(Part 2) Best ancient roman history books according to redditors
We found 957 Reddit comments discussing the best ancient roman history books. We ranked the 285 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Early on, he mentions that the inner precinct of the Temple has tapestries embroidered with the Zodiac. He then mentions that the Temple serves as a calendar for the Jews. Each of these statements contains a kernel of truth but neither accurately portray history as now understood thanks to new discoveries of material culture.
First, the Temple operated off of the lunar calendar. Those who followed the solar calendar were denounced strongly, because the solar calendar was believed to meld elements of mysticism, pagan theology, and "Judaism." I place Judaism in quotation marks because there was not one Judaism but many, many Judaisms in the first century. There were groups who followed the solar calendars in direct opposition to the priesthood. One of these groups was a likely Essene community which resided at Qumran. This community is believed to have authored the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Those communities in ancient Judaism who used the zodiac based it off of the solar calendar. These zodiacs contain the twelve months of the zodiac surrounding a derivation of the son god Helios.
Aslan suggests, then, that a group who despised those who followed the solar calendar had elements that incorporated the solar calendar into its inner sanctum.
This is one, nit-picky example. I know. But it is something that shows lack of mastery of the the particular subject. He is not trying to get all the details right, though, he is more focused on telling the cultural narrative of Israel. This, so far, he has done a fantastic job.
One additional mistake that you will not see if modern scholarship is that Aslan states that Rome "occupied" Israel during this time (1st c. C.E.). That is a misnomer, for Rome had controlled Syro-Palestine since Pompey arrived in 63 B.C.E. You could call this early part an "occupation," but during the rule of Herod the Great (39-4 B.C.E.), the land of Israel became fully incorporated into the Roman world. It was no more occupied after 4 B.C.E. than Asia Minor or Greece. Some people still hated Rome, and if we take Josephus' account as accurate concerning the First Jewish Revolt, those who revolted were in the minority. All this to say, ancient Israel was a hodgepodge of ideologies, cultures, and religious beliefs. We cannot paint a black and white picture, which he tries to do at times.
Again, this disagreement stems from a small semantic, but if you read modern scholarship during this time period today, you no longer read Rome as "occupying" Israel. (Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilization does a fantastic job of painting the cultural landscape).
Don't get me wrong, this is a great book (so far) that details the meta-narrative of Israel within the context of the ancient Near East and Classical Rome. Though some of the minutiae are incorrect, at least with what I have read so far, that does not mean that this book is fodder. On the contrary, as I previously stated, I hope everyone reads this book and uses it as a launching pad to ask more questions and to delve further into religious study!
Two thousand gladiators from the schools at Rome accompanied Otho up to Bedriacum to contest Vitellius' bid for the throne. Gladiators are trained to fight solo or perhaps in a small team. Legionaries are trained to fight as a cohesive unit. The gladiators were cut to ribbons because a single fighter, no matter how skilled, is not going to overcome a solid wall of men working in concert.
Stephen Dando-Collins' book on the 14th Legion makes mention of the gladiators at the battle and how badly they fared.
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.
> 2nd research its not hard do it and you will find I'm right
Yeah, no. I've read books by people who know what they're talking about, like Peter Heather. Feminism ain't got nothing to do with it.
Feminism also doesn't explain why the Eastern Roman Empire lasted until 1453.
And the connection between feminism and Babylon is pure, unadulterated bullshit--pretty much what I expect from somebody who tells people to "research" instead of supporting their position.
A great book on this exact time period of the Roman Empire check out http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Strategy-Roman-Empire/dp/0801821584!
The main strength of the Roman army was their discipline in formation. Despite the oft depiction that they only fought with savages, they had little to no advantage in their weapons, neither by design or craftsmanship.
Training was mostly life long. People would recruit and go through training, but their job was discipline in fighting and they would be posted in strategical points around provinces where they would essentially train all day. Your average troop spent very little time on campaign and would also do police work and construction work when required. Commoners could rise through the ranks to a point but this was generally limited to centurion (Which probably acted somewhat as a drill sergeant to their company/squadron).
The most obvious example is in Britain, which was the first major province to be abandoned by the Empire (not counting Dacia or Mesopotamia) . What can be called the "economic complexity" of the region was radically reduced, based on archaeological finds. The quality of materials goes down, the volume of materials goes down, and we effectively lose all sense of chronology until the cultural efflorescence of Ireland and Northern England in the 7th century. Urbanization collapsed gradually, since it was becoming unreasonably expensive to beautify a city (a very Mediterranean and near-eastern tradition), so the baths and the fountains and public buildings began to degrade and decay, exacerbated by the lack of experts in the area. There are two excellent books on the subject: Britain after Rome or The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization . They both talk extensively about the archaeological finds that reveal just how quickly society returned to a lower economic standard once the empire had left.
To answer your question about craft tradition, it really depends. The Celts always had a strong metalworking background that probably influenced the Romans a great deal, and also were expert wagon-crafters, so we tend to see those types of designs bleed through Romano-British artifacts. In unconquered Ireland, they kept up many of these traditions (including boatbuilding) for centuries until the arrival of the Norsemen and Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc.)
From the /r/AskHistorians book wiki:
I have to ask...if you know nothing about these peoples or the history of the period why are you insistent on making a historically accurate game based on this period? Just on a personal note I think you should try to either focus on something you know about or make a real concerted effort to know about these things before you make this kind of choice. I know that's precisely what this post is trying to achieve but, y'know?
I suggest you look at our extensive book list in this area and see what interests you. If you're especially keen on the Gallic Wars you may as well read the work from the man himself, a personal commentary on the matter by Julius Caesar.
The classic image of the Roman shield, or scutum, is one of the most iconic images of the Roman Empire. It was one of the biggest contributors to the success of Roman legions on the battlefield due to its invaluability in defense and offense. Along with the short sword gladius, the two could take down the most formidable opponent.
It comes from the standard army shield during the Roman Empire. This shield has evolved drastically overtime - at first, it was oval and flat because early Romans (pre-Samnite Wars) fought in phalanx formation. These shields would look similar to the Greek [shield](http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjAwWDYwMA==/$(KGrHqF,!oUFB0VfBy50BQeGpUJT6w~~60_35.JPG?set_id=880000500F). However, after the Romans adopted their classic manipular system, these shields became obsolete. They slowly evolved to a larger, elliptical shield (probably similar to the Samnites) and then to a more cylindrical shield that almost entirely protected the user. This is the classic shield you are thinking of. This shield was in use during the best (opinion) times of the Romans, from the middle Republic to the middle Empire. The scutum of the Late Roman Empire was elliptical and flat. I'm actually not sure why they changed it, as my knowledge of the Late Empire is not as thorough, but if I could guess (so take this with a grain of salt) it would be because the Romans relied heavily upon mercenaries later on. Perhaps the later shield was more akin to what the mercenaries were used to, I don't know, or maybe there was a heavy Eastern influence since the Eastern Roman Empire became the focal point in the Mediterranean. I should let someone answer that.
So this is cool - each legion had its own symbol, and this symbol would be on their shields. During the Battle of Thapsus, Caesar's fifth legion withstood and repelled an elephant charge and was rewarded with the symbol of the elephant. This would give great pride to all members of the legion and be a reminder of when they performed at their bests, so they would put this symbol on their shields. Another example is that some shields have a wreath on them, the Roman symbol for victory. So this guy, on his shield is a wreath, meaning victory, and a bull, which is a common symbol of many Roman legions, like Caesar's third legion. These shields were very important to a Roman warrior and were highly decorated to signify the strength of the Romans and give pride to the man wearing it. Hope that helps!
Sources - primarily Roman Warfare (Smithsonian History of Warfare)
edit* cause my jokes aren't funny, also sources
What do you mean sources? Primary or secondary? Most stuff on the Vandals comes from the Roman perspective. As for secondary sources, a lot of the really good stuff is in German but if you want a survey on this subject in English, I suggest AHM Jone's The Later Roman Empire, 284-602:
A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey and George Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State. Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians also has some obscure tidbits that most people would not normally know. Also, who could forget the The Cambridge Ancient History series? They actually have a chapter dedicated to the Vandals.
They way you ask the question, I have to say there was no direct impact on Rome's decision to destroy Jerusalem, since Jesus was about forty years prior to the war. It is possible there was some anti-imperial feeling in the Jesus movement developed into the full scale rebellion in the 60s, but (at least according to tradition), most of Jesus's followers got out of Jerusalem before things got too bad.
Certainly there where the beginnings of the rebellion in Judea as early as AD 6 (Judas the Galilean, for example), but the execution of Jesus may not have contributed much to that slow boil.
In his Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, Martin Goodman argues the decision to punish Jerusalem was motivated by Titus's need for a major campaign victory. Pax Romana was making it difficult for a general to make is name as a conqueror, so the rebellion in Judea gave Titus the opportunity to win a great victory, be given a Triumph and generally look like a great Roman general before he followed his father Vespasian on the throne.
Most historians (from Josephus onward) do not blame Titus or the Romans for the destruction of the Temple, normally Rome would not have tried to burn it down. It was either an accident or the fault of the rebels.
A lot of time passes between Rome conquering Gaul (around 55BC iirc), and the later Germanic Tribes running rampant through the old and crumbling western Roman Empire (300AD-475AD times).
During the earlier times, the Romans were keeping the Danube and the Rhine occupied with soldiers... not letting the northern barbarians in.
Historians speculate there were other forces in Asia that were putting pressure on the Germanic tribes from the Asia side to find more room.
So the Germanic tribes were growing in number, but being contained north of the "river borders" for a few centuries. (Also, their arms and warfare techniques were getting better and better all the time. There were cases of Roman merchants selling swords to the Goths ).
Then there were some mighty pandemics that wiped out big chunks of Roman population ( the Antonine Plague, the Cyprian plague ).
There was the "Third Century Crisis" when, during a 50 year period there were 25 different emperors(mostly Generals with armies big enough to back their claim). Even some cases where they simply didn't want the job but had no choice (there's a footnote about Decius not wanting the job after he turfed out Philip the Arab). Personally I think the classical Roman Army was wiped out during this time and the armies they put in the field after this were more of a rabble, augmented with whatever mercenaries they could find ) (btw, spend a few nights reading through the list of Emperors during this time on Wikipedia; an incredible time, and probably when Christianity really began to take hold).
After the 3rd century crisis, even though the Western Roman empire continued to stagger along, it's less like Imperial Rome and more like a Medieval government... decentralized local authorities.
The garrisons on the Rhine and Danube were abandoned and overrun. Citizens would rather chop off their thumb than get conscripted into the Roman Army.
( Much of this I'm getting from "How Rome Fell" by Adrian Goldsworthy )
So now we're getting up to the 300sAD and the 400sAD. Sometimes the Rhine/Danube froze over.... and all those peoples that had been more and more cooped up on the other side of the river began to flood across. Wave after wave.
The Romans had to make some decisions... for example they offered the Franks to stay on the land they'd conquered in France in exchange for defending the borders. ( they called this Foederati ).
Around 400AD the Romans left England altogether (although some "Romano British" remained behind to try to hold on to their culture their. Modern historians now speculate that the Angles and Saxons were invited to Britain by these Romans also as "Foederati", but, after several decades of dealing with lying cheating rotten bastard Romans, the Angles and Saxons had had their fill.
The Eastern Roman empire continued on for another 700 years or so, but the Western Roman Empire crumbled and new kingdoms emerged lead by the strongest of the new cultures that had migrated south during these times, the Visigoths (West Goths), the Ostrogoths (east Goths) etc.
The Battle of Watling Street. While most people see Boudicca (however you choose to spell her name) as the underdog, she managed to destroy Camulodunum (modern day Colchester, England), rout a legion which attempted to relieve Colchester, and destroyed Verulamium (modern day St. Albans) and Londinium (London). This was all started while Governor Suetonius Paulinius was off in Wales campaigning against the Druids.
Once Paulinius realized what was happening he returned to the main Roman areas and saw the scale of the disaster. He wisely applied the Fabian Strategy and avoided giving battle, even to the point of abandoning Londinium to be destroyed because he knew he couldn't defend it. After a period of retreating, Paulinius realized he would either have to give battle with the 10,000 or so men he had, or abandon Britannia altogether. He gave battle near what was later called Watling Street (we don't know the contemporary Roman name for this battle). His 10,000 men faced somewhere in between 80,000 to 210,000 angry, Woad covered Britons. We don't know the exact numbers, but Paulinius was definitely heavily outnumbered with no possibility of reinforcement.
As everyone knows, the Romans defeated Boudicca. That is because Paulinius chose the terrain of the battle to neutralize the numerical advantage that Boudicca had. The discipline, training and equipment of the Roman Legions carried the day since Boudicca's army could not break the Roman formation. In the end, the Romans routed Boudicca and her troops.
While Romans aren't usually the dark horse, and most people today see Boudicca as the underdog, I think the fact that she razed the three significant Roman towns in Britain and completely routed a legion shows that she was perfectly capable of winning. It also shows how easily Rome could have lost Britannia if Paulinius was not able to choose the terrain of the battle or find ways to maximize every advantage his troops had over Boudicca.
One good source of the battle is "Nero's Killing Machine" by Stephen Dando-Collins. While the book itself isn't focused on the defeat of Boudicca, it is about the XIIII Legion, which was the core of the Roman Army which prevailed against her insurrection. Thus a good portion of it speaks of the battle since that is a huge part of the history of the XIIII Legion. The author is biased towards the Romans, but the account of the battle is solid.
I had the chance to finish fully reading Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy, and I want to start off by saying that if you are even remotely interested in how the Roman military operated, read this book. Doesn't matter if you're interested in Rome before city states were a thing, whether you're into the Principate, or whether you want to know how the Roman army
degeneratedevolved into its later stages preceding the collapse of the Roman Empire. Whichever way you look, this book has you covered - and, of course, I can't help but mention that I really, REALLY like Goldsworthy's style. That might have something to do with it. I'm going to probably work on a re-read when I'm done with my current book, which happens to be...[Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization], by Richard Miles. This one is a bit dryer and FAR longer than Roman Warfare, but VERY cool, too! I'm only a little ways in (maybe 20%?), but Miles gives some GREAT background on the founding of Carthage, exploring the history of Tyre as well to give context to the founding of the great city. Which, I might add, I firmly believe should be rebuilt. Make the inner buildings a mixture of modern and Carthaginian style, get the plastered walls that shine in the sun, get the temple and the palace and the INCREDIBLE harbour...it would make Tunisia one hell of a place to visit :D
Oh god, that scene even has a German wearing a horned helmet. It appears the film creators were going for "stock fantasy barbarians".
Having said that, the Germanic warriors in that period can be contrasted with the orderly machine-like Romans. Showing individual bravado was important for them, as it was for the Celts. And the Germanic warriors were indeed larger. Roman soldiers grew up in a densely populated place with low availability of meat and dairy, while the Germans had access to a more varied diet. The overspecialization in grain production made the Romans shorter. I've seen a lot of different estimates, but it appears from measuring skeletons and from the historical record than Roman soldiers were about 5'5 or 5'6 (165-167 cm).
By the time of the Migration Period we would expect the Germanic tribes to have taken on more Roman-like features: more disciplined troops and better armor and weaponry. I hear this is part of Peter Heather's argument in his new book, though I haven't read it yet to confirm.
Mortality table for Roman Empire. (Search on "mortality" using "look inside".)
Mortality table for US, 2006.
In the Roman Empire, a girl reaching age 5 had about a 30% chance of reaching 60. (It'll be lower for the population at large, men had a lower life expectancy.)
In the modern US, if a child reaches age 5, they have about a 90% chance of reaching 60.
AFAICT you're way off, but do check my figures for yourself, I could have made a mistake.
If you really want to gather as much info as you can, you should check out some of the dozens of excellent books on this subject, including Mary Beard's Pompeii: The Life of a Roman Town (link), Aldrete's Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia (link), or Carcopino's Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire (link). As you can see, there is a lot of material on many aspects of life in Pompeii in the first century--way too much to cover here. I can provide some outlining to get your started on your questions, however.
 
Pompeii was a typical town of its type (veteran colony), and had all the amenities we expect from such a place. It was neither large nor small for a veteran colony, but about in the middle, having about 12,000 inhabitants (a third of them slaves) and about twice that many in the immediate surrounds (villas, farms, etc). Most of the "big" buildings were constructed or embellished in the decades after the town became a colony after the Social War, or during the early Empire under Augustus and Tiberius: an aqueduct, a theater, an amphitheater, a recital hall, public baths, temples, markets, etc. There was a large forum, of typical Roman design, with a capitolium temple at its head, a temple of Apollo, a public meeting hall, flanked with colonnaded wings connecting basilica and markets for meat and vegetables, and adjoining a modest bath complex. The streets were roughly orthogonal, with a few kinks and sharp turns belying very ancient foundations, nicely paved but grimy enough to warrant the famous stepping stones.
As far as its importance to the Empire: not very, unfortunately. It was a hub of local commerce in Campania, but one of several, and obviously not indispensable. The city had sided against the Romans in the Social War, and even at the end still wore vestiges of its non-Roman past. Pompeii shared the arena with a neighboring town, Noceria, and had in recent times engaged in a full on riot against the Nocerians over, apparently, a sports disagreement, to the general annoyance of the Emperor back in Rome. In other words: yes, the city was "on the map" at Rome, and big enough to deserve consideration, but not big or important enough to warrant resurrection after the event. In a few decades, the town was apparently almost completely forgotten. Pompeii had been the crossroads of a few important Roman roads, particularly the route moving north and south along the coast between Capua/Neapolis/Stabiae, but this road was completely obliterated in the eruption anyway and when it was rebuilt, it simply traveled over the moonscape terrain which had once been Pompeii. A road leading east to Noceria might have continued to function and might have linked up with the region again after the dust settled, but I can't find any good information on that.
I really encourage you to take a look at one or all of the books I linked above. They are very accessible and stuffed full of good information on the daily goings-ons of the Roman world in the first century.
For starters, there really isn't such a thing as a "middle-class citizen" in the Roman Empire. Roman social classes did not work that way, and wealth actually had less bearing on your existence than social status, inherited mainly from your ancestors.
The best resource for this sort of thing would be Jerome Carcopino's Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Carcopino was the premier classical social historian of his day, and most of what he says is still very much to date. To say more than that would honestly not get you anywhere. The lives of citizens varied pretty wildly depending on social status, wealth, and of course location (life within the city would be very different from life in certain provinces, which would differ even more from each other). A very few things can be said in general, however. The vast majority of the Roman Empire was enjoying the benefits of peace, a blessing that was not lost on them after nearly a hundred years of civil wars and nearly a hundred and fifty years of political strife within the noble orders. The reign of Augustus was also blessed with an extreme degree of wealth, which Rome and her empire had not seen the likes of before, and which was even more welcome considering the extreme deprivation that most people had suffered duing the destructive civil wars. Among the lower social orders the climate of Augustus' reign from the period after the War of Actium was incredibly welcome, providing great social freedom and opportunity, as well as unheard-of wealth. The upper social orders, mainly the survivors of the nobility, were a mixed bag. Most of the remaining prominent members of the senate and nobility had originally been lowlives under Caesar or Octavian, and had joined them because they had hoped that supporting them would help pay off their massive debts from extravagance. The rest were the few survivors of the old nobility that had been sure to kiss up to the dictators, as well as aspiring tyrants like Pompey and Crassus. Since the beginning of the 1st Century, B.C. the political climate at Rome had increasingly been one of power slipping more and more firmly into the hands of private individuals, and as a result there were throughout the century great purges, either through proscriptions or wars, of the members of the nobility. As a result, there was great dissatisfaction with Augustus' seizure of power among the nobles, but for them Rome was rather like a police state, since any disloyal actions would result in Praetorians knocking on their doors. These attitudes are echoed by Virgil and Livy, who had mixed feelings about Augustus, by Cicero (for example, in his Philippics--although all of this is technically before Augustus' reign, it still very much applies, as the loss of political freedom had already been cemented in place following Caesar's victory over the Pompeians), and even by Horace, who owed Augustus and Maecenas everything but who nevertheless could not quite bring himself to agree with the autocracy. For more on the destruction of the Roman political system, see Ronald Syme's groundbreaking work, The Roman Revolution, which was the first study (on the eve of Hitler's declaration of war, to whom Augustus is implicitly compared) to challenge the old Victorian view of Augustus as the "benign dictator."
One aspect to it was that the frontiers were so large, literally receiving the information about trouble, then marching a legion to the trouble spot could take weeks or months, and potential foes would be long gone. A Roman method of dealing with trouble was to conquer it, this meant your borders creep outward and ability to police them weakens.
This book is very very good at detailing the changing efforts by the Romans to protect their borders and various systems put in place.
I studied Ancient Greek and Latin in college. We read about Greek and Roman military tactics. It is actually well documented.
The clip from the 300 movie is actually an accurate depiction of how Greek warfare worked. One problem that the Greeks wrote about was that the interlocking shields would lead to the right side of the phalanx advancing faster than the left side. This made the line weaker.
If you would like to read more about ancient military tactics and compare them to Chinese/Japanese ones, one good strategy manual is the Stategikon which was written in the 7th century. It discusses weapons and their strategy.
http://www.amazon.com/Maurices-Strategikon-Handbook-Byzantine-Military/dp/0812217721
I would recommend ebooks and hardcovers. Also, check a few bookstores in person so you can skim some books and see what works. I recently bought [The Practicing Stoic] (https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Stoic-Philosophical-Users-Manual/dp/1567926118) which only comes in hardcover. The first thing I noticed was the difference in quality compared to my paperbacks. The Practicing Stoic has a somewhat small font but it is very crisp with no bleeding, the paper is high contrast with the ink, and the pages are opaque. And most of all, it's a great read.
You can sort-of compromise by reading the Landmark edition
This includes maps etc. which might help you follow the action.
They also published a bunch of appendices/annexes/essays online (previous books just included these in the print version, but by making them online a side-effect is they're free)
If you go with the secondary source option, I'd consider Caesar, by Adrian Goldsworthy (haven't actually read it, but have read lots of others by him and they're great, and reviews of it draw attention to the Gallic Wars analysis being great as the writer is a military historian
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Cannae or Trebia to help you out there. I'm more of a late antiquities Roman/Byzantine guy in terms of my knowledge base.
I would recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare as one of the better non-technical history books on Roman warfare. And if you're looking for something a little more in my field and a book that I try to re-read every two years, I highly recommend How Rome Fell by the same author.
I know that I'm not answering your question, and I am sorry for it. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge base might help you with your question.
These are all really interesting questions. I think I know the answers to some, but let me preface all this by saying that I am just a fan of history. I'm definitely not a trained historian. Also, this is all from memory (I'm not opening any books) so I could very well be wrong and would love to be corrected by someone who actually knows WTF they are doing.
>Who was the intermediate authority who commanded groups of legionaries?
I think that would be the Centurions. It was their job to keep their century cohesive and following the general strategy. I think they were also the ones who were cycling the lines after Marius' reforms (e.g. front line would fight for a minute, then fall back so the next line could fight, so that there were always the most fresh men doing the fighting). I think they are analogs to modern Sergeants, in that they had immediate command over the smallest unit of division.
>How were orders relayed when battle was already underway?
I'm trying to think if I've ever actually read about this. I want to say that it was with a combination of sounds (horn blasts, etc.) and runners passing along orders from the general. I'm not entirely sure, though, and I think a lot of it is based on speculation (I listened to a History Podcast that had a discussion with historians specifically about how Caesar managed to get his charging army to halt at the Battle of Pharsalus). I think a lot of it came down to Centurions being very aware of the situation and enforcing the orders that came down the chain of command.
> What were the rules legions followed to stay cohesive?
I think there are a lot of answers for this. For one thing, discipline was very, very strict. As in the legionaries were more afraid of their commanding officers than the enemy so they stayed in formation and kept moving forward.
Another thing was staying near their standards. I think each Cohort had it's own standard (maybe century? I'm not sure of the details) but they were supposed to stay near their standard and head towards it if they ever were split up.
> How did legions deal with limiting obstacles like gates, bridges and forests that would limit their movement and formation options?
I'm not sure, really. I don't think I've read anything about that. I would assume that they would do their best to stay in formation (as their are several disasters in Roman military history that came from marching in sloppy formation and being ambushed) and probably go around/through obstacles in cohorts or smaller units. That's just my guess, though.
> How did they deal with assaulting cities where they could easily be ambushed?
Definitely not standard practice, but The Battle of Alesia is a really good example of Roman engineering mastery. Basically, Caesar built a ring of defensive works facing the city and then a second one facing towards incoming reinforcements.
For the most part, though, I don't think the Romans really dug in for a siege if they were vulnerable to an attack. In general (and this seems especially true for their wars against "barbarians"), ancient armies would throw their armies at each other in the field and a decisive victory could easily mean your opponent had no army in the field. Also, I think the main point of a real siege was to deny food and water going into the city as opposed to breaking through the walls like in Rome: Total War, so a smaller force could do the job letting most of the army to battle anything in the field.
Again, like I said, I'm just a fan of this stuff. If I made any mistakes please do correct me. I like learning about this stuff and would find that really valuable.
Also, Anomalyzero, if you're interested in this stuff a really good book that I've read (well, actually got it as a download from Audible but the effect is the same!) is Caesar's Legion by Stephan Dando-Collins. It has a lot of details about the day-to-day life of the legions. Also, for more general Roman History I can't recommend The History of Rome podcast enough. It's great stuff.
Hope you found any of that interesting/helpful.
No it isn't. Do you have a source on that? Rome fell for a variety of reasons but regional separatism wasn't one of them. The best book I've read about it was this https://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Migrations-Roman-West-376/dp/0521435439.
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
https://smile.amazon.com/Landmark-Julius-Caesar-Complete-Alexandrian/dp/0307377865
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot
Just a heads up that
LandmarkPantheon is publishing The Landmark Julius Caesar with an expected October release. If I'm reading the fuzzy cover right, it's a new translation by Kurt Raaflaub but the other Landmark books are top notch with great maps, annotations, and a lot of other good stuff.Not an expert, but currently reading Cary and Scullard's History of Rome. http://www.amazon.com/History-Rome-Down-Reign-Constantine/dp/0312383959
I would say it is a very good read and prety solid.
Very cool. That said, you all might find this interesting.
Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome
Sulla's story is ridiculously complicated. If you want a good survey about the republic and empire to get you started--one that's at the level of an entry college course--try The Romans: From Village to Empire.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Romans-Village-History-Earliest/dp/0199730571
To understand Sulla's significance, you have to have the full context. Really interesting stuff, mind you, but not something that's easy to sum up in a comment.
I do not recommend Gibbon to a newcomer. It's too long, the language is dense, and it's 200 years old. There has been some new research since it was written.
There are always the Romans/Greeks themselves of course, Tacitus, Livy, Seutonius, Plutarch, Polybius etc. but they can be a bit overwhelming for a newcomer.
Here's some newer stuff.
M. Carry A History of Rome Came out in the mid 1960s. Meant for undergrads. Very readable.
Robin Lane Fox The Classical World This came out in 2006 and is meant for the educated general reader. Very well written and sourced. A breeze to read and as a bonus you get the Greeks too.
Michael Grant was an excellent classicist who wrote for the educated general public. A great writer, always a fun read and you can often find some of his works at used bookstores.
Ronald Symes The Roman Revolution This is for once you've got a few books under your belt because the names and terms are going to come at you fast. You have to know your Claudius from your Clodius. An account of how Augustus managed to do what Caesar couldn't.
It's a fascinating history. I've been reading it for 25 years, I envy you your first plunge.
Paul, travels and churches:
Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity
EDIT #2:
An infographic of Paul's wanderings
EDIT #1:
Roman Judea:
Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations
Although this book entails an era broader than the Crisis of the Third Century, I can recommend The Fall of the West: The Slow Death of the Roman Superpower, by Adrian Goldsworthy. It's composed of three parts: the crisis (3rd century), recovery (4th century, after Diocletian assumes power), and the ultimate decline and fall (5th and 6th century).
edit: The book is sometimes also sold as How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower.
Well my source is the fact that there's no archaeological evidence for Rome's founding being 753 BC. You're asking me to prove a negative.
If you want to read up on the history of Rome, this is a fairly comprehensive text:
https://www.amazon.com/History-Rome-Down-Reign-Constantine/dp/0312383959/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492808749&sr=1-12&keywords=history+of+rome
This hardcover version of Gibbon's history (which does not cover the beginning of Rome) has an introduction in which they discuss Rome's founding as well:
https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Roman-Empire-Everymans-Library/dp/0307700763/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Again, you need to keep in mind that the same people who stated Rome was founded in 753 BC are the same people who thoroughly believed the myth of Romulus.
OP you wanna look into the 10th Legion. These guys were some serious badasses and they belonged in Gaius Julius Caesar's army
http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Legion-Julius-Elite-Armies/dp/0471686131
They were recruited in I think southern spain, and they were some fierce warriors. they fought with Caesar throughout the entire Gaullic conquests and through all of his civil war battles too. so that's a full SIXTEEN YEARS of full on military experience. actually caesar kept them in the service for longer than 16 years because he knew his only chances resided in keeping those super disciplined and skilled warriors.
they were especially useful in the battle of pharsephelus
http://fe867b.medialib.glogster.com/media/8e/8e6e1f0c5614b07a711bcc0e9aab1acffc08bc69f1a3a353e9db6324255c4e1e/pharsalusbattle.jpg
think of them as those 6 cohorts on the right flank that pushed back towards pompeys left. caesar had his legionairies lie down in the tall grass and keep their pila (spears) out. caesar knew pompey was gonna depend on his cavalry on his left flank to try to overrun and outflank him so caesar knew he HAD to stop this cavalry charge. well, he ordered his 6-7 cohorts of 10th legionaries to stay hidden in the grass until they saw pompeys cavalry come up close enough and then to STAND UP and STAB SHIT when the horsemen got within range. his men did exactly that because they loved caesar and were incrdibly well disciplined just from being with caesar for so long.
of course they stood up and scared all of pompeys cavalry away doing an incredibly job at defending the flank. this allowed caesar's troops to outflank pompey and all was lost.
sorry for the shitty pictures but my laptop is dying. feel free to answer me literally anythign about this battle even if its a really hard question!
Thankfully, a lot of the ancient military texts have very recently been translated into English. The Strategikon of Maurice, the Taktika of Leo VI, the Praecepta Militaria, and various other Byzantine treatises are now widely available. Check 'em out!
Though not a historian, Roman History is certainly one of the subjects I study most intensely outside of my own field... and Caesar is absolutely one of the most intriguing men in the long History of Rome. Every time I think I've got him figured out, I find a bigger and better story - Alesia I can picture in my mind as just... a scene out of an Airplane-esque comedy. I'm sure you've heard of it, if not read it, but for the others that may see this - Caesar's Legion: The Epic Saga of Julius Caesar's Elite Tenth Legion and the Armies of Rome is a really accessible and fun telling of just how incredible Caesar was as a commander, and the amazing lengths his men would go for him. It tells the story of Munda in pretty great depth, and provides a picture of Caesar the man, which goes on to provide insight into Caesar the legend...
As time goes on, I find myself more and more convinced that events did, in fact, happen during the Consulship of Julius and Caesar, with Bibulus sitting around being a nice catalyst for Caesar to work against.
tl;dr - Roman History is amazing. It's the most entertaining subject you'll ever study.
For something more scholarly check out these two books:
Bishop and Coulson- Roman Army Equipment
https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Military-Equipment-Punic-second/dp/1842171593
Fisher and Bishop- The Army of the Roman Emperors
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1612008100/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
If you're looking for an overview on the history of Roman warfare as well as a treatise on the Roman army's position in Roman society, I would recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare. It can be a bit of a dry read, but it's extremely educational.
It covers just about every aspect of Roman warfare from the initial conquest of the Italian Peninsula through the Marian Reforms and on to the collapse of the empire.
Ward-Perkins makes this point. Link.
Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568
I'm only halfway through and it is pretty heavy-going, but very very interesting.
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.
I read it in English, you can find my review here.
http://www.thibaultserlet.com/book-reviews-interviews-and-articles/julius-caesar-the-war-in-gaul
If you want to buy the book in english here is the link:
https://www.amazon.com/Gallic-War-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486451070
I don't know if you guys have been keeping up with modern history, but the chinese did sail east in starting in 1421. The discovered and mapped Australia, the west coast of the americas, the southern tip of south america, as well as the east coast of the americas. There is substantial evidence that they briefly settled as well, they just didn't want to stay. A decent introduction to this topic is found in https://www.amazon.ca/1421-Year-China-Discovered-World/dp/0553815229, and there is wealth of research going backfifty years or so supporting his hypothesis.
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
Are you joking? One legion (14th Gemina) completely decimated her army. For every 1 Roman there were (IIRC) 20 Britons.
Further reading which I highly recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Neros-Killing-Machine-Remarkable-Legion/dp/0470046384
Tom is an artist let him know if it bother's you. But since you brought it up
https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Stoic-Philosophical-Users-Manual/dp/1567926118
Yes, it was a silly thing to say. Genetic drift could happen very rapidly in an isolated environment (especially with something like facial features).
On the other side of the argument though, I see little to no reason to assume the Moriori were Maori, unless you first assume that humans only ever made it here five times, and left again/died out thrice.
5 times seems like a bold statement, for clarification:
My comments about the celts and the south americans would be discoveries 1.1 and 2.1 on this list respectively, with the theory of 'Maui the Egyptian being comissioned by the Romans to circumnavigate the world' coinciding with discovery 2). I chose to disclude them from this list due to it being rather controversial.
Edit: lots of edits to all my comments in this thread, I swear I'm sane guys! :p
Most importantly though, it's not just the Maori that are rich with cultural transmission, we were just among the first to have reasonable proof of it. The old 'once out of africa in a straight line' theory is finally being ripped to shreds, I'm sure we'll get plenty more evidence of transmission before we cark it.
Old school behavioral economics advice here:
https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Stoic-Philosophical-Users-Manual/dp/1567926118
Here's your best source that I know of: http://www.amazon.com/Legions-Rome-Definitive-History-Imperial/dp/1250004713
Legionary's shields also varied from legion to legion, which you might find interesting.
I'm no expert but I've heard of no personal banners used by the legions, apart from the well-known standards (emblems on a long staff) that were carried at the head of the column.
This is technically two books, but this series produces easily digestible books summarizing a variety of topics:
Roman Republic: A Very Short Introduction
Roman Empire: A Very Short Introduction
This book, Caesar's Legion is a really good look into the Roman military and tactics used at the time, though it focuses on one specific legion. It's extremely interesting to read, and well researched. Definitely not like most history books.
Just read this.
I enjoyed it.
https://www.amazon.com/Legions-Rome-Definitive-History-Imperial/dp/1250004713/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1554330687&sr=1-1 This a reference book rather then a story but one of the best books on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Romans-Robert-Knapp/dp/0674284224/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=invisible+romans&qid=1554330866&s=books&sr=1-1
Looks more at the average people
​
https://www.amazon.com/Day-Life-Ancient-Rome-Curiosities/dp/1933372710/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2SQM52LIXLPEI&keywords=a+day+in+the+life+of+ancient+rome&qid=1554330990&s=books&sprefix=a+day+in+the+life+of+Anc%2Cstripbooks%2C175&sr=1-1
This one is more story then dry text book.
​
https://www.amazon.com/Around-Roman-Table-Feasting-Ancient/dp/0226233472/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3HXK35FACBK1&keywords=around+the+roman+table&qid=1554331210&s=books&sprefix=around+the+roman+%2Cstripbooks%2C168&sr=1-1
Translating Roman recipes mostly from Apicius but with other sources.
Not all may be what you are looking for but I own them and have enjoyed them. I really mean it about the first one.
And if you buy good condition used books your not even half way through your allotment at this point.
Quit saying that the Chinese discovered North America. One guy (a retired submarine captain, not a historian) wrote a book about it and almost every historian out there disagrees.
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 knew very little about Roman Militaria before reading The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third and quite enjoyed it.
It puts paid to the idea that the Roman military failed because it abandoned old ways. More, it shows that each change in organization was pretty close to a best possible way of dealing with available forces in the strategic situation.
this is probably the best recent book on the topic - http://amzn.com/0375726136
Also, note that the event is prominently commemorated on the Arch of Titus in Rome - https://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/titus/titus.html
Boatwright, Gargola, Lenski, and Talbert's The Romans: From Village to Empire is my textbook of choice for Roman history
The answers you've got here, especially from /u/bitparity, are great. I'll add a quirky one. Bear with me. I promise this answers your question, kind of.
Edward Luttwak is a modern expert on contemporary military strategy, especially American capabilities. He's also a self-taught (amateur) classicist, but an impressive one at that. In 1976, he wrote a book called The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. It's very controversial among historians, but it's also a fascinating take on this very question.
The source of the controversy is that Luttwak is looking at Rome through a markedly American strategic lens. So while America might (does?) have a "grand strategy" for its self-defense and international goals, one arrived at by policy experts employing professional, technical analysis, Rome certainly did not. In the waning days of the Republic the Consuls for the year most certainly did not sit down with their Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss grand policy for the next few decades. And if they did, that policy certainly was not transmitted to and adopted by the Caesars.
Roman military strategy was much more ad hoc -- when piracy was a problem, for example, the Senate voted Pompey an extraordinary command to eradicate it. Because he was in the area, he was then tapped to vanquish Rome's most recent foil, Mithridates of Pontus. Consuls and elite Romans pursued foreign policy goals for their own reasons, but adherence to a grand vision for Roman security was not one of them.
This is the problem with Luttwak's thesis. What is its merit? Well, Luttwak takes anecdote and piecemeal policy and argues that, whether or not they planned it, all of these actions DID add up to a coherent, national foreign policy. Rome's "Grand Strategy," he argues, was to guarantee the loyalty and security of reliable "buffer states" and client kingdoms. If any threat to Rome reared its head, it was met by the buffer states and a highly mobile Roman army together, making use of scattered front-line garrisons. In this manner Rome could ignore quiet borders but move quickly, with its allies, to meet the threat of anything that might have posed a systemic threat to the Empire itself, or its homeland.
Luttwak argues that this strategy ultimately failed for two reasons. First, Rome lost control of the buffer states, and pulled forces from the frontline garrisons. And second, but more importantly, while the buffer state system was adequate to the challenges Rome faced during the early Empire, it was inadequate to the challenge posed by a larger threat. Rome's veneer of invincibility was simply the product of the absence of a credible challenger. The Germanic migration was just too much for the system to bear.
I'm not representing this as true, it's just an interesting take to keep in mind, with the major caveat listed above.
I think you would benefit a lot from reading Adrian Goldsworthy's book How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower. As a leading historian on the subject of Rome, he is often consulted on the very question that you have posed. Its fascinating, and definitely what you should read if you want to explore this topic.
For a short answer - the political structure is very different. Starting with Marcus Aurelius's death in 180 AD, Rome was saddled with a number of underage Emperors that had no idea how to govern. Most of them became Emperor merely by happenstance. Whoever happened to command a few legions or more at the time of a power vacuum could seize power. For example, Septimus Severus commanded only a tenth of the entire army, but that was a big deal considering that he governed the province closest to Italy and there were no other troops in Italy.
America shares some faults with the Principiate, but at least the country elects its leaders in a reasonably fair and transparent manner. Also, while nepotism was the force behind any Roman's achievements, big or small, its generally frowned upon in America.
Wallace Hadrill's 'Augustan Rome' is pretty good as an introduction, really well written and pleasingly succinct. In fact, the whole series of books (of which this is one) is well worth a peruse. I'd also recommend The very short introduction series, read this before starting on a degree in Ancient History and set me up nicely.
http://www.countriesquest.com/europe/france/history/the_foundations/roman_gaul.htm
Excerpt
The decline of Roman Gaul after ad 200 was part of the complex process that led to weakening of the grip of the Roman Empire everywhere in the west. The population declined due to plague, and people migrated to the cities. These events crippled agricultural production—the main source of wealth in almost all premodern societies. As agricultural production fell, so, too, did state revenues from taxes. Furthermore, the empire was no longer expanding and could not depend on plunder for fresh supplies of slave labor and material wealth, as it had for centuries. Landlords tried to legally bind their tenants to the soil, while emperors embarked on administrative and tax reforms. But in the end, the economic decline was not reversed.
I think the Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Rome-End-Civilization/dp/0192805649) also makes the point of pre-invasion economic decline in Gaul.
Seconding the recommend of Cary and Scullard's History of Rome. THis was required reading in my high school latin class. It's now one of my all-time favorites.
De Re Militari and The Strategikon.
Theres an amazing anthology about Roman Legions.
​
https://www.amazon.com/Legions-Rome-Definitive-History-Imperial/dp/1250004713/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541518916&sr=1-3&keywords=legions
​
​
​
Highly recommended.
Definitely some good ones.
I’d also recommend ward farnsworth’s “the practicing stoic”
The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual https://www.amazon.com/dp/1567926118/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_vfvKDbQXCJK1Q
This is a weird coincidence, but I am reading rome and jerusalem which is a history text about what you're interested in. However the author's main source is Josephus, he also adds a lot of interesting commentary and background.
With English history, I would start with the Romans. The "very short introduction" books have shown up in my old reading lists on multiple occasions at university.
I would then move on to the vikings. Again look at "a very short introduction". I would also look at "The Viking World". This is the textbook I used at Uni.
(Now we get to medieval England, my favourite) Look at the history of the medieval church christianity was central to medieval life. Look at the Black Death King Death: The Black Death and its Aftermath in Late-Medieval England, it is one of my favourite books of all time and an absolute pleasure to read. This book is a very good overview of medieval Europe This book is also a very good, but brief, introduction. I would read that one before the other one.
The Hundred Years war is an important part of English and French history. The Hundred Years War is a good brief book.
Now we get to the War of the Roses (if you like game of thrones, this is what it is based on). Hicks, M. A., The war of the Roses (2003). He wrote another longer book in 2010. Both are very good, but the 2003 book is much much smaller.
I never studied the Tudors or Stuarts at uni but I am sure someone else would be able to direct you to good books. When buying books look for "University Press" books. They are written buy lecturers and professors, world leaders in their field.
The Empire Project is a very good book, but not as small as the others I have suggested (well, except for the viking age one).
Don't be disheartened by the amount of books I have suggested, I promise the majority are tiny and pictures do take up a lot of room. If you were to combine them, they probably would be as many words as 2 big books. Wait for the books to become cheap or call up a university second hand book shop to see if they have them in stock. Again I highly recommend the "a very short introduction" books if you want to get to know an area of history without making the commitment of buying larger more expensive books. If you want my old reading lists I can send them too you if you PM me.
Here are two possible books. One is "How Rome Fell" by Adrian Goldsworthy: http://www.amazon.com/How-Rome-Fell-Death-Superpower/dp/0300164262
And here is "The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Peter Heather: http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419
http://www.amazon.com/Maurices-Strategikon-Handbook-Byzantine-Military/dp/0812217721
Three books at the top of my current pile:
The Great War and Modern Memory - This is superb. I'll be buying copies as Christmas presents this year.
Daily Life in Ancient Rome - Did you know there were five-story apartment buildings in ancient Rome?
The Trouble with Physics - I heard the author speak recently. I am not competent to judge the worthiness of his ideas, but I am eager to believe that there is something wrong with much of modern physics.
In my Ancient Rome class in college, we used the textbook "The Romans: From Village to Empire" by Boatwright et al. The first half of the book focuses on Republican Rome and I feel like it is a great resource. The book costs $42 on Amazon, so it may be a bit pricy for amateur study; however, if you have access to Questia through a public or university library you can read it for free. (you can also gain access through Wikipedia, but you need to edit for a year and make 1000 edits to the site to be approved) Even if you don't have access, I suggest you use the one day free trial of Questia to read part of the book to decide if it is worth spending $42 to purchase it. Here is the Amazon link and here is the Questia link. It appears like the Questia link is for the first edition and not the second, which is the one that I read. In addition, you'll find a collection of other documents linked to that questia page. I have not read them, but some of them are free, so it could be worth checking them out.
If you aren't looking for it in Latin, there is a fancy new edition in the Landmark series: https://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Julius-Caesar-Complete-Alexandrian/dp/0307377865
Whats the point of being the world's hegemon if you have to grovel before pissant monarchs whose only quality is that they sit on a sea of oil?
These creeps that run DC should read "The Gallic War" by Gaius Julius Caesar and see how the business of empire is supposed to be handled. It is pathetic to be a military empire that is pushed around by two-bit backwaters like Saudi Arabia and Israel.
If Julius Caesar were running things in DC, the sea of oil that the parasitic monarchs of the Mideast are sitting on would be financing Washington's legions.
All joking aside, what the f**k is the use of having uncontested military superiority if you must apologize to petty satraps when you offend their delicate sensibilities by pointing out how they stab you in the back?