evil ned...

[Mike70]

have you come across this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_history_of_the_Roman_military

for a crappy place like wikipedia this ain't half bad. there are some weak parts but i am done trying to edit anything on that site.

[EvilNed]

Wow, that's extensive. No, I haven't, thanks for the find.

The first thing I do when checking out wikipedia articles is always scroll to the bottom and check the sources. And this one seems to rely on actual written sources, rather than just "fanboyism", or whatever you want to call it. So that's good.

[axlish]

I've actually read that article before. I love me some Roman history, especially the Julio-Claudian lineage.

Overall, I'd have to say that Roman persistance was their greatest asset. They got their asses handed to them all across Europe on a fairly regular basis but their persistance paid off when they send another 100K troops in to wipe out the much weakened opposition.

[Mike70]

Overall, I'd have to say that Roman persistance was their greatest asset. They got their asses handed to them all across Europe on a fairly regular basis but their persistance paid off when they send another 100K troops in to wipe out the much weakened opposition.

the army was only as good as the consuls commanding it and since they were elected politicians, you could get the great military minds (marius, pompey,etc.) and the inept bums (like crassus, varro, paullus, etc.).

also extending their citizenship to places in italy coupled with their system of alliances gave them a manpower reserve that few other political entities at the time could even come close to matching.


then the constitution was flexible enough to send out folks like publius scipio to spain as a privatus cum imperio because even though he wasn't old enough to hold one of the offices that came with imperium his ability was evident to the senate.