What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Nathan Ross]

could somebody recommend a real good scientific monography about the Late Roman Army?

Have you tried Nicasie's Twilight of Empire? Probably the closest to what you're looking for.

[Lyceum]

What about MacGeorge's "Late Roman Warlords"?

[Virilis]

could somebody recommend a real good scientific monography about the Late Roman Army?

Have you tried Nicasie's Twilight of Empire? Probably the closest to what you're looking for.

I would love to read that book but the price is outrageous!

[Valerian Pertinax]

Tim Donovan:

What did you mean by Romans possessing a secular worldview before Christianity took hold? My understanding has always been that religion had played a tremendous role in Roman life, no matter what deity was being honored or what time period it was.

[M. Val. Naso]

MMFA: we are Pacatianenses according to our version of the NotDig. We couldn't find definitive info about pannonian units' design, so we chose a nearby one.

[Timianus]

Part of my fascination with the late period is that so much is unknown. Part of it is intellectual curiosity about how a complex civilization deteriorates.

Goldworthy's book is one of my favorites. I also really enjoy Ian Hughes' work on Aetius and Stilicho, as well as Brian Ward Perkins' work

Another part of my draw was my desire for independent research to counter what I saw as the indoctrination of my collegiate history professor, who was hooked on the "there was no fall" theory.

In my worthless view, I have come to the conclusion that Goldsworthy is right...that the deciding factor in the West was the constant civil wars, depletion of the army, and corresponding loss of tax base. Hughes does a really nice job of pointing out how the losses due to Theodisius' 2 civil wars had the same effect on the western army as the loss at adrianople had on the eastern army. Theodisius IMHO, did more to weaken the west than any other emperor. So many people ignore the loss of human capital involved in Rome's civil wars....

As I wrote in one of my reviews on amazon, the story of the fall of the west is the story of the western empire eating itself over and over and the "barbarians" picking up the pieces. That is not to say I discount Heather. I think he makes excellent points concerning the sophistication of the goths by this time....I just vehemently disagree with his "everything was hunky dory in rome in the 4th century" theory.

I am also fascinated or appalled by the fact that the West could have remained a political entity had its leaders not been so selfish & shortsighted...then again, human nature is what it is (people will always chose short term gain over short term loss for future gain).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

MMFA: we are Pacatianenses according to our version of the NotDig. We couldn't find definitive info about pannonian units' design, so we chose a nearby one.

Ah I see. I saw your signature and the Felices Iuniores Valentinanici (and according to AMH Jones) is the unit I was considering, because it's attested that it was raised upon Valentinian III's birth and is one of only 2 units I know of that could have served under Aetius, the other being Legio I Audiatricis (Sationed in Szony until 444, it's likely they even fought Attila, or were destroyed in the writings of Saint what's-his-face int he 460's)

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It's quite interesting that this thread seems to be a reiteration of past threads on the same subject!
Also that those of us who do early Pricipate are soo boring.... :whistle:
We promise to try harder next time!

However, it is not only difficult to do a diversity of Early helmets, there are few late ones too.
As numbers grow, there will be much a case of, everyone looking the same.
In fact, I have already observed this with some late groups.
However, there a some very good early groups on the go, and I am fortunate to be a member of 2 of the best.

As for late kit, some of it is very bling , isn't it!? 8-)
If only we all had the fortunes to spend on good custom made kit, and actually got it to fit, wouldn't we all have kit for every period???

It's all interesting, and I think there needs to be larger numbers of early, and late groups, who co-operate, and not sow division at every opportunity.
You won't field a legion with only 12 men...or 60...you need 5000 at least for first,
possibly less for later legions.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Here in the US, Twelve is "Big."

Our legions usually cooperate at events. The 9th, 11th, and 6th attend most NC, GA, and SC events.

But I agree, we can't really represent a true legion until we have 5000 people, (1000 for a late legion). So the more cooperation the btter.

[Alexand96]

I am also fascinated or appalled by the fact that the West could have remained a political entity had its leaders not been so selfish & shortsighted...then again, human nature is what it is (people will always chose short term gain over short term loss for future gain).

Tim, I feel exactly the same way. It's a tough story to swallow, from Empire to Ruin...

Gaius Julius, I did not mean to disparage groups who do the Principate, but I do believe many of the groups I have seen are way too uniform in appearance for my tastes (which means nothing in the scheme of things). I think many of the best groups that I have seen also tend to cluster around this period, though, and undoubtedly, it is a fascinating period of transition for the legions of Rome.

Well, so far I've definitely received what I asked for - so many interesting insights and ideas to read up on and contemplate. Thank you, gentleman!

[Q Rutilius]

Nothing. The Romans had lost it. A small army that depended on barbarians. No economy to speak of.
Endless civil war. A splendid example of what NOT to do. But something to emulate? Definitely not. They lost, they were losers, end of story.

[markusaurelius]

Nothing. The Romans had lost it. A small army that depended on barbarians. No economy to speak of. Endless civil war. A splendid example of what NOT to do. But something to emulate? Definitely not. They lost, they were losers, end of story.

I'm guessing you are kidding :wink: but if not, I think you need to do some more reading :mrgreen:

[Frank]

Thank you guys for your recommendations for monographies about the late roman army. I guess I will start with:
Hugh Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425 and
Martinus Johannes Nicasie, Twilight of empire: The Roman army from the reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople
These two books seem to match my requirements.

Usually I am more interested in history of law & constitution, administration, finance & taxation, economy and society. But, I am very interested in the late roman army, too. I guess its organisation, structure and leadership was superior to the late republican or early empires army. Or let's say more appropriate to face the new challenges. At least before the desastrous battles at Adrianopel and Frigidus which lead to another change. Because the enemies they faced and defeated more than once were far superior compared to earlier times.

I like to learn more about the internals of this underestimated army. For the principate there are good books and articles showing some details of the command structure like Domaszewski, Birley, Breeze, Dobson, Speidel. But I did not find such detailed analysis for the late empire so far. I hope your recomendations will help me in this department.

[Virilis]

Forgot to mention one very mundane reason for my interest in late roman army: long trousers. In Finland there is perhaps 4 months when it is warm enough to use shorter tunics. I know high empire romans considered long trousers as unmanly, but I love my "crown jewels" too much !

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Oh, come on Virilis!! Man up, will you!

Get out there and FEEL the snow between your toes!! :evil: