The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Essay

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

This document verifies that how military mistakes affected Rome like, soldiers running away from battle because they didn't feel protected without armor. They stopped doing training because they started to become lazy, not only on training but everything soldiers need to do. The information from document B further substantiates that military mistakes played a large part in the complete disintegration of the Roman

As Rome expanded throughout Europe and acquired a growing number of citizens, the army was able to greatly increase its numbers. This ensured Rome a nearly unlimited supply of new soldiers.

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

The era dominated by Roman empire is one the most well-known and influential periods of history, home to famous names from Julius Caesar to Jesus Christ. At its height, Rome’s territory stretched from the Atlantic coastline to the Middle East, reigning over 60 million people, one-fifth of the population of the ancient world. However, the Roman empire’s treatment of their conquered people’s and their own citizens ultimately led to the permanent downfall of Rome.

In the fourth chapter, “The Pathfinders”, Strauss explores reasons why local freemen and farmers of Italy would help Spartacus and his men, as well as the movements of Spartacus’ army in its earliest stages. It was critical that locals could help lead these rebels around regions that they couldn’t have understood on their own. Among one of these locals was a man known as the Picentine, who helped lead the rebels around the Eburine hills and avoid the Romans. In these movements, Spartacus continued his guerilla style against the Roman legions, eventually capturing standards of Roman centurions, as well as the fasces of the Praetor Varinius’s lictors, a symbol of power that led to Spartacus’ army swelling in size from either 40,000 to 120,000 men. Spartacus continued moving along the Ionian coast, plundering and taking cities by force, as well as continued training and arming of the army. By the start of 72 BC, the Roman’s would begin to take Spartacus much more seriously.

One trait every army must have to be successful is the willingness and drive to dominate. The Roman army took these traits to a whole different level. The Romans were very extreme in battle as well. They often enjoyed humiliating other city-states by burning them to the ground. In 264 B.C.E. a battle between other Greek city-states forced Rome and Carthage, who dominated the western part of the Mediterranean, into conflict. The First Punic War was for the control of Sicily.4 This battle lasted twenty-three years.4 The Romans were losing a lot of men, but they continued to battle on.4 Finally, the persistence paid off.4 The Romans learned how to fight by sea and cut off the Carthaginian supply line into

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.

Many anthropologists and historians have speculated about the different causes and effects of the fall of the Roman Empire. Some have even stated that Rome did not fall but instead, was merely transformed. However, there were many causes that did end this prodigious empire. Many seemingly small decisions made by powerful emperors over the course of just over a century lead to its destruction. In this paper it will be established that the Roman emperors, in an effort to save their political power, made adjustments to warfare/treaty practices and made political changes which over time lead to the inevitable collapse of the realm, this caused a drastic regression in the living standards of the Roman citizens, implying that the Empire did indeed collapse and not transform.

The language of Roman rule and power can be disputed endlessly, much like all else when trying to study ancient history. This is primarily a result of a multitude of interpretations that can be inferred from primary sources, which also tend to be biased, that we have available to us. Examining a source that is written from an individual’s perspective, and they trying draw conclusions about varying aspects of a certain society is especially tough and extremely subjective. Nonetheless, history remains an important field of study and reaps many benefits.

Thankfully, due to the Romans writing a lot down, there are many sources (unlike in the "Dark Ages" for example) available to study how the Roman army worked. In this project, the aim is to find out how the training and organization of the

Viewed through ends, ways, means, the character of the Athens strategy evolved from the defensive from the beginning of the war into the offensive during the Sicilian expedition until the end of the war. Changing the strategy in the war is not unusual because its formulation and implementation are influenced by many factors from the inner and outer surroundings. As always, when it comes to changes, the reason

In this essay, I will be discussing the origins and relevancy of Rome’s conquest of Italy during the Middle Republic. Included will be Rome’s governing structure of it’s allied states, and the treaties, both of which aided in the long term success of Rome.

The Battle of Teutoburg Forest was a critical battle in the history of the Roman Empire and in the formation of the German state. This battle took place during the reign of Augustus in 9 AD during the time of the Roman Empire expansion. The fall of the Romans in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest was the consequence of several mistakes and strategic blunders by the Roman general Varus and his superiors in Rome. This paper will outline these mistakes as well as the strategic advantages that Arminius exploited on behalf of the Germanic tribes that successfully pushed back the Romans from the forest. The defeat at Teutoburg devastated the Roman emperor Augustus, who, as a result, lost his willpower to pursue the continued

“Looking at the Late Antique world,” writes Peter Brown in his seminal work The World of Late Antiquity, “we are caught between the regretful contemplation of ancient ruins and the excited acclamation of new growth.” Brown’s work covers the years 150-750 AD a period of time too often – and mistakenly – labeled as the “dark ages.” Brown does not make this mistake. Instead, he challenges what seemed to be a grounded notion that the study of Late Antiquity was one of “decline and fall.” This was a time of transformation and continuity. Moreover, he moves beyond the narratives of the “barbarian invasions” that brought about the end of the Roman Empire. There were no barbarian invasions, as they were already gradually becoming Roman. That is, the barbarians had already started to assimilate to Roman culture and, crucially, the Roman Empire did not end with the “fall of Rome” as its capitol moved East. This is a constant theme running through the works of Brown. Where some historians see decay, he sees growth.