Hey! I read a lot of your articles when I was writing my paper on the mid-Republican army. One thing I was curious about is if you have an idea when the sword was adopted as the primary weapon in the Roman army. Was it really only adopted after the first Punic war when they started using the gladius, or did they use a xiphos or other sword already before that? The sources aren't very clear on it as far as I can tell, and it seems a pretty big change to go from an entire army of spearmen (hastati->hasta) to a sword based infantry in such a short time.

Thanks for doing this AMA Dr. Taylor!

Is there much evidence for comparing the military mobilization and public finance systems of the Gauls, who also fielded quite large armies in this period, to the Romans and the other Great Powers?

Second question if you'll humor me: I haven't read your book yet, but i did read your dissertation. How much has changed between point A and point B? What was the process like for you?

Thanks for doing this- I'm curious since your book summarizes Rome as the poorest state that manages to overtake these other powers, would these other powers know about Rome's economic disadvantage? Ie, when fighting each other, would a power like Macedonia be accurately aware of Rome's financial situation and then be surprised by the results of the conflict?

Asking a question posed by /u/johnchuk, why didn’t the Praetorian Guard get disbanded or at least reined in earlier than Constantine, considering they had about a 300 year history of assassinating the emperors they were supposed to be guarding?

Hello Dr. Taylor!

Militias in history often have a reputation for being ill-disciplined and ineffective in battle, however the Roman army in the mid republic is often praised for its discipline and battle effectiveness. So, my question is, was the Roman army in this period truly disciplined and effective, or is that mostly a myth, and if they were disciplined how did they manage to create such an effective army with a model of recruitment that seems antithetical to fielding large, effective armies?

Hello Dr. Taylor! There's something I just realised I never asked or understood about the Republican-era Roman military. Did the state furnish wages for the soldiers or was conscription an unpaid civic duty? Were troops expected to makeup personal financial shortfalls with loot from raiding/sieges/battles? I've heard a lot about wages for Roman Legionnaries after the civil wars but not before then.

Hey Doc!

Did any evidence/information about an average Roman Citizen’s yearly “salary” and how much of that was taxed, survive the years?

Is there any reason why the area east of the Rhine proved to be so difficult for the Roman Empire? Why didn’t they try to recapture the area after Teutoberg? When I look at Rome at its greatest extent, even 100 years later that region is a glaring absence. I can’t help but think about how the course of history would’ve been changed if they had retained control of that area.

Hiya Doc!

I've always been interested in how the soldiers were used for infrastructure projects when they weren't activated. How much of this is true? Did they really build roads, mine for silver, etc. in addition to their military obligations?

Hello!

What stuck out the most to me was this observation: "Though Rome was the poorest state, it enjoyed the largest military mobilization." I feel that this is reflective, in a way, of social science's Institutional Development theory: resources are one factor in a political organization's success, but a more determinant factor is the ability of institutions to organize those resources.

I'm interested if you explicitly applied any International Relations theory when examining the difference in resources and ability to mobilize them by Ancient Empires, or if you think your work could have some implications for International Relations theory down the line?

Why did you choose to study Roman military history?

Hey there, thanks for participating with the sub!

Do you know of the types of regulations there were (if any) governing what Roman soldiers of certain jobs and status were expected to wear on the battlefield? The Roman Empire was incredibly vast, would you be able to differentiate a soldier recruited in Egypt from a soldier from Britain? Or an archer from an infantryman? Thank again!

How on earth was Rome able to mobilize enough men for the 8+ legions it raised after being utterly smashed by Hannibal, and having him in Italy for over a decade? Like, they lost so many men that Hannibal's ambassador scattered the rings of a third of the slain senate on the senate floor. Surely Rome would have begun to run out of men, especially with half their allies defecting.

Do you see any cultural impact from troops from from distant lands serving far away from home on either side of the service. Did the troops from Africa impact the cultural life around Hadrians Wall or did the troops returning home change based on what they saw where they served?

Thanks Dr. Taylor for doing this.

One thing i was taught and keep on teaching my pupils is that the large scale and extended conscription in the wars of the second century led more or less directly to small roman farmers losing their farms and great estate owners to scoope up the land and working it with slaves which were cheap bc of the many PoWs, which all in turn led to the social powderkeg that finally blew the republic up in the first century.

Now i don't think such a monocausal explanation can really do a complex situation justice, but i can't really point to anything else which doesn't follow out of this, so my question is:

How much of a factor was the above described connexion really in regards to laying the groundwork for the republic's downfall and what where other factors?

Thanks for doing this Dr. Taylor! I recently read Cathal J. Nolan’s “the Allure of Battle” where the author makes the case that the historical significance of so-called key battles and the way they have impacted the course of history is greatly exaggerated in modern historiography, though Nolan primarily focuses on modern history to make his argument. Nolan emphasizes the role of supply, organization, an efficient state, a working military-economical apparatus, attrition, and so on... for military victories, and considers the Cannae’s, Agincourt’s or Blitzkrieg’s in history as the exceptions that prove this rule so to say. Would you say you support or do you argue in the same school of thought in your research or do you have an other opinion on this matter?

I was wondering if you’d be willing to say a few words on how recent US history has shaped your interests in the Roman past. The introduction to your book suggests a few comparisons, since both the Roman Republic and the contemporary US have dedicated a large part of their tax revenues to military spending. But your book also suggests significant contrasts, such as the high level of conscription under the Roman Republic versus the (relatively?) small volunteer forces of the US. Has the US military experience since the Cold War influenced the questions you’ve asked or the approaches you’ve pursued?

If the consulship was designed to balance power of the two most-powerful politicians, how did the Republic end up with two consuls who cooperated with each other to monopolize the Senate, rather than watch out for the interests of the people? And, especially, how did Gaius Julius Caesar manage to convince the Senators to allow him an unprecedented accumulation of powers that ultimately led to his assassination?

Did the Roman senate have official or unofficial political parties or coalitions? In my experience Roman politicians are often described as either conservatives or reformers, how accurate is this conception? What were the actual beliefs or policies of these groups, and how did they appeal to the broader Roman populace?

If Rome was using a high conscription, low taxation system, then how were they able to equip, feed, and pay such large armies? I'm also thinking about when Rome faced a major defeat and needed to rebuild whole armies again and again.

Have you ever thought about doing a podcast series?

Looking forward to reading your new book!

Did the average Roman citizen (or solider) understand the "wars" were part of was in affect a forever-war? Or was there thought that after the current "war" was won, there would be peace for years or decades.

How "big" was the Roman government's taxation and distribution structure? While modern large states may have staff numbering in the thousands or tens of thousands, did the Roman state in the 3rd and 2nd centuries have anything near that amount? Was it small enough that a single administrator might possibly be acquainted with every member and civic servant/state slave of the top level infrastructure? Thank you!

I'll start with a question frequently asked on this forum: After a battle like Cannae, one would think Rome would sue to peace, instead it raised new armies and embarked upon operations in several different theatres during the Second Punic War. Where did the Roman Republic come up with it's seemingly infinite supply of soldiers? Did the Roman Republic just have a lot more landed farmers eligible for military service than their opponents?

Second, why were Roman Republican soldiers willing to endure such brutal discipline and punishments by their superiors? In the late antique period Roman generals seem to be one unpopular decision away from mutiny at all times. What changed?

Awesome of you to do an AMA! Thanks!

How do you feel about modern political revisionism and anachronisms of Rome? I think we’ve all heard all sorts right-wing “fall of Rome” narratives, and even Mussolini’s efforts to “restore the empire”, and even left-leaning folks reference things like Rome’s grain doll or the Gracchi brothers.

With your book being about the global and internal economics of the powers at the time, and the political structures of those powers, it sounds like you would have a nuanced take on this. Thanks for your time!

I've always been fascinated with the fact that Rome and its military are almost drummed into us as kids as the premier historical warfare machine.

yet they were defeated in the west eventually after decline.

my question is twofold...is there a recognised era of supreme Roman military prowess, and if it had simply stayed at this level, how far into our history could they have lasted?

it's a clumsy question I'm sorry. I imagine they would easily have mastered gunpowder and so on, so perhaps would never have been defeated

Hi, so im just a high school studed who loves history. So im looking to know if the roman armies of the republic or the empire, sang marching songs during conquest or deployment.

Pardon me if this question has already been asked; If not on armies, what did nation states with higher taxation policies than Rome spend the majority of their revenues on?

Why was Rome the most powerful city in Italy, being able to conquer the cities of Magna Graecia even when under the protection of Hannibal? What made them so powerful and having an unending flow of reinforcements and troops? Was it their wealth or unyielding allies?

Thank you for this AMA, we always look forward to them here on r/AskHistorians!

I'm coming very late to the party, but I find no questions about the multi-ethnic nature of Rome's forces. They couldn't possibly all have known their "amo, amas," could they? 3rd C BCE world still have had various Etruscans around, along with other Italic people, and then there's the question of how (and how quickly) conquered peoples were Incorporated into the nascent empire in general and the military in particular. Thanks so much!

I'd be interested to learn something of Roman coinage. Did the Romans have an imperial mint? How did they control currency and exchange rates? What techniques were used to manufacture money? Was there ever a run on the denarius?

Under modern definitions of genocide, how many, if any, genocides do you think the Roman Republic/Empire perpetrated?

Hello! Did the maniple System help Rome win the Battle of Zama (or was it just the avoiding the elephants that helped)

How did Roman cuisine used to be? What was their diet based on? Specially when it came to proteins.

Thank you for taking some time for this AMA. Could you reccomend any primary source where one can learn about the life of a regular roman soldier from the horse's mouth?

How effective was the Pila really. It seems awkward to throw.

Dwinelle, worst or best labyrinth? Mabel Lee, best grad secretary or BEST grad secretary?

No but seriously, an actual question. I've got a senior working on the bread dole and I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the connection between the development/expansion of the bread dole and Rome's military expansion? How do major civic/domestic undertakings fit in with (or not) the trajectory of conquest and expansion?

Did the Roman state make local usage of taxation in-kind during this period? If not, what enabled this?

Thank you for taking the time to do this AMA, Dr Taylor!

This is a light/silly question but if you could choose to name a cat after any Roman Emperor, which Emperor would you choose and why?

Can you guess what the recipe for posca was, based on your research?

Thank you for doing this AMA, Dr. Taylor.

​

To what extent do you think Roman military engineering aided in the Republic and the Empire's ability to practice expeditionary warfare and project power throughout the Classical World and in gaining the strategic advantage over their political rivals in the other major regional powers? Put another way, what is the accuracy of saying that Roman engineering was a significant force multiplier in their campaigns against rival powers? Do you think the socioeconomic factors alluded to in the blurb would have been sufficient to subdue their opponents regardless of the Romans' skill at military engineering?

​

Carthago delenda est.

I hardly ever see folks speak on the sexual abuse and group rape committed seemingly systematically by Roman troops.

Is the depiction of this as a tradition and almost bonding ritual for soldiers in media and pop culture accurate?

Was the sexual assault political or cultural as a way to intimidate, control, or ethnically cleanse their enemies or conquered people's? Or was it simply a reward for a "job well done?"

In my somewhat educated opinion the Romans had essentially no concept sexual consent and perpetuated sexual and violent slavery as a core part of their culture. From what I understand Rome also contained a variably vibrant, socially accepted class of sex workers.

Given this assumption- if true - did the average Roman man condone and participate in consensual sex work and/or sexual assault; what was the cultural and legal attitude towards sexual assault within Rome, commonly geeks attitudes in Roman homes and neighborhoods?

Thank you

I've heard of efforts by Rome's eastern rivals like Mithradites to emulate the Roman military system in terms of equipment and tactics. Did any state ever attempt to emulate the Roman taxation or conscription systems?

Additionally, how did these extraction strategies change as Rome gained territory and conquered most of its rivals? I've generally understood the later Republican period to be marked by ruthless exploitation of provinces like Asia or Cyprus, where Brutus made so much of his money.

I don't really know if this is exactly your area, but anyway: How different was the political landscape from the Early Republic to the Late Republic? What kind of evolution was there? New social classes, new offices?

How was labor divided, for instance, iron mining, was that a hard labor that only slaves did, or were roman citizes also eligible for that? Was there jobs that could only be performed by slaves or by citizes?

Thank you for doing this AMA.

1. What is your opinion on the quality of late imperial classical Roman army compared to the earlier Roman armies? The older works I've read suggested it was an army in decline. However, newer scholarship seems to suggests that the late Roman army was not bad at all. It was just reformed to meet a different challenge, and that it may have been just as good as, if not better than the earlier Roman armies of the Principate/late Republic in many aspects such as tactics, manpower, and technology.

2. Why did the Roman army get rid of different classes of troops (eg. velites, hastati, principes, triarii, etc) during the various reforms of the 2nd century BC? These earlier armies with a greater diversity of troops and more mixed unit warfare (including more cavalry and more light infantry) seems to be more tactically flexible than the primarily heavy infantry centric armies of the late Republic/early Principate. Did the shift to fighting mostly the so called "barbarians" in Europe contribute to this focus on heavy infantry?

Taylor concludes that state-level extraction strategies were decisive in the warfare of the period, as states with high conscription and low taxation raised larger, more successful armies than those that primarily sought to maximize taxation.

The idea that high conscription and low taxation creates more successful armies is very interesting. I've read that various emperors of the Western Han Dynasty tried to avoid constant tax raises on its people to fund its military expansion as well. Instead of continually raising taxes, the Western han government chose to monopolize certain profitable industries such as salt and iron.

Did the Roman government also monopolize certain industries, and if so, were these used to fund their military's expansions?

Hi Dr. Taylor, thanks for the AMA!

I'm still just an amateur historian, but I'm really interested in the concept of the role of the ideology of the Republic in motivating it's citizenry to participate in the military or on a larger scale, in the promotion of the common good or civic virtue. Could you possibly expand on the role that Republican ideology (beyond societal regard) had on pushing Roman citizens to serve and on the larger regional scale, what was the extent that this motivation impacted the mass mobilization of the Roman military or whether logistics and management of available resources were the more important factors. How did Roman enlistment/muster (if that is the correct term) compare to their rivals who didn't share a such a civic minded governmental system.

I also saw another question on the thread asking about the efficacy of the Roman militia, so I would also like to ask whether the Roman military at that time truly resembled a militia in the context of both our modern colloquial understanding or the understanding of classical Republicans. I'm sure the Roman Republic's militia differed greatly from the utopian ideals of the many Republicans who would place the Roman Republic on a pedestal. So just how different was the actual Roman militia/army from their impressions?

What was Rome’s relationship like with the Nubians to the south of Egypt? Were there any efforts by the Romans to push further south along the Nile? Did they ever attempt to find the source of the Nile? Did they have any sort of relations with the Nubians, Ethiopians, or subsaharan Africans?

Why were the Roman armies so reliant on soldiers from the frontier in the Late Imperial Period when in earlier eras like during the Angustian period they seemed to be able to recruit from soldiers from the core areas of Roman territory.

what made you decide to focus on roman history specifically?

Through your research, do you have a very good grasp of what combat was like for an individual soldier? As in, is there enough detail to describe and walk us through an encounter through the eyes of a Roman combatant?

Thank you for doing this! My question is do we know the actual mechanics of what happened when two armies of that era encountered each other? We know about the Roman shield wall and the way the rotated their troops but what happened at the line when two armies came together.

By this I mean, did the romans jab through the shields with their swords or did the use spears? Did the opposing lines try to smash through the shields or did the stab over top with their shears?

How would the actual combat look at the front line?

Thanks again for doing this!

Would you say a contributing factor to the mutation of the Roman Republic into an empire was a result of the governments inability to adapt to changing times?

I ask this question knowing that there were numerous reforms during the imperial era that the republic didn't have. The entire population gaining the protection of citizenship for example. The separation of the military and government structure. It didn't stop being a republic and degrade from there it was still a dynamic and changing civilization.

I do have a degree in history, a lowly bachelors but still, and one conclusion I've drawn is that history is something of a balancing act. It's never one factor but a combination that tips the balance and causes events.

Thanks for doing this btw there need to be history communicators just like science has communicators like Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Good Evening, Dr. Taylor, Pardon I'm on phone.

1. Would you be able to discuss how the Roman Legion replenished troops of the Legion in new and non-allied territory such as Gaul or Britain. Specifically non-auxilia, or was the auxiliary tribes the fix for missing actual roman-born soldiers?

2. Additionally, would families be present on campaign and how would this affect the realities of camapaign life such as foraging, sieges, and etc.

Thank you so much for hosting this!

When western Rome fell in 476 CE, I always wondered how the transition to the Middle Ages Europe worked. I understand that, despite the efforts of Diocletian and Constantine I, Rome, (especially the west) was already losing territory over the years. But for Italy and the city of Rome itself - when it finally collapsed, what became of the people? The Legionary. The patrician. The senator. How did it go from the imperium to a medieval land? Did some flee to Byzantium? Did the senate still hold quorum? Did patricians intermarry into other Germanic families - leading to the eventual nobility fiefdoms and kingdoms? Are Roman bloodlines lost? What did the post-Rome war look like? Sorry! I know it’s out of your focus on 2nd and 3rd century Rome. But perhaps you can add some illumination into this mysterious pocket of time for me - if only a little bit. Thank you for doing this AMA. It’s a wonderful thing.

Whats the most gruesome, terrible form of "discipline" the roman army inflicted on its infantryman?

In the “Civil War” Lucan describes the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. How accurate is the poem to what really happened? How much of it is just historical fiction vs reality? There’s also a moment where Julius Caesar describes the Romans as being better then everyone else. How common was this type of racism (more nationalistic than based on skin color) in the Roman world?

Thanks for the AMA, Dr. Taylor!

One question I’ve always had about Roman military history is the organization of dedicated ranged units like slingers, archers, and skirmishers, particularly when Rome was using the Cohort system after the Marian reforms. It seems like the Romans during this period placed little emphasis on having dedicated ranged units, instead preferring to use regular legionaries and their pila. If this is not a flawed understanding, then why did the Roman military focus so heavily on its regular infantry over ranged units? Was it left to auxiliaries? Did the Romans ever run into problems because of a lack of ranged infantry in comparison to their foes?

During the Republic Era (First Punic War to Gallic Campaigns) how did Rome defend their overseas territories/provinces? The Roman Empire had garrisons and Legions stationed abroad, but what did they do in the Republic era? I have heard of the travels of Sulla during his travels in Bythenia and march to the Euphrates and Tigris with four auxiliary legions of Bythenian troops (shout out to The Grass Crown by Colleen McCullough!), so was something like this common - raising local garrisons using settled veteran colonies as training staff?

So, how did the Republic defend their colonies/provinces/client kingdom? Raise local auxiliaries as needed? Train clients to fight in legions?

Hello Dr Taylor, I'm curious to hear your opinion on what you think were the chief differences between the Romans on Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, particularly at the Battle of Alesia vs. the armies of the empire during the latter years of their rule and decline?

Based on my amateurish reading, I gather that the Roman army lost some of their sheen later on in the life of the Roman Empire.

Hi Doctor,

The first and second Punic wars are often portrayed as a conflict between equals ( somewhat like how pop history assumes the WW2 pacific theater was a conflict between equals), are there any estimates on manpower/tax revenue/ fleet sizes etc. that put this into better perspective?

It would be extraordinary that Carthage would win a series of military victories only to be utterly defeated in the second Punic war, and given that Carthage also had a senate making its decisions, would it not also have same the "superior" institutions that Rome possessed?

Hope this is not posted too late!

How developed was the system of Roman logistics compared to the other powers of the time? It's one thing to have an efficient, low-taxed state, but I wonder if Rome had a better capacity for managing supplies for their armies compared to their rivals, and if so, if that is also part of their success.

Could Roman Republic be considered a democracy at that time?

Could it be considered a democracy now?

1.What did the romans think of the people that they conquered? 2. Did they make up excuses about brining civilization to them like later empires would?

Thank you for this!

Just a simple question. What is the most underrated fact about Roman Republic?

I’m curious why you think the large military mobilization—drawing from so many non-Roman populations—worked well for the Romans when (as a contrasting example) the heterogeneity of the army mustered by Darius is considered one of the chief reasons for the Persian defeat at the battle of marathon, despite their vast numerical superiority.

I’ve read that the promise of Roman citizenship was a powerful incentive for non-Romans to join the army, but were there any other factors that helped such a large, diverse army stay motivated to keep fighting in distant lands for a country that wasn’t their own? Thanks in advance!

How's your kid doing, what's their favorite fact about Rome?

Why Rome? There must have been thousands of other settlements in the Mediterranean basin and yet Rome was the one that conquered all the others. How did Rome accomplish this while others failed. It seems to me it’s a random village halfway up the Italian peninsula that’s on an average sort of river. Did Rome simply have a uniquely military centered culture?

Hi, I'm interested in class historiography, and I was curious as to how the patrician-plebeian structure might have been involved in the military hierarchy. Were the upper ranks exclusively made up of ruling class families, or was there some prospect of socio-political mobility and promotion for the common legionary? Given the military's role in enforcing state power, it'd be interesting to know who really wielded that power, given Rome's (especially late-Republican onward) questionable democratic equality in public life. Also, how was the military actually used by the political bodies? Was it much like today wherein the centralised governing bodies - Senate or Assemblies - voted on some sort of declaration of war, or was it more informal, reacting to threats and attacking targets of opportunity if a certain garrison or small region decided to? I find the relation between civilian politics and war very interesting - As Von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means" - so it'd be really cool to get your input.

Hello!

So from what I could gather, the sudden expansion of the late Roman Republic is basically what destabilised it and eventually led to civil wars and its fall, but could you please elaborate on that? My basic understanding is that the misuse of the new conquered lands led to the appearance of the populares with the Graccus brother, who would soon use the plebeians to destabilise and eventually overthrow the republic, but I would really like to learn more about it in details

How did Rome come up with its tactics, I'm familiar with most of the basics of them, but always hear them described as revolutionary for the time period. How'd they figure that stuff out?

Hello, and thanks for doing this AMA. I’m rather intrigued as to the systems that were in place, that allowed the republic to efficiently and logistically field the armies that it did, seeing as it was able to muster men in the high tens of thousands repeatedly whilst being able to replenish casualties at an uncomparable rate to the other nations and kingdoms at the time.

Hi doctor Tyler!

What is in your own opinion an often overlooked or not-much-talked about strength of the roman state?

Besides the usual Cannae, Zama, Cenocephalae, Pharsalus, etc... what are some other interesting or unusual battles that occurred that either showed Rome falter greatly or demonstrated Roman military genius. Thanks!

I am currently working on a short essay answer to another post on reddit about the battle of Alesia and I have a related question: What is your recollection/opinion of Rome's effect on desertification of the Mediterranean, and what would you estimate to be the total distance (circumference in feet/meters) of a temporary Roman campaign fort, in a fort/legion ratio?

Do you ever worry that we are beating a dead horse by focusing on Rome so much or why is it worth it to deconstruct Rome to such a degree?

Hello what they say in Portugal is that a Lusitânia and Galícia were fantastic warriors were worth 10x more than southern for example Barcelona is true?

Hello doctor. What is your thoughts on the illustrated encyclopaedia of the uniforms of the roman world by Kevin F. Kiley?

Thank you for doing this! My question is, that in the 2-1 century BCE, how did the Roman system looked like? The Empire was very big for the time’s technology. How did the Ceaser assert dominance in such far away lands like modern Turkey or North Africa? How much did the Caesar hismelf control these territories so far away from home. How hard was to keep power in these far away cultures where a message between the Caesar and the people there would sometimes take month? How much was it under the control of the Caesar or under the control of someone sent there to rule by the Caesar? And how dis they opress the people living there? They must’ve had a huge army as they were fighting constant wars with what they called Barbarians and within their territories with the minorities. I’m not too smart in that time period, so I would be very thankful for an explaining answer.

Did emperor Aurelian really make a joke to his soldiers after taking Palmyra to kill all the dogs (as in literal dogs) because he had a change of heart and chose mercy?

Who do you think was the main threat to time...the Persians, the Gauls or themselves

How different were gladiators diet aside from normal citizen?

How wealthy were Roman Centurions?

How did the Roman army manage to ensure cooperation between men from vastly different parts of the Empire and avoiding culture shocks or something like that?

How realistic was the show Spartacus that was popular a few years ago. Obviously it was embellished a little or a lot lol

To what extent was Judaism practiced in Ancient Rome? Also, what was it like for Jewish slaves forced to perform as gladiators?

Thanks!

Hello Dr taylor, thank you for having us! There is something I have a very hard time understanding, in the late republic authought roma had professional armies (as in people paid and specialized in fighting wars) their connection to their military leaders such as cesar, pompey, silla and all seens to be always stronger then the connection to the republic. I remember reading something about it in class, pointing out that the romans didn't have a clear cut separation on private and public matter as we do and that many of the legions were in fact paid, treined and armed by their leaders and their allies. Does the evidence truly point out to such a thing, were can I read more about it? What's your position in this matter as a specialist?

To what extent were the conquered lands truly assimilated into the Empire. Did the Romans not have significant issues with prejudice among citizens? E.g. views on someone from Britannia ba Egypt

How would you explain the difference between how the Roman state would conceptualise “the economy” and “economic” policies or actions they took compared with how we would today?

Hi Dr. Taylor, thanks for doing the AMA! I have two questions:

1. It seems like in the Republican era, Rome suffered numerous catastrophic military defeats (e.g. Cannae) but was consistently able to rebound. By contrast, in the late Empire (~400 AD), Rome never seemed to recover from its defeats, almost as if they (the people, the government, the army) were not motivated to defend their state. Is this characterization accurate, and if so why is there a lack of motivation/resiliency in the late empire compared to the republican period? Does it have anything to do with the government form (i.e. citizens believe they have a larger stake in a republic)?

2. During the civil wars of the 1st century BCE, were there previously subjugated peoples (Gallic tribes, Greek city states, Carthaginians) who tried to take advantage of the chaos and fight for independence? I don't know of any such incidents, but I'm not sure why they didn't take advantage of the situation.

Thanks for the AMA, Doc! If I may ask, what are our main sources for the Roman military during this period? How reliable are the Roman sources? Are there any surviving non-Roman sources? What are the challenges that come with trying to reconstruct this period using the available sources?

This is related to some of the other questions that essentially ask "how could Rome afford to maintain such a large military relative to its size?" Do you see other aspects of Roman life suffering due to the resources, both human and otherwise, that were dedicated to the military? For example, was Rome subject to more food shortfalls than their peer powers due to a shortage of agricultural labor? Or were goods like pottery or tools scarcer or of lower quality because raw materials and potential craftspeople were sent to the army?

Currently I am researching the Eastern African area during the 1st century AD. Much of the region was patrolled from a set of forts that guarded the trade routes to the Red Sea ports. My query is, during the Republican period say from 3rd Century BC onward, was there a similar series of fortification to guard other areas under Roman rule?

To what extent did the Empire rely on a "plunder economy?"

I have been taught that Rome relied on conquering territory to extract natural resources and precious metals in order to pay for imperial infrastructure and upkeep. If it were a plunder economy, it would have the same problems as a pyramid scheme---it can't always expand.

How would you summarize the "labor rights" of Rome's citizen soldiers? Any insight on if there was attempts at organizing to increase their rights or compensation would be interesting as well. Thanks for your time!

What is something that's most commonly misconceived about ancient warfare?

Dr. Taylor, as someone who's currently studying Jewish history, I would love to know your opinions - if you have any - on the Great Revolt, or First Jewish-Roman War, of c. 70 A.D. Did the Jews have a chance in a million at holding out against the Roman force led by future emperors Vespasian and Titus? Nowadays, we rarely ever think of the Jews as a group with a rich military tradition. Could they hold a candle to contemporary Roman infantry tactics, handed down from a society with perhaps the richest military tradition of them all?

Hello Dr Taylor, what is your take on the theory of defeated Roman Legionnaires getting sold as slaves and through trade, eventually making their way to China?

Favorite Emperor who you think doesn't get enough credit?

Hello Dr. Taylor,

​

My question is not from the period your research is focused on but you might know the answer nevertheless. What happened to all the roman population in what today is eastern Europe after the collapse of the empire? It feels like there is very little roman ancestry in these regions both culturally and specially ethnically. Thank you!

How much is known about the average soldier? What were the typical Roman soldier’s motivations in comparison to their opponents’. How did desertion rates compare and why? Did looting and rape rates differ? How was comraderie encouraged?

During this period did the roman state ally with other perhaps larger powers? What was their relationship like with states they were not currently at war with or eying to expand into?

Thank so much for doing this. To start was there ever any deliberate messaging or propaganda from the state to encourage war effort, morale or conscriptions? Both on a tactical and strategic level how well/fast do you feel large formations where able to adapt to terrain and enemy tactics? And best guess over the history of Rome how many of it’s soldiers died noncombat deaths on military campaigns if too broad I wouldn’t mind individual campaigns/battles if you know any?

Thank you for the AMA Dr. Taylor.

My questions is amateur historians like Dan Carlin have always liked to speculate on how different armies from different historical era's might have faired against one another on the battlefield. For example, how Alexander's armies would have faired against the armies of Fredrick Barbarossa, etc, etc. With this in mind, what is your opinion on how the legions of the late Roman Republic era rank on the all time list of pre-gunpowder armies in history?

How were the Romans able to constantly beat the Samnites in their 3 wars together? I heard that they developed the Manipular system during these times and that that may have helped them significantly?

Do you also have any book recommendations on the subject?

Thank you for the AMA!

How accurate were military records in regards to pay and then citizenship after their service? If a veteran lost their paperwork was there any way for them to prove their identity and their citizenship?

Hey Dr. Taylor. I'm interested in the link between armed service and republican politics.

I understand most political offices had a prerequisite of ten years served in the army (or 5 years + 1 year as a military tribune). Do we have any view of what service was like for these "richer" young men, especially in peace time?

Would they really have barracked and lived with the army for ten years? Or would they enjoy fairly normal lives at home and just rock up for some training drill ever now and then?

Being based in the United States, what's your experience regarding accessing historical sources? Do you have any difficulties being so far away from Europe?

Thanks for doing this. I’m curious about the political and cultural effects of long term legion occupation in certain areas. How often did soldiers “go native” so to speak. Was this a concern for their officers.

Dr. Taylor, thank you for taking time out of your day for the AMA.

If you would indulge me, I have two questions. Kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean have had stories of fabulous wealth going back to the Achaemenid Empire. Would you attribute this to control over trade of exotic goods, access to desirable raw materials, accumulation of wealth over centuries of warfare or a combination of categories?

Do you have a preferred translation of source material?

Was the Roman Republic doomed to fall? I don’t really know much in the way of Ancient Rome, but from what I always hear Caesar and Augustus doomed the Republic. Was that an inevitable result, or was it something else?

Why did the Roman Greek sit occur and did it have implications economically?

I’ve read some say that Constantine converted to Christianity to hold the empire together. However, my understanding is that at the time Christians were at most 15% of the population and were still relatively unpopular and all that Constantine did was legalize it, it wouldn’t become the state religion for many years. Is there any truth to the idea that Constantine converted to help hold the empire together, and if yes was it even that effective?

Relatedly, did Julian’s efforts to bring back paganism have any popular support or had paganism largely collapsed by then? Did his support for paganism result in any sort of military renaissance? My understanding is that his opposition to Christianity was primarily because he thought it had made the empire weaker.

How were the Roman legion's supply lines managed? Who was in charge of setting those supply lines and recording the flow of supplies?

If a specific time period is needed, how about Julius Caesar's Conquest of Gaul? You're free to take that or any other time period.

Thank you so much for doing this.

What can you tell us about Hispania/the Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula? How Roman was life like there?

What do you think about the Roman logistic system and economy as an example of Raubwirtschaft - a plunder economy that grows by conquest and tribute, but eventually collapses because the cost of controlling extra territory exceeds the benefit gained from it?

This is something I teach in other contexts for cycles of empires and how they decline. It sounds almost like your research is on the opposite end: the beginning of the cycle rather than the end. Do you think the concept applies to Rome?

Greetings Dr Taylor, I am really interested in this period of history that you focus on, and I am looking at Graduate Programs in the U.S. to work towards a M.A. and eventually a PhD. I am fascinated by Ancient politics specifically, and love the idea of a kind of "ancient international affairs". I am graduating from Undergrad this May, and planning to take a semester or year off first to explore different programs and brush up on my Latin and Greek before applying to programs. I apologize that this question isn't about Roman history, but are there any specific universities that stand out to you that I should consider? My dream school is UNC Chapel Hill but if I understand it correctly, they take only one or two students each year into their Ancient History program. I greatly appreciate any input if you are able to get to me, and I hope this AMA goes very well for you!

How did the Roman's prepare for amphibious invasions? Did they rely on civilian ship builders or did they have their own soldiers build a ship template? Did they have ship classes?

Why were Rome's competitors unable to adopt or adapt their institutions to overcome the Roman military mobilization advantage in this period?

Also, how did the process of mobilization and marshaling resources differ between Mediterranean great powers? My impression has been that Imperial Rome developed large, sophisticated bureaucracies to support its standing army of professionals, but how did the Republic manage to mobilize the manpower and resources needed to go toe-to-toe with well-administrated (?) empires and triumph centuries before the Roman Imperial expansions of state capacity?

Hello and thank you for doing this, it’s always great to have a chance to ask questions of experts such as yourself. In any case, I’m wondering about how this poorer republic was able to financially create larger armies. So my question would be what unique strategies of revenue generation were employed by the Romans to supply, pay, and equip these larger armies?

Hello Dr. Taylor, thanks for doing this.

My question is, what is your opinion on the exact nature of the "it factor" that was the difference between a patrician gens and a rich plebeian one with a long history? I had a professor once tell me it was due to the patricians having exclusive knowledge of certain religious rituals, but that doesn't add up to me since several plebeians became Pontifex Maximus and not knowing how to perform rituals properly would surely have disqualified them.

The only thing I could find from googling this was that it "remains contested" but not what the different opinions among historians actually are

Hi, I was wondering about combat. Would the fighting be done mostly by some front rankers who know the score, or would everyone generally get involved?

About how long could front rankers be locked in combat before being exhausted? Would secondary rankers relieve the front after X time? (A Mythbusters type show had someone in armour try to fight and after 2-3 mins of constant combat he was exhausted)

Gaps between units: in the film Alexander Parmenio is shown to be holding a flank. There are gaps between the units like gaps between maniples. The Persians dont seem to try to get into the gap and turn a flank. What would happen in reality? Would units hold their cohesion or 'bleed over' the edge?

Thanks for your answers. (Also please feel free to add anything of use I didn't ask)

I am Dr. Michael Taylor, historian of the Roman Republic and author of Soldiers and Silver: Mobilizing Resources in the Age of Roman Conquest; expert on Roman warfare and imperialism, how do I go about my daily life?

Did the Romans often learn anything tactics-wise from the peoples they conquered? Are there any prominent examples of this happening?

How did it not create mass inflation every time the roman armies were paid during wartime? I was taught the coins would be minted at some point during.a campaign, on the spot. I don’t understand how a massive influx of new money didn’t make the prices go up in cities when soldiers were paid.

Hello! So I had a question about warfare, so how was Rome able to develop such advanced tactics over the years? Why were they able to build an ancient empire and other nations were not really on that level? What caused that rise of Rome? Thank you!

Hi Dr. Taylor!

What is your favorite battle/campaign in the period you covered in your book?

Also, what kind of clothes did the soldiers wear in the northern regions? I haven’t done too much digging but the descriptions are always so vague. I would like to know most about the shoes they used.

Thank you!

Thank you very much for doing this Dr. Taylor!

I’ve always wondered, to what degree was Roman military tradition, equipment, and tactics based on those of their neighbours (specifically the Etruscans and Magna Graecia).

What influenced the reorganization of the Roman military from what I would think were mostly armies of hoplite-like infantry into the machine that it was during the Roman republic and later?

Thanks for doing this AMA. I'm not too knowledgeable on Ancient History but through the likes of Mike Duncan's The History of Rome podcast and Jamie Jefford's British History Podcast, I've grown interested in the Roman Empire. What are your thoughts on those two podcasts? Also, what do you think happened to the 9th Legion?

I dont know if you can answer this, but did sling-use in battles decrease? And if so: why?

Thanks for doing this AMA! I have always heard in passing that Christianity and the spread of those ideals wouldn’t have been possible without the network of trade routes and infrastructure made by the Romans. Could you speak to the impact of Roman infrastructure on the spread of information?

Can you speak on acceptance of Christianity and its effect? For context, I am an atheist interested in religious history.

I, personally, am of the opinion that the middle republic was the height of roman military excellence and that a standing army of the empire introduced several key weaknesses to both the state (in that the military quickly became king makers) and the military itself (Limiting its vast manpower pool of self equipping citizen militia down to a more limited pool of standing forces having to be paid from state budget long term).

​

Do you have your own thoughts on this?

So I take it from the title you studied numismatics and Roman coinage. How did the Romans pay their growing army? How important was the design of their coins in for example keeping their army and mercenaries loyal.

Thanks for your time, dr. Taylor.

It surprises me to read that Rome was comparatively impoverished and did not enact heavy taxation, yet still managed to maintain a large standing army and high conscription rates. It seems counterintuitive since surely these large standing armies cost huge sums to arm, train and pay a wage over long campaigns. Would it not be the case that their adversaries with large tax extraction could furnish superior armies? Especially after almost a century of warfare! Surely they would have prioritized spending on the military to counter the threat of Rome's possible hegemony over the Mediterranean, right?

What do you think of Alexander Zhmodikov's theory on Roman infantry tactics?

Howdy! Read a few of your papers, any indication in specific drafting throughout city states? How was others affected more then others. My family is from Fuggia and Florence, is there any indication those city's were drafted and if so how did it work in individual towns when it wasn't just straight to the roma. Did they train in their own cities or go to a central places?

Thanks for doing this.

I have heard before that Rome during the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. had a higher average fertility rate than the surrounding civilizations. Is this so, and if so -

1. Why?
2. Was this decisive in their manpower advantage?
3. When did this "baby boom" end, and why?

Thanks!

Got any book recommendations?

I am more interested in the life of the average people. If there was something equal to "middle class". What we see are mostly either the palaces and debauchery and orgies or the slaves... What was the life like for those between the two. Thank you dear doc.

What would you say one of the best ways to study history would be

Im a big fan of Harry Sidebottom and his Roman novels Warrior of Rome etc have you heard / read any of his work? What are your thoughts?

Cheers looking forward to reading some of your stuff!

Honestly? One thing I'm very curious about is their way of life during those times. How similar is it to modern times? Would an average person relate to a Roman? Or lets say, would a Navy Seal have a relatable conversation with a Cohort? What was their concept of morals? Or were they quite barbaric during their times?

I have a question about the constitution of the Roman republic. Obviously it’s impossible to state with any certainty, do you believe that it was possible for reformers like the Gracchi and Gaius Marius to remake the republic such that it could have stood? If not, do you think the problem was primarily the communication/transportation technology of the time or simply not having enough political history to come up with a solution to the social problems that led to the republics fall?

Given the size of the Roman Army and Empire, is there any documentation about African soldiers going as far as England?

Hey there!

I know Im late. Maybe this is better asked in a PM or new topic but here goes:

"When did the Romans become multi-ethic and did they have blue eyes as early as the republic?

If you see this. It’s coz I’m Australian and just finished work.

As I’m researching for a proposed thesis.

My only question is:

“Have we deRomanised?”

Hello dr. Teylor.

How reliable were alliances in that time? I imagine the closest you are to a great power the more loyal you will be. But can romans always count on the allies in gaul or in the balkans?

Also, was the fast expansion influenced by culture? Or was it just standard politics at play, but rome did it better. For example the 2nd world war was fuelled by ideology as well as hunt for resources. Was there a cultural apect to roman success?

Great questions and answers on this thread so far!

One thing I always wondered: where did Roman soldiers get their weapons?

You said the soldiers had to provide their own weapons. With the amount of men serving in the legions, this must have meant thousands and thousands of shields, pila, helmets, swords and mail that had to be produced, acquired and maintained.

Were there craftsmen specialised in making shields, others in making pila, etc. Was the production maybe even more specialised with woodworkers preparing spearshafts and the shields, others preparing the metal components and others assembling them? Was the production in hands of many small craftsmen? Or were there large 'factories' owned by wealthy citizens? Or state-run production lines? And since there was homogeneity in the arms and armour, was there a form of quality control?

As a Romanian, I have always been extremely curious about one thing. After the retreat ordered by emperor Aurelianus in 271 AD, how was it that the remaining romanized population continued to remain in the Dacian province, in sufficient numbers that a derivative of the Latin language (Romanian) is still the official language of that particular geographical region to this day?

What would be your opinion and/or criticisms of something like Joseph Tainter's model of ancient empires with his views on complexity, energy, diminishing returns ect?

Are there any Roman leaders who have written works comparable/similar to the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius? And how come our current world seems incapable of producing leaders as dedicated to truth and virtue as this gem of a man?

What is the earliest known evidence of the usage of the plumbata?

Considering the amount of lead bullets we find everywhere, how close is the assumption of Vegetius that an ordinary legionary is a slinger by default and that slingers in the Roman army were not necessarily a separate "unit"?

I understand that the Romans basically never mention their skirmishers, archers and slingers in their sources about their battles, despite them obviously being there, so what other evidence can point to the Roman infantry being able to deliver ranged attack with the sling on a battlefield?

Hey, thanks for this!

Im curious, do you think the concept of 'the security dilemma' can be applied to Rome and say... Carthage in the followup to the punic wars? Or can the theory be applied to any such conflict between Rome and other states?

Sir can you tell me that what strategy did Caesar use the most when he was outnumbered and the strategy which he used when he had low resources?

So this is a very unkowledgable person speaking here, basically:

How was Rome so advanced technologically, architecturally and militarily when compared with most of the world at the time bar Egypt/Carthage and some other ancient civilisations. Compared to most of Europe Rome seemed much stronger and way more organised. How was it the case that Rome was so powerful and advanced compared to the rest of Europe, and what stopped neighbouring tribes from trying to copy some of Rome's tactics?

Hey! Does this cover logistics and financing the army in-depth? If so, I'll buy it in a heartbeat, I'm a sucker for military logistics.

Hello! This was a terrific thread so far, thank you. I have wondered if Republican soldiers kept their weapons and armor after their service was over? And if so, were there were any social or political consequences of having a relatively urban and heavily armed populace?

I am writing a short tale about a young artisan/blacksmith from Ephesus who is a half-celtic bastard

His mom was a poor roman citizen who was impregnated from a celtic traveler on his way to Galatia then abandoned her in the "big City" of Ephesus.

The young hero is named Saturninus (which I thought a very roman name), but he is a redhead and therefore nicknamed Rufus ("redhead"), a name which he prefers, for never actually feeling a worthy roman.

Rufus always felt out of place, being called Barbarian by his Greek peers and "halfblood" by his roman peers.

Unable to Pay his moms debts on his hard earned denariis a an artisan, and seeing a Roman legion arrive on Ephesus open to recruiting young Man (I named it Legio VIII Dacica), Rufus sees a chance to earn his roman name and a better living by joining thé légion

The legion sails to the West coast of Gallia Cisalpina (around Veneto) to offer reinforcements against a slave revolt and german invasions and suffers a shipwreck on the northen Adriatic.

Rufus wakes up on a mystic grove with fairies and Celtic ruins, where he goes through trials and finally earns the blessing of Brigantia, the celtic goddess of artisans, and thus learns to accept his celtic heritage Instead of running away from it, becoming a legendary druid Instead of a mediocre légionnaire

Overall, it's a simple hero's Journey

Sooo... Do you think the main theme of "celtic bastard feeling out of place among romans" is realistic ?

Would a redhead bastard in Asia suffers such prejudice?

Is the northen Adriatic/Veneto a good place for lost and ancient celtic ruins?

Would a legion from Dacia (Legio Dacica) sail all the way to the northen Adriatic and stop to recuit at Ephesus? Is that a reasonable route?

Any comments about the Plot?

Thanks!

Do you see any overarching themes between the fall of the Roman empire and the U.S.?

I saw someone folks asking in the comments for a link to the book! I know Dr. Taylor isn't going to be answering until after dinner time, so for those interested, the book can be found:

#Amazon

#UT Press

#WorldCat