Cimbrian War- Under Rated.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's based on the biggest roman army that is well documented, that of Cannae.

 

Not the biggest--nearly 40 legions faced off at Phillipi.

[P.Clodius]

All this numbers are, of course, unreal. We should remember that history was not a science, but an art. Look at the persian army that invaded Greece with 1.200.000 soldiers! that's more then Germany had in 1940 campaign.

If you're refering to the "Army that drank rivers dry." that has been estimated by modern scholars as around 100-120K.

[Kosmo]

I did not say that a state could have a maximum of soldiers, but there is a natural limit to the size of a field army. At Philipi were 2 roman armies.

So, if the "army that drank rivers dry" it's estimated to be 10 times smaller, we can think that the army of the cimbri was much smaller. And we don't have receipts of their pay checks either.

We have better info about romans and greek then about the barbarians.

[WotWotius]

This is theory only: take heart those who love the Roman military machine. Perhaps I am wrong , at least that I am open minded on matters that happened 2000 years ago. It just seems so logical looking at all their battles in totality and how the opposition feared their infantry. I understand this takes the brains out of the Roman war machine in favor of the braun. Just want people to consider all possiblities, that is all. Too many are just so opinionated that they can be blinded to the obvious.

 

You could say that as Rome progressed from Republic to Empire, her military was eventually perfected resulting in an unbeatable army; this in turn would mean that it was the army rather than individuals which was the source of victory.

[Gaius Matius]

Arausio was a battle where the Romans or the Senate employed a double consular army.

Yes, I think there was a Servilii Caepiones involved in some funny business there. But, were there fortifications involved?

 

Seems to me that the Celts and Germans were no good when attacking walled cities. But I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

 

 

That would be one Quintus Servilius Caepio, a patrician of awesome hauter who refused to combine his pro-consular legions with those of the consul Gnaeus Mallius Maximus, a new man whose cognomen was more awesome than his list of accomplishments to that point. Both armies were caught unprepared for battle and destoyed in detail, supposedly while in legionary camps. It's worth noting that this was the crisis that precipitated Gaius Marius being elected Consul five consecutive times, leading to the institutionalization of the Marian reforms to the legionary organization.

 

It's also worth noting that most of the Germanic success against Rome came versus armies who were either poorly led or caught with their guard down. Most of the reasons for the great success of Gaius Marius in all of his battles can be boiled down to leadership. He was not a political appointee. In can be said that Marius achieved his military commands in spite of his political skills! It is very doubtful that a man like Gaius Marius, a talented leader who had worked his way up through the military ranks, would suffer incompetent political apointees to officer his legions, so one may reasonably suppose the Marian led legions were more competently led and trained. Marius was fully prepared for his battles in the German campaign, and one may presume that his operational plans were carried out efficiently by his subordinates.

 

As to Celts and Germans being no good at attacking walled cities, I'm sure the occupants of Rome during the Gallic invasion by Brennus would beg to differ, not to mention the denizens of Rome present for Alaric's party some centuries later!