DE BELLIS BOOKSTORE

Sections

Last Updated: March 27, 2000

Contact: Chris Brantley, brant@erols.com.

Special Feature -- Book Reviews

John Warry's Warfare
in the Clasical World
(Part IV)

Reviewed by Paul Rice

Warfare in the Classical World : An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome, by John Warry.

Chapter XIII - The Military Task of Imperial Rome

The first few chapters covered hundreds of years each. In the past few chapters, each chapter covered less than a generation. This chapter again covers hundreds of years.

There are many sources for this time frame. Tacitus, Josephus, and the Historis Augusta are the main sources. Warry goes into a short, convoluted discussion on chronological discrepancies around "the year zero". To simplify dramatically, it makes perfect sense if one merely accepts the calibration adjustment that Jesus was born in 4 BCE (749 AUC), as Kepler derived. Otherwise, chronologies get all screwed up. By common definition, 0 CE is 753 AUC.

[When Octavian returned to Roma from Egypt, he ruled all lands which touched the Mediterranean Sea, mare nostrum. The Gates of Janus were closed for the first time in 200 years.]

In 30, Octavian had Caesar's son by Cleopatra killed (his first cousin), as well as Antony's children by Fulvia. OTOH, his sister Octavia raised Antony's children by Cleopatra, her arch rival. Go figure.

He took the title Augustus in 27. He was never actually emperor in name, but merely consul, tribune, proconsul, Pontifex Maximus (supreme Pontiff), Princeps, Princeps Senatus, Augustus [and probably several other titles]. His troops referred to him as Imperator (a title given to conquering generals) from whence we get emperor. He maintained lip service to the republic and all its offices and titles, but in reality it was long gone.

In 2 BCE, Augustus formed the Praetorian Guard, who were to later rise to the level of emperor-maker. Augustus beefed up the fleet [and added some marines]. He built many roads. Warry gives a full page on the equipment of a 1st century CE legionary, and another page of early empire auxiliary forces.

In 9CE three legions under Varus got wiped out at Teutoberger Wald.

Under Augustus units again tended to be posted where they were raised, with foreign and aux units near the frontier, Romans in the interior. [This policy vacillated throughout the course of the Republic and Empire. I should point out that as Roman citizenship expanded to more and more areas, the legions became less and less Italian.]

[Augustus ruled for 44 years. Warry doesn't go into his many cultural achievements.]

Warry walks us through the timeline of emperors through Constantine in the 4th century CE. I won't bother to list them all.

In 16 CE Tiberius sent Germanicus to get some payback for the 3 dead legions. Warry gives 1/3 page to Idistaviso, confirming nicely with the Battles of the Ancient World game.

Romans under Germanicus (71,500 total):

• 41% -- Blade (Praetorian + Legion)
• 42% -- Aux (some of which are archers and slingers)
• 07% -- Warband (German)
• 08% -- Cavalry
• 02% -- Light Horse (horse archers)

In base 12 that's: 5xBd, 4xAux, 1xPs, 1xWb and 1xCv.

Germans under Arminius (40-50,000 total. Note the ratio is about 1.5 to 1. "includes some light javelin armed horse.)

Both sides straddle a hill, with a forest on the Roman left/ German right, and the Weser river on the Roman right/ German left, which wraps around the German rear.

Germanicus puts his Germans, Swiss, and Auxiliaries in the first line, archers and slingers behind them. Not counting the archers, the "second" line is legion, and the third line legion and auxiliaries. He puts his cav in the woods, light cav behind them.

Arminius may have put his horse in the woods as well. Otherwise, it was just one big mob. He charges, and breaks through the first line in the center, but loses on the flanks. Both German flanks collapse, the right running back to the left, and the left running to the right. The successful center is surrounded and annihilated. The Romans are victorious, but fall back to the Rhine and do not colonize that far inland.

DBA players take note! The cav deploy and fight in woods, not the aux. The mechanics of DBA fall apart on this game, what with the multiple lines.

When you own most of the world, you have to expect revolts on a regular basis. As an example, [In 41 CE Claudius invaded England in force] in 60 Queen Boudica raised a revolt. She took a number of cities, including London. He gives a quick synopsis of her final battle, Watling Street for lack of a better name.

Romans under Paulinus (10,500 total):

• 52% -- Blade
• 38% -- Aux
• 10% -- Cav

[from other sources that "auxilliaries" sometimes meant bowmen.] Casualties: about 500.

Britons under Boudica (40-60,000 troops, with unknown number of chariots-50-100?) Casualties: 50,000 men women and children. Boudica poisons herself.

The Romans are on a hill at the narrow end of a clearing, with woods to their back, right, and left. The Brits have a road at their back; the clearing gets narrower as it approaches the Roman position.

The Britons bring their families and non-combatants to watch, who form up behind the Briton army (can you say Bull Run, 1861?). The Britons have to squeeze in to fit into the defile, chariots to the front.

After throwing pila, the Romans charge in a series of wedges (like a sawtooth). This compresses the Brits so tight they can't use their weapons, and the chariots are useless (can you say Cannae? can you say Agincourt?). The Brits can't retreat because of the pressure of the noncombatants at the back. Slaughter ensues.

Year 69, with four emperors, gets a section. Galba revolted, Nero committed suicide, and then everybody with a claim and an army claimed they were emperor. Thus was the end of the Julio-Claudian portion of the principate. Vespasianus was eventually able to consolidate, and thus started the Flavian period.

After the Batavian revolt in 69, policy went back to posting units comprised of foreign troops somewhere other than their homeland.

[Method of succession was important to the Romans, and varied. Under the Julio-Claudian family, emperors tended to "adopt" a man (frequently a nephew or cousin), who would be the next emperor. There were no direct-line successions to sons. Although some women were involved in politics, they were the exception, and none ever rose to Empress. There are no references to female generals, legati, tribunes, consuls, or senators for that matter. This practice continued with some variation when in 98 Nerva officially appointed Trajan as his successor. For the next several generations emperors tended to appoint "the best man" -- a non relative -- as successor, who was usually a military man.]

Like most British writers of Roman history, Warry places emphasis on the Roman occupation of Britain, whereas to the Romans, Britain was just another far flung corner of the empire. Hadrian gets most of a section.

Under Marcus Aurelius, the nominated successor became sort of a vice-em peror [collegiate?], since the dang empire was too large for most men to handle. Roman defensive strategy changed from defensive lines to zones. The story of Zenobia is interesting, and gets a few paragraphs.

Aurelius blew the current succession system by nominating his son, Commodius, who was unfit for the job. When plague killed off Aurelius, Commodius succeeded him. In 192 the Praetorian Guard played their hand, assassinated Commodius, and decided they would pick the next emperor. They installed and assassinated at whim, selling to the highest bidder. This had to be a low point in Roman history. They went through a few in rapid succession (pun) before they decided on Septimus Severus, who also had the largest army, far bigger than the Guard. Once in power, Severus smartly disbanded the Praetorian Guard, and built a new Praetorian Guard with men from his own legions [much to the chagrin of the patricians]. The army went up to 33 legions, and legionaries could now legally marry their foreign wives, which meant the armies tended to grow roots in a given geographic area, again.

Severus was succeeded by his two sons, one of whom assassinated the other. His surviving son Caracalla greatly expanded Roman citizenship. [After Severus Alexander, the last emperor to at least recognize the Senate, died in 235, the Pax Romana ended, and chaos ensued. The total number of claimants to the throne for the next 50 years was in the hundreds, with several per year. Another low point.] Into this chaos "barbarians" drove from every corner, and the empire was fragmented. Barbarians found that once they got past the frontier troops, a soft interior awaited their plundering, so the legions must have posted on the frontiers again. It wasn't until 284 that Diocleitan (an Illyrian) could glue it back together again.

Warry gives a page on late Roman cav, starring the ill-fated clibanarii.

Diocletain put into effect a new succession system, whereby each of the two Augusti (co-emperors) had a picked successor (Caesar), and the co-emperors ruled for only 20 years, then stepped down. As a result, there were four HQs and staffs.

The city of Roma was becoming less important. Trajan had been the first provincial emperor (born in Hispania), the chaos between 235-284 had fragmented the empire, and Diocletian ruled for 20 years before setting foot in Rome. Future emperors would never see the city.

The Diocletian succession principle (sounds like an atomic property, doesn't it?) lasted only until Constantine in 312, who wanted to rule singly.

Constantine went back to putting the auxiliaries on the front lines, and the best troops, the legions, behind the lines as reserve mobile forces. [There was a general movement towards a mobile army in the mid and late empire.] He also abolished the Praetorian Guard, again. Of course, he also rebuilt Byzantium into Constantinople, and accepted Christianity on his death-bed, although he had used it as a tool earlier in his life. Both of these became major factors in the upcoming split of east vs. west.

Chapter XIV - The Coming of the Barbarians

In this last chapter which summarizes a few hundred years in the north, east, and east, Warry's sources are Eusebius, various minor Christian authors, Vegetius (Renatus) -- one of my favorites, and a bunch of authors you never heard of.

He spends a few paragraphs giving various dates to mark the "end" of the Roman empire, thereby explaining that it was no "and the next day it was gone", but rather a slow, gradual dissolution. This chapter essentially covers from about 337 to 800.

Only two battles receive detailed coverage: Romans kick the Germans (possibly Burgundians) at Argentoratum in the west in 357, at which the clibanarii are again useless; and Goths kick the Byzantines at Adrianople in 378 in the east, in a general disorganized melee.

Argentoratum is scenarioable, although the quantity and composition of forces is more speculative than most battles.

Rome, under Julian (total 12,400):

• 36% -- legion (blade)
• 44% -- Aux and German allies (call it 27% aux, 18% WB)
• 05% -- Knight (clibanarii)
• 15% -- LH

Germans, under Chnodomar (total 34,500):

• 93% -- WB (perhaps a token blade)
• 07% -- Cv

Romans with a large hill to their back, woods all along the left. Germans with a trench on their right in the woods, Rhine far to their rear.

He explains the movement of the various German tribes, which brought back memories from grade school studying the Goths, Visigoths, Huns, etc. The story of the Vandals, led by Stilicho, is particularly interesting. The generals of the "Romans" are in fact German. Alaric, a Goth, gets considerable mention.

He gives a full page on auxiliary forces of the later empire. There was throughout the Roman era a tendency to go towards lighter, more mobile troops.

Byzantium gets considerable discussion, not surprisingly. The subject of Greek fire "ignites" again, but I can "spread" no more "light" on it (puns R us) [other than previous discussions].

The Huns get over a full page. Atilla dies in action, "... he died suddenly, having burst a blood vessel on his first night with a new concubine (453)."

And at the end of this wonderful book which I recommend you buy, Warry closes with this weak, luke-warm paragraph:

If we choose to look back, the whole history of the Graeco-Roman world may be regarded as one long war against barbarism.....It was, in fact, a war for literacy rather than for liberty.....However, protraction of the struggle until such time as barbarism, like civilization, had been diluted, suggests a kind of victory -- at any rate, a draw.

And now, before we move onto Vikings, some final comments on the Romans by yours truly. It seems that every time they ran into somebody new they got their butts kicked the first time (Etruscans, Samnites, Gauls, Germans, Carthaginians, Spaniards, Parthians, Numidians). But the Romans were nothing if not adaptable.

I'm reminded of the ST:TNG episode where the dumb aliens say, "We collect things." Look at a Roman legionary circa 100 CE. It's almost like a fashion commercial. Gladius, from Spain. Mail, likely from Gaul. Scutum, evolved from Gaul, helmets evolved from Celtic tribes.

In the east, the Pathians had cataphractii. Come back a few years later and now the Romans have it. In the west, if you can't beat Numidian light horse, hire Numidian light horse. When fighting the Gauls, they used German cavalry. When fighting the Germans, they used Gallic cavalry./P>

A look at Roman culture is even more revealing. The language is remarkably close to Greek. The architecture is Greek. The literature and theatre close to Greek. Agriculture, Carthaginian. When Romans conquered a nation they added its gods to their pantheon. "We collect things." It could even be stretched that after (militarily) suppressing Christianity, they adopted it. To this day, where does the Pope live?

OTOH, to give credit where it is due, the break from phalanx to maniple, the corvus, the change from maniple to cohort, the pilum, hydraulic cement, the aqueduct, paved roads, sewers, coliseums, bridges, and all sorts of feats of engineering, were all Roman inventions. They also made valuable original contributions to law and philosophy.

So why do we, in the west, value ancient Greece and Rome? Why do we think of their demise as a collapse, followed by dark ages? Why do we think their civilizations or societies were better than the Gauls, Germans, Huns, or Goths? What makes one group of people "civilized", and another "barbarians"? What did the Romans or Greeks have that other western cultures didn't have? After much thought, I conclude that it has mostly to do with language, the finer arts, law, and philosophy. What do you think?

This book covers almost exactly 2000 years of (selected) military history. It ends 1200 years ago. What will warfare be like 2000 years from now?

Sources used in these last few chapters were: Warfare in the Classical World, John Warry; Greece and Rome at War, Peter Connolly; The Conquest of Gaul, Julius Caesar, introduction by Jane Gardner; Columbia's History of the World, edited by John Garraty and Peter Gay; Hannibal's Campaigns, Tony Bath; and Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC, Terence Wise. To a lesser extent, Ancient Civilizations by Carlton Hayes and James Hanscom.

| Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV |

De Bellis Bookstore | DBA Resource Page | Fanaticus