StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Crown wrote:Could you argue that Hannible was the first to show that the Roman's were 'beatable'? (Yes I know that Cathrage ultimately lost, but that was due to a poor strategy, for the most part Hannible ate up the legions on the field)

Or are we talking about when the Empire proper was finally destroyed?

Oh, definitely not. Romans had been getting beaten in their wars since before Hannibal. Their system was one of long-term resiliance. It was never that the legionaires were invincible. It was that if you killed a Roman army, you found two more coming after you next--on road systems they built while advancing towards you, if necessary, and defended by fortifications they erected steadily upon the march. The legacy of the Roman success was in their resiliancy and incredible engineering.

The real demonstration of the superiourity of the legionary system of arming wasn't until after the Second Punic War--when the Romans defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna. However, I'd say that the tactical flexibility of the Roman system was an outgrowth of Hellenistic combat. Observe that when the Hellenic system of warfare first developed there was lots of infighting between small groups, and they used rigid formations charging straight at each other to do it.

Then the Macedonians came along with the sarissa integrated with shieldmen and heavy cavalry and with light troops and they swept the field in combined arms formations and used mechanical engineers to take cities, etc, and then Alexander went on to conquer the whole of the known world, basically. Okay, that was great:

Except it wasn't. In the sense, that is, that Alexander's Empire fragmented immediately, and it was quickly demonstrated that the Macedonian system was not very efficient for fighting other armies of the same time. So Pikes got longer and more cumbersome, and cavalry and light troops were relegated to a sideshow, whilst artillery became tactical and the elephant more popular to break up the phalanx. Stalemates and horrendous casualties ensued and we were back to lots of warring states slaughtering each other enmasse.

The Romans reintroduced combined arms and tactical flexibility, and just like the Macedonians they unified essentially the whole of the known world. The difference was that their engineering and organizational practices allowed them to keep it unified.

Darth Wong wrote:Didn't the shape of the Empire also play a role? Not to sound infantile, but if you look at the Roman Empire on a map, it's not laid out very well. Because of the way it curls around, it has a very long border relative to its land area.

As others have said, having the Mediterranean in the middle of your territory vastly increases the speed at which you can travel from one end of the empire to the other. And while the Romans did have long borders, they only had to defend two of them (their southern boundary along the edge of the Sahara was effectively secure as their western one on the Atlantic coast), and one of them, the Rhine-Danube frontier, had formidible natural defenses. And had Arminus been discovered to be a filthy traitor and given a proper crucification before he could betray the Empire at Teutoburger Forest, the Romans would have controlled Germany out to the Elbe and had a shorter frontier along the Danube.

The most difficult border to defend was the Persian frontier, which had few natural defenses. But the Persians were civilized and generally stuck to treaties, and at any rate were a predictable enemy.

Actually, despite the vast increase in territory, I've long wondered if a border roughly following the Vistula and the Dnestr would have considerably improved the Roman ability at strategic defence, especially defence in depth. The problem would have been that it would have made moving materials through the Empire much harder, though I suppose it would have been easier to open both the Rhine and Danube--and then obviously the Elbe--to navigation.

Symmetry wrote:

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Sriad wrote:At a guess, when China assembled the first million man army in history, ~200 BC.

That figure is probably just as much BS as any from the European classical era.

On the main topic, I would say that Rome was always beatable. At times they were soundly thrashed by Carthaginians, Germans, and Parthians. But the Empire was resilient and able to recover. The turning point was when they lost that resilience. I agree with Patrick Degan on the cause and the approximate time period.

I'm hardly an expert on this, but it seems to me that the Romans started losing momentum about the time they transformed from a republic to a dictatorship. Can someone back me up, or am I just smoking it?

That was more like planting the seeds of decline. They'd grow later, when Emperors weren't competant enough to hold together the Empire.

Could you argue that Hannible was the first to show that the Roman's were 'beatable'? (Yes I know that Cathrage ultimately lost, but that was due to a poor strategy, for the most part Hannible ate up the legions on the field)

Or are we talking about when the Empire proper was finally destroyed?

As Hemlock said, Rome's armies weren't invincible against other contemporary empires. Rome won against Carthage by denying them supplies. Rome won against the Germanic barbarians by having superior organization. Rome won against the Greeks by using superior military formations. Rome could never conquer the Parthian Empire or the Sassanids who took their place because their empire was just as rich and they used light cavalry, which the Romans had no effective counter for. The only way they won were through internal troubles on the Persian's part, just as the Persians scored wins against the Romans in similar times.

When the Western Empire was destroyed, it was through their idiotic handling of otherwise passive tribes on their frontier while employing members of these tribes as their military. The Eastern Empire held out because they had the cash to buy off the barbarians and then reset much of the problems of the Empire through strong Emperors.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Actually, despite the vast increase in territory, I've long wondered if a border roughly following the Vistula and the Dnestr would have considerably improved the Roman ability at strategic defence, especially defence in depth. The problem would have been that it would have made moving materials through the Empire much harder, though I suppose it would have been easier to open both the Rhine and Danube--and then obviously the Elbe--to navigation.

I was thinking of that, but I didn't bring it up because I can't think of a realistic way to get the legions out that far. There's not much worth having east of the Elbe, at least not back then, that I know of.

EDIT: And of course, I forgot to mention Dacia, but everyone forgets Dacia. It's like Rome's New Jersey.

RedImperator wrote: I was thinking of that, but I didn't bring it up because I can't think of a realistic way to get the legions out that far. There's not much worth having east of the Elbe, at least not back then, that I know of.

There's not much to have east of the Rhine, either, which is why the conquest wasn't pressed after Augustus.

StarshipTitanic wrote:Rome could never conquer the Parthian Empire or the Sassanids who took their place because their empire was just as rich and they used light cavalry, which the Romans had no effective counter for.

Not quite true. The Parthians and then the Sassanids were no great shining example of light cavalry tactics--the Romans had an excellent counter to them which was called the Roman Shield. Heavy infantry could just form up and use their shields to deflect arrows from Persian archery pretty much all day long. The Parthians won engagements only against the most stupid Roman commanders in history, usually with the help of cash incentives to the auxilia.

The Sassanids, however, had a very good lancer force to support their archers, and were a serious threat from the start, but the Romans quickly copied it, usually used Armenian cavalry as auxilia to counter it as well, and until the stirrup came around (by which time we're getting into Byzantine territory anyway) a lancer charge against the legions was iffy--and once you get to the Byzantines, the legions have long spears and it's iffy again.

Usually the Romans would advance into Persian territory and take cities quite easily, or at least besiege them, but their supply lines would get cut, the Persians would use scorched earth tactics, etc, and harassment tactics in general from light cavalry to weaken the legions. If real successful they'd deploy their heavy forces--the armed Dehgans--for a main battle. Infantry was just space-filler for a Parthian or Sassanid army alike, mostly, though some light with archers might have been decent.

The Sassanids were quite capable of advancing into Roman territory and also besieging and taking cities, but were usually meat for Roman armies--early on. They showed steady improvement tactically and organizationally throughout their entire history until in the 7th century they basically overran the whole Roman Empire. Incredibly the Emperor Heraclius managed to scrape together troops, land them behind the Persians, and defeat them, and then ravaged Mesopotamia. In the wake of this titanic struggle, the Empires made peace on the same borders... And, bam!, Islam showed up. Nasty timing.

The Parthians however got most of their territory from the old Hellenistic countries and their high-water mark was Carrhae. Trajan showed them up rather nicely by occupying Mesopotamia, but the usual raiding and harassment tactics forced the withdrawl under Hadrian. The Spanish Emperors, I suspect, would sympathize with the current plight of the USA.

Ok, so I'm half-half-right.

As for expanding the borders that big, I doubt that'd work. The cost of assimilating that much barbarian territory would be excessive. Spending more attention the existing borders instead of using those troops to go attack the latest pretender would be better.

StarshipTitanic wrote:Ok, so I'm half-half-right.

As for expanding the borders that big, I doubt that'd work. The cost of assimilating that much barbarian territory would be excessive. Spending more attention the existing borders instead of using those troops to go attack the latest pretender would be better.

Well, on the plus side, you'd have more people for troops. Of course, the flip side of that in turn is that you'd have longer lines of communication. Maybe some sort of Inca-style runner system, or an early Heliograph...

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

RedImperator wrote: I was thinking of that, but I didn't bring it up because I can't think of a realistic way to get the legions out that far. There's not much worth having east of the Elbe, at least not back then, that I know of.

There's not much to have east of the Rhine, either, which is why the conquest wasn't pressed after Augustus.

Conquest wasn't pressed after Augustus due to the humiliation he felt after the Teutonburg forest and his words, passed on in his will, that it would essentially be a curse to further expand the Empire.

The Teutonburg disaster was a psychological blow that stopped expansion that could have added the whole of Germannia to the Empire and that WOULD have improved prospects. With the Elbe and the Danube in their control it would allow them to trade onward throughout the Baltic. Additionally having conquered the Germans it would be hard to believe they could not expand onwards to the Vistual or further. Had they not been stopped they likely could have united all of Europe with the consequences of Romanization on those who would, later, be the destroyers of Rome can not be underscored. Had the Romans been successful in taming all of Germany and even still further towards Russia I find it hard to beleive that they would not have been able to use the highly defensible terrain to hold back the later rush of Barbarians and perhaps even the Mongols if the Empire had lasted that long.

The Romans were never invincible. There were plenty of situations where the Roman Army was crushed and only saved by either serenidipity or the failure to follow through by the enemy commander. For instance, Rome should have been defeated by Hannibal Barca, but it was Hannibal's failure to march against Rome and sack it, but rather wandered fruitlessly around Italia killing Roman armies rather than taking out their head until he was finally defeated.

um... i think you all missed the point of what the guy was asking...

At what point in modern histroy would a british, or american army have been capable of defeating the roman legions.....

In my opinion probably when we invented the machine gun.. and tanks, so... early 20th centuary, before that pur armies cared to much about whether they were following the "rules" after the invention of the machine gun they had to chuck the old rules out of the window.

For instance, Rome should have been defeated by Hannibal Barca, but it was Hannibal's failure to march against Rome and sack it, but rather wandered fruitlessly around Italia killing Roman armies rather than taking out their head until he was finally defeated.

He couldn't sack Rome. He didn't have the capability to do so.

In my opinion probably when we invented the machine gun.. and tanks, so... early 20th centuary, before that pur armies cared to much about whether they were following the "rules" after the invention of the machine gun they had to chuck the old rules out of the window.

Are you kidding? Gustuvus Adolphus could have smashed Roman legions. Swiss pikemen could have smashed Roman legions. Barbarian horsemen could, and did, smash Roman legions. Machine guns are gross overkill.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Of course, the flip side of that in turn is that you'd have longer lines of communication. Maybe some sort of Inca-style runner system, or an early Heliograph...

Oddly enough, I'm sure I recall hearing of Roman Semaphore Towers somewhere.

HemlockGrey wrote:He couldn't sack Rome. He didn't have the capability to do so.

That's a matter of debate. He certainly was capable of destroying Roman legions, but the problem was that while he hated the Romans, he didn't understand them particularly well. If he had a bit more understanding about them, he could have succeeded in sacking the city.

If I answer the question: when did the Roman Empire become weak.

Its was when they began replacing their diciplined legions with mercenaries. The higher class citizens eventually started avoiding taxes, and the burden shifted to the peasants. This created an ever increasing tax shortfall. Legions were cut, replaced with mercenaries that were hired as needed, but these forces weren't completely loyal nor reliable.

Off hand, I can't think of a specific date.

Well belatedly addressing the question directly the Romans were ALWAYS beatable, but only tactically. The strength of Rome was in its ability to manuever strategically, much as was the continuing case with the Eastern Empire until very late in its life. Basically by being able to trade space for time the Romans (Eastern and Western) were generally able to outmanuever their enemies by leaving them without supplies deep in enemy territory at which point they could be strangled and destroyed. For all intents and purposes the Romans of either half of the empire were strategically unbeatable until the final hundred years or so of each empire. The western half was able to bounch back in the late 3rd and early 4th century and might have been able to in the 6th century had not a series of disastrous defeats left them without a strong willed Emperor capable fo continuing reforms. The Eastern Empire was relatively effective nearly up to the final days when Constantinople was taken.

Zoink wrote:If I answer the question: when did the Roman Empire become weak.

Its was when they began replacing their diciplined legions with mercenaries. The higher class citizens eventually started avoiding taxes, and the burden shifted to the peasants. This created an ever increasing tax shortfall. Legions were cut, replaced with mercenaries that were hired as needed, but these forces weren't completely loyal nor reliable.

Off hand, I can't think of a specific date.

The Roman Republic was definitely not helped by the Marian Reforms, though they seemed like a reasonable solution to the need for more troops. However, the switch to a professional army was hardly the cause for the collapse of the Empire--it happened long before the Principate had even started.

Gil Hamilton wrote: That's a matter of debate. He certainly was capable of destroying Roman legions, but the problem was that while he hated the Romans, he didn't understand them particularly well. If he had a bit more understanding about them, he could have succeeded in sacking the city.

Hannibal did not have the equipment nor the troops with him sufficient to besiege Rome (a sack assumes that you have successfully completed a siege after all). He was a very intelligent man, and he demurred from trying to lay siege to Rome precisely because he knew that the Romans could still man the walls and, against his force--we regard Hannibal highly because he won great battles in the field with a small number of troops against large enemy armies--they would have a decent chance, particularly since he'd lost much of his heavy equipment trying to cross over the Alps and the Carthagian Senate had never sent him replacements. Besides that, sieges always incur high casualties.

His goal, then, was to raise the southern Greek cities--the same ones which had garnered the support of Pyrrhus in that last war which had really threatened Roman control of Italia--so that his troops would be increased and he would have a regular supply. The failure of Carthage to regularly supply him, which was due not only to their unwillingness to attempt to face the Romans at sea; and their fear of Hannibal in politics at home; but also to the general Roman dominance of the sea during this period, was constantly hampering. Even had the effort been seriously launched, however, it is unlikely to have succeeded: Roman naval superiourity would have prevented the supplies from reaching Italy.

He did not succeed in getting enough of the Greek cities in southern Italy to revolt. The result was that he never had the troops and supplies he needed to besiege Rome, and so all he could do was terrorize the Roman countryside and defeat their armies in the field--and not even the later when the Romans stopped sending them out. Hannibal's expedition is overrated because of the genius of the tactical victories he won, when really it was not as strategically threatening as it first appears. The Second Punic War was won by men enduring the seasons on open galleys in the service of the Roman Navy, just like the Napoleonic Wars were won by the British Tars on the Continental Blockade.

HemlockGrey wrote:
Are you kidding? Gustuvus Adolphus could have smashed Roman legions. Swiss pikemen could have smashed Roman legions. Barbarian horsemen could, and did, smash Roman legions. Machine guns are gross overkill.

Gustavus Adolphus, perhaps, though remember that his army--granted without him--was beaten by the Spanish at Nordlingen. Cromwell could definitely do it. Gustavus and Maurice both have a reasonable chance. Actually, so do the Spanish themselves. However, the Swiss are too heavily oriented to the Pike--they are vulnerable like the Macedonians at Pydna. But certainly they are not in a hopeless position, especially with the innovation of the Halberd which the Macedonians did not have.

Really, the Romans start to become outmatched in the 16th century and onwards as the combination of reliable firearms with the pikeblock makes their more manoeuvrable tactics far less effective. They would still be respectable opponents for any army until the late 17th century however.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: At Chalons a mix of German tribes, remnant Roman forces, and various other barbarians and mercenaries, still managed to halt the "feared" Attila the Hun.

Not to nitpick but Chalons was more of a tie. It was only the nature of the Hun army that prevented them from savaging Northern Italy and the remnants of Aeitus' army.

Darth Gojira wrote: Not to nitpick but Chalons was more of a tie. It was only the nature of the Hun army that prevented them from savaging Northern Italy and the remnants of Aeitus' army.

Chalons was NOT a tie--the Huns were driven steadily back into their laager and then were pounded in it by the Roman army. Attila barely escaped with his life and any of his force at all, and then only because the Roman force was so totally disparate that Aetius could barely keep his units together.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The Roman Republic was definitely
not helped by the Marian Reforms, though they seemed like a reasonable solution to the need for more troops. However, the switch to a professional army was hardly the cause for the collapse of the Empire--it happened long before the Principate had even started.

Well, the Roman Republic was pretty much at a damned if they did, damned if they didn't. The leadership wasn't really there to keep the Republic alive. The government wasn't suitable for a burgeoning Empire but rather for a city state. Corruption and one dictator (in effect if not fact) after another simply sealed the deal.

I always seem to come into these things late.

HemlockGrey wrote:Oh. Um, off the top of my head, I'd say the ones that actually beat the Romans, i.e. the barbarian horsemen with stirrups.

Sorry guy, but you've got this dead wrong. There were no stirrup-using barbarian horsemen who ever faced Roman armies. At least not in the west. The stirrup did not make its appearance in western Europe until about the seventh or eighth century AD - long after the Roman Empire was a historical dead letter in the west. Remember, the last western emperor was deposed in 476, and as Marina said, what remained of devolved Roman authority was largely smashed by Justinian's attempt to retake Italy in the sixth century. And Roman authority in Gaul was destroyed after the defeat of Syagrius by Clovis' Franks following the battle of Soissons in 486.

The only Roman armies which ever faced stirrup-using barbarians were Byzantine armies. And by that time they had changed (or were in the process of changing) the composition of their army from mostly infantry to mostly cavalry, and they quickly adopted the stirrup themselves. The stirrup was introduced in the Byzantine army around 580AD, from the Avars.

Any image you have of traditionally armed, foot-marching legions being smashed by stirrup using heavy cavalry is a false one. No encounter like that ever took place. If you are thinking of Adrianople, the Gothic cavalry did not have stirrups. They were still unknown outside the far east at that time. And it was not the use of cavalry that proved decisive in that encounter, it was the incompetence of the emperor Valens, who refused to wait a day for reinforcements to catch up, and faced the Gothic cavalry with an inadequate force, under conditions which were more favorable to the Goths. A smarter commander would have awaited his reinforcements, and beaten them.

Crown wrote:Could you argue that Hannible was the first to show that the Roman's were 'beatable'? (Yes I know that Cathrage ultimately lost, but that was due to a poor strategy, for the most part Hannible ate up the legions on the field)

Or are we talking about when the Empire proper was finally destroyed?

What if they had left a force or fleet (or both) to defend Carthage while he was away with his elephants?