Two questions about Roman/Carthaginian armor

[Flameblade]

True, but the Romans were training all-year long. They had state-supervised exercises and every roman man had to pass muster. Furthermore, the Roman Army always retained a core of veteran soldiers and officers, so they had a lot of operational experience. Their discipline and drill also was rivaled only by a few nations.

Then you have to consider the fact that soldiers could, on occasion, serve for several years, even periods of about a decade if needed. After that time period, there is hardly any difference. Indeed, given the roman drill, I would suggest that after one or two years the average Roman soldier was much better than the average mercenary, who all too often was just some guy whose chieftain had called upon to serve in another army.

Oh! I'd thought that a regimen like that would've started after the Marian Reforms in the 1st Century. If that's the case, then the Romans certainly weren't the untrained seasonal levies that I'd been thinking they were. I really need to brush up on my Republican Era stuff. Would you happen to know of a solid book or author on the Roman Army that I would be able to find at a public library? I specify public because, alas, I don't have access to any university libraries. That, and I'd rather not go and read a bunch of pop-history drivel that talks about things like Archimedes using giant mirrors to set ships on fire. While claiming that he was Roman and was using his mirror-laser on the Huns. I loathe pop history.

[Flameblade]

GHETTO EDIT: Shit, that would be the 2nd Century for the Marian Reforms.

[Thanas]

Oh! I'd thought that a regimen like that would've started after the Marian Reforms in the 1st Century. If that's the case, then the Romans certainly weren't the untrained seasonal levies that I'd been thinking they were. I really need to brush up on my Republican Era stuff.

What Marius did was turning the Roman civil soldier into a professional one, whose equipment etc. were provided by the state. He also reorganized the organizational structure of the army.

Would you happen to know of a solid book or author on the Roman Army that I would be able to find at a public library? I specify public because, alas, I don't have access to any university libraries.

Which period especially?

[The Dark]

Would you happen to know of a solid book or author on the Roman Army that I would be able to find at a public library?

The local public library where I live has Connolly's Greece and Rome At War, as well as Warfare in the Classical World. There's also some good work in Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army. Those three are the ones I've tended to refer to the most.

[Flameblade]

Well crap, I could have sworn I'd responded to this weeks ago! My apologies.

Oh! I'd thought that a regimen like that would've started after the Marian Reforms in the 1st Century. If that's the case, then the Romans certainly weren't the untrained seasonal levies that I'd been thinking they were. I really need to brush up on my Republican Era stuff.

What Marius did was turning the Roman civil soldier into a professional one, whose equipment etc. were provided by the state. He also reorganized the organizational structure of the army.

Would you happen to know of a solid book or author on the Roman Army that I would be able to find at a public library? I specify public because, alas, I don't have access to any university libraries.

Which period especially?

The era that I'm most interested in learning more about is the Late Republic and Early Empire and the effects of all of the reforms throughout the history of Roman civilization.

The local public library where I live has Connolly's Greece and Rome At War, as well as Warfare in the Classical World. There's also some good work in Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army. Those three are the ones I've tended to refer to the most.

I'll see if I can find those. Thank you for the recommendation.

[Thanas]

I would not recommend Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army, as it is a condensed and far more superficial version of his doctoral thesis. Instead, I would recommend you start with his thesis "The Roman army at war: 100 BC-AD 200" and then work your way through the bibliography if you are really interested in that.

[The Dark]

I would not recommend Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army, as it is a condensed and far more superficial version of his doctoral thesis. Instead, I would recommend you start with his thesis "The Roman army at war: 100 BC-AD 200" and then work your way through the bibliography if you are really interested in that.

I'll have to look for the thesis - my current degree work hasn't had me spending any time in the campus library (my previous one practically had me camping out in the library), and the two counties I have public cards for are a bit light on truly scholarly works.