In one of my random tangents of wondering, I was reading a bit about what made the Romans so successful as a militant power. Then, having been an English major in a past life, I started making connections, as I am wont to do, in this case to how the principles in question might be applied to my training. So, excising the main point of each section:

“The Romans were able to copy and adapt the weapons and methods of its opponents more effectively.” --- That fits the ‘cross-training’ of mixed martial arts, and one of Bruce Lee’s quintessential axioms to take techniques and principles from any source and ‘make them yours;’ in a broader sense, the shifts back and forth in dominance between strikers and grapplers in MMA over the years as each adopted the others’ tactics

“Roman organization was more flexible than those of many opponents.” --- Here, I’m reminded of one of the focuses of the east-side school, ‘transitional flow,’ which covers everything from transitioning between techniques (say, between different types of the same lock, strike, or pin), to transitioning between ranges (usefulness of the karate, aikido, jujitsu combination).

“Roman discipline, organization and logistical systemization sustained combat effectiveness over a longer period.” --- Conditioning, as my dad drills into us! But not just physical conditioning, but mental and emotional as well, as I’ve learned from the harder contact training we’ve done, which is needed when conscious thought flies out the window, so ingrained muscle memory and the unconscious can take over tactical decisions.

“The Romans were more persistent and more willing to absorb and replace losses over time than their opponents.” --- From the principles and concepts brought back from Thailand of late, and yogic parallels, tenacity – consciously choosing how to respond to pain and fatigue, and compartmentalizing as needed; beyond that, in a more simplistic sense, being able to take hits or give up position for later advantage. The counter to this, however, is that against an equal opponent in this regard (Rome versus Carthage or Parthia, for example), this principle is effectively negated.

“Roman leadership was mixed, but over time it was often effective in securing Roman military success.” --- To me, this (analogously, the Senate overwatch’ing the military, in their prime) would mean integrating of some of the other principles – that is, say, one might train in jujitsu and karate, but if they can’t be integrated to cover each others’ weaknesses, the ‘mixed wires’ will be more hindering than not, and slow down decision making, conscious or unconscious.

Ms. Kim’s Corollary: The Romans were successful because they had really huge mastiffs.