I was going to go to sleep after watching some good work about Trajan, ahh well. I am sucking up your classes on the history of Rome. I can't thank you enough for your unbiased objectivity mixed with common sense regarding the blank spots. The solid overview you give makes me hungry for more meat on the bone (with lots of garum). You managed what my history teacher never managed (get me to care about stinky old history). I look forward to listening to this and what comes next! Have a good day mate. Edit: Would you ever do an AMA or similar Adrian? and have a lovely holiday.
Hi. Reader, watcher, fan here. Love your vids (and especially loved Time Commanders as a kid!). I work as an intern for England and Wales' Portable Antiquities Scheme, Lincolnshire branch, and we sometimes receive from metal-detectorists legionary denarii of Mark Anthony (the ones with a galley on the obverse and a trio of standards with a legionary eagle on the reverse), typically dated to 32-31 BC, apparently minted at Patrae, Greece, near Actium. These coins usually have LEGIO [something] on them, typically LEGIO XX. I'm actually doing a presentation to a local archaeology group about these coins a week today (August 14th - Augustus, yeah?) and I found this video very helpful in establishing the difference between late Republican and early Imperial legions. I was somewhat aware of this before, but there seems to be a lack of understanding among enthusiasts and even coin traders on this. Cheers!
I always wondered about the relationship between Octavian/Augustus and Agrippa. Seems to me, layman, that having that right hand man was absolutely crucial. Agrippa seems to have been very, very good at things Augustus wasn't, really. That partnership was incredibly successful, right?
Adrian, wonderful presentation. I have read and enjoyed all your books- Essential reading and valuable research. I am an author of what many call pulp or popular adventure fiction, I have written three books in my Augustus series about young Gaetano Rufus, aka The Sicilian, the son of the elder Rufus. They are fiction and adventure fiction at that, but your work, as well as that of others, has been a big influence on me and my books, and for that I thank you, All best to you.
I've watched a lot of your videos and the way you not only offer amazing insight and depth of knowledge but ensure that the complex becomes clear and graspable is truly masterful. Well done and kudos.
Dealing with the Roman Army after Marius and Sulla and before Theodosius and Diocletian, it is interesting how much of an analog a French battalion of 1809 and later and the tactics of the Reglement of 1791 as modified by men such as Ney and Davout can be made with a Roman cohort of six centuries. Despite the TOE size, the French battalion was usually about 600 men and the cohort around 420-480 and this is close enough for a comparison. We don't have a drill or tactical manual for the Romans, but it is usually accepted that their fire and maneuver unit would be the six centuries of ~80 men in eight ranks deep and ten files across. The French battalion with its grenadier and voltigeur companies separated and converged into ad hoc elite battalions would have leave the four fusilier companies of around 120 men each divided into two "peletons", the basic fire and maneuver unit of the Reglement. In each case, the cohort and the battalion are the tactical units of employment, the "peletons" and centuries allowing the commander to maneuver and fight the cohort or battalion within the tactical intent of the commander of the legion and the regiment/brigade. 1. The infantry of both eras used "fire and shock", the Romans throwing their pila and pushing in with shield and sword, while the French infantry would give a volley of musket fire followed by a charge of bayonet. This is somewhat simplified but it was the typical tactical approach to the attack of enemy infantry. The French peleton would be formed in three ranks and the century in eight, but if the normal pila had a range of 30 meters, it could be thrown in one volley with the first rank still 10 meters away from the enemy. Or the ranks could throw by rank, each rank closing up on the rank ahead, so that the first rank would be 20 meters away, both distances giving the Romans time to bring their shields around and draw their swords as they moved forward into the attack. 2. What is important here is HOW a French battalion arrayed itself and maneuvered its sub-elements to bring the battalion into contact with the enemy. This suggests how a Roman cohort would have arrayed its centuries and maneuvered them on the battlefield. For both the battalion and the cohort, the most effective manner of bringing fire and shock to bear was with all sub-elements on line. The easiest way to maneuver out of combat was a column of peletons and thus, of centuries, each behind the other. Such a column would be formed at full distance, the width of a peleton or century, such that a simple wheel to either flank would form a line or at closer distances, which would require the peletons or centuries to maneuver outward at an angle to come up on the center or one of the flank sub-elements to form a line. Other options were a column of "divisions" (two peletons or centuries abreast) or a "doubled" line with half of the sub-elements in two lines. The French had adopted the deployment of the battalion on the center and its ploying back into column from the Prussians. Such movements would allow a cohort to conduct a passage of lines from a second line of cohorts to the front. It would also allow a cohort to move out to a flank as a column, wheel into line and extend the first line of cohorts to the flank. It could also allow cohorts to form column from line and allow them to retire behind the second line of cohorts who would deploy out of column into line to continue the battle. 3. On another suject, as a retired Army officer, I cannot accept that there was only two levels of command in a legion, the legatus or the tribune whose day it was to command and the 59-60 centurions. This would be like a Brigade Combat Team commander managing his command directly through his platoon leaders. The idea that each centurion would operate on his own, making tactical decisions that would impact cohort and legion is simply unacceptable. There were some other levels of command, either centurions who were cohort commanders while their optios commanded their centuries and/or tribunes commanding groups of cohorts. One thing we get about the tribunes was that under the Empire, they were merely administrative officials. This is not supported by the historical responsibilities of the tribunes both before and after the early Empire. Under the Republic, the first 24 tribunes were elected and no Roman could stand for office before completing ten campaigns or ten years under arms. Up until the early Empire, before Marius and Sulla, the six tribunes of the legion took it in turn to command the legion. By the time of Vespasian, if not before, legionary tribunes were men of equestrian rank and late 20's or middle age who had commanded auxiliary cohorts. In the restructuring of the Army, in the late Empire, tribunes commanded the new, smaller legions. I believe that the incident with the Germans that Caesar relates in the beginning of his Gallic Wars involves not the legionary tribunes, but the general's military household, made up of young men (members of the general's family or political allies) with little experience that accompanied the general on campaign. Thus the level of experience and tactical responsibility did not significantly change and tribunes could have commanded vexillations detached from the legion, combat groups within the legion or lines or wings of the legion. Thus the legate would have five intermediate commanders and each cohort would have a single commander, the senior centurion.
Do we know who was Octavian's battlefield commander at Philippi? I know Salvidienus Rufus led a fleet for him against Sextus Pompeius earlier that year, so it seems like Salvidienus was his main general at that time, but I haven't found any reference to Salvidienus being at Phillipi.
Goldworthy is a top-notch scholar ! He represents the best in true Brittish scholarship. Economics and politics are another matter when it comes to the fall of Brittish scholarship. Marx and Mohammed have had their way.
@@bookaufman9643 The jist of the article that @robertengland9036 talks about is that the reforms ascribed to Marius are a historian's construct that in retrospect have either a questionable basis or seem to be just plain fabrications. The short version is something like: - Cohorts: Experimented with before Marius, especially in Spain. Marius uses cohorts, but there’s no evidence he systematized or standardized this or was particularly new or unusual in doing so. Probably the actual breakpoint here is the Social War. - Poor Volunteers Instead of Conscripted Assidui: Marius does not represent a break in the normal function of the Roman dilectus but a continuation of the Roman tradition of taking volunteers or dipping into the capite censi in a crisis. The traditional Roman conscription system functions for decades after Marius and a full professional army doesn’t emerge until Augustus. - Discharge bonuses or land as a regular feature of Roman service: Once again, this isn’t Marius but Imperator Caesar Augustus who does this. Rewarding soldiers with loot and using conquered lands to form colonies wasn’t new and Marius doesn’t standardize it, Augustus does. - No More equites and velites: No reason in the source to suppose Marius does this and plenty of reasons to suppose he doesn’t. Both velites and equites seem to continue at least a little bit into the first century. Fully replacing these roles with auxilia is once again a job for our man, Imperator Caesar Augustus, divi filius, pater patriae, reformer of armies, gestae of res, and all the rest. - State-Supplied Equipment: No evidence in the sources. This shift is happening but is not associated with Marius. In any event, the conformity of imperial pay records with Polybius’ system of deductions for the second century BC suggests no major, clean break in the system. - A New Sort of Pilum: No evidence, probably didn’t exist, made up by Plutarch or his sources. Roman pilum design is shifting, but not in the ways Plutarch suggests. If a Marian pilum did exist, the idea didn’t stick. - Aquila Standards: Eagle standards pre-date Marius and non-eagle standards post-date him, but this may be one thing he actually does do, amplifying the importance of the eagle as the primary standard of the legion. - The sarcina and furca and making Roman soldiers carry things: By no means new to Marius. This is a topos of Roman commanders before and after Marius. There is no reason to suppose he was unusual in this regard.
I'm delighted that the preeminent Roman historian had a TH-cam channel!
The preeminent *popular* Roman historian :)
@Unknown-jt1jo that is true. I'm a big Strauss guy too 😉
I was going to go to sleep after watching some good work about Trajan, ahh well. I am sucking up your classes on the history of Rome. I can't thank you enough for your unbiased objectivity mixed with common sense regarding the blank spots. The solid overview you give makes me hungry for more meat on the bone (with lots of garum). You managed what my history teacher never managed (get me to care about stinky old history). I look forward to listening to this and what comes next! Have a good day mate. Edit: Would you ever do an AMA or similar Adrian? and have a lovely holiday.
If Agrippa was Octavianus's right hand during his rise, it was a shame there was no mention of his left hand, who was Statilius Taurus.
Hi. Reader, watcher, fan here. Love your vids (and especially loved Time Commanders as a kid!). I work as an intern for England and Wales' Portable Antiquities Scheme, Lincolnshire branch, and we sometimes receive from metal-detectorists legionary denarii of Mark Anthony (the ones with a galley on the obverse and a trio of standards with a legionary eagle on the reverse), typically dated to 32-31 BC, apparently minted at Patrae, Greece, near Actium. These coins usually have LEGIO [something] on them, typically LEGIO XX. I'm actually doing a presentation to a local archaeology group about these coins a week today (August 14th - Augustus, yeah?) and I found this video very helpful in establishing the difference between late Republican and early Imperial legions. I was somewhat aware of this before, but there seems to be a lack of understanding among enthusiasts and even coin traders on this. Cheers!
I always wondered about the relationship between Octavian/Augustus and Agrippa. Seems to me, layman, that having that right hand man was absolutely crucial. Agrippa seems to have been very, very good at things Augustus wasn't, really. That partnership was incredibly successful, right?
Of all the history related content that I watch, this is by far my favorite. I'm always excited for a new presentation. Ave!
Adrian, wonderful presentation. I have read and enjoyed all your books- Essential reading and valuable research. I am an author of what many call pulp or popular adventure fiction, I have written three books in my Augustus series about young Gaetano Rufus, aka The Sicilian, the son of the elder Rufus. They are fiction and adventure fiction at that, but your work, as well as that of others, has been a big influence on me and my books, and for that I thank you, All best to you.
Hello. Preach it Mr. Goldsworthy, preach it. Best Regards from Los Angeles California
48:07 Hoping you would refresh my memory on Tiberius's
massive force, btw: has that camp been located by archeologists?
Really interesting thank you
Solid Gold!
Oh yea!! AG and AUG
I just realized that his initials are AG, but the symbol Ag denotes silver, not gold. So maybe he's silverworthy?
It's only missing Augustus the Cat for the trifecta - or should I say triumvirate?
I've watched a lot of your videos and the way you not only offer amazing insight and depth of knowledge but ensure that the complex becomes clear and graspable is truly masterful. Well done and kudos.
😊 Brilliant ! Thank you , sir 🎉
Beautiful
Thank you Adrian for sharing your insights and knowledge . We may be a minority
interest but never say " the struggle naught availeth "....!
Dealing with the Roman Army after Marius and Sulla and before Theodosius and Diocletian, it is interesting how much of an analog a French battalion of 1809 and later and the tactics of the Reglement of 1791 as modified by men such as Ney and Davout can be made with a Roman cohort of six centuries. Despite the TOE size, the French battalion was usually about 600 men and the cohort around 420-480 and this is close enough for a comparison. We don't have a drill or tactical manual for the Romans, but it is usually accepted that their fire and maneuver unit would be the six centuries of ~80 men in eight ranks deep and ten files across. The French battalion with its grenadier and voltigeur companies separated and converged into ad hoc elite battalions would have leave the four fusilier companies of around 120 men each divided into two "peletons", the basic fire and maneuver unit of the Reglement. In each case, the cohort and the battalion are the tactical units of employment, the "peletons" and centuries allowing the commander to maneuver and fight the cohort or battalion within the tactical intent of the commander of the legion and the regiment/brigade.
1. The infantry of both eras used "fire and shock", the Romans throwing their pila and pushing in with shield and sword, while the French infantry would give a volley of musket fire followed by a charge of bayonet. This is somewhat simplified but it was the typical tactical approach to the attack of enemy infantry. The French peleton would be formed in three ranks and the century in eight, but if the normal pila had a range of 30 meters, it could be thrown in one volley with the first rank still 10 meters away from the enemy. Or the ranks could throw by rank, each rank closing up on the rank ahead, so that the first rank would be 20 meters away, both distances giving the Romans time to bring their shields around and draw their swords as they moved forward into the attack.
2. What is important here is HOW a French battalion arrayed itself and maneuvered its sub-elements to bring the battalion into contact with the enemy. This suggests how a Roman cohort would have arrayed its centuries and maneuvered them on the battlefield. For both the battalion and the cohort, the most effective manner of bringing fire and shock to bear was with all sub-elements on line. The easiest way to maneuver out of combat was a column of peletons and thus, of centuries, each behind the other. Such a column would be formed at full distance, the width of a peleton or century, such that a simple wheel to either flank would form a line or at closer distances, which would require the peletons or centuries to maneuver outward at an angle to come up on the center or one of the flank sub-elements to form a line. Other options were a column of "divisions" (two peletons or centuries abreast) or a "doubled" line with half of the sub-elements in two lines. The French had adopted the deployment of the battalion on the center and its ploying back into column from the Prussians. Such movements would allow a cohort to conduct a passage of lines from a second line of cohorts to the front. It would also allow a cohort to move out to a flank as a column, wheel into line and extend the first line of cohorts to the flank. It could also allow cohorts to form column from line and allow them to retire behind the second line of cohorts who would deploy out of column into line to continue the battle.
3. On another suject, as a retired Army officer, I cannot accept that there was only two levels of command in a legion, the legatus or the tribune whose day it was to command and the 59-60 centurions. This would be like a Brigade Combat Team commander managing his command directly through his platoon leaders. The idea that each centurion would operate on his own, making tactical decisions that would impact cohort and legion is simply unacceptable. There were some other levels of command, either centurions who were cohort commanders while their optios commanded their centuries and/or tribunes commanding groups of cohorts. One thing we get about the tribunes was that under the Empire, they were merely administrative officials. This is not supported by the historical responsibilities of the tribunes both before and after the early Empire. Under the Republic, the first 24 tribunes were elected and no Roman could stand for office before completing ten campaigns or ten years under arms. Up until the early Empire, before Marius and Sulla, the six tribunes of the legion took it in turn to command the legion. By the time of Vespasian, if not before, legionary tribunes were men of equestrian rank and late 20's or middle age who had commanded auxiliary cohorts. In the restructuring of the Army, in the late Empire, tribunes commanded the new, smaller legions. I believe that the incident with the Germans that Caesar relates in the beginning of his Gallic Wars involves not the legionary tribunes, but the general's military household, made up of young men (members of the general's family or political allies) with little experience that accompanied the general on campaign. Thus the level of experience and tactical responsibility did not significantly change and tribunes could have commanded vexillations detached from the legion, combat groups within the legion or lines or wings of the legion. Thus the legate would have five intermediate commanders and each cohort would have a single commander, the senior centurion.
55:05 I wonder if Augustus said this before or after the Varian disaster.
Driving home from Dallas
Do we know who was Octavian's battlefield commander at Philippi? I know Salvidienus Rufus led a fleet for him against Sextus Pompeius earlier that year, so it seems like Salvidienus was his main general at that time, but I haven't found any reference to Salvidienus being at Phillipi.
AG in his bio of Augustus does not mention who was Octavianus's second in command at first Phillipi.
Goldworthy is a top-notch scholar ! He represents the best in true Brittish scholarship. Economics and politics are another matter when it comes to the fall of Brittish scholarship. Marx and Mohammed have had their way.
He more than makes up for Bettany Hughes
I always thought it was Marius who was credited for modernizing the Roman army. I guess Augustus modernized what Marius did.
Bret Devereaux goes on about this, but basically, the "Marian reforms" were, in whole or in large part, not done by Marius.
@@robertengland9036Okay but I'm saying there were reforms under Marius that were known for modernizing the Roman army. They do bear his name.
@@robertengland9036 still because of Marius they were the defacto way of doing things. Even if they were codified later by somebody else
@@bookaufman9643 The jist of the article that @robertengland9036 talks about is that the reforms ascribed to Marius are a historian's construct that in retrospect have either a questionable basis or seem to be just plain fabrications. The short version is something like:
- Cohorts: Experimented with before Marius, especially in Spain. Marius uses cohorts, but there’s no evidence he systematized or standardized this or was particularly new or unusual in doing so. Probably the actual breakpoint here is the Social War.
- Poor Volunteers Instead of Conscripted Assidui: Marius does not represent a break in the normal function of the Roman dilectus but a continuation of the Roman tradition of taking volunteers or dipping into the capite censi in a crisis. The traditional Roman conscription system functions for decades after Marius and a full professional army doesn’t emerge until Augustus.
- Discharge bonuses or land as a regular feature of Roman service: Once again, this isn’t Marius but Imperator Caesar Augustus who does this. Rewarding soldiers with loot and using conquered lands to form colonies wasn’t new and Marius doesn’t standardize it, Augustus does.
- No More equites and velites: No reason in the source to suppose Marius does this and plenty of reasons to suppose he doesn’t. Both velites and equites seem to continue at least a little bit into the first century. Fully replacing these roles with auxilia is once again a job for our man, Imperator Caesar Augustus, divi filius, pater patriae, reformer of armies, gestae of res, and all the rest.
- State-Supplied Equipment: No evidence in the sources. This shift is happening but is not associated with Marius. In any event, the conformity of imperial pay records with Polybius’ system of deductions for the second century BC suggests no major, clean break in the system.
- A New Sort of Pilum: No evidence, probably didn’t exist, made up by Plutarch or his sources. Roman pilum design is shifting, but not in the ways Plutarch suggests. If a Marian pilum did exist, the idea didn’t stick.
- Aquila Standards: Eagle standards pre-date Marius and non-eagle standards post-date him, but this may be one thing he actually does do, amplifying the importance of the eagle as the primary standard of the legion.
- The sarcina and furca and making Roman soldiers carry things: By no means new to Marius. This is a topos of Roman commanders before and after Marius. There is no reason to suppose he was unusual in this regard.
❤
Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and acquired all their gold. This gold was inherited by Octavian and it must have funded this professional army.
the chutes-pah (cringes in yiddish)
_ hellenes gamadion 20 sid _ pythagoras tetractys hexagram sexagram 20 _ rome 20 T _ english T 20th letter _ atlas _ atlast20 _ 048 even _ 1235679 odd _