[Fall Of Rome]

I think Rome's alleged inner failures are much overhyped. The Western Empire fell because Germanic supertribes came pouring through the breaches, and the empire didn't have the resources to fight both them and the Persians at the same time.

 

I will agree Rome did not have the resources in the Late Empire to fend off so many threats at once, but the collaspe of the West was a slow, disintergration process, not the time-hallowed belief that Germanic People's en masse migrated all over at once and went about rampaging the Empire. I comment this because Ursus, your statement sounds like old sterotypical view of Rome's fall...

 

True, the frequent civil wars didn't help.

 

Which ate up the most prescious resource of the Late Empire, well trained Roman units. You can argue that the civil wars fought by Theodoisus, (against Maximus and then Arbogast and Eugenius), could have been avoided, the second with Eugenius easily so, and the empire could have had more resources than she had.

[What Is Your Favorite Era Of Roman History?]

"The Caesar Era" my favorite of all.

 

 

The "Caesar Era"? No offense to you Roman, or anyone else who worships the man but I must say... since my time here, I have been quickly falling into the school of thought and interpretation of Caesar as portrayed by our forum member Cato.

[Caesars Rogue Legion]

One legion I thought which was originally raised by Caesar ended up fighting for Pompey's sons in Hispania during the last phases of the civil war, IIRC. Though I could be wrong.

[Greater Commander: Alexander Or Caesar]

A word of advice, this thread will probably be closed quite quickly.

 

Mainly, because this is an opinion based question and answer and there is no possible way to compare the two or have them "VS" each other, or thier armies. And too many "Caesar vs Alexander" threads have turned into almost flame contests... so don't be surprised if this is closed.

[Dr. Hawass Calls For Return Of Stolen Artifact]

To the victor goes the spoils.

 

Indeed...

 

 

And the same thing goes for the countless treasures stolen from Constantinople in 1204, which adorn many museums in Europe... sure, it'd be nice to see them as they were intended but, such is life.

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

Go for it.

 

 

Here we go...

 

 

1). Theodosius: The Empire At Bay by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell.

 

2). Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity by Kenneth G. Holum.

 

3). Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD by Noel Lenski.

 

4). The Rome That Did Not Fall by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell.

 

5). Barbarians and Bishops : Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom by J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz.

 

6). Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire by John M. O'Flynn.

 

7). The Fall of the Roman Empire : A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather.

 

8). Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Policy and Barbarians, Ca. 375-425 A.D. by Thomas S. Burns.

 

9). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples by Herwig Wolfram.

 

10). Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425 by John Matthews.

 

 

These should get you off on an excellent start...

[Ancient Tug Of War]

Maybe a better question is who would win Alexander or Caesar?

 

Please let us not even consider this... because the question is 100% opinion answer based, there is no way to compare them, (there is a 250 year difference), and these type of things lead to flaming, and camps of "Hail Caesar", "Hail Alexander", and "We don't give a sh*t."

[Battle Preliminary]

...a girl, naked from the waist up, would ride back and forth, on horse back, before the front lines prior to the commencement of a battle.

 

...and thus the Roman General went on to inform his men that those showed exemplary courage and bravery in the face of the enemy would have that girl one of her many sister's awaiting them back at camp.

 

 

 

Seriously though... I think it's pure fantasy or someone's wild imagination of what they wished happened before battle.

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

I'm certainly going to look deeper into this period.

 

I never stop, to me, you can't get any better than the Late Period because of issues just like this... and above all, you always learn something new. Whether through research or debate.

 

I have several selections of books you may like if you are interested?

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

Rome went to considerable trouble to patch up her armies. Of course she did. They needed defence. All too often it wasn't there however in the late stage. Communities were hiring tribes wholesale as mercenary defenders because the roman army could not adequately contain an enemy threat. They simply weren't there. Roman defense policy was no longer offensive, it was about bringing enemy incursions to a halt before they penetrated too deep.

 

Right, as I stated, the regions they could not defend well and which were not really a priority were left to thier own defence, or Rome used federate allies to defend the areas. Over time the Field Armies, being stationed so long in major cities which is good and bad, the negative aspect is over time the soldiers families are then all from the surrounding area and region and so now the "flexible" and "very mobile" armies were only able to operate regional, thus the only real Roman Army in the West in the late empire after Theodosius was that of Italy. The rest were pre-dominatly some garrions and federate allies.

 

I can also see an increasing amount of brigandage by both sides. Even those attempting to enforce the law weren't to keen on obeying it. Law and order, like any modern society riven by warfare, was becoming a lost art. There are many examples of this situation today. The balkans? Iraq? Many african states?

 

And I agree, brigands were everywhere, especially in the West in regions like Hispania, Gaul, Britain, but in the priority areas it was kept in check for the most part. Corruption was absolutely rampant, so it's no surprise of the break down.

 

Actually I doubt EVERY unit in the late roman army was terrible. They were trying to live up to the old reputation in many cases and with a decent commander I can imagine a 1000 strong legion proving effective at its chosen task. Most could not, or would not. The impression I get is a sense of hoplessness toward the end - a sense of 'why fight too hard, we can't win'. There is definitely a problem with morale and motivation in the late army.

 

I agree with your statement of a problem with morale and motivation... but I do not think it was of 'hopelessness', or of 'giving up'. Morale I think was issues due to the fact that over time the billeting of troops in cities and over time many became lazy, idle, and simply just didn't give a rat's ass; not that, "...we can't win."

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

It certainly isn't irrelevant that the late roman army was less effective. The external threat to rome was becoming constant and the legions of the time were both unwilling and unable to contain it. Their forces were poorly trained, poorly disciplined, poorly equipped, badly led, badly organised. The huns for instance would not likely have succeeded against rome at its height. Against the 'soft' later army, they made deep penetrations. Roman was surviving on political and military momentum and it was running out.

 

If EVERY catagory of the army was in such terrible or horrific shape then how do you explain Rome holding together as long as it did? How was Rome able to rebuild her Eastern Army after Adrianople, (which would later ensure that half's survival)?

 

That doesn't mean they couldn't win victories if any particular leader managed to motivate and lead his men effectively. But were there any such leaders? Not many.

 

I disagree there were pleny effective and victorious leaders of the Late Empire, I think there were fewer in the earlier days, (also they were much more spread out of time). Without effective leaders things would have collasped quite quickly under the pressure of so many threats.

 

The roman infrastructure was becoming insular, with country manors almost cutting themselves off from what remained of mainstream life. Rome simply wasn't what it was, neither were her armed forces, whom she relied on to keep the borders safe.

 

And I totally agree with that.... those actions of the villas isolating themselves off from the major cities is what helped bring about the decline of the major urban areas in the West. Though I will disagree still with the armed forces, they were different, transformed, but so was the whole Roman World, and they still kept the 'borders' secure. I say 'borders' because what was important to Late Roman Emperors were Italy, Africa, Greece/Illyricum/Macedonia because of the highway route b/w East-West, Thrace and Asia Minor the breadbasket of the East, You can throw in Egypt as well... the other areas were second priority and often the most neglected and the first to be 'cut off' when things got bad.

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

The evidence from archaeology suggests a sudden downturn in the quality of equipment from around the civil wars of Constantine. Gone are the lorica segmentata, replaced with chain or sometimes scalemail (which has a serious flaw inherent in its design). Helmets are no longer roman, but more barbarian in style. The pilum has gone, replaced with a series of spear-like weapons. Gone too is the gladius, replaced by the longer cavalry spatha. Training was therefore in decline, and with the ability of troops to continue the old style tactics. Vegetius himself moans that troops of his day were not up to the old standards, although I must say they did try. Roman soldiers in the late army were less disciplined too - and I sense a certain reluctance of that army to actually meet the enemy in battle. Recruitment was a thorny issue. No longer was the roman army a respected career and people generally did what they could to avoid military service, by hiding, finding excuses, or cutting off a thumb. The later emperors of course made rulings that one excuse after another was no longer valid and you had to serve anyway. Press gangs roamed around finding able-bodied men that could be...erm... volunteered for service. I do accept that heavy infantry technically still existed, but it simply wasn't the equal of the legions of the golden age. Their attitude, equipment, and training weren't even close.

 

Therin shows the problem when you compare Vegetius to Ammanius. One laments at the decline of quality in the army, while the other claims that while weaponry has changed, the overall discipline and training has not.

 

In either case, my arguement was your point that heavy infantry was being abandoned, none of what you have written there states that. Recruitment I know very well the problems of it in the late empire and the laws issued to try and insure service. To compare the legions of the 'golden age' you must also compare the climate. Rome, during the principate was not besieged on all sides. Emperors could muster most of the army to one location for a campaign, that was simply impossible following the 3rd Century Crisis. Now Rome had encrouchments from organized, large barbarians peoples, (and partially because of thier interaction with Rome they learned how to become more structured), and you had a much more aggressive and expanisionist Persia who knew how take major cities through siege and who could field large armies as well. The Army of the Principate, I do not disagree could defeat any of these threats, but could they do so while being in several different places at once? I don't think so, hence the emphasis on more flexible, smaller formations of troops. You may contend that overall qualitiy has dropped, but what good is the best force when it can't even be brought to bear against the enemy.

 

Also, I don't think that a change in weaponry leads to a decline in training, just a change in them to adapt to the new equipment and weapons now being used. Perhaps this is the cause of his 'moans' over the decline in training because the old ways are not being used, since why would they when they are meant for the 'old form' of legions and not the new.

 

Perhaps the best example I can say is, look at the battles and engagements the Late Army fought. Strasborg, Adrianople, Ad Salices, Chalons, Verona, on the Persian Front and countless smaller ones against various barbarian groups. Almost all are victory for Roman arms and ff the major engagements, Adrianople is the only defeat and which happened only after the command structure of the Romans made tactical errors, if the army was such in a 'terrible' state then the battle would not have continued on till dusk regardless of being encircled and the surviving section of the army would not/could not have broken out of the trap and retreated in good order. This is given to us by Ammanius.

 

In short, personally I feel it's irrelevent if the army of the Late Empire was not as trained or diciplined exactly like that of the Early Empire. Times had changes, situations had changed and threats had completly changed. I am willing to accept that the Late Army was not up to the standards of the High Empire, but should not the final judegement of thier quality be based upon if they can actually do thier job, and win Rome's battles and wars? If so, then they pass, and therefore the Army while in decline to early standards, was the best it could be to late standards.

 

Rome's Downfall I will argue is not because the Roman Army, but because the Decline of the State then transfered to a Decline of the Army.

[How Bloody Was The Arena?]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but, did not the 1872 French Painting Pollice Verso give Hollywood and many people the sterotype that a thumbs up meant live, and a thumbs down meant die? Not sure where, but I could have sworn it was, a thumbs down meant live, (the sword was thrown in the ground), and the thumbs up was a thumbs up to the throat which meant kill.

 

Any comments would be appreciated.

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

And the sucesors turned to a recruitment army like it happened in the East during the VII century crisis.

 

Well yeah, it went back to a land based, citizen army like that of the Republic. Farmers now had a stake in the defense since it was thier land. The Theme sytem of Heraclius, half the people served while the other half tilled and they switched, half a year or yearly, I forgot the exact arrangement.

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

The civil war of Constantine changed the roman army forever. After him, the old style heavy infantry was in decline, replaced by lighter troops.

 

Where does it say this? I know a majority of the army was light troops, but the backbone of the army, the fighting core was the field armies, which was heavy infantry. The frontier troops were designed to stall, delay, interupt major pushes into Roman lands, but they were never expected to actually defeat or repulse the threat. The Field Armies were designed for this, they were lower in number compared to the Frontier Troops but the Field Armies was the heany infantry used to engage, defeat and repluse the threats Rome faced in the Late Empire. Cavalry was more important now true, but it was almost always recruited from barbarian groups.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, since I cannot see at all how heavy infantry was being slowly shunned by Rome after Constantine. His reforms officialized what had been going on in the army since the early 3rd century, smaller, more flexible units instead of the larger legions of the High Empire, but the core, the more highly paid, better equipped and better respected units of this new army was the Comitatenses and the Palatini which were the Heavy Infantry.

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

Yes, I was generalising somewhat. The late roman army (non-foederate) trained its men differently from the golden-age legions. Gone was the day of close packed heavy infantry. Light infantry were far more prevalent, as were cavalry. It was a smaller mobile army better suited for ambuscades and policing (border patrol dare I say it) than the head-on battle mentality of old. Such a light army is often more difficult to control because they become used to using initiative, and therefore want to do their own thing. Its ironic isn't it? Initiative makes an army flexible but deaf.

 

I find that hard to beleive, (of abandoning heavy infantry tactics since heavy infantry continued to be a major force on the battlefield for a couple more centuries). I would agree that the establishment of the limitani was light, and more suited for the policing and ambuscades, but the Field Armies were the Heavy Infantry designed to meet any major threat and defeat it.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just curious, since I have yet to come across the references that Roman Armies, (while different from the Leigons of old), were not heavy infantry at it's core.

[Daily Life In Sixth Century Rome Help Needed]

This might help you considering how daily life was, since it covers how the state of affairs developed into what they did from the glory days of Rome. Living conditions, economics and even livestock etc. Hope it helps.

[Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?]

Whole units were brought into the late roman army not as auxillaries, but front line units. They weren't organised in the roman fashion, merely a tribe that volunteered for service.

 

I'm curious to this source, since Ammianus Marcellinus never mentions the Roman Army being in any disorganization, a decline in discipline, weaponry, or equipment and he was a soldier so he was very astute to the conditions of the army.

 

Are you speaking of the foederate forces? Such as the settlements of Visigoths, Franks, Burgandians? I would agree they were as is, and had to come to fight as ordered by Rome as part of thier agreements, but they weren't part of the Roman Army, more so allies than anything.

[Macedonian Conquest]

Yes he did, he also planned to conquer Carthage. His unfortunate death stopped the Macedonian dominance. The central government had to segment the lands among his successor's. He actually showed more desire for Persian culture than his own. So he was going to conquer Rome, he just could not mellow down and died at a result of constant anxiety for battle.

 

 

I am really of the impression that Alexander would not have been ever able to go West, because he would have died, if not in combat, then by his own push to 'keep going' he would have killed himself. His drinking orgies, the way he took care of himself, (his wounds never healed against the Malians), etc. If that was not his undoing, I think his own generals would have off'd him, since Alexander would not just 'stop' and settle down. The army mutinied a couple times while he was alive, and after his death more so, his generals, (except for PERHAPS his CLOSEST), would have discreetly killed him because, they were tired and did not want to continue campagining. Alexander was... lol... Alexander, unique among men of history, someone who was never satisfied, always wanting more. Unless he changed generals, I think they had hit thier limits and I am a beleiver that his companions had a hand in his death.

[Saying Of The Day]

"History is, indeed, little more than the register of the the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind."

 

 

"The best and most important part of every man's education is that which he gives himself."

 

 

"Books are those faithful mirrors that reflect to our mind the minds of sages and heroes."

 

 

 

~Edward Gibbon

[The Western Empire Under Valentinian I]

Coming back to this topic, I find that there really is little written on Valentinian or his family. (Save for Lenski's work). Much is done on Theodosius, (I think this is due to his stance with Chrisitanity), but little is written then of the Valentinian Dynasty and the later Valentinian-Theodosian since they were tied together.

 

It would be, I think, an excellent thing if a scholar did a comprehensive work on at the very least Valentinian since he seems to be the last Emperor to truely rule the West and a man who all around had excellent qualities of a leader, his only fault perhaps being his love of his family*, and his anger problems which probably caused him to have an anyersium and die.

 

*I say family because Ammianus relates that when he was deciding on a collegue to rule with, he was advised, "If you love your relatives, most excellent emperor, you have a brother; if it is the state that you love, seek out another man to invest."

[Good Books On Dominate Era?]

The only one I can really think of is "Diocletian and the Roman Recovery" by Stephen Williams.

 

Though I have recently come across this, The Reflections of Diocletian by Robert C., II Montague, I don't know if this is fiction or actual fact...

[Invincible?]

Bad leadership had something to do with it, but it was also the reluctant nature of the late roman soldiery that didn't help. Becoming a soldier of Rome was no longer seen as a desired career. Also remember that although discipline was fierce in the legions - it had to be. Roman soldiers didn't obey without question. Mutinies were frequent and even Julius Caesar nearly lost control of his men once. A roman leader didn't just order his men to battle - he had to inspire and cajole them too. This pprobably got worse in the later roman armies although the question of cash wasn't so important (I think).

 

The increasing use of barbarian units may not have helped either. I wonder if this made the command structure worse too? The Huns had already got the measure of them in any case.

 

It can be argued that the officers of the Late Empire were actually the best than ever before in the state's history. This is due directly because of the 3rd Century Crisis. During that time, emperors broke with the tradition whereby higher commands were reserved for senatorial amaeturs as a step in thier aristocratic careers. Promotion was from henceforth by merit, and the high commands opened up to a far wider pool of talent. This allowed the best qaulified to become the commanders of the army, and also more quickly weeded out those who could not hack it since threats constantly threatened Rome, a commander's capacity to command would easily be tested. If he failed, he was done for, if not, he had an excellent career ahead of him. So leadership is not an issue here.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't barbarians always account for about half of the Roman army ever since at least the early Principate? The only thing that changed is that by the later empire the generalissimos were increasingly of babarian stock rather than traditional Roman landowners.

 

You're right Ursus, since the days of the Augustus Barbarians were used by Rome and it just increased and increased. The issue is when people see, "Barbarians" in the army they think of disorganized rabbles and men whom the Romans could not control, this was not the case, they were trained, structured and led like Roman Armies would normally be.

[When Ouija Boards Go Horribly Wrong]

I thought Romans had nothing against magic or "sorcery"? Or was this at a later time (after the arrival of Christianity)?

 

Yes, it was during thier reigns so were looking at 363AD and up, and by the reign of Theodosius 'Heresy' finally becomes a defined illegal and punishable act, and heresy was anything that was not Nicean Christianity.

[When Ouija Boards Go Horribly Wrong]

Ammanius Marcellinus records that in the early 370's, a group of officials were contemplating the successor to Imperator Valens. A tripod was constructed, and the gods invoked. The Tripod spelled out "TH - E - O -D".

 

And there the seance stopped, for everyone assumed it meant "Theodorus" a well-educated official from Gallic aristocracy.

 

Unfortunately, it was not Theodorus, but Theodosius who followed Valens. The officials, finding themselves on the wrong side of history, did not die peaceful deaths.

 

 

Let that be a lesson: don't trust strange ouija boards.

 

Valentinian and Valens were nuts when it came to 'evil sorcery'...

 

Another great example, when the two had officially assumed the purple and they returned to Constantinople, they both fell very ill suddenly and for a month or two it looked bad but then both made a full recovery. Immideitly were was an investigation into charges of sorcery against them, but men around the brothers calmed them down and investigations did not take place, or executitions, though the idea of 'sorcery' was something that would creep back up years later and when this incident was pulled, (the Theodorus affair), many lost thier lives to Valens purges of 'sorcery'... I beleive his brother followed a similar policy in the West as well.