Roman History books recommendations.

[ray243]

The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire was a very well written piece of scholarship, it is quite heavy, but well paced.

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strategy.../dp/0801821584

I won't agree with Luttwak. The concept of defense in depth is a rather modern thinking that don't really work in the past.

Look at this guys in depth argument against Luttwak.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtop...?f=51&t=130197

[Incongruous]

The question is whether the Romans had any concept of Grand strategy at all. This is questionable.

I have only just begun reading it, but this struck me as a fairly odd point to make, the Romans clearly had a grasp of an Empire wide strategy and I do not think we should be caught up in vague terminology.

In his preface, Luttwak further makes a number of claims that a historian must find issue with. There is the unproven assertion that Roman tactics were not superior to those of the enemy, the assumption that the imperial Roman soldier was not noted for his élan and finally that Roman weapons were not regularly superior to those of the enemy. All those claims are questionable at best, and since Luttwak does not provide any evidence for them, it would be best to discount them

Now, Roman tactics were oft not superior to those of their enemies, but throughout history this has been offset by great discipline. Elán, hmm well I have never counted the Romans to be highly noted for the characteristic. Roman weapons we not regularly superior to their enemies, well I find no issue with that but it is not central to the book and I find it ammusing that the author does not provide any of his own archeological sources to refute Luttwak. Simply asserting that we should discount them, is this is the way academic historians argue, I am dissapointed.

the Roman empire expanded aggressively in the east and consolidated internal control of that territory.[29]

Really? I know that is campaigned very agressively in the east, but I do not think its rate of expansion matched the intesity of its armed conflict.
I also thought that Hadrian pulled back from Mesopotamia because such a position was impossible to defend? If the Empire was stretched dangerously thin along the Rhine and the Danube in times of civil war and the removal of Legions from the region, how could the Empire have afforded to expand that far into the east and not seriously compromise its defense? Where would the Legions come from?

[ray243]

I have only just begun reading it, but this struck me as a fairly odd point to make, the Romans clearly had a grasp of an Empire wide strategy and I do not think we should be caught up in vague terminology.

Perhaps you can debate with him on that forum? Given that he intended to make his post as an argument in a debate thread. If anything, I can help you contact him if you want.

Really? I know that is campaigned very agressively in the east, but I do not think its rate of expansion matched the intesity of its armed conflict.
I also thought that Hadrian pulled back from Mesopotamia because such a position was impossible to defend? If the Empire was stretched dangerously thin along the Rhine and the Danube in times of civil war and the removal of Legions from the region, how could the Empire have afforded to expand that far into the east and not seriously compromise its defense? Where would the Legions come from?

Vexillation? The Romans emperor did not pull back entire legions to fight in a civil wars, often, they would only draw several cohorts from different legions to form an army.

Also, those emperors do raise new legions when necessary.

[Incongruous]

Perhaps you can debate with him on that forum? Given that he intended to make his post as an argument in a debate thread. If anything, I can help you contact him if you want.

Vexillation? The Romans emperor did not pull back entire legions to fight in a civil wars, often, they would only draw several cohorts from different legions to form an army.

Also, those emperors do raise new legions when necessary.

I just thought it an odd statement, that the Roman Empire lacked an overall strategy, since it had an Empire wide currencey, culrture and government.

So, Hadrian did not pull back because he felt the Empire was overstretched? Or that a millitary position in Mesopotamia was untenable?
How many leagions do you reckon it would have required to hold the region? It would be interesting to know.

[Cartaphilus]

Don't trust Gibbon to a huge extend. Many of his theories about Christianity leading to the fall of the Roman empire is debunked, given that the Eastern empire managed to survive and flourish as a Christian state.

I don't do it (remember that Gibbon wrote his books to hundred years ago, so we know now some things far better than him), but they are well written and a it's a gret pleasure to read them.

[ray243]

I just thought it an odd statement, that the Roman Empire lacked an overall strategy, since it had an Empire wide currencey, culrture and government.

So, Hadrian did not pull back because he felt the Empire was overstretched? Or that a millitary position in Mesopotamia was untenable?
How many legions do you reckon it would have required to hold the region? It would be interesting to know.

From what I understand, he is not saying Hadrian pull back because of a grand strategy adopted by every Roman Consul to every Roman emperor.

He is saying the Romans do not have an overall strategy to defend and secure the Empire, other than trying to expand into every part of the war, whenever possible.

If I remember things correctly, there was a revolt in Jerusalem during the reign of Hadrian.

However, if you want to debate or ask questions with Thanas, ask him directly.

[Macilrille]

Yann le Bohec is not german as can be guessed from his name, he is French and his book is THE classic work on the Roman army, gives you a sound foundation to stand on.

[Cyclops]

I was curious if anyone could recommend more books on the subject, and pertaining to European history as well from around the same time. I was looking for something on the Carthaginians, the Greek states/tribes, and the Gauls/German tribes...

In my time at University studying ancient history I was lucky enough to hear a guest lecture given in English by the great Ernst Badian. He was an electrifyingly clear and concise speaker. Everything he said made sense and illuminated the subject matter. We were well prepared by my excellent professor Ron Ridley but Badian was something else again.

I recall referencing his work on Rome constantly and I also believe he went on to write on Hellenic history as well. He used a cute metaphor when first writing an article on Hellenic history, that he was like a peltast entering a battlefield full of hoplites. Then he overturned the "hoplites" arguments with clear and thorough scholarship-maybe he was more like an Royal Macedonian peltast. IIRC it was an article about the peace of Nikias.

Once you get a good handle on the outlines and main areas of controversy you should consider getting on-line copies of some journals of ancient history, it can be dull stuff but covers small areas in an up-to-date way.