+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: \'soft\' eastern soldiers (/showthread.php?tid=20472)
\'soft\' eastern soldiers - liodari - 03-09-2012
Hi People,
I've read somewhere that the troops of the western empire considered the soldiers of the eastern empire to be 'soft' and not true worriors (or something along those lines). I can not remember where I have read this or what that opinion was based on. Is anyone familiar with this theory or can direct me to where I can find more info on it?
Many Thanks
Ian
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - Epictetus - 03-09-2012
I suspect that one could find plenty of quotes along those lines. I believe that the concept of the luxury-loving, soft Easterners was very highly ingrained among Westerners. In Fronto’s history of the Parthian war under Lucius Verus, the soldiers in Syria live in decadence and refuse to train. It takes the manly Lucius Verus to whip them into shape. (Interestingly, the hostile HA says it was the emperor himself who lived in decadence in the East – simply going to such a place allowed his nasty character to surface.)
I think that much of this became a literary trope. When a Latin writer was describing Eastern soldiers, they were described as soft and lazy, whether it was true or not.
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - liodari - 03-09-2012
Thanks, that's very helpful. Do you know of any specific (modern) literature that states this. I'm writing an essay and using it as part of my argument so need to reference it properly but can't find where I've read this, and my google searches have't been succesful.
Thanks
Ian
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - Epictetus - 03-09-2012
I've been reading a lot of books recently on the Greeks under Roman rule. I probably picked this idea up from one of them, but I can't remember. It's possible I came up with it myself (but I doubt it
). Sorry.
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - D B Campbell - 03-09-2012
Quote:Do you know of any specific (modern) literature that states this.You need: Everett Wheeler, "The laxity of the Syrian legions", in: David Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Suppl. 18. Ann Arbor, 1996), pp. 229-276. (Reviewed here.)
It's a theme that Wheeler often comes back to (e.g., in a 2010 volume, he writes: "the laxity of Syrian legions was a topos reflecting Latin authors' prejudices about the supposed enervating effects of life in the sensuous and luxurious East. ... As demonstrated in 1996, the topos of the laxity of Syrian legions has no basis in fact. Syrian and eastern legions in general were as militarily efficient as those on other frontiers."
Edit: You weren't wrong, David!
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - liodari - 03-09-2012
no worries, what you've sai sounds very familiar so I think I may have read some of the same books recently. :-D
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - liodari - 03-09-2012
brilliant!, thank you!!
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - Epictetus - 03-09-2012
Quote:Edit: You weren't wrong, David!
I suppose it was bound to happen sometime.
That looks like a very good book, by the way. If that came out in 1996 I probably read something that cited it. I'm going to put that on my list of things to read.
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - ValentinianVictrix - 03-09-2012
There is no indication in the works of Julian, Zosimus, Libanius, Ammianus etc that Late Roman troops raised in the East were inferior to those in the West. Although Ammianus does mention Western infantry in somewhat glowing terms, he does say of the army under the command of Valens at Adrianopolis as being 'neither unwarlike or contemptable', and contained 'many veterans'. Two of the most senior Legiones were based in the East, the Lanciarii and the Matiarii, both who served with distinction on Julian's campaign and survived the defeat at Adrianopolis despite being completely surrounded whilst trying to protect Valens.
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - markusaurelius - 03-10-2012
I'd also venture to say that judging by how many western armies were continuously defeated by Eastern ones during numerous failed usurps, that their armies certainly were not inferior
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - Nathan Ross - 03-10-2012
According to Livy, it was Roman troops returning from Asia in 187BC that first introduced luxury to the Roman world:
Quote:...For the beginnings of foreign luxury were introduced into the City by the army from Asia. They for the first time imported into Rome couches of bronze, valuable robes for coverlets, tapestries and other products of the loom, and what at that time was considered luxurious furniture — tables with one pedestal and sideboards.Then female players of the lute and the harp and other festal delights of entertainments were made adjuncts to banquets; the banquets themselves, moreover, began to be planned with both greater care and greater expense... Yet those things which were then looked upon as remarkable were hardly even the germs of the luxury to come. (History, 39.6)This is a trope going back to the Greeks, who first applied allegations of laxity and luxurious sloth to the beaten Persians. The Romans picked it up, and rather ironically applied it back to the Greeks!
Nigel Pollard, in Soldiers, cities and civilians in Roman Syria, provides a couple of classic quotes from Tacitus on the inherent sloth of eastern garrisons (excerpt here) - the idea being that, in the west, soldiers lived in their own strictly military camps, whereas in the east they mingled with civilians and picked up bad habits!
Everett Wheeler's essay on The Army and the Limes in the East also discusses the topic (excerpt here).
As a trope, it died hard - Galerius, for example, was famously defeated by the Persians in 296. Two years later, after a quick recruiting drive along the Danube, he returned east and defeated the Persians at Oxsa in Armenia. The first battle was supposedly lost because Galerius' army comprised the 'unwarlike troops of Asia' (Gibbon's term) - in the second battle, he'd got himself some proper soldiers!
Actually, the army in both cases was probably very similar - an inscription from Syria dated to 293 has vexillations from several Danube legions already serving under Galerius. Unless, of course, their brief stay in the east had corrupted them!
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - D B Campbell - 03-10-2012
Quote:Everett Wheeler's essay on The Army and the Limes in the East also discusses the topic (excerpt here).You'll find that all the references go back to Everett Wheeler -- it's one of his favourite themes! :wink: (And, like Speidel, he's always got something interesting to say.)
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - liodari - 03-10-2012
I love this site! You guys are lifesavers!
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - Michael P. - 03-10-2012
I'm aware of Wheeler's arguments about the eastern laxity, but according to G. Brizzi, this topos was far from being groundless. I really recommend you to read his article on the subject ("Qualche riflessione sulla fortuna della cavalleria in età tardoantica"), summarized in his famous synthesis (Il guerriero, l'oplita, il legionario. Gli eserciti nel mondo classico). In short, Brizzi states that the easterners recruted in the Syrian legions were traditionnaly reluctant to infantry discipline cause this was not a valorised way of warfare in Orient.
Re: \'soft\' eastern soldiers - Sean Manning - 03-11-2012
Quote:I'm aware of Wheeler's arguments about the eastern laxity, but according to G. Brizzi, this topos was far from being groundless. I really recommend you to read his article on the subject ("Qualche riflessione sulla fortuna della cavalleria in età tardoantica"), summarized in his famous synthesis (Il guerriero, l'oplita, il legionario. Gli eserciti nel mondo classico). In short, Brizzi states that the easterners recruted in the Syrian legions were traditionnaly reluctant to infantry discipline cause this was not a valorised way of warfare in Orient.I can't read Italian yet, but that seems like a bold claim. Civilized people (ie. literate city-builders) in the "orient" had been fighting in close order for two thousand years before the Romans came, and the Macedonians had introduced their own traditions during the Hellenistic period. And the people with citizenship who could join the legions mostly had Greek, Macedonian, or Roman heritage, anyways.