What do you think?
Rate this book
War and Society in Early Rome: From Warlords to Generals
This book combines the rich, but problematic, literary tradition for early Rome with the ever-growing archaeological record to present a new interpretation of early Roman warfare and how it related to the city's various social, political, religious, and economic institutions. Largely casting aside the anachronistic assumptions of late republican writers like Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, it instead examines the general modes of behaviour evidenced in both the literature and the archaeology for the period and attempts to reconstruct, based on these characteristics, the basic form of Roman society and then to 're-map' that on to the extant tradition. It will be important for scholars and students studying many aspects of Roman history and warfare, but particularly the history of the regal and republican periods.
332 pages, Hardcover
Published April 8, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 5, 2024
First my credentials: I have a Master Degree in History and have studied ancient Rome for decades, including primary sources.
Until relatively recently, historians of ancient Rome tended to view its ascension to empire as an inevitable, ordered, step-by-step process. This has never made sense to me since humans and human societies are never straightforward. I was pleased to see this approach changing as historians challenged the ancient writers' views of the past and as they began to incorporate findings from other fields.
Armstrong has continued this trend by showing that Rome's development was anything but pre-ordained, and that the ancient Romans experimented (figuratively speaking) with various forms of community. Armstrong shows that the area we call pre-historic Rome consisted of many different groups of people, generally centered around clans, as was common in pre-historic Europe and elsewhere. The clan leaders fought with each other in order to obtain portable wealth. As the same time, some groups settled in communities. Therefore mobile war bands and non-roving communities, one of which was Rome, existed at the same time. Eventually, the mobile clans became less dominant as settled communities thrived; therefore, they, too, settled in communities, with the new goal of attaining wealth and land for the community and not just for themselves. Thus, the need for a community based army evolved.
In addition, the "sack" of Rome in 390 BCE by the Gauls, left an indelible mark on the Roman psyche. Even though current archeological finds show that the sack did not result in total destruction, as some ancient authors stated, it was effective in showing the Romans how vulnerable they were.
These two developments spurred Rome to acquire more land as a buffer and as a manpower resource; thus, strengthening the Roman community and the military. The community needed the army for protection and wealth, and the army needed the community for manpower and material support. Also, lest we forget, it was very important to be seen as powerful in the ancient world for security and "bragging rights."
While Armstrong makes many valid points about ancient Roman warfare, in my mind the most significant one is that Roman warfare and Roman society developed as two sides of the same coin. One cannot analyze one without the other. Each had significant effects on the other, and in order to attempt an understanding of ancient Rome, one must examine the entire intertwined "organism." Nothing in human societies exists in a vacuum. To understand the Roman army through time, one must also analyze Roman society, other societies (friend and foe) interacting with Rome, changing climate, technological advances, and so much more. A daunting task to be sure, but only in this way can we hope to gain some understanding of who the ancient Romans were throughout their history.
Until relatively recently, historians of ancient Rome tended to view its ascension to empire as an inevitable, ordered, step-by-step process. This has never made sense to me since humans and human societies are never straightforward. I was pleased to see this approach changing as historians challenged the ancient writers' views of the past and as they began to incorporate findings from other fields.
Armstrong has continued this trend by showing that Rome's development was anything but pre-ordained, and that the ancient Romans experimented (figuratively speaking) with various forms of community. Armstrong shows that the area we call pre-historic Rome consisted of many different groups of people, generally centered around clans, as was common in pre-historic Europe and elsewhere. The clan leaders fought with each other in order to obtain portable wealth. As the same time, some groups settled in communities. Therefore mobile war bands and non-roving communities, one of which was Rome, existed at the same time. Eventually, the mobile clans became less dominant as settled communities thrived; therefore, they, too, settled in communities, with the new goal of attaining wealth and land for the community and not just for themselves. Thus, the need for a community based army evolved.
In addition, the "sack" of Rome in 390 BCE by the Gauls, left an indelible mark on the Roman psyche. Even though current archeological finds show that the sack did not result in total destruction, as some ancient authors stated, it was effective in showing the Romans how vulnerable they were.
These two developments spurred Rome to acquire more land as a buffer and as a manpower resource; thus, strengthening the Roman community and the military. The community needed the army for protection and wealth, and the army needed the community for manpower and material support. Also, lest we forget, it was very important to be seen as powerful in the ancient world for security and "bragging rights."
While Armstrong makes many valid points about ancient Roman warfare, in my mind the most significant one is that Roman warfare and Roman society developed as two sides of the same coin. One cannot analyze one without the other. Each had significant effects on the other, and in order to attempt an understanding of ancient Rome, one must examine the entire intertwined "organism." Nothing in human societies exists in a vacuum. To understand the Roman army through time, one must also analyze Roman society, other societies (friend and foe) interacting with Rome, changing climate, technological advances, and so much more. A daunting task to be sure, but only in this way can we hope to gain some understanding of who the ancient Romans were throughout their history.
April 28, 2026
War and Society in Early Rome does a great job in exploring the early Republic such that you can just about wrap your hand around the final days of the mythical Republic and the first day of Republican Rome. Ever wonder what exactly a Prateor does? What was the deal with military tribunes with consular power? Where did the Tribune of the Plebs come from? This book answers all those questions and more with plausible compelling answers.
April 8, 2023
Great book.
Covers Early Rome in different stages and goes through the society and military of each period and factors which changed over time.
Covers Early Rome in different stages and goes through the society and military of each period and factors which changed over time.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews