The Roman Army was the best. - Historum

Ian The Poet · November 6th, 2009, 10:53 AM

Why Was The Roman Army So Successful?
　

They were a highly disciplined fighting force. The short blade they wielded also was very punishing as well as deadly given the fighting formations used and tactics of the Roman Army. It was a devastating force until given unruly opponents that did not conduct combat conducive to Roman training. This is what set Hannibal apart from the many who lost to this force.
From the time before Christ throughout the early imperial era the strength of the Roman army lay in its infantry. These were the legions. They were units of 5,000 men all of whom were well trained and equally well equipped.
Each legion was broken up into centuries commanded by a junior officer calla centurion. There were six centuries in a cohort and 10 cohorts in a legion. There weapons were mainly a short sword, a rectangular shield, body armour and a javelin.
The discipline of the soldiers in battle gave rise to their success, allowing the generals to perform complex manoeuvres without loosing the shape or intent of the force.
The legionaries were also in charge of building bridges, roads, forts and could conduct siege warfare as well as set-piece battles. Also accompanying the Legionaries were auxiliaries. These were non-Roman soldiers recruited from other parts of the empire. These operated in blocks of 500 or 1,000 under the command of a Roman officer. They might be specialist units like the Syrian archers fighting with their favoured weapons.
Auxiliaries were paid less than legionaries and served longer but were granted Roman citizenship on discharge.
　

The tactics employed by the Romans.

The tactics employed by the Romans varied between battles and for what type of enemy it was. The turtle was a position where the soldiers all grouped up and used to hold the shields over there heads and some to the side while others at the outside held spears and weapons to protect each other from the enemy. The main use for this was to penetrate into forts and other enemy strong points.

The Roman Catapult.

The Catapult gave the Romans a great advantage over there enemies as they could hold a siege at a fortification and place the catapults for maximum efficiency and destroy the enemy which did not surrender. The Catapult was taken from the Greeks and so they got some Greek workers to build them.
The Roman catapult was a structure made of wood manned by soldiers. The ropes they used were made of horse hair and sinew.

The battering ram.

This was a log with a special hard head which could break down fortifications. It was made of a wooden structure which had skins put over it so that it protected the soldiers inside. There were ropes hanging down from the frame which held the ram. When it was used the soldiers pulled some ropes which had been tied to the ram so that when the people inside used it they could let go and then it used the momentum it gained from the ropes to smash down the wall.

A bridge built to quickly cross a river.

When they wanted to cross a river they took wood and built the bridges by putting poles into the ground and then attaching ropes to get it to be wide enough for it to be used to transport things over. They made them strong by taking rafts and attaching them together and then using trunks which they pushed into the river by dropping a metal weight which pushed it down into the ground. When this was down they put beams across to strengthen the structure before finally putting the ropes logs over them to form a path over it.

Building wooden fortifications.

The Romans built temporary fortifications such as camps inside a wall. They had tents that were set up in a special way so that the command tent was in the centre of the other tents. It was all set up so that everything was in a certain position for an easier access. They had a pole which had all the insignias and the Roman eagle over it outside the command tent. There was a wooden wall around was built of trunks pushed into the ground so that it could be aligned in a line. They then put a walkway so that the centuries could look out of the fortifications. The outside had a moat and also there was a gate where there were sentries which let no one except the people which had to go in. There were also watch towers at the gates. When the roman army travelled they always had to build roads which were as straight as possible so that everyone could travel fast in case of need.
They separated the empire into provinces so that it was easier to control as tribunes controlled different parts and collected which were then brought to Rome where they were put in the treasury before they used it in some parts of the empire.

Means of transportation of the Roman army.

The strength did not only come from the training it also came from transportation. The roads were well built so it was easy to travel from one part of the empire to an other as was needed. They could get people from anywhere in the empire just by going along the roads so it gained more authority this way. If there was some unrest in a part of the empire they could quickly send reinforcements to that region so that they could keep it under control. The method of transport which was the fastest was horses as they could travel easily along the well built roads. Soldiers also travelled by boat or by walking but as the roads were straight even that was fast. This was a great feet in those days especially as they were nearly as advanced as civilisations are today but without power.

Military Training

.

　
Marching and Physical Training.

The first thing the soldiers were taught to do, was to march. The historian Vegetius tells us that it was seen as of greatest importance to the Roman army that its soldiers could march at speed.
Any army which would be split up by stragglers at the back or soldiers trundling along at differing speeds would be vulnerable to attack.
Hence right from the beginning the Roman soldier was trained to march in line and to keep the army a compact fighting unit on the move.
For this, we are told by Vegetius, during the summer months the soldiers were to be marched twenty Roman miles (18.4 miles/29.6 km), which had to be completed in five hours.
A further part of basic military training was also physical exercise. Vegetius mentions running, long and high jump and carrying heavy packs.
During the summer swimming was also a part of training. If their camp was near the sea, a lake or river, every recruit was made to swim.

Weapons Training.

　
Next in line, after the training for marching and fitness, came the training of handling weapons.
For this they primarily used wickerwork shields and wooden swords. Both the shields and the swords were made to standards which made them twice as heavy as the original weapons. Evidently it was thought, that if a soldier could fight with these heavy dummy weapons, he would be twice as effective with the proper ones.
The dummy weapons were at first employed against heavy wooden stakes, about six foot high, rather than against fellow soldiers. Against these wooden stakes the soldier trained the various moves, strikes and counter-strikes with the sword.
Only once the recruits was deemed able enough in fighting against the stakes, were they assigned in pairs to train in individual combat.
This more advanced stage of combat training was called armatura, an expression which first was used in the gladiatorial schools, which proves that some of the methods used in training soldiers was indeed borrowed from the training techniques of gladiators.
The weapons used in the armatura were, though still of wood, of the same, or similar weight as the original service weapons.
Weapons training was deemed of such importance that weapons instructors generally received double rations, whereas soldiers who didn't achieve adequate standards received inferior rations until they had proven in the presence of a high-ranking officer that they had attained the demanded standard. (inferior rations: Vegetius states that their wheat rations were substituted with barley)
After completing the initial training with the sword, the recruit was to master the use of the spear, the pilum. For this the wooden stakes were put to use again as targets. The pilum used for practice was, once again, twice the weight of the regular weapon.
Vegetius notes that weapons training was given such importance that in some places roofed riding schools and drill halls were built to allow for training to continue throughout the winter.
As you can see the Roman Army was well disciplined and is one reason they won so many campaigns.

Ian The Poet · November 6th, 2009, 11:02 AM

Why the Roman Army was so powerful.
　

The Roman army was very powerful and so it helped a lot in conquering the lands and provinces. The Army had different ranking soldiers commanded by the Emperor. The emperor gave the orders to centurions who passed them on to decurions, who then passed them down to the soldiers. The army had soldiers from all over the empire. Some soldiers from Gaul were sent to Greece and the Greeks to the Gaelic part of the empire. The army was the most efficient in the world as the soldiers were very obedient and highly motivated. A legion is 5 thousand soldiers. The Praetor was helped by a legatus to direct the legion. The legatus was helped by a senator and 6 nobles. When a battle was going on or was going to start they guided their troops and they told them which formation to form. The formations were the Turtle the phalanx and a few others. The turtle was used when they were defending themselves or attacking forts. To do this formation the legionnaires put shields on their heads and they put shields on the side to protect themselves even more . When they did this they could attack forts and when the enemy threw boulders on them it bounced of the shield.
There were groups of 100 soldiers called century commanded by a centurion which was of higher rank. They were divided into groups of 8 called Contubernia. The contubernia had 8 legionnaires a milestone and a mule and they shared a tent.
Each year they called up all the people that owned land from 17 to 45 to the capitoline hills which overlooked Rome. At that time all the battles were on a field and then the attacker attacked the defender and whoever won kept the land and the one that lost left his terrain and walked away. The reason the roman army was so powerful is that they could win objects for different things. If you were the first one to enter a town you got a golden crown. If an infantry man killed an enemy in as fight then they got a drinking bowl.
When they attacked an enemy group they were in lines that were supported behind by other ones. The front row would throw the javelins on the enemy and then they would sword fight with the swords and when the front row were dead the second row started to attack and that is how it was. With these fighting tactics it is not surprising that the Romans won every battle as they were so well organised. They also had people behind with bows which shot the arrows and then knelt down while they recharge in order for the others to protect them.
The army took soldiers from some provinces and put them in others to fight against an enemy. They mixed primary troops which were the well trained ones and the Auxiliaries which had a position which was cavalry or they were not as well armed or trained as they were usually prisoners of war.

Optiow · November 6th, 2009, 04:18 PM

I think that indeed the Romans were a force to be reckoned with, but they had their weaknesses. For example, a sustained arrow barrage from all sides (such as the Parthian tactic) would eventually reduce the Roman formation one by one.

Also, the Romans, as they were trained to fight together, had a weakness in single combat. So if an enemy formation could pound the legionary formation to nothing, then the Romans could be quickly overpowered.

They also did not grasp the idea of cavalry for the legions. They had good axillary cavalry for the axillary cohorts, but for a long time the Roman legion had only 120 cavalry, most who were just used as scouts. this proved to be a big mistake sometimes.

So yes, the Romans were good, but they were not the best of the best, meaning they had their weaknesses.

pinguin · November 6th, 2009, 04:20 PM

They were no match for Chinese

pinguin · November 6th, 2009, 04:20 PM

..(sorry, double post)

**DIVUS IVLIVS** · November 6th, 2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinguin

They were no match for Chinese

Put a Chinese force against a Roman force, both around the same size, and the Romans will show you something different - Roman Organization wins hands down.

pinguin · November 6th, 2009, 05:55 PM

I don't thing so.

[IMG]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/*********/crossbow.jpg[/IMG]

**DIVUS IVLIVS** · November 6th, 2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Optiow

I think that indeed the Romans were a force to be reckoned with, but they had their weaknesses. For example, a sustained arrow barrage from all sides (such as the Parthian tactic) would eventually reduce the Roman formation one by one.

Also, the Romans, as they were trained to fight together, had a weakness in single combat. So if an enemy formation could pound the legionary formation to nothing, then the Romans could be quickly overpowered.

They also did not grasp the idea of cavalry for the legions. They had good axillary cavalry for the axillary cohorts, but for a long time the Roman legion had only 120 cavalry, most who were just used as scouts. this proved to be a big mistake sometimes.

So yes, the Romans were good, but they were not the best of the best, meaning they had their weaknesses.

- The "Parthian tactic" to which you refer, did not destroy the Roman legions - good pursuit did. At the end of the "battle" part of the battle of Carrhae, Roman casualties were extremely light - the vast, vast majority of the Roman casualties occurred because of the shmables that was the retreat. The Romans showed time and time again in the years after Crassus died that they were extremely capable of dealing with the Parthians and all manner of similarly armed enemies. Slingers and archers, competent leadership, and/or the right terrain were all that was needed. In order for the Parthian tactics to work they needed the right terrain themselves, something not often to be had, and they were also dependant upon carrying with them huge reserves of extra arrows, a great inconvenience. All in all Romans > missile-reliant armies.

- The Romans were most effective when fighting in groups but they were no slouches when it came to single-combat - they trained for it, and extremely well. The Romans did in fact have a special medal for a soldier who won a single combat in a fight, which did in fact occur often enough for numerous veterans to be able to proudly show such badges off.

Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus are a case in point.

- It is true that the Roman cavalry was made up of auxillaries for a while, but that in no way detracts from their effectiveness. Generals like Scipio, Caesar, Labienus, Pompey, Sulla, Lucullus, and others all used large forces of cavalry numbering in the thousands, and used them as well as anyone else could have. Caesar and Labienus in particular were plainly masters of cavalry tactics.

The Roman Cohort Legion fell down every now and them, but far more often because of poor leadership than any weaknesses.

The Roman Legion was the best of the best.

**DIVUS IVLIVS** · November 6th, 2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

I don't thing so.

You can not think so all you want - we all know what your opinion is (and what it's worth). The fact is that the Chinese have nothing in the way of the sophistication of the Roman infantry organization that will pretty much guarentee a massacre (and not of the Romans).

**okamido** · November 6th, 2009, 06:45 PM

Didn't we cover this in "Speculative"??