whenever it got into a war, of course it wasn't like that all the time but that's the mentality they carried:all out, win or die trying. Which differed extremely from the Hellenistic kingdoms of the East which played for terms when it came to war. That is to say when one side got the upper hand they both would come to terms(Marriage, some exchange of land and money). Rome preferred to go for the knockout and enact a treaty that was greatly one sided.

**pixi666** · July 13th, 2011, 04:53 PM

As others have noted, Rome's persistence was what really made her so dominant. Any civilization (except maybe Sparta) would have completely surrendered after a defeat like Cannae. But not Rome.

**Mosquito** · July 13th, 2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixi666

As others have noted, Rome's persistence was what really made her so dominant. Any civilization (except maybe Sparta) would have completely surrendered after a defeat like Cannae. But not Rome.

Sparta wouldnt exist after such defeat. They just wouldnt have more soldiers....

**Kirialax** · July 13th, 2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixi666

As others have noted, Rome's persistence was what really made her so dominant. Any civilization (except maybe Sparta) would have completely surrendered after a defeat like Cannae. But not Rome.

Rome's capacity to access vast manpower reserves was likely a major factor that assisted this later on. As Gaius Valerius noted earlier, the Republican army was not exclusively successful on the field, but the persistance won the day. However, the difference between Sparta and Rome here is that Rome had access to a greater population base that supported their means of waging war, whereas Sparta did not.

**pixi666** · July 14th, 2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirialax

Rome's capacity to access vast manpower reserves was likely a major factor that assisted this later on. As Gaius Valerius noted earlier, the Republican army was not exclusively successful on the field, but the persistance won the day. However, the difference between Sparta and Rome here is that Rome had access to a greater population base that supported their means of waging war, whereas Sparta did not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

Sparta wouldnt exist after such defeat. They just wouldnt have more soldiers....

Of course, you're both right about Sparta's manpower, my point was about Sparta's implacable courage against all odds.

**Kirialax** · July 14th, 2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixi666

Of course, you're both right about Sparta's manpower, my point was about Sparta's implacable courage against all odds.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. The Sparta example was just a convenient contrast to Rome.

**pixi666** · July 14th, 2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirialax

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. The Sparta example was just a convenient contrast to Rome.

Indeed. It's amazing Sparta lasted as long as it did, basically only recruiting from the ruling elite... The Roman model was far more sustainable (at least until the end of the empire...).

**Kirialax** · July 14th, 2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixi666

Indeed. It's amazing Sparta lasted as long as it did, basically only recruiting from the ruling elite... The Roman model was far more sustainable (at least until the end of the empire...).

Didn't Sparta have to raise some helot units around the time of the Corinthian War due to manpower shortages?

**Mosquito** · July 14th, 2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirialax

Didn't Sparta have to raise some helot units around the time of the Corinthian War due to manpower shortages?

Sparta was always doing it and using them as skirmishers. Probably even at Termopillae there were not 300 Spartans but a 1000 or 1500 - 300 were Spartiates and the rest were helots together with that second group I dont remember how they were called but they were not Spartiates and not Helotes but free people.

**Zeno** · July 14th, 2011, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

Sparta was always doing it and using them as skirmishers. Probably even at Termopillae there were not 300 Spartans but a 1000 or 1500 - 300 were Spartiates and the rest were helots together with that second group I dont remember how they were called but they were not Spartiates and not Helotes but free people.

Metoikoi (Metic)?

Edit sorry, i meant: perioikoi.

Metic

Perioeci