1.
Julius Caesar
–
Gaius Julius Caesar, known as Julius Caesar, was a Roman politician, general, and notable author of Latin prose. He played a role in the events that led to the demise of the Roman Republic. In 60 BC, Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey formed an alliance that dominated Roman politics for several years. Their attempts to power as Populares were opposed by the Optimates within the Roman Senate. Caesars victories in the Gallic Wars, completed by 51 BC, extended Romes territory to the English Channel, Caesar became the first Roman general to cross both the Channel and the Rhine, when he built a bridge across the Rhine and crossed the Channel to invade Britain. These achievements granted him unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse the standing of Pompey, with the Gallic Wars concluded, the Senate ordered Caesar to step down from his military command and return to Rome. Caesar refused the order, and instead marked his defiance in 49 BC by crossing the Rubicon with the 13th Legion, leaving his province, Civil war resulted, and Caesars victory in the war put him in an unrivalled position of power and influence. After assuming control of government, Caesar began a programme of social and governmental reforms and he centralised the bureaucracy of the Republic and was eventually proclaimed dictator in perpetuity, giving him additional authority. But the underlying political conflicts had not been resolved, and on the Ides of March 44 BC, a new series of civil wars broke out, and the constitutional government of the Republic was never fully restored. Caesars adopted heir Octavian, later known as Augustus, rose to power after defeating his opponents in the civil war. Octavian set about solidifying his power, and the era of the Roman Empire began, much of Caesars life is known from his own accounts of his military campaigns, and from other contemporary sources, mainly the letters and speeches of Cicero and the historical writings of Sallust. The later biographies of Caesar by Suetonius and Plutarch are also major sources, Caesar is considered by many historians to be one of the greatest military commanders in history. Caesar was born into a family, the gens Julia. The cognomen Caesar originated, according to Pliny the Elder, with an ancestor who was born by Caesarean section. The Historia Augusta suggests three alternative explanations, that the first Caesar had a head of hair, that he had bright grey eyes. Caesar issued coins featuring images of elephants, suggesting that he favored this interpretation of his name, despite their ancient pedigree, the Julii Caesares were not especially politically influential, although they had enjoyed some revival of their political fortunes in the early 1st century BC. Caesars father, also called Gaius Julius Caesar, governed the province of Asia and his mother, Aurelia Cotta, came from an influential family. Little is recorded of Caesars childhood, in 85 BC, Caesars father died suddenly, so Caesar was the head of the family at 16
2.
Classical Latin
–
Classical Latin is the modern term used to describe the form of the Latin language recognized as standard by writers of the late Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. In some later periods, it was regarded as good Latin, the word Latin is now taken by default as meaning Classical Latin, so that, for example, modern Latin textbooks describe classical Latin. Latinitas was spoken as well as written, moreover, it was the language taught by the schools. Prescriptive rules therefore applied to it, and where a subject was concerned, such as poetry or rhetoric. No authors are noted for the type of rigidity evidenced by stylized art, except possibly the repetitious abbreviations, good Latin in philology is classical Latin literature. The term classicus was devised by the Romans themselves to translate Greek ἐγκριθέντες, select, before then, classis, in addition to being a naval fleet, was a social class in one of the diachronic divisions of Roman society according to property ownership by the Roman constitution. The word is a transliteration of Greek κλῆσις calling, used to rank army draftees by property from first to fifth class, classicus is anything primae classis, first class, such as the authors of the polished works of Latinitas, or sermo urbanus. It had nuances of the certified and the authentic, testis classicus and it was in this sense that Marcus Cornelius Fronto in the 2nd century AD used scriptores classici, first-class or reliable authors whose works could be relied upon as model of good Latin. This is the first known reference, possibly innovated at this time, aulus Gellius includes many authors, such as Plautus, who are currently considered writers of Old Latin and not strictly in the period of classical Latin. The classical Romans distinguished Old Latin as prisca Latinitas and not sermo vulgaris, each author in the Roman lists was considered equivalent to one in the Greek, for example Ennius was the Latin Homer, the Aeneid was a new Iliad, and so on. The lists of authors were as far as the Roman grammarians went in developing a philology. The Renaissance brought a revival of interest in restoring as much of Roman culture as could be restored and with it the return of the concept of classic, the best. Thomas Sébillet in 1548 referred to les bons et classiques poètes françois, meaning Jean de Meun and Alain Chartier, according to Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, the term classical, from classicus, entered modern English in 1599, some 50 years after its re-introduction on the continent. In 1715 Laurence Echards Classical Geographical Dictionary was published, in 1736 Robert Ainsworths Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Compendarius turned English words and expressions into proper and classical Latin. In 1768 David Ruhnken recast the mold of the view of the classical by applying the word canon to the pinakes of orators, Ruhnken had a kind of secular catechism in mind. The practice and Teuffels classification, with modifications, are still in use and his work was translated into English as soon as published in German by Wilhelm Wagner, who corresponded with Teuffel. Wagner published the English translation in 1873, Teuffel divides the chronology of classical Latin authors into several periods according to political events, rather than by style. Regarding the style of the literary Latin of those periods he had, Teuffel was to go on with other editions of his history, but meanwhile it had come out in English almost as soon as it did in German and found immediate favorable reception
3.
History
–
History is the study of the past as it is described in written documents. Events occurring before written record are considered prehistory and it is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. Scholars who write about history are called historians and their works continue to be read today, and the gap between the culture-focused Herodotus and the military-focused Thucydides remains a point of contention or approach in modern historical writing. In Asia, a chronicle, the Spring and Autumn Annals was known to be compiled from as early as 722 BC although only 2nd-century BC texts survived. Ancient influences have helped spawn variant interpretations of the nature of history which have evolved over the centuries, the modern study of history is wide-ranging, and includes the study of specific regions and the study of certain topical or thematical elements of historical investigation. Often history is taught as part of primary and secondary education, the word history comes ultimately from Ancient Greek ἱστορία, meaning inquiry, knowledge from inquiry, or judge. It was in that sense that Aristotle used the word in his Περὶ Τὰ Ζῷα Ἱστορίαι, the ancestor word ἵστωρ is attested early on in Homeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes oath, and in Boiotic inscriptions. History was borrowed from Latin into Old English as stær, and it was from Anglo-Norman that history was borrowed into Middle English, and this time the loan stuck. In Middle English, the meaning of history was story in general, the restriction to the meaning the branch of knowledge that deals with past events, the formal record or study of past events, esp. human affairs arose in the mid-fifteenth century. With the Renaissance, older senses of the word were revived, and it was in the Greek sense that Francis Bacon used the term in the sixteenth century. For him, historia was the knowledge of objects determined by space and time, in an expression of the linguistic synthetic vs. analytic/isolating dichotomy, English like Chinese now designates separate words for human history and storytelling in general. In modern German, French, and most Germanic and Romance languages, which are synthetic and highly inflected. The adjective historical is attested from 1661, and historic from 1669, Historian in the sense of a researcher of history is attested from 1531. Historians write in the context of their own time, and with due regard to the current dominant ideas of how to interpret the past, in the words of Benedetto Croce, All history is contemporary history. History is facilitated by the formation of a discourse of past through the production of narrative. The modern discipline of history is dedicated to the production of this discourse. All events that are remembered and preserved in some authentic form constitute the historical record, the task of historical discourse is to identify the sources which can most usefully contribute to the production of accurate accounts of past. Therefore, the constitution of the archive is a result of circumscribing a more general archive by invalidating the usage of certain texts and documents
4.
Military history
–
On the other hand, Just War Theory explores the moral dimensions of warfare, and to better limit the destructive reality caused by war, seeks to establish a doctrine of military ethics. The discipline of history is dynamic, changing with development as much of the subject area as the societies. An important recent concept is the Revolution in Military Affairs which attempts to explain how warfare has been shaped by emerging technologies and it highlights the short outbursts of rapid change followed by periods of relative stability. In terms of the profession in major countries, military history is an orphan. William H. McNeill points out, This branch of our discipline flourishes in an intellectual ghetto, the study of military history in universities remains seriously underdeveloped. Indeed, lack of interest in and disdain for military history probably constitute one of the strangest prejudices of the profession, historiography is the study of the history and method of the discipline of history or the study of a specialised topic. In this case, military history with an eye to gaining an accurate assessment of conflicts using all available sources, Military historians use Historiographical analysis in an effort to allow an unbiased, contemporary view of records. Historians utilize their knowledge of government regulation and military organization, and employing a targeted, despite these limits, wars are some of the most studied and detailed periods of human history. Military historians have often compared organization, tactical and strategic ideas, leadership, in the early 1980s, historian Jeffrey Kimball surveyed the ideological preferences of 109 active diplomatic historians in the United States as well as 54 active military historians. He reports that, Of historians in the field of history, 7% are Socialist, 19% are Other, 53% are Liberal, 11% are None. Of military historians, 0% are Socialist, 8% are Other, 35% are Liberal, 18% are None, the documentation of military history begins with the confrontation between Sumer and Elam c.2700 BC near the modern Basra, and includes such enduring records as the Hebrew Bible. Other prominent records in history are the Trojan War in Homers Iliad. An approach centered on the analysis of a leader was taken by Xenophon in Anabasis, the records of the Roman Julius Caesar enable a comparative approach for campaigns such as Commentarii de Bello Gallico and Commentarii de Bello Civili. New weapons development can dramatically alter the face of war, the cost of warfare, the preparations, a rule of thumb is that if your enemy has a potentially war winning weapon, you have to either match it or neutralize it. The chariot was an effective, fast weapon, while one man controlled the maneuvering of the chariot and these became crucial to the maintenance of several governments, including the New Egyptian Kingdom and the Shang Dynasty and the nation states of early to mid Zhou dynasty. The infantry started as opposing armed groups of soldiers underneath commanders, the Greeks and early Romans used rigid, heavily armed phalanxes. The Macedonians and Hellenistic states would adopt phalanx formations with sarissa pikemen, the Romans would later adopt more flexible maniples from their neighbors which made them extremely successful in the field of battle. The kingdoms of the Warring States in East Asia also adopted infantry combat, in the Sicilian Expedition, led by Athens in an attempt to subdue Syracuse, the well-trained Syracusan cavalry became crucial to the success of the Syracusans
5.
Commentarii de Bello Civili
–
Commentarii de Bello Civili, or Bellum Civile, is an account written by Julius Caesar of his war against Gnaeus Pompeius and the Senate. It closes with Pompey assassinated, Caesar attempting to mediate rival claims to the Egyptian throne, Caesars authorship of the Commentarii de Bello Civili is not disputed. The Latin title Commentarii de Bello Civili is often retained as the title of the book in English translations of the work, the title itself is Latin for Commentaries on the Civil War. It is sometimes shortened to just Civil Wars, About the Civil Wars, Caesar organized his commentaries into three separate books, at that time written on individual scrolls. Each book is subdivided into numbered paragraphs, the books cover a two-year period discussing the Roman Civil War during 49 and 48 BC. As governor of Gaul, Caesar presents himself as the victim of a conspiracy occurring in Rome led by his enemies, including Gnaeus Pompeius, Scipio. Throughout the commentaries he presents his cause as a one to restore order. He also commonly presents himself as a liberal on the epicurean model. Caesar omits many details of the campaigns, focusing in large part on the larger strategic situation. Caesar explains how he was wronged by Pompeius and his cohorts and he proceeds with his army to invade Italy from Gaul. Pompeius attempts to raise an army in southern Italy, but is forced to retreat with the army to Greece, Caesar and his army follow Pompeius across the Adriatic Sea to Greece after a mop up operation in Italy and in Spain. In Greece Pompeius initially has the position, with more troops. Caesar writes a lengthy monologue about the superiority of his army of elite veterans of the pacification of Gaul, and dismisses Pompeius tactics and he points out that Pompeius army was drawn largely from the provinces and was poorly trained. After Caesar successfully outmanoeuvred Pompeiuss army in the eastern Balkans, Pompeius, Caesar describes Scipio as a maniacal and untrustworthy but weak villain concerned only with destroying Caesar. Scipio raises an army of his own from his provinces in Asia Minor. The book climaxes with the Battle of Pharsalus in June 48, the lengthy battle and siege resulted in a decisive victory by Caesars army. Pompeius and his cohorts flee to other areas of the Republic in an attempt to reverse their fortunes, Caesar then leads his army across the Mediterranean Sea in pursuit of Pompeius, who had landed in Egypt. There Pompeius was murdered, according to Caesar, by the Egyptians, Caesar ends the book with an epilogue on the Egyptians lack of justification for killing Pompeius
6.
Military of ancient Rome
–
In each war it acquired more territory until, when civil war ended the Roman Republic, nothing was left for the first emperor, Augustus, to do except declare it an empire and defend it. The role and structure of the military was then altered during the empire and it became less Roman, the duties of border protection and territorial administration being more and more taken by foreign mercenaries officered by Romans. When they divided at last into warring factions the empire fell, during the Roman Republic the function of the military was defined as service to the ‘’Senatus Populusque Romanus’’, an agency designated by SPQR on public inscriptions. Its main body was the senate, which met in a still extant in the forum of Rome. Its decrees were handed off to the two officers of the state, the consuls. They could levy from the citizens military force they judged was necessary to execute the decree. This they did in a draft of male citizens assembled by age class, the officers of the legion were tasked with selecting men for the ranks. The will of the SPQR was binding on the consuls and the men, the men were under a rigorous code, known now for its punitive crucifixion. The soldiers were busy doing whatever service needed to be done, soldiering, manning vessels, carpentry, blacksmithing, clerking. They were trained as required, but also previous skills, such as a trade, were exploited and they brought to the task and were protected by the authority of the state. The militarys campaign history stretched over 1300 years and saw Roman armies campaigning as far east as Parthia, as far south as Africa and Aegyptus and as far north as Britannia. The makeup of the Roman military changed substantially over its history, from its history as an unsalaried citizen militia to a later professional force. The equipment used by the military altered greatly in type over time, though there were very few improvements in weapons manufacture. For much of its history, the vast majority of Romes forces were maintained at or beyond the limits of its territory, in order to either expand Romes domain, or protect its existing borders. Expansions were infrequent, as the emperors, adopting a strategy of fixed lines of defense, had determined to maintain existing borders, for that purpose they constructed extensive walls and created permanent stations that became cities. At its territorial height, the Roman Empire may have contained between 45 million and 120 million people and this estimate probably included only legionary and auxiliary troops of the Roman army. However, Gibbon states that it is not, easy to define the size of the Roman military with any tolerable accuracy. However, he notes that these figures were subject to inflation due to the practice of leaving dead soldiers on the books in order to continue to draw their wage
7.
Founding of Rome
–
The most familiar of these myths, and perhaps the most famous of all Roman myths, is the story of Romulus and Remus, the twins who were suckled by a she-wolf. The national epic of mythical Rome, the Aeneid of Virgil, the Aeneid was written under Augustus, who claimed ancestry through Julius Caesar from the hero and his mother Venus. This started a series of armed conflicts with Turnus over the marriage of Lavinia, before the arrival of Aeneas, Turnus was betrothed to Lavinia, who then married Aeneas, starting the war. Aeneas won the war and killed Turnus, the Trojans won the right to stay and to assimilate with the local peoples. Toward the end of line, King Procas was the father of Numitor. At Procas death, Numitor became king of Alba Longa, but Amulius captured him and sent him to prison, for many years, Amulius was the king. The tortuous nature of the chronology is indicated by Rhea Silvias ordination among the Vestals, the myth of Aeneas was of Greek origin and had to be reconciled with the Italian myth of Romulus and Remus, who would have been born around 771 BC if taken as historical figures. They were purported to be sons of Rhea Silvia and either Mars and they were abandoned at birth, in the manner of many mythological heroes, because of a prophecy that they would overthrow their great-uncle Amulius, who had overthrown Silvias father Numitor. They were abandoned on the Tiber River by servants who took pity on the infants, the twins were nurtured by a she-wolf until a shepherd named Faustulus found the boys and took them as his sons. Faustulus and his wife Acca Larentia raised the children, when Remus and Romulus became adults, they killed Amulius and restored Numitor. They decided to establish a city, however, they quarreled, thus, Rome began with a fratricide, a story that was later taken to represent the citys history of internecine political strife and bloodshed. The ancient Romans were certain of the day Rome was founded, April 21, even the official Fasti Capitolini offers its own date,752 BC. Recent discoveries by Andrea Carandini on Romes Palatine Hill have also yielded evidence of a series of walls on the north slope that can be dated to the middle of the 8th century BC. According to the legend, Romulus plowed a furrow around the hill in order to mark the boundary of his new city, there is no consensus on the etymology of the citys name. Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested Greek ῥώμη, meaning strength, vigor, a modern theory of etymology holds that the name of the city is of Etruscan origin, derived from rumon, river. There is archaeological evidence of occupation of the Rome area from about 14,000 years ago. Evidence of stone tools, pottery and stone weapons attests to about 10,000 years of human presence, several excavations support the view that Rome grew from pastoral settlements on the Palatine Hill built above the area of the future Roman Forum. Between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron age, in any case, the location that became the city of Rome was inhabited by Latin settlers from various regions, farmers and pastoralists, as evidenced by differences in pottery and burial techniques
8.
Fall of the Western Roman Empire
–
The Fall of the Western Roman Empire was the process of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which it failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided into several successor polities. Increasing pressure from barbarians outside Roman culture also contributed greatly to the collapse, the reasons for the collapse are major subjects of the historiography of the ancient world and they inform much modern discourse on state failure. Relevant dates include 117 CE, when the Empire was at its greatest territorial extent, irreversible major territorial loss, however, began in 376 with a large-scale irruption of Goths and others. In 395, after winning two destructive civil wars, Theodosius I died, leaving a field army and the Empire, still plagued by Goths. Invading barbarians had established their own power in most of the area of the Western Empire, while its legitimacy lasted for centuries longer and its cultural influence remains today, the Western Empire never had the strength to rise again. The Fall is not the only unifying concept for these events, the Fall of the Western Roman Empire was the process of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which it failed to enforce its rule. The Fall is not the only unifying concept for these events, for Dio Cassius, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 CE marked the descent from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron. Gibbon started his story in 98 and Theodor Mommsen regarded the whole of the period as unworthy of inclusion in his Nobel Prize-winning History of Rome. Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the entire Imperial era was one of decay of institutions founded in republican times. Gibbon gave a formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He began a controversy about the role of Christianity, but he gave great weight to other causes of internal decline. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious, and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, alexander Demandt enumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell, and new ideas have emerged since. Historians still try to analyze the reasons for loss of control over a vast territory. Comparison has also made with the Han Empire in China. At least from the time of Henri Pirenne, scholars have described continuity of culture and of political legitimacy, Pirenne postponed the demise of classical civilization to the 8th century. The more recent formulation of a period characterized as Late Antiquity emphasizes the transformations of ancient to medieval worlds within a cultural continuity. In recent decades archaeologically-based argument even extends the continuity in material culture, observing the political reality of lost control, but also the cultural and archaeological continuities, the process has been described as a complex cultural transformation, rather than a fall
9.
Structural history of the Roman military
–
From its origins around 800 BC to its final dissolution in AD476 with the demise of the Western Roman Empire, Romes military organization underwent substantial structural change. At the highest level of structure, the forces were split into the Roman Army, within the top levels of both army and navy, structural changes occurred as a result of both positive military reform and organic structural evolution. These changes can be divided into four distinct phases, phase I The army was derived from obligatory annual military service levied on the citizenry, as part of their duty to the state. During this period, the Roman army would wage seasonal campaigns against largely local adversaries, phase II As the extent of the territories falling under Roman control expanded and the size of the forces increased, the soldiery gradually became salaried professionals. As a consequence, military service at the lower levels became progressively longer-term, Roman military units of the period were largely homogeneous and highly regulated. The army consisted of units of infantry known as legions as well as non-legionary allied troops known as auxilia. The latter were most commonly called upon to provide infantry, logistical. Phase III At the height of the Roman Empires power, forces were tasked with manning and securing the borders of the vast provinces which had brought under Roman control. Serious strategic threats were common in this period and emphasis was placed on preserving gained territory. The army underwent changes in response to new needs and became more dependent on fixed garrisons than on march-camps. Phase IV As Rome began to struggle to control over its sprawling territories, military service continued to be salaried. However, the trend of employing allied or mercenary elements was expanded to such an extent that these came to represent a substantial proportion of the armed forces. At the same time, the uniformity of structure found in Romes earlier military disappeared, soldiery of the era ranged from lightly armed mounted archers to heavy infantry, in regiments of varying size and quality. This was accompanied by a trend in the empire of an increasing predominance of cavalry rather than infantry troops. In this period there was focus on smaller units of independently-operating troops, engaging less in set-piece battles and more in low-intensity. According to the historians Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing at a far later date, Historian Theodor Mommsen referred to it as Romes curiate army, named for its presumed subdivision along the boundaries of Romes three founding tribes, the Ramnians, Tities and Luceres. This armys exact structure is not known, but it is probable that it resembled a warrior band or group of bodyguards led by a chieftain or king. Mommsen believes that Roman military organization of this period was regimented by the Laws of King Italus but these laws, the army consisted, according to Livy, of exactly 3,000 infantry and 300 horsemen, one third from each of Romes three founding tribes
10.
Roman army
–
The Early Roman army of the Roman Kingdom and of the early Republic. During this period, when warfare chiefly consisted of small-scale plundering raids, it has suggested that the Roman Army followed Etruscan or Greek models of organisation. The early Roman army was based on an annual levy, the infantry ranks were filled with the lower classes while the cavalry were left to the patricians, because the wealthier could afford horses. Moreover, the authority during the regal period was the high king. Until the establishment of the Republic and the office of consul, however, from about 508 BC Rome no longer had a king. The commanding position of the army was given to the consuls, the term legion is derived from the Latin word legio, which ultimately means draft or levy. At first there were only four legions and these legions were numbered I to IIII, with the fourth being written as such and not IV. The first legion was seen as the most prestigious, the latter being a recurring theme in many elements of the Roman army. The bulk of the army was made up of citizens and these citizens could not choose the legion to which they were allocated. Any man from ages 16-46 were selected by ballot and assigned to a legion, until the Roman military disaster of 390 BC at the Battle of the Allia, Romes army was organised similarly to the Greek Phalanx. This was due to Greek influence in Italy by way of their colonies, patricia Southern quotes ancient historians Livy and Dionysius in saying that the phalanx consisted of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. Each man had to provide his equipment in battle, the equipment which he could afford determined which position he took in the battle. Politically they shared the ranking system in the Comitia Centuriata. The Roman army of the mid-Republic was also known as the army or the Polybian army after the Greek historian Polybius. The latter were required to roughly the same number of troops to joint forces as the Romans to serve under Roman command. Legions in this phase were always accompanied on campaign by the number of allied alae. After the 2nd Punic War, the Romans acquired an overseas empire and these volunteers were mainly from the poorest social class, who did not have plots to tend at home and were attracted by the modest military pay and the prospect of a share of war booty. The minimum property requirement for service in the legions, which had been suspended during the 2nd Punic War, was effectively ignored from 201 BC onward in order to recruit sufficient volunteers
11.
Roman military decorations and punishments
–
As with most other military forces the Roman military adopted an extensive list of decorations for military gallantry and likewise a range of punishments for military transgressions. Grass crown -, was the highest and rarest of all military decorations and it was presented only to a general, commander, or officer whose actions saved the legion or the entire army. Civic crown -, was a chaplet of oak leaves woven to form a crown. During the Roman Republic, and the subsequent Principate, it was regarded as the second highest military decoration a citizen could aspire to, naval crown -, was a gold crown awarded to the first man who boarded an enemy ship during a naval engagement. In style, the crown was made of gold and surmounted with the beaks of ships, gold crown -, Awarded to both Centurions and apparently some principales, for killing an enemy in single combat and holding the ground to the end of the battle. Battlement crowns - These were made of gold and decorated with the uprights of an entrenchment or turrets of a city and it was awarded to the first soldier or Centurion to mount the wall or palisade of an enemy town or camp. Camp crown -, A golden crown which was ornamented with the used in forming an entrenchment. Augustus, Majestic or Venerable, an honorific cognomen exclusive to the emperor Αὐτοκράτωρ, the use of this decoration is not clear. A small silver replica of a standard or flag, when the Roman soldier enrolled in service to the state, he swore a military oath known as the sacramentum, originally to the Senate and Roman People, later to the general and the emperor. The sacramentum stated that he would fulfill his conditions of service on pain of punishment up to, discipline in the army was extremely rigorous by modern standards, and the general had the power to summarily execute any soldier under his command. Soldiers under sentence of fustuarium who escaped were not pursued, pecunaria multa - fines or deductions from the pay allowance. Flogging in front of the century, cohort or legion, demanding sureties, including the re-taking of the military oath known as the sacramentum. For treason or theft, the punishment would most probably be being placed in a sack of snakes and it would seem that in the later Empire independent commanders were given considerable latitude in the crimes they chose to punish and the penalties they inflicted. The author of the Vita Aureliani comments that Aurelian rarely punished twice for the same offence, however, even by Roman standards his justice was considered particularly harsh. Decimatio - a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers in exceptional cases. The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat, as a result, they suffered a terrible defeat. Crassuss response to the disobedience was brutal and he assembled the two legions and pulled out every 10th man as he walked across the ranks. Each man who was pulled out was to be beaten to death by his nine comrades
12.
Auxilia
–
The Auxilia constituted the standing non-citizen corps of the Imperial Roman army during the Principate era, alongside the citizen legions. By the 2nd century, the Auxilia contained the number of infantry as the legions and in addition provided almost all of the Roman armys cavalry. The auxilia thus represented three-fifths of Romes regular land forces at that time, like their legionary counterparts, auxiliary recruits were mostly volunteers, not conscripts. The Auxilia were mainly recruited from the peregrini, free provincial subjects who did not hold Roman citizenship and constituted the vast majority of the population in the 1st and 2nd centuries. In contrast to the legions, which only admitted Roman citizens, reliance on the various contingents of non-Italic troops, especially cavalry, increased when the Roman Republic employed them in increasing numbers to support its legions after 200 BC. The Julio-Claudian period saw the transformation of the Auxilia from motley levies to a corps with standardised structure, equipment. By the end of the period, there were no significant differences between legionaries and auxiliaries in terms of training, and thus, combat capability. Auxiliary regiments were stationed in provinces other than that in which they were originally raised, for reasons of security. The regimental names of many auxiliary units persisted into the 4th century, but by then the units in question were different in size, structure, despite its formidable strength, the legion had a number of deficiencies, especially a lack of cavalry. Around 200 BC, a legion of 4,200 infantry had an arm of only 300 horse. In addition the legion lacked missile forces such as slingers and archers, until 200 BC, the bulk of a Roman armys cavalry was provided by Romes regular Italian allies, commonly known as the Latin allies, which made up the Roman military confederation. This was Romes defence system until the Social War of 91–88 BC, the Italian forces were organised into alae. Since a pre-Social War consular army always contained a number of legions and alae. The overall cavalry element, c. 12% of the force, was greater than in most peninsular Italian forces. The Roman/Latin cavalry was sufficient while Rome was in conflict with other states in the mountainous Italian peninsula, which also disposed of limited cavalry resources. The decisive Roman victory at Zama in 202 BC, which ended the war, owed much to the Numidian cavalry provided by king Massinissa, from then, Roman armies were always accompanied by large numbers of non-Italian cavalry, Numidian light cavalry and, later, Gallic heavy cavalry. For example, Caesar relied heavily on Gallic and German cavalry for his Conquest of Gaul, as the role of native cavalry grew, that of Roman/Latin cavalry diminished. In the early 1st century BC, Roman cavalry was phased out altogether, after the Social War, the socii were all granted Roman citizenship, the Latin alae abolished, and the socii recruited into the legions
13.
Roman navy
–
The Roman navy comprised the naval forces of the Ancient Roman state. The navy was instrumental in the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean basin, partly because of that, the navy was never wholly embraced by the Roman state, and deemed somewhat un-Roman. In Antiquity, navies and trading fleets did not have the autonomy that modern ships. Unlike modern naval forces, the Roman navy even at its height never existed as an autonomous service but operated as an adjunct to the Roman army. The Roman fleets were again prominent in the 1st century BC in the wars against the pirates, in 31 BC, the great naval Battle of Actium ended the civil wars culminating in the final victory of Augustus and the establishment of the Roman Empire. During the Imperial period, the Mediterranean became largely a peaceful Roman lake, in the absence of a maritime enemy, the navy was reduced mostly to patrol, anti-piracy and transport duties. The navy also manned and maintained craft on major rivers such as the Rhine. On the fringes of the Empire, in new conquests or, increasingly, in defense against barbarian invasions, the Roman fleets were still engaged in open warfare. The decline of the Empire in the 3rd century took a toll on the navy. As successive waves of the Völkerwanderung crashed on the frontiers of the battered Empire. In the early 5th century, the Roman frontiers were breached, one of them, the Vandal Kingdom, raised a navy of its own and raided the shores of the Mediterranean, even sacking Rome, while the diminished Roman fleets were incapable of offering any resistance. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the late 5th century, the navy of the surviving eastern Roman Empire is known as the Byzantine navy. The exact origins of the Roman fleet are obscure, a traditionally agricultural and land-based society, the Romans rarely ventured out to sea, unlike their Etruscan neighbours. As a result, the Republic acquired its first fleet, consisting of 20 ships, most likely triremes and this situation continued until the First Punic War, the main task of the Roman fleet was patrolling along the Italian coast and rivers, protecting seaborne trade from piracy. It is possible that the supervision of these allies was one of the duties of the four new praetores classici. The first Roman expedition outside mainland Italy was against the island of Sicily in 265 BC and this led to the outbreak of hostilities with Carthage, which would last until 241 BC. At the time, the Punic city was the master of the western Mediterranean, possessing a long maritime and naval experience. Although Rome had relied on her legions for the conquest of Italy, operations in Sicily had to be supported by a fleet, thus in 261 BC, the Roman Senate set out to construct a fleet of 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes
14.
Campaign history of the Roman military
–
These accounts were written by various authors throughout and after the history of the Empire. The Roman army battled first against its neighbours and Etruscan towns within Italy. From the outset, Romes military typified this pattern, and the majority of Romes campaigns were characterised by one of two types, the second is the civil war, which plagued Rome from its foundation to its eventual demise. Roman armies were not invincible, despite their reputation and host of victories. Nevertheless, it was generally the fate of even the greatest of Romes enemies, such as Pyrrhus and Hannibal, to win the battle, the history of Romes campaigning is, if nothing else, a history of obstinate persistence overcoming appalling losses. Knowledge of Roman history stands apart from other civilizations in the ancient world and its chronicles, military and otherwise, document the citys very foundation to its eventual demise. Romes earliest history, from the time of its founding as a tribal village. Although the early Romans were literate to some degree, this void may be due to the lack of will to record their history at that time, or such histories as they did record were lost. Although the Roman historian Livy lists a series of seven kings of early Rome in his work Ab urbe condita, from its establishment through its earliest years, a number of points of view have been proposed. Very little is known of Romes military history from this era, traditionally, Romulus, after founding the city, fortified the Palatine Hill, and shortly thereafter, Rome was equal to any of the surrounding cities in her prowess in war. The first of the campaigns fought by the Romans in this account are the wars with various Latin cities. According to Livy, the Latin village of Caenina responded to the event of the abduction of the Sabine women by invading Roman territory, the Latins of Antemnae and those of Crustumerium were defeated next in a similar fashion. The remaining main body of the Sabines attacked Rome and briefly captured the citadel, there was a further war in the 8th century BC against Fidenae and Veii. In the 7th century BC there was a war with Alba Longa, a war with Fidenae and Veii. Ancus Marcius led Rome to victory against the Latins and, according to the Fasti Triumphales, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus first war was waged against the Latins. Tarquinius took the Latin town of Apiolae by storm and took great booty from there back to Rome, according to the Fasti Triumphales, the war occurred prior to 588 BC. His military ability was tested by an attack from the Sabines, Tarquinius doubled the numbers of equites to help the war effort, and defeat the Sabines. Tarquinius returned to Rome and celebrated a triumph for his victories that, according to the Fasti Triumphales, subsequently, the Latin cities of Corniculum, old Ficulea, Cameria, Crustumerium, Ameriola, Medullia and Nomentum were subdued and became Roman
15.
Technological history of the Roman military
–
The rise of Hellenism and the Roman Republic are generally seen as signalling the end of the Iron Age in the Mediterranean. Roman iron-working was enhanced by a known as carburization. The Romans made use of the properties in their armaments. The Roman armies of the empire were much better equipped than early republican armies. Metals used for arms and armour primarily included iron, bronze, for construction, the army used wood, earth and stone. The later use of concrete in architecture was widely mirrored in Roman military technology, the Etruscans had invented the stone arch, and used it in bridges as well as buildings. Some later Roman technologies were directly from Greek civilization. This included the advances that the Greeks had made, as well as all the scientific, mathematical, political. However, the Romans made many significant technological advances, such as the invention of hydraulic cement and their methods were recorded by such luminaries as Vitruvius and Frontinus for example, who wrote handbooks to advise fellow engineers and architects. Romans knew enough history to be aware that widespread technological change had occurred in the past and brought benefits and that tradition continued as the empire grew in size and absorbed new ideas. Romans thought of themselves as practical, so small-scale innovation was common, however, this view is being challenged by new research that shows they did indeed innovate, and on a wide scale. Thus the watermill had been known to the Greeks, but it was the Romans who developed their efficient utilisation. The set of mills at Barbegal in southern France were worked by a single aqueduct and they probably were built by the army and supplied flour to a wide region. Floating mills were used to exploit fast flowing rivers. The Romans also used water power in a way during mining operations. The spectacular gold mine at Las Medulas was worked by no fewer than seven long aqueducts cut into the surrounding mountains, the outflow was channelled into sluice boxes, and the heavier gold collected on rough pavements. They also developed many deep mines, such as those for copper at Rio Tinto, dewatering machines, such as Archimedean screws and reverse overshot water wheels, were found in situ, one of which is on show at the British Museum. Another fragmentary example was recovered from the Roman gold mine at Dolaucothi in west Wales and they had the expertise to build the infrastructure of aqueducts and reservoirs, as well as control production
16.
Roman military engineering
–
The military engineering of Ancient Romes armed forces was of a scale and frequency far beyond that of any of its contemporaries. Roman military engineering took both routine and extraordinary forms, the former a proactive part of standard procedure. Each Roman legion had a military legionary fort as its permanent base, however, when on the march, particularly in enemy territory, the legion would, after a days marching, construct a fortified camp or castra, requiring as raw materials only earth, turf and timber. These engineers would requisition manual labor from the soldiers at large as required, a legion could throw up a camp under enemy attack in as little as a few hours. The engineers also built bridges from both timber and stone depending on required permanence, time available etc, some Roman stone bridges survive to this day. Stone bridges were made possible by the use of the keystone to allow an arch construction. One of the most notable examples of military bridge-building in the Roman Empire was Julius Caesars Bridge over the Rhine River and this bridge was completed in only ten days and is conservatively estimated to have been more than 100 m long. Caesar was able to cross over the bridge and explore the area uncontested, before crossing back over. The bridge was intended to show otherwise, the 1st century BC army engineer Vitruvius describes in detail many of the Roman siege machines in his manuscript De Architectura. When invading enemy territories, the Roman army would often construct roads as they went, to allow swift reinforcement and resupply, Roman road-making skills are such that some Roman roads survive to this day. Michael Grant credits the Roman building of the Via Appia with winning them the Second Samnite War, the Roman army also took part in building projects for civilian use. Of both military and civilian use was the construction of roads within the boundaries of the Empire, in which the army was heavily involved. But so too were soldiers put to use in the construction of walls, the digging of shipping canals. In some rare cases soldiers were used in mining work. It is likely that they were capable of building and operating mine equipment such as water mills, stamp mills. It is likely that they were involved in exploiting gold resources such as those at Dolaucothi in south west Wales. This wall is estimated to have been over 20 km long, a second example would be the massive ramp built using thousands of tons of stones and beaten earth up to the invested city of Masada in the Jewish Revolt. The siege works and the remain in a remarkable state of preservation today
17.
Castra
–
In the Roman Empire, the Latin word castrum was a building, or plot of land, used as a fortified military camp. Castrum was the used for different sizes of camps including a large legionary fortress, smaller auxiliary forts, temporary encampments. The diminutive form castellum was used for fortlets, typically occupied by a detachment of a cohort or a century, in English, the terms Roman fortress, Roman fort and Roman camp are commonly used for castrum. However, scholastic convention tends toward the use of the camp, marching camp. For a list of known castra see List of castra, the term castrum appears in three Italic languages, Oscan, Umbrian and Latin. g. Castrum Album, Castrum Inui, Castrum Novum, Castrum Truentinum, Castrum Vergium. The plural was used as a place name, as Castra Cornelia. Castrorum Filius was one of names used by the emperor Caligula, the terms stratopedon and phrourion were used by Greek language authors to translate castrum and castellum, respectively. A castrum was designed to house and protect the soldiers, their equipment and this most detailed description that survives about Roman military camps is De Munitionibus Castrorum, a manuscript of 11 pages that dates most probably from the late 1st to early 2nd century AD. Regulations required a major unit in the field to retire to a properly constructed camp every day, to this end a marching column ported the equipment needed to build and stock the camp in a baggage train of wagons and on the backs of the soldiers. They could throw up a camp under enemy attack in as little as a few hours. Judging from the names, they used a repertory of camp plans, selecting the one appropriate to the length of time a legion would spend in it, tertia castra, quarta castra. A camp of three days, four days, etc, more permanent camps were castra stativa, standing camps. The least permanent of these were castra aestiva or aestivalia, summer camps, in which the soldiers were housed sub pellibus or sub tentoriis, under tents. For the winter the soldiers retired to castra hiberna containing barracks and other buildings of solid materials. The camp allowed the Romans to keep a rested and supplied army in the field, neither the Celtic nor Germanic armies had this capability, they found it necessary to disperse after only a few days. The largest castra were legionary fortresses built as bases for one or more whole legions, previously, legions were raised for specific military campaigns and subsequently disbanded, requiring only temporary castra. From then on many castra of various sizes were established many of which became permanent settlements, from the most ancient times Roman camps were constructed according to a certain ideal pattern, formally described in two main sources, the De Munitionibus Castrorum and the works of Polybius
18.
Roman siege engines
–
Roman siege engines were, for the most part, adapted from Hellenistic siege technology. Relatively small efforts were made to develop the technology, however, up to the 1st century BC the Romans utilized siege weapons only as required and relied for the most part on ladders, towers and rams to assault a fortified town. Ballistae were also employed, but held no permanent place within a legions roster, until later in the Republic, Julius Caesar took great interest in the integration of advanced siege engines, organizing their use for optimal battlefield efficiency. To facilitate this organization and the army’s self-sufficiency, a corps was developed. There were legion architects who were responsible for the construction of war machines who would also assure that all artillery constructions in the field were level, ensuring that constructions were level was the job of the libratores, who would also launch missiles and other projectiles during battle. The engineering corps was in charge of production, frequently prefabricating artillery. Roman artillery was very efficient at that time, and during a siege the Romans would attack the weakest area of their enemy’s defenses and attempt to breach the walls at that point. To support this effort, artillery fire would commence, with three objectives, to cause damage to defenses, casualties among the opposing army. It would also provide cover fire for troops building siege ramps or those in siege towers, there were machines called tormenta, which would launch projectiles such as javelins, arrows, rocks, or beams. These devices were on wheeled platforms to follow the line’s advance and it was later stated that sinew, instead of twisted hair, provided a better “spring. It is somewhat difficult to define and describe Roman artillery, as names are easily confused. Perhaps best known are the ballista, the onager, and the scorpio, after the absorption of the Ancient Greek City states into the Roman Republic in 146 BC, some advanced Greek technology began to spread across many areas of Roman influence. This included the hugely advantageous military advances the Greeks had made, as well as all the scientific, mathematical, political, the torsion ballista, developed by Alexander, was a far more complicated weapon than its predecessor, and the Romans developed it even further. Vitruvius, in his De Architectura Book X, describes the construction, every century in the Roman army had a ballista by the 1st century AD. It was the command of the chief of the ballista, under whom were the experts, or doctores ballistarum and finally. Ballistae were heavy missile weapons, hurling large rocks great distances to damage rampart walls and they resembled large crossbows, rather than catapults. The arms were drawn rearward with a lever to further twist the skeins. It has been said that the sound of a ballista-fired stone struck fear
19.
Roman roads
–
They provided efficient means for the overland movement of armies, officials, and civilians, and the inland carriage of official communications and trade goods. Roman roads were of several kinds, ranging from local roads to broad, long-distance highways built to connect cities, major towns. These major roads were often stone-paved and metaled, cambered for drainage and they were laid along accurately surveyed courses, and some were cut through hills, or conducted over rivers and ravines on bridgework. Sections could be supported over marshy ground on rafted or piled foundations, at the peak of Romes development, no fewer than 29 great military highways radiated from the capital, and the late Empires 113 provinces were interconnected by 372 great roads. The whole comprised more than 400,000 kilometres of roads, in Gaul alone, no less than 21,000 kilometres of roadways are said to have been improved, and in Britain at least 4,000 kilometres. The courses of many Roman roads survived for millennia, some are overlaid by modern roads, livy mentions some of the most familiar roads near Rome, and the milestones on them, at times long before the first paved road—the Appian Way. Unless these allusions are just simple anachronisms, the referred to were probably at the time little more than levelled earthen tracks. Thus, the Via Gabina is mentioned in about 500 BC, the Via Latina in about 490 BC, the Via Nomentana, in 449 BC, the Via Labicana in 421 BC, and the Via Salaria in 361 BC. There is hardly a district to which we expect a Roman official to be sent, on service either civil or military. They reach the Wall in Britain, run along the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates, and cover, as with a network, a road map of the empire reveals that it was generally laced with a dense network of prepared viae. Beyond its borders there were no paved roads, however, it can be supposed that footpaths, there were, for instance, some pre-Roman ancient trackways in Britain, such as the Ridgeway and the Icknield Way. For specific roads, see Roman road locations below, the Laws of the Twelve Tables, dated to about 450 BC, specified that a road shall be 8 Roman feet wide where straight and twice that width where curved. Actual practices varied from this standard, the Tables command Romans to build roads and give wayfarers the right to pass over private land where the road is in disrepair. Roman law defined the right to use a road as a servitus, the ius eundi established a claim to use an iter, or footpath, across private land, the ius agendi, an actus, or carriage track. A via combined both types of servitutes, provided it was of the width, which was determined by an arbiter. The default width was the latitudo legitima of 8 feet, Roman law and tradition forbade the use of vehicles in urban areas, except in certain cases. Married women and government officials on business could ride, the Lex Iulia Municipalis restricted commercial carts to night-time access in the city within the walls and within a mile outside the walls. Such roads led either to the sea, or to a town, or to a public river and these roads bear the names of their constructors
20.
Political history of the Roman military
–
Romes military was always tightly keyed to its political system. In the Roman kingdom the social standing of a person impacted both his political and military roles, the political system was from an early date based upon competition within the ruling elite. Senators in the Republic competed fiercely for public office, the most coveted of which was the post of Consul, two were elected each year to head the government of the state, and would be assigned a consular army and an area in which to campaign. The late Republic and Empire was increasingly plagued by usurpations led by or supported by the military, a further politicization of the military involved officers for a unit not belonging to and being drawn from the class of the military unit he commanded but being selected often through voting. Violence broke out and the Senate ordered Gaius Marius, as Consul for that year, Marius, although he was generally allied with the radicals, complied with the request and put down the revolt in the interest of public order. After the conclusion of the Social War, certain of Romes eastern provinces became under threat of invasion, the choice before the Senate was to put either Consul Marius or Consul Sulla in command of an army. Marius had already served five consulships and enjoyed widespread popularity, the senate made its decision and Sulla was given the job but a short time later the decision was reversed by the Assembly, and Marius placed in command. Sulla left Rome and traveled to reach the army waiting in Nola, Sulla urged his legions to defy the Assemblys orders and accept him as their rightful leader. Sulla was successful and the legions stoned the representatives from the Assembly when they arrived, Sulla then commanded six legions to march with him to Rome. This was an event, and was unforeseen by Marius, as no Roman army had ever marched upon Rome - it was forbidden by law. It was a pattern to be repeated more famously later by Caesar, during the First Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, each of the triumvires used military success to enhance their own political and public status. Rather, it was another step in the severance of the connection between state and troops that saw armies increasingly become tied to their generals political careers. When the triumvirate collapsed, Caesar crossed the Rubicon river and marched his armies upon Rome itself, Caesar, on the other hand, marched his army against Rome purely for his own purposes. In everything but name, the army had placed the first Emperor on the throne of Rome, however, the state saw itself as relatively safe from such rebellions in the early imperial period. However, later larger-scale wars necessitated the concentration of military power in the hands of generals. There is evidence of emperors holding some members of families as hostage to ensure their loyalty. Likewise, from 211 to the accession of Diocletian and the establishment of the Tetrarchy in 293, however, there were also 38 usurpers who raised revolts across the empire. The latter problem meant that there were always men remote from their duties and loyalties in Rome and in command or large armies marching under their discipline, the usurpation mania of the 3rd century had profound effects in the military organization of the Empire
21.
Strategy of the Roman military
–
The strategy of the Roman military contains its grand strategy, operational strategy and, on a small scale, its military tactics. If a fourth rung of engagement is added, then the whole can be seen as a ladder, whereas the purest form of tactics or engagement are those free of political imperative, the purest form of political policy does not involve military engagement. Strategy as a whole is the connection between political policy and the use of force to achieve it. In its clearest form, strategy deals solely with military issues, either a threat or an opportunity is recognised, an evaluation is made, and a military stratagem for meeting it is devised. However, as Clausewitz stated, a military strategy may be a means to an end. Where a state has a long term goal to which they apply military methods and the resources of the state. To an extent, all states will have a strategy to a certain degree even if it is simply determining which forces to raise as a military. Whilst early Rome did raise and arm troops, they tended to them annually in response to the specific demands of the state during that year. The contribution of military force to strategy was largely reduced to operational strategy - the planning. Romes grand strategy incorporated diplomacy through which Rome might forge alliances or pressure another nation into compliance, is to be considered, every expedient tried and every method taken before matters are brought to this last extremity. Good officers decline general engagements where the odds are too great, however, Vegetius was writing late in the fourth century AD, in the latter years of the Empire. During this period, and for much of the Empire, it can be argued that the Romans did follow a grand strategy calling for limited direct operational engagement. When a campaign did go wrong, operational strategy varied greatly as the circumstances dictated, from naval actions to sieges, assaults of fortified positions. However, the preponderance of Roman campaigns exhibit a preference for direct engagement in battle and, where necessary. The Roman army was adept at building fortified camps for protection from attack, but history shows a reluctance to sit in the camp awaiting battle. Once the legion had deployed on an operation, they would march to their objective. There were exceptions when the armies were transported by the Roman navy, the approach to the battlefield was made in several columns, enhancing maneuver. Typically a strong vanguard preceded the main body, and included scouts, cavalry, a tribune or other officer often accompanied the vanguard to survey the terrain for possible camp locations
22.
Roman infantry tactics
–
Roman infantry tactics refers to the theoretical and historical deployment, formation and maneuvers of the Roman infantry from the start of the Roman Republic to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The article first presents an overview of Roman training. Roman performance against different types of enemies is then analyzed, the focus below is primarily on Roman tactics - the how of their approach to battle, and how it stacked up against a variety of opponents over time. It does not attempt detailed coverage of things like army structure or equipment, various battles are summarized to illustrate Roman methods with links to detailed articles on individual encounters. For in depth background on the structure of the infantry relevant to this article. For a history of Romes military campaigns see Campaign history of the Roman military, for detail on equipment, daily life and specific legions see Roman legion and Roman military personal equipment. Roman military tactics and strategy evolved from typical of a small tribal host seeking local hegemony. This advance was affected by changing trends in Roman political, social and economic life, and that of the larger Mediterranean world and these elements waxed and waned over time, but they form a distinct basis underlying Romes rise. This included the reversal of status of cavalry and infantry in the Eastern Empire and this bounty of military resources enabled Rome to apply crushing pressure to its enemies, and stay in the field and replace losses, even after suffering setbacks. One historian of the Second Punic War states, According to Polybius, Brunt adjusted Polybius’ figures and estimated that the population of Italy, not including Greeks and Bruttians, exceeded 875,000 free adult males, from whom the Romans could levy troops. Rome not only had the potential to levy vast numbers of troops, Brunt estimates that Rome mobilized 108,000 men for service in the legions between 218BC and 215BC, while at the height of the war effort Rome was able to mobilize approximately 230,000 men. Against these mighty resources Hannibal led from Spain an army of approximately 50,000 infantry and 9,000 cavalry, rome’s manpower reserves allowed it to absorb staggering losses yet still continue to field large armies. For example, according to Brunt, as many as 50,000 men were lost between 218BC and 215BC, but Rome continued to place between 14 and 25 legions in the field for the duration of the war. Put simply, the disparity in the number of available troops at the outset of the conflict meant that Hannibal had a much narrower margin for error than the Romans. This load consisted of armour, a called a gladius. There were also tools for digging and constructing a castra, the fortified base camp. One writer recreates the following as to Caesars army in Gaul, Each soldier arranged his heavy pack on a T or Y-shaped rod, shields were protected on the march with a hide cover. Each legionary carried about 5 days worth of wheat, pulses or chickpeas, a flask of oil and a kit with a dish, cup
23.
Roman military frontiers and fortifications
–
Roman military borders and fortifications were part of a grand strategy of territorial defense in the Roman Empire, although this is a matter of debate. In particular, Goldsworthy argues that the warfare of the Parthians, Sarmatians and Persians presented a major challenge to the expansion of Romes infantry-based armies. Individual fortifications had been constructed by the Roman military from as early as the building of Romes first city walls in the 6th or 7th century BC, however, systematic construction of fortifications around the periphery of the empire on a strategic scale began around 40 AD under Emperor Caligula. However, it was under Hadrians rule, which began in 117 and he spent half of his 21-year reign touring the empire and advocating for the construction of forts, towers, and walls all across the edges of the empire. The coherent construction of fortifications on a strategic scale are known as the limes. The limes consisted of fortresses for legions or vexillations as well as a system of roads for the transit of troops and, in some places. Perhaps the most famous example of these is Hadrians Wall in Great Britain, however, it is not correct to interpret other limes in the same way or to view the limes as an impenetrable barrier. Other limes would not have had a continuous man-made fortification for the entirety of their length, in places, a river, desert or natural outcropping of rock could provide the same effect for zero outlay. Additionally, an army would have been able to force a crossing of the limes using siege equipment. The limes are therefore perhaps better seen as an instrument allowing a greater economy of force in defense of a border than otherwise would be necessary to provide the level of defense. After 270, the maintenance of an impenetrable solid frontier was abandoned by Constantine I in favor of a policy, whether deliberate or forced by circumstance and this called for the maintenance of a softer, deeper perimeter area of defense, with concentrated hard points throughout its depth. In the very late Empire the frontiers became even more elastic, instead, armies were concentrated near the heart of the empire, and enemies allowed to penetrate in cases as far inwards as the Italian peninsula before being met in battle. After conquering much of the landmass of Great Britain, the Romans halted their northern expansion at the southern fringe of Caledonia. This left them with a border shared with a people who made repeated raids, although the border was not a continuous wall, a series of fortifications known as Gask Ridge in mid-Scotland may well be Romes earliest fortified land frontier. Constructed in the 70CE or 80CE, it was superseded by the later Hadrians Wall forty years later, although records are scarce, there are indications that the border fluctuated between the various fortifications depending on the local strength of the military. These northern fortifications are sometimes styled the Limes Britannicus, the average garrison of the wall fortifications is thought to have been around 10,000 men. Along with a wall, there existed a metaled road immediately behind the wall for transport of troops. In the later Empire, Roman Britannia found itself vulnerable to external aggression
24.
Limes
–
A limes was a border defence or delimiting system of Ancient Rome. It marked the boundaries and provinces of the Roman Empire, the word limes was utilized by Latin writers to denote a marked or fortified frontier. This was the definition and usage of the term. It is now common to accept that limes was not a term used by the Romans for the imperial frontier. This is a modern, anachronistic interpretation, the term became common after the 3rd century AD, when it denoted a military district under the command of a dux limitis. The limites represented the line of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in the 2nd century AD. It stretched over 5,000 km from the Atlantic coast of northern Britain, through Europe to the Black Sea, the remains of the limites today consist of vestiges of walls, ditches, forts, fortresses and civilian settlements. Certain elements of the line have been excavated, some reconstructed, the two sections of the limes in Germany cover a length of 550 km from the north-west of the country to the Danube in the south-east. The 118 km long Hadrians Wall was built on the orders of the Emperor Hadrian c, AD122 at the northernmost limits of the Roman province of Britannia. It is an example of the organization of a military zone and illustrates the defensive techniques. The Antonine Wall, a 60 km-long fortification in Scotland, was started by Emperor Antoninus Pius in AD142 as a defense against the Barbarians of the north and it constitutes the northwestern-most portion of the Roman Limes. Limes Norici, the frontier of the Roman province Noricum, from the River Inn along the Danube to Cannabiaca in Austria, Limes Pannonicus, the frontier of the Roman province Pannonia, along the Danube from Klosterneuburg Austria to Taurunum in Serbia. A mediaeval limes is the Limes Saxoniae in Holstein, the stem of limes, limit-, which can be seen in the genitive case, limitis, marks it as the ancestor of an entire group of important words in many languages, for example, English limit. Modern languages have multiplied its abstract formulations, for example, from limit comes the abbreviation lim, used in mathematics to designate the limit of a sequence or a function, see limit. In metaphysics, material objects are limited by matter and therefore are delimited from each other, in ethics, men must know their limitations and are wise if they do. An etymology was given in detail by Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. According to him, it comes from Indo-European el-, elei-, lei-, to bow, to bend, the Latin meaning was discussed in detail by W. Gebert. The sense is that a limit bends across one in some way, the limes was a cross-path or a cross-wall, which the Romans meant to throw across the path of invaders to hinder them
25.
Antonine Wall
–
Representing the northernmost frontier barrier of the Roman Empire, it spanned approximately 63 kilometres and was about 3 metres high and 5 metres wide. Security was bolstered by a ditch on the northern side. It is thought there was a wooden palisade on top of the turf. The barrier was the second of two great walls created by the Romans in Northern Britain and its ruins are less evident than the better-known Hadrians Wall to the south, primarily because the turf and wood wall has largely weathered away, unlike its stone-built southern predecessor. Construction began in AD142 at the order of Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, Antoninus Pius never visited Britain, whereas his predecessor Hadrian did. Pressure from the Caledonians may have led Antoninus to send the troops further north. The Antonine Wall was protected by 16 forts with small fortlets between them, troop movement was facilitated by a road linking all the known as the Military Way. The soldiers who built the wall commemorated the construction and their struggles with the Caledonians in decorative slabs, the wall was abandoned only eight years after completion, and the garrisons relocated back to Hadrians Wall. In 208 Emperor Septimius Severus re-established legions at the wall and ordered repairs, the occupation ended a few years later, and the wall was never fortified again. Most of the wall and its associated fortifications have been destroyed over time, many of these have come under the care of Historic Scotland and the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius ordered the construction of the Antonine Wall around 142, quintus Lollius Urbicus, governor of Roman Britain at the time, initially supervised the effort, which took about twelve years to complete. The wall stretches 63 kilometres from Old Kilpatrick in West Dunbartonshire on the Firth of Clyde to Carriden near Boness on the Firth of Forth, the wall was intended to extend Roman territory and dominance by replacing Hadrians Wall 160 kilometres to the south, as the frontier of Britannia. The Romans called the north of the wall Caledonia, though in some contexts the term may refer to the whole area north of Hadrians Wall. The Antonine Wall was shorter than Hadrians Wall and built of turf on a stone rather than of stone. The stone foundations and wing walls of the original forts demonstrate that the plan was to build a stone wall similar to Hadrians Wall. As built, the wall was typically a bank, about four metres high, made of layered turves and occasionally earth with a ditch on the north side. The Romans initially planned to build forts every 10 kilometres, but this was revised to every 3.3 kilometres. The best preserved but also one of the smallest forts is Rough Castle Fort
26.
Hadrian's Wall
–
It had a stone base and a stone wall. There were milecastles with two turrets in between, there was a fort about every five Roman miles. From north to south, the wall comprised a ditch, wall, military way and vallum and it is thought the milecastles were staffed with static garrisons, whereas the forts had fighting garrisons of infantry and cavalry. In addition to the defensive military role, its gates may have been customs posts. A significant portion of the wall still stands and can be followed on foot along the adjoining Hadrians Wall Path, the largest Roman artefact anywhere, it runs a total of 73 miles in northern England. Regarded as a British cultural icon, Hadrians Wall is one of Britains major ancient tourist attractions and it was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1987. It is a misconception that Hadrians Wall marks the boundary between England and Scotland. In fact Hadrians Wall lies entirely within England and has never formed the Anglo-Scottish border, while it is less than 1 kilometre south of the border with Scotland in the west at Bowness-on-Solway, in the east it is as much as 110 kilometres away. Hadrians Wall was 80 Roman miles or 117.5 km long, its width and height varied according to the materials available nearby.5 metres high. These dimensions do not include the walls ditches, berms and forts, the central section measured eight Roman feet wide on a 3 m base. Some parts of section of the wall survive to a height of 3 m. Immediately south of the wall, a ditch was dug, with adjoining parallel mounds. This is known today as the Vallum, even though the word Vallum in Latin is the origin of the English word wall, in many places – for example Limestone Corner – the Vallum is better preserved than the wall, which has been robbed of much of its stone. The A69 and B6318 roads follow the course of the wall from Newcastle upon Tyne to Carlisle, although the curtain wall ends near Bowness-on-Solway, this does not mark the end of the line of defensive structures. The system of milecastles and turrets is known to have continued along the Cumbria coast as far as Risehow, for classification purposes, the milecastles west of Bowness-on-Solway are referred to as Milefortlets. Hadrians Wall was probably planned before Hadrians visit to Britain in AD122, according to restored sandstone fragments found in Jarrow which date from 118 or 119, it was Hadrians wish to keep intact the empire, which had been imposed on him via divine instruction. The fragments then announce the building of the wall and it is entirely possible that, on his arrival in Britain in 122, one of the stops on his itinerary was the northern frontier to inspect the progress of the building of the wall. Theories have been presented by historians, mostly of an expression of Roman power and these troubles may have influenced Hadrians plan to construct the wall as well as his construction of limites in other areas of the Empire, but to what extent is unknown
27.
Saxon Shore
–
The Saxon Shore was a military command of the late Roman Empire, consisting of a series of fortifications on both sides of the English Channel. It was established in the late 3rd century and was led by the Count of the Saxon Shore, in the late 4th century, his functions were limited to Britain, while the fortifications in Gaul were established as separate commands. Several Saxon Shore forts survive in east and south-east England, during the latter half of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire faced a grave crisis. Internally, it was weakened by wars, the violent succession of brief emperors. Most of Britain had been part of the empire since the mid-1st century and it was protected from raids in the north by the Hadrianic and Antonine Walls, while a fleet of some size was also available. However, as the frontiers came under increasing pressure, fortifications were built throughout the Empire in order to protect cities. It is in context that the forts of the Saxon Shore were constructed. Dover was already fortified in the early 2nd century, and the forts in this group were constructed in the period between the 270s and 290s. However, due to the absence of evidence, theories have varied between scholars as to the exact meaning of the name, and also the nature and purpose of the chain of forts it refers to. Two interpretations were put forward as to the meaning of the adjective Saxon, either a shore attacked by Saxons, or a shore settled by Saxons. This view is reinforced by the chain of fortifications across the Channel on the northern coasts of Gaul. Other scholars like John Cotterill however consider the threat posed by Germanic raiders, at least in the 3rd and early 4th centuries and this view, although widely disputed, has found recent support from archaeological evidence at Pevensey, which dates the forts construction to the early 290s. Whatever their original purpose, it is certain that in the late 4th century the forts and their garrisons were employed in operations against Frankish. Britain was abandoned by Rome in 407, with Armorica following soon after, the forts on both sides continued to be inhabited in the following centuries, and in Britain in particular several continued in use well into the Anglo-Saxon period. The nine forts mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum for Britain are listed here, one of the earliest forts, dated to the 230s. It was built to guard the Wash approaches and is of a typical rectangular castrum layout and it was garrisoned by the Equites Dalmatae Brandodunenses, although evidence exists suggesting that its original garrison was the cohors I Aquitanorum. Established between 260 and the mid-270s to guard the River Yare, it was garrisoned by the Equites Stablesiani Gariannoneses, although there is some discussion as to whether this is actually the fort at Caister-on-Sea, and being on the opposite bank of the same estuary as Burgh Castle. Together with Brancaster one of the earliest forts, built in the 210s to guard the Thames estuary and it was garrisoned by the cohors I Baetasiorum since the 3rd century
28.
Limes Germanicus
–
At its height, the limes stretched from the North Sea outlet of the Rhine to near Regensburg on the Danube. Those two major rivers afforded natural protection from mass incursions into imperial territory, with the exception of a gap stretching roughly from Mogontiacum on the Rhine to Castra Regina, the total length was 568 km. It included at least 60 forts and 900 watchtowers, Roman border defences have become much better known through systematic excavations financed by Germany and through other research connected to them. The Saalburg is a fortification and museum of the Limes near Frankfurt. The first emperor who began to build fortifications along the border was Augustus, originally there were numerous Limes walls, which were then connected to form the Upper Germanic Limes along the Rhine and the Rhaetian Limes along the Danube. Later these two walls were linked to form a common borderline, from the death of Augustus until after 70 AD, Rome accepted as her Germanic frontier the water-boundary of the Rhine and upper Danube. Beyond these rivers she held only the plain of Frankfurt, opposite the Roman border fortress of Moguntiacum, the southernmost slopes of the Black Forest. The northern section of this frontier, where the Rhine is deep and broad, the upper Rhine and upper Danube are easily crossed. The frontier which they form is inconveniently long, enclosing an acute-angled wedge of foreign territory between the modern Baden and Württemberg, the Germanic populations of these lands seem in Roman times to have been scanty, and Roman subjects from the modern Alsace-Lorraine had drifted across the river eastwards. The first advance came about 74 AD, when what is now Baden was invaded and in part annexed, the point of the angle was broken off. The second advance was made by Domitian about 83 AD, among the blockhouses was one which by various enlargements and refoundations grew into the well-known Saalburg fort on the Taunus near Bad Homburg. This advance necessitated a third movement, the construction of a frontier connecting the annexations of AD74 and we know the line of this frontier which ran from the Main across the upland Odenwald to the upper waters of the Neckar and was defended by a chain of forts. The angle between the rivers was now almost full, but there remained further advance and further fortification. This is the frontier which is now visible and visited by the curious, the southern part of the Pfahlgraben is remarkably straight, for over 50 km it points almost absolutely true for Polaris. This frontier remained for about 100 years, and no doubt in that long period much was done to it to which precise dates are difficult to fix and it cannot even be absolutely certain when the frontier laid out by Pius was equipped with the manpitts and other special fortifications. Germanic invasions in the late 3rd century led to the abandonment of the so-called Upper Raetian Limes in favour of a Roman defence line along the rivers Rhine, Iller and Danube. Support was provided to some degree by fast river boats, the navis lusoria being the standard type, watch towers were in sight contact and heavily fortified castra placed at important passes and in the hinterland of the frontier. The limes itself is a simple construction
29.
Upper Germanic-Rhaetian Limes
–
The Upper Germanic-Rhaetian Limes, or ORL, is a 550-kilometre-long section of the former external frontier of the Roman Empire between the rivers Rhine and Danube. It runs from Rheinbrohl to Eining on the Danube, the Upper Germanic-Rhaetian Limes is an archaeological site and, since 2005, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Together with the Lower Germanic Limes it forms part of the Limes Germanicus, the term limes originally meant border path or swathe in Latin. In Germany, Limes usually refers to the Rhaetian Limes and Upper Germanic Limes, both sections of limes are named after the adjacent Roman provinces of Raetia and Germania Superior. In the Roman limites we have, for the first time in history, clearly defined borders of a sovereign state that were visible on the ground to friend. Most of the Upper German-Rhaetian Limes did not follow rivers or mountain ranges and it includes the longest land border in the European section of the limes, interrupted for only a few kilometres, by a section that follows the River Main between Großkrotzenburg and Miltenberg. By contrast, elsewhere in Europe, the limes is largely defined by the rivers Rhine, the function of the Roman military frontiers has been increasingly discussed for some time. The latest research tends to view at least the Upper Germanic-Rhaetian Limes not as a military demarcation line. The limes, it is argued, was not really suitable for fending off systematic external attacks, thanks to a skillful economic policy, the Roman Empire extended its influence far to the northeast, beyond the frontier. Evidence of this are the border crossings which, although guarded by Roman soldiers, would have enabled a brisk trade. Attempts were occasionally made, to settle Roman legions beyond the limes or, more often. As a result, the Romanization of the population extended beyond the limes, interest in the limes as the remains of a site dating to the Roman period was rekindled in Germany at the time of the Renaissance and Renaissance humanism. This was bolstered by the rediscovery of the Germania and Annales of Tacitus in monastic libraries in the 15th, scholars like Simon Studion researched inscriptions and discovered forts. Studion led archaeological excavations of the Roman camp of Benningen on the Neckar section of the Neckar-Odenwald Limes, local limes commissions were established but were confined to small areas, for example, in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or Grand Duchy of Baden, due to the political situation. Johann Alexander Döderlein was the first person to record the course of the limes in the Eichstätt region, in 1723, he was the first to interpret the meaning of the limes correctly and published the first scholarly treatise about it in 1731. Only after the foundation of the German Empire could archaeologists begin to more precisely the route of the limes. As a result, they were able to make the first systematic excavations in the half of the 19th century. In 1892, the Imperial Limes Commission was established for this purpose in Berlin, under the direction of the ancient historian, the work of this commission is considered pioneering for reworking of Roman provincial history
30.
Claustra Alpium Iuliarum
–
Claustra Alpium Iuliarum was a defense system within the Roman Empire between Italia and Pannonia that protected Italy from possible invasions from the East. It secured the Postojna Gate, the link between the eastern and western part of the empire, and thus the Claustra represented an inner border defense of the empire. They had been governed from the town of Aquileia, in the year 6 the Great Illyrian Revolt took place threatening the Roman heartland. Subsequently, in order to protect Italy, a series of walls, most of the construction was done after 284 under Diocletian and Constantine I. The fortification system included Forum Iulii, Tarsatica and followed the valley of the Idrijca river and it stretched over the Postojna Gate to the hills south of Emona. In-depth fortifications along the Roman road started at the fortress of Castra ad Fluvio Frigido, which was the centre of the system, the hill fortress of Ad Pirum was typically manned with 500 soldiers but could keep up to 100,000 soldiers. Ad Pirum’s walls were unearthed by Austrian and Italian archeologists and shown to be at a height of 8 m and a thickness of 2 m, Castra Alpium Iuliarum saw a number of battles. Early fortifications may have been useful in 169 when the Marcomanni attempted to enter Italy, in 351 Constantius II took Ad Pirum during his fight against his challenger Magnentius. Most importantly, the Battle of the Frigidus took place in 394 between Castra and Ad Pirum, in this battle the eastern emperor Theodosius I prevailed over his western rival Eugenius and by his victory secured Christianity as the main religion of the empire. After the 5th century the Roman fortifications fell into disrepair, today selected sections have been restored by archeologists. Kusetič, Jure, Kos, Peter, Breznik, Andreja, Stokin, Claustra Alpium Iuliarum, Between Research and Management. The Ivan Michler Institute for Spatial History, website dedicated to Claustra Alpium Iuliarum. Media related to Claustra Alpium Iuliarum at Wikimedia Commons
31.
Limes Moesiae
–
Limes Moesiae was a Roman-built system of fortifications consisting of three lines of defense, between the Black Sea shore and the Danube. Additionally, in Wallachia there were two lines of defense, the Constantine Wall and the Limes Transalutanus. The Limes Moesiae, near the Danube delta, probably was built initially during Trajan times, between the 2nd and the 3rd century was increased and abandoned. Near the Limes Moesiae there are two other related to the defense of Moesia, The Constantine Wall, called even Brazda lui Novac de Nord, built in Walachia around 330 A. D. The Limes Transalutanus, probably done by Hadrian to defend Roman Dacia from the southern Carpathian mountains to the Danube. The historian Theodor Mommsen wrote that at the mouth of the Dniester river there was the old Greek city of Tyras, there exists a series of its coins with heads of emperors from Domitian to Alexander Severus, showing that Romans were present in this area until the 4th century. Mommsen even wrote that Moldavia and the half of Bessarabia as well as the whole of Wallachia were incorporated in the Roman Empire. All these facts confirm the creation of defensive earth dykes in order to defend these new territories of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, Mommsen wrote, Bessarabia is intersected by a double barrier-line which, running from the Pruth to the Dniester, ends at Tyra, full military occupation of the plain between the Carpathian foothills and the Danube may already have occurred by the end of Trajan’s first Dacian War. The majority of forts here, however, were established after the final conquest of the Dacian kingdom in 106 AD, the abandonment of Moldova and the creation of the Limes Transalutanus fortification-line can both be tentatively dated to the reign of Hadrian. In the Late Roman period, the extent of control and military occupation over territory north of the Danube remains controversial. One Roman fort, well beyond the Danubian Limes and near actual Moldavia, would seem to have occupied in the 4th century AD. In this Roman fort, built by Constantine I, researchers have even a thermae building in the 1980s. Constantine made this Wall in Wallachia at the time of the Devils Dykes. The absence of any evidence for Late Roman forts or settlements along its course and south of it suggests a later, probably medieval. With Emperor Trajan they connected the conquered Dacia with the mouth of the Dniester river, when the Roman Empire expanded again after the loss of Roman Dacia, Emperor Constantine made the Constantine Wall as a Limes until the earth dyke later called Antharic Wall. Has been demonstrated by academics that the Constantine Wall was built by the Romans around 330 AD and was increased many times until Emperor Justinian in the 6th century. Byzantine possibility, Probably the Eastern Roman Empire built or enlarged the two sections of the Limes Moesiae north on the Danube delta, between the 6th and the 10th centuries and they wanted to defend the Greek colonies in the Black Sea coast from the continuous barbarian invasions
32.
Trajan's Wall
–
Trajans Wall is the name used for several linear earthen fortifications found across Eastern Europe, in Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine. Contrary to the name and popular belief, the ramparts were not built by Romans during Trajans reign, furthermore, the association with the Roman Emperor may be a recent scholarly invention, only entering the imagination of the locals with the national awakening of the 19th century. Medieval Moldavian documents referred to the earthworks as Troian, likely in reference to a hero in the Romanian. The other major earthen fortification in Romania, Brazda lui Novac, is named after a mythological hero. There are three valla in Romania, in south-central Dobruja, extending from the Danube to the Black Sea coast, while the relative chronology of the complex is widely accepted, the exact dating of each fortification is currently under dispute. Scholars place their erection at different dates in the Early Mediaeval period, in what regards the builders, two theories have gained acceptance, with supporters split, to a large degree, along national lines. Thus, Bulgarian historiography considers the fortifications were built by the First Bulgarian Empire as a defence against the nomad groups roaming the North-Pontic steppes. The oldest and smallest vallum, the Small Earthen Dyke, is 61 km in length, entirely made of earth, it has no defensive constructions built on it, but has a moat on its southern side. This feature has been interpreted as indicating construction by a living to the north of the earthwork. The second vallum, the Large Earthen Dyke,54 km in length and it begins on the Danube, follows the Carasu Valley and ends at Palas, west of Constanţa. Its average height is 3.5 m, and it has moats on both sides, on it are built 63 fortifications,35 larger, and 28 smaller. The average distance between fortifications is 1 km, the vallum shows signs of reconstruction. The last vallum to be built, the Stone Dyke, is made of earth. It is 59 km in length, extending south of Axiopolis to the Black Sea coast. The agger is about 1.5 m in height, while the wall on top has an average height of 2 m. It has a moat on its side and 26 fortifications. The commune Valu lui Traian is named after the vallum, in the Northern part of Dobrogea, on South bank of Danube there was a wall, probably built by Trajan. The wall was constructed between today Tulcea and ancient town of Halmyris on the East, the wall was discovered by means of aerial photographs The remnants in Moldova comprise earthen walls and palisades
33.
Anastasian Wall
–
The Anastasian Wall or the Long Walls of Thrace is an ancient stone and turf fortification located 64 km west of Istanbul, Turkey built by the Byzantines during the late 5th century. Originally some 56 km long, it stretches from Evcik İskelesi in Çatalca at the Black Sea coast across the Thracian peninsula to the coast of the Sea of Marmara at 6 km west of Silivri. It ran from north to south through the locations what are today Karacaköy, Gümüşpınar, Pınarca, Kurfallı, Fener, Alipaşa Neighborhood, remains of the wall are visible in Gümüşpınar junction in Karacaköy, Hisartepe in Yalıköy, Pınarca in İhsaniye and Kurfallı village. The wall was part of an outer defense system for Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. The wall was named after the Emperor Anastasius I, the wall had a thickness of 3.3 m and a height over 5 m. It was built complete with towers, gates, forts, ditches, a rectangular castrum with dimensions of 250 m by 300 m existed also in the central section of the wall. The wall fell into ruin after it was abandoned in the 7th century because of the difficulty of keeping it manned and repaired, over the centuries, the stone of more than half of the total length was reused in other local buildings. It is best preserved in the woodlands of the northern sector, the Anastasian Wall is an almost unknown example of monumental linear fortification dating from antiquity in continental Europe, next only to Hadrians Wall in England in its complexity. Walls of Constantinople List of walls Schuchhardt, C, die Anastasius-Mauer bei Constantinopel und die Dobrudcha-Wälle, Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Arhäologischen Instituts, XVI, 107–127 Crow, J. G
34.
Devil's Dykes
–
The fortifications consisted of a series of defensive earthen ramparts-and-ditches surrounding the plain of the Tisia river. They stretched from Aquincum eastwards along the line of the northern Carpathian mountains to the vicinity of Debrecen, the Limes Sarmatiae was intended to expand the Roman Limes, and was built at the same time as the Constantine Wall in Wallachia. It was, however, destroyed after a few years, at the end of the I5th century, the emperor Valentinian I in 375 Ad entered Pannonia with a powerful army and reinforced the fortifications of the Limes Sarmatiae. But during an audience to an embassy from the Quadi at Brigetio on the Danube and this injury resulted in his death on November of that year. Soon after his death, and following a lack of ruling power inside the Roman Empire, Roman Limes Limes Moesiae Brazda lui Novac Wall of Constantine in Constantinople Garam Éva-Patay Pál-Soproni Sándor, Sarmatischen Wallsystem im Karpatenbecken, Régészeti Füzetek Ser. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest,1983,2003, istvanovits Eszter, The history and perspectives of the research of the Csörsz Ditch. XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies
35.
Limes Arabicus
–
The Limes Arabicus was a desert frontier of the Roman Empire, mostly in the province of Arabia Petraea. It ran northeast from the Gulf of Aqaba for about 1,500 kilometers at its greatest extent, reaching northern Syria and it had several forts and watchtowers. The reason of this defensive Limes was to protect the Roman province of Arabia from attacks of the tribes of the Arabian desert. The main purpose of the Limes Arabicus is disputed, it may have used both to defend from Saracen raids and to protect the commercial lines from robbers. Next to the Limes Arabicus Emperor Trajan built a road, the Via Nova Traiana, from Bosra to Aila on the Red Sea. It was completed under Emperor Hadrian, during the Severan dynasty, the Romans strengthened their defences on the Arabian frontier. They constructed several forts at the northwest end of the Wadi Sirhan, one important fort was Qasr Azraq, another was at Humeima, from the late 2nd C AD, on the Via Nova from Petra to Aila, where up to 500 auxiliary troops could have resided. It was probably abandoned in the fourth century, Emperor Diocletian partitioned the old province of Arabia by transferring the southern region to the province of Palaestina. Later in the 4th century, Palaestina was made into three provinces, and the one was eventually called Palaestina Tertia. Each province was administered by a praeses with civil authority and a dux with military authority, Diocletian engaged in a major military expansion in the region, building a number of castella, watchtowers, and fortresses along the fringe of the desert just east of the Via Nova. This line of defence extended from south of Damascus to Wadi al-Hasa, the region from Wadi Mujib to Wadi al-Hasa contained four castella and a legionary camp. The frontier south of Wadi al-Hasa, which extended to the Red Sea at Aila, in this region, ten castella and a legionary camp have been identified. There were castra every 100 kilometres with the purpose to create a line of protection and control, in the south there was the fortress at Adrou. It probably housed the Legio VI Ferrata, which was moved from Lajjun by Diocletian and it is similar to Betthorus in the plain of Moab, south of Wadi Mujib) in size and design. Alistair Killick, who excavated the site, dates it to the early 2nd century, a legionary camp may have also existed at Aila, which has been excavated by Parker since 1994. The city was located at the end of the Gulf of Aqaba where it was a centre of sea traffic. Several land routes also intersected here, Legio X Fretensis, originally stationed in Jerusalem, was transferred here to the terminus of the Via Nova. So far, a curtain wall and projecting tower have been identified
36.
Limes Tripolitanus
–
The Limes Tripolitanus was a frontier zone of defence of the Roman Empire, built in the south of what is now Tunisia and the northwest of Libya. It was primarily intended as a protection for the cities of Leptis Magna, Sabratha. The Limes Tripolitanus was built after Augustus and it was related mainly to the Garamantes menace. Septimius Flaccus in 50 AD did an expedition that reached the actual Fezzan. The Romans did not conquer the Garamantes so much as they seduced them with the benefits of trade, the last Garamantes foray to the coast was in AD69, when they joined with the people of Oea in battle against Leptis Magna. The Romans, in order to defend the main Roman cities of Tripolitania, after that the Garamantes started to become a client state of the Roman Empire, but nomads always endangered the fertile area of coastal Tripolitania. Because of this Romans created the Limes Tripolitanus The first fort on the limes was built at Thiges, the limes was expanded under emperors Hadrian and Septimius Severus, in particular under the legatus Quintus Anicius Faustus in 197-201 AD. He fulfilled his task quickly and successfully, former soldiers were settled in this area, and the arid land was developed. Dams and cisterns were built in the Wadi Ghirza to regulate the flash floods, the farmers produced cereals, figs, vines, olives, pulses, almonds, dates, and perhaps melons. Ghirza consisted of some forty buildings, including six fortified farms, two of them were really large. It was abandoned in the Middle Ages, with Diocletian the limes was partially abandoned and the defence of the area was done even by the Limitanei, local soldier-farmers. The Limes survived as an effective protection until Byzantine times, in Libya today, very substantial remains survive, e. g. the limes castles at Abu Nujaym and Al Qaryah al Gharbīyah, the frontier village Gaerisa, and about 2,000 fortified farms like Qaryat. Ghadames Mizda Bani Waled Abu Nujaym Qaryat Jona Lendering, archived from the original on April 5,2008. Detailed map showing the Limes Tripolitanus at Tunisia-Libya border, la Tripolitania in Storia Einaudi dei Greci e dei Romani. The UNESCO Libyan Valleys Archaeological Survey Margot Klee, Grenzen des Imperiums, leben am römischen Limes Jona Lendering, Sherds from the Desert
37.
Gallic Wars
–
The Gallic Wars were a series of military campaigns waged by the Roman proconsul Julius Caesar against several Gallic tribes. The wars paved the way for Julius Caesar to become the ruler of the Roman Republic. Still, Gaul was of significant military importance to the Romans, conquering Gaul allowed Rome to secure the natural border of the river Rhine. The Gallic Wars are described by Julius Caesar in his book Commentarii de Bello Gallico, as a result of the financial burdens of his consulship in 59 BC, Caesar incurred significant debt. When the Governor of Transalpine Gaul, Metellus Celer, died unexpectedly, Caesars governorships were extended to a five-year period, a new idea at the time. Caesar had initially four veteran legions under his command, Legio VII, Legio VIII, Legio IX Hispana. As he had been Governor of Hispania Ulterior in 61 BC and had campaigned successfully with them against the Lusitanians, Caesar also had the legal authority to levy additional legions and auxiliary units as he saw fit. His ambition was to conquer and plunder some territories to get out of debt. It is more likely that he was planning a campaign against the Kingdom of Dacia, the countries of Gaul were civilized and wealthy. Most had contact with Roman merchants and some, particularly those that were governed by such as the Aedui. The Romans respected and feared the Gallic tribes, only fifty years before, in 109 BC, Italy had been invaded from the north and saved only after several bloody and costly battles by Gaius Marius. Around 62 BC, when a Roman client state, the Arverni, conspired with the Sequani and the Suebi nations east of the Rhine, to attack the Aedui, the Sequani and Arverni sought Ariovistus’ aid and defeated the Aedui in 63 BC at the Battle of Magetobriga. The Sequani rewarded Ariovistus with land following his victory, Ariovistus settled the land with 120,000 of his people. When 24,000 Harudes joined his cause, Ariovistus demanded that the Sequani give him land to accommodate the Harudes people. This demand concerned Rome because if the Sequani conceded, Ariovistus would be in a position to all of the Sequani land. They did not appear to be concerned about a conflict between non-client, client and allied states, by the end of the campaign, the non-client Suebi under the leadership of the belligerent Ariovistus, stood triumphant over both the Aedui and their coconspirators. Fearing another mass migration akin to the devastating Cimbrian War, Rome, the Helvetii was a confederation of about five related Gallic tribes that lived on the Swiss plateau, hemmed in by the mountains, and the Rhine and Rhone rivers. They began to come under increased pressure from German tribes to the north, by 58 BC, the Helvetii were well on their way in the planning and provisioning for a mass migration under the leadership of Orgetorix
Military of ancient Rome portal
Rines, George Edwin, ed. (1920). "Cæsar's Commentaries". Encyclopedia Americana.
Rines, George Edwin, ed. (1920). "
Commentaries on the Gallic War public domain audiobook at LibriVox
