Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Imperial Roman organisation
#16
Quote:
Rod MacArthur post=316850 Wrote:Is it likely that the Romans produced full strength organisations which were tactically illogical compared to the Ptolomies?
Again, logic is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not an ancient Roman. I sometimes find it hard to understand their mind-set. (btw I wonder what Nick Sekunda's source for the Ptolemaic army is?)

Well, I think most former soldiers find they can understand much of a Roman soldier's mindset. I am just re-reading John Peddie's excellent "The Roman War Machine" and as a former soldier he is constantly drawing parallels with modern military examples which I can relate to. I always liked General "Stormin' Norman" Swarzkopf's short story of a general coming back to his tent in the field dropping his personal sidearms and helmet on his camp bed and thinking of the events of the day. It is only at the very end do you realise it is not a modern US Army General (remembering Swarzkopf commanded the coalition forces in the First Gulf War) but a story of Julius Caesar after Pharsalus. Brilliant.

Nick Secunda's pair of books can be read online. Just google them and they appear on Scribe. You can read them for free but you have to subscribe to Scribe to download them. They seem very well researched and academic books to me. He lists some 40 sources, several of which seem to be in ancient Greek, and cross references where he drew conclusions from.

Rod
Reply
#17
Quote:
Rod MacArthur post=316827 Wrote:There is a thread on this very forum about Legion Reinforcements which examines that theory, following the publication of a number of books expousing it by Stephen Dando-Collins.
Yes, the thread you mention concerns the legions of Caesar's day, when the old republican practice of en bloc mustering and disbandment was still in use. After the reform of the army by Augustus, however, this practice changed, and the imperial legion (as you have it in your post above) was a standing formation. Dando-Collins prefers to believe that the old system still applied, and goes on in his books, I understand, to 'explain' various aspects of Roman military history with reference to it. Unfortunately this contradicts all available ancient evidence on imperial recruitment practices, and everyone (as far as I know) who's ever written on the Roman army - it would therefore appear that Dando-Collins invented this theory himself! Confusedhock:

Nathan,

Yes, I was aware that Dando-Colllins was controversial. As always there is a danger that some good things written by such revisionist authors get discarded along with discredited items. I have several of his books but will re-read them with a more sceptical eye. The same problem existed in the Napoleonic world a few years ago with a book on Waterloo by David Hamilton-Williams which was regularly trashed on the Napoleon Series website. Interesting how both of these controversial authors have double barrelled names.

Rod
Reply
#18
Quote:Well, I think most former soldiers find they can understand much of a Roman soldier's mindset. I am just re-reading John Peddie's excellent "The Roman War Machine".
Hmm, again I respectfully beg to differ. On both counts.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#19
Quote:
Rod MacArthur post=316874 Wrote:Well, I think most former soldiers find they can understand much of a Roman soldier's mindset. I am just re-reading John Peddie's excellent "The Roman War Machine".
Hmm, again I respectfully beg to differ. On both counts.

Everyone to his own opinion. My grandmother was a Campbell so we might even be related!!!!

Rod
Reply
#20
Quote:I was aware that Dando-Colllins was controversial. As always there is a danger that some good things written by such revisionist authors get discarded along with discredited items.
'Controversial' might be one word for his work, although I can think of others...

I might have more time for D-C's revisionist notions if he provided any support at all for them, but he doesn't. From what I've seen, he floats an idea as a tentative speculation, then proceeds as if it's established fact (see the thread on his Great Fire of Rome book, for example). When these ideas run entirely against all evidence and prior scholarship on the subject, it rather disqualifies him from serious consideration. I don't doubt that he writes a pacy historical narrative, but so does Simon Scarrow, who doesn't tend to get quoted as a source quite as often... :wink:
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation antiochus 130 24,253 02-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Last Post: Renatus

Forum Jump: