Review of Late Roman Army in Serbia (original) (raw)

The military factor in the onset of crises in the roman empire in the third century AD

2007

In this paper I would like to discuss the impact of Roman armed forces on the rise of crises in the Roman Empire in the third century ad. 1 In my view the À rst half of this century-and more speciÀ cally the two decades from 230 to about 250-may be characterized as a period of increasing regional troubles that ripened into a series of crises, which beset the Roman Empire in the period 251 to 284. There were great regional differences. Dacia, some neighbouring Danube lands, and the Agri Decumates, for example, had a bad time, but other territories were still relatively prosperous, in spite of À scal pressures. In 1999 Witschel demonstrated that until the third quarter of the third century regions like Italy, Gaul, Britain, Spain, and Northern-Africa maintained their traditional infrastructures, their density of population and their prosperity. 2 The traditional view is that the third century is an age of omnipresent warfare, which resulted in the rise of military power in the Roman Empire and in military demands that were an important cause of third century troubles, which affected the whole Empire. 3 However,

Roman Military Development in the Fourth Century B.C.

This paper will examine and discuss the development of Roman military equipment and battlefield tactics during the fourth century BC. 1 In order to draw a conclusion on the Roman military during this period it is necessary to survey the range of military equipment likely to have been in use at this time across the entire Italian peninsula. Therefore this paper will analyse a range of available archaeological evidence from Apulia, Etruria, Campania, Latium and Lucania in conjunction with the relevant scholarship in order to support the notion implied by scholars such as Michael Burns, Gary Forsythe, John Rich, and Nathan Rosenstein that the manipular reform was part of a much larger gradual process from the fifth century onwards. 2 Together they argue that this process of military evolution was characterized by the piecemeal adoption of indigenous and foreign military equipment and tactics between the fifth and second centuries. 3 This paper will also argue that the military equipment of the fourth century can be further characterized by the widespread adoption of the javelin and the scutum, and the probability that individual soldier's arms and armour varied greatly within the armies.

Rome’s Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan, and Strategy on the Danube, Part II, Errata

Journal of Military History , 2011

additional arguments reasserting the well-known trend that Roman emperors consciously increased (heresy to the "no strategy" school) the army's proportion of cavalry to infantry, although his unconvincing suppositions about numbers (precise sizes of units, etc.) invite criticism, and his ideas about Vegetius's antiqua legio ignore the discussions of many, including E. L. Wheeler, "The Late Roman Legion as Phalanx, Part I," in L'armée romaine de THE JOURNAL OF 616 ★

Integration or Disintegration? The Roman Army in the Third Century a.d

Integration in Rome and in the Roman World, 2013

IntegratIon or DIsIntegratIon? the roman army In the thIrD Century a.D. Lukas de Blois my issue in this paper is: what was the main trend within the roman military forces in the third century ad? Integration, or disintegration into regional entities? this paper is not about cultural integration of ethnic groups in multicultural parts of the roman empire, such as the city of rome, thriving commercial centres, and border regions to which the armies had brought people from various parts of the empire, and where multicultural military personnel lived together with indigenous groups, craftsmen from different origins, and immigrants from commercially active regions, either in canabae adjacent to castra stativa, or in garrison towns, as in the eastern parts of the empire. In variatio upon an issue raised by Frederick naerebout in another paper published in this volume, I might ask myself in what sense an army, which in the third century ad was progressively composed of ethnically and culturally different units, kept functioning as an integrated entity, or in actual practice disintegrated into rivalling, particularistic regional forces whose actual or potential competition for money and supplies constantly threatened peace and stability in the empire, particularly in times of dangerous external wars, when the need for supplies increased. the discussion should start with septimius severus. after his victories over Pescennius niger, some tribes in northern mesopotamia, and albinus in gaul, severus had to replenish the ranks of his armies, for example at the Danube frontiers, which had yielded many men to severus' field armies and his new praetorian guard. Besides he had to compensate for the many losses that niger's eastern army and albinus' British troops had sustained, and find recruits for his new legiones Parthicae I, II and III. he had to do so in a post-plague period, in which many mobile young men (soldiers!) were missing because they-as always in times of plaguehad died first and foremost, prices were rising, workers could demand higher wages, and demographic recovery at best was just taking off.1 this 1 on the so-called antonine plague and its consequences see r.s. Bagnall & B.W. Frier,

Later Roman Empire (Undergraduate course handbook)

Undergraduate option (2nd/ 3rd year) at UCL Institute of Archaeology. This module examines the fate of the later Roman empire from the fall of Rome through the establishment of the barbarian kingdoms in the west and the rise of Constantinople in the East to the eve of the Arab conquests (AD400-700), interrogating models of decline, catastrophe and transformation through the most recent archaeology. There is, however, much more to the study of the late antique world than the problem of how and why the Roman empire collapsed. We will explore key themes such as decline and fall, barbarians and ethnicity, urbanism, rural settlement, Christianisation, the army and the economy and compare the different trajectories of Europe, Northern Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean in this period.

The Division of the Roman Empire

The Roman Empire at its height was the most extensive political and social structure in Western Civilization. By the year 284 AD the Empire had grown too vast to be ruled by a single central authority, this was due to many reasons. Some of the most prominent had to do with communication and military response. Due to the high number of hostile "barbarians" on multiple fronts, executing precise military actions was very difficult. The key strategic frontiers of Parthia, Rhine and Danubia were all a significant distance from Rome. So dividing the Empire into two equal halves with co-emperors seemed to be the most viable option. Two separate armies would defend its borders allowing normal civilian life to continue inside. Although there were undoubtedly economic and social implications that helped spur this division as well. The decision to split the empire was carried out by Emperor Diocletian in 284 A.D. Diocletian split the empire and gave the Western Empire to his peer Maxentius. Ultimately, the decision to split the Empire was done to preserve the Roman tradition and culture, keeping the Empire alive. The arguments that are raised from a historicity stance are did this strategy work and in what sense? How do you define the preservation of the Roman Empire? This essay will present specific evidence to support the argument that the tradition of the Roman Empire was ultimately preserved and existed prominently in Europe as late as the 15 th century.

Chaotic Endeavors: Gallienus' Efforts in Saving Rome from the Crisis of the Third Century

The Macksey Journal, 2021

This paper examines the Roman emperor Gallienus (r. 253-68) and his handling of the Crisis of the Third Century. Using both ancient and modern sources, Rome's third century crisis is detailed and Gallienus' actions during his reign are stated. I then list and discuss the many policies implemented by Gallienus and how they influenced the struggling empire. It is argued that he is responsible for the survival and eventual recovery of the state through his own actions and policies enacted. Even though the Crisis of the Third Century peaked during the reign of Gallienus as the empire teetered on collapse, this happened as a number of crises all occurred simultaneously and Gallienus is wrongfully scapegoated for this. I examine and explain the hostility primary sources have towards Gallienus and how they paint an inaccurate image of the emperor. I argue Gallienus was one of the most qualified Roman emperors and that despite the accumulation of crises during his reign, Gallienus was a highly successful emperor.

The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire

The American Historical Review, 1986

PLATES Between pages 112 and 113 1 Italian hoplites 2 The battle of Pydna, 168 BC, as depicted on the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi 3 Roman soldiers of the later second century BC: detail from the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus 4 The army on the coinage: (a) military standards, 82 BC (b) military standards, 49 BC (c) colonisation programme, c.40 BC (d) Gallic arms (e) the Gauls defeated 5 Soldiers of the Late Republic (a) L. Septumius (b) L. Appuleius (c) C. Raius Perulla (d) P. Gessius 6 Bust of Julius Caesar 7 Caesar's bridge across the Rhine 8 Alesia: general views of the site 9 Alesia: details of the Roman fortifications 10 Gravestone of the brothers Canuleius, who served under Caesar in Gaul 11 A warship of the Late Republic 12 Antony's military coinage, 32-31 BC (a) Antony's fleet (b) legio XII Antiqua (c) cohortes praetoriae (d) cohors speculatorum 13 Catapult-shield of the legio IIII Macedonica 14 Emblems and standards: (a) legio IIII Scythica (b) a monument at Venafro 15 Statue of Augustus from Prima Porta, Rome 16 Augustan colonies on the coinage: (a) Emerita (b) Caesarea Augusta (c) Philippi (d) Patrae 17 Imperial propaganda on the coinage: (a) recovery of standards from the Parthians (b) Germanicus recovers an aquila lost with Varus (c) Caligula addressing the men of four legions, AD 39 (d) Nero addressing the German Bodyguard, AD 64-66 18 Cenotaph of Marcus Caelius, a centurion who 'fell in the Varian War' 19 The army of the Early Empire: (a) Cn. Musius, aquilifer (b) C. Romanius, cavalryman of the ala Noricorum (c) Monimus, a Syrian archer (d) P. Flavoleius, a soldier of legio XIV Gemina 20 The Praetorian Guard LINE ILLUSTRATIONS 1 Rome and Italy c. 400 BC 2 The 'Servian Constitution' 3 Roman roads and colonies in Italy 4 The Roman legion, c. 340 BC, as described by Livy 5 Italy and the western Mediterranean 6 A: The battle of Cannae, B: The battle of Zama 7 The battle of Ilipa 8 The Roman legion, c. 160 BC, as described by Polybius 9 The Roman camp according to Polybius 10 The eastern Mediterranean world, c. 200 BC 11 The battle of Cynoscephalae 12 Roman camps at Renieblas 13 Camp III at Renieblas: general plan 14 Camp III at Renieblas: plan of barracks 15 Siegeworks round Numantia 16 Siegecamp at Peña Redonda 17 Siegecamp at Castillejo