ASCLEPIADES

This reminds me of Alexander's attitude towards conquest - always looking over the hill for new territory, and being surprised by how large the world really was as he advanced further along its surface. This has actually got me thinking about Roman ideas about Geography and how it shaped their frontier strategy. Even as late as the 4th and 5th centuries the Romans were still rather ignorant of lands beyond their borders, especially those beyond Germania. Jordanes (quoting the earlier Roman geographers Pomponius Mela and Claudius Ptolomaeus), when discussing Scandinavia (Scandza) mentions it as being an island. Some modern historians have found this so odd that they believe that the Goths must not have originated from this part of the world. Then again Attila did create a sort of 'Iron curtain' to keep the Roman spies out of his empire. This does at least hint that the Romans sent agents beyond their borders to keep an eye on the tribes, whether they paid an attention to the geography of the area is another matter.

Point taken; we actually lack any primary source summary equivalent to the Notitia Dignitatum for any other period.

That's true.

I think it's very much an issue since the Roman themselves didn't make any distinction, however if you talking about blood you forgetting that Augustus was the great nephew of Caesar, so he had in him Caesarian blood. Is there any disagreement between us ? Or should I delete my comment that Augustus was adopted by Caesar ?

Salve, Amici

Salve, GH I would choose Burger King.

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but what is the evidence for a decline in quality?

Even if I mostly agree with Luttwak's depiction of the Roman army evolution, I find many of its conclusions extremely flawed.

On the Hadrian Wall itself, we may well profit from the expertise of AC, Caldrail and other UNRV members regarding when, why and by whom was the inner moat constructed and filled, as well as the potential interaction of tactical and logistical factors behind such events. Anyhow, regarding the original question, that's inconsequential. No human institution is perfect; I'm positively sure we would be able to find many undisputable stupidities done by Rome and any other successful empire during either their high or low periods. So? The raw idea (hypothesis?) that Hadrian Wall's inner moat construction (or destruction?) was a sign of utter (and new?) stupidity (???) to such degree (and timing?) that it explained in any meaningful proportion why the Roman Empire was unable to defend its borders (is that what Mr Shenkman understands as Rome's fall?) simply doesn't stand by itself as it was presented in the first post of this thread; too many unexplained facts to be even falsifiable.

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but what is the evidence for a decline in quality? I think Sonic has a good point, specially regarding the eastern Roman imperial army (yes, they were Romans too).

As Sonic carefully eplained, the Western Roman Empire's inability to protect its borders was a paulatine, multifactorial, extremely complex and not wholly understood process that developed through decades; it was hardly an overnight phenomenon. As far as I know, the main contribution of the semi-Vandal Flavius Stilicho and the semi-Gothic Flavius Aetius to maintain the army's capabilities was the prudent use of the Germanic allies' resources.

Indeed.

Also how strong such a crossbow is (gastrophetes)?

It seems quite likely.

The only powerful hand-held crossbows with magnificent trigger mechanism is of Qin-Han Empire, who possessed an entire different style of warfare to the Romans.

Salve, Amici But I don't see how this could explain the Parthian frontier. It seems neither of you acknowledges such explanation,.

Salve, Amici

Again, the possibility is there.

there is no mention (in the sources or in modern works) about the Praetor of 185 being Preat. II

Too much text to be posted without confussion.

Sorry, too much text to be posted without confusion.