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
EB Bibliography


Why is this in the EB II forum?

[||Lz3||]

The complete roman army by Adrian Goldsworthy

[ray243]

The complete roman army by Adrian Goldsworthy

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=hR7...n+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.

[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.

[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.

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

[oudysseos]

Cunliffe good. Beresford Ellis also good on celts.

[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.../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.../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.

[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.