What do you think?
Rate this book
Historia Armii Rzymskiej 753 przed Chr. – 476 po Chr.
„Potężna ilość informacji, czytelnie poukładana i przystępnie napisana”.
„Wszechstronna i przystępnie napisana książka historyczna”. – BRITISH MUSEUM MAGAZINE
„Każdy, kto choć odrobinę interesuje się przeszłością, może mieć trudności z odłożeniem tej książki”. – MINERVA
„Naukowa, lecz przystępna”. – DR PETER JONES
Armia rzymska dzierżyła palmę pierwszeństwa przez ponad 1000 lat. Od Brytanii po Syrię i od Renu oraz Dunaju po Afrykę Północną znajdujemy liczne dowody działalności legionistów i żołnierzy wojsk pomocniczych. Po pokonaniu Antoniusza i Kleopatry w roku 30 przed Chr., August przekształcił wojska republikańskie w pierwszą całkowicie stałą armię, w której szeregi rekrutowano mężczyzn z całego rzymskiego świata. Około ćwierć miliona żołnierzy chroniło granice i pilnowało porządku w Imperium, ostatecznie opierając się na liniach pogranicznych, takich jak Wał Hadriana. Książka ta obejmuje swym zakresem kompletną historię armii rzymskiej, poczynając od 753 r. przed Chr., a kończąc na roku 476, opisując zarówno zwycięstwa, jak i porażki w walkach przeciwko wrogom Rzymu, takim jak Galowie, Kartagińczycy, Goci i Persowie. Życie rzymskiego żołnierza nie sprowadzało się tylko do toczenia bitew. Tak szeregowi, jak i centurionowie oraz starsi oficerowie pozostawili po sobie mnóstwo różnych dokumentów, z których wiele użyto w tej książce, aby zrekonstruować życie codzienne i walkę z ich perspektywy.
„Wszechstronna i przystępnie napisana książka historyczna”. – BRITISH MUSEUM MAGAZINE
„Każdy, kto choć odrobinę interesuje się przeszłością, może mieć trudności z odłożeniem tej książki”. – MINERVA
„Naukowa, lecz przystępna”. – DR PETER JONES
Armia rzymska dzierżyła palmę pierwszeństwa przez ponad 1000 lat. Od Brytanii po Syrię i od Renu oraz Dunaju po Afrykę Północną znajdujemy liczne dowody działalności legionistów i żołnierzy wojsk pomocniczych. Po pokonaniu Antoniusza i Kleopatry w roku 30 przed Chr., August przekształcił wojska republikańskie w pierwszą całkowicie stałą armię, w której szeregi rekrutowano mężczyzn z całego rzymskiego świata. Około ćwierć miliona żołnierzy chroniło granice i pilnowało porządku w Imperium, ostatecznie opierając się na liniach pogranicznych, takich jak Wał Hadriana. Książka ta obejmuje swym zakresem kompletną historię armii rzymskiej, poczynając od 753 r. przed Chr., a kończąc na roku 476, opisując zarówno zwycięstwa, jak i porażki w walkach przeciwko wrogom Rzymu, takim jak Galowie, Kartagińczycy, Goci i Persowie. Życie rzymskiego żołnierza nie sprowadzało się tylko do toczenia bitew. Tak szeregowi, jak i centurionowie oraz starsi oficerowie pozostawili po sobie mnóstwo różnych dokumentów, z których wiele użyto w tej książce, aby zrekonstruować życie codzienne i walkę z ich perspektywy.
766 pages, Hardcover
First published October 19, 2014
6 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 2, 2015
This is an estimable work. The author has produced an encyclopedic coverage of the Roman army for over a thousand year period. Think about that. A society that lasted--and prospered during much of that time--over one thousand years. The book begins with the author, Patricia Southern, saying (Page 11): "The Roman army endured over a thousand years, through the era of the kings, the Republic, and the Empire, and survived in much altered form in the Byzantine east."
The book is divided into three parts--the Roman Army under the kings and the Republic (753 BC to 30 BC), the Imperial Roman army from 30 BC to 260 AD, and then the Army of the late Empire (third to fifth century). With so much time to cover, the book does not go into great depth at any point in time--but covers much information over a long period of time. Among issues discussed for the different eras: the soldiers, the weapons, the tactics, the leadership structure, the politics of the time, fortifications, transportation, and so on. One would have wished for better maps overall (e.g., those on pages 5-10 are not very illuminating).
There are a number of themes that emerge: the efforts by Rome to bring other peoples into the hegemony of the society as it existed at particular points in time. Citizenship was extended to many different peoples. Also, the Romans looked to integrate "conquered" people into the army as they accepted Roman rule. The efforts by Rome to maintain its frontiers (e.g., along the Danube or the Rhine or in the East) is a recurring theme, too.
We see, in the sweep of the centuries, the instabilities that often occurred. In the later years of the Empire, it is almost impossible to keep track of Emperors and their accomplishments as they were assassinated with monotonous regularity. In the Republican ere, too, there was instability as intrigues often led to the death of a dominating figure (e.g., Julius Caesar).
In the final analysis, a book well worth reading through if one wants to get a sense of the Roman military over more than a millennium.
The book is divided into three parts--the Roman Army under the kings and the Republic (753 BC to 30 BC), the Imperial Roman army from 30 BC to 260 AD, and then the Army of the late Empire (third to fifth century). With so much time to cover, the book does not go into great depth at any point in time--but covers much information over a long period of time. Among issues discussed for the different eras: the soldiers, the weapons, the tactics, the leadership structure, the politics of the time, fortifications, transportation, and so on. One would have wished for better maps overall (e.g., those on pages 5-10 are not very illuminating).
There are a number of themes that emerge: the efforts by Rome to bring other peoples into the hegemony of the society as it existed at particular points in time. Citizenship was extended to many different peoples. Also, the Romans looked to integrate "conquered" people into the army as they accepted Roman rule. The efforts by Rome to maintain its frontiers (e.g., along the Danube or the Rhine or in the East) is a recurring theme, too.
We see, in the sweep of the centuries, the instabilities that often occurred. In the later years of the Empire, it is almost impossible to keep track of Emperors and their accomplishments as they were assassinated with monotonous regularity. In the Republican ere, too, there was instability as intrigues often led to the death of a dominating figure (e.g., Julius Caesar).
In the final analysis, a book well worth reading through if one wants to get a sense of the Roman military over more than a millennium.
October 31, 2020
While I have a couple of criticisms of this work, it really must be given five stars. This gathers the fruits of enormous research, and presents it in an orderly, logical fashion. I very much like Southern's willingness to state what the limits of our knowledge are, and to discuss why certain centuries are better understood than others. She tries to be clear about extrapolations from one part of the Empire to another, and the like.
The book is divided, like Gaul, into three main parts, similarly structured. First there's "The Army of the Kings and the Republic," then "The Imperial Roman Army" and "The Army of the Late Empire." She divides the last two at 260 A.D..
In each era she examines who is going into the armies, and who is officering them (which changes significantly over time), and what their normal lengths of service would be. Changes in armor and weaponry are discussed, and the campaign history of the armies are heavily covered. It does not tend to give detailed accounts of specific battles, though key parts are included. Sources of funding are frequently mentioned.
Camps, fortresses, frontiers, civilian attachments, sieges and siege weapons, other artillery, cavalry, they're all in here. Tactics, not very much.
I have read quite a lot of Roman history, read many of the original texts (including the military manuals), and been to many museums. I had worried that I would be bored. This was a slowish read for me, but I learned a good deal, and was not bored. I suggest getting it, and parking it on the shelf between your Polybius and your Vegetius.
One throwaway line amused me:
...Several of the legionary bases were occupied for many years, not necessarily by that same legions, but once they had been established the sites were usually maintained until the troublesome times of the late Empire, because they were usually strategically placed at nodes of communication. It can be an interesting exercise to compare maps of legionary bases and large auxiliary forts with modern maps of main railway stations.
And I realized from my travels that this indeed might be the case. I tried it in a few instances, and it is, indeed, an interesting exercise.
Yes, like most histories these days, it could have used better maps. It has good ones, but they mostly aren't keyed to the actual text. So we get maps that show only half the place names that come up in the relevant text. Annoying.
Also, there were several instances of weak description when the Army went to sea (there wasn't really a Roman Navy, just the Army on warships) that led me to believe Southern is only partially familiar with naval warfare. Most strikingly, this sentence: "The smaller ships, especially the triremes and biremes, were faster and more manoeuvrable, and began to predominate in the fleets."
Um, no. As a rule, the basis for speed in rowed warships is the number of oarsmen you have per foot of length (it's the horsepower equivalent), so the bigger the "number" of the ship, the faster. Biremes were faster than monoremes. Triremes faster than biremes. Fours and fives faster than triremes. Because the galleys weren't deeply keeled, we suspect that the bigger ships could also be spun quite handily (one side rowing forward, the other side the reverse), so the maneuverability issue is not clear. (The Greek Navy built a trireme, Olympias, and it's our only reliable datapoint for ancient galleys. The fundamental revelation was that the Classic texts on how fast these things could go were obviously accurate; despite centuries of modern skepticism.) [The exception to the bigger-is-faster rule was the monoreme and bireme liburnians, that were especially shallow and thin-hulled -- sort of the racing sculls of warships.]
She does not mention the obvious reason for the loss of all the larger sizes of galley in the Roman fleets, after the Empire was established: there were no enemy fleets to fight, so absolutely no need for capital ships of that size.
The book is divided, like Gaul, into three main parts, similarly structured. First there's "The Army of the Kings and the Republic," then "The Imperial Roman Army" and "The Army of the Late Empire." She divides the last two at 260 A.D..
In each era she examines who is going into the armies, and who is officering them (which changes significantly over time), and what their normal lengths of service would be. Changes in armor and weaponry are discussed, and the campaign history of the armies are heavily covered. It does not tend to give detailed accounts of specific battles, though key parts are included. Sources of funding are frequently mentioned.
Camps, fortresses, frontiers, civilian attachments, sieges and siege weapons, other artillery, cavalry, they're all in here. Tactics, not very much.
I have read quite a lot of Roman history, read many of the original texts (including the military manuals), and been to many museums. I had worried that I would be bored. This was a slowish read for me, but I learned a good deal, and was not bored. I suggest getting it, and parking it on the shelf between your Polybius and your Vegetius.
One throwaway line amused me:
...Several of the legionary bases were occupied for many years, not necessarily by that same legions, but once they had been established the sites were usually maintained until the troublesome times of the late Empire, because they were usually strategically placed at nodes of communication. It can be an interesting exercise to compare maps of legionary bases and large auxiliary forts with modern maps of main railway stations.
And I realized from my travels that this indeed might be the case. I tried it in a few instances, and it is, indeed, an interesting exercise.
Yes, like most histories these days, it could have used better maps. It has good ones, but they mostly aren't keyed to the actual text. So we get maps that show only half the place names that come up in the relevant text. Annoying.
Also, there were several instances of weak description when the Army went to sea (there wasn't really a Roman Navy, just the Army on warships) that led me to believe Southern is only partially familiar with naval warfare. Most strikingly, this sentence: "The smaller ships, especially the triremes and biremes, were faster and more manoeuvrable, and began to predominate in the fleets."
Um, no. As a rule, the basis for speed in rowed warships is the number of oarsmen you have per foot of length (it's the horsepower equivalent), so the bigger the "number" of the ship, the faster. Biremes were faster than monoremes. Triremes faster than biremes. Fours and fives faster than triremes. Because the galleys weren't deeply keeled, we suspect that the bigger ships could also be spun quite handily (one side rowing forward, the other side the reverse), so the maneuverability issue is not clear. (The Greek Navy built a trireme, Olympias, and it's our only reliable datapoint for ancient galleys. The fundamental revelation was that the Classic texts on how fast these things could go were obviously accurate; despite centuries of modern skepticism.) [The exception to the bigger-is-faster rule was the monoreme and bireme liburnians, that were especially shallow and thin-hulled -- sort of the racing sculls of warships.]
She does not mention the obvious reason for the loss of all the larger sizes of galley in the Roman fleets, after the Empire was established: there were no enemy fleets to fight, so absolutely no need for capital ships of that size.
February 26, 2020
Patricia Southern gives a lot of details as well as a general historical overview of the Roman army in this book. As a result, she satisfies the appetites of Roman history buffs wanting a scholarly breakdown of the republican-turned-imperial army and those simply wanting a broader understanding of the army's evolution.
Before going further, I should point out that I didn't read the whole book but only "Part III: The Army of the Late Empire", pages 429 to 511 (the hardcover edition, published in 2014). My main area of interest is the evolution of the empire from the Principate system to the Dominate, and I was hoping that this book would shed some light on questions I had about that.
Overall I find Southern too categorical about certain events in Roman history, such as whether a field army was created under Gallienus. Also, she likes to "preach" her liberal/SJW viewpoint in her works: the German tribesmen were not barbarians; there was really no third century crisis; in the fifth century, the Roman empire simply transformed and was not conquered by the German tribesmen; and the Christian-loving Constantine was a really, really bad man! (The last point is from another book, but it speaks to what you're going to find in any Southern work, as far as my experience goes.)
That said, I appreciate her research. Each section opens with an historical overview of the period being addressed, followed by more intricate details. I like that since a good understanding of imperial history helps one better appreciate why the army evolved like it did. I also like the areas she examines: the push towards a separate cavalry force under Gallienus and how this possibly moved future emperors to rely more heavily on such forces; the further professionalization of the army from Gallienus onward, which leads to the marginalization of senators when it comes to military commands; the re-fortification of the empire's frontiers under Probus; etc. Also, I appreciate her explanations about how the army's system actually worked: from the different types of frontier and field army troops, officers, how they got paid, etc. Again, if you want in-depth research to help you have a deeper understanding of the empire, this book fits the bill and it's actually still fun to read.
Perhaps I should give the book four stars, but Southern's "preaching" of her liberal ideology is just too much and it's actually anti-historical since it replaces objective analysis with a perspective skewed by liberal ideology/religion. Also, she makes a few mistakes in this book, such as when she says every tetrarch had his own Praetorian Prefect. (I believe only the Augusti had such prefects and not the Caesars.) Another thing missing from the book is any analysis of the influence of Illyrians in the army from the reigns of Gallienus to that of Constantine. This is a huge oversight on her part. And, I don't think she gives enough credence to the possibility that the cavalry force under Gallienus was a form of mobile field army later used by Constantine. (She becomes very categorical in arguing that no such field army exists until the time of Constantine.) However, she does give the reasons why older historians used to believe that Gallienus created the field armies.
I love Southern's research on Roman fortifications and I would recommend you to spend more time examining the many drawings of the forts in that section since the best way to learn about such forts is via visuals and not various paragraphs. Lastly, at times it felt as if Southern was rushing through the history of Rome. I guess this is understandable since she is trying to cover over a thousand years of history, making this more like an encyclopedia rather than an in-depth historical work. As a result, the reader can be left wanting if he is hoping to find specific analysis: like on the influence of Illyrians in the late Roman empire. ;)
Fun fact, much of what she writes in "Part III" of the book can be found in her other work, The Roman Empire: from Severus to Constantine.
Before going further, I should point out that I didn't read the whole book but only "Part III: The Army of the Late Empire", pages 429 to 511 (the hardcover edition, published in 2014). My main area of interest is the evolution of the empire from the Principate system to the Dominate, and I was hoping that this book would shed some light on questions I had about that.
Overall I find Southern too categorical about certain events in Roman history, such as whether a field army was created under Gallienus. Also, she likes to "preach" her liberal/SJW viewpoint in her works: the German tribesmen were not barbarians; there was really no third century crisis; in the fifth century, the Roman empire simply transformed and was not conquered by the German tribesmen; and the Christian-loving Constantine was a really, really bad man! (The last point is from another book, but it speaks to what you're going to find in any Southern work, as far as my experience goes.)
That said, I appreciate her research. Each section opens with an historical overview of the period being addressed, followed by more intricate details. I like that since a good understanding of imperial history helps one better appreciate why the army evolved like it did. I also like the areas she examines: the push towards a separate cavalry force under Gallienus and how this possibly moved future emperors to rely more heavily on such forces; the further professionalization of the army from Gallienus onward, which leads to the marginalization of senators when it comes to military commands; the re-fortification of the empire's frontiers under Probus; etc. Also, I appreciate her explanations about how the army's system actually worked: from the different types of frontier and field army troops, officers, how they got paid, etc. Again, if you want in-depth research to help you have a deeper understanding of the empire, this book fits the bill and it's actually still fun to read.
Perhaps I should give the book four stars, but Southern's "preaching" of her liberal ideology is just too much and it's actually anti-historical since it replaces objective analysis with a perspective skewed by liberal ideology/religion. Also, she makes a few mistakes in this book, such as when she says every tetrarch had his own Praetorian Prefect. (I believe only the Augusti had such prefects and not the Caesars.) Another thing missing from the book is any analysis of the influence of Illyrians in the army from the reigns of Gallienus to that of Constantine. This is a huge oversight on her part. And, I don't think she gives enough credence to the possibility that the cavalry force under Gallienus was a form of mobile field army later used by Constantine. (She becomes very categorical in arguing that no such field army exists until the time of Constantine.) However, she does give the reasons why older historians used to believe that Gallienus created the field armies.
I love Southern's research on Roman fortifications and I would recommend you to spend more time examining the many drawings of the forts in that section since the best way to learn about such forts is via visuals and not various paragraphs. Lastly, at times it felt as if Southern was rushing through the history of Rome. I guess this is understandable since she is trying to cover over a thousand years of history, making this more like an encyclopedia rather than an in-depth historical work. As a result, the reader can be left wanting if he is hoping to find specific analysis: like on the influence of Illyrians in the late Roman empire. ;)
Fun fact, much of what she writes in "Part III" of the book can be found in her other work, The Roman Empire: from Severus to Constantine.
July 9, 2018
A thorough look at the development of the Roman army from Republican to Late Empire days, discussing army organisation and structure, daily life, fortifications, and equipment - all cast within the context of the current political situation of the time. The changes to the army were not simply discussed in turn, but were explained (or at least justified) by considering the dynamic issues faced by the Romans as a whole. This gives the book depth - it deals with a great deal more than the Roman army.
Southern's treatment stresses the contentiousness of opinion of the state of the army & related details, due to the scarcity of evidence and biases inherent in written sources. This work is well-researched and clear; the reason for 4 rather than 5 stars is due to the repetitive nature of some of the text. Because each section starts with a historical overview, some of the information is repeated in later chapters, essentially word for word. Sometimes facts or ideas are discussed several times, which while useful for recall, makes the book feel unnecessarily long in parts. In addition, there are some errors: typographical ones which would not be picked up by a spellchecker (such as word omission), and occasionally factual (such as mixing up of Constantine II and Constantius II... easily done!). However, I think this is just human error; there is no doubt that Southern has a rigourous understanding of her subject matter, which clearly comes across in this comprehensive book.
Overall, this book offers a great deal of insight into the Roman army, and how and why it evolved throughout its existence.
Southern's treatment stresses the contentiousness of opinion of the state of the army & related details, due to the scarcity of evidence and biases inherent in written sources. This work is well-researched and clear; the reason for 4 rather than 5 stars is due to the repetitive nature of some of the text. Because each section starts with a historical overview, some of the information is repeated in later chapters, essentially word for word. Sometimes facts or ideas are discussed several times, which while useful for recall, makes the book feel unnecessarily long in parts. In addition, there are some errors: typographical ones which would not be picked up by a spellchecker (such as word omission), and occasionally factual (such as mixing up of Constantine II and Constantius II... easily done!). However, I think this is just human error; there is no doubt that Southern has a rigourous understanding of her subject matter, which clearly comes across in this comprehensive book.
Overall, this book offers a great deal of insight into the Roman army, and how and why it evolved throughout its existence.
February 21, 2019
I loved this book it covers 1000 years of Roman history and if there was only one book I was going to read on the Roman world this would be it, I like the fact it covers so many different aspects of Roman life and the Army it really inspires the reader to learn more about this fascinating period of human history.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 13, 2018
Extremely detailed and well organized.
Read
July 28, 2023Exhaustive.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews