"Buy it now! (Late Roman Army)" Topic

The Late Roman Army by Gabriele Esposito

Buy it now (Amazon info)

Using the most recent research and studies as well as important primary sources like the Notitia Dignitatum, this book outlines a complete picture of the Late Roman Army, from the accession of Diocletian in AD 284 to the fall of the western Empire in 476. Contents include the organization, structure, equipment, weapons, combat history and tactics of the late Roman military forces. Through the pages and magnificent colour plates of this book you will find limitanei, comitatenses, foederati, bucellarii, scholae palatinae, protectores and much more. The origins and causes for the military decline of the Empire are discussed in detail, as well as the influence of the "barbarian" peoples over the Roman Army. The text includes also a very detailed order of battle, based on the Notitia Dignitatum and listing all the military forces of the Roman Empire between 395-410 AD. Combined with the original art work by well-known military artist Giuseppe Rava, this book will be a must for students of military history, re-enactors, modellers, wargamers and people interested in military dress or organization.
Edit/Delete Message

Already pre-ordered, thanks, and about 50p cheaper

Yup! Pre ordered last Dec.

@Gattamalata
I think that all the reviews should be shown:
link

as reviewed on The Society of Ancients Forum earlier this month

"And this book has arrived today. Not immediately impressed. The paper seems poor quality, for a start. The colour paintings are nice, but some of the subjects seem lifted from earlier published works – Palmyrans from the Nicolle/McBride Desert Frontier Osprey, for instance – and in general they seem to offer few new perspectives. One odd detail is that the discussion of shields in the text mentions only shields held by a single central handgrip – as attested by archeology at Dura and elsewhere; but at least one colour plate follows some of the Roman monuments in showing shields carried on two arm-straps. Now does that mean the author believes in double-strap shields but didn't mention them, or that the artist and the author don't agree, or what? About one-third of the pages in the book contain illustrations of shield-patterns from the Notitia Dignitatum, but it doesn't say which manuscript is being followed, nor mention any of the subtleties or issues that for instance Luke has brought up on his website or in his Slingshot articles. This is just on a first skim through, but I can't so far see myself recommending this one."

Duncan Head

I was not expecting much from this book and unfortunately my expectations were met.

"It really is an awful book- suspect artwork, an admission by the author that the body of the text is lifted from Prof Richard Ables (?) works and Wiki articles. Woeful references, a serious lack of primary sources (this indicates to me the author did not either have them or use them for the book), no mention of important artistic sources of arms & armour such as the Arch of Constantine, the pen & ink drawings of the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius plus numerous Late Roman mosaics and wall paintings etc.

Too much of the book is taken up with the Notitia shield patterns, which the author admits is taken from Luke's website!

I personally cannot recommend this book to anyone, and if you insist on buying it wait until the price drops to below a tenner!

Adrian Coombs-Hoar (valentinianvictor)

What does it mean "suspect artwork"?

Suspect artwork like this?:

I was quoted above as saying:

One odd detail is that the discussion of shields in the text mentions only shields held by a single central handgrip – as attested by archeology at Dura and elsewhere; but at least one colour plate follows some of the Roman monuments in showing shields carried on two arm-straps. Now does that mean the author believes in double-strap shields but didn't mention them, or that the artist and the author don't agree, or what?

FWIW, now that I've read the whole book, I see that there is no contradiction; the author believes that single-grip shields were replaced in the C4th by the double-grip ones shown in art.

Which I suspect is wrong, but is at least consistent.