I'm starting to learn about the history of the Roman Empire but at the moment I don't really know where to start
I know the basics e.g. kingdom->republic->empire, the story of Julius Caesar, Constantine and the split etc, but besides that I am relatively ignorant
tl;dr explain Roman history to me like I'm five
>>701569
I'm trying to learn about the Romans too, can anyone recommend any books the gives a good overview before I study in greater detail?
>>701569
you seem to already have roman history as a five year old could retell it under your arm, what more do you want you greedy shitbag
go read about the punic wars or something
Read the Annals of Tacitus, and Cicero.
>>701569
In the beginning (750 BC) there were Kings, 7 total according to legend. Of course, we don't know that, its unlikely there were exactly 7, the years of their reigns are far too even. Anyways, the Kingdom period was definitely characterized by Etruscan influence. The Romans were Latins, another Italic tribal group, and its likely that the Latins had been in Italy since around 3,000 BC. Early in the Kingdom the Romans absorbed the Sabines, another Latin (? At least Italic) group.
Anyways the Romans eventually threw off Etruscan rule, if they were ever under the Etruscans at all, and decided that all kings were evil (since the last King, Tarquin the Proud, was an Etruscan and a dick). So in 509 BC a man named Brutus led the charge to overthrow the monarchy and establish a Republican city-state in Rome.
>>701737
Fuck off I was asking for a recommendation
>>701752
Next off, Republican Rome was characterized by two main social classes. The Patricians were the nobles, and the plebians was mostly everone else. There was a small """"middle""""" class called the Equites, who served as cavalryman in the early days of the Republic. It's likely the early Republican Romans fought as some kind of hoplites until they began to encounter the samnite people to their south...
The Roman Republic had two chief executive officers called consuls who held a ton of power but balanced each other out and couldn't serve too many terms, or too many consecutive terms I'm forgetting. They were advised by the Senate, which was a bunch of Patricians that technically just advised the consuls but in reality fucking with the Senate was a bad idea because these are the people who owned 99% of Rome's wealth. However, Senators couldnt engage directly in business so they were pretty much landowners, but their land owning power grew greater and greater over time and this would cause a lot of issues in the late Republic. The Equites eventually formed a kind of mercantile class, but again don't take their pseudo-middle-classness too far.
Historia Civilis is a pretty good YouTube channel, but he died ;(
>>701797
So early on the Roman Republic absorbed Etruscan cities, the siege of Veii is particularly noteworthy. The Romans then went on to absorb the other Latin peoples, both concurrently with the Etruscan conflict and after.
The Latin allies were called Socii and basically were culturally similar to the Romans. What is very critical to understand here is the Romans developed a unique system of power sharing with conquered cities- they basically gave the local elites a kind of citizenship and gave various allies certain kinds of rights. There is a ton of variation here, and how the Romans treated who they conquered depended a lot on how much you pissed the Romans off, your whole city could be leveled and everyone killed, your city could be totally enslaved, or the Romans could beat you and then if you surrendered the Romans would give your elites certain privileges. Over time this would bring conquered cities into the Roman state; this is critical because THIS is what separates the Romans from other ancient peoples- their ability to integrate these conquered populations.
For some Primary Source Fun Time, read (in no particular order + there are many others also, these are just examples):
Polybius
Livy
Tacitus
Sallust
Cicero
Caesar
Plutarch
Lucan
Ovid
Virgil
Apuleius
Petronius
>>701833
In 390 the Gauls sacked Rome, which was kind of unexpected, and it made the Romans paranoid as fuck for the rest of their existence. It gave them a kind of cultural PTSD and they were always very wary about there defense after this. We also dont have many records from super early Rome because the city was burned in this event. Rome bounced back and defeated the Gauls; there was this period called the decemvirate where a bunch of people ruled Rome instead of the Republic while they were making these tablets called the 12 tables which codified Roman law.
Also around this time the Plebians got pissed and left Rome and all camped out on a neighboring hill. The Patricians wanted them back so they let them have more rights. The Plebians had representatives now called tribunes that could veto decesions made by the consuls and other officials. This was a lot of power given to the Plebs, but basically the tribunes became co-opted by the Patricians so they didnt even really represent the Plebs all that well. The Plebs pulled this shit a few more times and basically every time the Patricians coughed up more rights, eventually allowing plebs to intermarry with Patricians and eventually even allowing Plebs to hold the consul ship. This all played out over a bunch of generations and blends in with later wars and stuff- its called the Struggle of the Orders and I dont think anyone is sure it happened like the legends say.
>>701828
Does anyone know what happened to that dude? Did he really die? His shit was great.
Try the history of Rome podcast like someone said, slightly more in depth than what you seem to have ingested until now but not as detailed as what the anal retentive types on this board might insist you spend your time on.
>>701828
Any news on his channel? Has he left it?
I've found this as well:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ__o6Iwr_8kdTLOWl0lKLw
>>701859
Saw De vita Caesarum by Suetonius in a used bookshop today, opinion on the work? Should I consider it?
>>701865
The Romans came into conflict with the Samnites which were these hill dwelling people to the South. The Romans defeated them but is was very brutal and they had to negotiate peace with them twice before it was all over. There were at least 3 Samnite Wars but this was an important period, because the Romans adopted the Samnite battle style- the square-ish shields and more dynamic battle formations (ie, not hoplites), though this transition was probably already happening before the Samnite wars. So around this time you get the Triplex Acies battle style, with three lines- the hastati, principes, and triarii. With skirmishers up front. Read up about this shit its tight.
>>701884
Yes.
>>701887
So in southern Italy, around the same time Rome had been founded and earlier, a bunch of Greeks had settled way back in the Greek dark ages. The Greeks dominated this region (called Magna Graecia or Greater Greece) and Romans started absorbing their culture. They eventually went to war with them.
We are now at 280 BC. It is important to understand the Greek world now that Rome has become a regional Mediterranean power. The whole city-state era of Greece came to an end when Phillip II of Macedon conquered Greece, and Alexander extended Macedonian rule over the known world east of Greece. After Alexander died, his empire split up, and the most powerful states in the Mediterranean world were the Seleucid Empire, Ptolemaic Egypt, and the New Macedonian Kingdom. There were also a bunch of smaller successor states in Asia Minor. Another large Hellenic state was in eastern Greece, it was called Epirus. The King Pyrrhus had been contacted by the Greek city states in South Italy to help fend off the Romans. Pyrrhus had done really well against some of the Macedonian successor kings and he was considered one of the great generals of his day. Syracuse in Sicily was one of these Greek states that wanted him over.
Pyrrhus came and waged a long and terrible war against the Romans, tens of thousands were killed. He even brought war elephants- this was the first time Romans had ever seen them. But ultimately Pyrrhus couldnt crack the Romans, after one battle that he won (but lost) he basically threw up his hands and said Fuck it, if I can't finish these guys off no one can. So Pyrrhus went home.
So now the Romans absorbed southern Italy, and started dicking around in Sicily (Syracuse in Sicily had pissed them off as well). But also in Sicily was a very powerful power called Carthage, centered on its eponymous capital in North Africa. The encounter between Rome and Carthage would basically be the defining event of the Middle Republic.
>>701943
I'm done with this for now, I'm sure someone else can pick up from here. I might do more later.
>>701569
Read Ammianus Marcellinus for that late Roman fix you so desperately need. He's considered the second best Roman historian after Tacitus by most scholars.
>>701951
Please do more of this!!! It's really good
>>702900
No one replied to yours though cos it was a shit post my guy
>>702867
Thanks dawg.
The first Punic war began over Sicily, which at the time was a very wealthy grain producing region. Long story short, the Romans won after they were forced to build a navy after capturing some Carthaginian boats. The Romans built these swinging bridges on their boats that allowed them to board enemy ships and just attack the Carthaginian physically, like on land. This tactic was pretty cool but it made the Roman boats top-heavy so they never continued with it. The Romans won the 1st Punic War though and annexed Sicily.
The Carthaginian nobility was pissed off they lost (they were a mercantile republic) so they crucified their generals. Watching this happen was young boy named Hannibal, and his father basically made him pledge to always hate Rome.
Hannibal's father knew the Carthaginian nobility were pussies and decided to create his own country, basically. He invaded Iberia and created his own country and army from the Celt-Iberian peoples there. Hamiclar (the father) was killed, then eventually Hannibal took over this New Carthage state. There was a Roman client state on the edge of New Carthage (Saguntum). Hannibal destroyed that city completely as a big Fuck You to Rome. This started the Second Punic War (218 BC), which would almost destroy Rome (sort of).
>>702930
Hannibal had a giant army with a bunch of war elephants and thought it would be a good idea to invade Italy through the alps so he could fuck the Romans in the ass (no way the Romans thought he would come in that way.) But Hannibal was an absolute madman and did it anyways- a bunch of his army froze to death though. Good thing a bunch of the gaul-celts up that way hated the Romans, so he recruited them. They were likely to run off if shit got hard, so Hannibal made it so that if anyone left his army he would basically crucify anyone they were friends with. No one fled his army, but hannibal had lost all of his elephants but one.
To make a long story short, Hannibal rampaged up and down Italy for the next several years. He was a tactical genius and absolutely destroyed the Romans at the first three big engagements. At Cannae 50,000 Romans were killed in a massive double envelopment, which basically liquidated the whole young patrician male population. It was an absolute disaster, but the Romans kept fighting- again, the Romans are unique here because anyone else wouldve surrendered after that. Hannibal got a bunch of cities to turn from the Romans but he knew he couldnt afford to siege the capital.
Also the Carthaginian nobility basically fucked Hannibal by not helping him. Then the Romans under this hip young general Scipio Africanus came to Carthage and began to threaten the city. Hannibal had to leave Italy to deal with this, and Scipio finally defeated Hannibal at Zama because the Romans had learned how to deal with war elephants.
Hannibal had to flee eastward and hung out with the Seleucids. The Romans also sacked Syracuse because they sided with Carthage, and killed Archimides.
Also, Macedon sided with Carthage, so now Rome was drawn into the politics of the Hellenistic world...
>>702971
I was just passing by (not a /his/ lurker) and saw this, it's pretty cool
/his/ should have things like this in a wiki and link it in the sticky
>>702971
This is really good stuff.
>>701833
>this is critical because THIS is what separates the Romans from other ancient peoples- their ability to integrate these conquered populations.
I thought the Macedonians and the Persians did that first?
>>703122
>>703017
Thanks
So between the 2nd Punic War and the Late Republic (Caesar and friends) the chronology gets a lot more complicated so I probably won't do justice to this late-mid-republican period.
The Third Punic War was a meme conflict (Carthago delenda est!) that ended in Carthage being leveled. The 2nd Punic war basically meant that Rome was the unquestioned master of the Western Mediterranean.
Like I mentioned earlier, Rome now was a great power, her rivals being the great hellenisitc powers of the east. Of these, Macedon was the weakest. Macedon could not even hold onto all of Greece, many of the Greek city states had a ton of autonomy which they had slowly gained back since Alexander.
For the next century the Romans would gradually increase their control over Greece proper, the Macedonian conflicts basically causing this. The first macedonian war was a stalemate, but the Romans fought the Macedonian kings two more times. The Romans sided with the Greek Achaean league, and claimed to be fighting for the "freedom of the Greeks," which Athens and the like mostly bought into. The final Macedonian defeat came at Pydna, where the Roman infantry outmanueverd the Macedonian pike phalanx on uneven terrain. By the time the Greek city states knew what was up, it was too late.
The Achaean war was the last gasp of Greek liberty, of whatever notions of liberty had survived the great Hellenistic God-Kings. The Romans destroyed the Greek allies and, shockingly, destroyed the whole city of Corinth (under general Mummius), enslaving tens of thousands.
Before a lot of this though, the Romans had to deal with the Seleucids. Under the ambitous Antiochus III, the Seleucid domain, previously falling apart, was resurgent. The Empire stretched from the border of India, finally to Asia minor, where Antiochus had annexed the Cappadocian kingdom. However, Antiochus got beat hard by the Romans in Greece and then in Asia minor.
>>703219
The defeat of the Seleucids at Magnesia was another proof of the superiority of Roman infantry- the pike phalanxes could always be outmanuevered in less than ideal terrain. The hellenistic monarchs would try to catch up with Roman style infantry but they could never match them (see the Seleucid silver shield swords).
While all this shit was going on Rome fought with the Gauls and expanded into Illyria. There was a war with the Galatian celts in central Asia minor and in Iberia the Romans began conquering the local Celt-Iberians there. The Jugurthine war in North Africa, allowing for the officer Gaius Marius to rise through the Roman ranks.
All of these post-second Punic conquests began to cause a huge number of issues in Roman society...
>>703197
The Romans basically managed to assimilate local elites within a few generations, whereas the Macedonians and Persians definitely had ethnic elites.
>>703255
Oh, you mean the Romans were better at assimilating, i.e, making the elites Romans, while the Macedonians and the Persians just kept them stay more or less the same ethnically?
>>703255
Patrician officers that served in overseas conflicts began to amass gigantic sums of wealth, larger than previous generations had dreamed of. These wars brought back hundreds of thousands of slaves. The Patrician elite began expanding their rural estates and buying up small landholders all over Italy and Sicily. Giant slave plantations had economies of scale that put small farmers out of business, and these small farmers would not be hired as sharecroppers because why do that when you have a shit ton of slaves?
Additionally, many farmers served in the Roman army (the army was still full of citizen-soldiers who had to buy their own equipment). Small farmers off in distant wars could not manage their property, which would fall into disuse and then be bought by large landowners.
As the economy changed many thousands of impoverished began entering Roman cities looking for work; in Rome they formed huge politically volatile mobs. People were desperate, and much of the money from overseas conquests was not going to the citizen-grunts in the wars, though many of them could be well off in their army careers...
>>703267
Yeah basically.
>>703197
The Persians didn't integrate at all. They just left you to your own devices and asked you to pay taxes. This was ultimately a weakness.
>>703276
Hey I'm getting a bit warn out so if someone else wants to take it from here...
>>703299
This good shit anon. Thanks for the info.
>>703307
yeah man you're welcome. I enjoy doing this stuff but im gonna take a breather.. Roman history is dope. A ton of the greek-war stuff is cool but some things like the Achaean war or the so-called Roman-Spartan war are comparatively obscure...I would encourage people to read up on it.
The late Republican period was a hard time for greek cities, because governors were extorting the wealth out of greece like crazy...this wouldnt end really until Augustus.
>>703276
Regarding this plantation, is there a book specifically dealing with the subject?
>>703369
I have never encountered a book that deals with it specifically, but any late-republican history should go into it. I would recommend Rome: from village to Empire as good introductory Roman history that is quite rigorous.
>>701887
quick correction I think you mean Phalanx not Hoplites.
>>705368
No I quite literally meant hoplites-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Roman_army
You are right though in the sense that the hoplites of the early Roman army did not always fight as a phalanx, that was only for rare set-piece battles. Roman soldiers were likely more often engaged in cattle-raids and the like in the early period. Goldsworthy credits the transition to the manipular system to the Samnite Wars as well.
>>703299
Great job mate. Thank you.
>>703276
Hi, I'm gonna take this part (if I recall correctly this is the rise of Tiberius Gracchus)
Tiberius Gracchus, who had served as militar in Iberia, stated that the Roman people were the conqueror of the world, but they were poor: all of his political life was meant to improve Plebian's condition giving birth to the Populares Movement; the Optimates one was made of Senators and aristocracy in general.
Now, the Roman State did note have the separation of the powers, but the Consuls, the Pretorians and the Tribunes of the Plebs all had the same powers, though the Tribunes of the Plebs didn't have the imperium, the right to lead an army; this turned out very useful during the the Middle Republic since Rome was constantly in war and the Consuls and the Pretorians were always away and the Tribunes of the Plebs de facto administrate the State; in the Late Republic, however, ths system created some ambiguity about who had to led the government (more like the administration of the State, a primordial form of "government" will birth under Augustus), this crisis will finally led to the resolution of the personal power.
Back to Tiberius, he was son of Cornelia, a daughter of Scipio Africanus, so he descends from a family both patrician and plebeian. As a Tribune of the Plebs, he proposed a lex agraria (Lex Sempronia Agraria) in which he reorganized the ager publicus (public land) that was indeed vary large due to the recent conquests: no citizen could occupy more than 500 jugera (125 hectars) of public land, the excessive land would be distribuited among the poors and little landowner which had to pay a symbolic tax.
Although the law didn't affect at all the holdings of the Patricians and was useful to decrease poverty and the phaenomena of latifunda (slave labours) the Senate and aristocracy replied harshly to the reform. (More to come...)
>>705368
>>705431
>Hoplites
Indeed, it were hoplites.
>>707565
To make the situation worse Tiberius did approve the reform without Senate's consultation; actually the Tribunes of the Plebs were independent from the Senate (Lex Hortensia, 287 BC) but the consultation with the Senate remained as a kind of tradition; another key factor was his recandidacy as Tribune of the Plebs the next year: the reiteration of the same office was forbidden in Rome, though the Tribune was a "special" office (and some years later would be approved a law which allowed the reiteration of the Tribune of the Plebs)
Tiberius was declared public enemy from the Senate, he was accuse to aim for the Tyranny and was killed. Tiberius failed miserably, but his fault was to haven't a clear political plan and allies, all lessons that his brother Gaius will learn from Tiberius' experience
>>707638
Huh, I noticed some typing errors but whatever.
Gaius Gracchus, brother of Tiberius, looked for an alliance with the Equites (he understood that this class could compete with the aristocracy) assigning them the judical system (which was divided between member of the equites and senators); he also proposed the same agrarian reform of the brother with new dispositions (though we ignore them); he proposed a lex frumentaria: all the citizen could buy grain from Sicily and North Africa at a cheap price (supporting urbanization). However, he had in mind a reform that wasn't well accepted even by the poors: the distribuition of Roman Citizenship to all Italy. The Senate took advantage to turn the plebs against him and he soon lost popularity: many of his follower were killed and he himself committed suicide. This marks the end of the Gracchan Period, the aristocracy won, but the problems of Rome will remain until the Augustan Age, since the following reforms of both parties will (almost) fail.
Uhm, I excuse in advance if some figure of speech sounds strange, my English is basically Italian with English words
>>707701
Didn't see your post, thanks. I thought to do the Gracchus, next step is Gaius Marius (and then the first Germanic Invasion); For the Marius-Sulla stuff maybe is good to divide the internal politics and the mithridatic war.
>>707822
thanks man I hope we can keep this thing going. It sounds like we have an Italy Bro helping us out here with the Gracchi brothers so I'm glad someone else is doing good shit too
The Edict of Caracalla sealed the fate for ethnic Romans.
>>708212
>>708262
Thanks; had to stop to sleep, now let's talk about next topic.
Though the Gracchi failed, they were the first to oppose the authority of the Senate, claiming the power of the people.
The figure of Gaius Marius emerged during the war against Jugurtha, a Numidian King. The Kingdom of Numidia (now Algeria) was a Roman ally since the Second Punic War, however a succession crisis led to a civil war between Jugurtha and Adherbal (his half-brother); the Roman Senate mediated in order to split the kingdom between the two brothers, but was finally forced to declare war against Jugurtha after he killed many Italians (111 BC).
The war was veeeery uncertain: the ruling class had little motivation (which many will interpret as a kind of corruption of the aristocracy) nd the war soon entered a phase of stagnation. This was overcome by the popular forces and the Equites that wanted to end quickly the war due to commercial reasons: Gaius Marius was nominated Consul and sent to Numidia (107 BC), where he finally managed to defeat Jugurtha with the help of Sulla (one of his subordinate) and Quintus Caecelius Metellus; Jugurtha was executed in Rome and the Numidia was divided between Bocchus I (father-in-law of Jugurtha, he helped the Romans during the war) and a brother of Jugurtha. The Numidia will finally become a Roman province under Julius Caesar (46 BC)
The Roman standard armour changed frequently. What you see often is Roman armour in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
In the later centuries Roman armies would look something like this, very Middle Ages, eh?
>>701569
>>701718
As someone already mentioned, the History of Rome-podcast by Mike Duncan gives you a really good insight into Rome from its legendary founding to the end of WRE. If you listen to that podcast (be warned tho, the first period isn't all that interesting in comparison to the rest) you'll inevitable find a section of roman history which fascinates you which you then can read up on further. I believe that Mike Duncan even have some book recommendations for each episode on the podcast's homepage.
I'd also highly recommend Livy's The History of Rome. It's about the history of rome from its founding untill Augustus. What makes it so fascinating however is that it is written by a contemporary of Augustus and thus is a moralising tale from the POV of a real roman patrician.
>>709381
weeeew broo, comfychill ass fuck 2 read ;)
>>709890
Computer illiterate here. Do I have to pay to listen to a podcast?
>>709942
I think I listened to it once, it should be a series of YouTube videos
>>709942
No, the podcast is free. You can either find it on Itunes or on the official webpage.
http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id261654474?mt=2
>>708238
Has this meme any hold on reality? As far as I know what maintained the roman empire for so long was the stability given by their institutions, and more people to tax helped to keep such institutions working. Problem is, he gave full rights to everyone regardless of serving in the legions or not. There were no more incentives for being a legionary, thus reducing their manpower and making romans depend on auxiliaries. If anything, his problem was not giving more incentives for serving in the army, not giving full rights. Besides, can you even talk of "ethnic romans" anymore? By that time all italians had full roman citizenship.
This is a good place to start if you are interested in the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.
This is the /his/ I've been yearning for. Fantastic read guys, really well done.
>>710202
>Heather
Such a great read, he really knows his shit. What other authors do you recommend about Roman history?
Opinions on this book? I'very got a gift card for Barnes and Noble and this one caught my eye.
>>709890
Livius was a pleb.
>Livy, History of Rome, Book X.9.
>>710373
Get Caligula by Winterling and BTFO everyone in Caligula threads.
>>710373
I read Everitt's Augustus. He tends to focus a bit too much on a continuous narrative. What aspects of Ancient Rome are you interested in?
Has history produced a better underdog?
>>710412
Just a general survey I guess. I'm fairly ignorant about the subject.
If I had to pick something specific the transition from Republic to Empire.
>>710432
This right here should be one of your first stops. It's an excellent read on Caesar's political/military career that should give you great insight in to how one man came to dominate Roman politics in the wake of Sulla's shadow. From there look for your primary sources on Augustus and his dynasty, like Suetonius and Virgil.
If you'd like to do some further reading about the root causes of the transition from Republic to Empire check out Appian's The Punic Wars. He's a really underrated ancient historian and does the subject about as much good as can be done.
>>710422 again. If you want to read up on Claudius check this out, as well as Suetonius' Claudius
>>710422
C L O D I U S
L
O
D
I
U
S
>>710494
Please, you're overestimating his worth more than he did when he was captured by pirates.
>>710518
That was before he became the hero Rome deserved though.
>>710532
He was a smart politician with a voracious sexual appetite. Not sure how you're making him out to be a giant
>>710541
Never said he was a giant or implied it. To me he is just the most amusing person to the (late) republic.
>>710548
You're correct; I overstepped what you were implying. He was definitely interesting but I don't view him as a figure worth serious study
>>710559
It is not like there is much about him: http://www.englisch.gnomon-online.de/rech.FAU?sid=83E578132&dm=1&auft=0
>>710576
>http://www.englisch.gnomon-online.de/rech.FAU?sid=83E578132&dm=1&auft=0
Gnomon won't work. Well the catalog lists 25 items. Not much.
>>701804
Clicked on this thread to see if anyone had posted this. Definitely would recommend. His podcasts are the perfect balance of narrative and historical fact. He's also currently making a new podcast called Revolutions.
Is Roman political system both Republic and Empire by todays standarts a good system? Or is American or European system better?
I was in the same place as you in the beginning. I thought Rome was much harder to get into than Greece because there isn't a single good place to start with it.
Get the Brief History of Ancient Rome from Oxford. That's what I used as my introductory book.
>>711038
>standarts
German detected.
And no, a political system that excludes 50%+ of the population systematically is not considered "good".
>>707822
Play Europa Barbarorum instead.
>>710176
>Has this meme any hold on reality?
No.
>what maintained the roman empire for so long was the stability given by their institutions
Except that isn't true. The stability of the Empire was maintained purely by passivity and apathy on the part of 99.9% of its inhabitants.
>There were no more incentives for being a legionary
The primary incentives were always the donatives, relatively high wages for the day (enough to buy several slaves if you were a low-level Centurion) and the lack of stable employment in antiquity. "Doing your patriotic duty and becoming a citizen" is Roman memery.
>thus reducing their manpower
That didn't happen. Augustus reduced the number of legionaries to 250,000 purely because they were the byproduct of decades of civil wars and were a massive drain on the treasury, plus were an existential threat to his principate.
>making romans depend on auxiliaries
Ignoring the fact that the Romans had depended on auxiliaries since the Punic Wars, auxiliaries were generally superior fighters and were cheaper than their softer brothers-in-arms who were often from the demilitarised Mediterranean regions of the empire, as opposed to auxiliaries who were often Germanic and had spent much of their lives fighting near the frontier.
>not giving more incentives for serving in the army
This was the primary issue. Conscription became necessary and people would chop off their fingers so as to be unable to pick up swords. Landlords and tenants would connive to avoid military service . Combat became more frequent due to larger confederations of enemy tribes, fighting was in smaller groups in a more guerilla manner instead of massive heavy infantry formations where individual contributions were minimal, much more became expected of you and your wages did not count for much by the Late Empire.
>>709385
i'm not sure whether I wanted to know this or not
>>701804
yup, I wasn't even interested in roman history, I just listened to it because it was highly rated, and it's been a great listen so far. The episodes are short enough to not be monotonous, but still provide a relatively in depth narrative. I'm just on the war between Octavius and Antony
