[Michael Eging]

Another point - when Gaul did rebel, it remained "Roman." In fact, many areas of the empire were thoroughly Romanized. Gregory of Tours and others provide us windows into the "post" Roman Gaul. Roman Gaul was a buttress for the empire and even as the political influence of Rome waned, Gaul and other provinces provided a bulwark of Romanization for peoples like the Franks. So, Roman army defeats sometimes were among "family" and did not mean the province was lost to the orbit of Roman culture.

Another point. The Byzantines did not suddenly spring forth from the Roman mind. In fact, until 1453 when the Turks finally battered their way into Constantinople, they considered themselves direct heirs to the Caesars. In fact, they called themselves Romans. The empire was far different than the time of Constantine, but they did not call, or think, of themselves as Byzantines...

Fun thread...



As to the Eastern campaigns, what often happened to Roman armies (Julian comes to mind) was a stretched supply train, a resilient enemy that nibbled away at the Roman war machine, and mutiny. Sure, there was centuries long back and forth along the border (wins and loses). But remember, Belisarius handled the Eastern frontier with essentially a post-Adrianople army. Also, Heraclius drove into the heart of the empire a century later and humbled the Persians. These armies were a mixture of horse and infantry that were quite effective on deep campaigns into hostile territory.

[Michael Curl]

Well, the romans had some wins, some losses. They did eventually conquer great amounts of parthian territory. To call them wildly successful though would have been an overestimation. At more than one battle the roman emperor was killed by the parthians. However the parthians had no skill at seige warfare so they couldn't do much but starve them out. However eventually the parthians were displaced by a revitalized persian empire. The Persians fought very similar to the parthians except they were skilled at siege craft.

So the war was often back and forth. However eventually the romans in the east copied the Persian way of warfare. Also, the Persian were displaced by the Arabs Muslims when they made there empire, and then they were displaced by the turks, who eventually conquered Constantinople.

So you could think about it as the romans never conquered them, but they out lasted the parthians, the persians, and the arabs.

[Shayan G]

I don't know about that--the Romans changed dynasties all the time. We call them Roman because they were CULTURALLY Romano-Greek, not because that's the name of a continuous dynasty.

The Parthians and Sassanians were dynastic names, not completely distinct cultures or people. Parthians were Iranian nomads with Persian culture before they beat the Seleucids, and the Sassanians were Persian in every way, ethnically and culturally. Like the Romans, the Persian empires were ethnically and culturally hyperplural, but with one dominant culture. Even when the Arab conquests happened, Persian cultural mores and structures largely assimilated the conquerors, and native Persian dynasties kept popping up in the Iranian plateau until (like the Byzantines) the dreaded Turks arrived! And even the Turks Persianized eventually (my recent ancestors were just such Turks, now Persianized!)

Those Persians are culturally resilient troublemakers! Knock them down six times, they pop up seven...as my ancestors learned

But back on topic, the Parthians/Sassanians and Romans gave each other black eyes for centuries, with Roman emperors dead or captured, Persian cities (almost the capital, Ctesiphon once!) sacked or captured, etc...the Romans were hardly undefeated in that region of the Mediterranean, but they were by no means conclusively walloped either!

[Ken Speed]

Michael Eging wrote,
"As to the Eastern campaigns, what often happened to Roman armies (Julian comes to mind) was a stretched supply train, a resilient enemy that nibbled away at the Roman war machine, and mutiny. Sure, there was centuries long back and forth along the border (wins and loses). But remember, Belisarius handled the Eastern frontier with essentially a post-Adrianople army. Also, Heraclius drove into the heart of the empire a century later and humbled the Persians. These armies were a mixture of horse and infantry that were quite effective on deep campaigns into hostile territory."

The Roman military organization has seemed to have some inherent contradictions built into it. I'm talking about the Roman Romans not the Byzantine Romans. One of the things I've heard is that the Roman military really didn't have anyone handling intelligence. I know hind sight is twenty twenty but that is really hard to believe and yet apparently true. It has also struck me that the Romans took big risks letting slingers, archers, and cavalrymen primarily be auxiliaries as opposed to actually part of the Legions.

One of the things said about military leadership is that generals are always fighting the last war, not the war they are in and I think that is eminently true of the Legions. The Legions developed a really good system and part of what made it such a good system is that they rigorously stuck with it but that was, simultaneously, a major weakness; they had one way of doing things (The right way, the wrong way and the Legion's way) and they stuck with it. Sometimes it worked really well and sometimes they got creamed. Sending heavy infantry with 60 to 80 pounds of gear per man against light cavalry in a cavalry environment is like going into the Minnesota woods in July without mosquito repellent, someone is going to lose a lot of blood and it ain't going to be the mosquitos.



Ken Speed

[Michael Curl]

Uhh, the Romans changed there means of warfare a lot, even if you only talk about the western empire, you have to realize that the Roman legion after the 2nd century rarely took to the field in pitched battles, they usually just counter raided their enemies across the border, meaning they were effectively changing tactics to the new model of low intensity warfare along the western frontier.

[James R.Fox]

Sirs-When I say that the Romans did not change in the basics untill after Adrianople,I an referring to basic traditions of organization, tradition, dicipline, and logistics.The Romans used "barbarians " in the army at least from the time of Agustus, who used German bodyguards and auxillaries. However these men were seperated from their tribes and scattered among the Italian allies and auxillarys, and trained to Roman standards by Roman officers The Romans not only hired these men, they were often prisoners of war. The Romans also drafted contingents of man power to to permamanently weaken defeated tribes. I saw one estimate, can't remember where, that Julius Caesar executed, enslaved or deported on third of the male population of Gaul for this reason.Also, the Romans continuously adopted good Ideas from their enemies, the Gladius from the Celt-Iberians, mail from the Celts,cataphracts from the Sassanids,, horse archers from the middle-east, etc.But, they were then adapted to Roman standsrds of dicipline, officered by Romans, etc.Tlis was not possible after Adrianople, Theodosius had to hire whole tribes under their own kings and officers to have Any army. They fought just as well as Romans at the Frigidus, but they were not Romans. Read Procopius' " History" to see the problems having to use Huns,Alans,Isaurians as regular soldiers gave Belisarus

[Martin Halligan]

very good discussion. Mr. Fox might usefully read the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Roman-Army-Adr...amp;sr=1-1

I didn't see that this was listed in the very good replies; if it was, sorry...

[William P]

whats the opinion of people about the level of skill reagrding the limitanei

this guys made a video in oppositiion of the 'barbaratisation' theory suggesting instead that the oman army and ths the empire fell because the good skill and training and good veterens were lost during the civil wars after the death of commodus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GmqtfGwIDw&feature=feedlik

how would the limitanei have been equipped, this guy suggested the limitanei were pretty poor quality, non state supplied in their armour, and mostly lacking the iron discipline of the earlier legions?

[Kurt Scholz]

Admiral Mahan named the Roman navy as the backbone of their strength because it gave them a freedom of movement and supply superior to their enemies since the First Punic War at which time Rome became the leading sea power.

I would ask about power projection, where especially supply routes count, by sea it's about 25 times cheaper than over land and 5 times cheaper than along the rivers. Another question would be collaboration, if some regions lacked a narrative that helped collaboration, then the Romans might have a hard time weeding out resistance that flares up at each opportune moment. Homosexuality might be such a dividing issue because it was quoted as such in the Batavian revolt.