• Options
• Login
• Register
• Desktop Style
• Accelerated Mobile Pages Theme

Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

• Index

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Community Forums
  • General Discussions
  • History
  • Weaknesses of the Roman Army?
• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  justinf77 > March 7th, 2004, 04:30 PM

  Hello all, I am in the process of researching an essay for my Roman Archaeology class on the strengths and weaknesses of the Roman military.
  
  Many of the strengths are quite apparent (equipment, size, engineering skill, organization, tactic, etc), but I am having trouble finding the weaknesses of the army because it seemed to be quite successful overall.
  
  Any help with this would be really appreciated. Thanks a lot!

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Martin Read > March 8th, 2004, 03:57 AM

  The strengths and weaknesses of the Roman army varied over time.
  
  If you look at the "classic period" of the army - Late Republic and Early Empire then there are a few weaknesses evident.
  
  The Roman army was relatively weak in cavalry, this was particularly the case when compared with Parthia and Persia. In particular it was badly supplied with mounted archers and shock cavalry such as "lancers" (Contarii, Cataphractii and Clibanarii).
  
  It was also fairly poorly provided with infantry archers.
  
  In the Republic (until late on) it was handicapped in having amateur generals. These were politicians given command for a limited time, quality was very variable indeed.
  
  In the Republic and Early Empire most senior "regimental" officers were likewise amateurs, the tribunes were sprigs of the nobility and the legates were politicians engaged in a tour of duty as part of a largely civilian magesterial career.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  jhhoffman > March 8th, 2004, 04:31 AM

  Just remember when dealing with the roman army you are looking at a period of almost a thousand years, the eventual fall of the western empire was bought about by a general decline in the equipment and tactics of the army from its height in the 1st and 2nd centuarys, A roman legionary in the first centuary would have been unrecognisable to his forth centuary counterpart.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Chronicles > March 8th, 2004, 09:18 AM

  Traditionally, the Romans have always been weak in terms of calvary and archers. However, it was always the foot troops (phalanx) that provided the main strength of any field army of the time. In this respect the Romans almost always had the advantage of the great discipline of their men in fighting as a coherent body, but as noted, this could be negated by poor leadership.
  
  Hannibal especially found how to work the Roman phalanx to his own advantage, especially through use of ambush and harrying cavalry (Numidians) to break up the Roman fighting order.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Martin Read > March 9th, 2004, 06:05 AM

  Quote:Originally posted by jhhoffman
  Just remember when dealing with the roman army you are looking at a period of almost a thousand years, the eventual fall of the western empire was bought about by a general decline in the equipment and tactics of the army from its height in the 1st and 2nd centuarys, A roman legionary in the first centuary would have been unrecognisable to his forth centuary counterpart.

  
  
  This is a widely held belief but isn't really supported by the evidence. The Romans throughout their history adopted equipment and tactics from their enemies, as well as making innovations of their own. The legionary of Caesar's day wore a Celtic derived helmet, used a Spanish (prob Celtiberian) sword (the gladius hispaniensis) and wore a, probably, Celtic invented piece of armour the mail shirt.
  
  The Romans continued to react to changing military threats by adopting the equipment and tactics of their enemies, there is no reason to believe that the changes in the Roman army from the mid 3rd century onwards were in any way different to those which had happened earlier. In short the loss of the traditional legionary army of the Principate was due to the fact that this formation had become obsolete and no longer provided efficient protection for the Roman state.
  
  In many ways the army of the Late Empire was a more balanced force. The cavalry arm was expanded and specialist troops such as horse archers and heavily armoured shock cavalry were introduced. The infantryman was also more flexibly equipped, he was given plumbatae, lead weighted darts which outranged javelins as well as spicula and veruta javelins of varying weight and penatrating power. He also had the lancea, a general purpose thrusting spear better suited to holding off cavalry than the pilum. Archery was far more widespread and it is probable that the majority of infantrymen were taught how to use a bow. The bow itself was a more powerful recurved type derived from the Huns.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Sean Fear > March 9th, 2004, 06:32 AM

  I agree. I don't think there were many weaknesses per se in the army of the late Empire. What did weaken the army was the constant warfare between rival claimants to the Imperial throne. Seasoned troops were killed and had to be replaced by raw recruits, or by barbarians fighting under barbarian commanders.
  
  Barbarians had of course served in the Roman Army for centuries with distinction, but under Roman discipline. Once they were serving as Federates, under their own commanders, they were a great deal less reliable.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Unregistered > March 9th, 2004, 08:29 AM

  The Roman army is a greatly overrated army. Its successes is more due to the backwardness of its neibours than their actual military advancement. When more advanced and tactical armies from the east like the huns arrived on the scene, the Romans are forced to adopt the cavalry to survive

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Sean Fear > March 9th, 2004, 10:53 AM

  Many of Rome's rivals were very far from being backward. Carthage, Epirus, Macedonia, the Seleucids, Pontus, Parthia, and Persia were all advanced states with effective armed forces, yet Rome eventually defeated them all.
  
  Less advanced peoples such as the Cimbri and other Germanic tribes were certainly no pushover in military terms.
  
  In fact the Romans suffered plenty of military defeats, but their great strength was never to know when they were beaten. They always won *in the end*, because they always came back for more.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  jhhoffman > March 12th, 2004, 04:32 AM

  In defence of my earlier post about the degredation of the roman infantry, I shall hand over to Flavius Vegetius Renatus and his "DE RE MILITARI" written in the late 300's.
  
  THE ARMS OF THE ANCIENTS
  The manner of arming the troops comes next under consideration. But the method of the ancients no longer is followed. For though after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, we have made some improvements in the arms of the cavalry, yet it is plain the infantry are entirely defenseless. From the foundation of the city till the reign of the Emperor Gratian, the foot wore cuirasses and helmets. But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on. They first requested leave from the Emperor to lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet. In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows. Nor was the necessity of obliging the infantry to resume their cuirasses and helmets discovered, notwithstanding such repeated defeats, which brought on the destruction of so many great cities.
  Troops, defenseless and exposed to all the weapons of the enemy, are more disposed to fly than fight. What can be expected from a foot-archer without cuirass or helmet, who cannot hold at once his bow and shield; or from the ensigns whose bodies are naked, and who cannot at the same time carry a shield and the colors? The foot soldier finds the weight of a cuirass and even of a helmet intolerable. This is because he is so seldom exercised and rarely puts them on.
  
  
  PS when talking of roman infanty, Legion, Cohort, maniple. never phalanx (their greek).

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Martin Read > March 12th, 2004, 12:24 PM

  There are reasons for treating Vegetius with a certain amount of caution on this issue, and, of course, the Late Roman army had been in being for at least a century before the reign of Gratian.
  
  Though innovative in certain respects Vegetius was something of an antiquarian, a not uncommon strain in Roman men of letters, he lauds the practices of the past and decries those of his present. This might be likened to the spirit of the Polish cavalry in WWII. Vegetius may be specifically commenting on the state of Roman army in the aftermath of the serious defeat at Adrianople when a good deal of armour and equipment was undoubtedly lost to the victorious Goths and Alans. Replacement levies would most probably have been under-equipped for some considerable time.
  
  Sculptural and pictorial sources dating from after Gratian, including the Virgillius Vaticanus, Column of Arcadius, and many smaller less well known objects (including a wood carving from Egypt of the 5th C) show Roman infantrymen in armour. This armour includes muscle cuirasses, scale and mail. Written accounts, including Ammianus (late 4th C) and Procopius (mid 6th C), repeatedly mention armoured infantry.
  
  It is possible that Vegetius was commenting on a genuine change in Roman practices. In the Late Republic and Early Empire soldiers were expected to wear their armour when working on camp fortifications and the like (if on campaign) and were liable for severe punishment (including death) if they were caught unarmoured. It is likely, with the increased role of almost guerilla-style fighting (cross border raids and night attacks, such as are described by the Emperor Julian when he was fighting Germans on the Rhine frontier) that the day to day use of armour by the infantry declined. It would be a strange soldier who refused the added protection of armour when faced with the prospect of fighting a pitched battle, however. The recent bruhaha over lack of personal armour provision for soldiers fighting in Iraq springs immediately to mind.
  
  This view is supported by a close reading of the passage you quote. Firstly Vegetius states that the use of armour and indeed helmets has passed out of use by Roman infantrymen, but then says:
  
  "The foot soldier finds the weight of a cuirass and even of a helmet intolerable. This is because he is so seldom exercised and rarely puts them on."
  
  In this he contradicts himself somewhat, the passage strongly suggests that armour was available to the infantryman, but that it was not worn regularly. This may merely reflect changes in tactics and practices (if you were accompanying Julian in a fleet of small boats raiding an Allemanic village across the Rhine, would you care to be weighed down by armour?), it does not suggest that armour was abandoned entirely.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Unregistered > March 12th, 2004, 06:53 PM

  "Many of Rome's rivals were very far from being backward. Carthage, Epirus, Macedonia, the Seleucids, Pontus, Parthia, and Persia were all advanced states with effective armed forces, yet Rome eventually defeated them all."
  
  First of all, none of them were as militarily and tactically as advanced as the huns. The Parthians and the Persians didn't "eventually loose"
  
  
  "In fact the Romans suffered plenty of military defeats, but their great strength was never to know when they were beaten. They always won *in the end*, because they always came back for more."
  
  Well, that wasn't the case when the goths and turks ran them over.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  justinf77 > March 13th, 2004, 02:08 PM

  Thank you all very much for your replies, they have been very helpful as well as thought-provoking.
  
  One thing I am still quite confused about is the time span covered by this paper. The actual question is:
  
  "What does archaeology tell us about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Roman Army?"
  
  The length of the paper is only 2000 words, or about 6-7 pages. This is obviously not long enough to cover the entire 1000+ year period. But if, as one poster said, a 1st century legionary would be unrecognizable to his 4th century counterpart, then how am I supposed to present an accurate, general overview of the period? Any suggestions are welcome.
  
  I am not asking you to plan my essay for me, as I have a plan already written out, I am just unsure how to best portray the period in such a short essay.
  
  Thanks!

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  jhhoffman > March 15th, 2004, 03:17 AM

  If possible id get some clarification on the question the strength of the Romans steadily rose as they fought from the 700s bc up until their power started to decline in the 2nd and 3rd C ad as it stands the answer could be a full book, infact it is already many books!

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  Sean Fear > March 16th, 2004, 09:25 AM

  Quote:Originally posted by Unregistered
  "Many of Rome's rivals were very far from being backward. Carthage, Epirus, Macedonia, the Seleucids, Pontus, Parthia, and Persia were all advanced states with effective armed forces, yet Rome eventually defeated them all."
  
  First of all, none of them were as militarily and tactically as advanced as the huns. The Parthians and the Persians didn't "eventually loose"
  
  
  "In fact the Romans suffered plenty of military defeats, but their great strength was never to know when they were beaten. They always won *in the end*, because they always came back for more."
  
  Well, that wasn't the case when the goths and turks ran them over.

  
  
  Dealing with each point in turn:-
  
  1. Tactics changed over the centuries, but Sassanid Persia was certainly a good deal more advanced, in every way, than the Huns.
  
  Parthia and Persia did lose in the end. Parthia was heavily defeated by both Trajan and Septimius Severus. Persia ultimately suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Heraclius, and its monarchy collapsed a few years later.
  
  2. Rome had a much better run than most major powers. The Roman Republic lasted for hundreds of years, and the Empire lasted for 400 years in the West, and 1400 years in the East. Nothing lasts for ever though.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  RobRoy > March 16th, 2004, 01:47 PM

  Quote:Originally posted by Sean Fear
  2. Rome had a much better run than most major powers. The Roman Republic lasted for hundreds of years, and the Empire lasted for 400 years in the West, and 1400 years in the East. Nothing lasts for ever though.

  Except death and taxes of course! :bg:

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  masterblaster > April 3rd, 2004, 11:44 AM

  IMO, there are two weakness'.
  The first applies to the later empire only. The lack of manpower. Thru Plague, social, and political reasons, there was not the manpower to keep the army up to strength with the right people.
  More important, rome never evolved a way to ensure the peaceful passage of power from one government to another This frittered away what manpower that was available. If Rome had evolved a stable government, we would still be speaking Latin.

• Weaknesses of the Roman Army?

  DeamondBleed > April 4th, 2004, 11:54 AM

  Weakness also depends on who you're facing. An army of soldires with Muskets might be concidered to have firepoower as a strength against an army of people with spears, but but their firepower is a weakness against people armed with AK 47s.
  
  So the weaknesses of the Roman army depend on who they're fighting.
• Next Oldest Next Newest