Somnium Apostatae Iuliani Discussion

[Gäiten]

I do not think that Julian`s failed Persian campaign of 363AD and Jovian`s peace treaty did have so much importance for the Battle of Adrianople.
Thanks to Jovian the Roman field armies survived instead of getting annihilated in enemy territory and the Eastern Empire inherited a more stable border situation with the Sassanians. Besides some minor conflicts that relative peace secured the Easterns survival for the upcoming difficult 5th century.

Imagine what would have happened if the Sassanians attacked the Eastern Empire with full forces.

[Valentinian Victor]

I do not think that Julian`s failed Persian campaign of 363AD and Jovian`s peace treaty did have so much importance for the Battle of Adrianople.
Thanks to Jovian the Roman field armies survived instead of getting annihilated in enemy territory and the Eastern Empire inherited a more stable border situation with the Sassanians. Besides some minor conflicts that relative peace secured the Easterns survival for the upcoming difficult 5th century.

Imagine what would have happened if the Sassanians attacked the Eastern Empire with full forces.

You have to look at things in a more strategic light. The events of the 360's directly affected what happened during the 370's. Things happened much more slowly back then due to the communication problems the Late Romans faced. Events that proved eventful may not have caused an immediate effect, they may well have rumbled under the surface until another event magnified the effects of the initial event. An example of this would be the Battle of Adrianopolis where although it was a disaster, its effects were not really felt until a few years later on.
Things on the Eastern front were not so tranquil as you might think, there were almost constant probes and skirmishes with the Sasanids. And if it were not for problems with Hunnic raids in Sasanid territory necessitating transferring troops to their north eastern frontier, then its certain Sharpur II would have mounted a large invasion of the Roman East sometime in late 360's to mid 370's.

[Gäiten]

As you said, probes and skirmishes.
That is quite a difference compared to a full-scale war.
Shapur II. was a very aggressive adversery of Rome, however, after the Jovian treaty, the Sassanians did not start large-scale attacks and the Eastern front was calming down.

[Valentinian Victor]

As you said, probes and skirmishes.
That is quite a difference compared to a full-scale war.
Shapur II. was a very aggressive adversery of Rome, however, after the Jovian treaty, the Sassanians did not start large-scale attacks and the Eastern front was calming down.

The problem with relying on ancient authors for information is that they could be selective about or ignorant of events that were happening. They did not have modern communication systems so events may not have been given the importance that required comment. An example of this is that although Ammianus does not appear to comment on Constantius II going to war with the Goths, or even engaging in a battle with them, there are honorifics attributed to him such as 'Gothicus', implying he defeated the Goths in combat. A number of modern authors have said that battle probably broke out all the time against the various enemies of the Later Roman Empire, but we only hear about a select few.

[legio_XX]

hey Vitcor Could you help me on somthing? ok after adrianople it is said by a few of my books and vedios that the romans started to hate the goths and treated them poorly (riots and beatings, mass murder) but I would think the hate would have been there to begian with and my friend ethan claims it was only after adrianople that the hate started but I think it was around 250 AD when the goths realy started to put the grind on roman land.

could you please explain where it went wrong...you or JH or any one lol.

thank you!

[Valentinian Victor]

hey Vitcor Could you help me on somthing? ok after adrianople it is said by a few of my books and vedios that the romans started to hate the goths and treated them poorly (riots and beatings, mass murder) but I would think the hate would have been there to begian with and my friend ethan claims it was only after adrianople that the hate started but I think it was around 250 AD when the goths realy started to put the grind on roman land.

could you please explain where it went wrong...you or JH or any one lol.

thank you!

I would have to say that the Late Romans and Goth's had an uneasy relationship. At various times they worked together, Jordanes claiming that the Goth's supplied 40,000 auxilliaries for Constantine I; Constantius II, Julian, Valens, Theodosius I etc all hired Goth's; there were permanent Gothic auxilia units and Gothic cavalry units in the Roman field armies etc etc.
Then again, the Goths proved to be a dangerous foe, invading the Roman Empire from the 3rd to the 5th Centuries and successfully sacking Rome and forming a number of Gothic kingdoms within what was the Western Roman Empire.
I would not say the Romans and the Goth's hated each other, they certainly had a healthy respect for each others military prowess, but that is different than hatred.
The bad treatment you refer to happened during 376 to 378AD both in the lead upto Adrianopolis and as a result of the aftermath, but generally the treatment of the Goths was no different than that of other barbarian nations employed by the Romans who also had wars against those they employed.
There was much trade between the Goth's and the Romans during this period. Archaeological finds in Gothic territory show much Roman pottery, weapons etc. There also appears to be some sort of slave trade happening as well.
It might be worth you checking out Peter Heather's and Herwig Wolfram's books on the Goths for a much fuller picture.

[Valentinian Victor]

I've been playing the IJ mod for a few days now, the 355AD scenario with me as Constantius II in the East. I'm really enjoying the campaign, despite those damn barbarians swarming over the frontier at regular intervals!

The only niggle I have so far would be around the numbers of non-Roman's that are able to be recruited. Whilst Constantius certainly did recruit 'Skythians' (Goths) for his Sasanid Persian campaign, there is some evidence that the Goths were recruited in numbers of between 3000-4000 maximum. Other nations were probably recruited directly into their field army units. Foedorati and similar troops were not recruited in any sort of numbers until after 375AD, and formed the bulk of 'Roman' forces during the Patrician period and beyond.

As I'm completely new to Rome Total War, does the game follow the traditional Roman way of campaigns i.e. the campaign season being between March and September, or does the game allow you to ignore this and campaign all year round?

[julianus heraclius]

I've been playing the IJ mod for a few days now, the 355AD scenario with me as Constantius II in the East. I'm really enjoying the campaign, despite those damn barbarians swarming over the frontier at regular intervals!

The only niggle I have so far would be around the numbers of non-Roman's that are able to be recruited. Whilst Constantius certainly did recruit 'Skythians' (Goths) for his Sasanid Persian campaign, there is some evidence that the Goths were recruited in numbers of between 3000-4000 maximum. Other nations were probably recruited directly into their field army units. Foedorati and similar troops were not recruited in any sort of numbers until after 375AD, and formed the bulk of 'Roman' forces during the Patrician period and beyond.

As I'm completely new to Rome Total War, does the game follow the traditional Roman way of campaigns i.e. the campaign season being between March and September, or does the game allow you to ignore this and campaign all year round?

I assume you are meaning Foederati troops as opposed to Mercenaries.

I have altered the recruiting of Foederati for IJV3.0 making it more difficult to recruit them, at least in large numbers. Of course it is always your choice not to recruit them.

As for campaigning, you can campaign all year round in RTW, though again for IJV3.0 there will be movement penalties for most factions for Winter and Summer.

Cheers

[Valentinian Victor]

I assume you are meaning Foederati troops as opposed to Mercenaries.

I have altered the recruiting of Foederati for IJV3.0 making it more difficult to recruit them, at least in large numbers. Of course it is always your choice not to recruit them.

As for campaigning, you can campaign all year round in RTW, though again for IJV3.0 there will be movement penalties for most factions for Winter and Summer.

Cheers

It's always going to be a fine balance and I would not want your task!

A number of authors have pointed out that significant numbers of 'barbarian' tribal groups were bound by treaty and hostage arrangements to supply men for the Late Roman Army. There is still on-going debate as to where these troops ended up. The most common belief being that they topped up their native Legione/auxilia units i.e. Taifali would be drafted into the Taifali auxilia unit, Allemanni would end up being drafted into units such as the Batavi etc. Where there were more large scale hiring of what could be called 'mercenaries' (although I suspect that the Romans would have given them a veneer of respectability by calling them 'auxilliaries'), they would be grouped together and held with one particular field army for a particular campaign. Procopius hired a force of 3000 Goths in his civil war against Valens for example.

However, as we have very little to go on about the hiring of non-Romans during this period perhaps my niggles are no more than that really.

Good to see your putting some very good ideas into IJ3, carry on the good work I say!

[zmv]

I have a suggestion, it is possible to implement ability to recruit a whole legion like in mod twilight of the republic 77 bc, I mean in some main cities like Rome,Constantinopolis,Antiocheia,Nikomedia,Ravenna and others. It will be great for game to see real army, because when AI play roman factions he always recruit more cheaply barbarian units!

[legio_XX]

afraid at this time period recruting field units like a full legion was very hard with training, desertion equipment being shiped from all over roma the times of the legionary as every one loved at this point is over not many people where proud of joining the field armys or realy any armys at this point. so it would be unhistorical.

Here comes a long rant form V VICTOR.jk. proly alot more help then me

[Valentinian Victor]

afraid at this time period recruting field units like a full legion was very hard with training, desertion equipment being shiped from all over roma the times of the legionary as every one loved at this point is over not many people where proud of joining the field armys or realy any armys at this point. so it would be unhistorical.

Here comes a long rant form V VICTOR.jk. proly alot more help then me

Me, rant? Nay, never young Sir!
Well, just a small one!
It would be true to say that it was always hard for the Romans to recruit into the Legiones and they were always understrength. During the Late Roman period there was so much corruption that many people could either avoid the draft by bribery, or they could persuade someone else, or even put a slave in their place. Technically the sons of serving soldiers had to also serve in the army when they became of age, but that was not always adhered to very strictly. Many civilians chose instead to join the auxilia where the pay was higher, the tour of duty less ardious, where the rations were better and they were not expected to do back breaking work like build roads, ramparts for camps etc.
However, upto about 380AD, when the army became filled with Gothic troops and the Late Roman army started to lose its identity, it was still possible to recruit into the army without too much bother. People either worked the land, or went into the army, unless they were wealthy or had a business. 5% of the population owned 90% of the wealth, which included land and money.
Valentinian I rebuilt the Late Roman Army when he accended to the Purple and during his and Valens reign the army reached a strength calculated at over 600,000, including limitanei, milites, ripensis and other border troops. This was the largest size it had ever attained. Valentinian himself was credited by Ammainus as 'an inventor of arms' and he might have been the author of the anonymous 'De Rebus Bellicis'.
Authors such as Heather, Nicasie, Elton, Matthews etc all agree that upto the Battle of Adrianopolis the Late Roman Army was probably as strong as it had ever been, or even stronger.
Adrianopolis sounded the death knell for the Late Roman Army, although the full effect of that defeat would not be felt for a few years after the battle. After Adrianopolis the Romans began to recruit more from a readily available pool of an increasing number of 'barbarians'. The army became less and less 'Roman' until at the Battle of Chalon's where it would be hard to describe the 'Roman' army present as being 'Roman' any more.
How recruitment was done I suggest reading the authors above as well as A.H.M. Jones book.

[legio_XX]

I KNEW IT!! I warned you lol. VV you are my new friend

[julianus heraclius]

I have a suggestion, it is possible to implement ability to recruit a whole legion like in mod twilight of the republic 77 bc, I mean in some main cities like Rome,Constantinopolis,Antiocheia,Nikomedia,Ravenna and others. It will be great for game to see real army, because when AI play roman factions he always recruit more cheaply barbarian units!

As VV has stated, it was quite hard to recruit men for the legiones, and the army in general. But by this time the legion as a tactical unit was no longer in vogue, so to speak. Flexability was the key by this time and smaller units were easier to use. You may already realise that by this time Legiones were split over a number of sites and of course under strength as has already been mentioned. It's interesting that the "cohort" size unit, say 400-500 men was still considered the standard size unit. The cohort structure seems to have survived into the late empire, but newer auxilia and legio field units were modeled on the Ordines structure. These consisted of approx 200 men (Full compliment) and there were 3 ordos in a Auxilia unit and 6 in a field Legio.

So I'm afraid your dream of having a full legione cannot be realised by this time. Of course you could always make up your own. For example, field legios and auxilia units were usually fielded in pairs. So the Legio Herculiani and Ioviani were paired. This would give you 3000 men at full strength. They were certainly elite troops.

Cheers

[Valentinian Victor]

As VV has stated, it was quite hard to recruit men for the legiones, and the army in general. But by this time the legion as a tactical unit was no longer in vogue, so to speak. Flexability was the key by this time and smaller units were easier to use. You may already realise that by this time Legiones were split over a number of sites and of course under strength as has already been mentioned. It's interesting that the "cohort" size unit, say 400-500 men was still considered the standard size unit. The cohort structure seems to have survived into the late empire, but newer auxilia and legio field units were modeled on the Ordines structure. These consisted of approx 200 men (Full compliment) and there were 3 ordos in a Auxilia unit and 6 in a field Legio.

So I'm afraid your dream of having a full legione cannot be realised by this time. Of course you could always make up your own. For example, field legios and auxilia units were usually fielded in pairs. So the Legio Herculiani and Ioviani were paired. This would give you 3000 men at full strength. They were certainly elite troops.

Cheers

The debate about exactly what the Legiones looked like goes on. Elton suggests that the Legione size during Ammianus age was about 1800 men strong, other suggest they were approximately 1200-1500 men strong. However, Vegetius suggests that the Legiones should be 6000 men strong, whilst not telling us exactly how many men were in the legiones when he wrote (sometime between 390 and 410AD). I'm not sure exactly how many men were in the legiones at this time. When the Legiones were divided into two (into 'Seniores' and 'Iuniores') sometime prior to 350AD (despite what some authors were writing upto even 2008, the Legiones and Auxila units were not divided during Valentinian I and Valens reigns, a gravestone found in the 1990's proves that the Seniores and Iuniores classification was used in the 350's), we don't know how large the parent Legione was, probably about 4000-5000 men strong. My best guess is that an on paper full-strength Legion would have been about 2000 men strong, but in reality they were probably as low as 1200 men and no more than 1800 men strong.

Whilst there are references in later works to the Legiones being comprised of 6 Ordo's (the root of the Medieval 'Order' as in miltary orders), Ammianus still talks about the legiones of his day being formed of 'maniples' and 'centuries', indicating that the Legiones were still modelled along the old traditional lines even upto the time Battle of Adrianopolis.
Interestingly, a number of the old style Legiones were still in existance right through Ammanius time and even existed upto the 6th Century in the Eastern Empire (a number of old Legione names crop up on monuments, wood carvings and papari. They were generally relegated to border guard duties and were divided up in cohort sized units amougst the border forts and towns in the East and in Africa.

Of course the most apparent difference between the old style legiones and the Later Roman ones was that Whilst the olde style ones had both a number and a name, the new style ones just had a name with the suffix of either Seniores or Iuniores.

Not only were Legiones paired up but so were the Auxilia units, hence Ammianus has the Cornuti and Brachatti auxilia together, the Batavi and the Heruli auxilia together etc.

One caveat I have about Ammianus, in one book of his History he mentions two units which most historians have treated as being auxilia, despite Ammianus calling them Legiones. The historians have done this because Ammianus calls these two units 'auxilliaries' earlier on. However, the Notitia shows that there were Legiones and auxilia with exactly the same names so it may well be that Ammianus is describing the two different sets of units, both with the same root names.

The true flexibility of the Later Roman Empire is shown by the fact that the border and garrison units could be promoted to the field armies during times of need. They would then gain the title of 'Pseudocomitatensis'. If they remained long enough in the field armies they would be promoted to full 'comitatensis' status, but I doubt they would ever have reached 'Palatine' status.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I wonder from reading several authorities on Ammianus on how intentionally archaic his descriptions were in reference to the legions and his battle descriptions? I am aware that his reference to maniples and centuries is classified not in terms of accurate late Roman terminology but instead as a literary topos deployed in a deliberate fashion - also his battle descriptions too deploy obvious rhetorical tropes interspersed with genuine material gathered from officers (and himself) in the field. I was always struck when reading about the Persian expedition in particular on how 'frightened' Ammianus appears when the dreaded Sassanian elephants appeared - and wondered on his ability to electrify his readers - all of whom would have been Latin educated and mostly from the wealthy landed rural and urban elite . . . It will always be difficult I think to distinguish fact from fiction in a writer who was both a high ranking officer and a gifted literary writer!

[Valentinian Victor]

I wonder from reading several authorities on Ammianus on how intentionally archaic his descriptions were in reference to the legions and his battle descriptions? I am aware that his reference to maniples and centuries is classified not in terms of accurate late Roman terminology but instead as a literary topos deployed in a deliberate fashion - also his battle descriptions too deploy obvious rhetorical tropes interspersed with genuine material gathered from officers (and himself) in the field. I was always struck when reading about the Persian expedition in particular on how 'frightened' Ammianus appears when the dreaded Sassanian elephants appeared - and wondered on his ability to electrify his readers - all of whom would have been Latin educated and mostly from the wealthy landed rural and urban elite . . . It will always be difficult I think to distinguish fact from fiction in a writer who was both a high ranking officer and a gifted literary writer!

Of course Ammianus was writing for an audience to whom the classical style was to their taste, and after all, Ammianus wrote in such a way that he actually gave dramatic readings of his work, almost in a 'one man play' kind of way. However, notwithstanding this, he knew a lot of his audience would have a military background and so he must have been using terms both he and they understood. Remember he accurately describes the weapons the troops were using, and they are most definately contemporary with the times, so why not the military formations and descriptions of centuries and maniples?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Because his audience would have been conservative and prone to reading of Roman greatness in terms which hearkened back to past glory. Besides, using antiquated terms neither invalidates contemporary references nor belittles the audience - it actually emphasises Rome's enduring myth of greatness and continuity regardless of whether such terms were still deployed in the excercitus or not. Remember, Ammianus is writing for an educated elite and must therefore expound both his knowledge of Rome's military and political past (given he wrote an extensive history much of which is lost now alas) and a literary past just as vital and relevant as the military one. Here rhetoric and reportage achieve equal validity in the work - especially as Ammianus was a Greek writer and speaker first and so perhaps even more eager to illustrate his Latin credentials to his audience. I always enjoy reading Ammianus precisely because I sense a conservative bent within the writing allied to the contemporary events his surviving works illustrate - the slaughter of the eastern field army under Valens being especially poignant. I also read Ammianus against the anonymous writer of the Historia Augusta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta for an example of the rhetorical tropes in a later Roman context tipping over to the point of decadence - and also still inadvertantly providing clues about later Roman weapons and armour!

[Valentinian Victor]

Because his audience would have been conservative and prone to reading of Roman greatness in terms which hearkened back to past glory. Besides, using antiquated terms neither invalidates contemporary references nor belittles the audience - it actually emphasises Rome's enduring myth of greatness and continuity regardless of whether such terms were still deployed in the excercitus or not. Remember, Ammianus is writing for an educated elite and must therefore expound both his knowledge of Rome's military and political past (given he wrote an extensive history much of which is lost now alas) and a literary past just as vital and relevant as the military one. Here rhetoric and reportage achieve equal validity in the work - especially as Ammianus was a Greek writer and speaker first and so perhaps even more eager to illustrate his Latin credentials to his audience. I always enjoy reading Ammianus precisely because I sense a conservative bent within the writing allied to the contemporary events his surviving works illustrate - the slaughter of the eastern field army under Valens being especially poignant. I also read Ammianus against the anonymous writer of the Historia Augusta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta for an example of the rhetorical tropes in a later Roman context tipping over to the point of decadence - and also still inadvertantly providing clues about later Roman weapons and armour!

I believe the consensus amongst historians and scholars is that the Historia AUgusta is a forgery, a couple of authors even suggesting it is a Medieval forgery, so I would be very hesitant to take anything within its pages at face value.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

It is very much a forgery - my point being that this late Roman work highlighted a decadent style (ie: a false history) which still contained nuggets (inadvertently) of information about aspects of the late Roman military - colours of military cloaks springing to mind off the top of my head! While the Historia Augusta is a forgery (I veer towards the contemporary Ammianus period in its dating alas!) it still points to a decadent Roman literary style which Ammianus himself would have been involved with. The mention of maniples as a deliberately archaic term only proves his Classical credentials whle not necessarily invalidating current military terms. One can have both, I think. In the Historia Augusta we have an amazing late Roman work of fiction even replete with fake documents - quite a revelation for the period - which is deliberately archaic sitting alongside the last great Classical history in the tradition of Tacitus (despite Gibbon's qulaifications) - both works however must be situated in the literary milieu of Rome and are therefore primarily literary documents of rhetoric and style first. For the notion of maniples as being a military usage still current I would need to see epigraphic evidence outwith literary sources - such as inscriptions and papyri fragments. Having said that, I am a firm believer in the contunuity of Roman military language and tradition and wouldn't be that surprised if it was produced - I wonder if I have just shot myself in the foot here (with a 'dart of Mars', no doubt!).