The Roman Army: A History 753BC-AD476

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 throuhg if one wants to get a sense of the Roman military over more than a millennium.

An excellent review of the Roman military and its influence from and with Roman political history. Use of story-line repetitiveness only reinforces the dates, and people of those events. The author is clear and concise in regards to historical speculation by her own words and what history can and cannot tell us. I suspect in but a short duration, my hardback well show the constant referencing that this fine written work surely has earned.The author, while providing excellent detail and analysis, makes the entire work easy to read and comprehend. As I came across the calvary section for the; Auxiliary Calvary "Alae", I had no idea that I would not want to just get through it, but found myself re-reading what I had just read as the author, again, with words informs the reader of a good telling of the historical events; just the discussion on the allies was fascinating, needless to say as is the remainder of this excellent, 5 Star book!

This lofty title was on my reading list for a while. I wrestled between waiting on a Kindle edition. The Kindle edition never happened. I bought the hard back.First, the really bad news … the publishing. It’s illegible. Font and page format protocols are forgone to fit the story into the target pages. Illustrations are few. Context critical maps absent. Photographs old. The book is not really marketable. I would reject the book at a bookstore.But, what’s said in the fine print is what matters and you’ll need stamina and magnification, it’s a voluminous superficial rehash mashup. Will Durant’s Story of Civilization Part II & III is as mostly current and more compelling than this. Here are the same old sources more only more muted. The reader can sense the author’s fear of any academic criticism. The book has no zip, no soul.I wish I could report 5-stars actually. But, one has to be able to read the book which is simply not possible in this published edition .

Excellent volume. Very information dense, so don't expect to rip through it. First class research. My only complaint is the outdated use of "BC/AD"-which is no longer used in professional academic circles due to it's (unproven) religious assumptions. BCE/CE (before current era/ current era being the preferred temporal designations.) The event dividing the two being the fall of Jerusalem 70-73- the well documented uncontested point of historical reference .

This books coveres the roman liegons from start to finish, Every aspect I could think of from food to leave policy is discussed. Also formation and weapons is covered in great detail. On particular portion I liked was the enfluence of each roman empirer had on its army, that is saying what the good empirers did to improve the army against its enemies.

I love ancient history and I really enjoyed this book.

If you are a student of the Roman Army or of armies in general you will not be disappointed. An excellent comprehensive book on the Roman military

wordy, interesting but repetitive with details, not easy reading

As advertised and arrived on time.

For someone looking for a comprehensive, affordable and up to date reference on the Roman Army over some twelve centuries, this is probably your best bet. However, it is not perfect.First of all, the book’s coverage seemed (to me at least) to be pretty comprehensive and covers all aspects including logistics, sieges, organisation command and so on, all within slightly over 500 pages of text. To this is added a bunch of maps, a chronology of main events, a glossary and a basic bibliography including most if not all of the main references on each period and theme, all of which are very conveniently listed by chapter and theme.A second advantage is its affordability. To my knowledge at least, there is no other book offering such coverage of the Roman Army throughout its history within a similar price range. A third advantage is that many of the sections are good summaries of the main points and issues, with the author carefully presenting what is really known as opposed to the various assumptions that are taken for granted because they have been repeated time and again over decades.There are however also limitations. The book could have done with some better editing and presenting. The paragraphs are dense. There are multiple repetitions and this is simply not a book that you are going to spend an afternoon reading on the couch! There also seem to be a few mistakes that could have been avoided. If I remember correctly, it is at the battle of Illipa that Scipio (soon to be Africanus) used the unorthodox strategy to post his Roman legions on the wings and his allied troops in the centre, and NOT at Zama. There are a few other similar “glitches.” Regarding substance, the contents read at times like a compilation, with bits and pieces summarised from the main references on each subject, including some of the author’s books.More seriously perhaps, these contents are uneven. The sections on early Rome and on the Republic are acceptable, although they often largely paraphrase and summarise other titles (such as Keppie’s “Making of the Roman Army”). The bits on the Principate are good. Those on the third century, and on Roman fortifications throughout the period are probably the best sections, but others are average or even poor. There is, for instance, very little on the Roman Navy. The pieces on the Dominate from Diocletian to Constantine included are rather average, although all the main points are made. However, the next sections, and those on the second half of the Fourth century, the Fifth century and the demise of the Roman Army in particular, are rather disappointing.Here again, a number of excellent points are made, such as the choice to increasingly recruit Barbarians, the lack of time to train and integrate them and the decline in discipline. However, other points are not as clearly made. It would, for instance, have been worthwhile discussing and explaining more why recruitment became such a problem during this period although it had not been before. Another missing point is a discussion of the Roman Army’s performances after the death of Theodosius.A third problem is a tendency to oversimplify. Stilicho, for instance, was not only “a Vandal”. He was half-Roman and had been thoroughly Romanised, like dozens of senior officers and thousands of soldiers. Moreover, “Barbarians” - a term whose meaning became increasingly blurred overtime – did not monopolise the highest military positions neither in the West not in the East. I seem to remember that, according to statistics brought together by Mc Mullen, they occupied between a quarter and a third of the senior commands. Contrary to what the author suggests, the armies of Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius, and some of their successors (Majorian or Anthemius in particular) were not entirely or even perhaps mostly made up of barbarians.Overall, and despite the limitations listed above, this is probably just about worth four stars (three stars would be too harsh in my view). It is not perfect, but it is the most up to date title. It also covers the whole period, and it is the most affordable in doing so.

This is a rather long book which covers the Roman army from the early days of Rome to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Taken as a whole, the book is successful in rising to the major challenge of describing an institution which existed for over a millennium.The three sections are essentially pre-Augustan, Principate and Dominate, i.e. monarchy and republican period, 1st to mid-3rd C AD and mid-3rd to late 5th C AD. The author has published a number of works on the Roman Army before as well as a number of biographies and narrative histories covering the "3rd Century Crisis", Roman Britain and a general history of Roman covering the same period as this book, so she draws on years of accumulated knowledge. She is not afraid to say where evidence is lacking and where there is controversy or uncertainty. Her prose style is readable and the 500+ pages of main text flow well in the main.Most of the text is devoted to the army of the Principate, where the evidence is best and comprises historical, epigraphical and archaeological. Less space is given to the army of the Dominate, where the historical evidence is less good, the "epigraphical habit" declined and the archaeological evidence for the mobile armies is inherently less substantial as they, by definition, lacked the long term bases of the legions and auxilia of the 1st and 2nd C AD. The approach in both these sections is thematic, taking an institutional approach ("Legions", "Auxiliary Cavalry", "Forts, Fortresses & Camps", "Frontiers" etc). Both of these sections begin with an historical summary.Why 4 and not 5 stars?The slightly less satisfactory part from my perspective was the first, "Kings & Republic". This starts with the normal historical summary, but much of this first part seemed to comprise detailed narrative. The "institutional" approach is more difficult for this period due to lack of information, and indeed because the army did not exist as a standing institution, so lacked the physical installations and long-lived units of the Imperial army. I felt that the chronological narrative could have been cut down, and it would have been worth devoting more space to the numbers an locations of legions in service in the style of Keppie's approach in "The Making of the Roman Army". It might also have been worth looking at the network of Roman colonies in terms of numbers and sites, which were in a sense the equivalent of the military bases of the imperial period.Overall, though, a highly worthwhile and good value contribution from an author with a sound, broad and comprehensive knowledge of the subject.

Incredible slow reading. The author spends way too much time on politicians, generals and vague references to battles won and lost and not enough time on the actual Roman army.

Great