That is Byzantium we are talking Rome, there is a difference.The Byzantines understood this, and employed horse archers and other light cavalry (as well as heavy cavalry) frequently.
That is Byzantium we are talking Rome, there is a difference.The Byzantines understood this, and employed horse archers and other light cavalry (as well as heavy cavalry) frequently.
Byzantium is just another stage of Imperial Roman history, like the Principate or the Dominate.That is Byzantium we are talking Rome, there is a difference.
True but Rome, ancient Rome, the Rome we are talking about here, one that is expanding, got its ass handed to them by mounted archers. It took centuries for them to be able to learn from those disasters.Byzantium is just another stage of Imperial Roman history, like the Principate or the Dominate.
Byzantium is just another stage of Imperial Roman history, like the Principate or the Dominate.
I disagree, since the city of Anshan was able to conquer the entire Middle East, and some obscure village near Veii was able to conquer the entire Mediterranean.Byzantium even conquering France or Mesopotamia, let alone Germania or all of Persia, is ASB, so it's a moot point.
I disagree, since the city of Anshan was able to conquer the entire Middle East, and some obscure village near Veii was able to conquer the entire Mediterranean.
But nonetheless, my point wasn't that Byzantium could reconquer the former territories of the Principate. What I meant is that the Romans as a civilization were certainly capable of learning how to deal with horse archers. The late Dominate and Byzantine period prove it.
If the Roman Empire survives in one united piece instead of splitting apart, they will still eventually learn to employ horse archers, as well as how to counter them, through centuries of experience and evolution.
The Principate though was probably unable to adopt a proper cavalry army, it just clashed with their ideology. But there's more to Rome than the Principate.
Germanicus already employed horse-archers against the Cherusci (Tacitus' Annals Book II Chapter XVI).I'm not so sure about that. Byzantium suffered so much against the Sassanids that it was either die or try, there was nothing but to learn how to effectively employ and counter horse archers. A stronger Rome spanning most of Europe, dealing with more far flung enemies but with more troops at their disposal, as well as better borders, in the east doesn't really have to learn.
Rome massively changed his military system in his lifetime, more than 1 time. So actually there is no difference. Rome can change its system.That is Byzantium we are talking Rome, there is a difference.
true. I am of the understanding that early Rome did not do well with mounted archers. I am maybe wrong.Rome massively changed his military system in his lifetime, more than 1 time. So actually there is no difference. Rome can change its system.
Um, no. The Romans learned from Carrhae very quickly. Publius Ventidius already had reformed the Roman army in the east to better combat the Parthian tactics when the Parthians invaded in the late 40s BCE. Predictably, he annihilated the Parthian armies. With the exception of Marc Antony (who's botched campaign is due to his own failures as a commander more than anything else), the Romans pretty much ran the table with the Parthians militarily all the way up until the Parthians collapsed.True but Rome, ancient Rome, the Rome we are talking about here, one that is expanding, got its ass handed to them by mounted archers. It took centuries for them to be able to learn from those disasters.
Like I said previously I was under the impression that they did poorly with mounted archers, I admit I maybe wrong.Um, no. The Romans learned from Carrhae very quickly. Publius Ventidius already had reformed the Roman army in the east to better combat the Parthian tactics when the Parthians invaded in the late 40s BCE. Predictably, he annihilated the Parthian armies. With the exception of Marc Antony (who's botched campaign is due to his own failures as a commander more than anything else), the Romans pretty much ran the table with the Parthians militarily all the way up until the Parthians collapsed.
That's a bad example. The Roman legions of the pre Marian era were levies who didn't have much experience or unit cohesion when they began a campaign. That's why the Romans almost always lost their first battle or two in a war during the early and mid republic.To be fair Rome did take its time to get used to Hannibal´s tactics, getting routed for many battles, losing nearly everything before copying him. But Rome´s lifetime has many example of them being better at that.
No Teutoburg Forest Julio-Claudians have greater success and interest?
Longer lives and more successful Marcus Aurelius:
"The campaigning season of 175 brought a renewed assault on the Sarmatians. Marcus was now determined to make their territory and that of the Macromanni and Quadi into a province. He is in fact credited with the wish to exterminate the Sarmatians utterly. It is not quite clear how literally this statement should be taken. But the territory of the Marcomanni was already partially occupied by the African legion III Augusta and it may well be that Julius Pompilius Piso was occupying parts of the Sarmatian lands. But the campaign can barely have been under way when, in early spring, news was brought that Avidius Cassius had raised the standard of rebellion and had been recognized as emperor in most of the eastern provinces. "
Marcus Aurelius by Anthony Birley
Marcus Aurelius as a great conqueror... noooo... he suffered all his life fighting unruly barbarians in disastrous climate... protecting his empire... Including these undisciplined rascals who needed a constant watch over them into the Empire to border even more unruly barbarians living in even shittier climate? Spending imperial fortunes on that... With little hope of profit except for dubious glory...
What for?
First of all, the Romans had to leave it...
First of all, the Romans had to leave it...
So that's not the perfect counterargument I guess.
And that is exactly the answer why it's never a good idea conquering shitty places
But comparing to Marcomanni; Britain was very(!) rich in tin and at least for a few centuries it payed for itself, the climate (for agriculture) was much better because of Gulf Stream (that's important). And last but not least Britain was the center of Celtic Druid resistance against Roman influence - protecting Gaullia (the real gem of the Roman Empire) begged for crushing this druid wasps nest.
So sorry, bad example.
That wasn't a counterargument it was, just like you said, a argument to why conquering shitty places isn't a good idea.
Oh, I see, I see, I got it.
But, first, Britain is much, much(!) less shitty place than Marcomannii, Sarmatian places.
Britain is an island, and if totally conquedered (which was almost done several times) it would have stayed a diamond in a crown of the Roman Empire. (Which, I guess, was the initial idea).
The main reason for invading Britain was to give Claudius a triumph. As the Romans had not been stuffed there in the last fifty years I guess that it was chosen as a soft option that was easy to reach. That it might also be valuable was secondaryOh, I see, I see, I got it.
But, first, Britain is much, much(!) less shitty place than Marcomannii, Sarmatian places.
Britain is an island, and if totally conquedered (which was almost done several times) it would have stayed a diamond in a crown of the Roman Empire. (Which, I guess, was the initial idea).