Rating: 
Summary: Best One-Volume Work on the Subject Available
Review: My first impression on receiving this book was that at 214 pages it was far too short to be considered a "complete" history of the Roman Army. However, Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy is one of the finest Roman-era historians writing today and he packs a considerable amount of detail into this slim volume. Although the volume is primarily a synthesis of other existing works, Goldsworthy has taken the best materials - including recent archaeological research from Kalkriese in Germany - to provide a very balanced portrait of this subject. Furthermore, The Complete Roman Army has a very high graphic quality, with beautiful color photographs of uniforms, reconstructed and ruined fortifications, weapons and locations. Indeed, this book is easily the best one-volume work available on the Roman Army today.
The Complete Roman Army consists of five major sections: the Republican Army (25 pages), the professional army (29 pages), the life of a Roman soldier (87 pages), the army at war (35 pages) and the army of late antiquity (14 pages). Goldsworthy covers numerous topics, including recruitment, daily routines, rewards and punishments, religion, retirement, equipment, rank structure and off-duty behavior. In essence, this represents a "handbook" on the Roman army. The author also includes order of battle data on the Roman Army, maps of garrison locations, layouts of camps and sidebars on major battles like Pharsalus and the defeat of Boudicca. Although some readers might wish greater detail than Goldsworthy can provide on some subjects, the author's extensive bibliography does point to other sources for expanded information. All in all, Goldsworthy's synthesis and condensation of so much information into such a small space is impressive.
Goldsworthy's discussion of Roman battle tactics follows in the tracks of his earlier works on the subject and I do find some gaps in his otherwise superb analysis. Goldsworthy never really explains how the Romans were so often victorious in the close battle; in previous books, Goldsworthy suggested that it was a handful of "extra-aggressive" soldiers who "broke into the enemy line" but in this book he leaves it more vague. While Goldsworthy notes the importance of the reserve in a Roman army, he doesn't discuss how it was used to win battles. Furthermore, he uses literary evidence from Caesar's commentaries to suggest that Roman soldiers charged at their enemies, hurling their pilum at 10-15 meters and then crashed into their line. The idea that a soldier could run with armor and scutum, throw a javelin, then draw his sword while maintaining linear order with the soldiers on his right and left in the space of perhaps 6-10 seconds is absurd. Indeed, the idea of running with a large rectangular shield like the scutum seems pretty absurd. Given the Roman emphasis on tight discipline and the need to use the shields to cover the front rank, I think it far more like that Roman infantry advanced methodically.
In the final section, Goldsworthy spends little effort discussing the role of the army in Rome's decline and fall. While the author does mention the army's role in causing political instability in the empire and the difficulty its smaller units had in defeating Barbarian invasions, he dismisses the "Barbarization" theory and delves no further into examining the decline. Yet it is clear from the sources and evidence we have available that the Roman Army did decline in quality toward the end and that it was up against tougher opposition (Goldsworthy never mentions the Goths, Ostrogoths, Vandals or Huns). The Roman military system was based on a high level of tactical organization, skill and discipline - all of which apparently declined over time and contributed to their eventual defeat.
Rating:
Summary: From Republican Army To Tetrarchic System To Marius' Reform!
Review:
I've oft received genocidally scorching disparagement for not being "sunshiny" enough, or even just "cordial" or "respectful" enough-but the tide must be turning and the sun breaking through the downcast clouds, for I'm about to reward a product with utter compliments!!!! Goldsworthy's "The Complete Roman Army" is THE grandest omnipotent authoritativeness in affectionately scrutinizing every last detail of the Republic's, Principate's, and Late Antiquity's armies, that it could be construed as corrosively schizophrenic, but in a good way: ordering and cataloguing of everything material to the Roman army's application. Goldsworthy attentively covers literally every inevitable relevance, from pay, rank, life in the army, evolution of the army, decline of the army, uses of the army, battle strategy and psychology, types of battle, siege methodology, army formation, varying units and/or branches of the army, famous Roman engagements, command structure, and I could persist infinitely including all the carefully handled vitalities in Goldsworthy's exhaustively comprehensive volume-it's THAT incisive. To designate Goldsworthy's work as a textbook wouldn't be depreciating; though written with warm inclusiveness for general audiences' interests, with its crisply straightforward presentation, it's useable for study, yet far from the distantly technical format inside textbooks.
The book's divided into the three progressive evolutions of the Roman army, with two complimentary chapters on "The Life of a Roman Soldier" and "The Army at War" interjected between. In each chapter, Goldsworthy further delves into subheadings which the chapter subject additionally diverts to. For instance, during The Republican Army, he includes its origins and its structure as categorized by the captured Greek historian Polybius; for the Principate's groundbreaking Professional Army, he includes the Marian Reform and its officers; under the Life of a Roman Soldier, Goldsworthy includes astutely keen observations on his pettiest specifics like his unauthorized marriages, to more substantial particulars like his equipment and daily routine; in The Army at War, he includes analysis on its campaigns, battles and sieges; and, finally, for The Army of Late Antiquity, he includes the near upheaval-like changes (deteriorating from and consistent with previous armies') that so eclipsed Rome's army in the 3rd to 5th centuries AD.
Very sympathetically thoughtful from Goldsworthy is to irregularly include extra, two-page long features on some of Rome's most famous or administratively important battles, like Hannibal's Cannea and Boudica's annihilation to Late Antiquity's Battle of Strasbourg, which all transparently indicate the opposing armies' units' positions and movements, a casualty toll, a brief synopsis of the climaxing reasons and the outcomes, and a pithy overview of its main protagonists. Unlike some other tripe that's been harrowingly and unaccountably allowed to be published-like Wells' Teutoburg massacre-Goldsworthy's masterpiece boasts scores of illustrations and pictures, about half in color, which are all lucidly sizeable for clear perception, poignantly complementary to helping the understanding of the points discussed, and, for the pictures especially, showing unconventionally obscure Roman relics that educate all the more.
Another excellent meticulousness Goldsworthy does well is the presence of counterbalance in his arguments and fact-exhibition. Per Goldsworthy himself, archeology isn't a hard science in the sense that one can't definitively reconstruct events that are independent from the archeological evidence with certainty. An example of this is when the remaining outlines of Roman forts or camps are only able to edify strictly physical information, such as the capacity of the fort or camp and the types of buildings in it, but not the activities of legionnaires. Such arcane half-truth inevitably ends in objectionable discrepancies. This is where Goldsworthy's scholarly balance comes into play. The purported scholar he is, Goldsworthy doesn't degrade the reader by assumingly imposing only his own prejudicial viewpoints of certain facts-because as was established, there's almost no unit consensus on archeological matters-he generously shares the contrasting theories on almost all areas of interest, making sure the reader's instructed with one viewpoint and then its counter-theory, especially if there are or was more than one scientifically accepted hypothesis. Consider Goldsworthy's postulation about cavalrymen's abilities to still effectively throw spears and swing swords while not possessing the technology of stirrups. While Goldsworthy reveals that this establishment has been proven in recent years, he's also mindful enough to recall the previously held assumption that, even though ancient sources never substantiated it, horsemen were illegally presumed to have not been able to efficiently partake in battle.
Some highlights in Goldsworthy's accomplishment are his knack for delving interestingly into quite minute and particular specifics about warfare psychology and possibly overlooked, little-known reasons for armies' behaviors and certain ways battles develop-all testament to his astuteness. In discussing how any given ancient battle could've progressed, Goldsworthy closely remarks the movements generals would've had to take to managerially administer their leadership over a battle's course. He reasons that, in likelihood, generals would've had to fuse a mixture of close monitoring-the presence of generals just behind a conflict's front lines-with almost surveillance-monitoring, where they'd be up on an incline well behind the front lines to garner a controllably broad view of how the battle was developing, in order to successfully be apt at leading their armies. Other highlights encompass the psychological elements of a legionnaire, or barbarian, for that matter, as they prepare for and endure the impending battle. Tactics done and "rules" of warfare before an engagement-wherein two armies might have camped out for days in each other's plain sight and resorted to intimidation like marching their armies nearer and nearer without engaging, to decide the courageousness of the side that moved its army nearer toward the enemy's lines, and skirmishes before battle to bastardly measure which side owned more prowess-are documented to probe even further the very enigmas of psychology.
Goldsworthy's masterpiece may be an adverse bit excessive for casual Roman aficionados, and a beforehand, general familiarization with Rome might well help to improve the reader's understanding of his book's educational merit. Nonetheless, this comprehensive work is money VERY well spent, for ANYONE seeking Roman enlightenment-from the history buff to the serious Roman studies pupil.
Rating:
Summary: Best Survey of Roman Army 750 B.C. to 400 A.D.
Review: For serious scholars and interested amateur historians alike, this is the one "must have" survey book on the Roman Army. Goldsworthy provides a comprehensive, insightful survey in this lavishly illustrated book. Using the best of recent historical reseach on the Roman Army, Goldsworthy presents the material in a comprehensive and easily accessible style. Starting with his summary of available historical sources, he provides fresh analysis of what contemporary historians know, don't know, and what remains conjecture regarding the Roman Army. The core of the book deals with evolution of the Roman Army during the main thematic periods; the Republican Army, the Professional Army of the first and second centuries A.D., and finally the Army of Late Antiquity. There are also two sections dealing the Army at War and the Life of the Roman Soldier. The book ends with a very useful bibliography. This book is the benchmark for surveys of the Roman Army and is likely to remain so for a long time. Do not hesitate to buy this book, it is well worth it!
Rating:
Summary: From Polybian Legion To Marius' Reform To Tetrarchic System!
Review: I've oft received genocidally scorching disparagement for not being "sunshiny" enough, or even just "cordial" or "respectful" enough-but the tide must be turning and the sun breaking through the downcast clouds, for I'm about to reward a product with utter compliments!!!! Goldsworthy's "The Complete Roman Army" is THE grandest omnipotent authoritativeness in affectionately scrutinizing every last detail of the Republic's, Principate's, and Late Antiquity's armies, that it could be construed as corrosively schizophrenic, but in a good way: ordering and cataloguing of everything material to the Roman army's application. Goldsworthy attentively covers literally every inevitable relevance, from pay, rank, life in the army, evolution of the army, decline of the army, uses of the army, battle strategy and psychology, types of battle, siege methodology, army formation, varying units and/or branches of the army, famous Roman engagements, command structure, and I could persist infinitely including all the carefully handled vitalities in Goldsworthy's exhaustively comprehensive volume-it's THAT incisive. To designate Goldsworthy's work as a textbook wouldn't be depreciating; though written with warm inclusiveness for general audiences' interests, with its crisply straightforward presentation, it's useable for study, yet far from the distantly technical format inside textbooks.The book's divided into the three progressive evolutions of the Roman army, with two complimentary chapters on "The Life of a Roman Soldier" and "The Army at War" interjected between. In each chapter, Goldsworthy further delves into subheadings which the chapter subject additionally diverts to. For instance, during The Republican Army, he includes its origins and its structure as categorized by the captured Greek historian Polybius; for the Principate's groundbreaking Professional Army, he includes the Marian Reform and its officers; under the Life of a Roman Soldier, Goldsworthy includes astutely keen observations on his pettiest specifics like his unauthorized marriages, to more substantial particulars like his equipment and daily routine; in The Army at War, he includes analysis on its campaigns, battles and sieges; and, finally, for The Army of Late Antiquity, he includes the near upheaval-like changes (deteriorating from and consistent with previous armies') that so eclipsed Rome's army in the 3rd to 5th centuries AD. Very sympathetically thoughtful from Goldsworthy is to irregularly include extra, two-page long features on some of Rome's most famous or administratively important battles, like Hannibal's Cannea and Boudica's annihilation to Late Antiquity's Battle of Strasbourg, which all transparently indicate the opposing armies' units' positions and movements, a casualty toll, a brief synopsis of the climaxing reasons and the outcomes, and a pithy overview of its main protagonists. Unlike some other tripe that's been harrowingly and unaccountably allowed to be published-like Wells' Teutoburg massacre-Goldsworthy's masterpiece boasts scores of illustrations and pictures, about half in color, which are all lucidly sizeable for clear perception, poignantly complementary to helping the understanding of the points discussed, and, for the pictures especially, showing unconventionally obscure Roman relics that educate all the more. Another excellent meticulousness Goldsworthy does well is the presence of counterbalance in his arguments and fact-exhibition. Per Goldsworthy himself, archeology isn't a hard science in the sense that one can't definitively reconstruct events that are independent from the archeological evidence with certainty. An example of this is when the remaining outlines of Roman forts or camps are only able to edify strictly physical information, such as the capacity of the fort or camp and the types of buildings in it, but not the activities of legionnaires. Such arcane half-truth inevitably ends in objectionable discrepancies. This is where Goldsworthy's scholarly balance comes into play. The purported scholar he is, Goldsworthy doesn't degrade the reader by assumingly imposing only his own prejudicial viewpoints of certain facts-because as was established, there's almost no unit consensus on archeological matters-he generously shares the contrasting theories on almost all areas of interest, making sure the reader's instructed with one viewpoint and then its counter-theory, especially if there are or was more than one scientifically accepted hypothesis. Consider Goldsworthy's postulation about cavalrymen's abilities to still effectively throw spears and swing swords while not possessing the technology of stirrups. While Goldsworthy reveals that this establishment has been proven in recent years, he's also mindful enough to recall the previously held assumption that, even though ancient sources never substantiated it, horsemen were illegally presumed to have not been able to efficiently partake in battle. Some highlights in Goldsworthy's accomplishment are his knack for delving interestingly into quite minute and particular specifics about warfare psychology and possibly overlooked, little-known reasons for armies' behaviors and certain ways battles develop-all testament to his astuteness. In discussing how any given ancient battle could've progressed, Goldsworthy closely remarks the movements generals would've had to take to managerially administer their leadership over a battle's course. He reasons that, in likelihood, generals would've had to fuse a mixture of close monitoring-the presence of generals just behind a conflict's front lines-with almost surveillance-monitoring, where they'd be up on an incline well behind the front lines to garner a controllably broad view of how the battle was developing, in order to successfully be apt at leading their armies. Other highlights encompass the psychological elements of a legionnaire, or barbarian, for that matter, as they prepare for and endure the impending battle. Tactics done and "rules" of warfare before an engagement-wherein two armies might have camped out for days in each other's plain sight and resorted to intimidation like marching their armies nearer and nearer without engaging, to decide the courageousness of the side that moved its army nearer toward the enemy's lines, and skirmishes before battle to bastardly measure which side owned more prowess-are documented to probe even further the very enigmas of psychology. Goldsworthy's masterpiece may be an adverse bit excessive for casual Roman aficionados, and a beforehand, general familiarization with Rome might well help to improve the reader's understanding of his book's educational merit. Nonetheless, this comprehensive work is money VERY well spent, for ANYONE seeking Roman enlightenment-from the history buff to the serious Roman studies pupil.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: If you have room for only one book on the Roman army, this is it. Quality publication; interesting and informative text with excellent graphics. A joy to read and own.
Rating:
Summary: Another Winner from Goldsworthy
Review: If you've read other Goldsworthy books nothing in here will be a shocking revelation in the field of Roman studies, but the graphic presentation is top notch and the writing easy to follow. Even if you're already a serious student of the Roman military this is a good book to just sit back with and read casually. My only complaint is the binding of the book, which does not appear suitable to rough use (such as being thrown in backpacks or bent during reading).
Rating: 
Summary: Very Happy I Bought It
Review: Loved the color photos of re-enactors, as well as a whole section devoted to the daily life of a Roman recruit. Book has good production values, and seems authoritative -- certainly informative! One slight peeve, though: the Empire map alternates between Latin names and modern English ones, as in "Italia" but "Sicily" and not "Sicilia," or "Neopolis" but "Rome" and not "Roma," "Belgica" and "Dacia" but "Lower Germany" instead of "Germania Inferior," etc.
Rating:
Summary: Very Happy I Bought It
Review: Loved the color photos of re-enactors, as well as a whole section devoted to the daily life of a Roman recruit. Book has good production values, and seems authoritative -- certainly informative! One slight peeve, though: the Empire map alternates between Latin names and modern English ones, as in "Italia" but "Sicily" and not "Sicilia," or "Neopolis" but "Rome" and not "Roma," "Belgica" and "Dacia" but "Lower Germany" instead of "Germania Inferior," etc.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Introduction to the Legions of Rome
Review: Mr Goldsworthy has done an excellent job of taking much of the information in his book "The Roman Army at War" and bringing it to a much more accepable form for the casual or first time reader. There is still much information for the person who thinks he/she knows alot about the Roman Army and the illustrations go a long way toward making the book easy to read and understand. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and it makes an excellent addition to anyone's bookshelf.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Introduction to the Legions of Rome
Review: Mr Goldsworthy has done an excellent job of taking much of the information in his book "The Roman Army at War" and bringing it to a much more accepable form for the casual or first time reader. There is still much information for the person who thinks he/she knows alot about the Roman Army and the illustrations go a long way toward making the book easy to read and understand. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and it makes an excellent addition to anyone's bookshelf.
|
