Any Book Recommendations for Sources on Roman Army Organization?

[Dangun]

Can anyone recommend a book that discusses sources for information on the organization of the Roman Army? I don't mind whether its focussed on a single period or multiple, but I prefer a more academic style with juicy footnotes.

Thanks in advance.

[Duncan Head]

There are probably hundreds of books that would fit the bill. No doubt I've forgotten some obvious ones, but the following are the titles that occur to me straight away:

The Republican Roman Army: A Sourcebook

The Army of the Roman Republic: The Second Century BC, Polybius and the Camps at Numantia, Spain

The Imperial Roman Army

The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army

Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army

[Imperial Dave]

The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy is another

[valentinianvictor]

This might be of interest- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Companion-Roman-Blackwell-Companions-Ancient/dp/1444339214/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423760598&sr=1-14&keywords=twilight+of+empire

And I highly recommend this one-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twilight-empire-Diocletian-Adrianople-archaeology/dp/9050634486/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1423760701&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=twilight+of+empire+nicasie

However Nicasie's book is very hard to find now.

[Chuck the Grey]

I've always found that The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. by Graham Webster to be an excellent introduction and resource for the Roman Army during the Early Empire. You should be able to find a paperback copy of the third, and unfortunately final edition, on Amazon for a reasonable price.

[Dangun]

Thank you all for the suggestions.

I think I'll start with the Republican Army Source Book. Got to love those source books.

But it makes me sad, how many of the titles are so difficult to get.
In this day and age, to allow books and journals to go "out of print" is a huge failure of imagination (for the author/publisher), and a waste of human endeavour.
Especially for short run specialty titles which will otherwise struggle for distribution.

[Rob Miles]

Vegetius seems an obvious source (contemporary army 'manual' type thing), but which translation is best for a 'pleb' who flunked Latin?

[Patrick Waterson]

Not 100% sure about 'best' but 'good enough and readily available online' would apply to Lt John Clarke's translation, which still reads surprisingly well for something done in 1767.

Anyone wishing to look at the original, or at least the current, Latin can find it here. Liber I is a link to Book 1; Liber II to Book 2, etc.

[Duncan Head]

Vegetius seems an obvious source (contemporary army 'manual' type thing), but which translation is best for a 'pleb' who flunked Latin?

I'd go for Milner myself.

But unit organization is one of the dodgier aspects of Vegetius - for instance his strengths for legionary cohorts are strange to say the least, and if they are correct they are probably not contemporary - so he must be used with caution.

[Patrick Waterson]

Yes, Duncan  is right: Milner (if your library can get him or you do not mind parting with a bit of cash) is superior.

Vegetius' unit strengths are strange: my working hypothesis is that his 555-man cohorts are standard 480-man cohorts with some on-campaign replacements (extra troops waiting to fill gaps) - while there is no direct evidence to support this, it would help to explain why legions apparently managed to turn up on the battlefield with exact 'book' strengths despite all the ills that flesh is heir to.

Much of Vegetius' writing involves harking back to the 'ancient legion', which seems to be based on a Middle Imperial legion around 6,000 strong with a few elements of the Republican legion thrown in - unless Middle Imperial legions really had supernumerary triarii.  His actual time of writing seems to be late 4th century AD - he dedicates his book(s) to a Theodosius or Valentinian and makes mention of the death of Gratian (AD 383).  Best guess would probably put publication in the reign of Theodosius I (AD 379-395), when legions were diminutive things and

"the inclination so prevalent among the better sort in preferring the civil posts of the government to the profession of arms"

was leaving an increasing share of officering to barbarians by default.

[Rob Miles]

Yes, Duncan  is right: Milner (if your library can get him or you do not mind parting with a bit of cash) is superior.

Best guess would probably put publication in the reign of Theodosius I (AD 379-395), when legions were diminutive things and

"the inclination so prevalent among the better sort in preferring the civil posts of the government to the profession of arms"

was leaving an increasing share of officering to barbarians by default.

Thanks-- got the Milner on order now.

It's interesting that the Roman 'error' in passing the defence of the state to those with the least interest in maintaining it was what did for the Byzantine Roman empire many centuries later-- you read the commentaries of the times and wonder how the higher classes could allow the very structures that supported them to collapse purely for the sake of their own narrow and short-term interests-- and then you look at the numpties who run our own countries!

[aligern]

Hadn't responsibility for defence been passed to thse with the least interest in the state already by Caesar's day? rome moved to a professional army and it did well until the economy declined to the point where it could not eject invaders. At that point the spiral of decline accelerated until Rome was losing tax revenue at a rate which precluded restoring the situation.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I think it is more that as Vegetius points out the army had declined to the point where it could no longer evict invaders without help from other invaders; this seems to have been less a matter of decline in overall size than a diminution in quality resulting from rival emperors assigning first priority to harassing rather than defeating their rivals and partly destroying army, economy and empire alike in the process - Honorius and Arcadius being stellar performers in this game of mutually assured destruction.

It's interesting that the Roman 'error' in passing the defence of the state to those with the least interest in maintaining it was what did for the Byzantine Roman empire many centuries later-- you read the commentaries of the times and wonder how the higher classes could allow the very structures that supported them to collapse purely for the sake of their own narrow and short-term interests-- and then you look at the numpties who run our own countries!

It seems to me that one of the more serious deficiencies leading to precisely this kind of situation was the division into civil and military powers - and in the case of the later Roman and the Byzantine empires the additional existence of a separate layer or authority, or hindrance, in the form of Christianity.  (This is not intended as a comment on Christianity itself, rather on the way it was temporally structured in the Empire.)  More recently, and I do not propose to get into a discussion about this, certain political fashions have taken the place of a state religion as 'sacred cows' limiting the freedom of action of those in charge, but the parallel does seem to be uncomfortably close.

[Dangun]

Hadn't responsibility for defence been passed to thse with the least interest in the state already by Caesar's day? rome moved to a professional army and it did well until the economy declined to the point where it could not eject invaders. 

I'd agree that the economics of the situation is a more powerful explation of the situation than the genetic profile of the officer class.

[Erpingham]

I'd agree that the economics of the situation is a more powerful explation of the situation than the genetic profile of the officer class.

Not disagreeing with the economic emphasis but in many societies in our period, the skills and abilities needed to run a state were locked up much more in a narrow group than we are used to today.  The opting-out of that class, therefore, had non-trivial consequences.  Anyway, I'm sure we discussed the Fall of the Roman Empire in another place, so I mustn't distract us from recommending books on the military aspects of it.