Everyone here seems to glorify the empire and the western roman era, but wouldn't you say that it was at its healthiest ( economic stability, military capability and not being stretched too thin ) during the late republic era? Was it dying ever since Caesars death? It seems to me it was downhill after the republic, and during the empires time the senate was almost irrelevant, more of a congress to the president relationship. Why doesn't everyone on /his/ who glorifies Rome glorify the republic specifically? Religious pressure was low, rebellion wasn't always around the corner, they could handle rebels and the armies were mostly comprised of Romans.
Give me your opinion /his/torians
>>>>>>>>>BONUS ROUND
looking at the western roman empires army not using the scutum or the segmented roman armor or taking the same practices as the old romans, could a Caesar era legion wipe the floor with an equal sized western roman army?
OP bump im hyped to be redpilled
300BC was the golden age of Rome
I think you're just a republi-boo
at some unspecific point of expansion they stopped bothering to teach the armies about classic combat formations, and at about 300 they pretty much needed soldiers trained in a day to front the vandals and visigoths, so they were armored plebians unready for battle, I don't even consider it rome after 300.
Since republic or even early empire romans were professional soldiers, they had literally a lifetime more of experience, and better armor and weapons afforded to them by a controlled united government, so yes I would say it would be a decisive victory for the classic romans.
>>1396639
Elaborate? I'd love to learn more about early republic after they killed that one king who fucked everything up, nobody talks about that era.
>>1396658
Ugh. Don't even fucking reply to me.
>>1396694
t. Bjorn
Western Roman Empire is favourite of /his/ because they don't have to learn about a different religion, and have a mixed race family
>>1396614
The good Emperors were the High Point, but the Republic is a close second. Nothing sounds comfier than living in Campania and hearing stories about Trajan, as Antoninus Pius keeps the world stable and comfy.
>could a Caesar era legion wipe the floor with an equal sized western roman army?
Unlikely.
Late Republic era army made up of a shit load of gladius/scutum wielding heavy infantry with a few auxiliaries alongside.
Early 5th century army was composed primarily of massive German dudes, there was a lot more cavalry, soldiers were trained to fight out of formation in guerilla warfare on the frontiers as opposed to Republican milites using longer swords (not merely stabbing). Each unit had a shit load of heavy artillery.
Chain mail is better then the segmenta armour fag
Infantry vs infantry? Classic Romans
Army vs army? Classic Romans
Auxiliary? Western
Cavalry? Either
Economy? Classic
Haircuts? Classic
>>1397275
>Cavalry? Either
Early Roman legions had something like one cavalry troop for every fifty infantry, while in the late Empire it was one cavalry troop for every four infantry.
>>1396614
>economic stability
You mean more places left to loot?
>>1396614
Caesar's legions would probably be able to defeat any Roman army from late antiquity. The legions of the late Republic were some of the most disciplined and well trained soldiers of all time. For example, armies of the late empire were no longer able to deal with war elephants. When the Emperor Julian the apostate went east his army encountered the war elephants of the Sassanids. Unlike the legions of the republic they panicked and broke. Julian was actually killed in a minor skirmish trying to rally his men. Discipline had degraded so much by the 4th century that minor actions need the presence of the emperor. In addition to this the Roman army was no longer able to mount effective sieges.
>>1396834
What the hell is this?
Caesars main enemy that he fought so well were disorganised barbarians. He destroyed any Germans he fought. He would wipe the floor with late romans.
>>1398531
>Late army
>disorganised barbarians
When will this Gibbonian meme die
>>1398531
>He destroyed any Germans he fought. He would wipe the floor with late romans.
Germanic tribesmen in the 1st century BC: Disorganised bumfuck retards in trousers with spears and no armour
Germanic tribesmen in 5th century AD: Almost as well equipped as the Romans, trained by Romans, helmets, armour, shields, swords etc.
You seem to be under the impression that the late Roman army lost to Germans. It didn't. If you look at the period the only major defeat is Adrianople and that was after the army marched in the hot sun into a death trap under the idiot Valens. The later Roman army was just as effective at killing Germans as a Late Republican one if not better, the only difference is that circumstances meant that the German enemy was not unified into huge confederations of tribes instead of the pathetic little ones Caesar faced, and the army was smaller.
I think that the height of the Roman army is in fact the third century. In the third century the army was engaged in nearly constant conflict and was successful. Every major barbarian incursion was repulsed. The empire fragmented and was reunified by the Soldier Emperors. Every legion listed by Septimius Severus still existed when Diocletian made a similar accounting of units. No legions were destroyed in battle during the third century in contrast to the republic and early empire. However the Roman army essentially destroyed itself with the the constant cycle of warfare. By the beginning of the 4th century there were not enough experienced centurions to drill recruits to the same level of the legionaries of the high empire. Nor could the Roman economy afford to equip them to the same degree.
>Alaric's march was unopposed and leisurely, as if they were going to a festival, according to Zosimus.[49] Sarus and his band of Goths, still in Italy, remained neutral and aloof.[46]
How did the roman empire that was responsible for basically erasing Carthage of the face of the earth become so cucked?
>>1400382
poor management
not giving the vandals a home (that's all they wanted, they would have fought for the Romans as well - but honorius was too /pol/)
>>1400402
Didn't he think rome was one of his pet chickens when he heard the city had fallen? How is that ignorance even possible ?
>>1400454
I think that's an old meme
but he was a shit emperor
>>1400454
I think that's just a meme, like Caligula's horse or Nero's fiddle or Julian's deathbed admission that Christianity won. In the context of the story the messenger who told him about Rome was his fowlkeeper, so it kinda makes sense
I didn't want to make my own thread but maybe someone in here can help me.
What's the best book that focuses on Augustus Caesar? I just finished one on Julius Caesar and I want a high quality biography of Augustus next.
>>1400832
Primary sources, or contemporary?
>>1400862
I was thinking contemporary to begin with as a nice overview, but I'd welcome good primary sources as well.
>>1400869
Life of Deified Augustus - Suetonius
The Deeds of Augustus - Augustus Caesar
Histories (books 45-56) - Cassius Dio
Secondary:
Augustus - Karl Galinsky
>>1400912
Thanks friend.
>>1400934
No problem. Penguin have Cassius's books on Augustus in one book btw.
>>1400382
Rome's martial tradition ceased to exist on the Italian peninsula, and the army was instead filled with barbarians. By the time Alaric was marching through, the western empire had ceased to exist in a real way for some time. The emperor was just a puppet for the local German general.
mid-late republic: ordered, content, stable, a lack of great generals out of scipio and caesar, but an abundance of well communicated and confident.
Empire: not as ordered, happier through glory of emperors and propaganda, just as stable at times of peak, but had a bad habit of assassination. Had an abundance of good emperors but not communicated well as a military power.
Western: nobody was happy because nobody was enlisting because of better economic laws for plebeians, nobody wanted land or a pension so nobody joined, therefore army relied on auxiliary until their generals became foreign, emperors were too scared to do anything in fear of assassination or rebellion from vandals.
The republic would have been better if it had the luck of having more "great men". If Octavian and Antony were earlier around hannibals time, history would have been drastically different. Probably the safest most stable point in the empire.
Empire could have gone back to consuls, it probably would have saved it. It would have lessened the effect of a tyrant or crazy leader as the other consul could just lead the senate to vote him out. Most glorious era and most money making but not nearly as safe, Caligula would shave your head if your hair was better than his.
Western: the damage was done at this point, they should have moved their influence back to half of Gaul and all of Italia and Sicily, then introduced immigration laws and promoted having multiple kids.
Not safe nor happy, maybe its luxury to /his/ is that it's Christian.
>>1400382
That sounds like bullshit if you ask me. The Roman army in the early 5th century was still fuckhuge and powerful, it was only after Alaric that it began declining. Most of the army was off fighting Constantine III in Gaul and Gerontius in Spain. Don't be obtuse Anon.
The war against Constantine is one of the forgotten civil wars that popular historyfags seem to have never heard of and is probably the singular event most responsible for the end of the Western Roman Empire. It crippled the army permanently. It led to the Roman army being distracted from the Suebi, Visigoth, Vandal, Alan invasions in 408, it led to them eventually settling in the Empire fucking it permanently, and it led to the death of Stilicho.
