Category: Roman Army

Humans tend to be inherently violent in nature, competing for their needs in the society. Human history is filled with conflict. Some of that conflict takes place on a small level involving only a few people, sometimes the battle takes place within a single person’s mind. But other conflicts span regions and can stretch on for decades. Ancient battles were not advanced and only depended of home crafted weapons like the spear, bow and arrow, falx and javelin, swords, spears, clubs, maces, axes, and knives. Catapults, siege towers, and battering rams were used during sieges. As we moved into the Bronze Age body armour began to appear as the smiths began working with this new metal, bronze helmets also began to make an appearance. Armor was not just limited to human soldiers but extended to their horses and elephants as well. The horse armor was made up of mail and plates or lamellae which covered the neck, chest, and hindquarters underneath which was some form of padding to keep it in place while a face plate protected the animal’s face. The elephants, used as a battering ram or to break and trample enemy lines, were also donned in armor for battle. The elephant’s head was covered by a steel mask and covered half of the trunk while the throat and sides were protected by lamellae armor while the tusks were tipped with sharp metal. The advent of gunpowder and the acceleration of technological advances led to modern warfare. The next important step for gunpowder came when it was inserted into the barrel of a handgun, which first appeared in the mid-15th century and was essentially a cannon shrunk down to portable size. Guns literally put weaponry into the hands of the individual, creating a new class of soldier; infantry and giving birth to the modern army. Gunpowder made warfare all over the world very different, affecting the way battles were fought and borders were drawn throughout the Middle Ages. This made states to have strong standing armies that were able to defend their territorial sovereignty against any external aggression. In order to be able to defend themselves, the armies had to be trained and equipped to be battle ready. By taking an example of the Roman army, it shows how well ready they were for battle.

The Roman army was the largest and meanest fighting force in the ancient world. One of the main reasons Rome became so powerful was because of the strength of its army. It conquered a vast empire that stretched from Britain all the way to the Middle East. The army was very advanced for its time. The soldiers were the best trained, they had the best weapons and the best armour. The effectiveness of their attacks was due to training as in every case in any military that exists up to date. A Roman soldier was a well-trained fighting machine. He could march 20 miles a day, wearing all his armour and equipment. He could swim or cross rivers in boats, build bridges and smash his way into forts. After a long day’s march, Roman soldiers had to build a camp, complete with a ditch and a wall of wooden stakes. The next day, they had to do it all again. A Roman soldier almost always followed orders and anyone who didn’t faced tough punishments. If you fell asleep on duty, you could be sentenced to death. Roman soldiers weren’t always at war they spent most of their time training for battle. They practised fighting in formation and man-to-man. All this was to either deter another state from attacking it or to conquer other weaker states.

In comclusion, the ancient Roman army was superior to other armies due to its large size, skill, organisation, discipline and strategy. The ancient Roman army was so powerful and this is why Ancient Rome was able to grow so large and become the Roman Empire.

The ancient Greeks and Romans created foundational civilizations that the modern world has idolized and used for growth for centuries. The modern world has taken many ideas from both these civil giants and incorporated them into recent times, and yet both the Greek and Roman empires sometimes gave different ideas on the same topic. Greek and Roman philosophies in both military tactics and leadership characteristics have similarities and differences, and both have influenced political institutions of today.

Both Greek and Roman militaries were built to be strong, formidable forces. Sparta’s army was built by loyal citizens who put militarism as their priority, much like the Romans. Sparta used their force to conquer other Greek City-States such as Athens, while Romans used their military to conquer nearby civilization such as Persia and the Italian peninsula. Both put high honor and pride into their militaries, giving benefits such a land grants to veterans. Both armies were huge in size, the Greeks having over at least 250,000 men during the Peloponnesian War, and the Roman army peeking at 500,000 men under Emperor Severus. Both militaries and their ideologies can be seen in modern times with the high respect veterans are given. In most cultures, joining the military is seen as a high achievement and is held in high esteem. Whether this is due to the Greeks and Romans, or a bi-product of human nature, that is up for debate, but the similarity of past and present still remain.

The definition of leadership has changed significantly, but for the Greeks and Romans there were several similarities. In Grecian culture leadership was built by intelligence, strength, cunning, and military background. This is seen from the classic Greek story of the Odyssey, in which the main character who is harold as a leader bestows all of the above characteristics. Odysseus, the main character, is a warrior from the Trojan War who beats his foes with his cleverness and his skill with weapons thus using his military training and using cunning. The Romans also valued these things, as seen with their interest in their leaders such as Augustus, and Hadrian who both served in the military and led their civilizations with great wisdom and strength. Both the Greek and Roman ideas of leadership was quite similar, mostly because the Romans often took Greek philosophies (such as what makes a person a great leader) and incorporated them with their own beliefs. Of course, as there always are, there were differences between the two cultures.

While Rome and Greece had large armies for their time, Rome did indeed have the biggest army of the two. As stated before, 250,000 Greek men were most likely fighting during the Peloponnesian War, while the Roman army had at least 500,000 individuals enrolled at its peak. That is over half of the Grecian army. Not to mention, the Roman army was much more complex and organized than the Spartan army (which made up majority of the Greek army). The Spartans fought for individual glory, which is supported by their phrase, ‘Come home with the shield or on it’. which means a spartan was expected to win or die trying. The Spartans also did not have real ‘tactics’ other than overwhelm the enemy. During battle Spartans would not stay together and would separate to fight individually. Roman military was about coordinated attacks and glory for the unit as a whole.

Leadership also has some differences. Although Rome took much of Greek culture when it came to what a leader should be, they did have some distinct differences. The Greeks (mostly the Athenians) believed in openness and honesty in their leadership, which is clear when philosophical debates broke out during the Peloponnesian War about whether it was okay for a leader to lie for an advantage over the enemy. The Romans valued honesty in individuals but not necessarily their government and those in power. They expected the government to work in their favor, but understood that a certain type of openness could be disadvantages. The ideals of openness and honesty can be seen in modern expectations of what the government should be like – an example is the United States government. The President and Congressmen of America are expected to be honest and open with the public about policy and foreign and internal affairs.

Greek and Roman philosophies in both military tactics and leadership characteristics have similarities and differences, and both have influenced today’s ideologies. The patriotism about military activity is clear in modern society, and the idea that leaders should be strong, intelligent, and honest are embodied in almost every civilization. While both the Roman and Greek empires had their differences, both offered the present great wisdom for the future.

Wars and the Military was an integral part of Roman society and most of them are the reason Rome became so big. This can be traced to the founding of Rome where the two brothers Romulus and Remus argued and fought over the location of the city, Romulus won the fight and named the city after himself. Armies were initially volunteers but over time soldiers became paid, so the army was a viable career choice for the poor. Wars were fought for many reasons to capture land and trade routes as well as for personal/political reputation. Due to the importance of the military Rome was not immune to civil wars which were bloody and hard fought. An example of wars fought for land and trade was the Punic Wars 241 – 146BC. Although war was important in Roman society it did not always end well for the Romans an example is the Battle of Cannae 216BC, the biggest loss in Roman history. The Gallic War 58-51BC were primarily about Caesar gaining his reputation which lead to the Caesars Civil War 49-45BC because he became a threat to other powerful Romans, namely Pompey.

The Punic Wars were initially about land and an important trade route; they were made up of 3 wars from 264-146BC they were fought between Rome and Carthage. By the end of first war Rome had annexed Sicily and signed a treaty with Carthage, in which Carthage had to pay Rome reparations. The Second Punic war was from 218-201BC, Wikipedia mentions the war was also known as the ‘Hannibalic War’ or by the Romans as the ‘War Against Hannibal’. Hannibal was a Carthaginian general, who was a child in the first war, and wanted revenge against Rome for the first Punic War. The war featured the infamous Battle of Cannae, the biggest loss in Roman history and even though they had this loss they still won the war. The result of the war was that Rome conquered Carthage, Carthaginian Iberia became part of Rome and the unification of Numidia. The Third Punic war was from 149-146BC and led to the total destruction of Carthage. This was a relatively small conflict when compared to the first two wars and ended in the total destruction of Carthage and the surviving Carthaginians being sold into slavery. It was more of a political battle as Carthage held no real threat to Rome at that time.

As mentioned above the Battle of Cannae 216BC is an example of a great loss for Rome and it also highlights at how well the Roman army was able to rebound from such setbacks. The Battle of Cannae was Hannibals greatest example of strategic ability where he defeated an army that was twice the size of his. Hannibal won due to two factors, firstly the eagerness of the Roman Consuls to try and win the battle quickly and Hannibals supreme strategy. The strategy he used was the double development strategy also known as the pincer movement, as described in the book ‘The Roman Army – The Greatest War Machine in the Ancient World’, edited by Chris McNab. Even though Hannibal had this and other victories in the Second Punic War he never tried to invade Rome itself, which gave the Romans time to regather their forces and repel the Carthaginians and defeat them.

The Gallic War, 58-51BC, was originally about repelling a threat to Rome but later campaigns were about improving Julius Caesars reputation. It started because the Helvetti were on the move to southern Gaul near Roman territory. Caesar was the governor of the Roman territories in Gaul. Caesar saw this as an opportunity to gain land and to improve his reputation. So, he campaigned every year to conquer more of Gaul, The later campaigns were more about increasing Caesars reputation than actual capture of land as quoted in book ‘The Roman Army – The Greatest War Machine in the Ancient World’ edited by Chris McNab. P108 The two campaigns in 55BC were dictated by events in Rome rather than by requirement s in Gaul, two of his allies and political rivals Pompey and Crassus were in Rome and could get publicity, so Caesar had to do something to keep him in the lime light by being the first Roman to lead an army across the Rhine and over the ocean to Britain.

As a result of Caesars successful campaigns in Gaul his reputation in Rome had increased. His major political rival and former ally Pompey had convinced the Senate to order Caesar to disband his army and return to Rome. This would have effectively ended Caesars political career. So, instead of doing this he marched on Rome with one legion this started Caesars Civil War 49-45BC. Caesar drove Pompey out of Rome into Egypt where he was killed by an Egyptian King. As a result of the war Caesar became dictator of Rome from 49-44BC until his assassination. This war marked the beginning of the Roman Empire and the end of Rome as a Republic as discussed in the book ’The Romans from Village to Empire’ by Boatwrithg, Gargol and Talbert.

During Romes history it had many wars for different reasons. Most of these wars were a victory for Rome. Whether it be in gaining land or territory, removing threats or increasing someone’s reputation as well as internal conflicts the Roman Army’s military prowess and organization was one of the main reasons the Roman Kingdoms/Republic/Empire endured for over 1,000 years. It is also noted that there was no military force as large as the Roman Army for more than 1,000 years after the eventual fall of the Empire.