Absurd comment by Lafferty

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

The historian Lafferty in his "The Fall of Rome" written back in the '60s has made a comment that Stilicho's army would have broken Caesar's or Pompey's armies "like sticks" because, according to him, the latter were "summer-time soldiers" from the citizen levy while the former were true professionals. I found this irritating because it was so absurd. AFAIK the Roman Army was fully professional by the time of Marius. As for the quality of the soldiers themselves, this must largely be confined to the realm of speculation. One might as well try to compare the quality of modern U.S marine with a Janissary of the Ottoman Empire. Any thoughts on this?

[Northern Neil]

I think that the army of Stilicho would struggle against an army of Pompey or Caesar - not because the dominate period field army was inferior, but because the field army itself was in decline. Stilicho was by this time using german tribes he had bought to use against against other germans, the Comitates were not what they used to be and the legions as existed had been run down so that they were little better than a watchtower militia. In addition, many of Stilicho's victories were diplomatic ones, and by neccessity due to dwindling military and financial resources.

 

Against the field army of a ccouple of generations earlier, say, that of Julian, or against an army of Stilicho's time but in the East, then I think this comment would not be absurd. The field army would be successful for the very reasons it replaced the obsolete army in the first place.

[caldrail]

Warfare is never a sure thing. Inferior armies have sometimes won out by better leadership or strategy. A lot depends on circumstance and who was the sneakier, since ancient battles were sometimes decided where and when the forces met. Now operhaps Stilicho has an advantage here? Caesar, for all his leadership qualities, was careless on campaign, and against a worthy adversary could have have been suckered into a trap. On the other hand, you might argue that he would turn it around on the field. Its impossible to say, though I suspect Caesars legion was more effective as a fighting force.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Against the field army of a ccouple of generations earlier, say, that of Julian, or against an army of Stilicho's time but in the East, then I think this comment would not be absurd

Just out of curiosity, why do you consider Stilicho's army to have been better than Julian's?

[DecimusCaesar]

I think that the army of Stilicho would struggle against an army of Pompey or Caesar - not because the dominate period field army was inferior, but because the field army itself was in decline. Stilicho was by this time using german tribes he had bought to use against against other germans, the Comitates were not what they used to be and the legions as existed had been run down so that they were little better than a watchtower militia. In addition, many of Stilicho's victories were diplomatic ones, and by neccessity due to dwindling military and financial resources.

 

Against the field army of a ccouple of generations earlier, say, that of Julian, or against an army of Stilicho's time but in the East, then I think this comment would not be absurd. The field army would be successful for the very reasons it replaced the obsolete army in the first place.

 

A good point Neil. The Late Roman Army was as good as the army of the Principate in many respects. It wasn't until the final decades of the Western Roman Empire that it began to seriously decline. By that time it was already broken through successive wars and loss of resources. It was also heavily dependant on mercenary soldiers who were not particurarly trustworthy, such as Odoacer's German Foederati who finally destroyed the Empire in a revolt.

 

Perhaps Stilichio was not as good as a commander as Caesar or Pompey, but maybe the Dominate period soldiers might have proved a tough nut to crack for the Republican Legionairies.

Edited May 2, 2008 by DecimusCaesar

[Gaius Octavius]

Those 'summertime' soldiers went through some rather rigorous training before engaging in battle.

 

Of course it is beyond the realm of possibility, that Caesar, knowing the tactics, strengths, and abilities of his adversaries, could afford to be 'sloppy', with impunity, on the march. This, of course, could not have been his 'trap'. This is why he was most often attacked and defeated on the march. The Germans held him in such great contempt, that they allowed him to build a bridge across the Rhine in less than a fortnight, (a feat unaccomplished to this day), while they went picnicking in the hinterland. At Alesia, Vercingetorix knew that Caesar was a klutz. That is why he allowed Caesar to build a double wall around his strong point, and thought it unnecessary to call upon the half million Celts, playing polo in the background, to make an end of these works. Contrary to the popular press, it was Caesar who was brought in chains before Vercingetorix, and not vice-versa. The idiot, Caesar, neither could or would have adjusted his tactics in a confrontation with Stilicho's Teutonic legions.

 

All this is why the tactics of the Dominate legions are studied in all military and naval academies, and not those of Caesar.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Contrary to the popular press, it was Caesar who was brought in chains before Vercingetorix, and not vice-versa

Quid? Quomodo?

Edited May 3, 2008 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[Northern Neil]

Against the field army of a ccouple of generations earlier, say, that of Julian, or against an army of Stilicho's time but in the East, then I think this comment would not be absurd

Just out of curiosity, why do you consider Stilicho's army to have been better than Julian's?

I dont - my intention was to say that Julian's was better than Stilicho's. I think perhaps I did not convey my meaning very clearly.

 

Regarding current military strategists studying caesar, maybe if generals such as Aurelian and Julian had written comprehensively about their own exploits, modern military strategists would be studying their tactics as well.

Edited May 3, 2008 by Northern Neil