Gaiseric

If you were to take Vegetius at his word, we have a few changes: * Discipline - he argues that the discipline had changed, since most fought for profit rather than glory. If we look at Adrianople as an example, we can see that the lack of unified discipline lead to disaster when two units charged the field without orders at the beginning of the battle. * Armour - he makes the point that there had been a complete turnaround in standards. His reason for this is that by this time the Roman infantry was not the 'wall of iron' that it had been, and that most infantry weren't equipped with heavy armour or even helmets as the classc infantry had been. In contrast, the cavalry had undergone influence from the barbarian tribes and foreign enemies that surrounded the Roman Empire, so that rather than being a light force it had become a medium to heavy force. The cavalry was adapted along the lines of the Goths, Alans, Huns and Sarmatians. We have depictions of cavalrymen wearing the lorica squamata (scale mail) and using long cavalry swords. The influence of the Huns, Alans, Sarmatians and other steppe peoples on the Empire's cavalry force can be seen on the use of horse archers (equites sagitarii) in Roman battles. Additionally, the Persian/Parthian influence can be seen in the use of the very heavily armoured shock cavalry such as the equites clibinarii. * An increase in the use of barbarian troops - although the argument can be made that the Roman Empire had made excellent use of Roman troops over the centuries before that, and they had proved no less or no more loyal than normal troops (Elton, 1996). In fact, they were used as bodyguards and often their loyalty came to the fore when they went on killing sprees to avenge a murdered emperor, rather than looking for monetary distributions to support an imperial candidate as was the case with the Praetorians. Those are just a few examples, but they do paint a different image. The introduction of the draco as a standard in Roman armies is an example of changes, this being a Dacian and Sarmatian-based emblem. Vale, Gaiseric

I would also say that the majority of the emperors for the twilight of the Late Empire weren't capable enough, being mere pawns rather than effective leaders. Majorian may have been the last truly effective military leader, though he was stymied by the treachery the sabotaged the Vandal expedition in Spain. But most of the last emperors in the West were at best ineffectual, at worst incompetent. Avitus, Honorius, Valentinian III, Johannes, Olybrius, Petronius Maximus and Anthemius to name a few. The only effectiveness Olybrius could have had was as a candidate backed by Gaiseric and perhaps gaining some diplomatic ground with the Vandals in the West. Unfortunately (or fortunately, if he had turned out like the other emperors of this period), he died before proving his effectiveness. I do agree that it was more of a 'decline' than a 'fall'. Fall is usually instantaneous, whereas decline is a slow and steady process of decay and diminishing power. But then, those who used the term 'fall' are probably the same who described Alaric's taking of Rome as a 'bloody sack' and a 'despoilment of the city, in which many monuments were reduced to nothing more than ashes and rubble'. Drama is a propagandists' best friend. I mean, would we take Victor of Vita's record of the Vandal persecution of Catholics in North Africa at face value? A man from the same vein as Gregory of Tours who entirely neglects to mention the reign of Gaiseric since he lived long and ruled for 50 years when he was a heretic who wasn't struck down by divine wrath. That's why so many texts from this period are questionable, since they're based on being written to prove a point rather than as pure histories. Vale, Gaiseric

Just a few thoughts. We do have some idea of the differentiation of barbarian leaders. In the fragments of Dexippus, for example, when refering to an invasion by the Vandals stopped by Aurelian, he refers to both 'Basileius' and 'Archons' as being present in the negotiations. Although he does also refer to Aurelian as a 'King', so there is some ambiguity. And then you have those nobles who lead retinues, who are described as 'princeps'. Vale, Gaiseric

Hi everyone, Not entirely sure (and I know this is the case with camels), but elephants also inspired panic in cavalry. Polyaenus, in Book 8 23.5 describes how the one war elephant that Caesar used in Britain caused the troops and cavalry to flee when it began to cross the river. The smell of elephants, probably as well as their trumpeting, would spook horses, so you would more than likely have to position them in the center of a line of battle, or on a wing by themselves if they constituted a good number. No use having elephants if they prove problematic to your own cavalry. Vale, Gaiseric

It is true that Germanic tribes gained a certain aspect of cohesion in the later empire. This seems to have affected the size of the raids, so that by the time of Julian what might have seemed like an army (30,000 Alamanni, for instance) was still just a raiding group. But the interesting thing is the emergence of 'overkings'. Rather than just being groups that set out from a muster under the auspices of a nobleman, there seems to have been a greater change towards a singular ruler in charge, so that by the time of the Germanic migrations being in full swing we see the rise of men such as Fritigern, Gunderic, Gaiseric, Clovis and Theodoric. One of the excerpts from Dexippus is interesting, in which he notes a Vandal invasion defeated by Aurelian, and notes their command structure as including kings and leaders (archons). Up until sometime in the period between the two wars there seems to have been a change from the dual kingship of tribes that was based upon foundation myths into a unifying under a single king/warleader. Just a few thoughts. Vale, Craig

Marcus Aurelius Rain Miracle and the Marcomannic Wars by Peter Kovacs is the only one I know of directly about the wars but it's very expensive at over $100 US and hard to find. The Roman Imperial Army Of the First and Second Centuries A.D. by Graham Webster These I think would be your best choices. Books about the army, late antiquity or the decline and fall will always have some information however I think the two above are your best choices. Maybe try Herwig Wolfram's 'The Roman Empire and it's Germanic Peoples'?

Salve, Not to mention that, given his usual sense of impecable timing and lack of understanding, he ordered Corbulo to commit suicide just months before the Jewish revolt. Nothing says competent to me like asking the most skilled and effective general in the empire to commit suicide, especially one as dedicated and loyal as Corbulo. It's sort of ironic that he executes someone loyal to him, but exiles someone who offends him by falling asleep during a poetry recital. Just a few thoughts. Vale, Gaiseric

Gaiseric, Amazon UK currently has several Hardcover copies of the Bennet booklisted as second hand but there also appears to be a link to the full price copies as well at

I'm actually looking for the hardcover edition. I live in an area that's quite damp during autumn and spring, so I have mould problems with my paperbacks.

I don't really see which part you don't get it.......I mean ''If you accept some legions were elite, then what set them apart? Why were they 'elite'?''???????? Isn't it obvious? Ever heard of terms like Limitanei, Pseudocomitatense, Comitatenses, Palatine? What set them apart?????? Oh, come on man are you serious? Billion of things set them apart.........Quality (and quantity!) of weapons, armour. Then a level of logistical support. Then their salaries. Their status and privileges. Their training-should I mention that many of those limitanei soldiers were known for having additional duties (which they usually performed with greater will and look upon them as even more important to their military duty) besides military one. Some of them were definitely better farmers than soldiers. There were such ''soldiers'' who only appeared in their posts during ceremonial duties (''raising of flag'' sort of thing) while the rest of their time worked something else. Do you really think they can be compared to the Cornuti, Brachiatii, Petulantes, Iovianii, Herculianii or Scholae? It's more than obvious what the ELITE CRACK TROOPS means. Also, for your convenience, many units (if not all) that fought at Adrianople had fought on the east before and were by all standards regarded as the veterans. Maybe you should check the book. He gives a detailed breakdown of both Roman and Gothic forces (especially consulting the Notitia Dignitatum). You would be surprised how deep and objective his assessments are. Yeah, it turned out as ''soundly'' defeated (since 1/3 of the force survived, I wouldn't really say ''soundly''), however, you certainly know it was due to terrible blunder during reconnaissance phase and greatly over-eager behavior. I completely agree with your view on the Goths. I'd just say that the success of those Sebastian's operations is perhaps exaggerated since Ammianus only mentions one ''major'' action on the Maritsa river. This sounds as an exaggeration as well. The limitanei troops certainly can be described like that (though not all of them!) but I doubt that the palatine-class soldiers, scholae or domestici et protectores can be described as ''indifferent and ill-motivated''. Well, I'm not saying they were elite like the US Army's 75th Rangers or the British 22nd SAS but they WERE elite for the Roman army. Simply put, many troops that fought on that faithful day on the Roman side, were among the best that Rome had. Otherwise, the Romans surely wouldn't have regarded this defeat as such a disaster if they had known there were some better troops just around the corner. But, there were no better troops around the corner. That was the problem and that's why this defeat was seen as the utter disaster. Rome lost some of the best and most experienced troops that day, that's all it is. Listen to this for comparison: THE LARGEST SINGLE DEFEAT ANY-I REPEAT-ANY ROMAN ARMY EVER SUFFERED WAS AT ARAUSIO AGAINST THE CIMBRI AND TEUTONES BACK IN 105 BC! UP TO 120,000 dead! After it, the very heart of the state was in danger and Italy faced an imminent invasion. Eventually G. Marius saved the situation. But guess what-HARDLY ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THIS BATTLE! The causalities were far greater than at Cannae or Teutonburg or Adrianople. The difference is that Romans were able to come up with an even stronger force after Arausion, however, after Adrianople-they weren't. Hope this clarifies. But, please, I'd like your expertise on something else (this isn't ''Adrianople" thread after all). What evidence we have concerning the PRIMARY infantry close combat weapon? A thrusting spear or a sword? Which was more common? And in which units-legions or auxilia? Is it possible that auxilia palatine used the spears since they appear to form up the front lines (and perhaps deploy in the shield-wall?)? Regards Tactically, the heart of the state was in danger after the disaster at Arausio. But realistically as an immediate invasion...no. The Germans always turned away when they faced opposition, which is why they never settled in Spain or in Gallic territory where the Romans wouldn't have probably cared about them. After such a great victory, why did they turn around?.

More skimmed it to get answers. His explanation of the collapse as being the unsupportable system of frontier troops was interesting, since he argues that the troops on the frontier would never get adequate experience while the comitatenses performed the greater role in actual battles. Also, that the reduction of armour and helmets among troops weakend the empire.

Well, according to Trajan's Column (I know, a propaganda piece, but still...) Decebalus slit his own throat rather than being taken alive. So the story then follows that his head was removed from his now dead body and delivered to Trajan.

I know what you mean Virgil. I've been trying to look for a decent copy of Bennett's work at a decent price for a long time. No such luck. I own a copy of F. A. Lepper's "Trajan's Parthian War", which isn't bad. I've heard of another one, C.R.H Wildfeuer's "Trajan

According to Sidonius Apollinarius, Majorian began his military career under Flavius Aetius, along with Ricimer and Aegidius (creator of the Kingdom of Soissons, which lasted beyond the fall of the Western empire). The campaign against the Vandals by Majorian was the first 'attempt', since he was already planning it and preparing it in 459. The catastrophically disasterous campaign of Basiliscus wasn't until 468. Majorian was probably the last, best hope of any sort of concept of Roman survival in the West, but the end of the Vandal campaign through 'treachery' ended any hopes he had of stabilization and secured his death at the hands of Ricimer. Not that it was particularly unexpected. By that time the Late Roman Empire army had become hopelessly dilluted and a shadow of it's former self. If anything, the introduction of barbarian troops and equiping them properly more than likely extended the life of the Western Empire. Most troops in the Roman Empire wore little to no armour and the infantry was ill-equiped and trained compared to those of the Trajanic or Augustan period. The Late Roman Empire became devoted to heavier cavalry based on influences from outside the Empire, such as those of the Goths, Alans, Sarmatians and the Persians/Parthians (in the form of the cataphractarii and clibinarii).