Audio
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,411
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
I think that indeed the Romans were a force to be reckoned with, but they had their weaknesses. For example, a sustained arrow barrage from all sides (such as the Parthian tactic) would eventually reduce the Roman formation one by one.
Turtle formation and advance? Throw in a ballista with a pot of burning tar attached to the arrow for good measure! Has an incendiary effect when it hits.
Anyhow, i suppose you are refering to: Battle_of_Carrhae, didn't do them much good in the long run though.
Also, the Romans, as they were trained to fight together, had a weakness in single combat. So if an enemy formation could pound the legionary formation to nothing, then the Romans could be quickly overpowered.
Quite doubt that. They were proffesional soldiers. Ten years of experience is a lot. You'll appreciate that later in life.
They also did not grasp the idea of cavalry for the legions. They had good axillary cavalry for the axillary cohorts, but for a long time the Roman legion had only 120 cavalry, most who were just used as scouts. this proved to be a big mistake sometimes.
This is a good point indeed, one possibility is they did not need a good cavalry. They fought in infantry formations covered by "artillery" and archers. Iirc each infantryman also had a light javelin or two to throw before they charged.
Later, in the time of the eastern kingdom they took the armored horse concept from the Sassanids iirc.
So yes, the Romans were good, but they were not the best of the best, meaning they had their weaknesses.
Everyone has weaknesses....i wasn't debating who is best, just laying out some points.