The 2nd Best frghting force

[Nerva]

Hi Ricunni

Sorry my friend, but I have to pull you up on that one. Your talking about a period that goes from 281BC to 86 BC. You cannot compare Roman armies from the start and end of this period as it saw radical change not only in the content and formation of the Roman army but also in tactics. I don't have time right now to go into detail but I'll write a proper description and post up later. The subject of Roman infantry manipular tactics and the Phalanx is indeed an interesting one though.

[gaius marius]

In the case of Macidonia, thier 'empire' only lasted for the reigns of Phillip II and Alexander. It very quickly broke apart after alexander's death.

I would think the word 'empire is a bit of an misnormer it was more of a case with Alexander it was conquar first, orgainize later.

P.S cool pic of what you be looking at

[Nerva]

Yeah, but here's whats on the other side of them...

[gaius marius]

I have to confess that i had an interest in the Macedonian's For a long time.

Now for some info on them

The Macedonian Phalangit

Had no Limits placed on his term's of service (so you were in the Army forever if the King wanted )and they had to campaige whatever the weather or the season

They were not Payed But the King had to ensure they were fed and had somthing to wear
but the king did compensate by letting them plunder cities and people the odd time

And by the time Alexander the Great Died in 323 B.C they had marched 20,870 miles.

[ocianain]

That is an excellent point Brenda We did have many civil wars, but these wars never had the affect of permanently fracturing 'Romanitas'. Under the Principate, up to the 3rd century at least, the effect of the civil wars never resulted in a disintegration of the empire. Yes, the civil conflicts of the 4th century eventually played thier part in distroying the western empire.

In the case of Macidonia, thier 'empire' only lasted for the reigns of Phillip II and Alexander. It very quickly broke apart after alexander's death.

As I said, you have certainly highlighted a very interesting point, one that I'm now keen to research. Al lot of people ask the question 'Why did the Roman Empire end', I think a more important question would be 'How did the Roman Empire last so long'?

According to Rodney Stark in, The Victory of Reason, civilization did not fall, a city (Rome) did. Contrary to received wisdom when Rome fell the provinces boomed. Technological innovation, three field farming, wind mills, water wheels, the horse collar, etc..., all occurred after Rome fell. Makes sense, why innovate for your oppressor?

[Nerva]

According to Rodney Stark in, The Victory of Reason, civilization did not fall, a city (Rome) did. Contrary to received wisdom when Rome fell the provinces boomed. Technological innovation, three field farming, wind mills, water wheels, the horse collar, etc..., all occurred after Rome fell. Makes sense, why innovate for your oppressor?

Salve ocianain!

That's a period I know very little about. I have often read reference which say the dark ages were not that dark at all, but many technological advances achieved by the Romans seem to disappear by this time. Of course I say that in ignorance as they could well have ceased before then i.e. the Romans of the late empire may well have forgotten them. No doubt there was stagnation in both technical and social development after the fall of the western empire, but as to its true cause I am ignorant.

Vale

Nerva

[ocianain]

Nerva,

Stark also shows how the Dark Ages Myth was a 18th century construct, he also contends few academics even use the term anymore. He pops a lot of bubbles in the book, Roman roads were not all that, most people walked beside them, even the Legions (walking on stone harms the joints, they're slippery when wet) the wore torn up because they were useless, designed to export from the provinces and not for trade. Great book!

[brendan]

One example of where technology failed was in the production of surgical instruments.
Essentially, in order to sustain the level of craftsmanship required to produce high quality instruments you need specialized craftsmen, these need a certain level of demand to support them. This was there in a unified empire. Agricultural advancement does not require this level of integration.

Of course, the empire that fell was the one in the West - the eastern Empire had a good Millennium left in it

Brendan

[ocianain]

One example of where technology failed was in the production of surgical instruments.
Essentially, in order to sustain the level of craftsmanship required to produce high quality instruments you need specialized craftsmen, these need a certain level of demand to support them. This was there in a unified empire. Agricultural advancement does not require this level of integration.

Of course, the empire that fell was the one in the West - the eastern Empire had a good Millennium left in it

Brendan

I can't remember if Stark mentions surgical instruments but he does mention metallurgy, the development of eyeglasses and time pieces, these all require high levels of craftsmanship. I believe surgical instruments would be in the same category as the above (the gears in clocks are very sophisticated).