‘Vi barbarorum absumptam’

Author(s):  
Marcus Reuter

This chapter focuses on the military history of Roman Germany during the third century AD. It begins with an overview of the Severan dynasty, with particular emphasis on civil wars and their impact on the army and the civilian population. It then considers the conscription of a new auxiliary unit, cohors I Septimia Belgarum, during the reign of Septimius Severus, before turning to the period between AD 235 and AD 260, which was characterized by the presence of arms and Roman military objects in the civilian settlements of the hinterland of the Upper German–Raetian limes. It also discusses the period from AD 260 to the end of the third century AD, when the Upper German limes gained military importance during the Gallic Empire, and the military situation along the Rhine.

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-204
Author(s):  
Nenad Marković

Memphis served as a main royal residence and the military, administrative, and economic capital of Egypt for much of its history. The city’s gradual decline had begun already under the Ptolemies, whose true capital was at Alexandria, and important changes in administrative practice during the Roman period diminished its traditional status further. The god Ptah and his earthly manifestation, the divine Apis bull, certainly continued to enjoy both religious and socio-political importance until the first decades of the third century ad at the latest, as will be discussed in the article. Given the fragmentary and haphazard nature of surviving evidence on the site, it is almost impossible to trace a coherent history of traditional Memphite cults beyond this date. This article aims to discuss the decline of the divine Apis bulls in the context of broader historical developments of the third to the fourth centuries ad.


1923 ◽  
Vol 13 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 127-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Bury

§ 1. The exact measure of the originality of Diocletian's statesmanship has not yet been taken. ‘Like Augustus,’ said Gibbon, ‘Diocletian may be considered the founder of a new empire’ and these words express the accepted view. In the whole work of pulling the Empire together, which went on from A.D. 270 to 330, the three outstanding actors were Aurelian, Diocletian, and Constantine, and the part played by Aurelian was indispensable for the restitutio orbis. It was he who destroyed the Principate, notwithstanding the negligible episode of Tacitus. It was he who founded the autocracy; Diocletian who regularized and systematized it. Two new things Diocletian certainly did, one of which was a success and the other a failure though not a fruitless one. His division of the Empire into Dioceses was permanent for nearly three hundred years. His throne system led to disaster and disappeared; yet the territorial quadripartition which it involved was afterwards stereotyped in the four Prefectures, and Nicomedia pointed to Constantinople. But in many of the other changes which distinguished the Empire of Constantine from the Empire of Severus and which have generally been regarded as inventions of Diocletian, it is becoming clear that he was not the initiator but was only extending and systematizing changes which had already been begun. The separation of civil from military powers in provincial government had been initiated by Gallienus (the importance of whose reign has in recent years been emerging). Some of the characteristics which mark the military organization of the fourth century had come before Diocletian's accession. Mr. Mattingly's studies in the numismatic history of the third century have been leading him, as he tells us, to similar conclusions.


Prospects ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 313-333
Author(s):  
Louis D. Rubin

Publication in November, 1974, of the third and final volume of Shelby Foote's magnificent history of the Civil War makes me. think back to the time when he first began it. It was early in 1955, I think, that Random House announced its contract with Foote, who until then had written only fiction. These were the years prior to the Centennial of the war, and the book industry was getting ready for it. Since the 1930s, with the publication of Douglas Southall Freeman's fourvolume biography, R. E. Lee, and then his three-volume sequel, Lee's Lieutenants, there had been a rising demand for Civil War military history, and by the early 1950s, with the Centennial less than ten years away, not only publishers but historians both amateur and professional saw a veritable bonanza in sight. The old saw, to the effect that the ideal recipe for a best-seller would be one entitled “Lincoln's Doctor's Dog,” was being revised; interest in the Great Emancipator was turning into interest in the military events of the war.


2015 ◽  
pp. 157-180
Author(s):  
Uwe Schellinger ◽  
Andreas Anton ◽  
Michael T. Schetsche

2019 ◽  
pp. 134-197
Author(s):  
V.E. . Sergei

The article is dedicated to the history of the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Signal Corps. The author examines the main stages of the museums formation, starting with the foundation of the Arsenal, established in St. Petersburg at the orders of Peter the Great on August 29th 1703 for the safekeeping and preservation of memory, for eternal glory of unique arms and military trophies. In 1756, on the base of the Arsenals collection, the General Inspector of Artillery Count P.I. created the Memorial Hall, set up at the Arsenal, on St. Petersburgs Liteyny Avenue. By the end of the 18th century the collection included over 6,000 exhibits. In 1868 the Memorial Hall was transferred to the New Arsenal, at the Crownwork of the Petropavlovsky Fortress, and renamed the Artillery Museum (since 1903 the Artillery Historical Museum). A large part of the credit for the development and popularization of the collection must be given to the historian N.E. Brandenburg, the man rightly considered the founder of Russias military museums, who was the chief curator from 1872 to 1903. During the Civil and Great Patriotic Wars a significant part of the museums holdings were evacuated to Yaroslavl and Novosibirsk. Thanks to the undying devotion of the museums staff, it not only survived, but increased its collection. In the 1960s over 100,000 exhibits were transferred from the holdings of the Central Historical Museum of Military Engineering and the Military Signal Corps Museum. In 1991 the collection also received the entire Museum of General Field Marshal M.I. Kutuzov, transferred from the Polish town of Bolesawjec. The Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Signal Coprs is now one of the largest museums of military history in the world. It holds an invaluable collection of artillery and ammunition, of firearms and cold steel arms, military engineering and signal technology, military banners, uniforms, a rich collection of paintings and graphic works, orders and medals, as well as extensive archives, all dedicated to the history of Russian artillery and the feats of our nations defenders.Статья посвящена истории создания ВоенноИсторического музея артиллерии, инженерных войск и войск связи. Автор рассматривает основные этапы становления музея, начиная с основания Арсенала, созданного в СанктПетербурге по приказу Петра I 29 августа 1703 года для хранения и сохранения памяти, во имя вечной славы уникального оружия и военных трофеев. В 1756 году на базе коллекции Арсенала генеральный инспектор артиллерии граф П. И. создал мемориальный зал, установленный при Арсенале, на Литейном проспекте СанктПетербурга. К концу 18 века коллекция насчитывала более 6000 экспонатов. В 1868 году Мемориальный зал был перенесен в Новый Арсенал, на венец Петропавловской крепости, и переименован в Артиллерийский музей (с 1903 года Артиллерийский Исторический музей). Большая заслуга в развитии и популяризации коллекции принадлежит историку Н.Е. Бранденбургу, человеку, по праву считавшемуся основателем российских военных музеев, который был главным хранителем с 1872 по 1903 год. В годы Гражданской и Великой Отечественной войн значительная часть фондов музея была эвакуирована в Ярославль и Новосибирск. Благодаря неусыпной преданности сотрудников музея, он не только сохранился, но и пополнил свою коллекцию. В 1960х годах более 100 000 экспонатов были переданы из фондов Центрального исторического военноинженерного музея и Музея войск связи. В 1991 году коллекцию также получил весь музей генералфельдмаршала М. И. Кутузова, переданный из польского города Болеславец. Военноисторический музей артиллерии, инженерных войск и войск связи в настоящее время является одним из крупнейших музеев военной истории в мире. Здесь хранится бесценная коллекция артиллерии и боеприпасов, огнестрельного и холодного оружия, военной техники и сигнальной техники, военных знамен, обмундирования, богатая коллекция живописных и графических работ, орденов и медалей, а также обширные архивы, посвященные истории русской артиллерии и подвигам защитников нашего народа.


Author(s):  
Adrastos Omissi

This chapter begins by considering what made the late Roman state distinctive from the early Empire, exploring the political developments of the later third century, in particular the military, administrative, and economic reforms undertaken by the tetrarchs. It then explores the presentation of the war between the tetrarchy and the British Empire of Carausius and Allectus (286‒96), taking as its core sources Pan. Lat. X, XI, and VIII. These speeches are unique in the panegyrical corpus, in that two of them (X and XI) were delivered while the usurpation they describe was still under way, the third (VIII) after it was defeated. In this chapter, we see how the British Empire was ‘othered’ as piratical and barbarian, and how conflict with it helped to create the distinctive ideology of the tetrarchy.


1909 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. W. Tarn

No apology should be needed for treating afresh these much-discussed battles, if only because the last two years have produced new and important evidence from Delos; though in fact the literary allusions, scanty as they are, have hardly even yet been sufficiently elucidated. I hope in this paper to fix the dates of Andros and Cos by the Delian archon-list, and to consider what that means in terms of B.C. In a subsequent paper, to be published in the next number of this Journal, I hope, by working out the history of the ship which Antigonus Gonatas dedicated to Apollo, to confirm the date assigned to Cos in this paper. If these two dates could really be fixed, they would be invaluable for our understanding of Aegean history in the middle of the third century.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Venzl

In the 18th century, as many as 300 German-language plays were produced with the military and its contact and friction with civil society serving as focus of the dramatic events. The immense public interest these plays attracted feeds not least on the fundamental social structural change that was brought about by the establishment of standing armies. In his historico-cultural literary study, Tilman Venzl shows how these military dramas literarily depict complex social processes and discuss the new problems in an affirmative or critical manner. For the first time, the findings of the New Military History are comprehensively included in the literary history of the 18th century. Thus, the example of selected military dramas – including Lessing's Minna von Barnhelm and Lenz's Die Soldaten – reveals the entire range of variety characterizing the history of both form and function of the subject.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document