How Rome Fell - A Lecture by Adrian Goldsworthy

[Narukami]

Did not find this posted elsewhere in the Forum -- if it is my apologies.

This excellent lecture by Adrian Goldsworthy, delivered last October in Kansas City, was posted by Ross Cowan on his blog (Thank you Dr. Cowan)

http://www.kclibrary.org/event/adrian-g ... -rome-fell

The lecture itself is great and the follow-up Q-&-A is both wide ranging and fascinating. (You can not hear the questions but in most cases you can guess the question from the answer.)

Lasts a little over an hour and worth every minute.

:wink:

Narukami

[Virilis]

Thanks David, much appreciated !

[Goffredo]

thanks
I enjoyed the lecture immensely. Even my wife did (she enjoyed the language and pronunciation)

I am suprised there has been no debate about his book. Or did I miss it?

[Robert Vermaat]

Is there a trick how to open the audio file?

[sonic]

Is there a trick how to open the audio file?

I just clicked on where it says 'audio' under the text on the right and it worked!

Great find!

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I am in the middle of his outstanding book on the fall of Rome and i must say, simply superb reading !!

M.VIB.M.

[Robert Vermaat]

Is there a trick how to open the audio file?

I just clicked on where it says 'audio' under the text on the right and it worked!

I saved it to disc and now it seem to work..

[Narukami]

This is a very good book (though I must say that I enjoyed his book on Julius Caesar even more) full of interesting information and observations.

Here is one I came across in the chapter dealing with the fall of Roman Britain (Sunset On An Outpost Of Empire p.338)

"Septimius Severus' campaigns against the Caledonians may have permitted a substantial reduction in troop numbers.
Barrack blocks built in the forts of Hadrian's Wall in the following years all appear to have been about half the size of
those in earlier periods. It is quite likely that centuries in these units were halved in size from eighty to forty men,
although they still remained under the command of a centurion."

Perhaps I am missing something, but I find this conclusion to be something of a stretch. Could it not be just as reasonable to think that centuries were not reduced in sized, but split up and stationed in smaller groups along the wall to allow a Cohort or Legion to cover more territory?

Is there any other evidence to support the idea that the TO&E of the legion reduced the size of the century?
Does this also mean that the Cohort and Legion too were also reduced in size even though the number of officers remained the same?

:?

Narukami

Narukami

[Goffredo]

I've read all of Goldsworthy's books, starting from his Ph.D. dissertation edited for publication. I can say he triggered off my renewed interest in roman and ancient history.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

a valid point Narukami ! that could be the case...

M.VIB.M.

[sonic]

Here is one I came across in the chapter dealing with the fall of Roman Britain (Sunset On An Outpost Of Empire p.338)

"Septimius Severus' campaigns against the Caledonians may have permitted a substantial reduction in troop numbers.
Barrack blocks built in the forts of Hadrian's Wall in the following years all appear to have been about half the size of
those in earlier periods. It is quite likely that centuries in these units were halved in size from eighty to forty men,
although they still remained under the command of a centurion."

Perhaps I am missing something, but I find this conclusion to be something of a stretch. Could it not be just as reasonable to think that centuries were not reduced in sized, but split up and stationed in smaller groups along the wall to allow a Cohort or Legion to cover more territory?

It all depends upon your viewpoint. Your concept of splitting the troops and stationing them along the wall does not allow for a reduction in number of troops, simply a redistribution. It also mean that, if the emperor took the released legions away, there are fewer units on the Wall to deter attack. If there is a renewal of hostilities, fresh units have to be sent to the area.

On other hand, Goldsworthy's system allows for an actual reduction in numbers. Furthermore, in Goldsworthy's system if there is a renewal of conflict in the area, by retaining the command structure there is an allowance for rapid recruitment into existing units to bring them up to strength, rather than having to recruit or deploy new formations.

[Narukami]

Furthermore, in Goldsworthy's system if there is a renewal of conflict in the area, by retaining the command structure there is an allowance for rapid recruitment into existing units to bring them up to strength, rather than having to recruit or deploy new formations.

I see your point Sonic and that does make sense -- running a "cadre system" that can be easily expanded in time of need.

Still, I wonder if that can logically be inferred simply from the reduced floor plan of the troop quarters along Hadrian's Wall?

Is there other confirming information for this?
Perhaps it is something considered to be common knowledge of that time period and I simply am ignorant of it? :oops: :?

:wink:

Narukami

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

Very interesting stuff and thought-provoking to boot. But I have my suspicions about Goldsworthy's theory. It certainly has merits, but there is not enough evidence to really lend it credence. Archaeology can be dangerous when utilized alone, which is what Goldsworthy seems to do here. But then again, I'm not very imaginative :lol: