Why was the Roman military/infantry so successful?

Question

I am doing an essay/ 10 minute presentation on the topic... any help would be appreciated. I think i may focus on the infantry aspect more than anything else.

Answer 1

better numbers

better training

better equipment

Answer 2

This is a good question, but one that can't be answered easily.

Others would give you standard answers such as:

1) their discipline (they fought tightly, in regimented units, obeyed orders under pain of death, and followed routines to the letter day in and day out so that the army accomplished all tasks like clockwork)

2) their training (extremely rigorous and thorough, made them very tough mentally and physically as well as familiar with their weapons and armor)

3) the fact that it was made of professional fighters (after the reforms of Marius, the army was composed of lifelong soldiers, not merely of citizens called up in time of need like so many other ancient peoples)

4) their willingness to adopt new techniques, weapons, and armor into their style of warfare if they found something to be superior to what they were doing (for example the addition of horsemen and ranged attackers, composed mostly of conquered peoples, or the addition of the famous legionary sword the gladius, which was taken from the Spaniards)

Those are just a few valid examples.

But I'll give you a non standard answer that is, in my opinion, more interesting and more correct than those other answers: they never gave up (at least in their prime).  And by this, please understand this point very well- I don't mean "they didn't retreat" or "they didn't lose" battles.  They certainly did both, many times.  What I mean is that even after retreating, even after losing (sometimes horrifically) they would always come back for more, until they won.  Their persistence (and perhaps this is more a commentary on the state than the military itself) enabled them to win against superior enemies, superior numbers, and against bad luck and bad timing.

In many cases in the ancient world, if two armies were in conflict, they would fight, and the winner would take control and the loser would go home.  War over.  So it was baffling then to a Roman enemy to win a battle convincingly, think they had won the war, and then a month later have a new, fresh Roman army on their doorstep with a new commander in charge.

Remember the example of Pyrrhus, a Greek king, who fought against the Romans in southern Italy and at least twice beat the Romans in battle- yet they kept coming back.  Even though he was a superior general and his forces were superior to the Romans, eventually he had to leave in defeat, because the Romans wore him down until he had no more men to fight with.  Here's more on that if you're interested.

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

I hope this helped.

Answer 3

the roman military was very successful because they had high tack sandals

Answer 4

The Roman military incorporated the people they conquered into their Infantry by offering them great incentives that motivated them to fight on the Front lines !

Answer 5

discipline, organisation and superior weapons

Answer 6

With the exception of the Persians (modern day Iran) and the Germaniums (modern day Germany), the Romans knew how to defeat an enemy. Everything from bribing a few enemy troops to kill their leader, to sieging a city (camping outside a city while the inhabitants were starved into submission), to wielding logistically the most enormous armies the world has ever seen.

After an enemy was conquered, the Romans knew how to do dominate and could impose the right amount punishment or reward to serve as a warning to other potential enemies.

For  example:

Was there much resistance in the previous battle? If so, every third man over 21 would be decapitated, the women and children would be sold off as slaves. If there was no resistance in the previous battle,  the conquered people surrendered immediately, accepted all the conditions of being defeated, the Romans would sometimes leave them be, as long as they paid their taxes.

To prevent an uprising in a town, they might recruit a quarter of the population into the military, take a  quarter as slaves and import people from other previously conquered towns.

The defeated were also recruited into the ranks of the Roman army with the promise that after 20 years of service they would be allowed Roman citizenship. Generally, they were used in the front ranks.

The army wasn't always successful and suffered their share of defeats when they were allowed to become lazy and that depended on the General in charge.

I'll conclude by saying that the Roman military was so successful because of the the Generals. (You'll have to google search them on your own: Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus, Julius Ceasar, Augustus, Pompey and Titus to name a few). Without their eye for tactics and strategy, the military would be nothing.

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

Fierce love of country.  Pride in heritage. Strong leadership and disciplined approach to warfare.

Answer 9

Roman military/infantry was successful only in Europe and the Middle East, but were outclassed when in contact with Han forces.

Battle of Sogdiana 36 BC

Han expedition into central Asia, west of the Jaxartes River, apparently encountered and defeated a contingent of Roman legionaries. The Romans may have been the enslaved remnants of Crassus' army, defeated by the Parthians and forced to fight on their eastern frontier. Sogdiana (modern Bukhara), east of the Oxus River, on the Polytimetus River, was apparently the most easterly penetration ever made by Roman forces in Asia. The margin of Chinese victory appears to have been their crossbows, whose bolts and darts seem easily to have penetrated Roman shields and armor.

The fact remains that Romans knew of the great power in the East, and had traded with China.  And by the 5th century, the economy of the Roman Empire was bankrupted, and the Empire went into decline.  **Early Chinese historians referred to Roman Empire as vast but having WEAK armies!

By the 14th century, Roman Byzantine Empire had fallen to the Ottoman Turks.  But Sultan Bayezid l, was defeated by  Timur the Great (descendant of Mongol Khan), and was captured.  The Mongol Empire had stretched 4 times the Roman Empire at its height (and is considered as the largest continuous Empire).  Just to consider how strong the Mongols were, it took them 6 years from 1236 to 1242 CE to totally annihilate Russia and destroyed Hungary.  And the good thing about the Ottoman being defeated was that it saved vast parts of Europe from the Ottoman.  Therefore, in comparing the relative strengths, Ottoman was stronger than the Roman Empire, but even the Mongol Hordes defeated the Ottoman at their prime.  Last, but not least, the Chinese Ming armies was the strongest in subjugating the Mongols, thereby driving them to live in the poverty of Mongolia to this day.