Why is the Roman Legion generally seen as superior to their opponents in every way?

"Forget logistics, you lose."
- Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980

"I am tempted to make a slightly exaggerated statement: that logistics is all of war-making, except shooting the guns, releasing the bombs, and firing the torpedoes."
- ADM Lynde D. McCormick, USN

"Because of my wartime experience, I am insistent on the point that logistics know-how must be maintained, that logistic is second to nothing in importance in warfare, that logistic training must be widespread and thorough..."
- VADM Robert B. Carney, USN

"There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war."
- Maj. Gen. Carl von Clausewitz

"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…"
- Sun Tzu

"My logisticians are a humorless lot ... they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
- Alexander III of Macedon, Lord of Asia
Logistics is the opium of the masses.
 
The problem with Livy and indeed innumerable historians up to the present day and quite likely well into the future is that he is looking to prove there is a moral explanation for Roman superiority. If he had paid more attention to the "unwearied cultivation of the other arts of war" he would have also found likewise found many explanations for Roman success. The Romans had developed a system that spread the burden of maintaining that system among many persons so that in fact it was not a matter of unwearing toil on the part of a dedicated few to maintain vast reserves of military manpower.

This is not to say that the typical Roman legionary did not work hard be he the professional of the late Republic and the Principate or the levied citizen of the early and mid-Republic. The Romans had devised their military system to encourage men to compete for notice for their courage and discipline and value not only their own hard work and self control but those around them. Common soldiers messed together in familiar units based on the men who shared a tent the contubernal, forging bonds so strong the word become synonymous with relationships as close as family. The higher ranks we also singled out for praise and attention with the tribunes and above kept very aware that only a solid performance as soldiers would enable them to advance their political careers and below the tribunes the centurions provided both the professional backbone of the army and a path to social advancement.

The legion was not a perfect instrument of war, there is no such thing but it was a very effective instrument for channelling the energies of the state onto the battlefield. Further behind it stood a powerful system of recruitment, equipment and supply (that oft mentioned logistics) which meant that the Roman state was dependent on no one or even several legions, should a legion fail, even should it fall in its entirety it could be replaced. However having built the means to effectively harness their strengths on the battlefield the Romans found they were not reliant on having better generals as more junior officers could exploit opportunities as they arose as happened at Cynoscephalae or even reliant on victory as mentioned above the Romans had this tendency to simply raise new legions and carry on the fight.

The point is the Roman legion is seen as a good model for a military unit as it proved itself in many varied situations. Behind the Roman legion stood the Roman state which had a robustness few of its competitors could match and with the Roman legion as a delivery mechanism for its power its advantages were magnified.

You may note I tend to favour systemic causes over moral ones in my reading of history ;)
Basically this. The underlying reason for roman success seems to be that the social, economic, and political systems and institutions we're flexible and robust enough to allow the Romans to make better use of their resources as well as survive and adapt to overcome problems better than other nations. I rather like a lot of eckstien's work on analyzing Rome, it's a big problem with a lot of roman historians like Livy or Tacitus to use their works mainly to preach political views rather than present accurate information.
 

Griffith

Banned
Basically this. The underlying reason for roman success seems to be that the social, economic, and political systems and institutions we're flexible and robust enough to allow the Romans to make better use of their resources as well as survive and adapt to overcome problems better than other nations. I rather like a lot of eckstien's work on analyzing Rome, it's a big problem with a lot of roman historians like Livy or Tacitus to use their works mainly to preach political views rather than present accurate information.

Thing is Livy's statements are all accurate. Once you start analyzing the campaigns, you realize jsut how FUCKING STUPID Roman commanders often were in the African conquests (which Livy concedes). On top of that Roman history is full of tales in which they hired Greek expeerts including officers and engineers because the Roman state was quite underdeveloped in tactics, science, and other stuff.

Even on a tactical basis, as seen in the wars against the Sassinids, the Romans shown quite slowneess and difficulty in adapting.

Did I mention how not just Roman historians, but even Roman politicians, military officials, and even educated commoners had wrote about all the underlying problems in the Roman system such as mutinies and corruption within the legions?

We're not even getting into how the Romans sucked ass (depending on the time period) on specific elements such as how their cavalry was quite weak pre-Marius reforms and how Roman militia (post-Marius reforms) was generally so terrible even the individualist disorgnized barbarian warriors can easily wipe them out-nevermind warriors, Spartacus's slave revolt kicked Roman militia's in the rear for nearly a year.

.All this is generality's but should prove a point about how Roman legions even at their height was not the all-dominating army with the best cavalry, best javelineers, best archers, etc and often suffered idiotic defeats. Nevermind the various periods when they were in decline or were just rising beyond a city state 9in which even their legendary heavy infantry was far inferior to their opponents.

As seen in how Barbarian infantry outperformed Romans in Chalons against Atilla or how at how Allia Roman infantry immediately collapsed from formation and fled in terror simply because Gauls were yelling out loud in a frenzy.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
That is nitpicking.

You are searching for problem that Roman have. Sure Roman sometime show tactical stupidity, difficulty adapting new technology, mutiny, corruption, etc. But their ENEMIES also have some problem.

Carthage had revolt of Mamertines for example. If you search on stupidity and incompetence on Roman enemies you would find them too, numerous one. From Carthage reliance of Mercenary, Gauls lack of unity, lack on good infantry on Parthia, failure of Egypt to have good cavalry, Gauls lack of siege engineer, etc.

If you must make comparison, make it one to one : Roman vs Ptolemaic Egypt, Roman vs Parthia, etc. what each of them have advantages and disadvantages, etc. don't make comparison of Roman vs Rome's enemies. There is no such unified entity as Rome's enemies, and Rome fighting their enemies one (or two or three) at same time for several centuries.
 
Thing is Livy's statements are all accurate. Once you start analyzing the campaigns, you realize jsut how FUCKING STUPID Roman commanders often were in the African conquests (which Livy concedes). On top of that Roman history is full of tales in which they hired Greek expeerts including officers and engineers because the Roman state was quite underdeveloped in tactics, science, and other stuff.

Thing is you can't accept them as fully accurate given that Livius History of Rome is almost completely lost and most historians tend to take his words with a pint of salt. Also you are ignoring that during the Second Punic War, the part that we have on the History of Rome is about this one, their record in Africa and Hispania was good.

The Romans were underdeveloped in tactics? Considering their track record of victories in open battle I dare say that they were quite good on that.

Even on a tactical basis, as seen in the wars against the Sassinids, the Romans shown quite slowneess and difficulty in adapting.

You keep referring the Sassanids and yet the record is mixed on those wars. Also you keep ignoring that the Roman Empire was fighting all over the borders and were also usually trying to avoid civil wars. Also what slowness and difficulty in adapting? Are you purposely ignoring the evolution of the roman tactics and gear during the Crisis of the Third century and the decline of discipline?

Did I mention how not just Roman historians, but even Roman politicians, military officials, and even educated commoners had wrote about all the underlying problems in the Roman system such as mutinies and corruption within the legions?

Give me one example of a state in that era that didn't suffered from mutinies and corruption.

We're not even getting into how the Romans sucked ass (depending on the time period) on specific elements such as how their cavalry was quite weak pre-Marius reforms and how Roman militia (post-Marius reforms) was generally so terrible even the individualist disorgnized barbarian warriors can easily wipe them out-nevermind warriors, Spartacus's slave revolt kicked Roman militia's in the rear for nearly a year.

I'm loosing hope here. Rome never cared much about cavalry because cavalry was usually just for scouting and harassing the enemy in open battle infantry was what decided the war.

Both pre and post Marius have a very good record of victories against several enemies in very different situations so claiming that they were terrible is a overstatement to say the least.

.All this is generality's but should prove a point about how Roman legions even at their height was not the all-dominating army with the best cavalry, best javelineers, best archers, etc and often suffered idiotic defeats. Nevermind the various periods when they were in decline or were just rising beyond a city state 9in which even their legendary heavy infantry was far inferior to their opponents.

As seen in how Barbarian infantry outperformed Romans in Chalons against Atilla or how at how Allia Roman infantry immediately collapsed from formation and fled in terror simply because Gauls were yelling out loud in a frenzy.

You just compared 4th BC infantry to 5th AD infantry...

You seem not to understand the roman army at any point in history. Rome didn't cared about being the best in something, they wanted a good army, not the best just a good one, that could work in several different situations. Just because pop culture thinks that Rome had the perfect army, who doesn't loves when they put segmentata in guys from the 5th century?; doesn't means that that is true but neither that means that they were idiots that drank bleach and that conquered an Empire thanks to "reasons".
 
I think chance and a kind of snowball effect can get you part of the way there. Roman domination of Italy wasn't inevitable, but once they got there, they had enough resources and margin of error to conquer regions around the Mediterranean piecemeal. At the start of the Punic Wars, they had most of Italy, and when they completely defeated Carthage in the 2nd Punic War, they got all the Western Mediterranean, while the Eastern Mediterranean was divided between at least three major powers. Like, if the Macedonians were more committed as co-belligerents with Hannibal, or Claudius Nero didn't capture Hasdrubal's messengers with their plans (whose guides later betrayed him), and Rome was reduced to a regional power in Latinum, I don't think people would be speculating about the invincibility of the Roman legion today.

I will say, one of the advantages the Republican citizen army had compared to the classical Greeks was a cultural willingness to submit to military discipline; the Greeks fiercely resented such attempts, so they were often beaten by powers with better disciplined armies, like the Persians in the Ionian revolt, the Spartans (as the exception to Greek resistance to military discipline), the Macedonians, and the Romans.
 

longsword14

Banned
I think chance and a kind of snowball effect can get you part of the way there. Roman domination of Italy wasn't inevitable, but once they got there, they had enough resources and margin of error to conquer regions around the Mediterranean piecemeal. At the start of the Punic Wars, they had most of Italy, and when they completely defeated Carthage in the 2nd Punic War, they got all the Western Mediterranean, while the Eastern Mediterranean was divided between at least three major powers. Like, if the Macedonians were more committed as co-belligerents with Hannibal, or Claudius Nero didn't capture Hasdrubal's messengers with their plans (whose guides later betrayed him), and Rome was reduced to a regional power in Latinum, I don't think people would be speculating about the invincibility of the Roman legion today.

I will say, one of the advantages the Republican citizen army had compared to the classical Greeks was a cultural willingness to submit to military discipline; the Greeks fiercely resented such attempts, so they were often beaten by powers with better disciplined armies, like the Persians in the Ionian revolt, the Spartans (as the exception to Greek resistance to military discipline), the Macedonians, and the Romans.
What exactly do you mean by 'discipline'? 'Discipline' in those days I have read was not quite what people today would imagine.
 
Willingness to be trained in formation drill, to obey rules for their own sake, and to accept punishment for breaking them. Roman citizens allowed themselves to be publicly whipped for infractions, which just would not fly in most Classical Greek armies.
 
There is some good things in having a well trained professional army that focuses on formation and reserve troops. Especially when most of the rest of the forces sent against you were either conscripted peasants being forced to fight or a bunch of raiders raised to idealize personal glory over group tactics.
 
T
Did I mention how not just Roman historians, but even Roman politicians, military officials, and even educated commoners had wrote about all the underlying problems in the Roman system such as mutinies and corruption within the legions?

Yup and that is another reason for Roman strength, they were always asking themselves questions like "What is wrong? What can go wrong and what can we fix?"

Acknowledging problems does not make them worse, ignoring them does. Of course some people were wrong in their criticisms but that they made them showed the Romans were thinking about the issue and evolving their thinking. The Roman legion showed it was able to adapt to a wide variety of issues for at least six centuries, a period beyond the span of most empires. When it was no longer a good fit for Roman resources the Romans moved on. However it is worth noting that when people tried to find a good fit for gunpowder warfare the model that was resurrected and won out over all the others was the regimental variant of the legionary system, a model that still serves today.

Once again there is no such thing as perfect but the legionary model of a fighting unit has proven remarkably robust and adaptable.
 
Thing is Livy's statements are all accurate. Once you start analyzing the campaigns, you realize jsut how FUCKING STUPID Roman commanders often were in the African conquests (which Livy concedes). On top of that Roman history is full of tales in which they hired Greek expeerts including officers and engineers because the Roman state was quite underdeveloped in tactics, science, and other stuff.

Even on a tactical basis, as seen in the wars against the Sassinids, the Romans shown quite slowneess and difficulty in adapting.

Did I mention how not just Roman historians, but even Roman politicians, military officials, and even educated commoners had wrote about all the underlying problems in the Roman system such as mutinies and corruption within the legions?

We're not even getting into how the Romans sucked ass (depending on the time period) on specific elements such as how their cavalry was quite weak pre-Marius reforms and how Roman militia (post-Marius reforms) was generally so terrible even the individualist disorgnized barbarian warriors can easily wipe them out-nevermind warriors, Spartacus's slave revolt kicked Roman militia's in the rear for nearly a year.

.All this is generality's but should prove a point about how Roman legions even at their height was not the all-dominating army with the best cavalry, best javelineers, best archers, etc and often suffered idiotic defeats. Nevermind the various periods when they were in decline or were just rising beyond a city state 9in which even their legendary heavy infantry was far inferior to their opponents.

As seen in how Barbarian infantry outperformed Romans in Chalons against Atilla or how at how Allia Roman infantry immediately collapsed from formation and fled in terror simply because Gauls were yelling out loud in a frenzy.
First off, we actually can't say that Livy's statements are all accurate, that's just basic historical professionalism and nitpicking. And yes you did get a lot of stupid Roman commanders and and losses and the Roman legions were not perfect and always lacking in someplace or another, though that sort of thing was true for everybody so they weren't necessarily worse off in that regard. But the mechanism of the Roman state itself were the true heart of the strength of rome. Take the second Punic war for example, Hannibal was one of the greatest military leaders to ever live and Rome beat him and not because they got lucky. Hannibal smashed Roman army after army but despite that he lost because even though the Roman army was inferior the Roman state was strong, they could survive such loss after loss, long enough to turn their army around and reform their strategy to one more able to combat hannibal, and they did it with barely any of their allies defecting to Carthage despite those allies themselves being threatened and Rome helpless to help them as well as suffering losses that would ruin any other nations at the time. Rome could lose battles but win wars and often did and though the army did have flaws the Romans would eventually correct those flaws and turn the tide around.
 
Top