What do you think?
Rate this book
Cassell History of Warfare
Roman Warfare
The Romans built perhaps the greatest empire of all time, forged with an unequaled skill in warfare. Accompany these unparalleled troops from the conquest of Italy thru to world conquest. Watch as defeated armies became allies & future Roman soldiers. Consider the irony of extreme brutality & repression leading to peace & prosperity. All the techniques & the organization of this amazingly advanced fighting force come into focus, from the emphasis on drills to its superior technology & complex bureaucracy.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2000
75 people are currently reading
2105 people want to read
About the author
Adrian Goldsworthy
45 books1,545 followersAdrian Goldsworthy, born in 1969, is the author of numerous acclaimed books, including biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He lectures widely and consults on historical documentaries for the History Channel, National Geographic, and the BBC. He lives in the UK.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
October 1, 2022
Today Adrian Goldworthy is one of the leading historians of ancient Rome, and this book is an excellent example of the abilities that have earned him that distinction. In it he condenses nearly a millennia of Roman history – from the 5th century battles of the early Republic to the demise of the empire in the West in the 5th century CE – into little more than 200 well-illustrated pages. It’s a formidable task, yet one that Goldsworthy accomplishes with a deft erudition that makes his book both informative and a pleasure to read.
The key to his achievement is his avoidance of the details of the events of the innumerable wars in favor of a broader focus on the Roman way of warfare. Not only does this allow him to concentrate on the means by which the Romans won these struggles, but it also serves as a way of detailing how Rome changed as a result of these wars. As Goldworthy demonstrates, chronicling this change is central to any such story of Roman warfare, given the role that the army played in it. Initially a body of citizen soldiers, the Romans transformed warfare in the Mediterranean world through a combination of tactics and application. This began with the adoption of the legion, a levy which gave the Romans the ability to draw upon the entire adult male population and the ability to endure considerable setbacks.
Among the earliest examples of this that Goldsworthy cites is the Phyrric War of the 3rd century BCE, in which Rome faced a professional army under the command of the greatest general of his time. Though Phyrrus defeated the Romans in battle, the debilitation of his own ranks in the process ensured Rome’s survival. The true test of this approach, however, came with the Second Punic War, in which a Carthaginian force under the general Hannibal invaded Italy and crushed a numerically superior army at Cannae. Though such a victory normally led to the end of a war, Rome’s formation of new legions to replace those lost in battle left Hannibal waging a war of attrition in enemy territory, one that he lacked the ability to win.
Rome’s triumph in the Second Punic War not only left them with the mastery of the western Mediterranean, it left them with a superbly experienced core of soldiers which they soon employed against the Hellenistic kingdoms in the east. Here key differences in warfare played to the Romans’ advantage, as the manipular legion proved more flexible in battle than the hoplite formations which had defined warfare in the region for centuries. Moreover, the Romans’ ruthlessness in war, which was waged to destroy the enemy, shocked the Hellenistic leaders, who were accustomed to ending conflicts through negotiation in order to limit bloodshed. Pushing their advantages to the fullest, the Romans soon acquired an empire in the east that added enormously to their wealth and power.
Success on the battlefield, though, strained the Roman political system to its breaking point. Conquest was often superficial, as tribal groups in newly-won areas often rose up in rebellion. With the traditional reliance on citizen farmers ill-suited to deal with the long-term deployments needed to pacify these populations, a new force was created in the form of a professional army recruited from the ranks of the landless poor. Though this model proved effective, the lack of a livelihood outside of the army and the Senate’s unwillingness to provide for them after demobilization increasingly isolated the soldiers from Roman society and left them vulnerable to the appeals of ambitious generals using them as leverage in politics.
With the end of the Republic, the emperors had to use their legions with caution. Direct control was asserted in order to minimize the prospect of contenders emerging through their success on the battlefield. Goldsworthy sees this as a greater factor in restricting Roman expansion than any limitations in the army itself, as the legions maintained a high level of training and effectiveness. Now numbering in the dozens, they were deployed to address a variety of challenges, from internal rebellion to the predations of the Parthian empire, and in the absence of a professional bureaucracy provided a basis of government in the provinces. All of this required a force of considerable flexibility, able to adapt to the myriad challenges it might face, and Goldsworthy regards the collapse of the empire in the west as the result of factors other than the inability of the legions to defeat the foes they faced in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Though the Romans’ example of a permanent professional force vanished from most of Europe with the end of the empire in the west, Goldsworthy sees it as the model for the armies that would be established in Europe in the early modern era. It’s a conclusion that illustrates one of the many ways why Roman warfare remains such a subject of interest today. And for anyone seeking to learn about it, Goldsworthy’s book is a superb introduction to the subject. While suffused throughout with his expertise, he wears his knowledge lightly as he provides his readers with an accessible overview that reflects the assuredness of his understanding. It’s a great starting point that anyone new to Roman history can benefit from, while those with some familiarity will find arguments that will enhance their understanding of such an ostensibly well-covered topic.
The key to his achievement is his avoidance of the details of the events of the innumerable wars in favor of a broader focus on the Roman way of warfare. Not only does this allow him to concentrate on the means by which the Romans won these struggles, but it also serves as a way of detailing how Rome changed as a result of these wars. As Goldworthy demonstrates, chronicling this change is central to any such story of Roman warfare, given the role that the army played in it. Initially a body of citizen soldiers, the Romans transformed warfare in the Mediterranean world through a combination of tactics and application. This began with the adoption of the legion, a levy which gave the Romans the ability to draw upon the entire adult male population and the ability to endure considerable setbacks.
Among the earliest examples of this that Goldsworthy cites is the Phyrric War of the 3rd century BCE, in which Rome faced a professional army under the command of the greatest general of his time. Though Phyrrus defeated the Romans in battle, the debilitation of his own ranks in the process ensured Rome’s survival. The true test of this approach, however, came with the Second Punic War, in which a Carthaginian force under the general Hannibal invaded Italy and crushed a numerically superior army at Cannae. Though such a victory normally led to the end of a war, Rome’s formation of new legions to replace those lost in battle left Hannibal waging a war of attrition in enemy territory, one that he lacked the ability to win.
Rome’s triumph in the Second Punic War not only left them with the mastery of the western Mediterranean, it left them with a superbly experienced core of soldiers which they soon employed against the Hellenistic kingdoms in the east. Here key differences in warfare played to the Romans’ advantage, as the manipular legion proved more flexible in battle than the hoplite formations which had defined warfare in the region for centuries. Moreover, the Romans’ ruthlessness in war, which was waged to destroy the enemy, shocked the Hellenistic leaders, who were accustomed to ending conflicts through negotiation in order to limit bloodshed. Pushing their advantages to the fullest, the Romans soon acquired an empire in the east that added enormously to their wealth and power.
Success on the battlefield, though, strained the Roman political system to its breaking point. Conquest was often superficial, as tribal groups in newly-won areas often rose up in rebellion. With the traditional reliance on citizen farmers ill-suited to deal with the long-term deployments needed to pacify these populations, a new force was created in the form of a professional army recruited from the ranks of the landless poor. Though this model proved effective, the lack of a livelihood outside of the army and the Senate’s unwillingness to provide for them after demobilization increasingly isolated the soldiers from Roman society and left them vulnerable to the appeals of ambitious generals using them as leverage in politics.
With the end of the Republic, the emperors had to use their legions with caution. Direct control was asserted in order to minimize the prospect of contenders emerging through their success on the battlefield. Goldsworthy sees this as a greater factor in restricting Roman expansion than any limitations in the army itself, as the legions maintained a high level of training and effectiveness. Now numbering in the dozens, they were deployed to address a variety of challenges, from internal rebellion to the predations of the Parthian empire, and in the absence of a professional bureaucracy provided a basis of government in the provinces. All of this required a force of considerable flexibility, able to adapt to the myriad challenges it might face, and Goldsworthy regards the collapse of the empire in the west as the result of factors other than the inability of the legions to defeat the foes they faced in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Though the Romans’ example of a permanent professional force vanished from most of Europe with the end of the empire in the west, Goldsworthy sees it as the model for the armies that would be established in Europe in the early modern era. It’s a conclusion that illustrates one of the many ways why Roman warfare remains such a subject of interest today. And for anyone seeking to learn about it, Goldsworthy’s book is a superb introduction to the subject. While suffused throughout with his expertise, he wears his knowledge lightly as he provides his readers with an accessible overview that reflects the assuredness of his understanding. It’s a great starting point that anyone new to Roman history can benefit from, while those with some familiarity will find arguments that will enhance their understanding of such an ostensibly well-covered topic.
March 14, 2021
It's a keeper because the bibliographic statement "the literature on the Roman army is vast, most of it buried in academic journals inaccessible to the general reader" prolongs the shelf life of this primer ad infinitum. Even if it's 20 years old and counting, Goldsworthy wil never improve upon this much.
June 8, 2019
Adrian Goldsworthy is primarily known for lengthy, but highly readable, volumes on Roman history, such as "Augustus" and "The Punic Wars." He has two sidelines, in massive reference works on the Roman military, and in fiction about the Romans. All in all, he’s a busy guy, and I buy every new book he writes. This recent book is short, just two hundred pages, but aspires to offer a complete overview of Roman warfare. An ambitious goal, to be sure, successfully achieved. Still, while "Roman Warfare" is an excellent book, it is probably best viewed as a gateway drug to more Goldsworthy, as a way to introduce the casual reader, or students, to the fascinating world of Rome.
The Romans viewed war much differently than us. War is a natural state of man. As Plato did not say, though many think he did, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” (It was George Santayana who said it.) The Romans, unlike us, had no moral qualms about war. (Nor did the Greeks, or any ancient people; one only has to read the famous Melian Dialogue to grasp that.) As Goldsworthy points out at the very beginning, any Roman who wanted to exercise political power was obliged to first demonstrate his successful leadership in war. Not only was pacifism, with its Christian roots, utterly alien to Rome, but the Romans, unique among their contemporaries, viewed permanent victory as the goal, and would pay any price, and inflict any pain, thought necessary to accomplish that goal. Maybe they were right; for the most part, once the bodies were buried and forgotten, everyone was better off. As Goldsworthy says, “Roman rule was imposed and maintained by force, but it inaugurated in most areas periods of peace and prosperity far greater than was enjoyed in the centuries before or after the Empire.”
Goldsworthy’s history is strictly chronological, in keeping with the straightforward, overview nature of the book (which also offers excellent maps). We begin with the founding of Rome, moving quickly through the early Italian wars. The focus is on the military: its equipment, organization, and use, but also its political relevance. Specific battles are not detailed, and even the wars are merely a backdrop. Thus, the early Roman phalanx is discussed at some length, along with noting the composition of the early military being drawn, as in Ancient Greece, from men able to afford equipping themselves. (Such men were correctly viewed as having more at stake and therefore being both obligated to bear risks and entitled to exercise power on behalf of society, something we have forgotten today, to our loss. As Robert Nisbet said, “Rootless men always betray.”) Goldsworthy is clear that the farther back we go in Roman history, the less certain we can be of details, but we know enough to have a pretty clear overall picture of the city and its military.
And that overall picture was quite small, early on. Our vision of Rome in its later vastness distorts thinking about early Rome. “It is sobering to remember that the city of Veii, with which Rome fought a series of wars spanning a century [in the fourth century B.C.], was situated not much more than 10 miles away.” But Veii, and all the other neighbors of the Romans, were conquered, annexed, and absorbed. This process gave Rome ever-increasing manpower, and therefore the ability to wage longer wars farther away, using its now more rigidly organized army. Still, occasional traces of the much older style of personalized, heroic, warfare showed up, including the famous self-sacrifice of Publius Decius Mus in 295 B.C. And at the same time, the Roman political system assumed the balanced form that worked so well during the Republic, right up until it didn’t.
Next we have the Punic Wars (which Goldsworthy here introduces as “The Wars with Carthage,” again suggesting this book is directed to novices). This was the army of the Republic in full flower, and Goldsworthy spends quite a bit of time describing the details of its formations. He excels at these evocative descriptions, which is a major attraction of his books. The army fought in three lines; the rearmost, the triarii, were hardened veterans used primarily as reserves. “[T]he Roman proverb ‘It’s down to the triarii’ was used to describe any desperate situation.” As in some of his other books, the author notes that ancient warfare was not a giant crashing of armies into each other followed by continuous hand-to-hand combat. Goldsworthy sees the clashes as much more tentative, brief periods of vicious hacking followed by halts, with the morale and energy to push forward into the enemy largely determining victory. The battlefront had many gaps; “The ancient battlefield was a far more open place than is often imagined.”
By this era there were plenty of hardened veterans in the army, not just farmers called up intermittently, but most did not serve continuously. Instead, they served in a conflict and then returned to civilian life, obligated for sixteen campaigns, a hybrid of the old-type army and future professionals. Discipline was harsh. “Serious crimes, such as neglect of guard duty, theft from comrades or homosexual acts, were punishable by death, with lesser misdemeanors resulting in a flogging.” Despite this, there was strong commonality between the rank-and-file and the commanders, all of whom had “a strong sense of shared duty to the state.” Critically for the stability of the Republic, military men, current and former, were wholly integrated into society at all levels, rather than being a caste apart. Military honors, including the greatest of all, the corona civica, a simple crown of laurel leaves awarded for saving the life of another, derived their luster from being able to be shown to the whole citizenry, an important link between the army and civilian political life. Draft evasion was essentially nonexistent. Moreover, common soldiers, as long as they obeyed the rules, had great freedom to address, criticize, and even openly insult their commanders, again reflecting a system bound by internal strength, not terror.
The Punic Wars also were the classic demonstration of the Roman insistence on total victory, defined as ensuring their enemy would never threaten them again. This contrasts to most ancient warfare, which was usually conducted for positional advantage, trying to minimize cost and obtaining a favorable negotiated solution. The Parthians, for example, were startled by the Romans’ flat rejection of their peace overtures. Goldsworthy views this attribute, carried through the centuries despite major changes in both politics and military organization, as a major reason for Roman success (combined, of course, with that Rome was strong enough that none of her enemies could plausibly eliminate Rome as a threat to them.)
And so Rome moved on to world conquest, all the way to A.D. 14, when Augustus died. It wasn’t all success; the Romans were intermittently defeated, especially in the Gallic Wars, where one problem they faced was that when local power structures were destroyed in an initial push, charismatic leaders such as Vercingetorix and Arminius tended to rise up and cause more trouble than expected. Roman overconfidence didn’t help; too often Romans assumed that Romans always won, and skipped tedious intermediate steps, like adequate training and ensuring unit cohesion. Various organizational and equipment changes came and went. Soldiers were now no longer citizen-soldiers, but mostly professionals recruited from agricultural laborers who owned no land. This was the seed of the Republic’s death, though, since the Senate, unable or unwilling to see that the sturdy peasant soldiery had vanished from the scene, refused to provide for demobilized soldiers who had no means of support. At the same time, commanders like Marius and Sulla made enormous fortunes by staying commanders for far longer than had traditionally been the case, using their position to enrich themselves from conquest, and they did not hesitate to provide for their men with their own money, who naturally transferred their primary loyalty to their commanders.
That was Rome at its greatest extent. The emperors could not afford to expand the Empire much further, since sending a general far away, giving him a big army, was, if he was successful, too likely to raise up a political alternative to the emperor. Under the Empire, the army mutated again, both in arms and tactics, and in the addition of auxiliary units from allies (who, Goldsworthy says, were not usually lightly armed, slingers and such, but rather armed like the standard Roman soldier). Now the soldiers were very much no longer integrated into the citizenry; they were viewed as a class apart, looked down on as greedy troglodytes, and feared by the upper classes for their ability to foment civil war. The biggest role of the army was no longer conquest, but administration, keeping order across the Empire. It was scattered throughout the Empire, and fairly mobile, so that it could react quickly to local problems. Often its administration of the provinces is thought of as brutal (in part as a proxy for claiming that modern imperialism was brutal), but as Goldsworthy points out, there were not nearly enough soldiers to keep order by force, and for the most part Roman rule was beneficent and welcomed. Thus, Roman rule was perhaps analogous to British rule in India, where a tiny number of British soldiers kept order in a society hugely benefited by the British presence.
Gradually things fell apart. The emperors began to lead campaigns themselves more and more, since someone had to but they wanted to avoid raising up rivals, but this disconnected them from Rome, and rivals arose anyway. Diocletian tried to solve this, making the role of emperor more flexible with the Tetrarchy (two emperors each with a pre-selected successor), but that didn’t really work. The barbarians became more and more of a threat, which Goldsworthy ascribes less to changes in the barbarians themselves and more to their recognition of Roman weakness and an eagerness to exploit it. The west collapsed under the pressure; the east recovered, somewhat.
Goldsworthy ends with the eastern Empire, noting that the armies were smaller—when Justinian sent Belisarius to reconquer Africa in the sixth century, he only had sixteen thousand men. (Goldsworthy cites a Byzantine military manual of the time, "Maurice’s Strategikon," basically “Eastern Roman Warfare For Dummies,” which sounds so fascinating I ordered a copy.) Crucially, the old Roman doctrine of total war and total victory was wholly lost, not that the Romans had the resources to implement it anyway, so the East settled into an uneasy and draining pattern of intermittent war, leaving it vulnerable when Islam rose. But Goldsworthy does not carry his tale that far; Justinian is where he draws the line, or the end of the line, for Roman warfare.
Thus, the reader finishes the book well informed, and even though he does not know everything there is to know about Roman warfare, he has a good starting point. Goldsworthy helps out by making clear where to look for further information. The book offers not only a “Further Reading” section, but also an excellent glossary, explaining all relevant technical terms used in the book, as well as explanations in the appendices of critical Roman political elements like the cursus honorum, and separate capsule biographies of important players. It’s a complete, if small, package; I think that anyone, expert or novice, can benefit from this book.
The Romans viewed war much differently than us. War is a natural state of man. As Plato did not say, though many think he did, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” (It was George Santayana who said it.) The Romans, unlike us, had no moral qualms about war. (Nor did the Greeks, or any ancient people; one only has to read the famous Melian Dialogue to grasp that.) As Goldsworthy points out at the very beginning, any Roman who wanted to exercise political power was obliged to first demonstrate his successful leadership in war. Not only was pacifism, with its Christian roots, utterly alien to Rome, but the Romans, unique among their contemporaries, viewed permanent victory as the goal, and would pay any price, and inflict any pain, thought necessary to accomplish that goal. Maybe they were right; for the most part, once the bodies were buried and forgotten, everyone was better off. As Goldsworthy says, “Roman rule was imposed and maintained by force, but it inaugurated in most areas periods of peace and prosperity far greater than was enjoyed in the centuries before or after the Empire.”
Goldsworthy’s history is strictly chronological, in keeping with the straightforward, overview nature of the book (which also offers excellent maps). We begin with the founding of Rome, moving quickly through the early Italian wars. The focus is on the military: its equipment, organization, and use, but also its political relevance. Specific battles are not detailed, and even the wars are merely a backdrop. Thus, the early Roman phalanx is discussed at some length, along with noting the composition of the early military being drawn, as in Ancient Greece, from men able to afford equipping themselves. (Such men were correctly viewed as having more at stake and therefore being both obligated to bear risks and entitled to exercise power on behalf of society, something we have forgotten today, to our loss. As Robert Nisbet said, “Rootless men always betray.”) Goldsworthy is clear that the farther back we go in Roman history, the less certain we can be of details, but we know enough to have a pretty clear overall picture of the city and its military.
And that overall picture was quite small, early on. Our vision of Rome in its later vastness distorts thinking about early Rome. “It is sobering to remember that the city of Veii, with which Rome fought a series of wars spanning a century [in the fourth century B.C.], was situated not much more than 10 miles away.” But Veii, and all the other neighbors of the Romans, were conquered, annexed, and absorbed. This process gave Rome ever-increasing manpower, and therefore the ability to wage longer wars farther away, using its now more rigidly organized army. Still, occasional traces of the much older style of personalized, heroic, warfare showed up, including the famous self-sacrifice of Publius Decius Mus in 295 B.C. And at the same time, the Roman political system assumed the balanced form that worked so well during the Republic, right up until it didn’t.
Next we have the Punic Wars (which Goldsworthy here introduces as “The Wars with Carthage,” again suggesting this book is directed to novices). This was the army of the Republic in full flower, and Goldsworthy spends quite a bit of time describing the details of its formations. He excels at these evocative descriptions, which is a major attraction of his books. The army fought in three lines; the rearmost, the triarii, were hardened veterans used primarily as reserves. “[T]he Roman proverb ‘It’s down to the triarii’ was used to describe any desperate situation.” As in some of his other books, the author notes that ancient warfare was not a giant crashing of armies into each other followed by continuous hand-to-hand combat. Goldsworthy sees the clashes as much more tentative, brief periods of vicious hacking followed by halts, with the morale and energy to push forward into the enemy largely determining victory. The battlefront had many gaps; “The ancient battlefield was a far more open place than is often imagined.”
By this era there were plenty of hardened veterans in the army, not just farmers called up intermittently, but most did not serve continuously. Instead, they served in a conflict and then returned to civilian life, obligated for sixteen campaigns, a hybrid of the old-type army and future professionals. Discipline was harsh. “Serious crimes, such as neglect of guard duty, theft from comrades or homosexual acts, were punishable by death, with lesser misdemeanors resulting in a flogging.” Despite this, there was strong commonality between the rank-and-file and the commanders, all of whom had “a strong sense of shared duty to the state.” Critically for the stability of the Republic, military men, current and former, were wholly integrated into society at all levels, rather than being a caste apart. Military honors, including the greatest of all, the corona civica, a simple crown of laurel leaves awarded for saving the life of another, derived their luster from being able to be shown to the whole citizenry, an important link between the army and civilian political life. Draft evasion was essentially nonexistent. Moreover, common soldiers, as long as they obeyed the rules, had great freedom to address, criticize, and even openly insult their commanders, again reflecting a system bound by internal strength, not terror.
The Punic Wars also were the classic demonstration of the Roman insistence on total victory, defined as ensuring their enemy would never threaten them again. This contrasts to most ancient warfare, which was usually conducted for positional advantage, trying to minimize cost and obtaining a favorable negotiated solution. The Parthians, for example, were startled by the Romans’ flat rejection of their peace overtures. Goldsworthy views this attribute, carried through the centuries despite major changes in both politics and military organization, as a major reason for Roman success (combined, of course, with that Rome was strong enough that none of her enemies could plausibly eliminate Rome as a threat to them.)
And so Rome moved on to world conquest, all the way to A.D. 14, when Augustus died. It wasn’t all success; the Romans were intermittently defeated, especially in the Gallic Wars, where one problem they faced was that when local power structures were destroyed in an initial push, charismatic leaders such as Vercingetorix and Arminius tended to rise up and cause more trouble than expected. Roman overconfidence didn’t help; too often Romans assumed that Romans always won, and skipped tedious intermediate steps, like adequate training and ensuring unit cohesion. Various organizational and equipment changes came and went. Soldiers were now no longer citizen-soldiers, but mostly professionals recruited from agricultural laborers who owned no land. This was the seed of the Republic’s death, though, since the Senate, unable or unwilling to see that the sturdy peasant soldiery had vanished from the scene, refused to provide for demobilized soldiers who had no means of support. At the same time, commanders like Marius and Sulla made enormous fortunes by staying commanders for far longer than had traditionally been the case, using their position to enrich themselves from conquest, and they did not hesitate to provide for their men with their own money, who naturally transferred their primary loyalty to their commanders.
That was Rome at its greatest extent. The emperors could not afford to expand the Empire much further, since sending a general far away, giving him a big army, was, if he was successful, too likely to raise up a political alternative to the emperor. Under the Empire, the army mutated again, both in arms and tactics, and in the addition of auxiliary units from allies (who, Goldsworthy says, were not usually lightly armed, slingers and such, but rather armed like the standard Roman soldier). Now the soldiers were very much no longer integrated into the citizenry; they were viewed as a class apart, looked down on as greedy troglodytes, and feared by the upper classes for their ability to foment civil war. The biggest role of the army was no longer conquest, but administration, keeping order across the Empire. It was scattered throughout the Empire, and fairly mobile, so that it could react quickly to local problems. Often its administration of the provinces is thought of as brutal (in part as a proxy for claiming that modern imperialism was brutal), but as Goldsworthy points out, there were not nearly enough soldiers to keep order by force, and for the most part Roman rule was beneficent and welcomed. Thus, Roman rule was perhaps analogous to British rule in India, where a tiny number of British soldiers kept order in a society hugely benefited by the British presence.
Gradually things fell apart. The emperors began to lead campaigns themselves more and more, since someone had to but they wanted to avoid raising up rivals, but this disconnected them from Rome, and rivals arose anyway. Diocletian tried to solve this, making the role of emperor more flexible with the Tetrarchy (two emperors each with a pre-selected successor), but that didn’t really work. The barbarians became more and more of a threat, which Goldsworthy ascribes less to changes in the barbarians themselves and more to their recognition of Roman weakness and an eagerness to exploit it. The west collapsed under the pressure; the east recovered, somewhat.
Goldsworthy ends with the eastern Empire, noting that the armies were smaller—when Justinian sent Belisarius to reconquer Africa in the sixth century, he only had sixteen thousand men. (Goldsworthy cites a Byzantine military manual of the time, "Maurice’s Strategikon," basically “Eastern Roman Warfare For Dummies,” which sounds so fascinating I ordered a copy.) Crucially, the old Roman doctrine of total war and total victory was wholly lost, not that the Romans had the resources to implement it anyway, so the East settled into an uneasy and draining pattern of intermittent war, leaving it vulnerable when Islam rose. But Goldsworthy does not carry his tale that far; Justinian is where he draws the line, or the end of the line, for Roman warfare.
Thus, the reader finishes the book well informed, and even though he does not know everything there is to know about Roman warfare, he has a good starting point. Goldsworthy helps out by making clear where to look for further information. The book offers not only a “Further Reading” section, but also an excellent glossary, explaining all relevant technical terms used in the book, as well as explanations in the appendices of critical Roman political elements like the cursus honorum, and separate capsule biographies of important players. It’s a complete, if small, package; I think that anyone, expert or novice, can benefit from this book.
May 26, 2025
A Riveting Exploration of Roman Military Power
5 stars- (Paperback)
I couldn’t put this book down—I read Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy in a single day. As someone who has read several of Goldsworthy’s works, I can confidently say this is my favorite. His ability to bring clarity and narrative drive to complex historical developments is unmatched.
What truly captivated me was seeing the evolution of the Roman military across centuries—from a citizen-farmer militia defending its homeland to a professional army increasingly reliant on foreign conscripts. Goldsworthy masterfully traces this transformation, showing how the army’s structure and values changed along with the Republic and later the Empire itself.
One of the most striking takeaways for me was how, by the later periods, the Roman army had lost its deep-rooted connection to the Eternal City. No longer were soldiers personally invested in the fate of Rome; many were defending borders they had no ancestral tie to. This disconnection, as Goldsworthy shows, ultimately contributed to the military’s inability to sustain such a vast empire.
The book is both intellectually rich and highly readable. It offers not only an in-depth look at tactics, logistics, and strategy, but also a broader understanding of how military organization shaped Roman society. Whether you’re new to Roman history or a longtime admirer, Roman Warfare is an outstanding and illuminating read.
5 stars- (Paperback)
I couldn’t put this book down—I read Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy in a single day. As someone who has read several of Goldsworthy’s works, I can confidently say this is my favorite. His ability to bring clarity and narrative drive to complex historical developments is unmatched.
What truly captivated me was seeing the evolution of the Roman military across centuries—from a citizen-farmer militia defending its homeland to a professional army increasingly reliant on foreign conscripts. Goldsworthy masterfully traces this transformation, showing how the army’s structure and values changed along with the Republic and later the Empire itself.
One of the most striking takeaways for me was how, by the later periods, the Roman army had lost its deep-rooted connection to the Eternal City. No longer were soldiers personally invested in the fate of Rome; many were defending borders they had no ancestral tie to. This disconnection, as Goldsworthy shows, ultimately contributed to the military’s inability to sustain such a vast empire.
The book is both intellectually rich and highly readable. It offers not only an in-depth look at tactics, logistics, and strategy, but also a broader understanding of how military organization shaped Roman society. Whether you’re new to Roman history or a longtime admirer, Roman Warfare is an outstanding and illuminating read.
July 17, 2018
Another great book from Adrian Goldsworthy. I didn't find this one quite as useful as The Complete Roman Army, but its still packed with facts and the illustrations are superb. There's some great detail on particular battles from the Republican era right through to the Late Antiquity. Want to know more about how Rome conducted wars? Simple, read this
August 16, 2019
In one compact volume, Adrian Goldsworthy takes the reader along to see the development of the tactical and doctrinal practices of the Roman Army. This is not a study of wars, battles or campaigns, or even leaders. This is a study of methods and modes of war making.
Beginning with a look at the Roman forces of the Regal period, which were fashioned similarly to Greek Hoplite forces, through to the early Republic where we see the beginnings of the formulation of the Legions into what we commonly think of them as.
The early Republican Legions were recruited from land owning farmers, men who could pay for their equipment, and were essentially a citizen militia. By the time the Republic had expanded to control a large swathe of the Mediterranean region, the army of the citizen militia was no longer adequate to face the increasing external, and internal, threats Rome faced and so a professional force was formed.
This professional force, equipped and paid by the state, and held on retention for a generation of a mans life, has been the model of all professional armies the world over. Possibly it is Rome's most lasting legacy.
Although designed to fight and win pitched battles against large scale opponents, Goldsworthy shows the incredible flexibility of this Army to engage in counter-tribal and counter-insurgency warfare with near unanimous success (if the measures taken were often shockingly brutal by todays standards) as well as border security and internal engineering projects.
However the problem Rome faced was the lack of the ability of the later Empire to exert political control over the Army which often decided who would rule by the sword. This inability to politically control the Army was the key element in the fragmenting of political authority in the West, and the downfall of the Western Imperium, not external forces as Goldsworthy points out.
The Eastern Empire would retain the Imperial structure of the Army for centuries, and the quality of the Byzantine Army would be the contributing factor to the amazing longevity of the Eastern Orthodox Imperium.
Overall this was a very good book, and does an excellent job showcasing the evolution of Roman tactics and strategic doctrine over the centuries.
Highly recommended.
Beginning with a look at the Roman forces of the Regal period, which were fashioned similarly to Greek Hoplite forces, through to the early Republic where we see the beginnings of the formulation of the Legions into what we commonly think of them as.
The early Republican Legions were recruited from land owning farmers, men who could pay for their equipment, and were essentially a citizen militia. By the time the Republic had expanded to control a large swathe of the Mediterranean region, the army of the citizen militia was no longer adequate to face the increasing external, and internal, threats Rome faced and so a professional force was formed.
This professional force, equipped and paid by the state, and held on retention for a generation of a mans life, has been the model of all professional armies the world over. Possibly it is Rome's most lasting legacy.
Although designed to fight and win pitched battles against large scale opponents, Goldsworthy shows the incredible flexibility of this Army to engage in counter-tribal and counter-insurgency warfare with near unanimous success (if the measures taken were often shockingly brutal by todays standards) as well as border security and internal engineering projects.
However the problem Rome faced was the lack of the ability of the later Empire to exert political control over the Army which often decided who would rule by the sword. This inability to politically control the Army was the key element in the fragmenting of political authority in the West, and the downfall of the Western Imperium, not external forces as Goldsworthy points out.
The Eastern Empire would retain the Imperial structure of the Army for centuries, and the quality of the Byzantine Army would be the contributing factor to the amazing longevity of the Eastern Orthodox Imperium.
Overall this was a very good book, and does an excellent job showcasing the evolution of Roman tactics and strategic doctrine over the centuries.
Highly recommended.
February 12, 2017
This was a great book. Lots of information and will almost definitely re-read. Interesting to see how the power of the Roman Empire decreased with the influx of foreigners into its ranks; foreigners who were unable to identify with Roman patriotism and fought mostly as mercenaries. More importantly, it is interesting to note the following three things: 1. How an empire declines with the decline of its military. 2. The military declines because the politicians became self-centered, greedy and prone to partisanship, 3. They became that way because they lost their moral code. A simplification, to be sure, but one that bears weight.
This book focuses primarily on the structure of the Roman army and the tactics used, but you can see how the political situation at the Capitol almost always had a direct effect on the efficiency and victory of the Roman army.
Anyways. Great read.
This book focuses primarily on the structure of the Roman army and the tactics used, but you can see how the political situation at the Capitol almost always had a direct effect on the efficiency and victory of the Roman army.
Anyways. Great read.
June 14, 2020
Interessante beknopte geschiedenis van de expansiedrang van het Romeinse Rijk.
Hoewel het boek soms nogal droog las, bleef het me toch boeien. Interessante samenvatting van de expansie van het Romeinse Rijk door de eeuwen heen. Gezien de vele termen en personages die de revue passeren dient je aandacht continu aanwezig te zijn. Desondanks moest ik sommige passages opnieuw lezen om mee te zijn met de gang van zaken.
Hoewel het boek soms nogal droog las, bleef het me toch boeien. Interessante samenvatting van de expansie van het Romeinse Rijk door de eeuwen heen. Gezien de vele termen en personages die de revue passeren dient je aandacht continu aanwezig te zijn. Desondanks moest ik sommige passages opnieuw lezen om mee te zijn met de gang van zaken.
April 9, 2024
I don’t know much about Roman history, always considered it daunting since people spend lifetimes learning it. This book was an awesome way to dip my toe in and gives additional some direction on good places to do more in depth reading. The author was careful to let the reader know when something is more theory than definitive and provides the evidence of why which I really appreciate.
August 22, 2024
A Static Formation
While I’m no expert, I’ve had a lifelong interest in the Roman Republic and the Western Empire. I picked up Roman Warfare seeking pedantic, technical writing that treads perilously close to a textbook. Instead, I discovered an accessible compilation of legion and legion-adjacent trivia. The first third describes how the maniples came to be, from ill-documented folklore stories of chieftains yelling at one another, to copying the Greek hoplite, until its Hannibal-resistant Punic War form. The legion is compared to the Hellenistic army, focusing on the triplex acies and how this composition created a natural reserve. Unfortunately, after the author arrives at a recognizable Roman army, he loses the plot.
Perhaps it’s a personal taste, but framing all history from a chronological perspective is limiting. Dividing subject matter by time is crude. Worse, it leads to inevitable storytelling. The author recounts tales of legion commanders, retreading ground covered in In the Name of Rome. Information about equipment, composition, and even the mission of the legion is split piecemeal across the remaining centuries. I ascertained the Emperor wanted to curtail the strength of possible contenders, resulting in a steady reduction in the legion’s size. But this is covered alongside the accidental defence-in-depth strategy of the late Empire and dramatic changes in their willingness to recruit Germanic ‘barbarians,’ so I’m not sure what the author intended!
By preserving his chronological narrative, the author never presents cause and effect. There are no theories for why the legion changed. Despite many chapters covering the Punic-era citizen militia and its inexhaustible reserves, the dilectus never comes up. We cover the linkage of war and politics through consulships, but running the census and the Emperor’s mobile court is a blind spot. We’re not covering novel subject matter. Our sources are Polybius and Livy. They’ve been around for two millennia! Perhaps I’m more familiar with the subject than I realized, but Roman Warfare awkwardly straddles two extremes. It commits to neither the broad approach nor deep analysis. It’s best suited to highly motivated but casual readers, and I’m not sure how many of those exist.
Recommended, with Reservations.
While I’m no expert, I’ve had a lifelong interest in the Roman Republic and the Western Empire. I picked up Roman Warfare seeking pedantic, technical writing that treads perilously close to a textbook. Instead, I discovered an accessible compilation of legion and legion-adjacent trivia. The first third describes how the maniples came to be, from ill-documented folklore stories of chieftains yelling at one another, to copying the Greek hoplite, until its Hannibal-resistant Punic War form. The legion is compared to the Hellenistic army, focusing on the triplex acies and how this composition created a natural reserve. Unfortunately, after the author arrives at a recognizable Roman army, he loses the plot.
Perhaps it’s a personal taste, but framing all history from a chronological perspective is limiting. Dividing subject matter by time is crude. Worse, it leads to inevitable storytelling. The author recounts tales of legion commanders, retreading ground covered in In the Name of Rome. Information about equipment, composition, and even the mission of the legion is split piecemeal across the remaining centuries. I ascertained the Emperor wanted to curtail the strength of possible contenders, resulting in a steady reduction in the legion’s size. But this is covered alongside the accidental defence-in-depth strategy of the late Empire and dramatic changes in their willingness to recruit Germanic ‘barbarians,’ so I’m not sure what the author intended!
By preserving his chronological narrative, the author never presents cause and effect. There are no theories for why the legion changed. Despite many chapters covering the Punic-era citizen militia and its inexhaustible reserves, the dilectus never comes up. We cover the linkage of war and politics through consulships, but running the census and the Emperor’s mobile court is a blind spot. We’re not covering novel subject matter. Our sources are Polybius and Livy. They’ve been around for two millennia! Perhaps I’m more familiar with the subject than I realized, but Roman Warfare awkwardly straddles two extremes. It commits to neither the broad approach nor deep analysis. It’s best suited to highly motivated but casual readers, and I’m not sure how many of those exist.
Recommended, with Reservations.
Read
November 8, 2023It felt like reading a brief essay on Roman warfare. Bits of pieces of trivia, not going too in depth with stuff. Left me wanting more. Not a bad book in itself, I think it did mention that its goal was to give an introduction to Roman warfare, and it did that well.
Next Goldsworthy read is Caesar.
Next Goldsworthy read is Caesar.
December 31, 2011
Well documented. Clear, concise with lots of photographs, drawings, maps of the battles. It's a comprehensive atlas not a traditional atlas. One of the very useful books, helpful in figuring out when and where I wanted my characters to have been. I'm still using it and will again next year.
September 29, 2023
I guess you could say I think about the Roman Empire a lot
October 14, 2025
Some interesting information, but a bit dull overall as it surveys the development of warfare from the Roman founding through the Republic and to the collapse of the Western Empire.
October 24, 2020
Not as much information about tactics etc as I had hoped
October 14, 2025
This book gives a good broad overview of the Roman militaristic system, from the inception as a small Italian city state all the way through the fall of the western empire and the remaining eastern empire. While a relatively short work (only ~200 pages of content) the book touches on each era of Roman warfare and the differences between previous times. Goldsworthy puts his view on how and why Rome grew, stabilized and ultimately, lost their vast conquests.
I would recommend this book to anyone looking to get a wide scope view of the command system, layout and structure of Roman armies throughout the 1,000+ year history of the incredible civilization.
All in all, this is an enjoyable and easy read, I would give this a true four stars.
I would recommend this book to anyone looking to get a wide scope view of the command system, layout and structure of Roman armies throughout the 1,000+ year history of the incredible civilization.
All in all, this is an enjoyable and easy read, I would give this a true four stars.
May 20, 2008
This review is a tiny bit premature, because I'm about 25 pages from finishing a complete read, but have skimmed the whole thing a couple times.
As a general history of Roman warfighting from the Republic to the end of the West (and a little beyond), it's adequate and interesting.
What I mean by that is that this is a scholarly work, but isn't intended to be read by scholars. It lacks footnotes or any other form of annotation, instead, reserving an appendix at the back of the book listing the primary sources used in each chapter. This, to me, the historian, is inconvenient, but not crippling. I still have direction with which to perform further research.
As a starting point for the casual historian though, this book is, like other books in the Smithsonian History of Warfare, an interesting and relatively quick read. The author is quite knowledgeable on the subject, and having the series editor of John Keegan, lends additional credibility to the history.
I found it pleasurable to read, filled with interesting points of view that I hadn't considered before, and has pointed me at a whole bunch more reading - with context to put it in.
If you read history, you could do far worse than purchase this book.
As a general history of Roman warfighting from the Republic to the end of the West (and a little beyond), it's adequate and interesting.
What I mean by that is that this is a scholarly work, but isn't intended to be read by scholars. It lacks footnotes or any other form of annotation, instead, reserving an appendix at the back of the book listing the primary sources used in each chapter. This, to me, the historian, is inconvenient, but not crippling. I still have direction with which to perform further research.
As a starting point for the casual historian though, this book is, like other books in the Smithsonian History of Warfare, an interesting and relatively quick read. The author is quite knowledgeable on the subject, and having the series editor of John Keegan, lends additional credibility to the history.
I found it pleasurable to read, filled with interesting points of view that I hadn't considered before, and has pointed me at a whole bunch more reading - with context to put it in.
If you read history, you could do far worse than purchase this book.
October 25, 2021
There is quite a heafty dissonance between the layout, graphics and the actual text.
The overall layout looks like some kind of easy to read popular science with plenty of maps, pictures and explanations. After some reading I realized that all those graphics had very little to do with what's written. The vast majority of all visual material is not even mentioned, let alone described in the text... Which kind of feels like the graphics has been shoehorned in just to make the whole layout look good. It's not that they are irrelevant in themselves. All of them ARE about the roman empire/ warfare, but they are simply separated from the text.
When it comes to the text, it's written in bone-dry, academic language, summarizing a whole thousand year period without going into dept with anything. It's neither academic (which I'm totally fine with), nor popular scientific (which I'm also totally fine with).
It's not a bad book. It's simply a book that doesn't know what it wants, picking the worst from all worlds. I believe that it would have been possible to keep the layout, visual material and write about exactly the same subjects, as long as the text would have been written differently. It can be done. Listen to Dan Carlin to see what I mean.
The overall layout looks like some kind of easy to read popular science with plenty of maps, pictures and explanations. After some reading I realized that all those graphics had very little to do with what's written. The vast majority of all visual material is not even mentioned, let alone described in the text... Which kind of feels like the graphics has been shoehorned in just to make the whole layout look good. It's not that they are irrelevant in themselves. All of them ARE about the roman empire/ warfare, but they are simply separated from the text.
When it comes to the text, it's written in bone-dry, academic language, summarizing a whole thousand year period without going into dept with anything. It's neither academic (which I'm totally fine with), nor popular scientific (which I'm also totally fine with).
It's not a bad book. It's simply a book that doesn't know what it wants, picking the worst from all worlds. I believe that it would have been possible to keep the layout, visual material and write about exactly the same subjects, as long as the text would have been written differently. It can be done. Listen to Dan Carlin to see what I mean.
February 26, 2017
An excellent macro level overview of the Roman military over the entire course of the Republic/Empire's existence. Given the length of time covered by the book - as well as the shorter length of the book itself - my main complaints are that not enough info was included and that the macro level strategic narrative would have benefited from more zooming in for micro level explanations of particular battles at certain points to highlight the case.
An excellent source for learning more about the Roman military with enough socio-political history included to give the reader important insight into how Rome's political system strengthened military positions and created the foundation for the longevity of success. Definitely worth the read for anyone interested in military history if slightly incomplete due to the massive amount of content and material that can/should be included in such a story.
An excellent source for learning more about the Roman military with enough socio-political history included to give the reader important insight into how Rome's political system strengthened military positions and created the foundation for the longevity of success. Definitely worth the read for anyone interested in military history if slightly incomplete due to the massive amount of content and material that can/should be included in such a story.
December 21, 2023
This was a good overview of Roman warfare -- major points for being concise (despite covering a huge range geographically and in time), clear and easy to understand without lots of required context, and yet still interesting if you're reasonably familiar with general Roman and military history. The biggest area of scholarship and value for someone with moderate knowledge of the romans is learning that many auxiliary forces were roughly comparable to mainline legions, and not dedicated light forces, and that the core legions were undersupplied of cavalry, despite cavalry becoming more and more useful on the battlefield with time.
December 9, 2024
I enjoyed this book a lot. I admit I saw the author so I took a read. The thing I liked about this book is its simplicity. It's better than most textbooks. I knew most of what was written in it as I'm just that nerd. The reason I'm giving it such a good review is it's value.
If you're going to start studying Roman Warfare, you should start with this book. What you can do it take any of the events it covers briefly, then look deeper into it. IE: The Punic Wars, The implementation of the Phalanx, Maniple, the Cohort systems then eventually the mobile Cavalry under Galleanus. I'm going to recommend it for this purpose.
If you're going to start studying Roman Warfare, you should start with this book. What you can do it take any of the events it covers briefly, then look deeper into it. IE: The Punic Wars, The implementation of the Phalanx, Maniple, the Cohort systems then eventually the mobile Cavalry under Galleanus. I'm going to recommend it for this purpose.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 30, 2015
Surprisingly, for what amounts to a lavishly illustrated coffee table book, this was pretty good. Although I've read a lot of Roman history I'd never read anything which actually outlined the changing structures, practices and roles of the Roman military--anything that I could understand in any case. This introductory text, however, did just that in a comprehensible manner. And while most of its illustrations were pretty space occupiers, some of them, particularly the maps and diagramatic representations of major battles, were actually illuminating.
May 17, 2019
A bit disappointed
I have read several books by Goldsworthy on Roman history, and have found them to be good popular (as opposed to academic) histories. Although well written, this book did not measure up to his others. The principal problem is that it feels superficial . Overly brief descriptions of campaigns are intermixed with equally short descriptions of tactics and organizations. There is never a feeling of depth of analysis for any of the topics raised.
I have read several books by Goldsworthy on Roman history, and have found them to be good popular (as opposed to academic) histories. Although well written, this book did not measure up to his others. The principal problem is that it feels superficial . Overly brief descriptions of campaigns are intermixed with equally short descriptions of tactics and organizations. There is never a feeling of depth of analysis for any of the topics raised.
November 9, 2022
Definitely a nice read. Very information dense, but still readable. Could've done with some better infographics. The individual battle ones are very nice. The maps are just way too busy
November 12, 2018
Nice job, with plenty of maps and pictures, explaining evolution of Roman army. I haven't read a lot of Roman history (I gave up 1/2 way through volume 4 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall) so am in no position to comment critically on content. But I enjoyed his weaving of the military tactics and structure with the political evolution of Rome, going from basically raiding expeditions lead by chiefs to the highly organized structure most of us think of. The Roman's habitual disdain for negotiation was something new to the ancient world and their implacable approach to rival states inevitably resulted in an expanding empire. He shows how military prowess became critically important for political advancement and how the growing empire made it impossible to rely strictly on family to lead the far flung legions. A professional army grew and successful commanders became dangerous. By then, most soldiers came from poorer families and signed up for 25 years of duty. However the Senate's refusal to provide for any sort of "retirement' system made them ever more dependent on their commanders to take care of them, increasing their loyalty to the individual commander, not the State.
It is an amazing story - when you consider that at its peak, the Empire, stretching from Britain to the Danube and east into Turkey and along the Black Sea, held sway over about 70 million people, but had only 30 formal legions (about 250,000 men). He is certainly an authority, getting into as much (or more) detail as one might wish, including such fascinating nuggets as the fact that since elephants could turn and run amok amongst their own troops, the mahout had a mallet and chisel to severe the spine if needed!
This book could be appreciated and enjoyed by anyone with an interest in history, political as well as military, and is not just for military history aficionados.
It is an amazing story - when you consider that at its peak, the Empire, stretching from Britain to the Danube and east into Turkey and along the Black Sea, held sway over about 70 million people, but had only 30 formal legions (about 250,000 men). He is certainly an authority, getting into as much (or more) detail as one might wish, including such fascinating nuggets as the fact that since elephants could turn and run amok amongst their own troops, the mahout had a mallet and chisel to severe the spine if needed!
This book could be appreciated and enjoyed by anyone with an interest in history, political as well as military, and is not just for military history aficionados.
May 14, 2021
The book by Adrian Goldsworthy presents a neat summary on Roman Warfare from the early Republic to the late Imperial age. The work is not intended to focus on any specific aspect of Roman military strategy, rather it provides a very succinct overview of this vast subject. The author nonetheless remarks some key factors in the development of Roman Military politics and contrast them with standard scholarly ideas. The importance of Romans approach to warfare and the evolution of Army's structure and deployment in response to political and military necessities are the main points that can be inferred from the book. Despite the conciseness the author supports these arguments with references to historical and archaeological sources. A nicely written essay to start a great adventure into Roman military history.
December 16, 2022
It's difficult to cover a period of fifty years of military history in just 200 pages, let alone a thousand, but Goldsworthy does a decent job of doing so. We go from the aristocratic warrior bands of pre-Republican Rome where he discusses the cultural forces driving their method of warfare all the way to the late Roman empire, where the realities of Rome's dwindling manpower changes the engagements that they seek out with their foes. He has some interesting insights into what actual hand to hand combat may have looked like, but overall, it feels as though most of the interesting parts of Roman warfare get glossed over. It's an adequate introduction to the subject, but feels incomplete.
February 8, 2022
This is a very broad book on vast subject. Given the fact that thicker books have been written about small parts of the topic this book can't go into much detail. It does provide a broad overview of the subject, touching on various parts such as weapons, tactics, political-military relationship, recruitment and pursuit of war (grand strategy). As such it's either a decent starting point for somebody looking to learn more about the topic or an OK overview for somebody with casual interest in it. There are other general overviews that are not as concise but this one isn't half bad.
Read
March 19, 2020As the Roman history, is a repeated history in the United States and America.
That's the British invasion. Remembering Claudis! He was elevated to The throne unexpectedly and launched the British invasion.
It was considered a political move since it was without the people or the senate.
The Roman army was converted under oath by the Julio-Claudian Emperor's of allegiance.
The Roman army was professional.
That's the British invasion. Remembering Claudis! He was elevated to The throne unexpectedly and launched the British invasion.
It was considered a political move since it was without the people or the senate.
The Roman army was converted under oath by the Julio-Claudian Emperor's of allegiance.
The Roman army was professional.
August 12, 2020
Jättebra bok om romarna och deras krigföring under romarrikets långa period. Lättläst och logiskt uppdelat. Bra bildmix och intressanta kartor över större slag och belägringar. Ger läslust att fördjupa sig i de större slagen men också karaktärerna runt dessa. Hittar massor med stoff till ytterligare läsning; Caesar, Hannibal, Nero, Caligula, Teutoburgerskogen, Hadrianus mur, puniska krigen osv, osv
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews