04-27-2001, 09:26 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
You are right of course about the general trend. Defence in depth is certainly the norm whereas the return to more preclusive defence strategies occurred when political stability lessened the need for an emperor to have large field armies at his immediate disposal at all times, most notably during the reign of Diocletianus.<br>
<br>
The development of the field armies has led to varying interpretations of their function. Some regard them as a means to better combat the type of enemy attacks made on Roman territory, others have preferred the view that they primarily served as the emperor's means to guard against usurpation (however since many coups were made precisely by field army officers one gets the impression that they defeated their purpose in that respect). Though of course both considerations could have had a role in the process of establishing the field armies without excluding the other, what factor do you consider to have outweighed the other, the purpose of defence against barbarian invasions or that of safeguarding the imperial position?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
You are right of course about the general trend. Defence in depth is certainly the norm whereas the return to more preclusive defence strategies occurred when political stability lessened the need for an emperor to have large field armies at his immediate disposal at all times, most notably during the reign of Diocletianus.<br>
<br>
The development of the field armies has led to varying interpretations of their function. Some regard them as a means to better combat the type of enemy attacks made on Roman territory, others have preferred the view that they primarily served as the emperor's means to guard against usurpation (however since many coups were made precisely by field army officers one gets the impression that they defeated their purpose in that respect). Though of course both considerations could have had a role in the process of establishing the field armies without excluding the other, what factor do you consider to have outweighed the other, the purpose of defence against barbarian invasions or that of safeguarding the imperial position?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
