Essay on On Roman Military Matters by Vegetius

Thus it happens that troops in battle, exposed to wounds because they have no armor, think about running and not about fighting.” (Doc. B) This shows that the Roman soldiers didn’t care about not having the protection to help them win the war. This also shows that the Roman soldiers started to give up and quit before the fight had even started. This is significant because without the armor the Romans got more wounds and were more likely to die.This also significant because it made the soldiers weaker and more likely for Rome to be put to an end, because they didn’t have the weight of the armor to made them stronger and protect them, and the more soldiers that were killed the smaller the military got. With the army smaller it let the enemies start to overcome Rome and make it fall. Furthermore, according to The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Reappraisal, Crown Publishing, 1982, “ There can be little doubt that the weaknesses of the late Roman army were largely due to the eventual failure … to enforce regular conscription [draft of soldiers] … the exempted categories were … numerous.” (Doc. B) This demonstrates how the government made people live once they became lazy. With the government forcing people to be in the army it made people not want to do their jobs, so they

“It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience. “Julius Caesar. The words of a powerful man describing the tenacity and dedication of one the most powerful and dedicated Armies in history. By the middle of the first century B.C, the Roman army had developed over centuries of all but continuous warfare into a professionally minded force (L.J pg 379). Rome naturally always had an Army from its earliest days as a village by the Tiber bank. At first it consisted of a king and his bodyguard and retainers, members of clan groups living together (Keppie pg 37). Within many campaigns the Empire’s army have known victory and defeat. From

The War with Veii played a significant role in the expansion of the Roman Empire. The war, which ended in 410 B.C., set in motion an entirely different Roman army. No longer was the army a volunteer militia, instead it became a paying and contractual organization. The “Roman victory brought an end to Rome’s most threatening neighbor and began its rise to prominence in the central Italian peninsula” (www.warandgameinfo.com).

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

Before Marius left for Jugurtha, he decided a total reform of the military system was necessary. The military recruitment system in place before Marius involved recruiting the army from the landowning masses of Rome. A.J Koutsoukis, author of History of the ancient world; Ancient Rome describes recruitment as an "unwelcome obligation" as it meant "a long time away from the family farm, and possible economic ruin."6 In an effort to dramatically increase the size of the army and overcome the shortage of soldiers, Marius welcomed landless, unemployed recruits into the army. This transformed the service from a reluctant obligation to a paid profession. The landless soldiers were given weapons and payment by their general, and for this reason were unconcerned with the Republics' motives behind their fighting, and more concerned with pleasing the individuals responsible for their payment and weapons, in this case being the generals. Many soldiers sought guidance and advice from their generals

But when because of negligence and laziness, parade ground drills were abandoned,...” This led the military to come to the idea that breastplates and helmets were turning too heavy for them and therefore, it was not needed. Also, Michael Grant, the author of The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Reappraisal, states in Document B, “There can be little that the weaknesses of the late Roman army were largely due to the eventual failure … to enforce regular conscription.” Even though there weren’t enough men to serve in the military, the government officials excluded men from tremendously different categories. Such as, senators, bureaucrats and clergymen escaped the draft. Alongside, cooks, bakers and slaves were prohibited since the leaders needed them for their own convenience. However when invaders, such as the Goths, poured into the empire around 410 CE, the troops were in battle without any protection and were exposed to wounds. This brought the soldiers to the idea that it was better off for them to run away instead of fighting unsheltered. They didn’t have any defense nor could fight back to the aggressors. The vulnerable army was the key for Rome to turn into ruins. Just like that, The Roman empire’s lusty army was turning into a clutter of frail

They were often beaten by archers. The troops were very exposed and could be easily wounded. They focused less on fighting and more on running. Another military weakness Vegetius mentions in Document B is the failure to regularly draft or conscript soldiers. This made the army smaller and less powerful.

Do you know the primary Reasons for the Fall of Rome? Rome was very powerful throughout their time. Then how did they fall? Rome had good farm and pasture land. They had protection from hills and mountains.

Polybius, a Greek commander who spent years on military campaigns with Roman armies in the second century B.C.E. (Hunt, Al., 2012, 160) Polybius venerated the Roman camp but it was army discipline that authentically fascinated him. It was rigorous to the point of inhumanity. Polybius believed the ideal Centurion was instilled with the Core Values of the Arête, the Greek value of competitive individual excellence. This commitment or drive imbues a zealousness of self-sacrifice, accolade, obligation, and a commitment to culminate ones ' life in the accommodation rather than peregrinate home in disgrace. Utilizing this philosophy a committed army, led by Centurions who Rome wanted “not so much to be bold and eager to take risks, but rather to be capable of leadership and steady and solid in character, nor do they want them to initiate attacks and precipitate battle”. (Vegetius, F. 2011, 176) It was prosperous in incrementing Rome 's elevate in a troglodytic time into a more Western Civilization.

The military prowess of Roman commanders and legionaries proved to be successful enough to turn a small community into an ancient super power. There are many discussions to be had about the tactics and success of the Roman army, some of which are: their style of fighting, the attitude toward the fight, and the fruits of their war.

An important contributing factor to an army's success is armor for defense. An army can have skilled soldiers, but cannot be successful without the right armor. Roman and Greek armies wore similar types of armor. The Roman and Greek foot soldiers wore a square breastplate on their torso. While the Romans only wore one greave on their left leg, Greeks wore greaves on both legs. A greave was a sheet of metal worn to protect the legs (Horsepower: Harnessed…). Soldiers wear greaves even in current day. Recently, the greaves have been upgraded to protect the legs from ‘Improvised explosive devices,’ such as those in Iraq (Frost, Quad Guard). Roman soldiers wore a helmet that protected the neck, and came around to protect their face. The Greek’s helmets were more full and protective than the Roman helmets. Greek helmets covered their entire head and only left small

With this narrative and spirit of historical conundrums in mind, we will examine two primary Ancient Roman sources. The first will be Augustus’s Res Gestae Divi Augusti and the second, Book Ten

Their name alone invokes many vivid images; from heroic men clad in Roman red iron to bloody battlefields, where they stand disciplined and ordered while chaos reigns all around, and even of the quiet corridors of the Emperors’ palace, where a change in power and leadership is only a blade thrust away. These fierce and hardy men formed the iconic symbol of the Ancient Roman Army: the Praetorian Guard. Rigid and unwavering, these soldiers were the bodyguards of the most powerful men in the ancient world: The Emperors of Rome.

The training was so hard that the soldiers became well disciplined and very fit. They were trained to such a high level that most forces they came up against were swept away; this is illustrated in the following passage: " They [the new recruits to the army] are also taught not to cut with their swords but to thrust. The Romans find it so easy to beat people who use their swords to cut rather than thrust that they laugh in their faces." Vegetius, A Book About Military Affairs

Edward Luttwak’s The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century A.D. to the Third gives a militaristic analysis of the tactics used by the Roman Empire while also highlighting parallels between Rome and contemporary U.S. military policy. Luttwak divides his book into three chapters, a chapter for each of the 3 identified systems; the first chapter discusses Rome’s use of mobile armies and client states to defend her borders. The second chapter shows border defense as was provided by small groups of marching legionary troops. The third and final chapter details the transition from an offense stance to a more