Actually the legions lost quite a few battles, as one might expect from military forces led by political appointees. Why the Romans usually prevailed in their wars was that they always raised more legions after a military disaster and that the legions were usually as good as the best forces of an adversary. Take out the elite forces of most ancient polities and there was nothing to replace them. The Romans on the other hand knew how to raise as many legions as required and had the experts, centurions and others, who had the knowledge and experience to make certain that the average legion was a formidable instrument of war, even when led by foolish or worse commanders. When the Romans lost the capacity and willingness to sustain this regular military, the days of the Empire in the West were numbered.
What helped the Romans a lot was superior organization, including both discipline in the ranks and logistics. As Caesar observed of both Gauls and Germans: the barbarians had little staying power. The Romans also gradually extended citizenship to conquered peoples, bringing them into the system. What worried Tacitus and other writers was that the barbarians might eventually “get the point”, and add Roman discipline to German valor, which explains part of the disasters of the 5th century (and according to Dawson: part of the glory of medieval knighthood). In the end the Western half of the empire simply did not generate the revenue need for its defense. The Eastern half did, and would survive another 1000 years.
[…] Donald R. McClarey, J.D. My Take on the 2022 Political Races – Donald R. McClarey, J.D. The Legions – Donald R. McClarey, J.D. As If the Bad Faith of the FBI Needed Further Proof – Donald […]