Roman Generals get the credit or the blame for Roman battles, but they did not actually lead them. The generals remained (usually)
in the rear on the right wing and directed the battle. It was the centurions that actually led the men into the combats.
No battles. There were regular gladitorian fights.
in Roman
Trade led to battles when the Native Americans were pressed for more pelts. The traders were making the hunt for them more competitive.
Persia lost the battles of Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, which led to Alexander's takeover of the Persian Empire.
Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.Basically the Roman army was weakened by inaction which led to lack of discipline.
lossing
Chance played a big role in Roman battles.
Of course not!
they did
The Roman army fought thousands of battles over the 1,200 years of the history of ancient Rome.
6
Is that they lose there battles.