rvmaximus

Everything before the "and" made sense, so I'll address that (is English not your first language?) Abolishing the politician general would have been a great reform. Generals make lousy politicians, and politicians seldom make decent generals. Still, I don't see how this reform could have worked in the Roman context. Spanish

Most scholars do state that the legions weaknesses were their cavalry to be sure and they recruited the Celt/Germans in large numbers to help correct this flaw. However...perhaps just perhaps the Celts would have stopped the Romans or even ended their empire? Also,we know the German tribes wanted to come to to richer warmer Roman lands many times and repulsed. I do not think they used their superior cavalry the Hanibal did for example. Feel the Celts and Germanics fought the Romans to often into Roman strength..thier infantry. How foolish.

Think the Romans had many lightning wins against the Celts and Germanics while they were alwys outnumbered it seems in foreign terain. I do not think they were so much better trained as many feel over the Celts or Germanics. These groups have a training system for the soldieer too...from just about after birth they learn to fight and more orgainized than many previously thought. Also, their weaponry may have been at least as good as the Romans. Celt(Germanic could be too)chain mail..etc. and metal making skills(harder blades) led the Romans to copy much from them. Plus we know their cavalry was superior to the Romans,that is why the Romans used them later in their legions.

What amazes me of the Dacians is that they held on to their terratory between the Celts/Germanic/Scythians( or whatever you call them) besides the Romans! This seems like an amazing task to me. I read about their battles against some of these groups but much is sketchy so you have to just use reasonable analysis. Their land was fairly prized..do not think it was nearly as cold as Germania or Baltics and was in the Greek sphere of influence( riches), so many tried but many failed including the Romans many times. Romans feared their weaponry as we know(falx,etc.) but I cannot believe what the Romans write about their enemies(they put them all on a pedestal) but I have to imagine the Romans coveted this land too. So maybe their stories were not so far off. Anyone know much about their battles aginst the other groups,we all know about the Roman battles. Just seems to me the Dacians had the misfortune to be located where they were.

Can you imagine if Roman generals were not polticians and became military leaders ability? I think many losses would not have occured such as Crassus in Persia...etc. Also, civil wars between each other would have ceased. These civil wars have to had a huge drain on Roman might that many overlook. Some experts say Rome's largest losses have occured from other Romans. Of course I am skeptical of the numbers they claim, just seems to me the losses are too large for the day. Rome after all was just a small city state with a few satelite tribes,until they recruited the Gauls and Germanics. But the civil wars did not include many of the new comers at the time I understand. So many puzzeles concerning the Romans that the more you read the more questions you have.

Think the Romans would have left Massada if it was not of economic value. Judea brought much wealth to the Romans.

Roman writers seem to me always using poetic license and politics in all their writings and with a mix of Greek mythology. I prefer writing of soldiers even Caesar but even his has enormous politics behind this. Always elevating their enemies into mythical proportions and doing what ever they can to justify their wars. This way after they deafeat their enemy they can elavate their deeds even more so. So writers works of the day should be read with many doubts instead just analyze what the results were. Sort of like what I do with writers today I guess.

Can anyone tell me why the Roman legions that went by way of the North Sea after they went into Germania and crush German tribes after theirTuetonberg forrest ambush( or traitors)? I read somewhere on the way back these legions went down in the North Sea. Confused..wouldn`t that be an awfully long route?

Wy didnt the Romans adopt the falx to be part of their legions? The falx must have been known for along time since the Dacians are a nothern Thracian people and were in the Greek sphere of influence most likely.

Didn`t Britain offer the Romans much agricultural wealth which was paramount in the times. Roman traders had to be aware of much outside of the empire because of their never ending desire for wealth and things they do not have. Do not think they cared who they went against as long as they had what the Romans wanted. They probably had a lot of knowledge first..especailly about the land and weather. So far north as Britain was to them they had to wonder if the climate can support good agriculture at the time. (ocean current warm Britain realtive to other nothern lands)

I think the Romans didn`t have enough 'good quality'cavalry of their own..why..perhaps they thought it was too expensive(it is) to maintain in italia area and perhaps the Roman soldiers pshyche. They felt like their infantry and their ability for hand to hand was second to none. Think most battles prove this out ,even against Hannabal. So what we have here is arrgant ego similar to the armored knights had against the crossbow. There is no way infantry(even Roman) could beat a superior cavalry with good leadership.( Not hitting them head on for example) Perhaps the Roman empire would have been the Celtic empire if the Celts deployed thgeir superior cavalry in a more intelligent fashion. I feel they would not have been able to defeat the Celts if this occured...but the Celts had to show their bravery and fight the Romans hand to hand.... Also, the Romans used the superior German cavalry to help against the Celts too(later stages)...Two against one,after all their really were not that many Romans in terms of numbers. Gallic cavalry kept the Germanic tribes from entering their lands for a long time until the Romans tilted the balance. It seems to me that the Germanic cavalry was very essential to the Romans..why? Infantry outdated against a good cavalry.

Yes, Herman did inflict a major defeat on Augustan Rome, before he was killed by his own people shortly after being soundly defeated by a Roman force under Germanicus in 14AD. The Romans had great respect for Germanic fighting prowess and physical strength, that's why they started employing them so often in their legions. That's why Roman Emperors used German bodyguards. Rome did not conquer because they hated northern Europeans. If this was the case why did they let so many Gauls and Spanish Celts into the Senate.....indeed, why did they elevate some to the highest office ? (Trajan). One question for you - Were Germanic incursions accross the Rhine into Gaul prior to Roman Occupation, and the rapes, murders etc that those Germanic invaders inflicted on Gallic peoples racially based ? The Germanics were stopped cold be the the Celts for a long time. The Geramiics lived in a harsh cold land..Celts in a much better place that the Germans coveted. Also..am not sure of the Romans complexion...seemed that there was a huge diversity. German bodygaurds were used by the late emporors so that they would not go the way of Caesar. Poltics was not high on the German soldires list as the Romans. As for fighting prowess..debatable..Caesar thought very little of the prowess of the Celts or Germans. He had an easy time of it gieven how he was so outnumberd by both. Crossing the Rhine also while not being attcked(and marching around for days) showed and amazing amountnof confidence..since he estimated that the German forces were many times large that the Celtic. Plus the toughest of Germanics were in the are of Belgae(most German sfeared them the most)...they became Romans one way or another. Some Roman writers used poetic lisence to build up their enemies. But the Roman soldier for the most part was easily the best ar the inafntry level.(hand to hand) Caesars dream before his death was to conquer Parthia..the real heel in the Roman side. Pacify the Gerams so they would stop their attacks..and to free up legions to ga after the riches of the east. Germania offered the Romans littlle and Roame offered the Germans much. (better bland,culure and weather....) Roman cavalry was inferior to most..including Celts ,Germans..so that is why they were so recruited. But all wee inferior to the Parthians who really made the Roman infanntry obsolete. Perhaps Caesar would have found his death there..one that I am sure he would rather.

Many Europeans can clain rights to Roman antquity..not just Italy. The fact reamins that the great majority of ancient Romans were not from the indigineus latin tribes. So why not claim artificts to be European and the EU to something for security and research. Ancient Rome is a Eurpopean thing...not an Italian thing.

Yes there is no "I" only an M and E :bag: Don`t know Italian but I heard their is an 'I' in the Italian word for team.lol.

I agree that it is hard to make valid comparisons between Pyrrhus and Alexander. One thing is clear, Pyrrhus faced a much more reslient opponenet. Pyrrhus did not have much success with his cavalry against the Romans. Was this because his cavalry force was inferior to Alexander's, or was he facing a much more tenacious opponent than any that Alexander ever encountered? In the Battle of Heraclea, Pyrrhus attempted the Alexandr-style cavalry charge, but he was driven back. The Roman cavalry held their own quite well. Somewhat perplexing when you consider that the Romans were not known for their cavalry. He was only able to make a difference when he brought forth his elephants. The obvious question is what would Alexander have done differently. Would his cavalry charge have been any better? Would he have been able to exploit any weaknesses in the Roman lines? Were the Romans too disciplined to allow themselves to be broken up by a cavalry charge? Of course Alexander at that time could have easliy defeated the Romans...they had a superior fighting force with an amazing General....The Romans were barely handling the Samnites at that time. But the riches were not there. But could he have marched through Britain and east through Russia. Proabbly if the weather permitted. At that time the north was a poor place to live because climate was not conquerd as it is today. They march by foot...they would not have coped with a Geramn winter nor would they want to. As others mentioned the Germanics were not that good fighters but looked good in show, perhps taller with nice furs and long swordes. As others ahave mentioned they of course wanted the warmer climate too! Many died trying. The Roman legions handled them for along time so easily. Alexnader would have little problems too. But history....

Perhaps Arthur is real....perhaps not. But it does not seem so unrealistic to me that many Romans stayed in Britain...it has great farm land. So they formed Roamn type fighting methods and easily deafeated Geramnic 'invaders'. So what. Nothing that tough. New evidince looks like that there wasn`t that much germanic blood in Britain compared to Italy. (teeth analysis) In reality much of the Germanic tribe movements seem like that just migrated to destitute areas where they were welcomed,like Rome(rat infested and depopulated late 5th century even). So Arthur was there and handed the Germanics who posed trouble defeats. Most Germanics were blened into the Roman empire and army to be sure anyway. In all honesty small bands of roman/ celt/britons trained in roamn style war fare could easily defeat Germanic tribes. They delt them so many losses throughout the span of the Empire(exception of the Tuetonberg trap...which was a spread out army) in which the Roamns were so heavily outnumbered. So in reality I think the invading Germanics were not in reality inavding that much. Sort of like how history has paintee the Vikings I feel. More show than fight. Remember Caesar even though very little of them...easily deafeating them and basically saying that they looked imposing intially(heavy furs,armore or whatever) but they didn`t have stomach for long fight and ran when wounded. Accounts of Roamn arhers using fleeing Germanics up trees for target prcatice. So I feel Arthur may have deafeated some unruly Geramins (who were not Romanized) and it got magnified in history. So what.

I may be reading into this one too much, but I believe rvmaximus is going into genetics here. I base that assumption off the above quote, specifically where he mentions "other caucasians". The Roman army I believe had a physical AND MENTAL advantage over its opponents due to training and discipline. The actual Roman as a race I would say didn't. Gauls were large and very strong. They marched over long distances and endured hardship as did Roman soldiers. The descriptions of them would lead me to believe individually they were actually physically superior specimens over the Romans. I could be wrong, but that's just my perception based off what I've read about them and Romans. I believe training and discipline was the difference that made the Roman Army superior to other armies. I'd say the same discipline went into everything they did: navy, development, commerce and agriculture. Whatever endeavor Rome (as a nation) undertook, they did it as well or better than anyone. (But back to the Military) I don't know the demographics of the Roman Army during any period. I would assume it was more highly populated with actual Romans in its earlier history, but as the empire expanded it would've been filled more and more with foreigners. It seems to me the Roman Army fought just as well in the 1st century AD (where I'd imagine Gauls and Germans heavily populated the ranks) as it did when Scipio was fighting Hannibal in the 3rd century BC. The Roman Military System was superior to any other military system rather than the actual Roman was superior to any other race. I am still skeptical and am breaking the ranks with 'experts'. Frequently the obvious is overlooked because it is more 'Romantic' to say that the military was the key because of their strategy,disicipline..etc. First ,I think Roman military leaders were just polticians and did not move up the ranks proving their abilties.. This cannot have a postive effect (expect perhaps with Julius Caesar)..Romans marched many times into battleright into traps and being outnumberd. A true general would not let that happen. Romans battled Romans many times with huge losses...polticians again. Second, yes I think genitics will prove my point soon. Technology now has develpoed a process of finding out much moe details in the bones. Everything I have read seems to point out a people physically superior not mentally as some think. Gauls may have been taller..debateble since Roman writers always propped up their adversaries all the while the Roamn infantry cut them to pieces while being so outnumberd..in a trap. Other accounts seem that Gauls/Germanics were not thought of by others such as Caesar ' they look impressive at first sight(heavy furs,mail..etc) then they seemingly have little fight and endurance' Other accounts shoe battles were the 'barbarians' were not much of an obsatcle in battles except in a huge ambush. Roman confidence was strong so many times regardless of the numbers.. Using such dependence on infantry can also suggest a people of physical confidence otherwise they would have attempted to copy the Parthain style of fighting...hit and run' or horseback. Think many experts fear that if gentics proves this it will take so much away from the Roman system...that is the real fear here. The more I read the more I conclude that this hand to hand style needs a soldier who is physically superior in strength and quickness. (I would not be comfortable using a gladius unless I knew of my physical superiority) Maybe I should go to war game site and propose a roamn army against Zulu warriors. I feel that the physical superiority of the Zulus would prevail for example. Genetics.

Anyone know where did the most successful gladiotors come from? I would think the prcatical Romans would try to obtain the best fron anywhere...I would assume Nubia or therabouts. ( most succesful heavyweight boxers..etc have African roots)

The Egyptians had a huge influence from the Nubians and othe sub saharan Africans and with their reputation of fierceness it would seem natural for the Romans to seek them out for milatary service. Only think I could find was Sir Morris or St.Morris,who allegedly carried the spear that pierced Jesus into battles. I know there were black gladiators but legionaires?

I mentioned corn - as per Gallic Wars. That's where I got the chickpea and lentil from too. Virgil, Can you elaborate at all on what Flavius is talking about in terms of legion food being taken from their pay ? Cannot understand how these men could have been in such great condition without enough protien in their diet. It is so necessary to physical conditioning..any body builder knows this. Just does not make sense. I question alot of Roman writers...think they wrote for poltics and used poetic license to make the troops look tougher and that meant facing an army of men like hercules while their men just lived on gruel and they still won! I think the soldiers ate alot better than the wriers say. Any good commander knows that a well fed army is a must. The writers give us an army on a horrible diet of grains mixed with gurum. (most disgusting condiment)

Not the best assumption to make at all. You must remember that Italy after the West fell was populated with Ostrogoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Normans and (for a while) Byzantines. Thus being born of an Italian family doesn't ensure that you have more Roman blood in you then for example someone born in Britain. Interesting point but Italian people I know(north east US) consider themselves decsendants of the Romans obviously out of ignorance. I can`t wait to tell them in reality they are mostly German....think I will be in trouble. Can this be genetiaclly proven(do that tha hair color matters little in genetics because dark coloring is the dominant gene)? There does seem to be a great diversity of appreances among people in various regions of italy.

The Greeks and Italic tribes influenced the Romans greatly of course but perhaps the greastes population group of the Empire was the Celts...so they deserve more time. Also, the people occupying much of north Italy at the time were the Celts..they were there before the Romans! The Germans were perhaps a large population group too...but they had a large poplulace outside too but the Belagae area had the Germanic groups that were the most feared among the Germans and they were part of the Roman empire too. Judea,north Africa did not. Iberean pennsula I am not too sure about in terms of population, so I give it to the Celts.

Someone stated to me in a history topic that there iwas an Italic tribe the Roamns couldn`t conquer so they left them be. It seems to me highly unlikely but you never know...perhaps they didn`t offer the Roamns much. I think the Samnites were compltely assimailated though and they gave the Roamns enormous amount of problems. Anyone have any input on Italic or Latin tribes,seems a mystery since we know the Romans were only one tribe.

I'm not sure of the cost to be honest. Antony, who was successful at first in invading Parthia and as a result of a couple of bad decisions was forced to retreat while being continually harassed by the Parthians. This was only a few years after Crassus and I don't think Rome was all that much richer at that point. What kept Antony's army from total annihilation seems to be the fact he'd brought more archers which saved him from a Crassus like disaster (though the Romans were mangled very, very badly). Most foot or horse archers were auxiliaries. At one point--under the Late Republic and early Empire-- most of the Roman foot archers were from Crete, though I'm not sure how long that was the standard. I'll find out who the horse archers were although--suprisingly--Parthian horse archers (probably mercenaries) are recorded to have fought for Rome against the Germans! I vaguely recall something about archery training but I'll bet it was left to the auxiliary experts to carry out. Looking at Arrian's set-up I suspect archers were interspersed behind the line infantry and among the cavalry, although any good commander would probably vary his mix depending on his resources, the terrain and the enemy encountered. What comes to mind immediately is using slingers as a quick-reaction force to assist archers behind the lines in massing fire and/or perhaps a reserve of horse archers in the rear but they're just guesses. And let's not forget another missile asset, the types of ballista--that nasty piece of equipment--the smaller versions spread out one per century. As much for psychological effect as anything else; seeing a bolt the size of a tree branch take out your buddy on your right had to be unnerving. What about the Partian bow superiority?(Really from China) Perhaps the Romans did not have the technology to copy it, believe it was a tedious process the Chinese came up with. Armor was made obsolute against it and Roman projectiles could not reach them. Maybe the real reason the Romans did not conquer Parthia in its prime was maybe it couldn`t. You cannot make the case that like you could in nordic regions(too cold and limmited riches)...Parthia was rich. Plus the legacy of Alexander haunted a few Roamn notables like Caesar.(as you know was fixated about Alexander) I feel perhaps the European writers both then and now had a 'European bias' ? Parthia`s success is sometimes mitigated by what I read in this forum and Eurpoeans elevated. Relative neglect of the Eastern Roman empire(It was Roman) for another example. It seems to me that if Rome could take Parthia they would have loved too,,,correct me if I am wrong but I think Caesar was about to attempt this before his assasination. Not to offend the Eurpoeans but I feel the Romans cared little about Germany west of the Rhine or Scandinavia or Russia though they were fully aware of these. They were interested in stopping German and Hun trnsgressions only. They were intertested in Parthia however..it had everything they could have wanted.