metforce

Great question: Have always considered the reign of Justinian the transition between Roman and Byzantine history. In theory much of the western empire was ruled by barbarian kings with the blessing of the emperor. Romulus Agustulus was a usurper in all reality while Julius Nepos was the legitimate ruler. Zeno said so much by instructing Odovacer to accept him as such. With no real means to enforce this Odovacer was left to his own devices and the remnants of the empire in western Europe fell to other barbarian kings if they hadn't already. The Reconquest was an ambitious undertaking by Justinian but even so the emperor retook the Italian peninsula when Amalasuintha requested his help. In theory Justinian was intervening on behalf of a client who was ruling in his name. Even North Africa was reconqured under much the same pretext: the Vandal rulers were mercelessly persecuting their Roman chatholic subjects. While the Vandal kingdom fell quickly the Italian campagn dragged on for decades and drained the treasury and ultimately doomed Justinian's attempt to reestablish the empire in the west. Perhaps if Justinian had allowed Belisarius to rule the west as the co-Emperor, Ostrogothic support could have been harnessed and directed at recovering other parts of the empire. Justinian's reign marks the last gasps of the Roman Empire in many respects: the last appointed consuls, the last triumphs and the last games in the Roman Colosseum all occured during Justinian's reign. Justinian's reign also marks the start of the split between the Roman chatholic and Greek orthodox faiths.

Along this line, Priscus. If his works were complete we might have a better idea what was going on when the empire was fragmenting. I also find his material easier to read than Macellinus or Sidonius, which in my opinion get too formal for my tastes.

Thought there would be some more comments on this. It's supposed to be on display in July, should be interesting.

Financing the Empire 101 (The Late Empire): Just my two bits: The late empire had some very sophisticated financing schemes. Vast teams of accountants were responsible for calculating what the imperial government needed then collecting the necessary funds. This system appears to have run very well as long as there wasn

For Late Roman period I'd suggest AMH Jones. He may be dated but I've always found his writing pretty detailed to the point of being boring at times. But he put a lot of time reviewing some of the mundane aspects of late imperial life including tax collection and govenment functions. Keep in mind there were a lot of differences throughout the empire because the Romans usually adopted local traditions into the imperial system.

Good point on the vulnerability of the "left" side. I seem to remember reading some place that the Romans tended to put their best men on the left side of their formations. Can't find the reference now. This would seem to make sense putting your best men on the side where an opponent would not have the use of their shield.

I'll keep it simple. The "Fall of Rome" is a bit of a misnomer. In truth the lands of the Romans were still theoretically under control of the Eastern Emperors up to Justinian's time. It was through this theoretical framework that the much smaller populations of barbarians could weild some authority over the much larger population of Roman citizens. In my opinion the deathnel of the empire was the loss of its important cities and large swaths of its territory to different barbarians such as the Goths, Vandals, and and other German tribes. Without these territories the empire lacked the resources to enforce its will.

This is still hard for me to visualize. I've seen legionary reenactors but never Phalanx. Your description could work but perhaps the crux of the problem is the generals and Greek soldiers of Alexander were long gone by the time the Roman legions were being organized. Maybe a better question is who would win Alexander or Caesar?

True, rotate the shield to your side and you could easily pass between spear shafts. If you can pass through the initial spear points the shafts pose little danger. Your commrads have pushed their shields against the opponents spears rendering them useless. The second line of Hoplites would have a very difficult time changing the angle of their shear; you've got men infront of you so how would your level your spear when their shoulders are in the way? You'd have to lift your spear above your head which would be hard if you had others around you to contend with and if the spear is supported by a shoulder strap. The long lance just seems very unwieldy to me to manuver in close quarters. It's hard to get a real feel for the mechanics of Hoplite and Legion hand-to-hand combat because so many historians didn't get into that type of detail (at least the ones I've read). Think about this point, if you read any modern historians discussing battles how many discuss the loading and firing of weapons, what their advantages are, how infantry engages in combat, etc. The Triarii dwell in the late republic, the spearman would reemerge in the late roman army (which is where I dwell in the Roman history pantheon) as counterweights to the calvary formations of the barbarian tribes. This is apparent if you look at Justinian's mosaic at St. Vitalea in Revenna. His bodygard are all armed with large oval shields (with chi-rho symbols), carry heavy spears and appear to be wearing slave collars. (http://loki.stockton.edu/~fergusoc/lesson4/jump6.htm) My understanding is that the Triarii were used to keep an enemy at bay and provide cover if the first lines of the legion collapsed. When you use a spear you are usually trying to keep someone at a distance from you. My guess is that this troop form eventually disappeared because the Romans were so successful on the field (why have this unit which is designed to salvage your army after defeat when you rarely lose). While Hoplites are vulnerable to flanking attacks, its pretty evident to me their commanders knew this and took proper precautions to limit these types of attacks (not sure how). I'm not very into encounters with the Greek commanders who would have used Hoplite formations. My guess is this wouldn't have been as important once the Romans mastered the art of sea warfare after the punic wars. The greeks were quite good as sea warfare but probably were no match for the Carthaginians. The country that controled the sea controled the Mediterannean.

With shield. Not sure the lenth of Hoplite spears but would think they'd be quite long and unwieldy. Have seen some suggest that shoulder straps were used to help the men hold the spears for long periods suggesting that they are quite heavy. I think it would be very difficult to move them very well if your formation is shoulder to shoulder and four deep. Most martial arts stuff I've seen is one on one. Try using a weapon that needs wide space to operate in close quarters and see how effective the group is. I know medieval pikeman were quite adept at rotating their formations to face calvary charges but I do not think Hoplite formations were very effective at doing this. The Romans were quite good at close combat with heavy infantry. Still think a couple of men penetrating the spear line would spell doom to the Hoplite formation. I'm just an arm-chair warrior and most of my argument is based on what I've seen others comment on. Appreciate the exchange.

How effective would the pila (throwing javelin) have been if there were ranks of spears tilted upwards behind the front ranks of the Hoplites? It was my understanding that the Hoplite ranks were several deep and those in the back ranks angled their spears (pikes) upwards to deflect missile attacks. The Hoplite formation still seems vulnerable to close quarter combat. A 8' or 10' spear does me little good against a man with a gladius in close combat. Several men infiltrating the formation should cause chaos, panic and collapse.

I always thought that barbarization of the army was a problem. After much thought I've come to a conclusion the army was not the primary problem but loss of the major cities from direct control of the empire. The western emperors of the late fourth and fifth centuries gave up control of the land and cities to the large barbarian tribes thus depriving themselves of resources (men and materials). This is critical once an area falls outside the direct control of the empire, tax revenues and recruits no longer become available. Majorian was the last emperor to wield any authority outside Italy (he was also the last emperor to take control of the army in the field). He regained control of Gaul and Spain and was poised to wrest Africa from the Vandals when disaster struck. He suffered the same fate as other leaders who failed in the field; deposition and death. Those emperors that followed him, the shadow emperors, never held any authority outside of Italy and were reduced to begging for help from Constantinople.

Saw this on the history channel. Good tactic. The Roman soldier would allow the hoplite pike to hit his shield then push back. This would prevent the pikeman from moving forward. Other men would work their way towards the hoplites beteen their pike shafts and engaged them in close combat. With the hoplites weapon "pinned" against a shield they were probably easy targets for a soldier with a short weapon such as the gladius. A few men engaged in close combat with the hoplites would probably inflict damage and eventually ruin the formation. Attacks on the flanks if possible would also be affective. O O O O O Hoplite | | []| | | | | :| | | | | :| | | ^ ^ :^ ^ ^ [] [] [] [] [] Legion (Sorry for the crude drawing) For the hoplites to be successful the opponent must be kept at a distance and driven from the field. For the legion to be successful close combat must be engaged.

That's actually a good point (about competition). I would counter that the Romans did have a huge rival (the Persians) during most of their history. The driver in this point was warfare, which the Romans excelled at. The adoption of calvary in the late Roman period war a response to the heavily armored Cataphract the persians employed. In the relm of commerce there didn't seem to be this driver. Most of the Roman nobility was content to run their estates as their ancestors did. While commerce had its rewards it seems that most of the wealthy frowned on it. Your arguments have merit, I just don't think the Roman culture really grasped the concept.

Late empire, from Valentinian to Justinian.

Whoa on the second comment. Example: Ben Franklin was a wealthy gentleman (self made I'll admit). His experiments with electricity and observations of the weather lead certainly advanced our understanding of the natural world. Many of the founding fathers of America tinkered in the sciences. If you read Sidoneous' letters you get the impression that he just wasn't interested in many things other than writing long letters and enjoying his estates with his family and friends. Ben Franklin is almost a perfect case for my point. He wasn't an aristocrat, but initially an indentured servant. Only after he left indentured servitude did he begin his remarkably productive career, and it was his free and creative labor that created his wealth. Moreover, as he became wealthier, he didn't increase the rate of innovations, as your account predicts. I'd also point out that there is a huge difference between tinkerers and innovators. Jefferson, for example, was a magnificent tinkerer, but I can't think of a single product that he invented that he saw through to completion--i.e., actual, widescale manufacture. In contrast, people like Eli Whitney and Josiah Wedgwood (not aristocrats) not only invented new products and methods, but put them to use and to market. Good points for sure. History seems littered with individuals who showed some signs of our modern age. It just seems that we as a culture have spawned this insatiable appetite for "getting more for less". Not sure what makes this difference in philosophy between those of us who dwell in the modern age and those who are ancient history. Maybe it's just something more esoteric, I don't know. I'm just not convinced the ending of slavery or serfdom caused the great leaps in technology and understanding. I would hope that it was the other way around; that we've advanced so much that we've outgrown the confines of ancient thought. A bit philosophical but when it comes down to it are we actually happier than those who lived in ancient times?

These prices tell us almost nothing without knowing the price of free labor. As it is, even if the worth of a slave was 5 solidi, this cost has to be divided over the working life of a slave. Given that most technological advances have not been at the hands of aristocrats during any era, how can the lack of desire by Roman aristocrats explain the fact that the growth rate in the Imperial period was less than that experienced from the era of the Enlightenment to the modern age? The price wouldn't be the value for the slave but for the recruit. If anything this would seem to support my assertion that the laborer was quite valued by the land owner (that he would rather exchange gold for the work of a slave or coloni on his estate). I would also think that the slave value would be greater if he/she possessed some type of needed skill. This doesn't seem to support the "cheap" labor argument, otherwise the estate owner would gladly turn over his coloni or slaves because they could be easily and cheaply replaced. Whoa on the second comment. Example: Ben Franklin was a wealthy gentleman (self made I'll admit). His experiments with electricity and observations of the weather lead certainly advanced our understanding of the natural world. Many of the founding fathers of America tinkered in the sciences. If you read Sidoneous' letters you get the impression that he just wasn't interested in many things other than writing long letters and enjoying his estates with his family and friends.

I believe the western half of the empire would have been considered more "rural" than the eastern part at the time of Valentinian I. It would have had longer borders to protect and fewer resources to draw from. But while the east had more resources and a smaller border to protect it bordered Persia, an ancient super power that would take some skill to keep at bay. In other words it was no cake walk either. It was always my understanding that Valentinian I took the western half because he felt it was the more difficult half to govern. Valentinian I doesn't seemed to have had much conviction in his brother's abilities; but the army clamored for another Emperor to share the burdens of the state and Valentinian I seems to have trusted him so it seemed more of a marriage of convenience. (source Ammianus Marcellinus)

For a late imperial figure I guess he could be called great. Consider he won the important battles, treated his barbarian mercenaries well (which kept them loyal to the cause) and presided over one of the last stable times the empire would enjoy. I think the reason that his title leaves a sour taste in one's mouth is that he didn't live long enough to allow his sons to grow into their positions. Both Arcadius and Honorius were too young to govern the empire. Both fell under the sway of their retainers and were generally ineffective leaders.

By the end of the fifth century slave labor was anything but "cheap". Emperors desperate for soldiers tried to force the great landowners to provide recruits from their coloni or slaves. The great landowners protested and the emperors eventually relented and allowed them to commute their recruits for fixed sums to the treasury (5 solidi or 5lbs of silver); this makes it appear highly unlikely that "slave" labor was abundant or cheap by this time. I believe in reality the late roman economy was quite complex. Keep in mind most of the food grains were grown in Africa or Egypt then transported north. Much of the land in Italy was probably pasture or vineyards. Why, because those crops brought in more money than grain crops. There must have been some economic driver which made the lands in Africa and Egypt more economically suited to growing grains, possibly more fertile lands thus greater production over a smaller area thus requiring less labor. In my opinion this is quite an advanced system. Lack of technological advancement may have been due to a lack of desire by the top rungs of Roman society. Most of them seemed quite happy to live on their estates or travel between their many scattered holdings, exchange letters with their friends and maybe serve for a couple of years in the government to increase their status (or their family's status). If they did happen to come to a windfall they most likely bought more lands or held some public games to increase their status. I also wonder about the assertion that Rome lacked technological advancements. Most large Roman cities had running water and public sewers; pretty advanced in my book, considering it would be almost one thousand years before that would happen again.

I

Not sure if the cavalry was Rome's death knell. Most historians point to the Battle of Adrianople as a turning point. It seems clear to me that the heavy infantry of Valens was crushed by the Gothic cavalry. The problem with your question is what battle spelled the end of the Roman Empire? I can't think of any. No Roman emperor died defending the walls in 476, if you accept that date as marking the end of the Roman Empire. That said I do believe the Romans employed barbarian cavalry effectively when needed. If you read Procopius you'll see Belisarius employed Hunnish horse archers to great affect against the Vandals. During the reconquest of Italy Belisarius seized towns and took advantage of the Goths inability to conduct siege warfare to press them to the north even though he was for the most part outnumbered. That was one advantage the Romans always had over the various invaders; they could always hold their towns and regroup later after the invaders had depleted local resources. It was only after this strategy was no longer effective that the empire collapsed in the west.

I'll go with the Vandals. Their seizure of the Roman granaries in Africa and their piracy of the Mediterranean hastened the economic decline in the west. Expeditions sent by the eastern emperors further drained Roman resources that left them vulnerable to the other barbarian tribes already inside the empire.

I