Can someone explain it to me like i was retarded.They get rid of the phalanx and go manipulor and its that easy? Im missing something. Was their tech so much more advanced? What was the secret sauce? And they maintain that secret sauce until they dont? I don't get it. In short: Why do they go from BTFOing everyone to getting BTFO's (at least in the west). My understanding is that civil wars and plague drain all the manpower, and the germans go from tribal to confederate protonations so the concentrate their manpower. Is that what it is?
This is hard for a lot of people to comprehend, but for conquest to happen there needs to be some motivation and some need to mobilize the plebs. For Rome, conquest was a form of Bread and Circuses, it was a way for Roman Elite to extract further resources and broaden the living space of the average Roman citizen, which could be poured into Opera Publica, thus keeping the economy stable and the average peasant from revolting. The average Roman didn't really see a Pax Romana happening at a ground level per se, and once the Roman Elites couldn't keep their political machines running it was a domino effect that eroded starting from the Roman frontier.
everything they conquered was used to conquer more and they really thought about it to increase the efficiency of it. taxes and resource extraction, tech advancements, everything got absorbed and used, they also built stuff everywhere. a lot of other people's ideas of war were still like "we go there and kill them all and go back home"
>>18225218> once the Roman Elites couldn't keep their political machines runningcan you expand on that, what do you mean?
Romans are pragmatists. They adapt useful technology and strategy whenever they see it. They copied shipbuilding from the Carthaginians, they copied the Gladius short sword from the Iberian Celts, the Pilum they copied from, I think it was the Berbers, and scale armor from the Persians. Basically the entire Roman soldier's kit of popular imagination is an amalgam of copied stuff. But the reason the Roman military as an organization was so effective was because of its discipline, and the organization of Roman society in general. For most of Rome's history, until the later imperial era, military rank and civil political rank were the same thing. To advance in status as a Senator meant advancing in military service. In essence: there was no way to gain prestige as a wealthy citizen of Rome without devoting your energy and resources toward the military, and when EVERYONE is in the military that means the only way to stand out be successful is to have a successful military adventure. I.e., to conquer. Rome's elite were highly incentivized to wage wars of conquest because doing so directly advanced their political careers. It was also by far the easiest way to increase one's personal wealth in terms of land, booty, and slaves. The vast majority of slaves in Rome were prisoners of war.Rome's political system wasn't exactly meritocratic, it was very much a case of whoever had the most money won the election due to bribery. But because the political system was also the military, it means truly incompetent people tended to get filtered out due by war. Not entirely, of course, but war has a way of ensuring the truly useless people didn't make it very far in Rome's government. At least not in the Republican era, when Rome was doing a lot of conquering.
>>18225270did other peoples not have this selection pressure? Like this was unique to Rome? Why does Rome fall in the west, do the barbarians adopt their system (ie do they militarize or whatever term should be used their elites?)
>>18225202why is it that actual retards are so into "history?"
>>18225202Socio-economic factors.
None of it existed, you are reading flavorful backstory created in retrospect millenia later
>>18225270>the Pilum they copied from, I think it was the BerbersThe pilum was adopted from the Etruscans and Samnites. The Celtiberians also used a similar weapon, the falarica. I've never seen references to Berber use of similar javelins with a long iron shafts.
>>18225716so what really happened then? like what is the alternative explanation
>>18225202The Romans were the greatest engineers in the world at that time. Arguably their greatest military advantage was the ability to build stuff really really fast. This is how they solved a surprising amount of problems.>Need to stop for the night? Just build a big ass fortified camp.>Need to cross a river? Just build a big ass bridge.>Jews giving you problems? Just build a big ass ramp.>Gauls giving you problems? Just build a big ass wall>Gauls STILL giving you problems? Just build a second wall lmao
>>18225202I think after getting sacked and btfo by the Gauls Celts 390-387 is when they started to reform their military for the better. I believe they used hoplites and heavy infantry, but changed to be more versatile. Their battalions became well organized. "Every drill was a bloodless battle and every battle was a bloody drill" according to Josephus. On a signal they could functionally do anything.
>>18226245So what happens in the 5th century?
>>18225202One of the most important reasons was the sheer rate of military mobilisation in Central Italy, as in every single man was expected to serve and was conscripted for at least 12 to 16 years depending on ones class. Anywhere between 15-25% of men in Central Italy were actively serving in armies constantly until the reign of Augustus. The only societies in history to have maintained such a rate of military participation were nomadic societies, but Italian society was both urbanised and heavily populated in comparison. Only modern countries with mass conscription have managed to get close or over this, and it wasn't maintained for centuries. There is also the desire for conquest. The Romans wanted to go out and conquer. It benefited them significantly and other Italian elites. It was a joint project they weren't willing to give up even as Hannibal was knocking. They believed it was imperative that they went to war, even justifying the early wars in Illyria by stating that it was good for the people to do so. It also helped that the system which they set up ensured that the men who reached levels of independent command were competent, so on top of their massive pool of manpower they didn't exactly have any worse commanders or skill than their enemies. The only Hellenistic foe which beat the Romans handily was Mithridates. The Greek states and Macedon were destroyed by Roman armies smaller than their own.
>>18225202>Was their tech so much more advanced? What was the secret sauce?Industry and zealotry. By the start of the Pyrrhic wars they were basically the million men chinese horde of Europe. They had the agricultural and engineering foresight to support a massive population that dwarfed their rivals and implemented political systems to ensure complete unmatched mobilisation. The only martial difference between that of an individual boxer horde and a roman legionary is that a roman actually has a state logistics backing him up with up to date equipment. There's untold amount of stories of companies of romans literally diving onto greek pikes and rupturing their own plates in the process, leaping over fortress walls without doubt over their banner and hopeless clashing against blocks after blocks against a static formation just to taste the enemies blood even a little bit. In a way they seem quite despotic and cruel compared to what one would describe the more "civilised" man of array or men at arms during the Ottoman invasions.
