Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: The Decline of the Roman Military

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York, United States of America
    Posts
    758

    Default

    I would counter that the longevity of the Oriental Roman Empire was due to the great amount of trade that was occurring in the Aegean Sea, the eastern portion of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, the creation of Greek Fire by the Syrian architect Callinicus which burned all the fleets of its enemies such as the Muslims who invaded from North Africa and the Levant to besiege Constantinople, and the growing weaknesses of the Arab caliphates or Muslim empires due to internal divisions, religious conflict and civil war. The fractured condition of the tribes existing beyond the Danube River also benefited the Byzantine Empire.

    With the weakening of the Muslim empires, the Eastern Romans/Byzantines were provided with the opportunity of concentrating their forces in the crucial provinces and territories of the empire. Instead of concentrating vast armies alongside the Euphrates River or alongside the Danube River, the field armies of the Byzantines were given the opportunity to heavily concentrate in Western Anatolia and Thrace so as to protect the metropolis of Constantinople and the Dardenelles. In addition, with complete mastery of the Aegean Sea and trade maintained between the empire and the Crimea via the Black Sea, the Byzantines were able to recover from crippling military defeats. It was only with the loss of the province of Aegyptus during the seventh century CE, the fall of the Exarchate of Carthage, and the loss of the interior of Anatolia after the disastrous battle of Manzikert in 1071 CE that the Eastern Romans/Byzantines were unable to fully replace their losses despite the brief moment of recovery under the Komnenians [1081-1185].
    Last edited by Conrad_Jalowski; 02-16-2011 at 10:49 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    4,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boleslav View Post
    Wouldn't wealthier cities have more opportunities for "decadence" to tempt the soldiery?
    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    I would counter that the longevity of the Oriental Roman Empire was due to the great amount of trade that was occurring in the Aegean Sea, the eastern portion of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, the creation of Greek Fire by the Syrian architect Callinicus which burned all the fleets of its enemies such as the Muslims who invaded from North Africa and the Levant to besiege Constantinople, and the growing weaknesses of the Arab caliphates or Muslim empires due to internal divisions, religious conflict and civil war. The fractured condition of the tribes existing beyond the Danube River also benefited the Byzantine Empire.

    With the weakening of the Muslim empires, the Eastern Romans/Byzantines were provided with the opportunity of concentrating their forces in the crucial provinces and territories of the empire. Instead of concentrating vast armies alongside the Euphrates River or alongside the Danube River, the field armies of the Byzantines were given the opportunity to heavily concentrate in Western Anatolia and Thrace so as to protect the metropolis of Constantinople and the Dardenelles. In addition, with complete mastery of the Aegean Sea and trade maintained between the empire and the Crimea via the Black Sea, the Byzantines were able to recover from crippling military defeats. It was only with the loss of the province of Aegyptus during the seventh century CE, the fall of the Exarchate of Carthage, and the loss of the interior of Anatolia after the disastrous battle of Manzikert in 1071 CE that the Eastern Romans/Byzantines were unable to fully replace their losses despite the brief moment of recovery under the Komnenians [1081-1185].
    this doesnt really address bole's point though

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,887

    Default

    One possibility could be that the richer cities were part of richer provinces that in turn allowed soldiers a higher wage and opportunities to remain professional. Poorer cities may not have been able to do so. I'd be interested in knowing what any studies on this have revealed. I think that the urban degeneration argument is only one possibility; the decline may be due to a multiplicity of factors and their interactions. To be fair, Conrad, you do suggest as much in your opening post.

    I have other questions that I want answered, but I don't want to threadhog. I can ask them later.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    A little ways north of Montreal, Quebec.
    Posts
    5,233

    Default

    Remember something else guys...

    No army is better than it's general allows it to be.

    Don't compare Ceasar's army to those that came after, or indeed before him. Ceasar was a military genius. A universal genius, in fact...

    I'll contend that the decline of the roman army was also due to the dearth of great generals. Don't forget that the Roman Republic suffered terrible defeats throughout it's history, but somehow always managed to retrieve it's position with a military brilliant man coming to the fore (Camillius, Fabius, Scipio, Marius etc...).

    Last edited by Wildor; 02-17-2011 at 05:09 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Earth.
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boleslav View Post
    That was written in the 1700s, no? Is that a reliable source?

    Refresh my memory - what was the last part of the Roman Empire to be conquered?
    Are modern day sources, given their predjudice not only towards ancient sources (ignorantly in many cases, as well as arrogently, pruning the numbers given for troops and men --including the supporting men for many armies, in laymans terms-- to fit their own biased versions of "that could never be that high"), but their ignorance (in many cases) considered reputable?

    I would caution you, Mister Boleslav, not to disreguard something on date alone, just because of the date.

    For example; though modern sources make the above assumptions and typically do not provide the original numbers given by such men as Livy, or Polybius, etc. (instead substituting much smaller numbers, of their own devising) they are not usually bad, provided they do not shy away from their source material too much.

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

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    No Fixed Address
    Posts
    523

    Default

    I'd like to point out two small details that were not mentioned, but that are (in my opinion) worthy of discussion:

    1) Germanic Influence: Admittedly, there were cultural forces at work here that contributed to a lack of discipline among the mercenaries. Certainly, there's truth to the argument that, all things being equal, a fighter for pay is not as committed as a fighter for patriotism. However, it's worthy of note that, as the Germanic and Gaulish mercenaries tended to be large and the native Italians to be small, there were vast problems in logistics and supply, a difference in the endurance standard, and above all difficulties in establishing set-piece formations. When two people have greatly differing strides, they tend to move at different speeds; likewise, a tall man and a short man cannot cover one another in formation. In a battle line, this is a weakness that can be exploited; between two adjacent units, this can lead to a breach, a dissolution of the line, and an inevitable collapse and rout.

    2) I would suggest that the social mobility permitted in the Empire of the East was sufficient to permit far greater social and societal unity than one found in Imperial Rome. This permitted it to keep from being destroyed from within at the same rate; decay could be purged far more easily (metaphorically speaking).

    As it happens, I'm of the opinion that Rome fell when Rome fell, and that the easterners, while great, were not Rome. But that's just my opinion, and not necessarily properly debated in this thread.
    "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment." -Francis Urquhart

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    the Romans of the late empire lost their ancient martial virtue that had once been so prominent in the Republic and Early Empire. Gradually, the Roman forces became saturated with Germanic forces with a depletion of native Roman recruits.
    In what sense was a German inferior to a Roman?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alusair cave
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Adams View Post
    Are modern day sources, given their predjudice not only towards ancient sources (ignorantly in many cases, as well as arrogently, pruning the numbers given for troops and men --including the supporting men for many armies, in laymans terms-- to fit their own biased versions of "that could never be that high"), but their ignorance (in many cases) considered reputable?

    I would caution you, Mister Boleslav, not to disreguard something on date alone, just because of the date.

    For example; though modern sources make the above assumptions and typically do not provide the original numbers given by such men as Livy, or Polybius, etc. (instead substituting much smaller numbers, of their own devising) they are not usually bad, provided they do not shy away from their source material too much.

    ~John
    Reading this post, two thoughts cross my mind:

    1. You mention not to disregard a source merely on date it was published. I think this is a reasonable advice, yet in the same breath you collectively dismiss and discredit modern sources as being ignorant, arrogant, and biased, seemingly based only on the time of which they were published. Eh? By your own earlier argument, wouldn't the repute and credibility of the authors themselves matter more than when the books in question were written?

    2. Considering the fall of Western Rome was in 476 AD, roughly 1535 years ago, and considering the book in question was published in 1734 AD, roughly 277 years ago and roughly 1258 years after the fall of Rome, wouldn't said book be comparatively more modern than ancient in the grand time line of relevant events? Where do we draw the line between what is considered "ignorant, arrogant, biased modern sources" and "reputable ancient sources"? A scant few centuries ago, still more than a millennium after the fall of Rome, wasn't "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline" itself considered a modern work?
    It's all Rodri's fault.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Earth.
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    Reading this post, two thoughts cross my mind:

    1. You mention not to disregard a source merely on date it was published. I think this is a reasonable advice, yet in the same breath you collectively dismiss and discredit modern sources as being ignorant, arrogant, and biased, seemingly based only on the time of which they were published. Eh? By your own earlier argument, wouldn't the repute and credibility of the authors themselves matter more than when the books in question were written?

    2. Considering the fall of Western Rome was in 476 AD, roughly 1535 years ago, and considering the book in question was published in 1734 AD, roughly 277 years ago and roughly 1258 years after the fall of Rome, wouldn't said book be comparatively more modern than ancient in the grand time line of relevant events? Where do we draw the line between what is considered "ignorant, arrogant, biased modern sources" and "reputable ancient sources"? A scant few centuries ago, still more than a millennium after the fall of Rome, wasn't "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline" itself considered a modern work?

    1. I added the exception to this in the last two sentences. My appologies for not making it clearer. And I would agree in general with that statement. However, as I earlier pointed out, one major flaw that obstructs modern historians (by and large), is that they assume bar-none, that the figures given by ancient historians (Polybius, Livy, et. all/ etc.) are wrong -- largely inflated. Over all the rest of the material they (modern sources) provide can be good, if they do not shy away from original material that is used (deeming it correct, or outright wrong). I hope this clears it up.

    2. With respect, I draw that line at openly discrediting ancient (that is, of the time of publication around which the date actually occured) sources. To me, to say that they were wrong in their figures just because the source(s) was ancient is arrogent, biased, and ignorant.

    And I am talking about here and now, present century, 2000AD (or to be exact 2011AD).

    And in reguards to Mister Boleslavs' post; the German (though esteemed in the ideas of Julius Ceasar as a fierce warrior on account of his lack of civilization -- which in Ceasars' view made men soft) was not superior to the Roman in terms of culture, or military. However, the individual fierceness of the German warrior, combined with tactical advantages in terms of terrain, and superior knowledge of their own lands (which typically any defending force), gave them the edge in certain civilizations.

    It is worth noteing also, that due to the prefered method of fighting, the heavily armed Germanic Calvery, combined with the militaristical weakening of the Legionare as a while, the Germanic Calvery eventually became the prefered soldier for the Roman Empire. And eventually also, the Germanic Calvery became the forerunners of the Medieval Knight.

    ~John
    Last edited by John Adams; 02-17-2011 at 11:31 PM.
    To train without ever surpassing ones' limits... Is that truly training?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Adams View Post
    the German... was not superior to the Roman in terms of culture, or military. However, the individual fierceness of the German warrior, combined with tactical advantages in terms of terrain, and superior knowledge of their own lands (which typically any defending force), gave them the edge in certain civilizations.

    It is worth noteing also, that due to the prefered method of fighting, the heavily armed Germanic Calvery, combined with the militaristical weakening of the Legionare as a while, the Germanic Calvery eventually became the prefered soldier for the Roman Empire.
    So it sounds to me from this post as though a saturation of German warriors enhanced the Empire's military position rather than weakened it.

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
  •