caldrail

It should be remembered that the roman army was derived from the greek model. The very earliest roman forces were warbands on a basic level. Greek organisation was adopted until the romans decided a more flexible approach was needed during the Punic Wars - a typical case of warfare advancing techinique and technology. But isn't that typical of Rome? Like the modern Japanese, not so good at inventing but they sure know a good idea when they see one.

I vaguely remember some mention of an increase in deformed children that was seen as portent of bad things.

We laugh, but augury was a serious business business for many romans. They were a very superstitious people in most cases (although a few worldly wise grifters would have sneered) and acts of nature always had some divine cause. Claudius was particularly keen on augury if I remember, and Tiberius kept an astrologer, Thrassylus, on his payroll. Caesar ignored an augury at his own cost did he not? Constantine famously rallied his troops by claiming he had seen a vision from god - I think he was telling king sized porkies there myself seeing as he would remain a pagan until his deathbed.

I suspect he didn't find much marble there. A lot of those early monuments were used as building materials for later ones. Am I wrong, or did Rome migrate back toward a brick city in the later half?

Go for it.

The condition of an animals liver was said to hold answers. Eagles represented imperial power, storms indicated an angry god. Wolves were symbolic of the city of Rome. The actions of these things were often interpreted as warnings of future events. There must have been plenty of others as well. Oh, and concerning chickens, one roman admiral didn't like the augury the chickens gave him, and had the lot thrown overboard. He said something along the lines of "What do they know, they're only chickens". He then lost the battle.

Just to add to the above answers, there is a quote from Augustus "I found Rome in brick and left it in marble"

By the gods! Another barbarian trick! Have that woman arrested and brought to my tent for questioning - And have our men reminded they're fighting a battle in ten minutes... It would have been quite a sight had it really happened. I've never seen any report this myself. Or... was it high spirits from a camp follower? Thats one way to drum up trade.

So our viewpoint isn't that far apart. I see a greater emphasis on the way soldiers lived because to me it has great bearing on their activities. If you billet rough tough soldiers amongst civilians sooner or later you get problems. One roman advised his friends not to argue with a legionary and just let him take what he wants - and that wasn't even the relatively lawless late empire. Most people of course simply wanted to get on with their lives. Constant demands for taxation and recruitment were making them feel a little under the thumb. If your children disappear to the front who brings in the harvest this year? Worse still, the troops guarding you aren't roman. Most don't speak latin. Would you trust them? It would have been a difficult time to live I guess. Interestingly enough I understand Adrian Goldsworthy ("The Complete Roman Army") has an opposite view to me in many respects. Ok, he's done research on this but as yet I can't see it that way myself. I'm certainly going to look deeper into this period.

I'll let Tacitus have the last word on roman promiscuity. In his Germania, he describes the Germans as - not thinking it 'up to date' to seduce or be be seduced. You said it Tass.

Rome went to considerable trouble to patch up her armies. Of course she did. They needed defence. All too often it wasn't there however in the late stage. Communities were hiring tribes wholesale as mercenary defenders because the roman army could not adequately contain an enemy threat. They simply weren't there. Roman defense policy was no longer offensive, it was about bringing enemy incursions to a halt before they penetrated too deep. Actually I doubt EVERY unit in the late roman army was terrible. They were trying to live up to the old reputation in many cases and with a decent commander I can imagine a 1000 strong legion proving effective at its chosen task. Most could not, or would not. The impression I get is a sense of hoplessness toward the end - a sense of 'why fight too hard, we can't win'. There is definitely a problem with morale and motivation in the late army. Given that a large percentage of that army were in fact Goths, and that a large percentage of their attackers were roman deserters, I can also see an increasing amount of brigandage by both sides. Even those attempting to enforce the law weren't to keen on obeying it. Law and order, like any modern society riven by warfare, was becoming a lost art. There are many examples of this situation today. The balkans? Iraq? Many african states?

Well maybe its just me, but I get bored with dry technical descriptions of every possible nuance or detail that the author can possibly conjure out of thin air. Usually it doesn't explain anything. I prefer to say what I think is right. You don't agree? Cool. But if I don't believe you're materially adding to understanding why would I shift position? Broader explanations aren't always required. Even if an event has a compound cause it can still be explained in simple terms. Also I cannot believe that the romans are alien to us. Our culture is based on the ruins of theirs. We belong to same family trees. Our inheritance is their experience and monuments. They were no different as human beings and their behaviour can easily be classified in similar terms to ours. Indeed, this point makes understanding the roman character much easier in my view. Why attempt an intellectual analysis when all you need to do is get to know these people. History is so much easier when you look at it from the viewpoint of the people who made it. Rich, poor, or indescribably mundane - it makes no difference. They all have stories to tell us through writings, relics, tombstones, archaeology etc. Sure their culture has differences to ours. I accept their mindset was different. But isn't that what fascinates us? How people can be like us yet so different? Isn't it the ability of the roman world to go to extremes that we find so shocking on the evening news today? Of course we don't agree. You're looking for clever insights in some complex jigsaw puzzle by describing each piece. I prefer to look for the picture on the box lid.

Sex was more freely available then. Even a wealthy domus might have alcoves at the back to rent out to prostitutes. I agree. They did bonk a lot. Not everyone though. Impotence and overbearing wives for instance are nothing new. Some people led very moral lives.

Weaponry is an important factor in warfare. Is it any good? Are you troops able to use it to good effect? Are they being trained to do so? The adoption of the spatha in preference to the gladius says two things. Firstly that the soldiers were not so willing to get in close with a short blade. Secondly that they were no longer being trained to fight close in and therefore requiring less skill. No longer were the legions massed in battle formations to steamroller the opposition aside. They formed compact skirmish units a sixth smaller for a more mobile approach. This requires lightweight forces. Heavy infantry can't force march everywhere. It certainly isn't irrelevant that the late roman army was less effective. The external threat to rome was becoming constant and the legions of the time were both unwilling and unable to contain it. Their forces were poorly trained, poorly disciplined, poorly equipped, badly led, badly organised. The huns for instance would not likely have succeeded against rome at its height. Against the 'soft' later army, they made deep penetrations. Roman was surviving on political and military momentum and it was running out. That doesn't mean they couldn't win victories if any particular leader managed to motivate and lead his men effectively. But were there any such leaders? Not many. The roman infrastructure was becoming insular, with country manors almost cutting themselves off from what remained of mainstream life. Rome simply wasn't what it was, neither were her armed forces, whom she relied on to keep the borders safe. Which they weren't....