Roman Army

[Gaius Octavius]

Greetings:

From which sources do historians get the information regarding:

1. Army strengths.

2. Formations

3. Dispositions

4. and tactics

in the various battles that the Romans fought, i.e., Zama, Cannae, etc.?

 

Valete,

Gaius Octavius

 

P. S.

How did I become a 'Slave"?

Edited March 19, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Germanicus]

Welcome to UNRV Gaius, you'll be a slave until you get 10 posts, etc etc - you can get the full run down on posting ranks here.

 

With regard to your question, many classical sources exsist that tell historians these things, Tacitus, Caesar, Polybius, Plutarch to name some.

[caldrail]

Or Adrian Goldsworthy

[Gaius Octavius]

Welcome to UNRV Gaius, you'll be a slave until you get 10 posts, etc etc - you can get the full run down on posting ranks here.

 

With regard to your question, many classical sources exsist that tell historians these things, Tacitus, Caesar, Polybius, Plutarch to name some.

 

 

 

Salve Germanicus:

 

At first, I must state that I am a rank amateur with regard to Roman history and perhaps I am suffering from Early Onset Alzheimer's. I have read the books that you mentioned and (to me), they seem to give a very general and often vague description of the items I mentioned. Yet, many 'modern' authors are very precise, as regards the items questioned (T.A. Dodge, for example). I am still at a loss as to how this extrapolation comes about.

Thank you for your effort.

 

Si vales; valeo,

Gaius

SPQR

[caldrail]

You need to assemble the evidence like a sort of text jigsaw, with the caveat that things change over the centuries. A phrase from one source might not mean very much until you compare it to a similar phrase elsewhere that fills in the blanks.

[Ovidius]

Or Adrian Goldsworthy

 

 

I have his book titled, "Roman Warfare". Could you suggest some other reading material related to the roman army?

[Gaius Octavius]

Salve Ovidius:

Try "Caesar" by Theodore Aryalt Dodge. His introduction is most helpful.

[Furius Venator]

Goldsworthy has written deveral good books on this.

 

His best is The Roman Army in Battle 100BC-AD200. Much greater depth on the actual mechanics of battle than his Roman Army book which covers more the whole experience of soldiering.

 

He is somewhat critical of amny modern authors, especially military men, who tend to view the Romans an like modern day troops in fancy dress and armed differently or who are trying to prove a general point about warfare (Fuller especially).

[Ovidius]

Thanks for providing the info. Much appreciated.

[Virgil61]

Goldsworthy has written deveral good books on this.

 

His best is The Roman Army in Battle 100BC-AD200. Much greater depth on the actual mechanics of battle than his Roman Army book which covers more the whole experience of soldiering.

 

He is somewhat critical of amny modern authors, especially military men, who tend to view the Romans an like modern day troops in fancy dress and armed differently or who are trying to prove a general point about warfare (Fuller especially).

 

Love Goldsworthy but frankly the criticisms he made, while well founded, only reflect the way historical writings were approached by historian in all fields as well as military men of those eras as well. Keegan and others who began to delve into the organization, culture, motivations and psychology of soldiers and military history were following a more recent trend that historians in every field were beginning to address in the '60s. Parallel approaches in other historical fields like social history, the impact of the politics and economics on everyday people, how social organization impacted contemporaries and so on were breaking out at the same time if not before the Keegans and others came on the scene of military history.

[Furius Venator]

But the likes of Fuller and Liddel Hart were writing history as propoganda, obsessed as they were (and rightly) with 'the indirect approach' and mobile warfare. But it is not helpful to assume that those principles were the reason why, for example, Scipio triumphed over Hannibal. That's not to say that Fuller or Liddel Hart are not good writers, they are.

[Virgil61]

But the likes of Fuller and Liddel Hart were writing history as propoganda, obsessed as they were (and rightly) with 'the indirect approach' and mobile warfare. But it is not helpful to assume that those principles were the reason why, for example, Scipio triumphed over Hannibal. That's not to say that Fuller or Liddel Hart are not good writers, they are.

 

The point I was trying to make is that very few, historians or military men besides Fuller and Hart, of that era were generally writing history that delved 'under the hood' of the dynamics of military history in the same manner that recent writers have. Fuller and Hart have their own counterparts in other historical fields whose approach was similar in that they were essentially correct but their writings functioned as propaganda of sorts; for example see anything by Robert Conquest on the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The point I was trying to make is that very few, historians or military men besides Fuller and Hart, of that era were generally writing history that delved 'under the hood' of the dynamics of military history in the same manner that recent writers have. Fuller and Hart have their own counterparts in other historical fields whose approach was similar in that they were essentially correct but their writings functioned as propaganda of sorts; for example see anything by Robert Conquest on the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.

 

Virgil, are you claiming that Robert Conquest is a propagandist?

[Virgil61]

The point I was trying to make is that very few, historians or military men besides Fuller and Hart, of that era were generally writing history that delved 'under the hood' of the dynamics of military history in the same manner that recent writers have. Fuller and Hart have their own counterparts in other historical fields whose approach was similar in that they were essentially correct but their writings functioned as propaganda of sorts; for example see anything by Robert Conquest on the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.

 

Virgil, are you claiming that Robert Conquest is a propagandist?

 

Furius used it to describe Fuller and Hart's pushing of a particular and basically correct point of view. I didn't really like it's use so I called it "propaganda of sorts" (ironically Conquest worked what we'd call today 'information warfare' during the cold war).

 

Having said that if you're interested in continuing the Conquest thread in the after-hours forum, there are some serious criticisms of him.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Adrian Goldsworthy also wrote "In the Name of Rome" which I read, and thought was excellent. It tells the stories of the greatest commanders that shaped Rome... many of which none of you ever heard of before!

(At least I haven't!)

Edited March 26, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia