A graphic pitched battle narrative or detailed description of a siege (complete with gruesome embellishments) was a must for any decent history. The tactical flexibility offered by the auxiliary units was especially valuable in the smaller-scale wars of the imperial period, and for frontier and internal security. This applied most of all to the part-mounted equitatae units. Naval battles were more likely to be influenced by the vagaries of weather and wind than land battles, so there could be some delay before conditions allowed a battle to take place. Rome had traditionally been a successful besieger and was able to maintain an army over the winter if necessary. Roman military thinking believed that a pitched battle fought on a fair or level battlefield would bring a certain victory. The tactical manuals provide some insight into how the Romans themselves explained their military success.

It was the army that conquered the territories of the empire, defended them, policed them and maintained internal security all at the same time. It was the army that transformed Russia into a great power, for it was the army that built the Russian state. Russia did manage some successful expansion in the seventeenth century, such as the acquisition of left-bank Ukraine. The key element in Russia's transition from military debility to military capability was learning how better to mobilise both material resources and human beings in the service of the army. If it was military success that built up the Russian Empire, it was military defeat that helped to bring the empire down. Russia's great victory over Napoleon seemingly validated the military system as it was and had closed the eyes of many to its defects. Nicholas I was personally devoted to the army, frequently turned to military officers to fill the most important posts in the civil administration.