Centurion Legioneer

I chose the Training and Movement tactics, because your army may have good leadership, or weaponry and armor, but without the necessary training. Your army will never be able to fight to its full potential.

I think it is a good idea. Many of the ideas created by the Romans and others of the time, have bee elaborated upon and used today.

Yeah I got on and thought that the site was gone, but it awesome though that its back up.

Yes generals may look good by what they have learned from books and school, but commanding, and winning a battle is the ultimate test. When a general does that, they are now(in my opinion, worthee of commanding the fine roman soldiers)

Yes, that is true caldrail. But by what do you mean skivers?

Yes, I agree with you, the Celts and the Germans favoured combat off of horseback, showing their bravery and sometimes skill.

I like the visual aid but is this switching during battle or not?

Chariots when used in the right scenarios could be very effective war machines. Though the chariot needed level ground to ride upon. It lacked armor, comprimising protection for speed. If the horse was taken out the charoit was nearly useless, besides protection as barrier. The chariot could only carry 2 people, and was often used just for mobile archer and scouting. When a Chariot was used, in the right place, fixed with the right equipment, it could rule the field. Chariots armed with blades fixed to their wheels, may have been pretty good against infantry, but when the infantry was amred with spears, it was suicide for the people in the chariot. Though when armed with spears, it was also used as a scary tactic.

Well I believe that the bloodiness of the fights would depend on a number of variables. Such as the number of gladiators, the animals (Tigers, Lions), and if they decided if they live..or die.

You made a good point Neos Dionysos, the Praetorean guard did not fight in any battles, unless defending the Emporer in Rome, or on Campaign. An in the beginning of the Roman Empire, they were hand picked but towards the end of the empire, they were just soldiers picked to be, not based on how good they were.

Well, I don't know about that, but I was just elaborating on some info, given in an earlier post.

I do not believe that the Parthians used slings against the Macedonians. I think the Parthians had archers, lots of them.

Yes the Romans were taught about the miliatry from an early age. But certain Roman commanders, lacked actual combat experience. Thats a good thought you brought up though.

Slingers were deadly to military units, unprotected by a shield or armor. Slingers were very affective against calvary, and the battle where, Alexander moved his slinger behind his calvary, while moving laterally. When ready Alexander broke off with his calvary, and his slinger made sort work of the persian calvary and infantry in range.

Yes, at certain times Roman soldiers were denied sex, or the presence of woman. Though after besieging a town, I doubt that the Roman soldiers would be denied that unless told other wise by their Centurion. Very good point though caldrail.

The Praetorean guard were an Elite group of soldiers, and like you said caldrail, they knew it and often times, if not treated well or they did not like their leader. They would assasinate him, and take power or give the throne to, as someone else said in this thread, the highest bidder.

Good point caldrail, I should have made sure, my info in my post was correct, thank you for correcting me. But yes, it is over looked that finding them was a part of warfare, as was the experience of an armies generals.

Your right caldrail, though I don't know if the Celts, Germans would bother creating regiments of calvary. They favourable infantry, plus I don't know how they would get all the horses. Their land is hilly and forested, which would make bredding horses tricky, plus calvary would be inefffective. The only way I can think of them getting horses is stealing them, or taking them from defeated armies after battles.

But, he had a point, why would the Roman soldiers do that to men, while there were perfectly good virgins through out many towns.

Very good point, the Roman adversaries in many cases were bigger, but the roman soldiers were the best trained, along with the best weapons and tactics. Roman training was rigerous, and with the training, they became the best soldiers of their age.

The vastness of Roman Empire caused the military forces of the romans to be spread out, in which the romans had trouble concentrating forces on hannibal, while others (Gaul, Celts, etc.) attacked the borders. Also, althought the Romans were the best trained, best equipped, Hannibal was an expert tactitan and came over the alps, catching the Romans off guard. Though in the end, the Romans destroyed his army and eventually him.

I am a Roman Catholic, oh yeah!

Good point, they may not have been the best per' se, but they would have to be pretty good to be his bodyguards.

Yes, that is a very good answer, no Roman soldier would do such a thing.

The Roman Praetorean guard were the best of the best, the best units selected from various Roman legions. So, yes I believe that the Praetorean cohort were the best.