Question on Roman Empire

[pacman 7505]

Just curious.

I seem to recall hearing one issue that weakened the Roman Empire's stature was a late focus on finding and training "elite" level soldiers. They did this at the expense of training the entire army as a whole.

Anything you all have come across? I just can't recall where I picled this up or seem to find any discussion on it.

[RDCanecutter 26881]

By Elite, do you mean cavalry vs keeping the standard foot troops (Legionaries) at a high standard?

If so, a cavalry-heavy force worked fine for the Eastern half (Byzantines) 1,000 years after the West fell.

As for the West, I vaguely remember that they were hiring lots of barbarians instead of using Roman farmers long before the barbarians took over. Odoacer was a Roman veteran. Dunno if these barbarians would be considered elite, but they would sign up to fight.

[Kennythetiger 9622]

All I know about Rome I learned from watching "Spartacus" on one of the movie channels.  So I'm no help.  

[South Austin 53222]

It was the Moops.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

I don't know about their troops, but their concrete was elite

[Zepol87 9341]

2 hours ago, Kennythetiger said:

All I know about Rome I learned from watching "Spartacus" on one of the movie channels.  So I'm no help.  

lots of fine ass bitches 

[kevwun 16437]

10 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

By Elite, do you mean cavalry vs keeping the standard foot troops (Legionaries) at a high standard?

If so, a cavalry-heavy force worked fine for the Eastern half (Byzantines) 1,000 years after the West fell.

As for the West, I vaguely remember that they were hiring lots of barbarians instead of using Roman farmers long before the barbarians took over. Odoacer was a Roman veteran. Dunno if these barbarians would be considered elite, but they would sign up to fight.

Yeah, the Roman cavalry was usually recruited from the provinces and several eventual enemies learned about warfare while serving with the Romans.  The Praetorian Guard also became a huge problem once they figured out they could replace any emperor that pissed them off.

[RDCanecutter 26881]

There was always a lot of back-and-forth copying and adjusting tactically between the Romans and their neighbors based on what was available and what they were up against, just like between nations in more recent history.

The Romans grabbed any idea or artifact that worked. You go back far enough, and they're wearing scrappy-doo 2nd-rate Greek-looking stuff. When they bumped up against the Gauls (who actually beat the Romans, a lot, until they didn't...), they learned how to make chainmail, the classic "Roman" helmets, their swords (I think gladius comes from a Celtic word for sword, see Welsh Cleddyf, or the Clay- in Gaelic Claymore (Big Sword.), and I dunno, maybe their shield design too, but it seems like big-ass shields crop up wherever people don't want to get sepsis from arrow wounds.

Anyway, the classic Roman-Movie Roman Legion was pretty elite. They trained together for 15 (?) years.

So back to Romans grabbing whatever worked-- cavalry, barbarian or otherwise, got better as time rolled on. Crossbows/Longbows/Swiss Pikes tilted it back to the infantry later, but the Western Romans didn't live to see that.

Or maybe they did, if you think of those later Western Europeans as lapsed Romans.

[pacman 7505]

Appreciate the time spent in response. Seems I just don't have the facts to support..

I thought the Romans might be a historic example of this failed approach in that, when they started, they focused on the training of all who fought on their behalf. Then, over time, they thought it best to focus on some selected group of fighters, while not focusing as much on the general population of army. That shift in focus might have had some correlation to their downfall.

My general thinking, when trying to improve the effectiveness of a large body of humans (soldiers, workforce, etc.), or even maintain a high level status quo, it is a mistake to focus your efforts on identifying and training some select subset/group of the larger body at the expense of the whole. Rather, the most effective method is to continue to focus on the whole. Through the challenge of interacting with a larger, well trained base, those who are exceptional will naturally improve and rise to the top more effectively. You don't suffer the ineffectiveness of subjective selection methods.

 

Just rambling, without the proper foundation of study.

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

I'm pretty sure that some SEAL is just waiting to kick your ass

[RDCanecutter 26881]

1 minute ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I'm pretty sure that some SEAL is just waiting to kick your ass

Not as much as a roided up guy pretending to be a SEAL.

[RDCanecutter 26881]

4 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I'm pretty sure that some SEAL is just waiting to kick your ass

First Roman SEALs: The Batavi.

They were regarded by the Romans as the best and bravest (fortissimi, validissimi) of their auxiliary, and indeed of all their forces.[3] In Roman service, they had

perfected a unique technique for swimming across rivers wearing full armour and weapons.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Batavi

[52-80 19377]

On 10/16/2019 at 1:33 PM, Kennythetiger said:

All I know about Rome I learned from watching "Spartacus" on one of the movie channels.  So I'm no help.  

so... they just fuck a lot

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 10/16/2019 at 12:50 PM, pacman said:

Appreciate the time spent in response. Seems I just don't have the facts to support..

I thought the Romans might be a historic example of this failed approach in that, when they started, they focused on the training of all who fought on their behalf. Then, over time, they thought it best to focus on some selected group of fighters, while not focusing as much on the general population of army. That shift in focus might have had some correlation to their downfall.

My general thinking, when trying to improve the effectiveness of a large body of humans (soldiers, workforce, etc.), or even maintain a high level status quo, it is a mistake to focus your efforts on identifying and training some select subset/group of the larger body at the expense of the whole. Rather, the most effective method is to continue to focus on the whole. Through the challenge of interacting with a larger, well trained base, those who are exceptional will naturally improve and rise to the top more effectively. You don't suffer the ineffectiveness of subjective selection methods.

 

Just rambling, without the proper foundation of study.

 

Lots of factors related to the downfall.  The use of mercenary troops that later became enemies, the cessation of expansion (tied to the use of mercenary troops IMO) which doomed a state that required fresh loot to fill the coffers,  lead in cookware and makeup has also been listed as a contributing factor in their downfall, and I think political in fighting, and wholesale murder of anyone who got in your way politically finally did them in as well.

[Parliament 14594]

Also a factor was agricultural degradation caused by erosion and general overfarming.  Perhaps some climate change as well.  The Empire struggled to feed itself.

[Billy Pilgrim 2078]

On 10/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, kevwun said:

Yeah, the Roman cavalry was usually recruited from the provinces and several eventual enemies learned about warfare while serving with the Romans.  The Praetorian Guard also became a huge problem once they figured out they could replace any emperor that pissed them off.

With regards to “elite soldiers” weakening the empire- the Praetorian guard may be what was being referred to, at least early before other influences like the Huns, religion and inflation/taxes started taking their toll.

 

The Praetorian guard was essentially in charge of being the private security force for emperors but at some point, the tail started wagging the dog and they would start extorting the emperors, killing them if they didn’t give pay raises or sometimes declaring new emperors before the senate had any say. 

[Guest Lobo]

Their best soldiers weren't Italian. 

Their best leaders weren't Italian. 

Their best sailors weren't Italian.

Even their best thieves weren't Italian.  
There's wasn't much they couldn't fuck up.  There's a reason most of the Western Hemisphere doesn't speak Italian.  It speaks Spanish, and then English, and then French.  

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

13 hours ago, Lobo said:

  There's a reason most of the Western Hemisphere doesn't speak Italian.  It speaks Spanish, and then English, and then French.  

Spanish and French are romance languages that originated in Latin.  So yes there is a reason that many people in the Western Hemisphere speak those languages, and that reason is the Roman Empire.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Spanish and French are romance languages that originated in Latin.  So yes there is a reason that many people in the Western Hemisphere speak those languages, and that reason is the Roman Empire.

I believe a point was missed.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

Wouldn't be the first time

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Wouldn't be the first time

By any of us here.

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

The failures of late-era Roman military policy and culture pretty much parallel failures in every other aspect of Roman life.

My favorite exemplar of Roman decline is the "greatest" 4th century C.E. poet, Decimus Magnus Ausonius (narrator: "He sucked. Pompous, pretentious, unimaginative schlockmeister.")

By late era standards, Ausonius was what Romans aspired to be. He lived in Bordeaux, so again, was not Italian, he mouthed the religious and political platitudes of his day with absolute sincerity, and preached the supremacy of all-things-Rome, without ever actually creating anything new, useful, or even memorable. His poems were sort of like Penthouse Letters, so he had that going for him, I suppose.

Meanwhile, he ended up being a consul at one point, which just highlights how low they'd fallen. Within a century of his time, Teutonic hordes were swarming across the Rhein, and "Rome" was no longer really "Rome".

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

The failures of late-era Roman military policy and culture pretty much parallel failures in every other aspect of Roman life.

My favorite exemplar of Roman decline is the "greatest" 4th century C.E. poet, Decimus Magnus Ausonius (narrator: "He sucked. Pompous, pretentious, unimaginative schlockmeister.")

By late era standards, Ausonius was what Romans aspired to be. He lived in Bordeaux, so again, was not Italian, he mouthed the religious and political platitudes of his day with absolute sincerity, and preached the supremacy of all-things-Rome, without ever actually creating anything new, useful, or even memorable. His poems were sort of like Penthouse Letters, so he had that going for him, I suppose.

Meanwhile, he ended up being a consul at one point, which just highlights how low they'd fallen. Within a century of his time, Teutonic hordes were swarming across the Rhein, and "Rome" was no longer really "Rome".

Who could resist the Teutonic Hordes ??

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Who could resist the Teutonic Hordes ??

Finland, but only with the help of arctic temperatures.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

I prefer Teutonic Whores

[Parliament 14594]

I prefer Teutonic Whores

Username checks out.

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

27 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I prefer Teutonic Whores

[El Diablo 4232]

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I prefer Teutonic Whores

I think the proper term is "Teutonic Titwillow".

[RDCanecutter 26881]

This thread seems to be a place of tweed, leather patches on elbows, and pipe tobacco, so why yes, I indeed SHALL take a nip of that brandy. What a welcome relief from mouth-breathing undergraduates in their glorious tattooed obesity.

Since we're on Teutonic Volkswanderung, it was once pointed out to me that by the time the Visigoths and such got deep into the Mediterranean lands, they encountered massive local slave populations who joined right in, went "barbarian" as it were. That's supposedly why it took so little time for the Goths to lose their Germanic language-- they were already used to speaking Latin, as were any new recruits.

On the other hand, up in the north the Franks were moving a shorter distance into Gaul, and kept their old language longer (Flemish used to be spoken much farther into modern France), or else came up with completely conblobulated chopped-liver Latin, like what you'd get if you had a particularly unmotivated Alabama schoolchild try to read Caesar.

(I suspect this is why, on a good day, the French can make wine AND get a train to run on time, but on a bad day combine a Mediterranean sense of duty with a winning Germanic personality.)

Nobody has mentioned the Alans yet. An Iranian-related tribe of steppe people, they snuck into Western Europe along with the Proto-Krauts. Pockets of them settled everywhere, as far west as Brittany and (I think) Spain. Some say that the faked retreat was their specialty, where they'd turn around and cut down opponents who'd broken ranks, and that the Breton left wing at Hastings pulled this off against the English. But basic tactics probably get thought up all over the place. Anyway, villages and personal names that include "Alan" or "Alain" go back to them. They had problems distinguishing L from R, and Alan comes from Aryan. So Hitler wasn't too far off, he should have just found some Western French villagers to organize.