Re: Romans as no-retreaters

Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:

> It is not quite true that the Romans never retreated. They tended to
> have a very strict system of military discipline, and a bad
performance
> could get your cohort or legion decimated (one man in ten executed) so
> if the order was to not retreat, they probably would not. But it did
> happen once in a while.
>
> And I don't think you can point out that their engineers had a similar
> attitude - the desire to overcome huge obstacles to assert your
> fundamental rulership of the universe where doing so will not kill you
> dead can't exactly be compared to standing and fighting when that
could
> often get you dead.
>
> This had more to do with their psychology and the way they organized
> their society and their military than any necessity of the race. They
> were just as varied, just as adaptable, and just as flawed as most
other
> iterations of the race (maybe a bit more successful than most).

For the most part, the roman army was the engineers.  One show said that
the
troops perfered battle to all of the heavy labor. (building roads,
forts,
aquaducts, ect.)

Oh yes!

Donald Hosford