Reddit reviews The Complete Roman Army (The Complete Series)

From the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, 4th Ed, pp. 89-90:

The typical army of the Ch'in and Han periods was a combined arms force of infantry, cavalry, chariots, and crossbowmen. The principal element had been heavy armored infantry, but increasing reliance was placed on cavalry as time went by. Shih Huang Ti did not introduce the crossbow into Chinese armies, since we know that these weapons were in extensive use as early as the Battle of Ma Ling (353 BCE). He seems, however, to have relied upon crossbowmen more heavily than his predecessors and may have been responsible for establishing a substantial contingent of mounted crossbowmen in his army. He also coordinated the employment of the reflex longbow with the crossbow, but (unlike the Mongols) does not seem to have had mounted longbowmen.

The combined arms concept seems to have been adopted for units as small as a 1,000 man equivalent of a modern regiment. Thus, the Chinese appear to have been able to deploy units capable of decentralized, independent action, as well as to combine them into large, massed, but articulated armies, in which the major units were brigades of 2 or 3 regiments. Heavy armored infantry predominated. Light unarmored infantry--archers, crossbowmen, and spearmen--functioned as skirmishers and provided security by screening flanks and rear.

The bulk of the soldiers, infantry and cavalry alike, had bronze-tipped--or iron-tipped--spears as their primary weapons. The secondary weapon for most soldiers, archers or spearmen, mounted or dismounted, was a single-edged sword nearly three feet long, suspended in a scabbard from a waist belt. All, except apparently for lightly-armed skirmishers, wore armor made up of small metal (bronze) plates attached by a form of rivent to a quilted fabric base. Some protection seems to have been provided even those without armor by a heavy quilted robe. The Chinese apparently relied entirely upon their armor for passive protection and did not carry shields.

Op. cit., p. 134:

The Han Dynasty inherited the government and military institutions of the Ch'in Dynasty. The basis of Han military power was the militiaman. Han law required males between the ages of 23 and 56 to undergo on month of military training each year at provincial training centers. Each man was also required to serve a 1-year tour with the Imperial Guards army in the capital and a 3-year tour at a frontier post. The militia was also called up during local emergencies and for foreign campaigns, such as those of Wu Ti against the Hsiung-nu.

The Roman army structure, equipment, etc under the Principate has been exhaustively documented ad nauseum in many many sources, some of which I'll list below. If asked to compare the two systems, I'd say that the Roman armies were strategically and tactically more flexible, and were by design able to be deployed from one end of the empire to the other for decades on end, versus the inherent limitations of a militia-type system. The testudo and gladius would have likely made the Roman legionary superior to his Han counterpart in melee combat.

However, the crossbow would be the central, pivotal piece of technological difference between the two armies, with its great range and its ability to penetrate virtually all known sorts of personal armor, one would have to conclude that, all else being equal, a Roman army's only chance would involve either a) surprise, or b) tactics wherein the main bodies of the legions closed the distance with the Han to precipitate a melee as soon as possible. This assumes that a crossbow bolt could penetrate the testudo, which seems reasonable, but may not have been true as a rule.

SOURCES:

Goldsworthy, Adrian. The Complete Roman Army. Thames & Hudson, 2003.

Coulston, J.C. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. Oxbow Books, 2011.

I can highly recomend "The Complete Roman Army" by Goldsworthy for military related stuff.

• The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy (2011).
  
  
• Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworhy (2005).
  
  From the /r/AskHistorians book wiki:
  
  
• Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History by Christopher S. Mackay (2004). A survey primarily covering political and military history. It provides a solid understanding of events, their significance and implications on the Roman state. It covers both Empire and Republic very efficiently. (This book is required reading for history undergrads at my university)

The average legionary never rose very far up the ranks. However, if you knew people back in Rome or farther up the hierarchy in the army, then you had a much better chance of getting promoted. An exception to my opening sentence is the emperor Maximinus Thrax. He was a normal legionary who became emperor when his legion assassinated the current emperor and elevated him to the position.

Veterans were still very good soldiers right up through their forties.

I'm going to recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army because it's frankly quite good and an excellent starting point into the world of the Roman military. If you want some heavier primary sources, Vegetius, Josephus, and several other writers speak in great detail on the Roman army.

Interesting idea! Coming in from /r/AskHistorians here :)

Unfortunately, I have some ehhhh news for you. You've got the right armour for a legionary in the time period of the Principate (ca. 30 BCE -ca. 200 CE - the first lorica segmentata that we've found was made in ca. 6 CE). So we'll base you off of a Roman from the time of the Principate! Here's a picture of a centurion who was killed in Teutoburg. Note something about his armour - he's depicted either wearing a muscled cuirass (rather common for tombstones when the person portrayed is wearing armour) or lorica hamata - or chain (the detail may have worn away). It's commonly believed that this was the panoply for the Roman Centurion. Note the lorica hamata rather than the lorica segmentata, the medals across the chest (they were the equivalent of modern...well...medals), the greaves (Which may have been a later addition in the Principate, as a response to the Dacian falx. The gladius is sheathed on the right side of the soldier (whether it was a legionary or a centurion), while the scutum (shield) would be wielded in the left hand. Finally - the belt. This might not seem like a big thing today, but the belt was HUGE - it was essentially the Roman badge of honour for being in the military. If you saw someone wearing one of those trademark belts, they were part of the army. Finally - the helm. Make sure you (as another user noted) get a true helm, rather than the mass-produced "infantry helm." Imperial Gallic is the more generic type (As shown in the picture), and a centurion would have a transverse crest. If you'd prefer to go for the look of an optio, you could do the vertical crest - but that part isn't confirmed, and we have no proof to support it.

Next thing to remember! No beard.

If there's more you want to know about the centurions of Rome, just let me know! I'm a bit short on time, which is why I'm cutting this short, but I'll be happy to give you a complete outline as soon as I can! If you're interested in more without listening to me ramble, check out The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy - it's a complete, EXTREMELY well written book that details every aspect of the Roman army, focusing most on the Principate.

The standard textbook history right now appears to be The Romans: From Village to Empire.

Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic also still seems to be the standard introduction to that period (i.e. the time period of Imperator).

If you want to read about the end of the Roman Republic and Caesar/Augustus, it's hard to turn down Caesar: Life of a Colossus which is great for the general reader, alongside his Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.

He also writes pretty solid books on other major Roman figures, such as In the Name of Rome: The Men who won the Roman Empire.

If you want to get a pretty good introduction to Roman History, but more of what life was like for the average citizen, SPQR by Mary Beard is actually a good choice.

Older, but still solid, is Peter Garnsey's The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture which covers a lot of things Beard doesn't.

For the Roman army, Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army is a solid introduction.

However you'll want to break that down into several books if you want to go deeper:

Roman Military Equipment by MC Bishop and JCN Coulston

The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD by Graham Webster

A Companion to the Roman Army by Paul Erdkamp

For the collapse of the Western Roman Empire I'd recommend both Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians combined with the more scholarly Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West.

For the forgotten half of Roman History, often mistakenly called the "Byzantine Empire," it's hard to cover with just one book, but Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society has become the standard reading. John Haldon's The Empire that would not Die covers the critical transition during the Islamic conquests thoroughly.

Of course I have to include books on the two IMO most overrated battles in Roman history on this list since that's what people love:

The Battle of the Teutoberg Wald: Rome's Greatest Defeat by Adrian Murdoch

The Battle of Cannae: Cannae: Hannibal's Greatest Victory is sort of the single book to read if you can only pick one. However, The Ghosts of Cannae is also good. But if you actually want to go really in depth, you need Gregory Daly's dry-as-the-Atacama book Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. When I say dry as the Atacama, I mean it, but it's also extraordinarily detailed.

I'd complement this with Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars.

For other interesting topics:

The Emergence of the Bubonic Plague: Justinian's Flea and Plague and the End of Antiquity.

Hadrian's Wall: Hadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy

Roman Architecture: Roman Architecture by Frank Sear (definitely a bit more scholarly but you can probably handle it)

I may post more in addendum to this list with further comments but I think I'm reaching the character count.

Since it looks like you're interested in some general overviews, I'm going to recommend books that give just that. If you're looking for books that go more in depth on Roman topics, I'm more than happy to supply some.

For a brief introduction to Italian history in general, I would recommend Valerio Lintner's
[A Travelers History of Italy]
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/1566565219/R1B2MURVDQWPAT/ref=mw_dp_cr?cursor=2&qid=1407607391&sort=rd&sr=8-1). This offers a great overview of Italian history for someone with little exposure to the topic. It will show you plenty of topics you might want to investigate further.

As general overviews of Roman history (survey-level books that provide a contexualized narrative of Roman history), I'm going to recommend two books. [The Romans: From Village to Empire: A History of Rome from Earliest Times to the End of the Western Empire] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199730571/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407608174&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40), by Mary Boatwright and others, and [Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0521711495/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407608616&sr=8-1), by Christopher Mackay.
Boatwright's book provides an excellent in-depth overview of the general trends of Roman history, from the origins of the city of Rome itself until Late Antiquity. Though focusing on the political development of the Roman state, there are decent introductions to social and cultural history of the Empire. As the title implies, Mackay's work presents a survey-level overview of the political and military history of Rome, with emphasis placed on the Republic and Principate.

The best introduction to the history and workings of the Roman military is [The Complete Roman Army] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0500288992/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407609072&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40) by Adrian Goldsworthy. Goldsworthy is one of the leading Roman military scholars, and provides an incredibly readable yet detailed overview of the Roman army. Seriously, if you read only one book on the Roman military (but please don't!) read this.

While much more academic than the other books I've recommended, Arthur Eckstein's [Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0520259920/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407610158&sr=8-1) is the preeminent text on the rise of Rome. Using ideas from the modern Realist school of international relations, Eckstein argues that Rome became preeminent in the Mediterranean not because they were "tougher" than other states, but rather because they more effectively understood and exploited the power dynamics of the Mediterranean world. This is probably not the easiest book for someone just being introduced to Roman history, but if you can get through it it'll be worth it.

Since you mention Venice, I have a book in mind that might be useful, but I'm blanking on the title. I'll get back to you if I can find it ( I'm on mobile right now). I hope you find these titles useful, and if you need any other recommendations please let me know!

I fear I made the titles up, roman warfare and the complete roman army might have the information you seek though.

Roman warfare: http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Warfare-Smithsonian-History/dp/0060838523/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409401487&sr=1-9

roman generals: http://www.amazon.com/Name-Rome-Roman-Empire-Phoenix/dp/0753817896/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409401487&sr=1-7

roman military: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Roman-Army/dp/0500288992/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409401487&sr=1-8

Some of the good Rome books I've read over the years:

In the Name of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy

Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy

The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy

Rubicon: the Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland

A Day in the Life of Ancient Rome by Alberto Angela

Now, as someone lucky enough to have lived 6 weeks in Rome, the best prep is to somehow get yourself to La Città Eterna and visit where it all went down. The Palatine Hill and the Appian Way are places with less tourists and allow you to contemplate the power and splendor of Rome.