Anyone care to weigh in on this?

I don't really believe in glorifying war, personally, but military history is a pretty big part of history, especially if you're interested in Rome, whether you like it or not, so I am semi-interested in the subject. What I really don't like about it though is when people talk about war like it's a video game—usually it leads to dumb thinking and overly broad pronouncements like this; and I do feel like Roman history, in particular, attracts more of this than other historical periods for whatever reason(s).

Not to be too overly general myself but what doesn't get talked about a lot (probably because it's not that sexy) is that the real strength of the Roman army was based on organizational sophistication and versatility. Each and every legion was the rough ancient equivalent of an "army corps of engineers." They built roads; they built bridges; they built their own camps and forts; they built siege works. They were well-trained professional soldiers. They had multiple formations. They could detach vexillations. They used an array of weaponry throughout the centuries and emphasized specialist auxiliary units like "Numidian cavalry" or "Balearic slingers" as circumstances dictated. They were in fact good at war (duh).

/r/ancientrome Thread Link - reddit.com