StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Now, historians do label a certain period as an golden age for an empire at times. However, people do disagree with each other in regards to the concept of a golden age.

Take the example of China, whereby a stable dynasty is labeled as an Golden age, the Han Dynasty, the Tang, the Song and the Ming and in some cases, the Qing during their early period.

What about Rome? Based on your knowledge and opinion, when would you define the golden age of Rome?

Is it during the reign of Trajan? The reign of Diocletian? The Reign of Augustus?

Come to think of it, we cannot based our definition of a golden age simply on the size of the empire, we would have to define it as a period where the majority of their population is pretty well off, and their empire is relatively stable for their time.

In my opinion, it could be measured by the amount of threats the empire faced. So, my opinion of Rome's golden age would be during the reign of Trajan and Hadrian. Their reign seems peaceful enough for the Emperor himself to go on a site-seeing tour, without getting bothered by all the administration duties to such a huge extend.

ray245 wrote:In my opinion, it could be measured by the amount of threats the empire faced. So, my opinion of Rome's golden age would be during the reign of Trajan and Hadrian. Their reign seems peaceful

Neither Trajan nor Hadrian's reigns were what I would consider peaceful, with all the wars they had to fight.

enough for the Emperor himself to go on a site-seeing tour, without getting bothered by all the administration duties to such a huge extend.

His travels through the empire were not just site-seeing at all and he conducted the complete administration of the empire while he was travelling. The government of Rome was highly mobile.


Anyway, I would argue that there are several candidates for golden age - The reign of Augustus, the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, the reign of Antoninus Pius, the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine would all qualify, though Diocletian less so for obvious reasons.

Thanas wrote:
Neither Trajan nor Hadrian's reigns were what I would consider peaceful, with all the wars they had to fight.

However, isn't it peaceful for the people living in the Roman empire? Whereas one can argue that the civil wars fought by Constantine in the empire means it is less peaceful for the people living inside the empire.

His travels through the empire were not just site-seeing at all and he conducted the complete administration of the empire while he was travelling. The government of Rome was highly mobile.

Their government is really that mobile? Consider me impressed. I think that even with a modern day government, it is extremely difficult to have a government being mobile all the time.

While most world leaders do travel around a lot, maintaining a government that is constantly moving about is impressive.

Thanas wrote:
Neither Trajan nor Hadrian's reigns were what I would consider peaceful, with all the wars they had to fight.

However, isn't it peaceful for the people living in the Roman empire? Whereas one can argue that the civil wars fought by Constantine in the empire means it is less peaceful for the people living inside the empire.

So you consider an armed insurrection that results in a genocide in no less than 5 provinces, including the most important province at all, peaceful for the people living there?

His travels through the empire were not just site-seeing at all and he conducted the complete administration of the empire while he was travelling. The government of Rome was highly mobile.

Their government is really that mobile? Consider me impressed. I think that even with a modern day government, it is extremely difficult to have a government being mobile all the time.

While most world leaders do travel around a lot, maintaining a government that is constantly moving about is impressive.

Well, the government was really centered around the emperor. Where he goes, they follow. In Late Antiquity, it can be argued that several hundred, if not several thousand of clerks followed the emperor everywhere just to catch up with the correspondence. In Hadrian's and throughout the existence of the empire, every province had basically the same administrative structure. So it is not like today where the structure of France is radically different from the structure of Germany, for example.

The Emperor largely governed by writing letters and leaving the implementation to the governors, who in turn left them to the cities. So the majority of the work was done on a city level and that is the reason why the Emperors were able to move around all the time.

They were even able to govern the empire when they were on campaign or in enemy territory. Which is another reason for why the loss of Decius in the wars against the goths and the loss of Valerian against Shapur was so devestating to the Romans - because they not only lost a large portion of the army, but in fact a large part of the administrative structure as well. Of course, it is not like the complete administration moved around. For example, during the High Empire, the praetorian prefect was still in Rome in several instances when the Emperor was away. Of course, sometimes that encouraged corruption and misdeeds as under Seianus, but for the large part it was a highly effective system. The Romans, after all, were able to govern nearly all of Europe with only several hundred directly appointed officials.

Ray, towards the end of Trajan's reign, there was yet another massive Jewish insurrection. No prizes for guessing what happened next.

It also remained active during Hadrian's reign - this is what I meant by the five provinces in which a genocide happened.

Thanas wrote:
So you consider an armed insurrection that results in a genocide in no less than 5 provinces, including the most important province at all, peaceful for the people living there?

Ah, forgotten about the Jewish revolt.

Well, the government was really centered around the emperor. Where he goes, they follow. In Late Antiquity, it can be argued that several hundred, if not several thousand of clerks followed the emperor everywhere just to catch up with the correspondence. In Hadrian's and throughout the existence of the empire, every province had basically the same administrative structure. So it is not like today where the structure of France is radically different from the structure of Germany, for example.

The Emperor largely governed by writing letters and leaving the implementation to the governors, who in turn left them to the cities. So the majority of the work was done on a city level and that is the reason why the Emperors were able to move around all the time.

They were even able to govern the empire when they were on campaign or in enemy territory. Which is another reason for why the loss of Decius in the wars against the goths and the loss of Valerian against Shapur was so devestating to the Romans - because they not only lost a large portion of the army, but in fact a large part of the administrative structure as well. Of course, it is not like the complete administration moved around. For example, during the High Empire, the praetorian prefect was still in Rome in several instances when the Emperor was away. Of course, sometimes that encouraged corruption and misdeeds as under Seianus, but for the large part it was a highly effective system. The Romans, after all, were able to govern nearly all of Europe with only several hundred directly appointed officials.

Ah I see. Which is an interesting contrast to the Chinese dynasty with their rather sizable bureaucratic government.

Well, it does not mean that the Romans had a smaller government in total - it just means that the organizations were different.

The Romans believed that things could be done more efficiently on the smaller level of the city. Since the cities were autonomous in how they did things (there is a debate how much, but I won't go into that - let's just say that if the governor said I want to build a bridge here, the city had to build it but they had a great freedom in how to achieve that purpose) they had to have their own bureaucracy.

As you can see, this allowed the romans to pay very small administration costs and gain great rewards. Most of the bureaucrats were not servants of Rome, they were servants of the Senate and People of City X.

Thanas wrote:Well, it does not mean that the Romans had a smaller government in total - it just means that the organizations were different.

The Romans believed that things could be done more efficiently on the smaller level of the city. Since the cities were autonomous in how they did things (there is a debate how much, but I won't go into that - let's just say that if the governor said I want to build a bridge here, the city had to build it but they had a great freedom in how to achieve that purpose) they had to have their own bureaucracy.

As you can see, this allowed the romans to pay very small administration costs and gain great rewards. Most of the bureaucrats were not servants of Rome, they were servants of the Senate and People of City X.

A decentralised bureaucracy vs a centralised bureaucracy?

I have seen too many alternate history fans talking about how the lack of bureaucrats and administrators basically sealed the doom of Rome, while China manage to survive by doing the opposite thing, which is a pretty simple argument if you ask me.

Back on topic. It seems to me too many historians look up at Trajan reign as a golden age of Rome I suppose.

ray245 wrote:

Thanas wrote:Well, it does not mean that the Romans had a smaller government in total - it just means that the organizations were different.

The Romans believed that things could be done more efficiently on the smaller level of the city. Since the cities were autonomous in how they did things (there is a debate how much, but I won't go into that - let's just say that if the governor said I want to build a bridge here, the city had to build it but they had a great freedom in how to achieve that purpose) they had to have their own bureaucracy.

As you can see, this allowed the romans to pay very small administration costs and gain great rewards. Most of the bureaucrats were not servants of Rome, they were servants of the Senate and People of City X.

A decentralised bureaucracy vs a centralised bureaucracy?

Exactly.

I have seen too many alternate history fans talking about how the lack of bureaucrats and administrators basically sealed the doom of Rome, while China manage to survive by doing the opposite thing, which is a pretty simple argument if you ask me.

Like nearly always, alternate history fans do not know what they are talking about. They also ignore the fact that the Later Roman Empire had a decent-sized bureaucracy.

Back on topic. It seems to me too many historians look up at Trajan reign as a golden age of Rome I suppose.

No. It is a matter of opinion, not historical fact. Therefore, there is not an option that is "right" or "wrong". And I also believe that most historians consider the entire second century AD up to Commodus to be the golden age of Rome.

Thanas wrote:
No. It is a matter of opinion, not historical fact. Therefore, there is not an option that is "right" or "wrong". And I also believe that most historians consider the entire second century AD up to Commodus to be the golden age of Rome.

However, is that really the case? I mean the early years of Dominate is pretty stable for the Roman Empire as well.

While I think it can be argued that Augustus is an exceptional ruler, his dynasty wasn't that capable though. The lack of a proper sucession method did cause a certain amount of infighting among the Julio-Claudian clan.

Since we are talking about Constantine's reign as a golden age, I have to ask, just how popular is Constantine during his reign? Trying to get your population to change their view on religion can harm your popularity on a huge extend right?

Also, is there any reliable source where I can find, in regards to the trade network the Roman empire has set up? Many people has this view that the Pax Roma period is seen as a time where traders can trade peacefully in comparison to the 3rd century crisis ( while conveniently ignoring the issue on what is going on after the Crisis.)

ray245 wrote:

Thanas wrote:
No. It is a matter of opinion, not historical fact. Therefore, there is not an option that is "right" or "wrong". And I also believe that most historians consider the entire second century AD up to Commodus to be the golden age of Rome.

However, is that really the case? I mean the early years of Dominate is pretty stable for the Roman Empire as well.

Like I said, it is a matter of opinion. It certainly is true when regarding external threats.

While I think it can be argued that Augustus is an exceptional ruler, his dynasty wasn't that capable though.

That's debatable.

Since we are talking about Constantine's reign as a golden age, I have to ask, just how popular is Constantine during his reign? Trying to get your population to change their view on religion can harm your popularity on a huge extend right?

Since he did none of that kind, that was not the issue.

Also, is there any reliable source where I can find, in regards to the trade network the Roman empire has set up?

The Roman empire set up no trade networks, only logistical networks. Private traders were responsible for the trade. I suggest you read the Cambridge Ancient History.

Personally, I think the glory days of Rome was the Republican era right from 240 to 150. During that time Rome really blossomed as a Republican state and was also able to project force across the Mediterranean, raise and maintain armies and navies in the field in numbers that wouldn't be matched until the 19th and 20th centuries (and were, I believe, superior in quality to almost all Imperial armies.) At the same time it had unprecedented unity across Italy, with none of the bloody civil wars that would come later (with the arguable exception of the Second Punic War I admit,) and relative domestic unity in Rome proper.

It wasn't paradise, admittedly, but I think it was the best that Rome ever was.

However, at the same time there was huge political disenfranchisement and land crisis. As for military value, please. Any Imperial army would have utterly crushed a Roman Republic army.

Thanas wrote:However, at the same time there was huge political disenfranchisement and land crisis.

I agree to their being political disenfranchisement, but I think overall the people had more control over their government during this period of the republic than they ever had during the empire. And the Land Crisis wouldn't hit really boil over until after the Third Punic war.

As for military value, please. Any Imperial army would have utterly crushed a Roman Republic army.

I disagree. The Roman Republic during and for two or three decades after the Second Punic War fielded armies that were made up of soldiers who had been fighting all their life against equally hardened foes, lead by top notch commanders who were certainly amongst the best generals Rome ever produced.

The Republican Army, during that time period, fielded armies that were well above the average Imperial Army. I will rescind my statement that they were better than "almost all Imperial Armies," but they were certainly better than the average Imperial army.

Thanas, I think you edited my post rather than quoted it.

ARGH. Goddamm it. Wrong button. Will fix it now.

Thanas wrote:However, at the same time there was huge political disenfranchisement and land crisis.

I agree to their being political disenfranchisement, but I think overall the people had more control over their government during this period of the republic than they ever had during the empire. And the Land Crisis wouldn't hit really boil over until after the Third Punic war.

That certainly is true, but for all the fascisim introduced by Augustus and his successors, I believe the average Roman was better off. Examples would be population growth, the volume of trade, the corn dole, no military service etc.

As for military value, please. Any Imperial army would have utterly crushed a Roman Republic army.

I disagree. The Roman Republic during and for two or three decades after the Second Punic War fielded armies that were made up of soldiers who had been fighting all their life against equally hardened foes, lead by top notch commanders who were certainly amongst the best generals Rome ever produced.

The same can be said for the majority of the Imperial Armies. And it is not true that the soldiers had been fighting all their life - service was two years, not 25 or 30 as usual in the Imperial army. So if you want to talk about professional soldiers, I would argue that the average imperial soldier was better trained and more experienced than the average republic soldier.

The Republican Army, during that time period, fielded armies that were well above the average Imperial Army. I will rescind my statement that they were better than "almost all Imperial Armies," but they were certainly better than the average Imperial army.

Why? What tactical advantages did they have? Were they better equipped? Certainly not. If anything, their equipment was worse. Were they better trained? Doubtful. Were they more experienced? Well, that is a bit of a question, isn't it? I would like to see an argument regarding that.

Thanas wrote:

Thanas wrote:However, at the same time there was huge political disenfranchisement and land crisis.

I agree to their being political disenfranchisement, but I think overall the people had more control over their government during this period of the republic than they ever had during the empire. And the Land Crisis wouldn't hit really boil over until after the Third Punic war.

That certainly is true, but for all the fascisim introduced by Augustus and his successors, I believe the average Roman was better off. Examples would be population growth, the volume of trade, the corn dole, no military service etc.

Economically I agree 100%. The people were far better off, but I prefer (and think far better) the system of government under the Republic.

The same can be said for the majority of the Imperial Armies. And it is not true that the soldiers had been fighting all their life - service was two years, not 25 or 30 as usual in the Imperial army. So if you want to talk about professional soldiers, I would argue that the average imperial soldier was better trained and more experienced than the average republic soldier.

I believe it's Crawford in his The Roman Republic who did the math and made the rather blunt point that, for Rome to keep as many Roman soldiers in the field as it did during the period during and after the Second Punic War, the average Roman citizen was spending more time in the field than a Spartan of the same age from the Peloponnesian war was. Technically service may have been two years, but that was often extended, and citizens were also called back into service after a while, giving them far more time in the field than the system was supposed to bring them out for.

Why? What tactical advantages did they have? Were they better equipped? Certainly not. If anything, their equipment was worse. Were they better trained? Doubtful. Were they more experienced? Well, that is a bit of a question, isn't it? I would like to see an argument regarding that.

Tactically, I'm unsure. Two or three years ago I would have had a number of arguments to bring out on this, but it's been ages since I've spent time studying Rome, and the only thing I keep marginally up to date on these days is Roman religion. So I'll gladly concede that point. I don't think anyone could claim that the republican forces were better equipped and keep a straight face. As for training and experience, I'll get back to you on that when I can find the books I own which discuss the subject. But, for example, during the Second Punic war there were soldiers who were under arms fighting repeated pitched battles for over a decade. When the war ended these soldiers didn't go anywhere, they often couldn't, and instead stayed straight on in service. This is one of the reasons the Republican army kicked ass and took names as much as it did in Greece and the successor states to Alexander: its army was made up with a core of veterans and commanders with decades of experience fighting battles against equally well equipped and trained armies. There was simply never a fighting force like it in the world before it, and I don't think there was ever a true stretch of similar bloodshed in the Empire (with the possible exception of some of the recurring civil wars.)

P.S. I should add that I found your "How to read a Roman inscription" really neat. I used to be able to sight read inscriptions like you use in the thread, but my Latin has gotten incredibly rusty since then.

Actually, this is a separate question which I am not entirely sure which book deals with this. Are there records on how much Imperial Rome spends on a soldier and his training, versus how much Republican Rome does, excluding salary? I'm not sure if the Byzantine army is to be of guide, but it seems from my quick read of Treadgood's book "Byzantium and its Army", it seems that it might vary from Emperor to Emperor, since some Emperors tended to just give soldiers an allowance to buy equipment or not at all but I'm not entirely sure if such practices were new.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Actually, this is a separate question which I am not entirely sure which book deals with this. Are there records on how much Imperial Rome spends on a soldier and his training, versus how much Republican Rome does, excluding salary? I'm not sure if the Byzantine army is to be of guide, but it seems from my quick read of Treadgood's book "Byzantium and its Army", it seems that it might vary from Emperor to Emperor, since some Emperors tended to just give soldiers an allowance to buy equipment or not at all but I'm not entirely sure if such practices were new.

There are records about imperial training, yes. Training for new recruits was about 3-6 months iirc and continued into service. There was daily training as well as a forced 6 mile march every week in full uniform. The practice you mention is new and is a result of the collapse of the imperial fabricae system. As for how much the Roman army spent on training, that is a bit of a problem.

The Roman soldier was required to purchase his armor and clothing from the state, which kept as much as 3/4 of his salary for such purposes in the initial years (This is also the time when the most soldiers die, so this prevents a waste of resources). So in reality the training period did not cost the state much, only the weapons and clothing which were incidentally also manufactured or purchased by the state, often at cost.

The true cost of a Roman legionary is the salary and the various donatives given to the soldiers. However, the latter are hard to quantify and depend on the circumstances. As for salary, the soldier was paid about 250-450 denari per annum, of which one half was withheld in order to improve unit discipline, morale and to prevent soldiers from spending it, so that he may have a retirement fund.

As for the republic, it did not really spend anything on the soldiers. They were required to have their own equipment (the division into equites, triarii, principes and hastati results from that) and the exercises were the responsiblities of the generals.

Thanas wrote:There are records about imperial training, yes. Training for new recruits was about 3-6 months iirc and continued into service. There was daily training as well as a forced 6 mile march every week in full uniform. The practice you mention is new and is a result of the collapse of the imperial fabricae system. As for how much the Roman army spent on training, that is a bit of a problem.

Exactly when did the fabricae system collapse? Was it when they reorganised it into the Comitatenses and Limitanei? Or during the reorganisation into Themes in the Byzantine Empire? The Emperors still funded and equipped their own troops if I recall.

I hope I pressed the right button this time.

Straha wrote:Economically I agree 100%. The people were far better off, but I prefer (and think far better) the system of government under the Republic.

Well, that depends on whether you prefer a rule by oligarchy or a rule by a dictator. Which IMO always depends on the persons in question.

The same can be said for the majority of the Imperial Armies. And it is not true that the soldiers had been fighting all their life - service was two years, not 25 or 30 as usual in the Imperial army. So if you want to talk about professional soldiers, I would argue that the average imperial soldier was better trained and more experienced than the average republic soldier.

I believe it's Crawford in his The Roman Republic who did the math and made the rather blunt point that, for Rome to keep as many Roman soldiers in the field as it did during the period during and after the Second Punic War, the average Roman citizen was spending more time in the field than a Spartan of the same age from the Peloponnesian war was. Technically service may have been two years, but that was often extended, and citizens were also called back into service after a while, giving them far more time in the field than the system was supposed to bring them out for.

To be fair though, to truly form a comparison point it would be more fair to the various systems to contrast this with armies from comparable points of crisis or expansions in Roman history.

Let's compare it to a Roman soldier under Augustus/Tiberius, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Constantine or Julian Apostata. I will each use a service length of 25 years.

Let's start with a typical soldier of the IX Hispania. If we really want to, we can make him a veteran of the civil war, but that would be overkill. The IX Hispania fought in the Cantabrian Wars from 25-16 B.C. That are 9 years of straight drill and fighting in countless actions, both guerilla warfare as well as battles and sieges. Then, there were 3 years of construction work and pacification, or attachement to a vexillation fighting in the Raetian wars (15-13 BC).
Following that, the legion was most likely detached to the Rhine army. Then we have the campaigns against the various german tribes - from 12-8 BC we have the conquest of Germania. After four years of relative peace (I say relative because this period was characterized by many pacification and resettlement actions), he would then have taken part as a veteran in the campaign to subdue the rest of Germania in 4-3 BC. Then, in 0 BC his term of service was up.

So from his first term of service, he would have spent at least 15 and possibly 19 years fighting.

But wait. Let's imagine that he was a good soldier and would have been promoted or promised quadruple pay to stay on. Let's say he enlists for another 12 or nine years. Well, that was a really dumb choice. If he was lucky, he did not enlist in one of the Varian legions, but instead in the IX Hispania or a Pannonian legion. If he was really lucky, he enlisted in an eastern legion but the chances for that are slim. So he would have fought in the Pannonian revolt from 6-9AD. And that's when things really start to go south.

After the Varian disaster, no veteran was allowed to be discharged. (There are reports of soldiers without any teeth left still serving). From 11-12 AD, he would have taken part in punitive expeditions. And then Germanicus happens. From 14-16, he would have fought in some of the fiercest, bloodiest battles of Antiquity. After that, he would have been discharged.

So lets see here. From a 49 year term of service (which is not really that unusual for low ranking officers or veterans), he would have spent 22-26 years fighting in some of the bloodiest conflicts ever.


Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian is even worse. There we have the conquest of Dacia (98-99, 101-102, 105-106), the conquest of Parthia (114-117), the subesquent revolts including the Judean revolt (115-117, 132-135) etc. Then we have the terms of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, or Septimius Severus and his son.

And if we really want to do things, let's consider Diocletian (I do not think I have to say anything here) and Julian. Let's say a soldier enlists in the Gallic Field Army (GFA) in 350. Assuming he survives the civil war from 350-353, which pretty much destroyed nearly all of the GFA, he then has to survive Julian's expeditions agains the germans (355-359), the civil war (360-361) and the parthian expedition (363). Back in Gaul, he would have to fight the germans again in 364-367. 368, he might have taken part in the wars against the picts and scots. Back in Gaul, he would have fought against germans in 368-371. In 374-375 he would have once again fought against Germans.

So his term of service would be up and if he was not dead by now, he might have reenlisted or been forced to do so, though in all likelihood he would have quit. If not, oh joy. In 376-377 there was a bloody winter campaign against the Goths. In 378, the most bloodiest of all campaigns against the Alamanni happened. 383, civil war against Maximius. 387-388 second civil war against Maximius. 388-391 war against the germans. By now, our soldier would have been dead quite certainly, and if not, he would have perished with almost the entirety of the GFA in the Battle of the Frigidus in 394.

So this man would have spent 20 of 25 years on campaigns, and 30 of 44 years when we considered he would have survived until 394.


I think this is certainly as much experience as any citizen soldier had and the second example has even more of that.

Why? What tactical advantages did they have? Were they better equipped? Certainly not. If anything, their equipment was worse. Were they better trained? Doubtful. Were they more experienced? Well, that is a bit of a question, isn't it? I would like to see an argument regarding that.

Tactically, I'm unsure. Two or three years ago I would have had a number of arguments to bring out on this, but it's been ages since I've spent time studying Rome, and the only thing I keep marginally up to date on these days is Roman religion. So I'll gladly concede that point. I don't think anyone could claim that the republican forces were better equipped and keep a straight face. As for training and experience, I'll get back to you on that when I can find the books I own which discuss the subject. But, for example, during the Second Punic war there were soldiers who were under arms fighting repeated pitched battles for over a decade.

A decade is less than the shown above, with the first guy fighting 15-26 and the second fighting 20 out of 25 years.

When the war ended these soldiers didn't go anywhere, they often couldn't, and instead stayed straight on in service.

The same happened with the Imperial army, only veterans were offered more bonuses then.

This is one of the reasons the Republican army kicked ass and took names as much as it did in Greece and the successor states to Alexander: its army was made up with a core of veterans and commanders with decades of experience fighting battles against equally well equipped and trained armies. There was simply never a fighting force like it in the world before it, and I don't think there was ever a true stretch of similar bloodshed in the Empire (with the possible exception of some of the recurring civil wars.)

What? Just look at the examples provided above.

P.S. I should add that I found your "How to read a Roman inscription" really neat. I used to be able to sight read inscriptions like you use in the thread, but my Latin has gotten incredibly rusty since then.

Thanks. I had some really incredible pictures, but they got lost (see the venting thread for the reason why).

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Thanas wrote:There are records about imperial training, yes. Training for new recruits was about 3-6 months iirc and continued into service. There was daily training as well as a forced 6 mile march every week in full uniform. The practice you mention is new and is a result of the collapse of the imperial fabricae system. As for how much the Roman army spent on training, that is a bit of a problem.

Exactly when did the fabricae system collapse? Was it when they reorganised it into the Comitatenses and Limitanei?

No, that was actually the heyday in certain aspects of it.

Or during the reorganisation into Themes in the Byzantine Empire? The Emperors still funded and equipped their own troops if I recall.

Constantinople had the biggest fabrica of them all. It was quite able to produce enough weapons for the field army.

No, the fabricae you mention collapsed in the west with the Roman Empire, since the germans did not have the global access to resources (no iron from britain and spain for the franks as an example) and quite frankly, a lot of logistical and organizational knowledge was lost.

In the east, the arab storm did them in in every province except the Byzantine rump in Asia Minor and Greece. Note that a lot of the reasons why the barbarians and arabs were described as destroyers of infrastructure (like destroying roads and aquaducts) may be construed as strategical warfare designed to destroy the Roman industrial base. For a fabricae system, you need a lot of water, wood, iron and other raw materials which you simply cannot transport if there are no aquaeducts, roads or if barbarians are rampaging the countryside.

The only exception was the Imperial armory at Constantinople. This is an often overlooked reason for the importance of that city - it literally was the Empire's industrial base (this is oversimplifying as there were other armories as well, but you get the idea). Thus, as long as Constantinople was not blockaded (or if it was blockaded, as long as the city was well-stocked) and manpower was available, the Romans could literally rebuild the whole army at Constantinople. This is also one of the reasons why every usurper had to take the city and failure to do so meant the failure of the rebellion.


EDIT: To elaborate on the fabricae: It is only in late Antiquity that they gain the notoriety they have. In that time, they seem to be highly specialized as well as organized into an empire-wide supply network. We do not know how the system works in the principate.

Thanas wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Actually, this is a separate question which I am not entirely sure which book deals with this. Are there records on how much Imperial Rome spends on a soldier and his training, versus how much Republican Rome does, excluding salary? I'm not sure if the Byzantine army is to be of guide, but it seems from my quick read of Treadgood's book "Byzantium and its Army", it seems that it might vary from Emperor to Emperor, since some Emperors tended to just give soldiers an allowance to buy equipment or not at all but I'm not entirely sure if such practices were new.

There are records about imperial training, yes. Training for new recruits was about 3-6 months iirc and continued into service. There was daily training as well as a forced 6 mile march every week in full uniform. The practice you mention is new and is a result of the collapse of the imperial fabricae system. As for how much the Roman army spent on training, that is a bit of a problem.

The Roman soldier was required to purchase his armor and clothing from the state, which kept as much as 3/4 of his salary for such purposes in the initial years (This is also the time when the most soldiers die, so this prevents a waste of resources). So in reality the training period did not cost the state much, only the weapons and clothing which were incidentally also manufactured or purchased by the state, often at cost.

The true cost of a Roman legionary is the salary and the various donatives given to the soldiers. However, the latter are hard to quantify and depend on the circumstances. As for salary, the soldier was paid about 250-450 denari per annum, of which one half was withheld in order to improve unit discipline, morale and to prevent soldiers from spending it, so that he may have a retirement fund.

As for the republic, it did not really spend anything on the soldiers. They were required to have their own equipment (the division into equites, triarii, principes and hastati results from that) and the exercises were the responsiblities of the generals.

I have to wonder, did the family (technically, the soldiers arent' allowed to marry, but they do have kids) of the troops receive any sort of welfare support?

The only time I remember something like this happening is during the reign of Basil II.

Now what makes you think the state would provide any welfare for people breaking the law? Think, man.

Even legal marriages did not receive any kind of welfare. Welfare is an idea that is completely un-Roman. The only ones who did receive any kind of welfare were roman children, which was not welfare but apparently an effort of imperial propaganda and of course trying to bolster the birth rate.

No, the only way they would get anything was if the soldier bequethed something to them in his will.