Roman History books recommendations.

[thecellarlife]

First, I'd like to say a huge thanks to the team of people who created EB, and anyone who posts here. This mod has really filled in many gaps about Roman, as well as, ancient European history for me. I recently bought a book spanning the history of Rome from around 800 BC - 650 AD. It's called "Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History" by Christopher S. Mackay.

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.

I was also curious about the source material for the EB mod, and if there is a list available of particular books and/or websites they used to make the troops, buildings, maps, as well as the historic scripts.

Thanks again, and let me know if you've read the book I mentioned and know of its quality and accuracy.

[desert]

Official Osprey Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=32765&highlight=bibliography&page=3)
EB Bibliography (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698&highlight=bibliography)


Why is this in the EB II forum?

[||Lz3||]

The complete roman army by Adrian Goldsworthy :book2:

[oudysseos]

I thought Rubicon was very good for what it is, i.e popular history.

[Cimon]

I thought Rubicon was very good for what it is, i.e popular history.

Agreed. Rubicon isn't bad for a skim the surface type history. Holland generally does a good job with the general story progression, although is light on depth.

If you are looking for Carthaginian history during the punic wars, I would recommend The Fall of Carthage by Goldsworthy. His Caesar: Life of a Colossus is pretty good too if you want a more specific subject matter.

Kagan's Peloponnesian War was good for the Greek world.

Barry Cunliffe's work is supposed to be good for the Gallic world, although I haven't yet gotten around to reading any myself. It's on my to-do list. :laugh4:

You can always read the primary sources too if you are up for it.

[oudysseos]

Cunliffe good. Beresford Ellis also good on celts.

[Subotan]

I got Herodotus' The Histories today. I'm loving it! :2thumbsup:

[Skullheadhq]

I got Herodotus' The Histories today. I'm loving it! :2thumbsup:

Me too! I love the part with Kyros' head getting stuffed in a bag and the way Dareios became king,
I let his horse get horny and won the crown :)

[ray243]

The complete roman army by Adrian Goldsworthy :book2:

I would ignore Goldsworthy, given his analysis of the later era Roman army is pretty weak in my opinion.

If you want something that is really detailed in regards to many eras, try A Companion to the Roman Army By Paul Erdkamp. This book does not glorify the Prinicipate era army, which makes it more useful in my opinion.


Google books has a preview for you guys if you want to read it. A preview which is legal.


The sheer amount of information is huge, and it does not give a bias look at the later era Roman army.

[ray243]

I would ignore Goldsworthy, given his analysis of the later era Roman army is pretty weak in my opinion.

If you want something that is really detailed in regards to many eras, try A Companion to the Roman Army By Paul Erdkamp. This book does not glorify the Prinicipate era army, which makes it more useful in my opinion.


Google books has a preview for you guys if you want to read it. A preview which is legal.


The sheer amount of information is huge, and it does not give a bias look at the later era Roman army.

Here is the link.



http://books.google.com/books?id=hR73TNL7YMAC&pg=PA1&dq=companion+to+the+roman+army#PPP1,M1

[Aodhan]

Here are two good ones for the Celtic world, both by Berresford Ellis:

Celt and Roman,
The Celtic Empire

I’ll post others when I remember them.

Celt and Roman, is a good overview of the contact and wars between the Romans and Cis Alpine Gauls.

The Celtic Empire, is a good overview of Celtic expansion, culture, wars, subjugation and other happenings between 1000BC and 51AD, it’s a little dated now but it’s a good starter history.

[thecellarlife]

The Companion to the Roman Army is pretty good by looking at the preview, but I looked up it's price on Amazon.com. A mind blowing $140. I can't see how it could be worth spending that much. The book I mentioned when I started this thread gave just as much, if not more detailed information about the early kingdom and early republic. It's only 200 pages less, but per-page it fits much more information, and for only $20 at borders.

If the book wasn't so damn expensive I'd probably go and pick it up. Good suggestion though. I'll check out the others you guys mentioned on Carthage and the Gauls.

[Macilrille]

Questions
1. What is your specific interest?
2. What languages do you read?

Palle Rasmussen, Ma. Hist.

[ray243]

The Companion to the Roman Army is pretty good by looking at the preview, but I looked up it's price on Amazon.com. A mind blowing $140. I can't see how it could be worth spending that much. The book I mentioned when I started this thread gave just as much, if not more detailed information about the early kingdom and early republic. It's only 200 pages less, but per-page it fits much more information, and for only $20 at borders.

If the book wasn't so damn expensive I'd probably go and pick it up. Good suggestion though. I'll check out the others you guys mentioned on Carthage and the Gauls.

You can always use the Library.

[Hax]

Not so much Roman history, but Pontic:

I just ordered Mithridates the Great by Philip Matyszak. Wonder if it's any good.

[lobf]

I would ignore Goldsworthy, given his analysis of the later era Roman army is pretty weak in my opinion.

If you want something that is really detailed in regards to many eras, try A Companion to the Roman Army By Paul Erdkamp. This book does not glorify the Prinicipate era army, which makes it more useful in my opinion.


Google books has a preview for you guys if you want to read it. A preview which is legal.


The sheer amount of information is huge, and it does not give a bias look at the later era Roman army.

IIRc that book costs ~$170.

[ray243]

IIRc that book costs ~$170.

Which is why I suggest you to look up in the library.

Even so, the preview alone is good enough.

Their infomation about the Roman army after the death of Commodus and during the 3rd century Crisis is helpful.

[Frostwulf]

I would ignore Goldsworthy, given his analysis of the later era Roman army is pretty weak in my opinion.
For my part I read him because of the high remarks in his peer reviews he gets. He is used as a reference in books that are coming out, such as "Soldiers and Ghosts" and a few others I can't recall off hand. I have read a couple other forum folk say they didn't think much of Goldsworthy, I was wondering why? Is there a historian you have read that completely lambastes Goldsworthy? If so I'm interested to know who, it would be in contrast to the multitude of other historians who claim him to be one of the best in his field. But don't go on my word, look up his peer reviews!

[ray243]

For my part I read him because of the high remarks in his peer reviews he gets. He is used as a reference in books that are coming out, such as "Soldiers and Ghosts" and a few others I can't recall off hand. I have read a couple other forum folk say they didn't think much of Goldsworthy, I was wondering why? Is there a historian you have read that completely lambastes Goldsworthy? If so I'm interested to know who, it would be in contrast to the multitude of other historians who claim him to be one of the best in his field. But don't go on my word, look up his peer reviews!

If anything, try and look up on the German Historians in regards to late era Roman army.

A lot of generic ideas like the Roman army was weak in the late empire was rebutted.

[ray243]

Oh ya, another book to recommend, much cheaper.

http://books.google.de/books?id=r2hBqYtZWNEC&printsec=frontcover#PPP1,M1

The Imperial Roman Army
Von Yann Le Bohec

Only 30 plus bucks.

[Frostwulf]

@ray243 while I haven't read Goldsworthy's Complete Roman army(flipped through some of it) I have read others (Roman army at war 100bc-200ad, Caesar, and a few others) they were well written. I like the link to the book by Le Bohec and was wondering what German authors you were referring to?


A lot of generic ideas like the Roman army was weak in the late empire was rebutted. When talking of weaker, are you referring to amount of troops,quality of troops, commanders, arms and armor, etc. etc.? What is Goldsworthy being rebutted on?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Goldsworthy is sloppy and popularist, well maybe vague would be better than sloppy. He lacks practical experience, for one thing, he's an armchair academic. To be honest, there aren't a lot of good books on the Roman Army all over, it's such a huge subject. You have to hit the journals, which is a bit difficult if you are not an academic yourself.

[Cartaphilus]

Nothing better than the classics - Livy et alia.

And Gibbon & Mommsen.

[ray243]

@ray243 while I haven't read Goldsworthy's Complete Roman army(flipped through some of it) I have read others (Roman army at war 100bc-200ad, Caesar, and a few others) they were well written. I like the link to the book by Le Bohec and was wondering what German authors you were referring to?

When talking of weaker, are you referring to amount of troops,quality of troops, commanders, arms and armor, etc. etc.? What is Goldsworthy being rebutted on?

Von Yann Le Bohec is German if I recall correctly.

Weaker troops and less training is one main example. There is no indication that the later era Roman army is weaker per see.

The whole weak army in the late roman era is based on the assumption that the main cause of the fall of the WRE is a weaker army. If that's the case, then Julian won't be able to launch a successful campaign for instance. Nor can the Eastern empire hold out for so long.

[ray243]

Nothing better than the classics - Livy et alia.

And Gibbon & Mommsen.

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.

[Macilrille]

Source Criticism is what seperates History from art and allows is to call ourselves scientists.

Gibbon's time was one when it was "necessary" to shed the limitations of religion in order to advance science. Thus he speaks against it and is much influenced by anti-religious feeling, blaming it for much evil in the world.

It was also a time when Rome was looked upon as the ideal, "The Dark Middle Ages" as dark and abjectively stupid (as a medieval historian I would disagree strongly), again, this influenced Gibbon. It is an interesting read as it is well-written and it is a fine source to the mentality of Gibbon's time. It is well-nigh worthless for Roman History.

[Frostwulf]

Von Yann Le Bohec is German if I recall correctly.

Weaker troops and less training is one main example. There is no indication that the later era Roman army is weaker per see.

The whole weak army in the late roman era is based on the assumption that the main cause of the fall of the WRE is a weaker army. If that's the case, then Julian won't be able to launch a successful campaign for instance. Nor can the Eastern empire hold out for so long.Is Le Bohec the only German author your citing or is there others?
I seem to recall Goldsworthy saying that Rome was growing weaker but I don't ever recall him referring to the armies. Which book did you read where Goldsworthy said the Romans were weaker due to less training?


Goldsworthy is sloppy and popularist, well maybe vague would be better than sloppy. He lacks practical experience, for one thing, he's an armchair academicHardly the case at all, he was a research fellow at Cardiff. Most reviewers use the terms renowned and highly regarded. From "A Journal of Military History" Ashton Boone writes "The works incorporated in the development of this book are truly vast, including nearly one hundred other pieces of literature from books, materials, and academic journals. Many other sources of information include works printed only from Greek and Latin sources"(This from Goldsworthy's book Roman Warfare).

I would find it difficult to believe that it must be "armchair academics" such as Keagan, Matyszak and others would praise his work if it wasn't good. Perhaps some of his books might be vague(I haven't read them all) in certain areas, but some of his books are not meant to be a Gibbons size piece of work, so in that aspect you may say he is a popularist. You cannot say that of his books Caesar, The Roman Army at War, and apparently Roman Warfare.


To be honest, there aren't a lot of good books on the Roman Army all over, it's such a huge subject. You have to hit the journals, which is a bit difficult if you are not an academic yourself.Which books do you consider good? To say the journals are the way to go is not the case either. Are the journals are subjected to the amount of peer review as some books? Are the journals always correct? Do not the information in the most useful journals find their way into books?

[lobf]

I own Greece and Rome at War by Peter Connolly. I think it's pretty good. Lots of info and pretty pictures. Can I get an official approval of this book?

[Atilius]

I own Greece and Rome at War by Peter Connolly. I think it's pretty good. Lots of info and pretty pictures. Can I get an official approval of this book?It gets my vote: a summary of the history, overview of organization, and lots of reproductions of archeological finds - not just for the Greeks and Romans, but Gauls and Iberians too.

[Incongruous]

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-Roman-Empire-D/dp/0801821584

[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-Roman-Empire-D/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/viewtopic.php?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.