barca

Many peoples that were originally "barbarian" became roman. The Iberians, the Gauls, the Dacians and various others became very loyal Romans. This is reflected in the modern day countries that speak Romance Languages (latin-based) Although the Romans never fully conquered the Germans, they certainly occupied territories that included Germanic people. These present-day border states would include countries like Belgium and Switzerland that have both Germanic and Latin-based languages. Generally speaking the Romans did not discriminate against race or national origin. Many of their subjects quickly adapted to the Roman system. It appears that in republic and early empire the various barbarians were more indoctrinated in the Roman way and essentially became loyal Romans. Why the late empire was not able to achieve the same success is not clear to me. I would think that Stilicho was as Roman as any other despite his barbarian ancestry. What made Alaric so different?

Follow-up of my prevoius post. Here is an example of how Alexander was able to handle barbarian armies: "Here, in May, 335 BC, is the first use in Arrian of the magic Greek word, pothos regarding Alexander's actions - he describes Alexander's passionate 'yearning' to cross to the other side of the river, not only to attack, but just to discover what was there. Across the Danube was a large force of foot and cavalry - perhaps 14,000 men - to dispute the crossing. With cunning, Alexander chose to cross his army at night; as there were insufficient boats, he had his men fill their leather tents with plumped hay, using them as flotation devices to swim the river (few, if any, of the Macedonians could swim). At dawn, the Macedonian cavalry charge broke the warriors of the Getae, who fled from the nearby town with their women and children. After his successful coup, Alexander plundered the town and razed it to the ground so it could not be a magnet for further revolt." "Alexander now made for Pelium on the river Erigon in Illyria, a town occupied by the rebel leader, Cleitus. Before the battle, Alexander drew up his entire army, "...in mass formation 120 deep, posting on either wing 200 cavalrymen, with instructions to make no noise and to obey orders smartly." (Arrian, 6) Shouting to the infantry to raise their spears, Alexander then put his army through infantry manouvers and intricate drill which deeply intimidated the watching enemy. Then he charged, and the enemy abandoned the position and fled." "Perhaps most importantly, in the very dawn of his military career, Alexander showed that he could flexibly deal with guerrilla attacks; by far the majority of the actions he would fight in Asia would be of this nature, rather than set-piece battles. Like all great commanders, his actions north of Macedon prefigured the qualities that would make him a military legend in Persia." I would venture to say that he did a better job against guerrilla tactics than many Roman commnders. Remember what happened at Teutoberger Wald. For more details see below http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/591123

I doubt that the Gauls or Germans would have had the same success againt Hellenistic armies as the Romans did. Remebering Aemilius Paulus's success at Pydna, he was able to dismantle the phalanx by inserting his maniples into the gaps that occurred as the phalanx advanced. In theory, the Germans or Gauls could have done the same, but I doubt that they were organized enough to see the big picture and pull off such a critical maneuver.

I'm not sure I agree with that last comment, just ask Crassus, or better yet, ask Surena http://www.iranchamber.com/history/surena/surena.php

A valid point. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish the increased strength of the barbarians from a decline in the legions. Even in the 4th and 5th century, the Roman "Legions" generally got the better of the barbarians when they faced them in battle. Adrianople was an exception rather than the rule. Even after Adrianople the Romans generally won the battles against the barbarians. It was more a matter of whether a Roman army was going to show up. For example all hell broke loose after Stilicho was killed. Subsequently, Aetius had some success in reconstituting the Roman army, but the same thing happened when he was executed. How were the later Roman Legions different? I'm sure that there is someone more knowledgable who can add to what I'm saying, but here is my understanding: 1. Sword: at some pint in the third century they switched from the Gladius to the Spatha, a much longer sword. I assume that its greater length made it more effective against cavalry. It may have been less effective than the Gladius at close quarters. 2. The versatile pilum was replaced by two separate types of weapon. Smaller darts for throwing and larger spear or pike for thrusting or for defense. 3. I believe they switched from the Scutum to a more oval shield 4. Armor: I'm not sure when the Lorica segmentata was phased out, but it was replaced by other forms of armor that were certainly adequate. Although I doubt it was as good as the armor used by Trajan's infantry against the dacians (lorica + additional banded segments covering the arms) In summary the infantry was somewhat different but probably not vastly inferior to that of the early empire. It is my understanding that the decline in discipline and the reduced use of armor occurred after Adrianople. Does anyone know what the makeup of Stilicho's army was? How much armor did they wear? What percentage of his army were Roman and Barbarian contingents?

Don't forget that Aurelian allowed Dacia to fall into the hands of the Goths about 100 years before they were allowed to croos the Danube. In effect, the permanent settlements of Goths within the empire had already begun. It is not clear to me what was going on in Dacia during the 100 years of Gothic occupation. The Goths certainly had access to any Roman ingfastructure that was there. They also must have learned much from may of the Romans that remained in Dacia under their rule. One thing is clear, the Romans lost a valuable recruiting ground. Many quality troops in the empire had been Romano-Dacian. As far as I know, no subsequent emperor made any attempt to reconquer Dacia. Constantine was too busy trying to "unify" the empire than to worry about the powderkeg that was sitting over the Danube. If Constantine had used his energy wisely, he might have handed off a more stable empire to his successors. A lot of resources were used in his bids to vanquish his rivals. I would have made more sense to work together and launch an invasion to recapture Dacia.

The massed cavalry strike (led by Antiochus himself) wasn't what left the Seleucid phalanx open to the Roman cavalry force. The phalanx was open because the cavalry support on the left was routed and chased off. 15149[/snapback] I recently came across a fairly detailed description of the fate of the phalanx at Magnesia. I have not verified the authenticity of this source, but it's certainly more detailed than other descriptions that I've heard. http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_syriaca_07.html#[

Here are my two cents on this issue. Anyone ever see the film "Cool hand Luke"? Rermember the prison fight between Luke and The character played by George Kennedy? Well Luke didn't stand a chance. He kept getting beat up by George Kennedy, but he just kept getting in his face. Eventually Kennedy, who deep down was a good guy, got tired of beating him, and he had enough--he defaulted the fight to Luke and subdued himself to Luke. I draw an analogy to this and the Christian Martyrs who were willing to proclaim their faith even though they were threatened with death. They were given opportunities to save their lives by renouncing or denying their faith, but they refused to do so. I'm sure that the Romans felt bad about killing the innocent Christians. They were impressed by their resolve, and most the Romans deep down had a strong sense of ethics. So just like Kennedy, they defaulted and eventually submitted to Christianity. I'm not advocating the stubborness of the Martyrs. I doubt that most modern day Christians would be willing to die for their faith, but it does show the power of stubborn resolve.

Would you justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a means of decreasing american casualties to end WW II?

"The Seleucid army at Magnesia was standing firm until the disorderly retreat of their elephants caused confusion and disorder in their phalanx. The loss wasn't a failure of the formation." Regarding the use of elephants interposed in the gaps between the phalanx units. Sounds like total madness. They should have known better. Elephants falling back in the gaps and losing control would be a serious danger to the phalanx. What sort of troops could they have used to bridge these gaps? Alexander didn't appear as concerned about gaps in the phalanx. Maybe it is because he didn't rely on the linear formations of his successors. The phalanx could be arranged in various formations: wedge, pincer, cirle, convex, or concave line. The point being that the pikes could face in more than one direction. It is also interesting that the Swiss pikemen of the 15th century advanced in column formation. Their front being only about 30 men wide. A total disregard for the concept of flanks and gaps. This never seemed to be a problem for them. Fortunately they also had halberdiers and swordsmen as part of their units that helped out when it got to close quarters. "The reason this battle was lost was Antiochus' failure to support the phalanx with his cavalry. His ill-fated cavalry charge against the Roman centre at the battles start allowed the right wing to encircle the Selecuid phalanx and pick it apart." Regarding the cavalry engagement, I never fully understood what happened. It seems that he overextended himself with his cavalry charge, and ended up leaving a huge gap between his cavalry and his own phalanx. The light infantry that were supposed to watch the flanks of the phalanx were driven off by the Romans. Why did he let this happen. Unlike Alexander, he was unable to use his cavalry to exploit weaknesses in the enemy line. Was this poor generalship, or were the Roman lines so much more disciplined that even Alexander would have had difficulty in that situation?

"I'll asume you meant 1st Punic War" Yes, that's what I meant.

Look at the posts under the legion: Mithridates "the great"?

We all believe that the Romans of the Republic were more patriotic and united than those of the later empire. One can thank Livy for painting an idealized portrait of Republican Rome--much like modern day politicians talk about "traditional values." I'm not sure about the Republican Armies being all that homogeneous. At Zama, Scipio had to rely on the defection of the Numidian cavalry to tip the balance in his favor. At Cynoscephalae, Flamminius used Greek allies to help them against the Macedonians. At Magnesia, it was Eumenes who played a critical role. The later Republic frequently Gallic Cavlary to flank their legions, since they were considered superior horsemen. Crassus used Gallic Cavalry in his disaster at Carrhae. He would have fared better if he had increased his allied cavalry by accepting the offer to include Armenian Cavalry in his expedition against the Parthians. Caesar recruited Gauls (Gallo-Romans) into his legions, and he was able to train them in the Roman way of war.

What do you mean by "exhausted". Constant warfare was a way of life with the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Romans of the Pyrrhic and Punic Wars didn't seem to suffer from "exhaustion". In fact, they appeared to come back stronger after each defeat. After the Punic Wars, they showed even less evidence of "exhaustion", defeating one eastern opponent after another. I would think that a prolonged peace would be more hazadous than constant warfare. They would become complacent and lose their competitive edge.

You're right about that. I was thinking too far ahead of the issue at hand. My point was that no matter what the Byxantines accomplished against the Sassanids or The Germanic Kingdoms, it would all be eclipsed with the rise of Islam in the following century. Justinian came close to reunifying the empire, but it was temporary. His successors lost some of his gains. The wars with the Sassanids were back and forth. When the Arabs took over much of the East as well as North Africa in the following century, the Byzantines lost any hope of reconstituting the old empire. Here's an alternative viewpoint. Let's say Justinian and his successors had managed to reunify the old empire. Let's say they had found a way to consistrntly mobilize large armies, as in the old Empire. Would they have subsequently been able to hold off the threat of Islam?

i would venture to say that this whole thing is a very controversial topic. Most individuals have emotional reasons to support their viewpoints. I can remember way back when in my High School history noting the sequence of events in Roman History, seeing the large bust of Constantine's head with those huge eyes, and on the next page was the fall of Rome. I was surprised that the history book made no connection with the adoption of Christianity and the fall of Rome. Now I'm not saying that Christianity led to Rome's fall, but the timing is such that one has to ask the obvious question. The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche was an ardent anti-christian. He wrote numerous works including The Antichrist, Twilight of the Idols among others. His basic tenet was that christianity made men less competitive, less daring, and more like sheep in a herd. He blamed the ultimate fall of Classical civilization on the rise of Christianity. Here are some examples of his quotes: "Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul." "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man." "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad. " "He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted." "The word "Christianity" is already a misunderstanding - in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross." "Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity." "Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual." "From the start, the Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time enslavement, and self-mockery, mutilation." "it is the oriental slave who revenged himself in this way on Rome and its noble and frivolous tolerance, on the Roman "catholicy" of faith..." These are only some of his quotes. I will search my recollection to find others that may be more applicable to the late classical world. He believed that Christianity made men say "no" life and focus on the spiritual. He felt that christian morality was like chains holding great men down. These individuals could not be the "supermen" like Caesar or Napoleon who could rise above and accomplish great things unless they broke away from these chains (their christian morality) Whether Nietzche was right is certainly open to debate. The reality is that many so-called christians didn't really act like christians. Constantine, for example was ruthles tyrant.

Julian's victory at the Battle of Strassburg in 357 AD indicated that the fourth century Roman army could still inflict heavy casualties on the Germanic invaders. After Justinian, I'd say the Battle of Syllaeum in 677 AD, where they used Greek fire to hold off the Arabs--may have saved Byzantium.

There is no question that the heavy cavalry evolved over the centuries. Even the Normans had not full adapted the couched lance tachnique at the time of the battle of Hastings. It is true that Italo-Norman cavalry proved to be devastating to the Byzantines at the Battle of Durazzo, suggesting that their cavalry may have had stonger shock value. I'm not sure that we can make absolute generalizations about the Byzantine cavalry--their techniques in battle evolved over the ages as well. Belisariuses cavalry were certainly much different from the Byzantine cavalry at the time of the crusades. By the way, I think you'll find some of those pics in the Osprey Men at Arms Series.

The following article is of interest: http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/pr...belisariusd.htm "The cumulative successes of those forays had an unwonted effect upon the Roman populace. Dreaming no doubt of their earlier glory, they wished to join the Byzantine soldiers in a grand attack against the Goths. Belisarius explicitly opposed the idea, because the citizens had neither the training nor fighting experience and did not even have enough armor. Still the Romans insisted, and he reluctantly agreed. " "The sortie, as Belisarius had feared, was a fiasco. Sallying from a number of gates, the regular Byzantine cavalry acquitted itself well and successfully engaged the Goths. The townsmen-cum-foot-soldiers fought as spearmen and were arranged in a phalanx outside of the Flaminian Gate to the north of the city. They were held in reserve until Belisarius was content that they could engage the enemy with the least amount of danger to themselves. They then marched forward against the demoralized Goths and drove them from the Field of Nero into the surrounding hills. At that point, however, the Romans, being mostly an undisciplined rabble, broke ranks and began to loot a Gothic camp, only to be attacked by Goths who could see they were in disarray. The Roman foot soldiers were driven back in flight to the walls of Rome, only to find the populace, again fearful of the pursuing Goths, refusing to open the gates. The Byzantine cavalry intervened and extricated them. Any gain that might have come from the fight was lost." It indicates that the Roman citizens of the 6th century were willing to take part in defnding their city. Unfortunately their lack of training made them inferior to Belisarius' professional and mercenary troops. If Belisarius had been able to take the time to adequately train these citizens, he might have been able to resurrect the Rome of old.

What do you consider the starting point of Byzantine History? I would say somewhere between Constantine and Justinian.

Let's nos forget about Islam. The battle of Yarmuk in 636 AD led to the Arab conquest of large portions of the Eastern Empire. They were much more on the defensive after this.

Friedrich Nietsche (Twilight of the Idols, etc.) and Gibbon (Decline and Fall) would certainly agree with that. However there is certainly no consensus about this issue among historians. Some of the early christians were quite peculiar in their beliefs compared to the christians of today--most notably the Martyrs. For them, dying in the name of their faith was a guarantee of eternal salvation. It is interesting that the fall of the West did occur shortly after christianity became dominant. Yet the East survived with christianity. The gladiatorial games in the west were ablished by Honorius in 404 AD and the olympic games in the east were abolished by Theodosius in 394 AD because of the christian sentiments that prevailed. This would seem to coincide with individuals turning inward, becoming more spiritual, and less bloodthirsty. The Goths were also supposedly christian, but maybe they didn't take it all that seriously--they didn't "turn the other cheek"

It is my understanding that modern-day Romania is of that name because of it's language, which the linguists determined to be of latin origin. I find it interesting that Dacia was one of the last territories to be annexed by the Romans and one of the first to be abandoned. They held on to it for less than 200 years. The Goths and various other tribes occupied it in subsequently. Yet the latin-based language survived. Sure it has changrd a lot from the original latin, but so has Italian. Compare this to England, which the Romans held for about 400 years, The latin language was wiped out and replaced by a Germanic language (Anglo-Saxon or Old English) Can anyone explain why Dacia held on to Latin and England did not?