Talk:Campaign history of the Roman military/Archive/1

General Discussion

Someone rewrote my section on the early army. I have no problems with this, and I'd want to check my facts before debating anything they put forward in what I read. However, their discussion of battle tactics and weapons in the Marian army was unfortunately lacking in accuracy. No one, especially not battle-armored legionaries, could chuck a pilum 100 yards. Further, artillery was only rarely used in the field, and automatic ballistas were more novelty toys than effective battlefield weapons. I'd like to straighten this out when I get a chance.

Bonjour, bonjour. It was I. I did it. But, it is not as bad as you think. First of all, this is a big subject and there are a lot of questions in it. Please see my suggestion of breaking this up below. Second, I am trying to get some info from "The Roman Legions" by H. M. D. Parker in there. It is a very scholarly work. Third, I haven't even started on the reforms of Marius, so if that has changed it was not I. As for the 100 yards, that is a maximum throw downhill. I read that I forget where now. I believed it because Roman soldiers worked out every day 4 hours doing things like throwing pila. As for the machines of war, I believe you are wrong there. Caesar sometimes used them on the flanks. If you want I can get the passage from de Bello Gallico. Neither of us has even touched the subject of Roman machines of war, which is a big one. They were in fact very effective, especially in a seige. As another example, there were plenty of bowmen, but none of us has said a word about it. And lastly, I would say this. Parker has footnotes on every page citing primary and secondary references. We could get to that level but I suspect it would take up too much space. Nevertheless there ought to be some of it in there. Your opinion or my opinion ought to come only after checking the source detail. There are quite a few different opnions, you know, even among the ancients. So, although I appreciate your toleration, statements like "lacking in accuracy" do indeed need to be verified against the sources. Do you know what is accurate? If not, you need to have some basis for generalization. I have a certain amount of time to spend on it. I will be glad to check anything out or work anything out with you. Go ahead, rewrite! But, unless we get some more space, not too much more can be done. We can revert and that is about it. Please do consider my suggested reorganization below.Botteville 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I have the answer to the 100 yards. The second rank threw over the heads of the first, often lanceae instead of pilae, and with the lanceae they used a throwing sling, the amentum.Botteville 00:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, and I'm glad that we have two people on this because it forces us to check our facts rigorously. I tried to find my primary sources in this (some Polybius and a good deal of Peter Connoly's work) but I may have left Connoly behind in London during my 6-month stay there one year ago. My email is: fabius.maximus@gmail.com - do email me and I'd be happy to, as you suggest, work with you on rewriting this and comparing our sources, their trustworthiness, and so forth in the event that they disagree. I very much look foward to undertaking this project, and I apologize for my delayed response - I've been extremely busy of late.

Plumbatae or Mattiobarbuli

Could someone familiar with the area have a look at this new page? I did wonder whether to redirect it here, but thought I'd leave it to the experts. Thanks PubLife 12:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I heard you, brother, and fixed it. Scholarship is great, I love it, but you need the books. The Internet alone just doesn't do it.Botteville 05:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As it turns out, I'm not the only one to pick up the eagle you let fall. Gaius Cornelius has taken a hand. Aren't you pleased? Now we find out something closer to the truth. My verion is getting significantly changed. If you have something to add, please chip in.66.30.94.153 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do! But Should Be Done. Yes?

• The name is not really appropriate, is it? We have included the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Republic as well. A breakup seem warranted.
• Suggestion 1. Create three articles. But then, that would break up the list of wars, which is very neat.
• Suggestion 2. I notice that the section on Roman army is disproportionately blown up, which is partly my fault. There is so much to say on the Roman army! If we just have summary sections, Roman Army, Roman Navy, and have different modules on each discernable topic, then we all can have something to work on that can be more easily discussed and verified and we would get a lot more space. If we are keeping one overall article, this one, then "of the Roman empire" needs to be just "of Ancient Rome".
• Suggestion 3. Revert out botteville. In that case I will concentrate on small subsidiary articles explicating some things, and that will give me a chance to bring in the sources. But, I dare say, I thought the former Roman Army part didn't really say much and also there were things in there that did not jibe with Parker, "The Roman Legions." That doesn't necessarily mean they were inaccurate, as all we have are ancient sources from which different conclusions can be drawn. Classicists spend quite a few words on this sort of thing.

What do you think?Botteville 01:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

salvete omnes: On the subject of breaking up an article, this needs to be done with some care, but generally YES. I think good articles are those that serve the reader best and we might hope that there will be many readers coming to an article on Roman military history with no preconceptions. The most important 'fact' about any topic of Roman history is simply that there is a lot of it - a thousand years or so in round numbers. It seems to me that the uninitiated reader is best served by a general article that gives a panoramic view that infoms and possibly corrects the myopic Hollywood leather Cuirass and coal scuttle helmet image. The reader, if still interested, should be led to more detailed articles covering the kingdom, republic, empire and (I would add) late empire.

It is a common failing of Wikipedia that articles with general titles have specific content. For example, before I did something about it, the article on fishing was really an article on angling and sports fishing - and mainly in the USA at that. Ironically, this article seems to be an example of exactly the reverse: content more general that the title.

Gaius Cornelius 08:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ready?

Si valete valeo. I'm back after a decent interval to consider these matters. It looks as though we keep this article but reduce some sections to overviews referencing specific articles. The first step is to change the name. I propose to do this by moving the article to Military History of Ancient Rome. If there is no objection I will do this within a few days without additonal comment, unless someone does it first. Then I will outline some changes. Stop me if you disagree. Dave 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved. More Changes.

The move worked. The huge list of double redirects indicates the popularity of the subject. I think there is over 500. Is there not some software to take care of this? We could put it back - but - then you would have an inappropriately named article unable to be changed because of all the links on it. If we followed that policy, all the inappropriate names would result in an inappropriate encyclopedia. We can plug away on the double redirects. This is a good overall article and should not need another name change.

Now for the size. I propose to break out three articles (this is not a division of the original article): The Military establishment of the Roman kingdom, the Military establishment of the Roman republic and the Military establishment of the Roman empire. These are portrayals of the military in the society of the times and do not cover wars any more than is necessary, as those are in the main article. This will save us about half of the current 14 pages and permit further development of introductory paragraphs with links to specialized topics, and there are now quite a few of those.

In place of the establishment material I would put a paragraph or possibly two introducing the topic and making the connection.

Desilite commilitones. If no one objects within a day or two I will implement the changes just outlined. Dave 13:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What is this?

I haven't taken a look at this article in months, and now that I return, it hardly speaks about the military at all! It's reading like a brief history of Rome itself, which is definitely what the article is about. It is supposed to be about the military. I think it needs a major rewrite and/or breaking up. I am going to start this sometime tommorow, and if no one likes it, you can revert it, but this tells readers nothing of note about the Roman army.

--Masamax 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's the hastati?

Why's there no mention at all about Republican manipular tactics? Fornadan (t) 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A. Reader

I'm trying to use this for basic background on which to construct further reading. One major deficit for me is the lack of any information or links about the Roman soldier's job. What did he do exactly? How did his job change? If not included on this page, it would be great to have a separate page for it. vive miles! (fluoronaut 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Flouro - I'd reccomend two books: First "Greece and Rome at War," written and illustrated by Peter Conolly (sic? two n's?). Don't mistake it for a children's book - it's one of the best resources I've seen on the Roman Army.

Secondly - "In the Name of Rome: the men who won the Roman Empire" by Adrian Goldsworthy. It's much more narrative, but in its entirity paints a thoroughly satisfying picture of the evolving army.

Appraisal section

Am I the only one who thinks the Appraisal section ("What made the Romans Effective..." and "Central Factors in Roman success") is poorly written and looks a bit like original research? "Central factors" is especially poorly written in my opinion. It also seems unsupported, but I'm not a historian. Some examples of unencyclopedic writing: "In support of these five? propositions [...]", "This section will not repeat the heavy detail of other articles on things like [...]", "Five [factors] are offered here where [sic] cover both naval and infantry forces:", etc.

I think the whole section should be re-written in a more encyclopedic tone, with references. Andran 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since the original author didn't bother to rewrite this section, I will. Bear in mind I know little about Ancient Romans, so maybe I'm butchering this section. I'm removing anything that is poorly worded or that seems like original research. If anyone has a problem, instead of reverting it please help rewrite it! Andran 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have reviewed changes made to the section but statements that the original was "unencyclopedic" and poorly written seem overly broad. How does one define "encyclopedic"? It would be helpful that when statements like this are made, there are at least some concrete examples to back up what is being claimed. But indeed, little is offered as an alternative. As for references, alternative edits only add two minor inline references, hardly a comprehensive overhaul along encyclopedic lines.

It seems you didn't read my comments above. I don't pretend to know ANYTHING about Roman history and I didn't add any new material. I merely removed parts of a badly written section when nobody else bothered to rewrite it. Here in the talk page I gave examples of what I judged to be bad writing style and unsupported assertions (you could also have reviewed the article's history). Also, this section smelled of original research, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I didn't add any references at all, so maybe you're confusing me with someone else. If you want to rewrite the section or even the whole article you're more than welcome, but please follow the standard guidelines. Finally: I'm not a major editor of this article and this is not a subject I particularly care for. Andran 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How does one define "encyclopedic"? If it reads like something a 15 year old would write, then it's not encyclopedic :-) Andran 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The notion of key factors (word it differently but it boils down to the same thing) is a standard one in assessing the performance of military forces, whether they be Roman legions, Zulu impis, Mongol touman, or Viet Cong Main Force Units. To get a grip on their performance you have to break down the central factors that gave them success.

The central factors in Roman success were in fact bolstered by several examples, some very well known. If the concept of such factors is bad, or the factors themselves listed-- such as Roman persistence, adatability, tactical organization, etc. are unreasonable, then there should be a clear, specific explanations as to WHY they are so, rather than blanket statements charging poor writing. Concrete examples and specifics will make Wikipedia much more useful. All I am saying is plug in specifics and examples to make the article better and bolster one's claims, rather than make sweeping blanket statements.

Poor writing is poor writing, period. I can tell, and I'm not a native English speaker. I specifically said I'm not knowledgeable on this topic and asked someone else to fix the article; meanwhile I took care of spelling and basic grammar. Anyway, you're confusing me with someone else because I've made no major edits. Andran 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, some edits made are quite reasonable. The last paragraph in the original left open the possibility of examining Roman operations along the lines of the factors listed, for example, Roman ruthlessness and persistence in the Second Punic War. This was clearly to broad a scope, and it was removed, with the summary factors remaining. It was an edit for brevity, which is fine. Some additional edits actually add in-line details that BOLSTER the notion of the key factors, namely Roman tactical organization methods such as the fortified camps (castra), or their adaptation of enemy weapons like the gladius. That is fine too. If anyone has a better alternative backed with specific, credible examples, more power to them.

Have also removed a dubious statement that Roman setbacks were few, or that they were due to leaders who lived in Rome or served in its military. This statment is clearly false. Note: this is not a blanket charge of poor writing. Specific facts or examples as to WHY it is false or questionable, are shown below:

Hannibal never lived in Rome or served it its military but he inflicted some of the most serious defeats the Romans ever suffered. Likewise another of the most crushing Roman defeats was inflicted under a general who neither lived in Rome nor served in its military, namely Surena, whose Parthians liquidated almost 20,000 Roman troops and captured another 10,000 at Carrhae. Enriquecardova 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied Roman Military Structure into Roman Army Article

Still needs some cleaning up to remove redundancies. When acceptable, we can remove the Roman Army Organization article, ie. redirect it back to the (redirected) Roman Army Article. SimonATL 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman army formations

Right, so there's this little stubby article that's not great on it's own, at present. It ought to be merged into something else--either here or into "Roman military tactics" or some such article. Approve, disapprove? Are there any existing articles that could I could merge it to? Thanks. Tamarkot 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if there were a separate section breaking down tactics. It is clear that one of the strengths of the Roman military was its tactical organization. Fortified camps for example, not only provided a firm base around which to maneuver, they offered a line of retreat, defense and at times protection to lines of communication. The tactical maneuvers of the field army are also worthy of study. The precise wheeling, marching and alignment needed to position the battle line for combat, and the differing formations undertaken for different purposes, should be explored. Descriptions of the war against Hannibal for example show the legions engaging in maneuvers of the first order under difficult circumstances -- from Scipio's adjustments in Spain and Africa, to the unlucky formations that had to first cross a swollen river and form up under the nose of the Hannibal's army, at the Battle of the River Trebia. The bulk of this force was defeated, nevertheless about 10,000 men actually broke through the Punic line and cut their way to safety without falling into the rout, a testimony to Roman tactical organization and discipline.

The fact that there is controversy on tactics is nothing special. A good common sense writer can analyze differing schools of thought and distill a precise overview that will help the reader without dropping into raw partisanship. The "Roman Military tactics" article is heavy on weapons, and types of units such as the Praetorian guard, but devotes minimal coverage to tactics and tactical organization. What were the advantages of the old "triple line" formation for example as compared to later reforms? How important was cavalry? How did tactical organization secure victory against more numerous, well motivated enemies that sometimes outnumbered the legions? Was Roman deployment at the Trebia actually a bad gamble, or did it put the legions on relatively flat ground where they could form up efficiently and fight according to a game plan that had won numerous victories in the past? Time to do a credible job is always in short supply, but a tactical section with real meat will be dropped into the article. The knowledge displayed by many writers so far should not make this an impossbile task.

Roman Army Tactics

As it stands today this section doesn't mention tactics at all. it is all about structure, which is not a tactic. We don't see anything about battle lines, the use of cavaly, the use of archers, or anything on formations, such as the turtle and the hollow square. And, where are all the links to the weapons? I think a good organization with appropriate subtitles escapes our net yet. More fishing please. Excelsior. Let's capture the big one, a Class A rating.Dave 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tactics are slippery to find. None of the "field manuals" of the Roman Legions survive today. Indeed, there is no firm argreement on the formations used by the Legion (and of course, formations used changed with time). - Vedexent (talk · contribs) - 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, but there are two issues. One is the name of the section. It really needs to be changed, don't you agree? Since you are on the topic, why dont you assign a new name? The second topic is the slipperyness of the material. Well no, I disagree. No excuses please. There is a superabundance of material, such as battle formations, methods of attack, etc. Nothing really slippery about it. It is a lot of work to find the material and organize it. But that is the whole point of Wikipedia, is it not? To give anyone the fun of doing the work and getting the article read and reviewed. You can't contribute without work and the article is no good without it. Tell you what. Since there is nothing at all on either tactics or strategy (you need to look those words up in the dictionary) just leave it out for now. When someone has done the work and has something to contribute it can go back in! If you were thinking of doing the work (if you have the time) a good place to start is www.perseus.com, pick classics and do a search on exercitus or other military topics. Perseus also has on-line texts of the ancient authors in English, which you can search, and the articles are linked to the source citations. Somebody over there has been doing their job!Dave 13:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like. Tell you what, why don't you "put your money where your mouth is" and cite some of the "superabundance" of source. According to you, it should be easy, so no excuses please. Vedexent (talk · contribs) 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way - finding mention of such matters is easy. Finding consistent and sensical treatment of same is what is slippery. You might look at the work of Professor Garret Fagan on the matter of the history of ancient warfare, and our limits of knowledge about the same. I rather like his work. Vedexent (talk · contribs) 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. You lost your temper. Well, I will give you reasonable answer. I have found an article on the topic in Wikipedia. I have not studied it yet in detail but I've been adding it to the cross-links everywhere I can. I put a link under "see also". So, that is our starting point. One of the problems of Wikipedia in dealing with such a large subject is linking and taking into consideration all the articles. My suggestion would be to introduce the topic here in a sentence or two and reference the other article as a main article. We start slow. Rome was not built in a day. I note that the other article seems to have no tags on it, but this one is announced to the world as a class B article. One should always respond to the public. Do it for the beautiful lady in the third row, and not for Professor Garret Fagan or whomever. I generally agree we need professors but they have their limitations as well.

So for here and now I notice that our tactics section has become totally messed up. I am not yet going to call that vandalism. Someone is probably working on it. If he needs help he can always call on an editor. But more importantly, those are not tactics. Everything there is the organization chart. So be a good fellow and change the name, hey? I don't enjoy making waves.

Why don't I do it? Well, right now I am working on something else! I like to keep method in my madness. I got plenty of things to say, believe me, none of them very slippery. My style is to work from sources, but I like the professors too. I was on this article a while back. It is different now from what it was then. It changes a lot. I moved it to its present title.

Well at this point I usually move on. I have your point of view and now I want to let you think about it. I am sure you will do either the right thing or the wrong thing. If the wrong, you'll just end up another vandal. If the right, I look forward to seeing the fruits of your study down the road. I got a different agenda right now but I will be getting back to this. If you are still around we can get into it then.Dave 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. You might find this site interesting: [1]

I do find the site interesting - but it is not a valid reference. If you are operating on the idea of "its on the web on a pretty good looking site, it must be accurate enough", then that that would explain your mistaken perception of "superabundance".

Peace brother. There is a list of tactics there. Are they to be faulted because they did a good job of presentation?Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Valid sources for historical Wikipedia articles should either be from primary sources, or from secondary sources that have undergone some sort of peer review or other forms of editorial control - not based on some hobbyists's weekend project, no matter how apparently well designed, unless, like Wikipedia FAC articles, they provide references to their sources, and they have used primary, or well vetted secondary sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources). Wikipedia is not a valid source for other Wikipedia articles.

Yes, yes. Of course. But, brother, what about reconstruction? Isn't this a legitimate means of representation? Isn't that what museums do? Some people rebuild ships, some fortifications, some buildings, some recreate tools to see how it is done, and some stage events. Larger efforts do use hobbyists but there are always qualified archaeologists and scholars behind it. For example, I used to belong to an organization in Massachusetts that allowed amateurs to dig native american sites. More work got done that way, but they were always under professional supervision. The idea is to get the public involved in their own past. It is an educational device, and also, why not use the enthusiastic manpower that presents itself? In any case, you aren't being quite accurate here. A see also or an external link does not have to be a scholarly source, any more than commons does. Sources are named "References". But if someone has a good picture or presentation you might put it down as a link.Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the Roman legions, even the primary sources are murky: prior to the writings of Polybius (2nd century BC) the military exploits and descriptions of Roman Legions are dubious. While the broad historical outlines are probably accurate, the details are either omitted, are swallowed up in the moral tales of "myth history". Read Sallust's The Jugurthine War, for an example: most of the military details of the Numidian conflict are "glossed over" in favor of a pointed commentary on the corruption of the Roman senators of the time (and Sallust was even writing after Polybius).

Well, brother. Your mind has wrapped itself around a bigger problem than military sources. Just about all sources and all evidence are that way. That is what scholars of any sort do, try to reconstruct or ascertain meaning. If everything was crystal clear we would not need them, now would we? If everything is to be excluded because it is "slippery", as you say, then we better just not have university departments at all.Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is further complicated by the fact that the Roman legions were not a uniform type of army throughout their history, and to assume their tactics were historically uniform with any given historical depiction is folly. For example: the archeological evidence shows Hoplite equipment during portions of the Monarchy period, which suggests the tactics of the Greek Phalanx formation; it has been suggested that the maniple organization of the early Roman republic legions was to allow the use of many small flexible units to move up the narrow valleys of Samnium during the Samnite Wars; and the Marian reforms so fundamentally reorganized the tactical organization of the legion, that it would be astounding if he did not update the tactics used by that organization.

Yes, yes. I nowhere suggested tactics would remain the same diachronically or not be adapted to specific circumstances. There is no reason to assume that, as you say. Patterns do emerge. Take the hollow square. That one went on into modern times. I think we can talk about it as a Roman military tactic. It did not originate with them or end with them but they did have it in some form. A definition of it is perfectly legitimate.Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We do not have many writings about the legions by military men. The closest we come to a tactical manual is Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus's treatise The Military Institutions of the Romans (De Re Militari), which does seem to have been a field manual of a type, but it was written c.390BC, and so really only has any relevance to the late Empire legions.

No, brother, that is not true. What you mean is specifically military manuals. Vegetius is a great source, that is true. But many military men have written history and references to the way they did things or saw things done are plentiful. For example, Julius Caesar (a military man) did not specifically write a manual of military tactics or strategy. But, you can probably learn more on the topic from his own story of his campaigns than from Vegetius, and the same is true of various others.Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources that we do have are suspect unfortunately. While we do have a great deal of description of the structure of a legion, and good archeological data for the equipment of the legions throughout their history, the description of the field tactics are suspect: Polybius's histories do not give a comprehensive picture of Roman field tactics, but give hints which, unfortunately, historians have not been able to weave into a comprehensive view. Livy did attempt to give a comprehensive view of the field tactics of the early Republican Legions, but his depictions of battlefield organization seems to be confused (he adds 2 more lines to the Triplex Acies - but their names indicate that the two rear lines are "skirmishers" and "military auxiliaries without combat duties" - this makes little sense); his description of the "checkerboard" frontage deployment (a Quincunx deployment) seems to make little tactical sense; the sections of the front line are constantly in danger of being out flanked and subject to "defeat in detail". Indeed, the rediscovery of Livy's descriptions of Roman battlefield tactics during the Renaissance led to Renaissance era generals attempting to recreate his described tactics - with disastrous results.

Well, brother, what we seem to have here is an analysis of someone's analysis. It is, in other words, total opinion. In my opinion this opinion is totally off the mark. All it does is present some limitations or questions of some ancient theoretical statements. The way I would handle that in an article is to present the questions themselves! Here is view A, here is view B etc, in keeping with the NPOV policy. The last conclusion in the world I would reach is that because such limitations or questions exist we cannot present the topic at all. But this does not even cover at all the specific statements made by Caesar and others about what they actually did on the battlefield. There is nothing at all theoretical about them. When he says the wounded got up to fight or that "our men" jumped up on the shields of the enemy or that the front rank launched pila or that the flanks were secured with ballista I think we can take that as unequivocal evidence, don't you?Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I trust that it is a little more clear why the topic is "slippery", and why a "superabundance" of 'really cool web sites' does not constitute valid sources. Frankly, I think my original assertion that a comprehensive and consistent description of the field tactics of the Legions is a "slippery" one stands, and unless you can provide solid primary sources, or modern secondary sources (those that have been vetted against all current evidence) which are generally accepted by the academic community (and not a fringe, or minority, opinion), and not poorly references tertiary (or worse!) sources, I'll stick by it.

Well, brother, you misrepresent and misunderstand what I said. Really cool web sites is not my language. You have to distinguish between presentational material and scholarly material. The site I gave you is great for presentation. Plenty of others are great for scholarship. The Perseus site hosted by Tufts university is great for scholarship but of course it only presents standard works. Just about every classics department uses them at one time or another. I gave you that site as well.Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also be keeping an eye on your contributions in this area. I guess we'll see if you can back up your claims with real scholarship. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You and the whole Wikipedia public of millions of people are welcome to keep an eye on any of my contributions you or they wish. I thought that was the point of the whole thing. Be aware, they are also keeping an eye on your contributions or anyone else's. Can't we do better than class B? I would like to see more contribution, less argument.Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - you like sources over professors ... who exactly do you think are writing modern secondary sources?

I'm not sure what you mean there, brother. By sources I meant ancient sources. In other words, I prefer an ancient authority over a modern, although, as you say, sometimes the ancient are obscure. The modern also can present evidence, especially archaeological, that is not in the ancient, although that evidence is not without problems either. I try to grant proper respect to archaeology.

There are a lot of professors among the users I am sure. At best their contributuons are invaluable. They illuminate mysterious matters in such a way as to produce insights for which I or anyone are grateful. At worst they pompously push rigid views using their supposed authority and attacking ad hominem. That is why I am glad most professors do not identify themselves here.

As for you, keep your identity to yourself, my dear man. I don't want to know. It isn't important. I accept you for what you are, another intellect. I'm OK, you're OK. But, to tell you the truth, I don't really see the problem. All we are trying to do here is talk about tactics and ways to improve the article. What you will see from me is basic material from ancient primary and secondary sources backed up by archaeology and supplemented by by opinions of some scholars preferably readily available to the public or on the Internet. What are we going to see from you? Hopefully something better than that you'll be keeping your eye on me to see if I can substantiate my claims. Excuse me, I don't wish to be offensive, but the idea I think is contribution not anger. Please do consider what I just said as a well-meaning suggestion from a fellow intellect. I have to go on now so chips will have to fall where they may. Good luck.Dave 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Militarized State

Rome was not a militarized state. Military service was voluntary. There were no youth organizations goosestepping around the cities. There were no representatives of the army teaching in the schools or telling the local governments what they ccould or could not do. There was no military party taking over all the offices. There were abuses sometimes but they were considered abuses and not the norm. There was no predominant philosopher preaching an ideology of dictatorship or victory. Fascism was not an ideology even though this state originated the fasces. The troops mutinied often. The people rioted often. The government had less control over the economy than we do. In short there was a military and sometimes it committed abuses but there was no systematic totalitarian militarism such as we saw in the 20th century. So, I think I will change the intro after a decent interval.

Miltary service was voluntary? Guess all my books writen by historians which describe that most of the legionaries were serving obligatory military service for 20 years ! are all wrong. I agree that ancient Rome was not a militarized state as we today understand it, unlike Sparta, but still... get your facts straight. Flamarande 19:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Only during the Republic was military service compulsory in any way - and at that time men would be levied just during campaign season or times of dire need (i.e. periods of the 2nd Punic War); service rarely lasted more than a few months (naturally there are notable exceptions). After the process of the Marian Reforms, Rome had a volunteer army. If you joined, you had to stick around for ~20 years, but service was not compulsory. -- MarcellusTheExile

Military service was socially required and I am not sure, but I think for the right to vote either. Some inhabitants of Italy had the obligation of military service but no right to vote. After Marius Rome did not only have a volunteer army. Some were volunteered, especially in the occupied provinces for the dirty jobs on some borders like Mesopotamia and they usually did not survive their service term. The late Empire promised freedom to slaves if they joined the infantry. Wandalstouring 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

THIS is the discussion page

Can we keep the ongoing discussion of the edits out of inline HTML comments on the page, and on the discussion page please? If you want to strike some text, do so, and talk about it here - it can always be recovered from the edit history if it turns out it was accurate. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 11:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inline comments best left for TALK page

Agreed. Have removed inline comments in the assessment section and added more details, while correctng inaccuracies.

The comment that the Romans did not really like to conquer anyone is also questionable. On several occasions they eagerly sought war, even when their targeted victims were initially willing to submit. The Third Punic War is a case in point, as are the examples throughout Roman history of ambitious generals and politicians seeking the laurels of conquest when legitimate negotiation could have been undertaken. Enriquecardova 06:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Rome's few serious defeats caused by foreign leaders who served or lived in Rome?

Struck out the following statement as inaccurate from the Assessment section: "The few cases of serious reversal were brought about by foreign leaders who had lived in Rome and served in its military.."

Clearly inaccurate. Everyone can point to ex-legionaire Arminius and the Teoburger battle, but this is very limited analysis on which to make such a claim. Hannibal never lived in Rome or served it its military but he inflicted some of the most serious defeats the Romans ever suffered. Cannae for example, saw over 50,000 Romans dead in one day, a slaughter rivaling the one day body counts for the modern era's World War I. The British for example only lost about 11,000 dead on the first day of the Somme battle. Likewise another of the most crushing Roman defeats was inflicted under a general who neither lived in Rome nor served in its military, namely Surena, whose Parthians liquidated almost 20,000 Roman troops and captured another 10,000 at Carrhae... Enriquecardova 04:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix this

In this part of the article there's this part: " A G{| border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 align=center I|+Roman military formations - linked to related articles N|- A!Name (and Latin original word if altered) No. of personnel No. of subordinate units

Modern day equivalent (roughly) |- |Legion (Latin legio)||~5000 + cavalry||10 Cohort||Brigade |- |Cohort (Latin cohors)||480 (1st Cohort 800)||6 Centurias (1st Cohort 5)||Battalion |- |Maniple (Latin maipulus)|| 160 ||2 centuriae|| Company |- |Century (Latin centuria) ||80 (1st Cohort 160)||10 contuberia||2 platoons |- |Contubernium||8||n/a||Squad |}" I'am not sure what the person who put that in was trying to do but I know that needs to be fixed. I don't know how to fix(I'am not that experiance with wikipedia editing) so can someone fix it?--Scott3 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, it looked terrible. --7segment 02:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is generally poor

I cleaned up the Imperial Army section just to make it basically readable, but I think the whole article could do with a lot more attention. I changed {{Unreferenced}} to {{cleanup-date}}. --7segment 02:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just corrected an error in this section which repeated the canard about 'primus pilus' meaning 'first javelin'. As pilum was neuter, 'first javelin' would be 'primuM piluM'. 'Pilus' means 'file' and presumably refers to the cohorts deploying from left to right in order of seniority, with the first file being the most senior. - Legionarius

that is wrong

• Roman organization was more flexible than that of many opponents. Tribal peoples for example often attacked en-masse with little coordination, using standard tactics traditional to their culture that varied relatively little. There were exceptions, notably by leaders who had previously been extensively exposed to Roman military methods, but this was the general rule. By contrast, the legions, through their training and discipline could more quickly adopt a number of methods and formations depending on the situation- from the testudo during siege warfare, to a hollow square against cavalry atack, to mixed units of heavy foot, horse and light infantry against guerrillas in Spain, to the classic "triple line" of the early Republic. Against more sophiscated opponents the Romans also showed great flexibility at times, such as the brilliant adjustments Scipio made against Hannibal at Zama- leaving huge gaps in the ranks to trap the charging elephants, and the recall, reposition and consolidation of a single battle line that advanced to the final death struggle against the veterans of Cannae.

Sry, but It is very hard to correct it with slightly rephrasing. All Roman enemies used infantry tactics and nobody rushed en-masse with little coordination. This is a picture from ancient history books. The last source looks very much like this. At the beginning of our century there were prejudices, stating the historic supremacy of the all European warfare. Wandalstouring 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

merging with Roman miltary structure

It is no good idea, better link to this article and keep it as short as possible here. Wandalstouring 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman opponents

In Gallic society one third of the able male population took part in frequent wars. At the time Cesar invaded these tribes had seriously suffered from the Cimbri and Teutones frequent passages and were under presssure from an expanding Germanic federation (Ariovistus). A big difference to Roman warfare in units is the skill of single soldiers was highly valued. Rome used very heavy infantry units. Their enemies social system and economy usually did not support so many heavily armored units, but they could provide greater numbers. With greater numbers an individual lack of equal protective equipment can be compensated (psychological). The only problem there is how to feed them and how to maintain the organization of sanitation (toilets not mix their content with drinking water!!!). Compare it to events like Woodstock or the Love Parade. The use of drugs (alcohol) is also reported (Battle of the Metaurus). Essential for warfare was the logistic and hygiene (don`t laugh) in bigger armies. In Alesia the reinforcement suffered heavy losses due to this fact. They had no experience with such big numbers. Rome had for the first time assembled an army of 80,000 infantry at Cannae and used two camps there. Before their troops were only up to 40,000 infantry. Wandalstouring 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the History?

I find this article to be chaoticlly written, with almost a complete absense of the historical contributions of the Roman military to world events. As the title of the article clearly states, this is an article on the history of the Roman military, not a detailed breakdown of how the army was composed and its evolution over the coarse of centries. While certainly important, why is the "Events" section so horrifically small, especially considering the purpose of this entire page to begin with! This may have been hashed over all ready, but I was increabily repulsed when I read this article, and I believe it requires some major work, perhaps even a rewrite. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Laserbeamcrossfire I find the idea was sound but the devellopenment resembling more the organisation of the Roman military machine. Of course this should be present to help explain the value of the events but only as a consise synopsis of the Roman military Structure.Dryzen 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been contributing to this parts of the article

5. Appraisal and Assessment of the Roman forces

  :: * 5.1 What made the Romans effective versus so many skilled opponents?
  :: * 5.2 Central factors in Roman success

But after considering your opinion I agree they should be deleted. They were always a pain to read. Merging with the article of Roman military structure has contributed to a large section to read (I am still opposed to this merge). Info in the rest of the article is and was a stub. Perhaps we should unmerge this article and start rewriting. I have an idea for the structure of the new article: We confront continually the Romans and their enemies in tactics and equipment. So we show the evolution of Roman military, have references to important battles and events. And then we insert the social changes due to Hannibal`s war (economically) and the Marius reforms (military) leading into the destabilisation of the Republic. The short war with the Italian allies should also be mentioned - citizenship for all Italians. Military started to play an important role and within the military auxilliary units formed larger and larger parts of the troops so finally the Roman citizenship was granted equally to all members of the Empire and since then they served equally in the army (equal pay and no granted position as officer for Italians). At the end of the Western Roman Empire social structure had changed, peasants were forced to stay at the place they were born and paid high taxes. Afraid of insurgents all weapons expect slings were restricted and the military relied more and more on foreign mercenaries. These were a danger because of their political influence and their loyality to their native tribes outside the border. In the Eastern Roman Empire there was a political cleansing of Germanic mercenaries, in the Western the Germanic mercenaries under Odoaker cleansed the Emperor. Just my opinion how we could show a Roman military history.Wandalstouring 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What I think happened was that the people who wrote the other part of the article thought that the Military History of Ancient Rome meant the history of the Roman Army, which are not necessarily the same thing. There should be two articles here: one on the Military History of Rome, which summerizes the myraid of military events during the Roman Republic and Empire, and the other should be one on the Roman Army, which details its composition in the Republic and Empire ages, as well as a detailed evolution of the Roman Army and its tactics.

The way I would organize the article would be to break the article into three sections:

  *The Roman Republic 
  *Ceaser to Aurelius
  *The Roman Empire

Each section would delve into the military events, the wars, the conditions of the military, major evolutions in the Roman Army (would be short, and link to another article), and the consequences of each major military event. What do you think? --Laserbeamcrossfire 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"evolution of the Roman Army and its tactics"

So we have to talk for the time of the Republic about the evolution due to Etruscian takeover (from Italian warfare to mixed Phalanx and new tactics after the heavy frontline of Etruscian hoplites leave the early Roman republic), the first Gallic war (Brennus -> Romans become swordfighters, not spearfighters any more), the Samnite wars (introduction of large multilayer shields, scutum), during the Punic war (from leather to chainmail, from hoplite sword to gladus hispaniensis, Scipio, tactics copied from Hannibal and the Greeks-> Raphia, Cannae) and the Cymmerian war (Marius reform). Important that since Zama Rome usually had cavalry supremacy or equality -> Except Caesar after Vercingetorix rebelled and against the Parthians/Persians. I am still thinking about a substructure. Wandalstouring 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your structure is oriented on major political events, it does not quite follow the military changes.

1. Early Republic to the Scipios

2. Marius to foreign (Germanic) mercenaries

3. Change from an expanding aggressive army to a defending army (limitanei), employment of slaves (decrease of infantry)

In section 3: Introduction of Germanic(!) equipment in the West and more heavy cavalry, and Parthian style troops in the East. In the West takeover from Germanic troops to the end of the Western Empire, in the East cleansing of Germanic troops. Seperate article on the military history of Byzantium. We need someone to research the end of the Western Empire thoroughly. The establishment of Germanic rulerships on Roman territory happened in consent with local authority (tribal structures continued to exist throughout the Empire!), civil unrest, restricted personal freedom etc. There were lots of social issues in the Empire and usually people forget them and see just the shiny iron equipment and drill. Social trouble does contribute strongly towards the fighting spirit, Romans had to use foreigners to have reliable troops. Roman military in the West reportedly launched campaigns within their own territory and the stronger Eastern Empire supported the enemies of the Western Empire to gain more power...Wandalstouring 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're both partially right and partially wrong. The structure has to be based on political events because such events forced the Roman Army to transform and represented changes in how the army was used. I will give you that Gaius Marius would probably be the best anchor for going from the early Republic years to the Empire. His reforms were incredibly important to how the Roman Army functioned, dramatically shifting the Roman army to a flexible fighting force. However, I do believe the next shift between the sections (from 2 to 3) should still be at the death of Marcus Aurelius because his death is the death of the Roman Empire. Without a strong successor, without a continuing line of rulers, the Roman Empire became inherently weak due to political instability. This dramatically changed the way the army was implemented in Roman politics. While yes, there was a change at this time from a primarily offensive army to a primarily defensive army, there is no single event that marks this. This change was marked by at least a hundred years of change to the Roman army. So, my revised structure is so:

  *The Roman Republic to Marius
  *Marius to Ceaser to Aurelius
  *Commodus to the Fall

--Laserbeamcrossfire 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I think that would be a good structure for the History of the Roman Army article, but I would try to focus more on events and broad periods of military activity, rather than personalities, for the Military history of ancient Rome:

• Early history (wars in Italy, early sacks of Rome, etc.)
• Punic Wars
• Expansion to the East (Macedonian Wars, Mithridatic Wars, etc.)
• Civil wars & end of the Republic
• Roman expansion up to Hadrian/Trajan/Aurelius/whomever
• Decline/outside invasions
• Fall of Western Rome (Byzantine military history should have wandered off into a side article by this point)

(Keep in mind that the periods I suggest may be somewhat off, as I'm no expert on this topic.)

I think such a structure would allow a narrative—rather than thematic—presentation of the military history, which I would argue will be more readable and flow more naturally. Kirill Lokshin 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The extent of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire.

  133 BC

  44 BC (late Republic, after conquests by republican generals)

  AD 14 (death of Augustus)

  117 (maximum extension)

Perhaps I should rephrase my proposal. Does this sound better? The different historic events are in subdivisions.

• Roman citizen army (Scipio, manipel tactics, development of tactics and equipment)

• Professional legions and auxiliary (Marian reform, Roman citizenship, greatest expansion)

• • Infantry (merger of legions and auxiliary) and heavy cavalry (fall of the Empire)

My idea is to say shortly what is special about these three periods and then tell the reader a story about the Romans and their deeds and opponents. Some details like logistics and hygiene, maintainance and training can be mentioned in context.

Guys, I need feedback. The idea writing a continuos story is good. But I prefer a thematic presentation on the broad scale and a narrative within major sections. The three divisions here are major changes in social and military structure. I hope we can agree to use them. Wandalstouring 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That would probably work fine, at least to start with. (We can always move things on the fringes between sections, after all.) Each of the narrative sections could then mention major developments in logistics, weapons, and so forth as they are introduced chronologically. Kirill Lokshin 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading a German source on the Limes ([2]). It states that the military strength can be easily determined by dating the finds of Roman origin on Germanian territory. A policy of presents and appeasement started during the time of Trajan and was carried on by his succesors, especially Claudius (when needing the troops to invade Britain). 166 AD the defence of the limes was so thight, the Germans were no longer bribed. Wandalstouring 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading a lot today and think about a differnt structure (this way we stay neutral towards the military reforms)

• Roman citizen army (Scipio, manipel tactics, development of tactics and equipment)

• Professional legions and auxiliary (Marian reform, Roman citizenship, greatest expansion)

• Limitanei and Comitatenses (Diocletian reform, feuderati, fall of the Empire)

Wandalstouring 20:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I would perfer a chronological sectioning, this could be done following the thematic scheme of the above proposed sections. (Citizen army, Professional army, Technical army). As History of the Roman army, the article should closly abord the events that shaped the structure of the army (wich would be seen in detail in another article, considering how large this one would becuoe should both information be present). Within the the Structure article I whole support the usage of themes. In other words this article would present that the Roman army had many changes over its history and why, in other words the Army as fluid. Whiles the Structure sister article would present the organisations as concrete, the army in the time frames as solid. --Dryzen 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More on equipment and training

Moved this write-up to tactics and training section since it covers equipment changes, tactics and some training, including introduction of chainmail, use of more foreigners, and tactics versus German barbarians and Parthian cavalrymen:

Excerpt

The popular depiction of Roman equipment consisting of a Lorica segmentata and a Montefortino helmet was used for some time among the Italian infantry units and their successors, but not by all of them. About half of the Roman military consisted of foreign specialists (Auxiliaries) with their own national clothing and equipment. Around 5AD, the lorica hamata (chainmail) became less common as lorica segmentata was much cheaper and quicker to make - an important fact when there were so many men to arm. However, some African and Asian legions are thought to have kept it until it became standard issue again in 250 AD. The cavalry stayed with Roman standard equipment since the Second Punic War, the lorica hamata and Greek style helmets.

Start signing your statements. See dicussion above, the whole article should be restructered. Wandalstouring 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A very good source on the equipment of late Roman Imperial infantry [3]

Carnage and Culture disputed

This source is not undisputed and we should also look up on other sources what we quote of this book. I make a list of argumentations and interviews on the topic.

• Comment by H.A. Scott Trask, an American historian. He is working on a book on Northern opposition to President Lincoln during the War Between the States.

His statement about the battle of Chalons (A.D. 451) contradicts the info on the wikipedia article.

• Review by the ARMA - Association for Renaissance Martial Arts
• Several reviews
• A British review article: "Carnage and Culture" is both military history and philosophical treatise

Some thesis out of about Culture and Carnage can be disputed, especially regarding the timeframe and the circumstances. Compare it to articles about Medieval society and the inquisition. Wandalstouring 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This reference, "Carnage and Culture" should be removed from the article. Completely baised, the book seems to me to have been written very selectively, failing to note how the Western Roman Empire fell to migrating West Asian barbarian tribes among other issues. Needs to go. --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not approve it, but I must admit it does have some points. You have to read it carefully (officers writing military history often write biased). Besides the author has a scientific degree and the fact that two wikipedians don`t agree on his thesis is not enough to banish him. It still needs some hard evidence, but at least we can put it under doubt. More pressing is the work on the whole structure of this article. I wanted to start but still wait for an OK.Wandalstouring 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily bashing it. I think that the book must be a fascinating read, and I am sure that the author has a unique view at Western Europe, but unless there is a reference that counters his views, I am going to have to say that it would be somewhat inappropriate to include the reference. --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unique view is a good one. I doubt it, from my knowledge about military history books he writes mainstream for a member of the armed forces history corps (Patton´s favorite job). Wandalstouring 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with removal of in-text reference for Carnage and Culture.

Added by Enriquecardova

That is no solution. If we use a disputed source we absolutely need the in-text reference. It is the last thing I want to be deleted. Wandalstouring 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is it that was used or was going to be used of of this book?--Dryzen 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

http://history.eserver.org/attila-at-chalons.txt is an example of a historic work by Arther Ferril. Wandalstouring 23:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Appraisal and Assessment of the Roman military (discussion)

I think this section is pointless and strongly argue to delet it. We can argue on the Roman military from case to case. This generalisation is a constante source for oversimplifications, clichés and edit wars. Roman army and society did develop all the time.

I strongly oppose this chapter and will delet if the author or supporters do not show good reasons for its existence. Wandalstouring 08:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes for a poorly worded conclusion to the abilities of the Roman military arm. Something most readers should have gathered by having this information dispersed within the overall article of by deduction from having read the article. As such, I could be willing to support it should some defender apear. But for the moment it should be remouved and kept above for possible reintergration (hopefully after having been cleaned up).--Dryzen 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The full section should stay, as it provides needed analysis as compared to heavy details like ration weight carried per soldier. (A valuable detail in itself but needs to be balanced by "big picture" analysis). No objection to removal of Hanson reference in last paragraph.

(I could not find the one posting this opinion)

I strongly disagree with any deletion and am restoring the last section. There is a need for more analysis, versus many a simple record of historical events. Indeed some commenters call for more thematic treatment. I also disagree with the removal of some of military details, and may be restoring a few since they are needed for understanding the history of Roman arms. In fact I believe that the restructuring to date is flawed and has a number of inconsistencies and lack of proper organization. Some of these are noted here, but others will be revealed later. For example some detail as to the reorganization of the Republican period is inconsistently mixed in with that of the imperial period. Also little in-depth information is given on the military problems of the late imperial period- a glaring omission in any credible discussion of the Roman military.

Other parts of the reorganization show the same inconsistency. Dryzen for example called for "a consise synopsis of the Roman military Structure..". This has not been done. In fact much of the details on that structure have been removed, but this doesnt seem to reach the hoped for conciseness. Laserbeam objected to Wandalstouring's proposed restructuring calling for more of the "big picture" because "The structure has to be based on political events because such events forced the Roman Army to transform and represented changes in how the army was used.." This objection also has not been met substantially. There is little in-depth discussion of the role of key figures such as Constantine for example whose changes had quite an impact, among other things. The article also says that the Limitanei system bought the Empire another 130 years. This is very questionable. In fact, several scholars and ancient historical writers such as Zosimus (481-518) see that system as a major WEAKENING factor. See Arther Ferrill's "The Fall of the Roman Empire" where he both quotes Zosimus and others.

Kirill Lokshin's suggestion called for a more narrative approach rather than thematic, and also has not been met. For example there is a big section on the Limitanei and Comitatenses but it appears disjointed, and does not flow within a stronger narrative of the later empire as suggested by Lokshin.

In short the structuring and restructuring of the article as noted above so far appears inconsistent, with different approaches and angles not yet sorted out. In addition there are still several critical ommissions. It remains a work in progress that should not neglect the lead of many scholars in the field who do not hesitate to assess the effectiveness of the Roman military. Wholesale deletions fail to recognize this. In fact such assessments help overcome many of the unsettled conditions, approaches and counter approaches now present in the article.

The basic objection to the Appraisal section is not buttressed by a series of logical arguments but by broad brush generalities that seemed to be based on personal preference. Quote: "I think this section is pointless and strongly argue to delet it.."

There should be much more than personal preference when it is standard in histories of military forces to appraise the factors that made them successful or unsuccessful. This is standard practice. See the many works of historian Adrian Goldsworthy for example, or any search list on Amazon under the Roman military. To arbitrarily remove is not in keeping with good scholarly practice in the field, and weakens the article. While I am sympathetic to the problems of such a big topic, I am thus restoring the deleted section for now and have given detailed reasons herein.

":Just a sample of an Amazon search on 'The Roman Military' All of these writers cover BOTH historical narrative events as well as key themes.

The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy

The Military System Of The Romans by Albert Harkness

The Roman Army: Legions, Wars and Campaigns: A Military History of the World's First Superpower From the Rise of the Republic and the Might of the Empire to the Fall of the West, by Nigel Rodgers

Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. by Edward Lutwak etc. etc. etc. Enriquecardova 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is Military history of ancient Rome. It has absolutly nothing to do with the military history. Put it elsewhere into an article on the Roman military or the Roman soldiers. Wandalstouring 07:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• "The Complete Roman Army", by Adrian Goldsworthy

One volume history covering the Roman Army, which was the biggest most important part of its military. Goldsworthy covers the early Republican days down to the final Imperial era demise, tracing changes in tactics, equipment, strategy, organization etc. He notes the details of the military system such as training and battlefield tactics, as well as bigger picture strategy, and changes that impacted Roman arms. He assesses what made the Romans effective, and ineffective in each of the various eras.

The last sentence points out he does a case to case study like I strongly promote. Can we reach an agreement to use this style to analize the Roman military in each of era section? Wandalstouring 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Enriquecardova the whole section is saved here and can be edited. As long as there is no majority voting for its reinsertion, it stays here. Currently it is 2:1 against it and one anonymus voting in favor of it, but this could be your own comment. Wandalstouring 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Few logical reasons buttressed by evidence have been presented against its deletion. It appears mostly to be personal preference. And as stated above, the reorganization is itself ridden with inconsistencies and critical ommissions. I am restoring it and believe we must let it stay in place, while we eventually move to a formal protection and arbitration process, by an independent panel that can assess all the arguments and evidence objectively. Also there are other areas in the article that are contradictory and inconsistent and needing much attention. To avoid a lengthy conflict, I am willing to trim down the section at a later time, but I do not think wholesale deletion now is right for the reasons stated earlier. If not then we must begin the formal processes.Enriquecardova 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See it like this: the article is about the military history. any appraisal is bound on the historic circumstances under which the Roman military operated. I structured the article with a factlisting insertion under each of the three main topics. Is this enough to make an appraisal of the troops described in this section? For a closer and more detailed look on the Roman soldiers I strongly promote the Roman legion article. There we can really discuss in detail, while here we have to show a difficult combination of factors and developments with a few words. Wandalstouring 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I am not unsympathetic to the massive amount of amterial that must be condensed into the article as well as the hard work of many contributors. It is hard to do an appraisal for each phase of the history since many of the same characteristics marked the Republican, intermediate and final period until the military decline. I will review other articles plus that which you mention, and will not rule out simply deleting the Appraisal and relocating it.

Fall of the Roman Empire - a biased source with wrong conclusions?

"Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation", by Arther Ferrill, 1988

reviews of this book on amazon [4]

I don´t want it quoted in this article without further references and explanations. Wandalstouring 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You say you don't want this quoted. I must reemphasize that Wikipedia is an open community, not subject to the wants or preferences of any one user. Ferrill was not quoted in the body of the article. He was quoted in a reference. If you have a problem with the Ferrill quotation, take it up in the reference section. As for Amazon reviews, Amazon has quite a number of reviews SUPPORTING Ferrill's scholarship. Again, we need to take a balanced view of the information on hand, rather than focus on personal preferences. It would for example be good if you explained WHY you think Ferrill's data or approach is a bad one, rather than simply say you don't want it. The ability to make a case based on solid evidence and logical argument rather than personal preference will improve Wiki articles for ALL users.

What was the information used? --Dryzen 13:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ferril contradicts the common opinion of historians on this topic. We DO not use everybody publishing anything. That is the difference. Want examples?

Besides I said "I don´t want it quoted W I T H O U T further references and explanations." Wandalstouring 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgable wit this Author's work, but by the name I would gather it has to do with the theory that the military pressures on the society at large enevitably crushed it? If so Treadgold in Byzantium and its Armies, 284-1081 nulifies it with some rather strait forward facts. --Dryzen 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You said defining German in history was difficult, here you are. There is nothing better for a lengthy dispute than the "Fall of the Roman Empire". I do appreciate your research. Can you outline with a few words his central theses, why society was not crushed by the army? Numbers and calculations would make it look pretty in case such are available. Ferrils main these is the barbarization undermining Roman military power. I think there has to be made a differnce between foederati and Germans in the regular troops. There are less reports of revolts from the regular troops than during the Principate.

Currently I search a source listing in detail some of these new barbaric customs, like a thing before battle, etc.

(Under recent circumstances such an assembly of US military before Iraq would be likely to have some things running differently for example. So the view of an writer on barbarization can contain a specific view upon the ability of common soldiers to judge complex military matters. But I must admit, a commander argumenting with his troops is an uncommon picture, although common among the minutemen for example) Wandalstouring 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Here I am. ... Yes I am here? Like I posted I did not know Ferril'S position and if your saying that his "Military Explanation" was the barbarization of the roman Army, then its not quite the same as the military demographics crushing the roman society. I do have numbers though (numbers are always nice too look at), the following text is taken from Warren Treadgold's Byzantium and Its Armies, 284-1081 with sentences in () my own synopsis to shorten the following text;

(Here's the reasonning behind the theory that the military burden on Roman society led ot its downfall:)

• Since the great majority of soldiers had wives and children, and some supported other relatives and servants as well, military households must have included four to six times as many people as the soldiers themselves. This mass of people naturally had a major impact on the economy, and on society in general. In an economy that consisted chiefly of subsistence farming, an army of any real size put a noticible burden on taxpayers. Even in Byzantine times, farmers produced some surplus, so that not everyone needed to work the land. Up to a certain size, the army would not have taxed the empire's agricultural production and manpower to any appreciable extent. Above that size, the army would have caused something of na economic and demographic drain, impoverishing some remaining farmers and leaving too little surplus to feed part of the population in times of scarcity.

(p.159)

• All population estimates are adapted from McEvedy and Jones, Atlas, and rounded to the nearest half million. 305 - 19 million estimated population - 311 000 full-time soldiers - 1.6% 395 - 16.5 million estimated population - 335 000 full-time soldiers - 2.0%

(Byzantine or Eastern Estimated Population and Army size from 284 to 1025 Table II p. 162)

• In the western empire as it was in 305, Zosimus's figures point to an army of some 270 000 compared with a population estimated by McEvedy and Jones at anout 23.5 million. This is a little over 1.1%, and hte proportion seems to to have been much the same in 395, though estimating the army's size from later evidence of teh Noitia requires some guess work.I would suggest a figure of around 225 000 men for the ermy of the western empire in 395, when its are was larger than in 305 and the estimates of McEveredy and Jones would put its population at 21.5 million.If this number of men under arms contributed substantially to the fall of the West, then the East should have fallen first, because in proportion it had about twice as many men under arms and was surely less than twice as rich. In the fifth century, the barbariens must of helped reduce the burden of the army on the western empire by reducing the army; yet the West failed to benifit. Manpower was clearly not the main factor.

(P. 165)--Dryzen 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea of barbarization though does strike me a very plausible primary cause and it is some thing I had similarly concluded in my researches. Althought to what extend Ferril`s theory and the conclusion I had conjured correlate... I do not know.--Dryzen 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is the barbarization of the regular troops (mercenaries, not foederati!) and abandoning punishments like decimation as a sign of decline according to Ferril. Another thing are the foederati and their hegemony. I think we need to define the term if we want to use it. Another topic is, I want to avoid the word German and say Germanic instead. Otherwise we would need to convince the Swedish (homeland of Visigothi and Ostrogothi) and the Dutch (partly native area of the Franks) to become Germans. Wandalstouring 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitly go with Germanic. Lynn Harry Nelson also alludes to the effects of Babarization in this conclusion: " Hired "barbarian" mercenaries to man a mobile field army and stationed them in the interior. This was a short-range economy. The role of the army in building and maintaining the transportation system and in spreading the roman ideal among both provincials and "barbarians" was ended, and the transportation and communications systems of the empire began to decay." --Dryzen 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Structuring the article

Proposed reconciliation of thematic versus chronological themes Reasonable comments and ideas as to structure, but it could be argued that a major rewrite is not necessary. There is already a rough chronological/thematic division in the article. What needs to be fleshed out is the final part, (Events during the late Imperial period) - the last days of the Empire and its military- which as it stands now, is a mere paragraph of 8 lines. Development of this last part could cover both the thematic and chronological approaches, saving the need for a major overhaul and rewrite.

Another alternative is to pack the Events during the late Imperial period section with chronological detail, and then start a brand new section on the final demise of the Roman military which will be thematic in nature. There is plenty of scholarship around the decline of the Roman Army- (Gibbons, Delbruck, Luttwak etc, etc etc.) Entire book shelves groan with thematic arguments and counterarguments. The best way to keep it short and boil it all down is by a series of summary theme points. One or the other alternative can be done without a major rewrite or both can be done in one section. Just a thought as to how to reconcile the 2 approaches and cut workload at the same time. Added by Enriquecardova

It is custom to sign comments in wikipedia. Sure the article does not fit the structure. I recently restructured it and the original article has shown its weaknesses. The consent on substructuring this article was to use a narrative form to tell things in context. I disagree about the creating summary theme points. The article can be condensed without much loss of information. You only have to refer to existing articles on wikipedia.

I do not appreciate an academic discussion on the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire in this article. Write an own article about it and list all sources there, we can link it. Wandalstouring 08:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Finished restructuring the article

We had been talking about restructuring this article and it was proposed to use a narrative chronological structure. I tried my best to keep seperate topics and tell a fluid story as much as possible. Several parts had to be completly rephrased.

The section "Appraisal of the Roman military" can be integrated in the parts concerning the specific era troops (like the Goldsworthy source does). But I strongly promote to cut it shorter and put it in an article on the Roman military in general.

The sections concerning the Roman navy are short and contain little general information just like the main article on the Roman navy. It cries for an expert doing research on the topic.

So I wish happy adding and make this a real article again. Wandalstouring 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many inconsistencies and ommissions still to be fixed in the reorganization. Review by an objective panel may be necessary in time.

Enriquecardova 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Before organizing the article we had discussions for several days between Laserbeamcrossfire, Lokshin and me. When I started organizing the article I send personal requests for helpful ideas to all members of the military history project listing the Roman military as part of their concern. Currently I asked Lokshin for a review and I invited the guy who wrote the original Appraisal and Assessment section to state his opinion. If this whole topic is settled I could fill up many parts with translations from the German wiki where all Roman military articles have excellency status. It should not escape your attention, that I only made a basic structure on an existing articles with factual errors. Wandalstouring 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The structural outline seems decent enough. As far as the actual contents of the sections go, there are a variety of things that need to be cleaned up there; but I assume that's what the German translations will entail? (One point that should be mentioned here is the need to cite sources profusely, particularly in a complex article such as this one.) Kirill Lokshin 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The basic structural outline is excellent. I think we should address the Military history in one very large article, structured as this one is, rather than trying to divide into multiple smaller articles. This structure allows the ordinary reader to get a fascinating window into the 1,000 year military history of the Roman era (up to Bzyantium, which should be addressed separately) without having to go to 100 different articles. (Obviously, individual battles and wars should be addressed in depth in separate articles, but this is essentially about the evolving structure of the Roman military!) The only two things I see it needing are fleshing out - and I assume Wandalstouring will simply translate the outstanding German article - and heavy citations cite sources all through the article. As relatively minor notes, I would like to see more on the foederati, and the complete collapse of the regular military late in the Empire, circa Aetius, who basically had auxillaries and foederati, and that was that. Bury has some interesting thoughts on the depopulation theory, and of course we have the lead theory developing relatively recently, along with the always popular christianity-made-them-soft theory, (though if christianity were the cause, why didn't it dampen the martial ardor of the christian Germans?). Other than fleshing it out, and citations, this is an outstanding step forward by someone who very obviously is expert on the Roman period. Wandalstouring 's analytical skills are first rate, and he should finish this up, with help, if he wants it, in citing. old windy bear 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We have an military history article and I strongly want to avoid the lead theory. Lead has been used for watersupply in the early 20th century and some system still exist in inhabited houses. The lead is coverd there with a bacterial layer, preventing the water from any absorbtion of the metal. But this layer gives the water a sligthly odd smell any trained nose easily detects. A different matter is the use of Lead(II) acetate as sweetener. Wandalstouring 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WandalstouringI would avoid even discussing theories on why the Roman marial vigor declined so much - this is a military history article, not an anthropology threatsie. I was just ruminating myself. I would like to see more on the foederati since they played such a pivotal role late in the Empire, and citing, cite sources all through the article is a must, as this is a complex article and field. Structurally this is the way to go, a piece which relays the history of the Roman military, since the Roman military was the core of the Roman state. I especially liked the discussion of why the Roman military was so successful, against such a wide range of opponents through the centuries, especially since they made so many errors, yet in the end, virtually always prevailed. old windy bear 10:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing cited. So in rephrasing I can not invent sources. Currently I read Bury on the topic, because the topic is a hornet´s nest. Wandalstouring 11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work on the sectioning and synopsis, Wandalstouring's done a good job getting the article on track and I look forward to his future projects. As for reasons of the decline I think it less important to go in depth within this article and to stear some distance from mentioning all theories or prioritising one over so many others. Like all things its usualy a combination of factors and concequences of prior and current managments. Something that could interessting to dicuss in its own article. --Dryzen 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend. Yes, it is a hornet's nest. We can do the citing, I will help you, Bury is online, so linking won't be a problem. If you finish the fleshing out from the German article, I will start linking. I agree with you and Dryzen -- we should not get into causes or theories of the causes of the fall, that would indeed be a good candidate for another article, comparing the great theories. This article should be exactly what it is, a great article on the military history of Rome. I have Gibbon in hardcover, and can source out of that also. Tell you what, you don't worry about citing, I will take care of that. old windy bear 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The online versions of Bury and Polybius from Lacus Curtius are are already cited as reference (my current private lecture). What Lokshin correctly points out, we need notes in the text for the references. This helps to stabilize good articles, for not everybody is daring enough to change quoted comments without sources.

Discussing the different theories on the fall of Rome, you can easily point out how each theory tells matters in a perfectly rational way. It points out certain causes for the fall, but a competing theory (knowing the same facts about the fall) rearranges them in a different manner and finds other causes. There must be a name in game theory for such an behaviour. Wandalstouring 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring I am sure Gibbon is online too - I simply like my hardback version, my son gave it to me as a gift. Actually, much of Bury's work depends on the same sources cited by Gibbon, so there is not that much difference in their factual presentation - as you know better than I, the primary difference is in their interpretation of those facts. I do believe there is a name for competing theories each rearranging the facts to support cause and effect, but I do not know what it is. Logic dictates any rational explanation is possible, and certainly it might be interesting to present the contrasting theories of say, Bury, Gibbon, and Marx. (Add in Grant from the modern era, though obviously the others have a certain historical stature he has not had time to gain, not having the advantage of being dead a few centuries with people admiring your work!) old windy bear 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to make a shortcut this way and avoid arguing all of them. Wandalstouring 00:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring I absolutely do not think any of them should be in this article. This article should be exactly what it is, what you rearranged it to be, the military history of Rome, period. What kind of military Rome had at each stage of the Roman Era. I think it might, if we had time, be interesting to improve the separate article, completely separate, titled Decline of the Roman Empire and present those theories there. Dryzen mentioned this for it's own article, and I think it appropriate, though it would be a huge undertaking, requiring an incredible amount of sourcing for the differing theories. (in the present article few of the theories are discussed in any depth, and Bury, Gibbon and Marx are definitely shortchanged! Neither Bury nor Marx is mentioned at all in that article, which is incredible considering Bury's historical stature as a historian of the Roman Era!) That article could use a huge amount of work. But definitely none of that should be in this article. old windy bear 11:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a footnote and a direct quotation from Bury in the article (I wrote it myself), conserning the principle structure. Currently I work very hard on a formulation of the military history and the decline of the Roman empire. The fall of the Roman empire did not exist in the view of contemporaries as Bury states. Wandalstouring 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work to be done in that article too as old windy bear mentioned. There are several theories that are not even approached. But I am of the opinion that a number of the theories are lacking a gobal view, citing a single or triumvate of reasons rather than hinting at a panoply of adversaries. Still for a open mind readign the lot of them will generally give you a good idea of what probobly happened. Anyone had time to scoure the Gamte Theories? This is just the sort of connundrum that gets talked about. --Dryzen 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

translation of an article on the Roman fleet

German source on the fleet, featured and recommended article on the Roman fleet (I think this source is a bit turgid) German source on the legion, featured article, covers military history

I blieve a few words will need to be converted to english: Byzantium, Cyprus, Rhodes, Constantine, Maximin, John the Lydian. In 286 how where the northern fleets lost? Other than the second built up to storm the presented text seems to speak as if it was a victory for the romans and not a defeat. Here's a little extra from Byzantium and its armies you can add where you see fit: 27 roman fleets fleets; Zosimus quotes in 324 Contantine's navy had 10 000 seamen with 200 Triaconters and 2 000 transporst, while Licintius had a total of 350 triremes (1 trireme = ~ 150 oarsmen 1 captain and 2 pilots) for a total of 64 000 seamen. Threadgold also quote John's number wich you posted, wich would represent the year 285 (Diocletian's possible census).I'm looking forward to seeyign hte finished product.--Dryzen 18:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I start to believe we should upgrade Roman navy and Roman legion first with the translation and afterwards write the parts here. Wandalstouring 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't quite get that; your saying we should first change in the main article then perfect it here?--Dryzen 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually yes, that is what I was starting to think. Wandalstouring 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am of the mind that the first post in the acticle should be as close to perfect as we can make it, as least without any contested points. After which we can polish it here.--Dryzen 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked through th article and changed a few sentence syntaxes that made it difficult to be read in english. I also took some liberty in changing synonyms due to subtle diffrences in usage. It was a good read, and I did have some fun seeying german syntax appear been a while since I say it, if you have any questio nab out my changes do speak up, I may have changed somehting without knowing exactly what you where trying to say. --Dryzen 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I realized my translation abilities faced their limits (I need some training, I was better some years ago). At least you recognized sometimes German syntax, I missed it sometimes in the German version. I made two minor changes because your edit was not in accordance with the content. Oh and fun lasts, the whole text must be footnoted and the German version is not, so Kiril gave me the permission to source it. Wandalstouring 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At least ypur doing somehting and thats what counts, getting the hard facts, other wikipidians can look over the syntax. Speaking of which:

Whereupon the raids were extended as far as the Aegean Sea; Byzantium, Athens, Sparta and other towns were plundered and the responsible provincial fleets were heavily debilitated

Is very hard to read, having the double ands If you want to keep it as an single sentence I could suggest the following but I find that talking about the cities then the fleets as two subjects:

Whereupon the raids were extended as far as the Aegean Sea; where Byzantium, Athens, Sparta and many other towns were plundered, while the responsible provincial fleets were heavily debilitated.

I learned german early in college, as such I recognise the verbs being placed at the end of the sentences sequences following the ands. From what I know its ok (usualy for poetic purposes) but not common.--Dryzen 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem, I do translate and it is in this impossible structure.

Whereupon the raids were extended as far as the Aegean Sea; Byzantium, Athens, Sparta and other towns were plundered while the responsible provincial fleets were heavily debilitated. Wandalstouring 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what I just wrote? Dosen't look that impossible. I think I missing something here...--Dryzen 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I overlooked it. Wandalstouring 18:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When are you thinking of implementing this information? The main article on the roman navy could also profit from this infusion.--Dryzen 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to source it first, but OK, now I inserted it into the Roman Navy and wait for some reactions till it gets smooth.Wandalstouring 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just asking things looked prettymuch done, no need to rush. Sourcing is a good idea, yet vastly underdone. I dont think its a very active article.--Dryzen 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Republic:

Prior to the First Punic War the Roman Navy only consisted of a few ships patrolling along the Italian coast and rivers. When in the conflict with Carthage the engagements at sea became decisive, the Romans were at first rendered helpless against the nautically experienced Carthaginians whom where much better equipped with superior technology. According to legendary tradition, when the military was able to seize several Carthaginian warships, massive efforts were made for a naval build-up according to the Carthaginian archetype. De facto, it was the experience of the Roman socii in the Greek influenced southern Italy, that was decisive for the Roman naval build-up.

The Romans also developed a new strategy in naval warfare. Instead of sinking enemy ships via ramming, they transfered their infantry tactics on the sea. Via a boarding bridge, the corvus, superior boarding units were transfered on board of the enemy ship and the battle there was decided by numerical supremacy. The Roman casualties, increasingly due to the installation of the boarding bridge, can also be found in antique sources.

Ultimately the enemy fleet was forced to give way to the Roman navy, bootlegged from their own and employing the new tactic at sea. In the other two following Punic Wars the navy played in either an important role. During other conquests, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, the navy played a very significant function. When the Mediterranean was mostly under Roman control (later to be called mare nostrum, our sea, by the Romans), the Roman naval strategists had no more to do then concentrate on rampant piracy.

This posed, especially from Cilicia, a growing threat for the Roman economy. However, when Pompey the Great downright wiped them out in a concentrated strike, there wasn´t much left to do in the Mediterranean. Afterwards naval operations essential took place in the provinces. Large parts of the Roman fleet during the Republic were provided by sea accustomed, mainly Greek, allies.

Augustus:

Under Augustus and after the conquest of Egypt there were increasing demands from the Roman economy to extend the trade lanes to India. The Arabian control of all sea routes to India was an obstacle. One of the first naval operations under princeps Augustus was therefore the preparation for a campaign on the Arabian peninsula. Aelius Gallus, the prefect of Egypt ordered the construction of 130 transports and subsequently carried 10,000 soldiers to Arabia. But the following march through the desert towards the Jemen failed and the plans for control of the Arabian peninsula had to be abandoned.

At the other end of the Empire, in Germania, the navy played an important role for the supply and transport of the legions. In 15 BC an independent fleet was installed at the lake Constance. Later the militaries Drusus and Tiberius used the Navy extensively, when they tried to accomplish the Roman plan of a border extension to the Elbe. In 12 BC Drusus ordered to construct a fleet of 1,000 ships and sailed them along the Rhine into the North Sea. The Frisians and Chauci had nothing to oppose the superior numbers, tactics and technology of the Romans. When these entered the river mouths of Weser and Ems, the local tribes had to surrender.

In 5 BC the Roman knowledge conserning the North and Baltic Sea was fairly extended during a campaign by Tiberius, reaching as far as the Elbe: Plinius describes how Roman naval formations came past Heligoland and set sail to the north-eastern coast of Denmark. The multiple naval operations north of Germania had to be chancelled mostly after the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in the year 9 AD.

Julio-Claudian Dynasty:

In the years 15 AD and 16 AD Germanicus made within the scope of his Germania campaigns several fleet operations along Rhine and Ems, although they were knocked out in response to grim Germanic resistance and a disastrous storm. By 28 AD the Romans lost further control of the Rhine mouth in a succession of Frisian insurgence.

From 37 AD to 85 AD the Roman navy played an important role in the conquest of Britain. Especially the classis Germanica rendered outstanding services in multitudinous landing operations.

In 46 AD the military made a push deep into the Black Sea region and even travelled on the Don. By 57 AD an expedition corps reached Sevastopol.

It seems under Nero the navy obtained strategically important positions for trading with India; but there was no known fleet in the Red Sea. Possibly, parts of the Alexandrian fleet were operating as security for the Indian trade.

In the Jewish revolt, from 66 AD to 70 AD, the Romans were forced to fight Jewish ships, operating from a harbor in the area of modern Tel Aviv, on Israel's Mediterranean coast. In the meantime several flotilla engagements on the Sea of Galilee took place.

Flavian dynasty, Five Good Emperors and Severan dynasty

During the Batavian rebellion of Gaius Julius Civilis (69-70), the rebels got hold of a squadron of the Rhine fleet by treachery. But could not employ it in a decisive strike against the rival fleet. The remaining ships returned to Imperial authority, when Civilis was defeated in open battle.

In the years 82 to 85, the Romans launched a campaign against the Caledonians in modern Scotland. In this context the Roman navy significantly escalated activities on the eastern Scottish coast. Simultaneously multiple expeditions and reconnaisance trips were lauched. During these the Romans would capture the Orkney Islands for a short period of time and obtained information about the Shetland Islands. Supposably the Romans also landed on the Hebrides and in Ireland.

Under the Five Good Emperors the navy operated mainly on the rivers; so it played an important role during Trajan's conquest of Dacia and temporarily an independent fleet for Euphrates and Tigris was founded. Also during the wars against the Marcomanni confederation under Marcus Aurelius several combats took place on the Danube and the Tisza.

Under the aegis of the Severan dynasty, the only known military operations of the navy were carried out under Septimius Severus, using naval assistance on his campaigns along the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as in Scotland. Thereby Roman ships reached inter alia the Persian Gulf and top of the British Isles.

Crisis under the soldier emperors and the tetrarchs:

Under the soldier emperors the navy made it through a major crisis, when during the rule of Trebonianus Gallus for the first time Germanics built up their own powerful fleet in the Black Sea. Via two surprise attacks (256 AD) on Roman naval bases in the Caucasus and near the Danube numerous ships fell into the hands of the Germanics. Whereupon the raids were extended as far as the Aegean Sea; Byzantium, Athens, Sparta and other towns were plundered and the responsible provincial fleets were heavily debilitated. It was not until the attackers made a tactical error, that their onrush could be stopped. In 268 another much fiercer attack of Germanics took place. Part of the invading fleet attacked th Mediterranean islands of Creta, Rhodes and Cyprus, while the other part targeted the Greek mainland. Once again the Romans had nothing to withhold to this attack. Only when the Germanics set off for the interior Claudius Gothicus could defeat them.

In 286 the Roman Empire faced again a great danger when the insurgent supreme commander of the British Fleet, Carausius, dominated Britannia and parts of the Gallic coast. For with one blow the complete Roman control of the channel and the North Sea was lost, emperor Maximin was forced to reinstitute a completly new Northern Fleet, but in lack of training it was almost immediatly destroyed in a storm. Only by the emperor Constantius Chlorus the navy was again able to deliver troops to Britannia. By a concentric attack on Londinum the insurgent province could be retaken.

John the Lydian spoke of 45,562 naval members under Diocletian and the tetrarchs.

Late Antiquity:

In 330 both main fleets were stationed in Constantinople. Classic naval battles were now a rare case. Documents tell of the victory of Crispus over the fleet of Licinius in 324, the destruction of the boats under Gainas in 400 and naval operations in the struggle with Geiseric in the 5th century. The Roman fleets suffered defeats against the Germanics in 460 and 468 under the emperors Majorian and Anthemius on the North African shore. When the Völkerwanderung struck with full force on the Roman borders, the endeavors of the navy could hardly change a thing. Untill the breakdown of the Western Roman Empire in 476 the roman warships were solely employed to evacuate Roman citizens out of troublespots. The navy stationed in the Eastern Empire became the cadre for the byzantine Empire. Under the rule of Justinian I triremes were still in use, although mainly dromons were employed, Constantinople was itself protected by a fleet of liburnians.

the end