[Did The Bulk Of The Legions Die From The Plaque?]

The biggest Plagues that struck the Roman armies were the one described above and with Marcus Arulius and the one which stopped Justinian from reconquoring the west. I am more familiar with the later one then under Marcus Arulius. For example in the first 10 yrs of Justinian

[Narses And Belisarious]

You can say what you will...the facts are the numbers in all battles were extreme for the Goths ,Vandals and most battles German tribes fought. They did not fight unless they thought the numbers were favorable. What I have read the numbers were extreme for the Germanics and my name sake against Caesar, Goths in all battles and were then driven back over the Danube. Strange that some think the German tribes were that good. Think it is pure Aryan trash. I could say that about the forest trap too. Romans pooorly led and spread out and greatly outnumbered. When the Romans lost they ussaully lost most of their men, Germanics lost great numbers and then fled in terror. Caesar was even surpriesed how they cannot fight once they get wounded even! This is the truth from Caesar(who fought them many times) , Marius, Narses who was so outnumbered that it would seem school boys could have beaten him. That is the numbers not your excuses for German losses. Another angle: Huns easily defeated the German tribes(late Roman period...so maybe they were in decline too? Maybe they still had poor leadership? I am sure they outnumbered the Huns too.) ,the Huns were easily defeated bt the Chinese( Huns when west for easy pickings), Huns defeated eventauly by Roman and German force. Obviosly this could not be done without the Romans, who by that time were not much of a fighting force.

 

The general rule is I think that a well led Roman army would probably defeat anything the Germanics could throw at them, a good example is the Roman/Byzantine reconquests in which the Vandals and Ostrogoths were defeated by small but extremely well led Roman armies. There are also many examples of superior Roman tactics overcoming Germanic numerical superiority, however as the Roman army slowly decayed the Germanic army advanced and the balance was broken.

 

I still strongly believe however that the Roman legions were so superior to the the Germanic armies and that view is justified in the various examples ive pointed out, even when in dire crisis the Romans were able to defeat and expel the Germans. Also had the Germans been superior the Roman empire would surely not have survived as long as it did.

How about Marius: The great battle of Aquae Sextiae (near modern Aix-en-Provence), that Marius destroyed an vast barbarian army of Teutones and Ambrones. The defeat of the invaders was assured when Consul Q. Lutatius Catulus and his subordinate, Sulla, fought and won battles at Vercellae in 101. The invading armies were so reduced that it would be two generations before they again seriously troubled Rome. Sulla's contribution to Catulus' victory had been critical. There was an obvious alienation between the three men as to who could claim credit for the victory, although Marius agreed to celebrate a joint triumph with Catulus.

 

As for Caesar not fighting against the Germans that was the main reason he went To Gaul to aid them against the German tribes! Before him his uncle Marius stopped the Cimbri and Tuetones cold as they attempted to do the following. He was outnumbered by such great odds.

Caesar fought aginst the Belgae,Nevii,Usiptes,tenteri and many,many more tribes. This is all in the 'Gallic Wars'

Caears soldiers new the numbers against them were so great that Caesar himself had to stop his men from mutiny reminding them how Gaius easily defeated the German tribes being greatly outnumberd too.

While in Italy, Caesar learned that the Belgae had invited two German tribes, the Usipetes and Tencteri, to cross the Rhine into northern Gaul in numbers supposedly comprising 430,000. They intended to ally with the Belgae. When Caesar confronted the tribal leaders, they told him they had been forced to cross the Rhine against their will. Caesar ordered them to return and they asked for a series of delays in which to consult with the Ubii, into whose territory they had been ordered.

Caption:

In spite of a truce, as the two armies were drawn up in negotiations, German cavalry attacked Caesar's horsemen and gave him an excuse for a ruse of extraordinary cunning and treachery. The next day, the German leadership came in a body to Caesar to apologize for breaking the truce. Caesar put the lot under guard and raced with his army to the German position eight miles away. The Germans, leaderless and completely surprised, soon broke. The Romans chased tens of thousands of them back towards the junction of the Meuse and the Rhine. Many were killed; many, attempting to swim the river, drowned. It was an absolute, effective and inglorious victory, later much criticized by Caesar's enemies in Rome.

I can go on and on citing records of many Roman victories by many others,it gets pointless. The Germans were stopped cold many times trying to wreck either Gaul or Rome. They only succeeded if you can call it that through mass migrations while Rome was really no more. The problem I have is some aryan historians paint the Germans(tacitus also, who most know just fabricates) stating that the Geramn tribes were so fierce. I say the numbers tell a story of such great numbers could not do much against the Romans or te Huns. To me it just seems impossible for them to lose given their numbers but their lack of fighting skills has to be looked into not their myths. If you wanta fierce Roman foe, look to the Iberians or Dacians or Parthians. Th

The Dacians(thracian origin) kept the Germans and Scythians at bay for a long time until the Romans weakened them. The Iberians must have fought well given their lack of numbers and giving the Romans much difficulty. I am just amused why some just do not undersatnd the advantage numbers play in hand to hand combat. Yes leadership and discipline matter but anyone who knows fencing or knife fighting techniques that being outnumberd by even one is difficult or impossible. The numerics of the German tribes prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were clods at hand to hand. Or you can just read what the Aryan historians would like you to believe and shine each others boots

[Phalanx Vs. Legions]

Why was the phalanx so imobile?The English used a kinda phalanx during the civil war and they were anything but imobile.The English used Pikemen and they were arranged in units of a couple of hundred men,they would march in line formation or form squares if cavalry were about,it only takes a couple of seconds to get into square formation and then no one can get at your backs.Infact the english were using these tactics at the time of the red coats too,a Brown Bess musket with a 3ft bayonet on the end is a kinda spear i suppose.All of the Army's parade groud marching today is based on the pikemen's drills from the civil war.

So why were the Greek phalanx's so slow and cumbersome,as i understand it they only used the one tactic,which is to form a long line at the front and wait for the cavalry to get round the enemy and push them onto your sarissa's.I may be wrong though

 

A point well made, but the greeks had to compensate for their sheilds, which were much different. The English Pikeman didn't have as standardized equipment and often didn't fight with sheilds. The formation without sheilds would have allowed for slight changes in angles and direction of the phalanx formation without disrupting the overal defenses. Whereas the greek form of the phalanx used sheilds, which had to be kept in a certain overlaping wall (or simply held depending on era) which they depended on for defense becuase they didn't have the same body armor as the English Pike man later on. So when atempting to change direction of the phalanx these sheilds would have to be lifted up, there by lowering the defensive. They could not do this in battler becuase a opening in the sheild wall would break defenses which were nessacary becuase of the lesser body armor of the standard greek hoplite.

 

All said and done the general would be weary to change position of the phalanx on the line when the formation was ready and marching towards the oponent (in this case roman) that could use any disruption in the order to its advantage with a deadly barrage of pilum and then a charge with the advantage of the broken phalanx. The phalanx would only function effectively against a roman oponent who had no opertunity to use its pilum with which to break up the tight packed formation. This means that the calvary would have to be used in order to keep the romans from their deadly charge, to effectively use the hammer and anvil strategy. This meant that the greek infentry had to be close enough to their roman oponents to have effect while not being damaged by pilum or other projectiles. Hence they added sheilds with which to defend against these projectiles creating the imobility of the phalanx.

 

The Roman Legion was a self contained unit mostly based upon HI whereas the Macedonian Phx was an organization with the Phx as the holding unit while the HC attacked the flanks. In between they had a flexible unit which could fight in any terrain. In addition to this they had mounted archers, javelin men, archers, slingers, artillery, and other units. Under Alexander and unit commanders they operated in all types of terrain and against all types of mil orgs. Rome had the finest military discipline and would win the war but in battle the unit flexible and HC of the Macedonian army would prevail. Rome when it fought Hannibal only won at Zama when they had a superior cal unit. That was one of the few times they every bothered with cav until forced much later in history. The combined force of the Mac was superior then the HI of Rome

[Phalanx Vs. Legions]

Why was the phalanx so imobile?The English used a kinda phalanx during the civil war and they were anything but imobile.The English used Pikemen and they were arranged in units of a couple of hundred men,they would march in line formation or form squares if cavalry were about,it only takes a couple of seconds to get into square formation and then no one can get at your backs.Infact the english were using these tactics at the time of the red coats too,a Brown Bess musket with a 3ft bayonet on the end is a kinda spear i suppose.All of the Army's parade groud marching today is based on the pikemen's drills from the civil war.

So why were the Greek phalanx's so slow and cumbersome,as i understand it they only used the one tactic,which is to form a long line at the front and wait for the cavalry to get round the enemy and push them onto your sarissa's.I may be wrong though

 

A point well made, but the greeks had to compensate for their sheilds, which were much different. The English Pikeman didn't have as standardized equipment and often didn't fight with sheilds. The formation without sheilds would have allowed for slight changes in angles and direction of the phalanx formation without disrupting the overal defenses. Whereas the greek form of the phalanx used sheilds, which had to be kept in a certain overlaping wall (or simply held depending on era) which they depended on for defense becuase they didn't have the same body armor as the English Pike man later on. So when atempting to change direction of the phalanx these sheilds would have to be lifted up, there by lowering the defensive. They could not do this in battler becuase a opening in the sheild wall would break defenses which were nessacary becuase of the lesser body armor of the standard greek hoplite.

 

All said and done the general would be weary to change position of the phalanx on the line when the formation was ready and marching towards the oponent (in this case roman) that could use any disruption in the order to its advantage with a deadly barrage of pilum and then a charge with the advantage of the broken phalanx. The phalanx would only function effectively against a roman oponent who had no opertunity to use its pilum with which to break up the tight packed formation. This means that the calvary would have to be used in order to keep the romans from their deadly charge, to effectively use the hammer and anvil strategy. This meant that the greek infentry had to be close enough to their roman oponents to have effect while not being damaged by pilum or other projectiles. Hence they added sheilds with which to defend against these projectiles creating the imobility of the phalanx.

[Timur The Lame, The Ottomans And The Byzantines]

I was thinking of his charming vote winner of building huge mounds of skulls from butchered captives ,80,000 allegedly at Delhi , a tactic repeated against any enemy even co-religionists.His alleged intention was to restore Mongol power including subjugating China His religious inclinations seem to heve been tinged with a primitive shammanism.I believe his father was responsible for the excellent saying "the world is a beautiful vase full of scorpions" before retiring in disgust to a Muslim monastery.

 

Colin Wilson in " a Criminal History of Mankind " has a jaw dropping piece on Timur.

 

Wilson's " History of Violence" is worth a look.Both the titles mentioned are worth reading even if you disagree with Wilson's approach and sensational style, he at least attempts to look into the mind of the vicious or driven powerful individual.

 

These texts were very fashionable when I was a student and considered ground breaking at that time , I might try and re-read them now to see if time has been kind to the authour

 

The key reason it took so long to recover is the loss of the Ottoman emperor, the civil war that started among his sons and the revolt of a number of his emirs. Could the Byz empire have recovered? Timur was heading west strategically at this time to conquer China, his ability to influence the outcome of Anatolia was questionable. However his destruction of the Ottomans was the last chance of the Byz empire.

 

If they could have kept the Serbs and Bulgars from attacking in the West, and had reallocated there full resources to the battle to reclaim Anatolia it is possible. But doubtful

[The Byzantine Empire's Most Serious Loss]

Well maybe talk about Constantinople's fall in 1204 A.D: lol. My examination will soon.

 

I was reading a book the other day concerning the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmet II. This book shows the battle from the point of view of the Byzantines intially and then the Ottomans later. I was surprised in this book how high Byzantine enthusiasm was during the siege. They were convinced that they were in the right, and that the barbaric heretic Turk was in the very worst of the wrong side. Some of the people say that the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders did not "count", as it had been treachery that had led to the fall, and had not lasted. It was this book that has made me wonder whether to start a thread on if the Byzantines could have recovered and rebuilt had they beaten Mehmet or at least caused him to withdraw. It really was a lot closer than most think

Thank you John Norwich Julius for that !

 

A good argument could be made for all of the above battles, however if you look at the most critical battle lost it would have to be the Revolution and death of Maurice in 602 (not really a battle). He had defeated the Persians and the Avars and was getting ready to take on the Lombards in Italy. Without his death, the empire would have had an intact - trained and highly skilled army. It would have had tremendous financial support and would easily have defeated the Arab drive from the South.

[Casar Lives And Invades Parthia]

Caesar was set in the fall to invade the Parthian empire before he died. Rome was primarily in infantry army which relied upon shock, and short range missile (pilum) throws vs the Part horse archer and HC. They had cut up one Roman Army in the not to distant past and would tear up Anthony shortly after. However Cesar had apparently learned from past mistakes and had built a good army to offset these tactics. Considering the brilliance of Caesar and his ability to overcome logistic feats, the quality of the troops, and his dispositions could he have won, and more importantly have consolidated his gains.

[Manzikert-disaster Or Mere Defeat?]

I'll have to keep an eye open for that, i have a very high opinion of John Julius Norwich

 

 

I think the key factor of defeat was the civil war that lasted really from 1071

[Phalanx Vs. Legions]

This argument has a way of always evolving into the Caesar vs Alexander debate given that those two commanders represent the best of their nations retrospective generals commanding the best legions/phalanx. It has also been established that Caesar would destroy Alexander. Lets just ignore Cynoscephelae and Pydna for a second, yes if Aemelius Paullus had come up against Alexander, then Alexander probabaly would have won. But this discussion can only be determined by comparing the best of the best. Caesar and Alexander represent such categories but given that the legions were designed to destroy a phalanx, I don't think there can be any doubt over who would win.

 

I think it comes down to leadership and which time frame you are in. If you look at the armies which defeated the Romans over and over again it was based upon the Alexandrian method of Heavy inf and a strong Heavy Cav. These were the methods of Hannibal who was not defeated until Rome revised its method of warfare to have a superior cav arm at Zama.

 

The legion was founded to defeat the Gauls not the Greeks. The Macedonian army was also very flexible until after the death of Alexander. After this the pike length and armor was increased to give a better power push but at the cost of speed and flexibility. In addition the light infantry of Alexander (bow

[Could Justinian Have Re-united The East And West?]

After reading info on Justinians campaigns, I've finally comed to realize how much an effect a plague or an outbreak of diseases can have on an empire. Thus, I believe Justinian no matter what, could not combat it. And so he lost taxpayers and most importantly,couldn't find any soldiers, which now he had to rely on the barbarians for recruitment. We know how that turned out when the Western empire experimented with that option.

Off topic, does anyone think that it was really dirty of Heraclius when he attacked the Visigoths on a sunday when they were at mass during the Hispanian campaign.

 

 

I think the issues Justinian faced were pretty simple. Byzantium could have easily defeated the Persians under Justinian if the plague had not broken out. The extra revenue from Africa and from Italy as well as the troops that could have been produced would have been a tipping point. In face the reason that the Persians attacked Byz is the fear that a partially reunified Byz / Rome would have too great a resource base to deal with. The problem was not defeating Persia but instead conconq Persia which was a tribal confederation of Calvary. Rome won many of the battles against Persia and the Byz HC armed with both bow and lance reduced the Persian ability to pin cushion the Roman sold. With arrows.

 

After Justin

[Could Justinian Have Re-united The East And West?]

I don't believe so. Even after Heraclius' victories against the Persians, the armies (of both the Byzantines and the Persians) were exhausted. They could not hold back the flood of people, united under the word of Mohammed. I don't believe that even a rebuilt empire could have held them off, not one so recently rebuilt anyway.

15097[/snapback]

 

If the west had been reunited under my alternate scenario, I think the answer is yes. The Persians were only able to take Syria, Egypt and a very large part of Asia Minor because of the weakness brought upon by Justinian's search for glory. He exhausted the empire.

 

Without this drain on manpower and finances, it is very likley that the eastern front would have held and the Roman/Persian conflict would have remained one of raids and periodic siege warfare around upper Mesopotamia. If this happened, then the people of Syria and Egypt would have likely been far less unhappy with their Roman overlords and the Arab tribal leaders would have been far less likely to have gone unpaid by their Roman benefactors.

 

Don't forget that Islam was only able to hold Syria and Egypt in the early years because of the active aid of the citizens of those regions. Also, its important to note that Heraclius, as a measure of economy for his nearly bankrupt treasury, had stopped paying his arab allies who were monphysite Christians. Without the unhappiness and ultimate change in allegiance of Rome's Arab allies, it is also highly unlikely that the arab raiders from the interior could have held Syria or even beaten the Roman forces there.

 

The Moslem conquest was a very delicate business in the early years. Many things had to go right for them all at the same time for it to work so it would be very easy to create a believable alternate timeline where it did not work.

 

So if the Roman Empire had not been so exhausted by Justinian, then the sequence of events that led to its being exhausted under Heraclius would have been far less likely. And that would have meant that Rome's Arab allies would have been better paid and most likely kept their loyalty to Rome in sufficient numbers to repel the invaders or to have even discouraged their attack in the first place.

[Justinian's Reign - Success Or Failure?]

Justinian's dream was a false hope anyway because the Pope recognized that the Church finally had its own political power so he actually pretended that Justinian was the ruler Romae for a while. So the Pope planned to crown a novum imperatorem to counter Eastern emperors ruling the Church. So who happened to be in the spot for the job, it was Clovis, leader of the Franks. Clovis, who had a Christian wife, was outnumbered before a battle and his wife told him to appeal to God and so Clovis won the battle and decided to convert the Franks to Christianity. From there on, the Pope had politcal leadership and ties with the Merovingians(Frankish Dynasty)And so Charlemagne happened to come from Clovis family or the Merovingians. The Pope made a deal with Charlemagne to conquer the Lombards and Charlemagne would be the new emperor of the west to counter the eastern emperors.

 

 

Justinian would have reunited much of the Roman Empire and reenergized the kingdom. He first defeated the Persian Empire and signed the "everlasting peace" and then conquered Africa and most of Italy quickly adding 45% more population to the kingdom and defeating a weak gothic kingdom. This was done in the first 10 yrs of his reign. If the plague had not struck which reduced the population including the tax base and army by between 50 % - 70 % Italy would have been stabilized in 5 yrs vs. the 20 yrs it took. Because of the drop in population he was forced to reduce his army in Italy by 50% thereby allowing a resurgent Gothic state to reclaim much of Italy. He in turn reconquored Italy but between the plague in Italy and the destructive war it was decimated.

 

To give you an idea of the damage caused by the plague - the conquest of a populous Africa and Italy should have added 50% more population to the empire, however the net result of the plague left the empire with a total reduction in the entire empire - but now with significant more border area to protect with less tax base and a reduced army. Even with these reductions and tax loss - army depletion he went on to easily conquer 20% of Spain.

 

Net result if the plague never hit - Italy reconquored - Spain reconquored - Africa reconquored - peace in the east - and a good relationship with the Franks - a reduced but stable and powerful empire.

[I Figured It Out; The Fall Of The Roman Empire]

I thought it long and hard, and came to this conclusion... they became a bunch of pussies at the end and refused to enlist, or for that matter, draft armies of decent, hardworking men. It's was every roman males fault as well as thier leadership. Blame Joe Ceasar, he took his countrymen to ruin. Just like with what almost happened in France (WW1) with the Four Coporals, you can only blame the leadership so far before you take into account the character of the people serving beneath them, and how they fed of each other to produce disaster.

 

Had good men served. good leadership would of emerged to meet the demands of the craft.

 

Actually i used to feel the same way - however as i did more research i came to understand that the Rome really ran into major trouble wiht the advent of the Plauge under the reighn of Marcus Aur. when upwards of 50% of the roman pop died. Including a high % of the army. This major pop loss really impacted the army and the tax base. Even worse was the plauge in the middle of Justianian's rule, soon after the caputure of Italy from the goths. Upwards of 50 - 70 % of the pop died - for example the pop of the empire after the capture of Italy and Africa was the same as before these populous regions were captured. The loss of rev and armys was a true didaster.