Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: The Decline of the Roman Military

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    No Fixed Address
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Certainly. Rome failed in the naval test repeatedly through history, succeeding only now and then - albeit oft in spectacular fashion. The Empire was founded on a principle of centralization rather than trade; this circumstance does not lend itself to the maintenance of massive and reliable naval strength. The new social and regional structure in Constantinople lent itself to decentralization and encouraged the efforts of the combined individuals in a way no other had done before.

    The only quibble I'd raise, Conrad, is that the crusaders lacked cannon and yet defeated the wall -- by going around it. Admittedly, they did knock a few holes in the great land wall, but without the simultaneous naval landing at the sea wall, the city would have held yet a while. It's a minor point. :o)

    Of course, without the inept leadership of the Angeloi, the city would not have fallen for centuries... but that's another topic entirely.
    "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment." -Francis Urquhart

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lost in Space
    Posts
    7,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu's Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline.

    I cannot squander time on people who cannot comprehend basic material.
    Conrad, I know that this post is late in the coming, but I want you to define the term "basic material." The standards for such things change over time, and what was supposed to be common knowledge back in the 15th and 16th centuries will certainly be viewed in by a different light by society today.

    The "basic materials" that were found back then might even be laughed at by you and me today. For example, common knowledge in medieval Europe clearly stated that the world was flat. We would laugh at the idea, because modern resources have proved that theory wrong time and again.

    So take a look at what the average person knows, and then compare that with what your "enlightened" philosophers knew. If even one of us were to go back and have a chat with them, they would learn a heck of a lot from us.


    ================================

    Now back on topic:

    Put simply, I believe that the Roman military fell in the end to one chronic disease that overtakes all at least once in our lives: complacency.

    Support in my argument can be found in almost any good (even high school level) history book having to do with the Roman Empire.

    That is, assuming that we're mainly discussing just the Western Empire's collapse.

    The Byzantine Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) was entirely a different story.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurnis View Post
    Conrad, I know that this post is late in the coming, but I want you to define the term "basic material." The standards for such things change over time, and what was supposed to be common knowledge back in the 15th and 16th centuries will certainly be viewed in by a different light by society today.

    The "basic materials" that were found back then might even be laughed at by you and me today. For example, common knowledge in medieval Europe clearly stated that the world was flat. We would laugh at the idea, because modern resources have proved that theory wrong time and again.

    So take a look at what the average person knows, and then compare that with what your "enlightened" philosophers knew. If even one of us were to go back and have a chat with them, they would learn a heck of a lot from us.


    ================================

    Now back on topic:

    Put simply, I believe that the Roman military fell in the end to one chronic disease that overtakes all at least once in our lives: complacency.

    Support in my argument can be found in almost any good (even high school level) history book having to do with the Roman Empire.

    That is, assuming that we're mainly discussing just the Western Empire's collapse.

    The Byzantine Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) was entirely a different story.
    Can you please explain?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Dylan View Post
    Can you please explain?
    His post seemed clear enough to me. Maybe specify what you want him to elaborate on in particular?

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Earth.
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurnis View Post
    [COLOR=Navy]Conrad, I know that this post is late in the coming, but I want you to define the term "basic material." The standards for such things change over time, and what was supposed to be common knowledge back in the 15th and 16th centuries will certainly be viewed in by a different light by society today.

    The "basic materials" that were found back then might even be laughed at by you and me today. For example, common knowledge in medieval Europe clearly stated that the world was flat. We would laugh at the idea, because modern resources have proved that theory wrong time and again.
    That is incorrect.

    That is common knowledge, but it is still incorrect.

    The longest place to hold out the idea that the world was flat was China, before influence by Europe.

    The ancient greeks (from about the 3rd century BC onwards knew the world to be round).

    I cannot read the rest of your post due to time constraints. But I saw this glairing error and wished to correct it.

    ~John
    To train without ever surpassing ones' limits... Is that truly training?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    No Fixed Address
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that the world is round. Oh, the logic is compelling, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes; neither have I gone around it myself. Perhaps it's just a conspiracy of cartographers.

    I would suggest that the ignorant and superstitious figured the world to be flat whereas the educated and well-read would know otherwise. I'd also suggest that everyone in here is likely well-read and less ignorant than is the norm, even on this Forum. So... the metaphor falls flat; I agree.

    But the point in Jurnis's post is still relatively correct - complacency was the last fatal error, and this is also true in Constantinople, at least at the time of the Fourth Crusade (one of my own hobbies is to study that debacle).

    Our course of inquiry ought to be more sharply defined: What led to the complacency? What were the causes, both overt and underlying, for the decrease in Roman power? How could it have been avoided - and indeed, ought it to have been?

    A point that's been raised to respond to the last question: The Roman Empire at its end was decadent and corrupt; it oppressed its own citizens and leeched off the wealth of the world, impoverishing millions and impeding the progress of society and culture for the sake of its own luxury. The vitality in the new kingdoms that took its place was essential for the eventual rebirth of modern democracies; chaos is needed to topple excess order.

    Please, discuss.
    "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment." -Francis Urquhart

  7. #47
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York, United States of America
    Posts
    758

    Default

    To Douglas:

    Economically and politically the Oriental Roman Empire was superior to the Occidental Roman Empire. After all, the East was more affluent and urbanized than the West. In addition, the Oriental Roman Empire was blessed with a succession of competent and politically able emperors as opposed to the inept and weak emperors of the Western Roman Empire. Geographically, however, I dispute the claim of Edward N. Luttwak that the Occident or West had the superior geographical position. I would argue that the Oriental Roman Empire had the superior geographical position [Tied in with other factors]. In the Occidental Roman Empire, the legions were caught in between the Atlanic Ocean and the barbarian tribes that existed beyond the Rhine River. Although the Oriental Roman Empire was susceptible to invasion from the Sassanid Persians and incursions from the Danube River, the eastern portion of the Roman Empire had more defensible positions in the capital itself as well as greater commercial and military networks that were maintained in its portion of the Mediterranean Sea as opposed to the West. As a result, a barbarian crossing of the Hellespont into the Anatolian provinces of the empire would have been near impossible due to the superior might of the Roman navy which controlled the sea routes in the Aegean, the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the strength of the armies stationed in Hellespontine Phrygia and other territories in western Anatolia. Also, the city of Constantinople was geographically at a superior position as compared to the city of Rome. The Aurelian Walls that surrounded the city of Rome were too long to concentrate soldiers at a particular decisive point while if the port-city of Ostia and the surrounding countryside were captured, Rome would be rendered helpless and would fall to a siege as it did under King Alaric of the Visigoths in 410 CE. Meanwhile, Constantinople was surrounded by water on three sides: it would have been supplied with grain from the Crimea via the Black Sea as did occur in the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople which lasted from 717-718 CE, any crossing of the Hellespont would have been halted by the great fleets of the Oriental Roman Empire [Had the Visigoths attempted to cross the Hellespont after their victory at Hadrianopolis in 378 CE, they would have been repulsed. Though the territories in Greece were ravaged by the Visigoths, the provinces in Greece were not as important to the Eastern Roman Empire as the metropolis of Constantinople itself, the Dardenelles, Anatolia and the province of Aegyptus which was the breadbasket of the Mediterranean world], and the mighty Anatolian armies of the Oriental Roman Empire would have barred the progress of any tribes that attempted to cross from Europe to Near Asia. As long as peace was maintained with Sassanid Persia, the Eastern Romans could afford to lose their European provinces.

    The Occidental Roman Empire whose territories were caught between the Rhine River and the Atlantic Ocean could not afford to lose its border provinces due to its lack of commercial and military networks both in the western portion of the Mediterranean Sea and in the western provinces. The entire breadth of the Rhine River could not be effectively maintained at the same time as the province of Dalmatia and the two provinces of Noricum and Pannonia which bordered the Danube River. Both the Rhine river frontier and the Danubian provinces of the Occidental Roman Empire were increasingly being assaulted by the barbarian tribes. While Douglas attributed this problem to usurpations of power and internal dissent [Magnus Maximus stripped the majority of the garrisoned soldiers from Britannia and northwestern Gaul in his usurpation], it is a valid argument to tie in the political with the geographical. In my mind, Edward N. Luttwak's argument about the superior geographical position of the Occidental Roman Empire is rather narrow-minded. He has failed to recognize that geographical features are not solely tied to the terrain of Europe and the Near East but in fact cannot be divorced or separated from other factors. The geographical features of the Occident and the Orient cannot be removed from related factors that extend beyond the mere geography of Europe and Asia. The failure to maintain the Rhine river frontier and the failure to maintain control over the provinces alongside the Danube River such as Pannonia and Noricum allowed for the dissolution of the imperial hegemony of the Occidental Roman Empire. With the Vandals' capture of Carthage in 439 CE and the capture of the fleet stationed in Carthage, another front was opened in the West. As a result of the capture of Carthage in 439 CE, the island territories of Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily were exposed to the raids of the Vandals. In fact, the Vandals under their king Geiseric sacked Rome in 455 CE. Geographical aspects are intertwined with the political and economic. As an amateur in the field of Roman and Byzantine history with a background in contemporary military strategy, Edward N. Luttwak has failed to take in the overall picture and instead has only concentrated on the geographical layout of both West and East as his major argument which alone is well founded, however, if taken as a whole by adding in other causes, is foolish and poorly founded.

    In addition, despite the so-called weakness of the Euphrates river frontier, it was Sassanid Persia that fell to the Arabic invasion and not the Byzantines. [The province of Aegyptus was lost due to the ineptitude of the Roman commanders, the exhausted condition of the empire after the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628 CE and the religious conflicts that were occurring in the Eastern Roman Empire in which the citizens of Egypt in certain cases welcomed the invading Arabs.] Despite the so-called Arab threat in the Levant [Syria] and the "inherent dangers" of the East, the Byzantines [Eastern Romans] stabilized the frontier in Anatolia and defeated an assault on Constantinople in the Second Arab Siege [717-718 CE]. In fact, if it were not for the arrival of the Seljuk Turks and the disastrous defeat of the Romans under Romanus IV Diogenes at the battle of Manzikert in 1071 CE, the Romans could have regained all their former territories in the East despite its "poor geographical layout". Before the arrival of the Seljuk Turks, the Byzantines had the upper hand against the Muslim forces as during the reign of Basileus Basil II 'Bulgaroctonus' the empire held Aleppo as a vassal state as well as the city of Antioch. Basil II 'Bulgaroctonus' stabilized the eastern portion of Anatolia [Until his incompetent successors broke the stability in the East] through the establishment of the ducates of Antioch, Mesopotamia, Vaspurakan and Chaldia. In 1032 CE, the city of Edessa was seized while from 1038-1043 CE the Romans recovered their territories in the eastern coastline of the island of Sicily. In 1045 CE, the Romans captured the city of Ani alongside the Araxes River. The Romans under the Macedonian Dynasty [867-1059 CE] had achieve stability alongside the Danube River and the eastern portion of Anatolia as well as in Syria despite the "infeasibility" of the eastern provinces according to Edward N. Luttwak.
    Last edited by Conrad_Jalowski; 02-25-2011 at 06:29 PM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Some place in England.
    Posts
    5,677

    Default

    I personally think that the (mostly Western) Roman Empire was unsustainable anyway.

    Think about it: The Romans relied on slavery. They got these slaves by expanding the empire and defeating their enemies' armies. Once you stop expanding: you stop getting slaves! No slaves - No forced labour and no increase in wealth! That, combined with the increasing incompetence and fragility of the empire, was a major factor in its downfall.

    Also, the Romans failed to adapt their tactics to suit the Huns, Goths and other barbarian tribes. Rome never really relied on cavalry, but the barbarians did. A heavy infantry force will most likely be defeated by a lightly-armed horse archer army. Look at Carrhae. Crassus may have ordered his men into testudo, but they couldn't keep up with the Parthian cavalry. Thus, the Romans were worn out, grew sloppy and lost the battle. If that's with the best soldiers in the world, then the Comitatenses and Limitanei of the post-Constantine era stood virtually no chance. Chalons was only due to Aetius' experience with the Huns. Aetius, of course was murdered. The Romans didn't get that you don't kill a guy who's beaten the most ruthless war machine ever to come from the steppes!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •