\'soft\' eastern soldiers

[JeffF]

Michael Grant in his book The Army of the Caesars, p 67, points out that the function and deployment of the Eastern legions was different from the Western legions of the Rhine and Danube. Those legions were based on the frontiers their mission to guard against nearby enemies. The Eastern legions were deployed in cities, their mission mostly to maintain internal order. Like the Praetorians in Rome who didn't wear armor in their daily duties (Osprey Elite series), the Eastern legions probably didn't either as pointed out by various commanders prepating those legions for campaigns. In such circumstances it is no surprise that their discipline and morale would suffer and their effectiveness compared to Western legions found wanting. This condition was probably worse among the legions with decades of such debilitating service as opposed to those legions of Titus' Judea campaign with years of arduous service.

[starman2012]

Michael Grant in his book The Army of the Caesars, p 67, points out that the function and deployment of the Eastern legions was different from the Western legions of the Rhine and Danube. Those legions were based on the frontiers their mission to guard against nearby enemies. The Eastern legions were deployed in cities, their mission mostly to maintain internal order.

That might've been true in Judea but I don't think it was the case in Syria. As I understand it, the main mission of the eastern army was to guard against Parthia and later Persia.

[Nathan Ross]

As I understand it, the main mission of the eastern army was to guard against Parthia and later Persia.

Yep - plus, at first, to overawe the network of client states that provided a buffer against Parthia/Persia!

Roman military deployment in the east was in many ways a superimposition on preexisting indigenous and Hellenistic patterns - the Romans appear to have taken over many of the old camps and bases of preceding powers, and many of these were sited close to civilian centres. There were a few positions that appear originally Roman - Satala and Melitene - and these might have had more of the character of the northern frontier establishments.

On the northern frontier, by contrast, there was little or no prior metropolitan or military framework, and the Romans therefore built from scratch. Unsurprisingly, the two zones developed quite different characteristics, dependent on quite different strategic requirements and cultural backgrounds.

[JeffF]

Grant specifically refers to the Syrian legions when he writes this. Remember the location of these changed over time, for most of their existence they were away from the eastern frontiers at cities, apoarently housed within those cities and not in separate legionary forts. This was even more the case when Septimius Severus conquered and created Mesopotamia, which shielded Syria from Parthia/Sassanid Persia andvwhich interestingly he garrisons wih two new legions, I & III Parthica, instead of any of the older more experienced long service eastern legions.

[starman2012]

Grant specifically refers to the Syrian legions when he writes this. Remember the location of these changed over time, for most of their existence they were away from the eastern frontiers at cities, apoarently housed within those cities and not in separate legionary forts.

That changed by the fourth century with the Strata Diocletiana. I don't know what improvement in troop quality may have resulted.

[Sean Manning]

Could you explain how anyone could have world power before the 16th or 17th centuries?

Yes. The fact that today world is synonymous with earth does not mean that this has always been so. The term and idea of "World" itself has been changing and its meaning expanding throughout history. The "world" has grown with the knowledge about it, through enlarging trade networks, expanding empires, explorations etc.

Another misunderstanding is that "World" has always to mean everything and anything. Rather, it can mean just as often the essential thing. In these both senses, Rome was a world power through and through, quite possibly the largest of all times, because it encompassed the most centres of high culture which existed at its time.

Macedonia is certainly geographically east of Italy. But Sicily, Carthage, and Massilia were west, and the Italian Greeks were south. Somehow, being west of Italy didn't save them from Roman armies. And of course, the eastern Mediterranean became part of Roman power!

I was under the impression that we are talking here about world history. And in world history, the geopolitical terms West and East have never been used in a purely geographical way (as you know, Australia belongs to the West even though it is even east of China and south of nearly everyone). In this sense, Greece and Rome were the West, while the rest, southerly Carthage included, can be subsumed under the East.

Could you give some examples of world historians who define "the world" as a small region like the Mediterranean? In my experience, most of them do try to study the history of the world. Your definition would let someone say that world power was simultaneously moving one direction (for the world centred on the Mediterranean), in another direction (for the world centred on India), in yet another (for the world centred on China), in a fourth (for the world centred on Central America), and so on. This is misleading at best and contradictory at worst.

And again, the problem with "east" and "west" is that they are never sufficiently defined, and everyone has a different implicit understanding which often changes depending on the convenience of the argument. Geographical, historical, and cultural definitions are all used, and somehow certain groups tend to get excluded even if they would logically be included. For example, you talk about Christianity as a defining Western characteristic, but somehow Greek Christendom and its modern heirs are usually excluded from "the West." What definition of east and west are you using?

I will have a look at Angus Maddison's book. Going in, my two concerns are that GDP is a bad measure for preindustrial economies, because it tends to ignore work inside the household, and that Roman population size is so contested that a (population x average GDP per capita) calculation is very uncertain. All I am suggesting is that if you want to make an argument about power inside the Roman empire, you have to justify that argument not just assert it. If you want to state that the territories the Romans controlled were more important than Han China or the Indian states, you have to justify that too.