5 ms·

> IMHO the Roman Empire was build on the back of its civil engineers, and not its legions. At least in the long run. An interesting aspect of this is that the

• thaumasiotes 5y ago
  The Egyptian army was also used in construction projects. I believe the general thinking is that the state wanted to have a military force available, but didn't want it to be idle. That reasoning would predict that every standing military would see similar uses.
• OJFord 5y ago
  Is that so different from the (British Army's) Royal Engineers and similar units in modern armies really?
  • KineticLensman 5y ago
    Military engineers focus on battlefield-relevant construction and demolition techniques and aren’t routinely deployed on civilian engineering tasks during their readiness cycle. One exception would be military assistance in emergency situations, such as quickly erecting a bridge to replace a flood-damaged one. For the average soldier, their trade-specific training would be measured in months, so the only opportunities to pick up deep domain knowledge are limited. Career engineers might get deeper knowledge but I suspect they would still focus on battlefield-specific competencies.
    • OJFord 5y ago
      I won't comment on training because I suspect that varies too much internationally to be worthwhile - but of course they focus on battlefield-relevant tasks; are you saying that wasn't also true of the Romans? I don't know, I just assumed (and asked if) they were pretty similar.
      • hef19898 5y ago
        The advantage the Romans had was, that military engineering and civil engineering were much closer back then.
      • KineticLensman 5y ago
        The difference is that Roman soldiers could build roads and fortified camps as part of their day job using skills similar to civilian Roman construction. Today, however, building a modern motorway, or a high rise building, would be way different to battlefield engineering.
    • nwatson 5y ago
      In the USA the US Army Corp of Engineers is heavily involved in public/civilian infrastructure. For example, see this article on their involvement and attendant controversy in Hurricane Katrina (2000s New Orleans): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_civil_works_controversies_(New_Orleans) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers...
    • rjsw 5y ago
      A Royal Engineer friend of mine is an expert on runways, both making and breaking them.
• acjohnson55 5y ago
  Caesar's bridges over the Rhine absolutely blew my mind. It's an incredible example of military engineering yielding a tremendous advantage. The military handbooks from throughout the full history of the empire also speak maybe less to engineering specifically, but to the advantages of a literate culture in war. The Romans faced many types of opponents over the centuries, many of which they did not have a natural advantage against, in terms of armament. But they did have tremendous amounts of research and strategy, applicable to all sorts of conditions and opponents. And also impressive skills in logistics. When it comes to the a Rhine, it's a mistake to think that the Romans were simply more civilized than the Germanic people. That may have been true at one point in time, but over time, the societies on the borders of the empire gained quite a bit of sophistication. The borders were also porous, and the "barbarians" spent years of their lives in the Roman world. This is a big reason the power vacuum created by the collapse of Roman authority was readily filled by "barbarian" kings. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Arabs, and Vikings didn't come out of nowhere. What was lost in the west was institutional complexity. Although it's interesting that the Arabs founded empires that did match Rome in this regard. At least until the Mongols came smashing in. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Rhine_bridges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Rhine_bridges