/ROME/

Rome is a Christian general.

I'M A ROMAN GENERAL!

The sticky says to avoid general threads

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES

I've been rewatching Rome for the third time and I kind of wanted to get into Roman legion reenacting because I'm bored (and reenacting looks pretty fun, and it's a good way to teach history) but I legitimately couldn't find anything near where I am (NC, USA). Kind of sucks.

Decisive /SINO/ Victory

anybody got my new audiobook?

Jantipo did nothing wrong.

Eat my civilian dick, ceres.

>the Great wall is a massive stone structure in Han China.

Here's a few questions

How much about disease management did Romans know? How did they handle the third century plagues?

How did the transition to cataphracts work out? Where there any Equites left by the time Rome started relying solely on Auxiliary Cavalry? Did any true Roman-born cavalry operate during that time?

Romans had plenty of experience in medicine and field surgery, why are they not recognized as having started some kind of revolution in that field?

So which of the gaulic tribes caused Cesar the most trouble?

Question:

Did the barbarization of Roman armies did more good or harm for Rome? If so, can it be explained to be one of the major reasons why Rome fell? It seems lack of loyalty for Rome was a major reason for Rome falling, then it seems the barbarization of armies led to that.

Also it'd be great if you can name historians and sources. I'm trying to argue against someone but I don't have knowledge in this field.

I think it was mostly the "them versus us" mentality of the soldiers/praetorian guard to the Senate/Everyone else.

Septimius Severus: "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn everybody else." Statement made on his deathbed to his sons.

I'd say it has to do more with The senate and army splitting up. Soldiers, rather being loyal to the Emperor, started becoming loyal to their generals, instead. Thus the army now had a hand in appointing the next Emperor, if they didn't like the current one for various reasons (Mainly it was not receiving pay or not receiving bonus pay if they helped appoint the new Emperor). An example would be Emperor Vespasian, who managed to cut off the grain supply from Alexandria to Rome with his army and held Rome hostage, pretty much.
Also what said.

So Barbarisation of the armies was not a big factor. Was barbarisation of armies a positive thing for Rome however?

After the Antonine/Cyprian Plagues. Rome had to really rely on the Barbarians to repopulate the empire, because less people = less taxes and less people to grow crops.

Generals are for the people that like forum-like discussion.

start one then

>Antonine/Cyprian Plagues.
Interesting, so it was more of a necessity. It was positive because of the circumstances?

So in other words, if Rome didn't suffer those plagues, barbarization wouldn't be a positive, as it only was in necessity?

>Why don't we have generals

Because this is 4chin, not plebbit.

>barbarization of Roman armies
Are you from 1780? This didn't happen. Barbarians copied armaments and tactics from the Romans, not the other way around.

I'm talking about just the Late period, obviously there was a lot of back and forth earlier on with the Gauls and Celtiberians.

I bought the book itself, not audio. Though i might, i definitely want to keep supporting this guy, all of his stuff is awesome

No generals on Veeky Forums, that leads to tripfags, namefags and /pol/ and /int/ tier discussion.
Make threads about things you are interested in. There may as well be a Rome general because there is a Rome thread every day, no need to willingly bring all the faggotry that comes with a Rome general.

I really can't get into Roman history. I find boring and irrelevant to today's historical significance. I could see if you were a black history or african history scholar for the opinions of Romans being the most successful empire to come of African background, but since it utter ends with the invasions of northern Europeans i dont like to touch the subject as it often attracts radical extremist black power groups jumping in to blame the white man for destroying their empire.

I find Chinese history all the more relevant today since I am navist American and I trace much of my decent from east asian heritage and culture.

The problem was not so much "barbarization" of the Roman armies, Greek sources noted that Romans, while disciplined, nevertheless fought with great savagery even in their Republican heydey. The army being lead by Scipio Africanus had more or less the same proportion of state troops to allied federates as the armies of Flavius Aetius.

The difference was that in the Republican era these allied states were in the process of romanization, where as by the time of Aetius they were making a concerted effort to keep Germanic tribes detached from civilized society, wanting to have their cake and eat it too of having loyal, disposable soldiers who demanded no say in how the government was managed or how big their paychecks should be. It was easier for them to import Germanic second class citizens than it was to recruit from citizens who wanted nothing to do with the Russian roulette that joining the army had become by late antiquity: you stood a very real chance of dying a traitor's death just because your general was an egotistical maniac who literally thought he was a god, and waged war on the government trying to prove it. Wealthy Romans were undercutting the lower classes with imported, expropriated, disenfranchised labor, and it fucked their economy.

>navist American

A mongrel you mean

> Romans being the most successful empire to come of African background
Rome is a city in Italy. It's still there

>I find Chinese history all the more relevant today since I am navist American and I trace much of my decent from east asian heritage and culture.
It's not a zero-sum game, you can like both. However when it comes to direct influence, Rome overwhelmingly plays a larger influence than China. All of the American founding fathers were well versed in the classics and Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to make the study of greco-roman literature one of the main departments at the University of Virginia.

>barbarization wouldn't be a positive, as it only was in necessity?
Dunno about armies in general, but regards to generals you sometimes would get some fantastic generals. Flavius Stilicho contained Alaric and prevented him from sacking Rome. He was the son of a Vandal and a Roman woman but he was entirely loyal to the Theodosian dynasty. He even willingly backed down after political accusations by the court of Honorius and chose to be executed instead of standing and fighting Honorius, a member of the Theodosian family.

I get that nobody reads it, but I'm pretty sure it advises against them in the sticky. I'm also pretty sure mods delete them.

The plagues were far from the only source of mayhem in Rome, in any case. The eternal wars in the Parthian border, the Danube, and Civil wars in Italy itself, combined with a constantly declining economy and coinage, and religious unrest, all made the population of Rome unable to fill up the ranks of their own armies at that point.