How large was the Roman army at it's peak? : r/AskHistorians
2014年11月24日 · That would make an army of 500,000ish (a better estimate of the total size of the Roman army, although still quite conservative) make up about a quarter of a percent of the entire population of the world at the time. Comparatively, world population in 1913 was about 1.75 billion. 750,000 would be a tiny fraction of that.
How do you guys think Roman infantry would fare against ... - Reddit
2020年2月24日 · Very true. A proper, on campaign, Roman army would have had to some degree light infantry, archers/slingers, cavalry (light, medium and depending on time frame, cataphracts and clibinarii) in addition to the heavy infantry most people think of. On top of that, the Romans occasionally used scorpions as field artillery.
Why was the Late Roman Army so much worse at replacing
2020年3月11日 · Even in the 5th and 6th centuries the Eastern Roman army remained a vast professional force with far more manpower than just about any of its rivals. (Sassanid Persia aside.) The Western Roman army was severely weakened by the crisis of the 5th century, and eventually ceased to exist, but this is no longer believed to be an issue of manpower.
For many years, the Roman army was dominated by "Illyrians
2018年6月23日 · What we typically see in the Roman Empire is that lands that experience thorough military recruitment also experience extensive Romanization, with the exceptions of Greek territories for special reasons, and the Middle East in which Roman rule wasn't quite as firm as it was in, say, Spain.
What would be the modern day equivalents of roman military ranks?
2015年4月10日 · Generally a Captain or Major in western military forces. It's a little different though, a centurion's command would be 80 men while usually a company would be 90-130 though some companies are as little as 40 or 50 and as high as 150. It really depends on the complete structure of the army that the company is part of
Were the ancient Roman armies more effective than medieval
The Roman army of Trajan would have crushed any medieval army, for one basic reason: the Roman army, unlike the levies and knights called together by medieval kings, was a professional fighting force. Its armies had training and - more importantly - financial and logistical resources that no medieval state could match.
Did Roman legions actually march 20 miles a day? : …
2020年11月9日 · 11-06 17:36 - '[quote] Yeh, I agree. Unfortunately, I haven't read anything about the size of the army in the 400s AD. I've read that the late Roman army decreased the size of the legion from 5000 to 1000 to make it a faster response fo...' by /u/Intranetusa removed from /r/history within 931-941min
Roman Army : r/AskHistorians - Reddit
2017年10月23日 · The Roman army of the Empire numbered hundreds of thousands of men. Agathias claims that the army reached the extraordinary size of 645,000 men, while Zosimus claims a lower figure of 581,000. John Lydus gives a more reasonable figure of 390,000 during the time of Diocletian – an amount similar to the army under Hadrian.
Dan Carlin claims that "You could take the roman army at it's
The army mustered by the Bohemians to fight off the Mongols was the largest since the Roman Empire's height and was an army that size was t seen again for quite a while. So yeah, the Romans had numbers on Medieval rulers.
What was it like to be in a soldier in a Roman legion?
2021年2月28日 · Not every Roman fort/colony was a bastion of comfort and luxury and it would be disingenuous to say that being in the Roman military was "a good life". There were periods of peace, sure. But remember, the legions were the focus of enemy incursions and were often living amongst an unfriendly population.