Late Republic or Augustus Principate Roman Army

[Corinthian]

Another what-if...

 

IIRC, we had a thread (or threads) on ancient soldiers v ancient soldiers (even having a thread on ancient soldiers v modern ones). I lost track of that discussion, so pardon me posting the current one.

 

If one could mix up history and pitted out the Roman Army of the Late Republic or Augustus Principate against a medieval army (e.g. Crusading armies, hundred years war armies, etc) or even just the Roman Army in its Late Roman Empire (Byzantine) form, who has the edge? Would the earlier Roman Army destroy the latter or will it falter? Assume that the generals of both timelines led their respective armies (i.e., Caesar or Pompey leading the older army, v Belisaurus leading the Late Roman Empire army). Assume also that each army is equipped with the same weaponry/technology they had in their respective timelines.

[CT96]

Assume also that each army is equipped with the same weaponry/technology they had in their respective timelines.

 

 

I think I have to give the edge to the Technology. Training, Discipline, expirence count for a great deal, but there is more technological improvement than is often given credit for between the Roman and Medieval period. If all other variables factor out, I give the edge to the side with more advanced technology. Certainly not a foregone conclusion.

[Guest aevans]

The later army would have an operational scouting advantage, due to its cavalry superiority. It would also have a tactical maneuvering advantage, due to that same cavalry superiorty. (And a really late Eastern army would have stirrups for its cavalry, which would be confer an even bigger tactical advantage, or so the theory goes.) In a straight up frontal fight with secure flanks and no operational need to attack, the earlier army might have a decent chance of resisting the later army's cavalry. But if the later army turned its operational advantage in cavalry to constraining the earlier army's options to the point that it had to attack in a tactical encounter, then the later army ought to be able to use that same cavalry advantage to defeat the earlier army, in much the same way that Hannibal used his cavalry advantage in Italy on several occasions.

[mnm]

What kind of a question is this? Get your butt off the deskchair, paint yourself an army and go test your theories with the other wargamers. That's what wargames are for, shooting theories down and guzzling beer

[Guest aevans]

What kind of a question is this? Get your butt off the deskchair, paint yourself an army and go test your theories with the other wargamers. That's what wargames are for, shooting theories down and guzzling beer

 

Except that the normalizations used in the most popular wargames rules are designed to make cross-period competitions at conventions possible, not solve serious questions. Just ask anyone who's been faced with the "venetian blind" militia spearmen that mask the advance of a barbarian horde until it's convenient to let the obligatory warbands...los! charge run its course.

Edited September 10, 2007 by aevans

[Corinthian]

What kind of a question is this? Get your butt off the deskchair, paint yourself an army and go test your theories with the other wargamers. That's what wargames are for, shooting theories down and guzzling beer

 

Uh... thanks, but I don't like to pretend to be a know-it-all wargamer like you.

[Hans Engstrom]

Hmm, the Principate army is going to be significantly larger than it's Byzantine counterpart.

[Heirophant]

Uh... thanks, but I don't like to pretend to be a know-it-all wargamer like you.

 

 

TomasCTT: Relax, dude. It was prolly said in jest. What's with the rolleyes emoticon?

 

Mnm: There are people out there into war but who don't wargame.

[Sardaukar]

Hmm, the Principate army is going to be significantly larger than it's Byzantine counterpart.

 

Even multiple times, indeed.

[Sardaukar]

Problem with comparison is that Late Republic/Principate army is going to be mainly heavy infantry army with supporting cavalry/light infantry elements. And Late Roman army would be Heavy Cavalry/Light Cavalry with supporting infantry elements. So outcome of engagemet would depend a lot of terrain and circumstances.

 

And Principate army could and would be multiple times larger than Byzantine force. If we take Belisarius, for example, he took with him 15 000 men to beat Vandals in North Africa. While Caesar initially landed there with six legions, later more..and Metellus Scipio had no less than 10 legions to oppose him plus auxiliaries and cavalry...

 

I'd say that to have real comparison, one would have to take into account that in major decisive engagement, Principate army would be 3-4 times larger than Late Roman. It's often forgotten how very small the forces used in battles of Late Roman period were.

[Exel]

I think I have to give the edge to the Technology. Training, Discipline, expirence count for a great deal, but there is more technological improvement than is often given credit for between the Roman and Medieval period.

 

What would be the most major technological developments there? Sturdier armor and weapons?

 

How much different is a Late Roman army technology-wise from an Augustinian army?

[Sardaukar]

What would be the most major technological developments there? Sturdier armor and weapons?

 

How much different is a Late Roman army technology-wise from an Augustinian army?

 

Not much. Composition and tactics are the difference. And training/discipline/organization-wise, or with numbers, most armies until modern time, were way worse compared to Principate army.

 

Belisarius would probaly been able to defeat similarly sized Principate army. Problem is that he'd face 3-4 times troops he had, with bulk of them being way more disciplined than what he commanded.

[Corinthian]

Problem with comparison is that Late Republic/Principate army is going to be mainly heavy infantry army with supporting cavalry/light infantry elements. And Late Roman army would be Heavy Cavalry/Light Cavalry with supporting infantry elements. So outcome of engagemet would depend a lot of terrain and circumstances.

 

And Principate army could and would be multiple times larger than Byzantine force. If we take Belisarius, for example, he took with him 15 000 men to beat Vandals in North Africa. While Caesar initially landed there with six legions, later more..and Metellus Scipio had no less than 10 legions to oppose him plus auxiliaries and cavalry...

 

I'd say that to have real comparison, one would have to take into account that in major decisive engagement, Principate army would be 3-4 times larger than Late Roman. It's often forgotten how very small the forces used in battles of Late Roman period were.

 

In "In the Name of Rome," this was mentioned as well (although the size of the armies were mentioned in relation to the quality/style of leadership/generalship). The "reconquest" of the Western Empire by Belisarius was done with much fewer forces compared with Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, and IIRC it was implied that despite the small force, Belisarius had discipline problems with his army. Caesar and generals of his ilk were far more capable in leading larger armies. I wonder if, pitting the two armies against each other, would the quality of leadership of the Late Republic/Principate Army still be more than a match against the heavy cavalry-centric forces of a Late Empire army?

 

I recall reading in the book that Caesar faced barbarian armies that had a lot more cavalry than his German horse auxiliaries and yet still prevail because his auxiliary cavalry was better trained. I wonder if, faced with an assault of more numerous cataphracts, a Late Republic/Principate army can hold its ground, enabling its light cavalry to outmaneuver/outfight the heavy cavalry like what happened in the Gallic wars?

[Sardaukar]

In "In the Name of Rome," this was mentioned as well (although the size of the armies were mentioned in relation to the quality/style of leadership/generalship). The "reconquest" of the Western Empire by Belisarius was done with much fewer forces compared with Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, and IIRC it was implied that despite the small force, Belisarius had discipline problems with his army. Caesar and generals of his ilk were far more capable in leading larger armies. I wonder if, pitting the two armies against each other, would the quality of leadership of the Late Republic/Principate Army still be more than a match against the heavy cavalry-centric forces of a Late Empire army?

 

I recall reading in the book that Caesar faced barbarian armies that had a lot more cavalry than his German horse auxiliaries and yet still prevail because his auxiliary cavalry was better trained. I wonder if, faced with an assault of more numerous cataphracts, a Late Republic/Principate army can hold its ground, enabling its light cavalry to outmaneuver/outfight the heavy cavalry like what happened in the Gallic wars?

 

Problem for Late Republic/Principate army would be that it's cavalry could indeed be inferior to Late Roman cavalry because lacking native (Roman) cavalry units and having to resort to auxiliary/allied units. But then, Byzantine or Late Roman forces were not necessarily "native" either and had even more disciplinary problems.

 

"In the name of Rome" is very good book and tackles with many issues discussed in this topic. Reconquist of West by Belisarius and Narses was done with quite small mobile forces. But then, opposition was quite similar..so it would be very difficult to compare if Belisarius would be able to do something like conquest of Gaul as Caesar did...with small force like that.

[mnm]

Uh... thanks, but I don't like to pretend to be a know-it-all wargamer like you.

And where do you derive the implication that I am a know-it-all?

 

Mnm: There are people out there into war but who don't wargame.

 

Certainly, but the ones with direct experience in the period in this grate sight would only be Dwight Pruitt or King Sargent, everyone else, like me will speak out of second hand knowledge.

 

Except that the normalizations used in the most popular wargames rules are designed to make cross-period competitions at conventions possible, not solve serious questions. Just ask anyone who's been faced with the "venetian blind" militia spearmen that mask the advance of a barbarian horde until it's convenient to let the obligatory warbands...los! charge run its course.

Do I detect a traumatic experience here?

 

A wargame is supposed to be a simulation of a military simulation, be it at tactical, operational, strategic, or even political level. If as Aevans rightly says it becomes distorted to fit into a competition scheme all I can say is that there are a large number of wargame suystems in the open market of varying degrees of seriousness, just pick the right one.

 

Wargames have a place in the Tank Net, as fas as I know there's even a Gamer's Forum in the Discussion forums. And if I may quote the front page of this forum,

Whether your background is military or not, whether armor or not, all it takes to participate, enjoy and learn at TankNet is a sincere interest in the subject of military organization, history or technology.

 

The matchup proposed would in my view be a great object for a wargame (under this or that system), same as some other attempts at alternate history that crop in this forum once in a while. Why waste words speculating on what might or might not have been when you could have a great time pushing figures or card bits with a bunch of fellows sharing the same tastes? Much nicer, eh?

[Guest aevans]

Do I detect a traumatic experience here?

 

Nope, I'm gay (1). I was just pointing out that any system of supposed rules for simulation that appeals to a large enough audience to actually be used tends to be susceptible to ridiculous rules lawyering and is not much of an investigative tool.

 

1. In the system of rules in question (the most popular competition system), warbands don't stand much of a chance against pikes with secure flanks. Which is a fair enough and arguably historical result, and certainly no trauma for me, since I was the guy with Late Macedonian phalangites. The approach of the opponent, which was to hide his warbands behind a line of spears, to keep the warbands from an uncontrollable charge until he was ready, was a typical and popular play on the idiosyncracies of the rules. But it was so ahistorical that it was almost painful for a serious student of history to watch.

 

A wargame is supposed to be a simulation of a military simulation, be it at tactical, operational, strategic, or even political level. If as Aevans rightly says it becomes distorted to fit into a competition scheme all I can say is that there are a large number of wargame suystems in the open market of varying degrees of seriousness, just pick the right one.

None of them that purport to equalize between periods, so that an enjoyable "simulation" can be played, are designed to serve as an even semi-accurate analysis tool.

 

The matchup proposed would in my view be a great object for a wargame (under this or that system), same as some other attempts at alternate history that crop in this forum once in a while. Why waste words speculating on what might or might not have been when you could have a great time pushing figures or card bits with a bunch of fellows sharing the same tastes? Much nicer, eh?

 

See above -- it's artificial and void of analytical value, because systems designed to normalize between periods are shallow and ahistorical.

[Achtung Panzer]

To answer the original question, I think the post Marian Roman Army was on the whole a much more formidable force than its early Byzantine analogue, and especially more formidable than most Western Medieval armies up until well into the fifteenth century.

 

The legionary of the early Principate was not only a thoroughly trained professional soldier, well armed and armoured, and highly disciplined, he benefited from very effective logistical/medical support. The Byzantine soldier was a shadow of the legionary, especially regarding the latter point. Both generally outclass the majority of their medieval counterparts in this regard.

 

Both medieval and Byzantine soldiers had only one really significant advantage, cavalry. Depending on terrain considerations, this advantage could prove very important. However, able commanders like Caesar or Scipio Aemelianus (admittedly from the pre-Marian era) could use the superb flexibility of the legionaries to compensate. Earthworks and entrenchments are characteristic of warfare in the immediate post-Marian era. Artillery and light troops, when used correctly, can largely neutralize medieval knights or Byzantine cavalry in skirmishing.

 

On the battlefield the legionary was perfectly capable of taking on heavy cavalry (e.g. Caesar's troops at Pharsalus), and legionaries are on the whole much more formidable infantry than most medieval feudal levies or Byzantine skutatoi. Roman discipline, command structure, and overall organization and unit cohesion makes it much easier for the commanding officer to implement battlefield manoeuvres, especially when reacting to developments on the battlefield.

 

Add to this the effective engineering corps and the Roman army of Caesar/Augustus clearly has some very powerful advantages over nearly any army for the next fifteen hundred years, with the troopers of the Golden Horde being notable exceptions.

 

The major reason for the decline of the legions of the principate is one of economics, and as the Roman economy whithered and died, so did the professional armies.

[Sardaukar]

Late Republic or Principate legion wasn't entirely cheap.

 

Operating a single 4,500-man legion for a year ran to some 4 million sestertii.

(Cicero, in Pis., 86; Plutarch, Cae., 28 & Pomp., 55. Supporting this is Cicero's comment that the two under strength legions he controlled in Cilicia in 51 B.C. each cost about 3 million sestertii in pay and maintenance a year (Cicero, ad Fam., V , 20, 9, & ad Att., V, 11, 5), which was about 60% of the annual revenues of the province (Cf., Frank, pp. 136ff)).

 

It was also noted that raising and equipping a new full-strength legion in Caesar's time would cost about 20 million sestertii. Since unskilled labourer got about 4 sestertii a day (1 denarius), it's big sum. One estimate would be that 1 sestertius = 5$. That'd make new legion cost 100 million $. Puts things in perspective quite nicely. Also, Cicero's 2 understrenght legions consumed 60% of Cilicia's tax revenues..and it was no means poorest province....

 

Wiki again :

 

It is problematic to give even rough comparative values for money from before the 20th century, due to vastly different types of products and of the impossibility of making an accurate price index based on vastly different spending proportions. Its purchasing power in terms of bread has been estimated at US$20, from 2004, in the first century. Classical historians regularly say that in the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire the daily wage for an unskilled laborer and common soldier was 1 denarius without tax, or about US$20 in bread. (By comparison, a skilled American laborer earning the Federal minimum wage makes US$41 for an 8-hour day, while the average American makes US$180 a day.) The actual silver content of the Denarius was about 50 grains, or 1/10 troy ounce under the Empire.

 

Sestertius was 1/4 value of the denarius.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Sardaukar

[vardulli]

Late Republic or Principate legion wasn't entirely cheap.

 

Operating a single 4,500-man legion for a year ran to some 4 million sestertii.

(Cicero, in Pis., 86; Plutarch, Cae., 28 & Pomp., 55. Supporting this is Cicero's comment that the two under strength legions he controlled in Cilicia in 51 B.C. each cost about 3 million sestertii in pay and maintenance a year (Cicero, ad Fam., V , 20, 9, & ad Att., V, 11, 5), which was about 60% of the annual revenues of the province (Cf., Frank, pp. 136ff)).

 

It was also noted that raising and equipping a new full-strength legion in Caesar's time would cost about 20 million sestertii. Since unskilled labourer got about 4 sestertii a day (1 denarius), it's big sum. One estimate would be that 1 sestertius = 5$. That'd make new legion cost 100 million $. Puts things in perspective quite nicely. Also, Cicero's 2 understrenght legions consumed 60% of Cilicia's tax revenues..and it was no means poorest province....

 

Wiki again :

 

It is problematic to give even rough comparative values for money from before the 20th century, due to vastly different types of products and of the impossibility of making an accurate price index based on vastly different spending proportions. Its purchasing power in terms of bread has been estimated at US$20, from 2004, in the first century. Classical historians regularly say that in the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire the daily wage for an unskilled laborer and common soldier was 1 denarius without tax, or about US$20 in bread. (By comparison, a skilled American laborer earning the Federal minimum wage makes US$41 for an 8-hour day, while the average American makes US$180 a day.) The actual silver content of the Denarius was about 50 grains, or 1/10 troy ounce under the Empire.

 

Sestertius was 1/4 value of the denarius.

 

any clue to who these classical historians are?

 

the silver content of coinage varied over time.

[Sardaukar]

any clue to who these classical historians are?

 

the silver content of coinage varied over time.

 

Nope. Ask Wiki . But quote was speaking of 1st century AD-time for value. How much money value was different from 100-150 yrs before, I don't know.

But can also compare cost to soldier's yearly wage if that's more suitable.

 

That Wiki quotation is about only attempt to try to compare the value to modern times, though.

[Sardaukar]

Some sources about pay:

 

The Talmud contains several stories, and the New Testament one, about the payment of a wage worker who did not work the full day. The general rule was that even if he was hired at the eleventh hour, he was to receive full payment, because the boss did not pay him a wage for his work, but to upkeep his family. This payment was one drachm (= one denarius) per day.

 

Military pay in the Augustan era was 225dn (Tac, Ann. I.17)

 

 

Some quick web work (hardly academic though) on roman coin values:

 

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/worth.html

 

I guess the stuff is from Coinage and the Roman Economy 300 BC to AD 700 by Kenneth W. Harl mentioned.

 

 

For lighter note, stumbled on this on other forum (hideously stealing the content from poster.. ) :

 

Book called:

 

Ancient Rome on 5 Denarius a Day

 

It as done as a travel guidebook to Rome in AD 200. It is a great primer or refresher for Roman social life and the feel of life in the city of Rome. Humorously done, of course.

 

(Ones that appealed to me in bold)

 

 

Da mihi fermentum!

Give me a beer!

 

Leo sum-quod signum tibi es?

I'm a Leo, what sign are you?

 

Estne pugio in tunica, an tibi libet me videre?

Is that a dagger in your tunic, or are you just pleased to see me?

 

Spero nos familiares mansuros.

I hope we can still remain friends.

 

Nocte quater

Four times a night.

 

Do et des?

What do I get for that?

 

Utrum per diem an per horam?

Is that by day or by hour?

 

In hac tunica obesa videbor?

Do I look fat in this tunic?

Conclave meum est flagrans.

My room is on fire.

Estne juxtim caupona?

Is there a tavern nearby?

 

Ursus perpauli cerebri sum

I am a bear of very little brain (Winnie the Pooh)

 

Americanni ite domum

Americans go home (Originally Britains)

 

Publisher info:

Hardcover: 144 pages

Publisher: Thames & Hudson (June 11, 2007)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 050005147X

ISBN-13: 978-0500051474

Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 5.7 x 1.2 inches

Shipping Weight: 14.9 ounces

Edited October 1, 2007 by Sardaukar

[vardulli]

Nope. Ask Wiki . But quote was speaking of 1st century AD-time for value. How much money value was different from 100-150 yrs before, I don't know.

But can also compare cost to soldier's yearly wage if that's more suitable.

 

That Wiki quotation is about only attempt to try to compare the value to modern times, though.

ok cheers

 

its just that the annual wage for a legionary ,Ive normally seen, is 225 denarii a year, for the early Empire. Not sure of the source of that though. would have to do some searching.

[Sardaukar]

ok cheers

 

its just that the annual wage for a legionary ,Ive normally seen, is 225 denarii a year, for the early Empire. Not sure of the source of that though. would have to do some searching.

 

Tacitus and Suetonious seem to mention 225 denarii, in form of 3x 3 aurei (1 aureus=25 denarius) payments. Domitianus added one 75 dn payment to bring base pay up to 300 dn.

[zraver]

On the original question.

 

Late Republican army advantages

 

1- numbers

 

2- strategic mobility, infantry can out march horses over the long run and survive harsher conditions.

 

3- Bigger siege and engineering train

 

4- better training and discipline.

 

5- Professional NCO and officer corps.

 

6- Superior missile defense

 

7- Close combat

 

Byzantine advantages

 

1- tactical mobility

 

2- better missile weapons

 

3- steel

 

Medieval Army, Combination English/French early 100 years war.

 

1- stirrups

 

2- superior armor

 

3- shock tactics

 

4- superior horse stock

 

5- massed archers

[Sardaukar]

I think I'd also add that (while it's studied amazingly little considering the importance and there are few books written about it) Principate Army would have had way superior supply system. Maybe Byzantines in their prime might have had something similar, but I doubt, considering the composition of their military.

 

One good source would be this:

 

Jonathan P. Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC - AD 235). Leiden: Brill, 1998. Pp. xxi, 400. ISBN 90-04-11271-5.

 

Reviewed by Adrian Goldsworthy, Penarth, South Wales

 

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-11-01.html

 

R. depicts a very flexible system, with the same army often employing several different methods to supply itself. An army would forage where possible to supplement the food carried with it or being brought along its supply lines. Resources could be transported by land, sea or river depending on which was the most suitable. In extreme conditions, such as in the desert, an army might carry all of its water and the bulk of its other supplies. The picture emerges of a very efficient, adaptable support logistical structure, capable of supplying an operating army almost anywhere, and it cannot be over emphasised just how much of an advantage this gave the Romans over the majority of their opponents from the Later Republic onwards.

 

The efficiency of the Roman army's supply system and its ability to move huge amounts of material over vast distances have implications for our understanding of the ancient world outside the military sphere, for it is in this context that we must judge the limits of civilian bureaucracy and long distance trade. The forward planning involved in military supply was massive. The neatness of the ration allocations for different types of units suggested by R. allowed the army to prepare effectively for the operations of armies of a set size. R. notes that the variation in the size of Republican legions suggests that at this period planners had to base their calculations on numbers of men rather than numbers of units. However, it is also important to remember that the planning stage was not necessarily reflected in the actual distribution of rations to the men, which occurred at lower level.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Sardaukar