Diocles

Aye, I would say during the Late Republic Civil Wars would be when the largest Roman armies were assembled. At the conclusion of the Civil Wars there were over 60 legions in operation around the Roman world, one would have to assume that the majority of that would have been focused on the Antony/Octavian battles. Possibly not the best army ever, but I would say one of the largest Roman armies would have been assembled during this period.

Another decent book for tactics is "The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History" by Pat Southern. This book is more of a cultural and evolutionary history of the army, but it does delve into the Roman tactics quite well.

I've been looking into this game as well, I've been playing MMO's for a long time and have been waiting for a Roman one to be made, the possibility of it (if done right) could be endless. I've read a few reviews and browsed their forums to get an idea of this game, but I have yet to take the leap and actually purchase the game. Perhaps the largest positive is that there is no monthly supscription with this game, it is a one time

Thanks for that suggestion Caius, I just installed Europa Barbarorum over the weekend and it is great. It breathed new life into RTW and the scripting feature is excellent, I can't wait till 218BC for hannibal to invade. Historically speaking EB is a high step above RTR and the AI is excellent. The depressing thing about RTW and RTR is the AI is rather remedial, even on hard, however EB's AI actually employs cavalry, attempts to flank your units, and utilizes ranged infantry much more strategically. Overall it is a great mod, thanks for brining EB to our attentions.

I would have to say Carthage during the second punic war would be the worst. Multiple times Hannibal brought the Roman military to its knees at Trasimene and Cannae early in the war, yet (with the exception of Capua) he never took or took advantage of a strategic victory. It's been debated that his lack of siege equipment is what hindered or dissuaded him in his ability to take Rome after Cannae, however the psychological impact of Hannibal's victory at Cannae for the Romans, in conjunction with Hannibal marching on Rome, could have been devastating and could have possibly lead to a victory. It might have been a hard won battle due to the Roman resolve to fight - after the general hysteria died down - however the majority of the duration Hannibal was within the Italian peninsula seems to me like a string of lost chances. Hannibal was surely a brilliant tactician and general, however he never took advantage of a victory and allowed Rome the opportunity to recover and reconstitute a resistance.

I am going to bookmark the site - but at 40 MB this is going to have to wait till I get a cable modem. It would take forever on my dial-up. I also agree, Rome: Total Realism (RTR) is a serious must. I actually cannot stand playing the vanilla RTW now that I've played with that mod so extensively. I would suggest to you Ursus to just get familiar with the vanilla RTW first before trying RTR, because so much is changed by that mod. I have heard some people say that RTR slows down the game (as far as it takes longer to build armies and such, not computer performance) but in my opinion, I have more fun when the game is accurate to history. So far all of the games that have been listed are of the best Roman themed games out there.

Where I would want to be within the Roman Military would depend on the time period, in which there are positive and negative aspects with both. Personally I would rather be in the post Marian - Early Imperial Army for a few reasons. The foremost is the Imperial army being a professional army, which is under constant training and is ready to deploy even in times of peace; where as armies during the Republic were conscripted in the time of need. Coming from a humble upbringing, the prospect of pay and land (post 25 years of service) is appealing, and that the state provides you with your kit and armor, even though it is deducted from your pay. Working with siege weapons would have been an interesting position, specifically I think it'd be fun to operate a scorpion, from what I've read scorpions are highly accurate in the right hands. It would be fun to be a sniper of the ancient world. Primus Pilus wouldn't be such a bad job overall and would be the highest rank I'd aspire to - leave the political games for those trained in politics and rhetoric, just give me some land, two mules, and a flagon of ale for my service.

Wow. And his campaigns in Spain that are much admired and studied in military colleges the world over count for nothing? And these tattered remains led by the master strategist were maneuvered into an unfavourable position by whom? I agree, when people think of Scipio Africanus they always think primarily of Zama, however his campaign in Spain is where the majority of his skill actually shined. Do you have any titles of the movies on Scipio? I'd love to check one out.

I've never heard of this custom from any ancient or contemporary source regarding the Roman Legions. While I could see this being done by the Gallic cultures as a kind of inspiration for morale, reminder of what you're fighting for, maybe even as a reward for whoever's first over a wall, but I've never heard anything like this being done with the Romans. The fear of your centurion whipping you with his vītis was inspiration enough to fight. This sounds like it might be a myth/legend that someone took as fact and reported as truth.

I still don't think that the early Roman legions could have withstood a campaign against Alexander. At the battles Magnesia and Pydna there were completely different tactics employed by Antiochus II and Perseus than of Alexander. As I'm sure everyone is familiar with, Alexander was very aggressive in his assault and use with cavalry, only using his phalanx as a mobile wall to pin down the enemy. The only advantage over the phalanx I can see is that the Romans would have had greater mobility than the Macedonians while still being heavily armed. This could have created some problems for Alexander trying to navigate around the hills of the Italian peninsula while trying to pin down a more mobile force, however for the period, this tactic would have gone against the 'bulldoze' tactics of the Roman maniples. So even though the Romans would have an advantage, I doubt that they would have employed it against Alexander, as it was not tactically used and familiar to the generals of the time. In this theory that we're creating, Alexander would have been bringing in experienced soldiers with experienced generals, just look to Tresamine and Cannae to see what battle hardened veterans assaulting inexperienced legions get you. It is in my opinion, which is painful to say with my amenity towards Rome, that Alexander would have wiped the floor with Rome. This strong force entering the Italian peninsula, as did with the Carthaginians with the 2nd Punic War, would have created unrest in the communities surrounding Rome. I'm sure the Etruscans, Samnites, and Campanians, would have loved to switch allegiances to get a piece of Rome, not to mention Sicily.

"Then his comrades fastened on his armour; he took an infantry shield and a Spanish sword as better adapted for close fighting;

As mentioned previously a longsword would not have been useful for the Roman military due to the large army and tightly packed troops. It is because of their training and the use of the gladii and scutum that the Romans were effective. It was the adoption of the gladius and scutum, veering away from the phalanx, that gave them the mobility and adaptability that gave the Romans an edge against more conventional opponents. The Phalanx had the staying power, but lacked mobility; a looser formation (needed to successfully wield longswords) lacked the stopping power as a shield wall does. For it's time, when armies were much larger than the later, skirmish oriented operations, the galdii was the best suited weapon for their tactics. As mentioned previously, if the Romans had started off using a longsword/semi-spathae in pitched battles the tactics and even conquests of the Roman military might be drastically different.

Best Generals, Hmmm... That's a tough one...In no particular order: 1. Tiberius Gracchus - He commanded the slave-legions at Beneventum against Hanno; 214 BC in the second Punic War. I have always liked the story of Beneventum where Gracchus promised the slaves their freedom upon possession of an enemies head. Once the battle started the two forces clashed and were evenly matched when the Romans pace started to slow. Reports came to Gracchus that the slaves were stopping to cut off the Carthaginian's heads and upon acquiring one were dropping their swords and instead wielding the severed head as a weapon. Upon hearing this Gracchus ran to his troops and decreed that they had proven their valor and deserved freedom, so drop the heads, pick up your swords, and finish the enemy! The image of this battle has always stuck in my mind as amusing. 2. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus - This is definitely a general that is high on my list. As mentioned previously in this thread Scipio is an excellent general in both command and motivation. Additionally the story of Scipio threatening his peers after the battle of Cannae gives him the visage of a true Roman in my mind, patriotic to the last. It is disappointing how his career fizzled out after his crescendo at so early of an age. 3. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus - The Cunctator. I admire this General for purely the stern resolve he had not to risk a fight at the beginning of the war with Hannibal. Even throughout the constant criticism from the senate, people, and even his fellow troops (namely Minucius Rufus) for standing by idle while Hannibal ravaged the countryside before him. Fabius' career was somewhat lack-luster compared to other great generals, however he had always had the patience and cautiousness to wait for the opportune time to attack. During his fourth consul he played a good game of attack, garrison, and reinforce that rendered Hannibal's efforts in Italy mildly effective. more to be added...

This is my first post on this board and I figured that this would be a good subject to start with... Honestly I cannot pin-point a moment which definitively marked my fascination with the people of Rome, but for me it's everything about their culture, specifically their militaristic protocol that appeals to me. The first highly trained and rigidly sanctioned national military that evolved so much from Rome's conception to it's death. Everything from Rome's military escapades down to the daily life in Rome for your average Joe-ilicus. The fact that there was always so much internal strife while trying to maintain a strong outward visage, it still amuses me to no end that so many cultures or political parties/powers in history have taken symbols or created images that resemble the power Rome commanded, yet how fragile the Roman culture was socioeconomic ally. I enjoy reading Roman history, specifically authors of the period (Tacitus, Livy, Titus, etc.), because so much of the human character is brought out through the historical documents of man. Livy specifically captures that human element and drama that existed between rivals externally (Hannibal and Scipio [the elder]) and internally (Fabius Maximus and Minucius Rufus) in The History of Rome books XXI - XXX. This kind of human element is always prevalent throughout the Roman years. It truly was a drama with a myriad of personalities throughout its years. -Diocles P.S. Hey Everybody