Legions in Crisis
Paul Elliott's tome is the latest attempt to understand the third century. Legions in Crisis does a fair job, combining good insights with foolish old tales.
Elliott is an expert reconstructor of ancient armor. He is at his best explaining the transformation of Roman arms and equipment.
By the beginning of the third century, Roman soldiers had abandoned the traditional short sword, the gladius, and opted for the longer bladed spatha. At the same time, they began using spears. Noting the new weapons conferred a longer reach, Elliott attributes their adoption to the increased numbers of mounted enemies faced by the Romans. Longer swords and spears better enabled the legionaries to hit barbarian or Eastern horsemen.
The wars of Marcus Aurelius (c 161-80) indicated a need for change. At least one group of northern barbarians, the Iazyges, were mounted. So were the Parthians, who were troublesome at the time. Longer weapons enabled the Romans to deal with these threats.
Elliott is far better at discussing equipment than history. He uncritically repeats old lies about the fates of Gordian III and Valerian. In 244 CE, Roman soldiers allegedly murdered the emperor Gordian III. Strangely enough, they then built a cenotaph or monument for him. Elliott also appears to take the nonsense of Lactantius seriously. Lactantius was the christian author of De Mortibus Persecutorum (death of the persecutors). He had an obvious agenda--make it appear that Valerian, like other persecutors, suffered an awful fate. According to Lactantius, following his capture by Persia, Valerian was humiliated--made to get down on all fours so the Persian king could step on him as he mounted his horse. Later the emperor was supposedly skinned alive and stuffed like a trophy.
Even Gibbon knew better than to believe such stories. There is absolutely no corroboration for them in Persian sources. The latter were in the best position to know the truth, and they indicate Valerian was treated with respect.
For those primarily concerned with the development of Roman military paraphenalia, Legions in Crisis is a worthwhile read. But those seeking historical accuracy should turn elsewhere.
Elliott is an expert reconstructor of ancient armor. He is at his best explaining the transformation of Roman arms and equipment.
By the beginning of the third century, Roman soldiers had abandoned the traditional short sword, the gladius, and opted for the longer bladed spatha. At the same time, they began using spears. Noting the new weapons conferred a longer reach, Elliott attributes their adoption to the increased numbers of mounted enemies faced by the Romans. Longer swords and spears better enabled the legionaries to hit barbarian or Eastern horsemen.
The wars of Marcus Aurelius (c 161-80) indicated a need for change. At least one group of northern barbarians, the Iazyges, were mounted. So were the Parthians, who were troublesome at the time. Longer weapons enabled the Romans to deal with these threats.
Elliott is far better at discussing equipment than history. He uncritically repeats old lies about the fates of Gordian III and Valerian. In 244 CE, Roman soldiers allegedly murdered the emperor Gordian III. Strangely enough, they then built a cenotaph or monument for him. Elliott also appears to take the nonsense of Lactantius seriously. Lactantius was the christian author of De Mortibus Persecutorum (death of the persecutors). He had an obvious agenda--make it appear that Valerian, like other persecutors, suffered an awful fate. According to Lactantius, following his capture by Persia, Valerian was humiliated--made to get down on all fours so the Persian king could step on him as he mounted his horse. Later the emperor was supposedly skinned alive and stuffed like a trophy.
Even Gibbon knew better than to believe such stories. There is absolutely no corroboration for them in Persian sources. The latter were in the best position to know the truth, and they indicate Valerian was treated with respect.
For those primarily concerned with the development of Roman military paraphenalia, Legions in Crisis is a worthwhile read. But those seeking historical accuracy should turn elsewhere.
posted by starman at 4:32 AM
7 Comments:
The Romans eventually increased the use of cavalry. Their Contarri cavalry carried long lances. Some light cavalry were archers. The cataphractarii were heavily armored. Their horses also had armor.
Cavalry became more important during the reign of Gallienus. It reflected a need for mobility given a number of simultaneous threats. The army had to hurry from one area of crisis to the next. Cavalry was better for this than infantry.
Elliott's historical views aren't all bad. I agree with his interpretation of Gallienus's decision to exclude senators from military commands. It was intended to improve military leadership. Senatorial emperor-commanders like Decius and Valerian had just committed serious battlefield blunders, costing the empire many tens of thousands of troops. The Empire simply couldn't afford a continuation of such disasters. And military leadership did improve later in the third century, judging by the empire's better battlefield performance (e.g. Naissum 268 and Emesa 272 CE).
Goldsworthy wrote that Gallienus excluded senators from commands to reduce the threat of usurpation. I don't think that was the primary consideration. Serious as the usurper problem was in the time of Gallienus, it had after all, gotten out of hand following the military disasters of midcentury. They were the worst problem, threatening not just individual rulers but the whole state. The solution was to get rid of senatorial incompetents and that worked.
I agree with your comments! A lot of anti-Roman proaganda put about at that time.
Incidentally, I read some of your blog and enjoyed it. A nice variety of interesting subjects, even if I might not agree every point!
(December 22 2015) Hi benzev. Do you agree with my comment above, in which I disagree with Goldsworthy? :)
Goldsworthy cites the displacement of the senatorial class amongst his reasons for the fall of Rome. I am not sure that the third century crisis can be so easily divided into early defeats and later victories- the army had to deal with a lot of problems and did so quite well overall. After all, the really difficult period was less than 20 years, 250-270 or so. Im not sure that Gallienus solved the problem after all. He coped for a bit, but hardly ended the tendency toward usurpations, though he was a notable commander.
It's not that I disagree with you about lots of things, we often agree on the basics- it's just in the approach to analysis of the contributory factors that we sometimes differ. I rather enjoy our discussions, but hope I dont come across as too unpleasant as I don't mean that at all. I enjoy your views and style and humour and we probably have a lot more in common that not.
So- what is wholeism? I am curious!
(December 23, 2015) If Gallienus excluded senators from military commands in order to improve military leadership, that was understandable in light of the poor performance of Decius and Valerian. But maybe he shouldn't have excluded all senators--alienated a whole class. No doubt Aurelian was more effective.
Sure the really difficult period was between 250 and 268--from Beroe Augusta Trajana IIIRC--even before Abrittus,--to the victory at Naissum in 268. It's a bit ironic that Roman forces often performed better after midcentury than before.
Wholism means supremacy of a greater whole--the State, the common cause, an allencompassing Worldview.
Post a Comment
<< Home