The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire

2,396 Views | 8 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Aggies Revenge
Aggiefan#1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For you Roman history buffs it's a great read. I expected this to be primarily military history but pleasantly surprised to be getting fairly in depth diplomatic lessons on Roman strategy specifically with client states.

It answered several little questions lingering in the back of my mind like:

How did Rome project its influence to barbaric tribes that couldn't comprehend Roman military capability?

I'm only 1/3 through but very interested in others thoughts on the book.
The Original AG 76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggiefan#1 said:

For you Roman history buffs it's a great read. I expected this to be primarily military history but pleasantly surprised to be getting fairly in depth diplomatic lessons on Roman strategy specifically with client states.

It answered several little questions lingering in the back of my mind like:

How did Rome project its influence to barbaric tribes that couldn't comprehend Roman military capability?

I'm only 1/3 through but very interested in others thoughts on the book.
ordered
Apache
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Huge Roman history buff, but I'll admit I haven't read this book.

How convincing is it that there was indeed a "Grand Strategy"?

The time period covered by the book is a few hundred years, and there were tremendous differences in the way Rome dealt with others during this time frame; and also differences in how they dealt with the various tribes & civilizations. Each emperor dealt with "foreign affairs" differently as well. (or didn't deal with at all in some cases!)

For example: Trajan (expand & conquer) vs. his successor Hadrian (withdraw & secure) used very different strategies in dealing with barbarians & neighboring empires. I'm curious how the author was able to cobble these differences into a grand strategy.
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Apache said:

Huge Roman history buff, but I'll admit I haven't read this book.

How convincing is it that there was indeed a "Grand Strategy"?

The time period covered by the book is a few hundred years, and there were tremendous differences in the way Rome dealt with others during this time frame; and also differences in how they dealt with the various tribes & civilizations. Each emperor dealt with "foreign affairs" differently as well. (or didn't deal with at all in some cases!)

For example: Trajan (expand & conquer) vs. his successor Hadrian (withdraw & secure) used very different strategies in dealing with barbarians & neighboring empires. I'm curious how the author was able to cobble these differences into a grand strategy.
I was thinking the same question, you just phrased it much better than I could. I would also be interested in seeing what the author's definition of "Grand Strategy" is.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
An often overlooked aspect of Rome's relations with the barbarians is the Romans' dependence on them for military troops. A large number of auxiliaries were used, especially cavalry. One of the biggest weaknesses of Rome was its dependence on barbarian units in key roles.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggies Revenge said:

Apache said:

Huge Roman history buff, but I'll admit I haven't read this book.

How convincing is it that there was indeed a "Grand Strategy"?

The time period covered by the book is a few hundred years, and there were tremendous differences in the way Rome dealt with others during this time frame; and also differences in how they dealt with the various tribes & civilizations. Each emperor dealt with "foreign affairs" differently as well. (or didn't deal with at all in some cases!)

For example: Trajan (expand & conquer) vs. his successor Hadrian (withdraw & secure) used very different strategies in dealing with barbarians & neighboring empires. I'm curious how the author was able to cobble these differences into a grand strategy.
I was thinking the same question, you just phrased it much better than I could. I would also be interested in seeing what the author's definition of "Grand Strategy" is.
The author is a specialist in strategic analysis. He chose to examine those centuries of the Roman Empire because the security problem then resembles today's strategic predicament in which modern civilization similarly finds itself locked in long-term limited conflict with barbarians. It has long been recommended reading by the US Army's Combat Studies Institute. Give it a read.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The same author wrote the follow up, Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire. If anything, it's more pertinent. He took about two decades on it off and on.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7062170-the-grand-strategy-of-the-byzantine-empire
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ordered as well. Thanks for the recommendation!
Aggiefan#1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have the Byz Strategy as well.

I'm a bigger Byzantine buff than Roman.

I try to real in order though if there is one.

Get the Strategicon if you want another good read.
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

Aggies Revenge said:

Apache said:

Huge Roman history buff, but I'll admit I haven't read this book.

How convincing is it that there was indeed a "Grand Strategy"?

The time period covered by the book is a few hundred years, and there were tremendous differences in the way Rome dealt with others during this time frame; and also differences in how they dealt with the various tribes & civilizations. Each emperor dealt with "foreign affairs" differently as well. (or didn't deal with at all in some cases!)

For example: Trajan (expand & conquer) vs. his successor Hadrian (withdraw & secure) used very different strategies in dealing with barbarians & neighboring empires. I'm curious how the author was able to cobble these differences into a grand strategy.
I was thinking the same question, you just phrased it much better than I could. I would also be interested in seeing what the author's definition of "Grand Strategy" is.
The author is a specialist in strategic analysis. He chose to examine those centuries of the Roman Empire because the security problem then resembles today's strategic predicament in which modern civilization similarly finds itself locked in long-term limited conflict with barbarians. It has long been recommended reading by the US Army's Combat Studies Institute. Give it a read.
I'll add it to my 2 foot pile of stuff to hit upon once I get past prelims.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.