Neos Dionysos

I'm sorry that your falling into the wrong school, the Dark ages school of pure hatred for Caesar. Caesar owned the late republic era, he left his mark all over it. "Caesar era", sounds pretty good to me. I don't hate him... but I don't worship him. Also, where does the school of the 'Dark Ages' say you must hate Caesar? He accomplished a lot in his life, no doubt, I just choose to believe that he was human and therefore had faults and did not do everything that was 'right' and 'for the republic', but instead did them 'for himself'. Is that so wrong to beleive? Also there were far more people than just him who were part of the Late Republic, hence my issue with it being called, "His Era". Caesar may have "pwned" them in the end, but had it not been for men like Crassus and Pompey he would never have even gotten a chance. Just because I don't kiss the mans' statue suddenly my school of thought is wrong? Hate to say, but we're all right and we're all wrong in the end.

I'd say Alan, Hunnic and Sarmatian. The Goths were an infantry based people.

Perhaps I should have been more specific, sorry I see now how I made it seem I was completely ignorant of her... I have seen all of the online sources on her and have read here and there little exercpts from other books which mention her, but I am searching for articles or sources that are devoted to her as a topic/subject. Since no books exist, (that I know of), I would hope journal articles do. I ask because I would like to write an essay on her and my professors will not accept online sources as references... as it stands now I fear I will not be able to find enough material to write a 15 page paper, but who knows... I might. Thanks for any help...

I have been trying to find sources on this particular woman and the fact I have seen so little, (when you just brief her story you find astounding she doesn't rival Caesar in popularity), and so I am asking anyone here if they know of any non-fiction soucres? I don' care if they are old articles in like JRS or Historia, but for some reason I cannot find anything for her. Any help would be greatly apprieciated.

I'd be very interested to here it Favonius...

No need for that... I am done... was simply making a comment... so.. back on topic... If you have other questions or would like opinions on something you are unsure of we'd be happy to help some more...

I have to disagree with that. For it's time 2000 years ago, the Roman Empire was way more advanced and militarily more powerful than any other civilization. Not to mention the Roman empire lasted longer than the British empire. Around 1815, the British Controlled at least 1/3rd of Africa, parts of South and Central America, all of Canada, India and the land just adajcent to it, parts of China, parts of Malasyia and all of Austrialia and New Zealand... far larger than anything Rome had, and when considering no power rivaled Rome in technology, the fact the British did this while having to contend with powerful European neighbors with the same technology is a quite a feat. "Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves..."

Sorry to say, but textbooks are very lacking and like to condense hundreds of years of history into a paragraph. For at least a basic introduction I would suggest wikipedia, and to search for the "The Delian League" (aka) "Athenian Empire", "The Peloponnesian League" and for info on the Hegemony of Thebes, look up the generals, "Epaminondas" and "Pelopidas" since they were the force behind the Thebian Era of control, which began after Sparta's defeat at the Battle of Leuctra, and it only lasted until thier deaths. Hope this all helps...

The Greeks were never an empire, perhaps you are confusing the idea with the Athenian Empire following the transition from the Deilian League. The Greeks were dozens of city-states all concerned about themselves, there are constant referecnes of cities who are at war with one another suddenly turning on thier ally city because they became to strong. Spartan Allies did this to Sparta following thier victory over Athens, then Thebes became the powerhouse, and suddenly when Thebes became to strong, her allies left her and supported Athens and Sparta again... it's the idea of Particularism vs PanHellenism. *Edit: LoL, you beat me to it Furius...

I will agree Rome did not have the resources in the Late Empire to fend off so many threats at once, but the collaspe of the West was a slow, disintergration process, not the time-hallowed belief that Germanic People's en masse migrated all over at once and went about rampaging the Empire. I comment this because Ursus, your statement sounds like old sterotypical view of Rome's fall... Which ate up the most prescious resource of the Late Empire, well trained Roman units. You can argue that the civil wars fought by Theodoisus, (against Maximus and then Arbogast and Eugenius), could have been avoided, the second with Eugenius easily so, and the empire could have had more resources than she had.

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

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

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

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

Here we go... 1). Theodosius: The Empire At Bay by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell. 2). Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity by Kenneth G. Holum. 3). Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD by Noel Lenski. 4). The Rome That Did Not Fall by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell. 5). Barbarians and Bishops : Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom by J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz. 6). Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire by John M. O'Flynn. 7). The Fall of the Roman Empire : A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather. 8). Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Policy and Barbarians, Ca. 375-425 A.D. by Thomas S. Burns. 9). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples by Herwig Wolfram. 10). Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425 by John Matthews. These should get you off on an excellent start...

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

...and thus the Roman General went on to inform his men that those showed exemplary courage and bravery in the face of the enemy would have that girl one of her many sister's awaiting them back at camp. Seriously though... I think it's pure fantasy or someone's wild imagination of what they wished happened before battle.

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

Right, as I stated, the regions they could not defend well and which were not really a priority were left to thier own defence, or Rome used federate allies to defend the areas. Over time the Field Armies, being stationed so long in major cities which is good and bad, the negative aspect is over time the soldiers families are then all from the surrounding area and region and so now the "flexible" and "very mobile" armies were only able to operate regional, thus the only real Roman Army in the West in the late empire after Theodosius was that of Italy. The rest were pre-dominatly some garrions and federate allies. And I agree, brigands were everywhere, especially in the West in regions like Hispania, Gaul, Britain, but in the priority areas it was kept in check for the most part. Corruption was absolutely rampant, so it's no surprise of the break down. I agree with your statement of a problem with morale and motivation... but I do not think it was of 'hopelessness', or of 'giving up'. Morale I think was issues due to the fact that over time the billeting of troops in cities and over time many became lazy, idle, and simply just didn't give a rat's ass; not that, "...we can't win."

If EVERY catagory of the army was in such terrible or horrific shape then how do you explain Rome holding together as long as it did? How was Rome able to rebuild her Eastern Army after Adrianople, (which would later ensure that half's survival)? I disagree there were pleny effective and victorious leaders of the Late Empire, I think there were fewer in the earlier days, (also they were much more spread out of time). Without effective leaders things would have collasped quite quickly under the pressure of so many threats. And I totally agree with that.... those actions of the villas isolating themselves off from the major cities is what helped bring about the decline of the major urban areas in the West. Though I will disagree still with the armed forces, they were different, transformed, but so was the whole Roman World, and they still kept the 'borders' secure. I say 'borders' because what was important to Late Roman Emperors were Italy, Africa, Greece/Illyricum/Macedonia because of the highway route b/w East-West, Thrace and Asia Minor the breadbasket of the East, You can throw in Egypt as well... the other areas were second priority and often the most neglected and the first to be 'cut off' when things got bad.

Therin shows the problem when you compare Vegetius to Ammanius. One laments at the decline of quality in the army, while the other claims that while weaponry has changed, the overall discipline and training has not. In either case, my arguement was your point that heavy infantry was being abandoned, none of what you have written there states that. Recruitment I know very well the problems of it in the late empire and the laws issued to try and insure service. To compare the legions of the 'golden age' you must also compare the climate. Rome, during the principate was not besieged on all sides. Emperors could muster most of the army to one location for a campaign, that was simply impossible following the 3rd Century Crisis. Now Rome had encrouchments from organized, large barbarians peoples, (and partially because of thier interaction with Rome they learned how to become more structured), and you had a much more aggressive and expanisionist Persia who knew how take major cities through siege and who could field large armies as well. The Army of the Principate, I do not disagree could defeat any of these threats, but could they do so while being in several different places at once? I don't think so, hence the emphasis on more flexible, smaller formations of troops. You may contend that overall qualitiy has dropped, but what good is the best force when it can't even be brought to bear against the enemy. Also, I don't think that a change in weaponry leads to a decline in training, just a change in them to adapt to the new equipment and weapons now being used. Perhaps this is the cause of his 'moans' over the decline in training because the old ways are not being used, since why would they when they are meant for the 'old form' of legions and not the new. Perhaps the best example I can say is, look at the battles and engagements the Late Army fought. Strasborg, Adrianople, Ad Salices, Chalons, Verona, on the Persian Front and countless smaller ones against various barbarian groups. Almost all are victory for Roman arms and ff the major engagements, Adrianople is the only defeat and which happened only after the command structure of the Romans made tactical errors, if the army was such in a 'terrible' state then the battle would not have continued on till dusk regardless of being encircled and the surviving section of the army would not/could not have broken out of the trap and retreated in good order. This is given to us by Ammanius. In short, personally I feel it's irrelevent if the army of the Late Empire was not as trained or diciplined exactly like that of the Early Empire. Times had changes, situations had changed and threats had completly changed. I am willing to accept that the Late Army was not up to the standards of the High Empire, but should not the final judegement of thier quality be based upon if they can actually do thier job, and win Rome's battles and wars? If so, then they pass, and therefore the Army while in decline to early standards, was the best it could be to late standards. Rome's Downfall I will argue is not because the Roman Army, but because the Decline of the State then transfered to a Decline of the Army.

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

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

Where does it say this? I know a majority of the army was light troops, but the backbone of the army, the fighting core was the field armies, which was heavy infantry. The frontier troops were designed to stall, delay, interupt major pushes into Roman lands, but they were never expected to actually defeat or repulse the threat. The Field Armies were designed for this, they were lower in number compared to the Frontier Troops but the Field Armies was the heany infantry used to engage, defeat and repluse the threats Rome faced in the Late Empire. Cavalry was more important now true, but it was almost always recruited from barbarian groups. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, since I cannot see at all how heavy infantry was being slowly shunned by Rome after Constantine. His reforms officialized what had been going on in the army since the early 3rd century, smaller, more flexible units instead of the larger legions of the High Empire, but the core, the more highly paid, better equipped and better respected units of this new army was the Comitatenses and the Palatini which were the Heavy Infantry.

I find that hard to beleive, (of abandoning heavy infantry tactics since heavy infantry continued to be a major force on the battlefield for a couple more centuries). I would agree that the establishment of the limitani was light, and more suited for the policing and ambuscades, but the Field Armies were the Heavy Infantry designed to meet any major threat and defeat it. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just curious, since I have yet to come across the references that Roman Armies, (while different from the Leigons of old), were not heavy infantry at it's core.