1. The Roman Army at War 100 BC - AD
200 (Oxford Classical Monographs)
by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy
The Ins And Outs Of A Roman Army At War
Goldsworthy examines how the Roman army operated on campaign and in
battle. He compares the armys organization and strategic doctrine with
those of its chief opponents and explores in detail the reality of battle:
tactics, weaponry, leadership, and, most of all, the important issue of
morale.
Personal Review: The Roman Army at War 100 BC - AD 200
(Oxford Classical Monographs) by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy
rom an aggressive Republic to a dominating Empire, Roman culture and
influence spread through three continents on the backs of its armies.
Military power, flexibility of command, pursuit of glory, and pure
mechanical determination shape the Roman world from 100 BC to 200 AD.
For three centuries, the Romans expanded borders and spilt blood, fighting
the enemy and themselves. It is to this end that Adrian Keith Goldsworthy

2. attempts to show the Roman world, and more precisely the Roman
military, with more emphasis on individuality than is typically discussed. He
does so in his work, The Roman Army at War, an in depth book comprising
of organization, movement, and tactics, as well as a deeper delve into a
sphere of human emotion and motivation, asking why events unfolded as
they did and to what end. Emphasis is placed on the individual thoughts
and motives within a campaign, whether it is the lowest recruit or the
Emperor himself. Gone are the days of archaic military history thinking in
terms of emotionless blocks of troops moving in straight lines, ready to lay
their lives down for the cause of Roman victory. Goldsworthy navigates
through a sea of frail conclusions, unconvincing explanations, and
unreliable sources, many of which he cites throughout the text, dealing
with the Roman military and how they waged war, coming out the other
side into the fairly uncharted waters of how war was waged on the
individual. This is the new frontier of military history and is in dire need of
further research as stated by Goldsworthy. Blocked off in six main chapters
with several sub-topics contained within each chapter, Goldsworthy
reveals a story of Roman military life which is not always cut and dry and
certainly not romanticized.
Goldsworthy begins with the description of Roman military organization
covering the evolution of the Legion due to "the changing scale of warfare"
(37) from thirty maniples to ten cohorts. This was due to the need for a "far
more flexible legion" (37). He further goes on to discuss the intro duction of
small scale fighting armies, made up of legionary detachments or
vexillations, noting the lesser need for large standing armies because
seldom "was there ever an enemy capable of organizing an army large
enough to produce such large scale warfare" (38). Reinforcing the idea of
Roman adaptableness, Goldsworthy goes into detail on the Roman
armies'' ability to change where change was needed, highlighting Arrian''s
Cappadocian legions in what is today eastern Turkey, "the roman army
was an inherently flexible organization" (38). He concludes that the armies
"ability to adapt to local situations" (38) was a key factor of its success.
Goldsworthy follows this point up with a brief description of Rome''s chief
enemies, the Germans, Gauls, and Parthians, along with concise
descriptions of their customs and methods.
The chapter on the Roman campaign deals with the idea of an aggressive
and offensive army as opposed to the previous stereotype of an army of
rigid defense. In fact, he even goes as far to say that a Roman army on
defense had either been taken off guard or was admitting its grim position,
"the Roman army sought always to bring the conflict to a decisive
conclusion as soon as possible by seizing the initiative and dictating the
course of the fighting" (114). The idea was to show Roman force, even if
badly outnumbered or under supplied, in order to persuade an enemy out
of fighting, "the Roman emphasis on the offensive in all forms of warfare
was another aspect of this attempt to dominate the ene my''s collective
willpower and suggested the inevitability of Roman victory" (114).
Goldsworthy continues on to discuss the Roman advantage in siege

3. warfare as well as its ability to excel in low intensity skirmish and ambush
combat. He affirms many Roman commanders were able to "use forces of
heavily armed, legionary infantry as raiders to attack and completely
surprise enemies who habitually fought using the tactics of raid and
ambush" (114). He concludes this section dismantling the preexisting ideas
of Roman-style warfare''s reliance on geographical settings; also its
inability to defeat the Germans and Parthians as reasons to the slowing of
expansion in those areas. According to Goldsworthy, that would be to
"deny the fundamental flexibility of the Roman army" (115).
The second half of his book goes into a much more personal level of the
military and its characters. Beginning with the generals, Goldsworthy goes
straight into his explanation of a Roman general''s mobility and interaction
in battle as opposed to the popular opinion of a stagnant observer.
Describing the three positions of generalship during battle, front line
combat, surveying from the rear of the army, or directly behind the men, he
expresses that most Roman generals preferred to stay "close to the
fighting without taking part, encouraging their men and directing their
reserves as the situation required" (168). This allowed for a flexible general
who could plug gaps when necessary and rally troops at different points in
the line, a perfect form of command for the Roman army. As Goldsworthy
emphasizes "the technical skill of the Roman general lay not in the
sweeping moves of grand tactics, but in paying close attention to the detail
of small unit tactics, directing his units" (169). He ends with how a
general''s upbringing in Roman society and the emphasis of "courage or
virtus" (169) is the driving force of military success and shaped the Roman
general in battle.
Goldsworthy''s largest chapter deals with the unit in battle. He goes into
explaining the idea that tactics, drill, and weaponry can only go so far on a
battlefield. The core ingredient is the soldier himself and how he will react
to the speed and stress of warfare. Goldsworthy states, "moral, far more
than physical, factors were of most importance in determining the course
of the fighting" (244), battles in this period seem to be highly fluid
confrontations involving intervals of intense melee and then long episodes
of uneasy face off where the difference between victory and defea t could
be rather small indeed. He puts emphasis on the idea that most men in a
battle "were instinctively more prone to avoiding threats to themselves then
to attempting to kill the enemy" (245), also adding that "few men could
have had any idea of the gr and tactics of the battle, or indeed what was
happening anywhere outside their own patch of ground" (245). Once again
he is reiterating the concept of the Roman military as a group of individuals
as opposed to a robot mob void of all emotion. He, however, finalizes that
the Roman edge in battle was mainly due to its "discipline, fear of
punishment, and good morale" (246), which allowed them the opportunity
to hold out just longer then their enemies.
The final section of Goldsworthy''s book deals with the individual soldier in
battle concentrating on motivation and bravery. He discusses how

4. discipline, unit cohesion, quality of leadership, opportunities to spoils of
war, and even punishment were all essential motivators of the common
Roman soldier. Acts of bravery were significant to the Roman army
because "in the course of battle there were many occasions when it was
important for one, or a few, individuals to push ahead, or cut their way into
an enemy formation, in order to achieve victory" (264). The acti ons of a
single man could rally others to go above the call of duty and sway a battle
in Rome''s favor. Bravery is excellent for morale and was a main cause of
factors, such as personal recognition by a general or possibly Emperor,
which could change the outcome of a battle. Goldsworthy displays many
accounts of individual soldiers being rewarded by the Emperor, which
encouraged striving for glory in battle, "the encouragement of boldness
through reward helped to motivate individuals to the displays of aggr ession
need
For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
The Roman Army at War 100 BC - AD 200 (Oxford Classical Monographs) by Adrian
Keith Goldsworthy 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price!