RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Marcus Aurelius
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Any recommendations for information regarding the military crisis around the time of Marcus Aurelius. I've got to write an assesed essay about this period with regard to this period, so I'm looking for information<br>
a) about the military situation,<br>
<br>
and<br>
<br>
b)the impact of the military crisis on the empire.<br>
<br>
The social economic, and political situation stuff i've got, but if anyone knows good books that deal with military affairs without getting too bogged down in then legion x marched here whilst a detatchment of legion y retreated bla bla bla<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Cat <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>
For the latter, try Edward Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Anthony Birley's Marcus Aurelius is very good. Just two that immediately spring to mind. You might try Arthur Ferrill's Decline of the Roman Empire: the Military Explanation, but I've never read it so can't say whether it speaks to M. Aurelius or not.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

Salve,<br>
I just posted a brief review of Luttwak's "Grand Strategy".<br>
It may be just what you are looking for (the book, not the review).<br>
Bene vale,<br>
Allectus<br>
<p></p><i></i>
I've not read Luttwak, but i've heard it's rather big on grand strategies and concepts of borders etc. I'll have to look at it<br>
<br>
Cheers for the responses <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>

Guest

Salve,<br>
<br>
Ferrill's <i> The fall of the Roman Empire: the military explanation</i> (London 1986) is on the late third to fifth century CE. It is not useful for the campaigns of Marcus Aurelius.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
I agree with Jenny. The Birley book (1987) is good although I found the style somewhat difficult to read. The description of the situation in the Northern Wars is very interesting and it makes me wish there was more recent book on the same topic with more focus on the military situation (North and on the Eastern Parthian front). I remember that the impression I got was that the Northern Wars must have been terrible and far from obvious. In the long run the Romans won and Marcus was even thinking of taking territory across the Danube. But it was an extremely difficult war. Indeed it seems that in 171 the Romans got seriously beaten. Birley says 20000 lost; it seems a lot to me but even if a factor two too large it is still a serious defeat. In fact it must have been bad because the defeat opened Italy to a invasion (Aquilea was almost lost). When those in Italy were finally intercepted and beaten, among the enemy dead there were women (some with weapons) meaning that it is was a migration of people looking for land! Then, over the years several high officers were killed in action (two governors - Moesia inferior and superior, and also the Praetorian Prefect). SO the situation was very serious indeed.<br>
p.s. From the military point of view the book might be outdated, not in terms of dates or names of Legions, but in terms of sensitivity towards roman military affairs. One example: in one of the appendices the author, describing the equestrian statue of Marcus in Rome, says that Romans didn't use saddles! There are some nice pictures of the column of Marcus although they are old and before the recent restoration the soot from pollution makes the details hard to read. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 4/14/01 12:39:05 pm<br></i>