12-09-2020, 06:45 PM
My sincere apologies for not coming back to you sooner, especially after all the effort you’ve put into your replies thus far. Work and a combination of me deleting my initial draft response (twice) tied me up for the past couple of weeks.
I must apologise as I’m about to slide well of the rails of our topic here but as we’re discussing the topic of slavery, this is a notion I have heard repeated that as soon as Rome’s conquests ended so did its supply of slaves, which some people link to its decline and eventual fall.
My only problem with this notion is that even if they could still import slaves from the apparently very pro-slavery ‘Barbaricum’, doesn’t the rise of slavery in the southern America states and eventual secession of the CSA suggest otherwise. My understanding is that even after the anti-slavery northern states and British Empire cut off the supply of new slaves coming across the Atlantic from East Africa, there were already enough slaves in the South American states to support the demand for new slaves through natural population growth. The only impact the blockade had was to switch the slave trade industry in the southern states from one sustained by foreign imports to one sustained by breeding within the states. Wouldn’t the same be true of the Roman Empire, eliminating the need to import slaves from beyond its borders?
Does Ammianus ever specifically mention the ‘Barbarian’s’ lacking armour at either Strasbourg or other battles of this period? (I’m just conscious of the age old wisdom lack of proof to the contrary is not proof in and off itself)
Now I’ve never had need to run away from a horde of blood thirsty Romans wielding gladius’s and spatha short swords before (apart from that one time in Rome!), but I wonder how easy it is to remove a mail shirt or hauberk while also running for your life. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there a reference at the Battle of Milvan bridge to members of Maxentius’s own army drowning in the River Tiber alongside himself exactly because in their haste to retreat they tried to swim across the river in their armour, which would suggest they didn’t have enough time to remove it?
If so, could that be the reason there are no references to discarded armour at Strasbourg because unlike discarding a helmet or shield stopping to strip off a mail shirt and hauberk is too impractical when you’ve got men with swords chasing you? (Especially if your wearing anything over it!)
In regards to your reference regarding King Chnodomar, again Simon MacDowall implies that while the majority of a Germanic warlord or Kings warband were equipped with mail, other types of armour such as iron lamellar influenced by eastern designs were also available to those who could afford it. It may have been something like this that made Chnodomar stand out from his troops, which is what this passage seems to be implying rather then directly only he was equipped with armour. (I’ve also heard references to greaves and vambraces being found in limited numbers in Germanic graves, which as far as I’m aware was more then an average Roman infantrymen received in protection)
Funnily enough I was thinking about referencing both the Cimbri war and the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in my last post. The reason I didn’t is because most Roman defeats during the Cimbri war occurred while the Roman Army was still under the old manipular formation, where a large portion if not all the army would have been comprised of conscripts, the vast majority of whom possessed armour and equipment inferior to the later state funded legionaries. Unless I’m mistaken most if not all decisive Roman defeats during the Cimbri war occurred before Marius introduced his famous reforms and began to standardise Roman legions into what would become the professional volunteer army that that would go on to serve Caesar, Augustus and Trajan.
As for the battle of Teutoburg Forest, to me this highlight the main difference between the Germans of the 1st century AD and those that would come after, in that before the mid-2nd century they could only defeat the Romans using asymmetrical tactics such as thoroughly planned out ambushes. I may be mistaken but I was under the impression most historians agree that the specific reason Arminius chose to ambush the Romans in Teutoburg Forest over a long protracted engagement on open ground was because he knew his tribal coalition would be completely wiped out if it engaged the Romans head on in a pitched battle.
In my younger years when I didn’t have a very grounded knowledge of the realities of tribal society, ancient logistics or natural boundaries like rivers, one thing I could never really understand about the aftermath of Teutoburg Forest was why the destruction of seemingly half the Roman army stationed along the Rhine was not followed by tens of thousands of pelt wearing horn helmed bloody thirsty barbarians poring into a defenceless Roman Gaul to burn, plunder and pillage everything in their wake. Knowing a little more about the realities of the day, I know didn’t happen because logistically Arminius could not have provisioned the deployment of his army for a long distance campaign far from home, as most of them would have had to disperse back to their villages to support and protect their families and homes, and this would have been the case all throughout Germania on account of its very limited economic development at that time. Now fast forward to 249 AD 240 years later and the Gothic king Cniva was allegedly able to invade, burn and pillage Roman Thrace with an army 70,000 fighting men strong. Unless I’m badly misinterpreting events it seems to clear to me that there must have been a huge difference in the economic infrastructure available to Cniva in the 3rd century and Arminius in the 1st century when you consider Cniva was able not only deploy tens of thousands of Gothic warriors onto Roman soil but defeat a Roman army of 3 legions on the Roman’s own soil in what I’d consider to be the definition of a conventional pitched battle between 2 armies. If you contrast this with Arminius’s eventual defeat at the Battle of Idistaviso which which was waged not on Roman soil but Germanic soil where Arminius should have enjoyed every home field advantage, and it seems to to me there must have been a marked difference in the equipment and general battle-hardiness between the average warriors who comprised Arminius’s army and those who comprised Cniva’s army, each a reflection of the economic system that must have supported them.
Thanks, that’s an interesting tidbit I hadn’t heard off before. Attila shenanigans are really something that could do with a big budget HBO styled adaption.
My apologies, I was actually referring to the economic development that occurred within pre-Roman Gaul from around 1000 BC which I understand is roughly when the Celt’s settle into modern day France and begin their Iron Age culture give or take a century or two, to the Caesar’s conquest of Gaul in 50 BC. It’s my understanding from another post I raised on the Celtic Oppida’s that in this roughly 1000 year long period Gaul was transformed from a region sparsely populated by semi-pastoral people just settling into villages and hill forts to a relatively prosperous region of several million people with vast swathes of cleared and cultivated farmlands, interconnected towns and villages in the form of fortified Celtic Oppida’s linked by roads and bridges, whose kings and chieftains minted their own coins. In fact I’ve heard it proposed that one of the main reasons Caesar was able to conquer Gaul in just 8 years was because the Gaul’s ecenomic development had already put in place almost all the roads, bridges and surplus foodstuffs he needed to rapidly move his legions about the countryside, while all the cleared and cultivated former woodlands meant it was easy for the Romans to draw the Gauls into pitched battles where the Romans were at their strongest. Contrast this with Germania at the time which while influenced by Gaul was considered an economic backwater consisting of poorly interconnected and sparsely populated subsistence level villages within heavily forested areas, and its easy to see why the Romans were never able to carry out a swift and lasting conquest of the region like they did with Gaul.
I understand that the period of Germanic-Roman contact from 55 BC to the end of the migration period in the 5th/6th centuries constitutes only about half the time in took for pre-Roman Gaul to develop to the state it was, but you would still expect to see some level of economic development in Germania and Scythia in this 500 year period even if they weren’t building full scale copies of Roman towns and cities. (I’d also expect one long continuous border with the Roman Empire to act as something of a force multiplier for the Germans natural inclination to consolidate and advance economically)
I suppose again as you’ve already suggested I may just be severely underestimating the stranglehold the Roman’s maintained over the Germans economy and by extension economic development. My only issue with this notion is if that was indeed the case and the Romans entirely controlled the Germans access weapons, armour, logistics, and the kind of surplus foodstuffs required for long distance military campaigns, then I don’t understand how events such as the Marcomannic wars and the later Gothic and Germanic invasions of the 3rd and 4th centuries could have occurred. If the average Germanic warriors of the 2nd-5th centuries AD remained 99% comprised of the exact same poorly armed and poorly equipped force of spear armed peasant levies they were at the very beginning of the 1st century and before, then I don’t understand how the Roman didn’t massacre them every time the Germans or Goths crossed the border. I also don’t understand how such a poorly disciplined and provisioned force could force-march themselves from the all the way from Rhine to Aquileia during the Marcomannic Wars, or the Gothic seaborn sack of Athens in 268 AD. (I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of ‘Barbarian’ armies matching long distances and then back again that weren’t part of a greater migrations)
(11-24-2020, 12:42 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: With regard to your question about economics: it's not something I know much about, but as the barbarian peoples had no coinage they must have traded something else with the Romans - after the end of the wars of expansion a constant supply of slaves could only come from barbaricum, and there was amber from the baltic too. Luxury goods for luxury goods, basically.
I must apologise as I’m about to slide well of the rails of our topic here but as we’re discussing the topic of slavery, this is a notion I have heard repeated that as soon as Rome’s conquests ended so did its supply of slaves, which some people link to its decline and eventual fall.
My only problem with this notion is that even if they could still import slaves from the apparently very pro-slavery ‘Barbaricum’, doesn’t the rise of slavery in the southern America states and eventual secession of the CSA suggest otherwise. My understanding is that even after the anti-slavery northern states and British Empire cut off the supply of new slaves coming across the Atlantic from East Africa, there were already enough slaves in the South American states to support the demand for new slaves through natural population growth. The only impact the blockade had was to switch the slave trade industry in the southern states from one sustained by foreign imports to one sustained by breeding within the states. Wouldn’t the same be true of the Roman Empire, eliminating the need to import slaves from beyond its borders?
(11-24-2020, 12:42 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: In his famous description of Strasbourg Ammianus mentions 'gleaming helms and shields' discarded in the Alamannic rout. But he earlier describes the barbarian king Chnodomar as 'conspicuous above others by the gleam of his armour', which would imply that most of the Alamanni did not wear body armour - an implicaiton supported by the details of Roman troops stabbing them in their exposed bodies 'left bare by their frenzied rage'.
Does Ammianus ever specifically mention the ‘Barbarian’s’ lacking armour at either Strasbourg or other battles of this period? (I’m just conscious of the age old wisdom lack of proof to the contrary is not proof in and off itself)
Now I’ve never had need to run away from a horde of blood thirsty Romans wielding gladius’s and spatha short swords before (apart from that one time in Rome!), but I wonder how easy it is to remove a mail shirt or hauberk while also running for your life. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there a reference at the Battle of Milvan bridge to members of Maxentius’s own army drowning in the River Tiber alongside himself exactly because in their haste to retreat they tried to swim across the river in their armour, which would suggest they didn’t have enough time to remove it?
If so, could that be the reason there are no references to discarded armour at Strasbourg because unlike discarding a helmet or shield stopping to strip off a mail shirt and hauberk is too impractical when you’ve got men with swords chasing you? (Especially if your wearing anything over it!)
In regards to your reference regarding King Chnodomar, again Simon MacDowall implies that while the majority of a Germanic warlord or Kings warband were equipped with mail, other types of armour such as iron lamellar influenced by eastern designs were also available to those who could afford it. It may have been something like this that made Chnodomar stand out from his troops, which is what this passage seems to be implying rather then directly only he was equipped with armour. (I’ve also heard references to greaves and vambraces being found in limited numbers in Germanic graves, which as far as I’m aware was more then an average Roman infantrymen received in protection)
(11-24-2020, 12:42 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: We should remember that barbarian peoples of earlier centuries could and did defeat the Romans too: the Cimbri and Teutons, and later the Germanic alliance under Arminius both defeated Roman armies, the Dacians destroyed a Roman expedition in AD85 and the Sarmatians destroyed a legion in AD91. So we perhaps don't need to assume that effective barbarian armies of later eras were necessarily better equipped on any uniform level. If the barbarian peoples themselves had any sort of intensive armoury industry, it has left no trace.
Funnily enough I was thinking about referencing both the Cimbri war and the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in my last post. The reason I didn’t is because most Roman defeats during the Cimbri war occurred while the Roman Army was still under the old manipular formation, where a large portion if not all the army would have been comprised of conscripts, the vast majority of whom possessed armour and equipment inferior to the later state funded legionaries. Unless I’m mistaken most if not all decisive Roman defeats during the Cimbri war occurred before Marius introduced his famous reforms and began to standardise Roman legions into what would become the professional volunteer army that that would go on to serve Caesar, Augustus and Trajan.
As for the battle of Teutoburg Forest, to me this highlight the main difference between the Germans of the 1st century AD and those that would come after, in that before the mid-2nd century they could only defeat the Romans using asymmetrical tactics such as thoroughly planned out ambushes. I may be mistaken but I was under the impression most historians agree that the specific reason Arminius chose to ambush the Romans in Teutoburg Forest over a long protracted engagement on open ground was because he knew his tribal coalition would be completely wiped out if it engaged the Romans head on in a pitched battle.
In my younger years when I didn’t have a very grounded knowledge of the realities of tribal society, ancient logistics or natural boundaries like rivers, one thing I could never really understand about the aftermath of Teutoburg Forest was why the destruction of seemingly half the Roman army stationed along the Rhine was not followed by tens of thousands of pelt wearing horn helmed bloody thirsty barbarians poring into a defenceless Roman Gaul to burn, plunder and pillage everything in their wake. Knowing a little more about the realities of the day, I know didn’t happen because logistically Arminius could not have provisioned the deployment of his army for a long distance campaign far from home, as most of them would have had to disperse back to their villages to support and protect their families and homes, and this would have been the case all throughout Germania on account of its very limited economic development at that time. Now fast forward to 249 AD 240 years later and the Gothic king Cniva was allegedly able to invade, burn and pillage Roman Thrace with an army 70,000 fighting men strong. Unless I’m badly misinterpreting events it seems to clear to me that there must have been a huge difference in the economic infrastructure available to Cniva in the 3rd century and Arminius in the 1st century when you consider Cniva was able not only deploy tens of thousands of Gothic warriors onto Roman soil but defeat a Roman army of 3 legions on the Roman’s own soil in what I’d consider to be the definition of a conventional pitched battle between 2 armies. If you contrast this with Arminius’s eventual defeat at the Battle of Idistaviso which which was waged not on Roman soil but Germanic soil where Arminius should have enjoyed every home field advantage, and it seems to to me there must have been a marked difference in the equipment and general battle-hardiness between the average warriors who comprised Arminius’s army and those who comprised Cniva’s army, each a reflection of the economic system that must have supported them.
(11-24-2020, 12:42 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Ah yes, well remembered! I think Attila had a sort of folding flat-pack palace made of wooden boards, but his 2nd-in-command had a Roman stone bathhouse that he'd transported in pieces from Pannonia, reconstructed by a captive Roman engineer. We have no way of knowing how common this sort of thing might have been!
Thanks, that’s an interesting tidbit I hadn’t heard off before. Attila shenanigans are really something that could do with a big budget HBO styled adaption.
(11-24-2020, 12:42 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Gaul was inside the empire, of course, while the other areas were not.
My apologies, I was actually referring to the economic development that occurred within pre-Roman Gaul from around 1000 BC which I understand is roughly when the Celt’s settle into modern day France and begin their Iron Age culture give or take a century or two, to the Caesar’s conquest of Gaul in 50 BC. It’s my understanding from another post I raised on the Celtic Oppida’s that in this roughly 1000 year long period Gaul was transformed from a region sparsely populated by semi-pastoral people just settling into villages and hill forts to a relatively prosperous region of several million people with vast swathes of cleared and cultivated farmlands, interconnected towns and villages in the form of fortified Celtic Oppida’s linked by roads and bridges, whose kings and chieftains minted their own coins. In fact I’ve heard it proposed that one of the main reasons Caesar was able to conquer Gaul in just 8 years was because the Gaul’s ecenomic development had already put in place almost all the roads, bridges and surplus foodstuffs he needed to rapidly move his legions about the countryside, while all the cleared and cultivated former woodlands meant it was easy for the Romans to draw the Gauls into pitched battles where the Romans were at their strongest. Contrast this with Germania at the time which while influenced by Gaul was considered an economic backwater consisting of poorly interconnected and sparsely populated subsistence level villages within heavily forested areas, and its easy to see why the Romans were never able to carry out a swift and lasting conquest of the region like they did with Gaul.
I understand that the period of Germanic-Roman contact from 55 BC to the end of the migration period in the 5th/6th centuries constitutes only about half the time in took for pre-Roman Gaul to develop to the state it was, but you would still expect to see some level of economic development in Germania and Scythia in this 500 year period even if they weren’t building full scale copies of Roman towns and cities. (I’d also expect one long continuous border with the Roman Empire to act as something of a force multiplier for the Germans natural inclination to consolidate and advance economically)
I suppose again as you’ve already suggested I may just be severely underestimating the stranglehold the Roman’s maintained over the Germans economy and by extension economic development. My only issue with this notion is if that was indeed the case and the Romans entirely controlled the Germans access weapons, armour, logistics, and the kind of surplus foodstuffs required for long distance military campaigns, then I don’t understand how events such as the Marcomannic wars and the later Gothic and Germanic invasions of the 3rd and 4th centuries could have occurred. If the average Germanic warriors of the 2nd-5th centuries AD remained 99% comprised of the exact same poorly armed and poorly equipped force of spear armed peasant levies they were at the very beginning of the 1st century and before, then I don’t understand how the Roman didn’t massacre them every time the Germans or Goths crossed the border. I also don’t understand how such a poorly disciplined and provisioned force could force-march themselves from the all the way from Rhine to Aquileia during the Marcomannic Wars, or the Gothic seaborn sack of Athens in 268 AD. (I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of ‘Barbarian’ armies matching long distances and then back again that weren’t part of a greater migrations)
Real Name: Tim Hare
