The Romans came to power because they were unmatched by anyone in their area. Is there any unit of fighters that could beat a well organized Roman unit? They should both be from the time of Augustus, around 0 CE.
A troop of Apaches, assuming they had similar tech and tactics back then as they did when whitey turned up in murca
Otherwise, the romans had a real hard time with the armenians and parthians due to their horse archer tactics, which were difficult to defend against with heavy infantry
>>384173
The Han dynasty over in China had a corps of professional soldiers, mostly armed with crossbows at 0 CE. At the very least, they'd be able to give the Romans a serious run for their money.
Plus, the Romans historically had trouble with the horse archers out of Parthia. It was very "win a battle, lose a battle" over there, but the light cavalry did secure wins..
>>384265
Not only are Apaches not within the time period specified in the OP, but the Romans would have raped them so hard that they'd wish they took the smallpox blankets.
>>384173
The Romans themselves. See all the civil wars.
>>384272
Hybrid pike/crossbow infantry ftw. Also their crossbows could penetrate shields, rendering shields ineffective.
>>384173
The Parthians had a well-organized professional army that beat the Romans in that very period. The Augustus beat Parthia with with shrewd politics, not his military.
>>384173
>The Romans came to power because they were unmatched by anyone in their area.
This is just flat-out wrong. The Samnites beat them. Pyrrhus beat them. Hannibal beat them. The Parthians beat them.
The reasons Rome rose to power over its neighbors are numerous and complex, but but militarily, chief among them is their willingness to learn from their losses and adapt their military, their refusal to surrender after losses that would make other nations/states come to terms, and their seemingly endless supply of willing soldiers and capable commanders.
>>384316
Without the Alps the entire of Italy would have been united under Celtic rule before Rome was even a dream in the minds of the Greek colonists who established it.
>>384331
Good point as well. In its early years, Rome was always under the threat of some Gallic horde deciding to cross the alps and wrecking everything. It happened once.
>>384173
Parthians had their way with Romans. Germans and British barbarians won a few times too. Also Carthaginians.
Anyway the reason Rome was near unstoppable wasn't because of how great their fighters were but because of how quickly they could put together a new army. Most of their opponents could put together one or two and go to town, but once they lost it that was it.
Seriously Rome's ability to reinforce and create legions was unmatched for its time.
Why did the Roman republic become a military juggernaut and no one else on the Italian peninsula? Did Rome have mines or more productive agricultural land?
>>384441
Rome had a civic structure that could rapidly transition from a "peace economy" to wartime mobilization of half the male population if need be, one that reacted to the pressures of war far more readily than their neighbors.
>>384441
I would say they were recipients of massive Etruscan investment, and the Etruscan power was well placed as a buffer against the barbarian incursions mentioned earlier in the thread. Their supremacy was largely one inherited from the Etruscans, they initially copied their warfare and forms of governance. The Samnites, Bruttians, Lucanians, etc are more comparable to the Aetolian league, in their military prowess.
The Roman genius was not entirely military, they also were masters of coopting local power structures into their alliance system. A Samnite might have annexed land after a successful war, but the Romans would confiscate the lands of their primary enemies, while rewarding those who did not fight. They employed a mixed strategy full of nuances, divet et imperia.
>>384376
This.
The horse archer conglomerates from the Eurasian steppe basically had the capability to be the most "deadly" force in the world for most of human history. Rome's longevity is not owed to constantly overwhelming military acumen, but rather their ability to raise armies and great men/commanders, take losses (both w/r/t military defeats and coups/ deleterious politicking), refuse to surrender, learn from mistakes, and learn from exterior cultures. "Deadliness" tends to take a back seat if, for example, your horde falls apart and has to return to Mongolia every time its patriarch dies.
