Most underrated ancient Military?

Nov 2010
6,999
Cornwall
Well, maybe if you have a numeric rating system we can rate them all according to your system. If not it is just a question of opinions, yours, mine, and from other users. Even if mine was stating that the Lusitanians were underrated (well… initially) by the Romans and the consequence is that they had some defeats.

By the way, I think that we can say the same about the Numidians during the Jugurthine War.
I think a Roman specialist poster has suggested it was lack of available resources in the early stages, rather than an actual under-estimation. 100 years later the whole lot would possibly have been flattened in double-quick time
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,411
Slovenia
What about the Persian army? I have been reviewing a lecture series on Ancient Greece and the professor believed the Persian Army was actually extremely professional and effective even though they get a bad reputation from being defeated in the wars with Greece. In particular, the Persian Cavalry never had an opportunity to show their prowess against the Greeks. (actually more like a statement of admiration for the Greek generals).
What was then all Persian cavalry at Gaugamela? Passive observers?
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,392
He came to conquer Britain for several reasons. First, it was what Rome did at that time, take land. Second, it was rich, with tin, lead, copper, and of course, gold, and he was in debt. Third was the prestige it would bring, a completely necessary part of any Roman Politician's résumé .
The bolded isn't going to be correct no matter how many times you repeat it. Not every Roman military operation had as it's aim the acquisition of land.

Caesar also wasn't in debt.

Finally Caesar gained the prestige he sought in the two raids in Britain. Acquisition of foreign territory wasn't necessary for a triumph or to enhance a Roman politician's fame. Defeating a foreign enemy in battle was sufficient - the more exotic the better - and in Caesar's day there was no place more exotic than Britain.
 
The bolded isn't going to be correct no matter how many times you repeat it. Not every Roman military operation had as it's aim the acquisition of land.

Caesar also wasn't in debt.

Finally Caesar gained the prestige he sought in the two raids in Britain. Acquisition of foreign territory wasn't necessary for a triumph or to enhance a Roman politician's fame. Defeating a foreign enemy in battle was sufficient - the more exotic the better - and in Caesar's day there was no place more exotic than Britain.
The only bold is Rome and resume, so not sure what you are trying to convey here?

It does appear that GJC was in debt to Crassus, which ended in 53BC, which was after the attempted invasions of Britain.

The only real details of the invasion come from GJC himself, and he is unlikely to have stated he failed.

All we can be really sure of is that he tried to conquer twice, and failed both times. There is no real evidence that states otherwise.
 

Similar History Discussions