OP is a faggot.
/lit/ here, the discipline of Roman forces was relative to the barbarians around them.
The forces of the first Republic were a militia, but a militia is by far superior to clan based forces. The biggest innovation of the romans was the palisade fort, whicg in reality was often tokenistic. The real purpose of the fort was to deter men deserting, and in the hope men who fled the battlefield would flee to the fort; not scatter into the wilderness and let the enemy loot their camp.
The romans on the other hand often scared enemies into running away and then stole their baggage, often battles was decided by throwing stones and spears and seeing who would ruin away first.
The shield you have pictured is sort of incorrect, that was a much later design used in sieges and urban warfare/policing. No pilum was carried in these situations because it would obstruct the turtles roof.
I think it's often forgotten that half the Roman troops were worse than average. Many "legions" were still raised in the medieval fashion from the peasantry, sure SOME legions were elite light infantry but many were not.
The casualty rate of legionaries is also a hoax, I learned the truth of this in syria before the last war. It is evident that few legionaries actually served the full term of service, they would go AWOL when not on campaign, they would go AWOL in the territories they occupied and seize land from locals by force, they would become bodyguards of prominent Roman families.
Look at the US marines, 75% of recruits drop out in the first year of training, then the remaining 25% are whittled down by injury, familial and agricultural responsibilities. Only a fool would believe he Roman properganda two thousand years later
