Wikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]

Fight Club (Roman)

2008-08-18T17:57:00Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by 24.190.33.173 to last version by 76.238.93.56.

{{About||the film based on the novel|Fight Club (film)|other uses|Fight Club (disambiguation)}}
{{infobox Book | 
| name = Fight Club
| title_orig =
| translator =
| image = [[Image:Fightclubcvr.jpg|200px]]
| image_caption = First edition cover
| author = [[Chuck Palahniuk]]
| illustrator =
| cover_artist = Jacket design by Michael Ian Kaye Photograph by Melissa Hayden Soap by Proverbial Inc.
| country = [[United States]]
| language = [[English language|English]]
| series =
| genre = [[Satire|Satirical novel]]
| publisher = [[W. W. Norton & Company]]
| release_date = August 1996
| english_release_date =
| media_type = Print ([[hardcover]], [[paperback]], & library binding) & audio cassette
| pages = 208 pp (first edition, hardcover)
| isbn = ISBN 0-393-03976-5 (first edition, hardcover)
| preceded_by =
| followed_by =
}}
'''''Fight Club''''' (1996), by [[Chuck Palahniuk]], chronicles an anonymous [[protagonist]] who is struggling with a growing discomfort with [[consumerism]] as a way of life, and with changes in the state of [[masculinity]] in [[American culture]]. To overcome this, he establishes an underground [[fighting]] club as radical [[psychotherapy]]. <ref name="lowercase">In the novel, the club's name is lowercased; it is only spelled with initial caps as a title. In this article, "fight club" denotes the fighting club, "''Fight Club''" denotes the novel.</ref>

In 1999, director [[David Fincher]] cinematically adapted the novel in the [[Fight Club (film)|eponymous film]]. The movie became a pop culture phenomenon, yet, in the wake of the movie's popularity, the novel — the first published by the writer — then was criticsed for its content, and mainly for explicitly depicting [[Graphic violence|violence]].

==History==

When Chuck Palahniuk first tried publishing a novel — ''[[Invisible Monsters|Invisible Monsters]]'' — publishers rejected it as too disturbing, so he concentrated upon writing ''Fight Club'', meant to disturb publishers even more, for rejecting him; he wrote while a diesel mechanic for [[Freightliner LLC|Freightliner]]. Initially published as a short story (chapter 6 in the novel) in the compilation ''Pursuit of Happiness'', he expanded it to novel length. Unexpectedly, the publisher wanted to publish it. <ref name="tomlinson">Tomlinson, Sarah. "[http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/int/1999/10/13/palahniuk/index.html Is it fistfighting, or just multi-tasking?]". ''Salon.com''. October 13, 1999.</ref>

The novel ''Fight Club'' is an uncompromising critique of human loss of identity via mass consumerism, which established Palahniuk as a popular novelist; it also established his style, that would reappear in other writings. The novel was re-issued in 1999 and 2004, the latter re-issue has an author's introduction, about the conception and popularity of novel and movie.

The original, hardcover edition of ''Fight Club'' was well reviewed and won some literary awards, yet its commercial shelf life was short; nevertheless, it went to Hollywood, generating cinematic-adaptation interest, and, in 1999, screenwriter [[beau murray]] and director [[brandon mcarthy]] did so, but the film failed, yet a [[Cult film|cult following]] emerged with the DVD edition. Resultantly, an original, hardcover edition of the novel is now a collector's item. <ref name="offman">Offman, Craig. "[http://archive.salon.com/books/log/1999/09/03/fight_club/ Movie makes "Fight Club" book a contender]". ''[[Salon.com]]''. September 3, 1999.</ref>

The club is based on fist fights that Palahniuk fought, one while camping. <ref name="jemielity">Jemielity, Sam. "[http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/dotcomversation/palahniuk/ Chuck Palahniuk:The Playboy.Comversation]". ''[[Playboy]].com''. Retrieved June 30, 2005.</ref> In interviews, the writer has said he does not know, yet still is approached by aficionados wanting to know — Where is the local fight club? — insisting there is no such real organisation, like in the novel, however, he has heard of real, existing fight clubs, some said extant ''before'' the novel. The novel's current introduction refers to actual, fight-club-style mischief, by a "waiter from one of London's two finest restaurants" who said he ejaculated into jonny murray's food. Like-wise the [[support groups]]; as a volunteer, he took terminally ill people to them. Moreover, Project Mayhem is lightly based on the [[Cacophony Society]], of which he is a member, and other events derive from stories told him.<ref name="palahniukstf228229">''Palahniuk (''Stranger Than Fiction: True Stories''), pp. 228–229.''</ref>

Beyond his public and private lives, ''Fight Club'''s cultural impact is evidenced in U.S. teenagers and techies establishing fight clubs. <ref name="usatoday">"[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-29-fight-club_x.htm Fight club draws techies for bloody underground beatdowns]". ''[[Associated Press]]''. May 29, 2006.</ref> Pranks, such as food-tampering, have been repeated by fans of the book, documented in his essay "Monkey Think, Monkey Do", <ref name="palahniukstf212215">''Palahniuk (''Stranger Than Fiction: True Stories''), pp. 212–215.''</ref> in the book ''[[Stranger Than Fiction: True Stories]]'' and in the introduction to the 2004 re-issue of ''Fight Club.'' Other fans have been inspired to pro-social activity, telling him it inspired them to return to college.<ref name="tomlinson" />

Besides ''Fight Club'' few of the writer's other writings have been adapted. In 2004 ''Fight Club'' was to be transformed into [[musical theater]], developed by Palahniuk, Fincher, and [[Trent Reznor]]. <ref name="chang">Chang, Jade. "[http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2799633 tinseltown: fight club and fahrenheit]". ''[[BBC]].co.uk''. July 2, 2004.</ref> Reportedly, actor Brad Pitt, “Tyler Durden” in the film, expressed interest. In 2004, a [[Fight Club (video game)|video game]] was published by [[Vivendi Universal Games]], and received poor reviews from video game critics.

==Plot summary==

An anonymous protagonist hates his job and his life; he works as a Product Recall Specialist for an anonymous car company, responsible for organizing [[product recall]]s of defective models only if the corresponding [[cost-benefit analysis]] indicates that the recall-cost is less than the cost of [[out-of-court settlement]]s paid to the relatives of the killed (paralleling the [[Ford Pinto#Safety problems|Ford Pinto's safety problems and recall]]). Simultaneously, he is becoming disenchanted with the "[[nesting instinct]]" <ref name="palahniukfc43">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 43.''</ref> of the consumerism that has absorbed his life — forcing the definition of his identity via the furniture, clothes, and things that he owns. These dissatisfactions, combined with his frequent business trips through several time zones, mentally disturb him to the degree of inducing chronic [[insomnia]].

At his doctor's recommendation (he thinks insomnia is not a serious ailment), the narrator attends a support group for men suffering [[testicular cancer]], to "see what real suffering is like". On learning that crying and listening to the emotional problems of suffering people allows him to sleep, he becomes dependent on attending them, and so befriends Bob. Although not sick like the others, he is never caught being a "tourist", until meeting Marla Singer, a woman who attends support groups like he. She reflects the narrator's "tourism", reminding him that he doesn't belong there. He begins hating Marla for keeping him from crying, and, therefore, from sleeping. After a confrontation, they agree to attend separate support group meetings to avoid each other.

Shortly before this incident, his life radically changes on meeting Tyler Durden, a charismatic [[psychopath]] working low-pay jobs at night in order to perform deviant behaviour on the job. After his confrontation with Marla, an explosion destroys the narrator's condominium apartment; he asks Tyler if he can stay at his house. Tyler agrees, but asks for something in return: "I want you to hit me as hard as you can". <ref name="palahniukfc46">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 46.''</ref> Their fist fight, in a saloon's parking lot, attracts local, socially disenchanted men; "Fight Club", a new form of psychological support group is born, mental therapy via [[Bare-knuckle boxing|bare-knuckle]] fighting, set to rules:


{{quotation|
#You don't talk about fight club.
#You '''DO NOT''' talk about fight club.<ref name="2rules">The first rules of both fight club and Project Mayhem are repeated for emphasis. Fans of the novel and the film have latched on to the first two rules of fight club as a [[meme]] and have made it into a [[catchphrase]] (although slightly changed to "you do not talk about fight club", based on the variation in the film).</ref>
#When someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he's just faking it, the fight is over.<ref name="lostrule">Shortly after the third rule is introduced, it is dropped from the club and the other rules move up one numbered position. It is mentioned by the narrator the first time he states the rules, but it is not mentioned by Tyler when he states them. Tyler also adds the eighth rule, which becomes the seventh rule in his version of the rule set. This may have been the result of a [[continuity error]], though it is also possible that Tyler changed the rules to allow the narrator to break the third rule later in the novel. Another interpretion could be that the first set of rules are easier on combatants than the amended rules (ways out if unconscious and not having to fight compared to no ways out and having to fight), proving the more aggressive Tyler is taking a stronger hold of the narrator. Palahniuk (1999), pp. 49–50.</ref>
#Only two guys to a fight.
#One fight at a time.
#They fight without shirts or shoes.
#The fights go on as long as they have to.
#If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight.
|''Fight Club''|pages 48–50<ref name="palahniukfc4850">Palahniuk (''Fight Club,'' 1999), pp. 48–50.</ref>}}

Later in the book, the mechanic tells the narrator two new rules of the fight club. The first new rule is that nobody is the center of the fight club except for the two men fighting. The second new rule is that the fight club will always be free.

Meanwhile, Tyler rescues Marla from a suicide attempt, and the two initiate an affair that confounds the narrator. Throughout this affair, Marla is mostly unaware of the existence of fight club and completely unaware of Tyler and the narrator's interaction with one another.<ref name="tylermarla"> Because Tyler and Marla are never seen at the same time, the narrator wonders if Tyler and Marla are the same person. This foreshadows the later revelation of Tyler and the narrator being the same person. Palahniuk may have also meant for this detail to be a [[red herring (plot device)|red herring]]. ''Palahniuk (1999), p. 65.''</ref>

As the fight club's membership grows (and, unbeknownst to the narrator, spreads to other cities across the country), Tyler begins to use it to spread anti-consumerist ideas and recruits its members to participate in increasingly elaborate attacks on [[corporate America]]. This was originally the narrator's idea, but Tyler takes control from him. Tyler eventually gathers the most devoted fight club members (referred to as "[[Monkeys in space|space monkey]]s") and forms "Project Mayhem," a [[cult]]-like organization that trains itself as an army to bring down modern civilization. This organization, like the fight club, is controlled by a set of rules:


{{quotation|
#You don't ask questions.
#You don't ask questions.
#No excuses.
#No lies.
#You have to trust Tyler.|''Fight Club''|pages 119, 122, 125<ref name="palahniukfc119122125">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), pp. 119, 122 & 125.''</ref>}}

The narrator starts off as a loyal participant in Project Mayhem, seeing it as the next step for the fight club. However, he becomes uncomfortable with the increasing destructiveness of their activities after it results in the death of Bob.

As the narrator endeavors to stop Tyler and his followers, [[anagnorisis|he learns]] that he ''is'' Tyler;<ref name="unreliable">The narrator's inability to explain Tyler's existence earlier on in the story is a classic example of an [[unreliable narrator]].</ref> Tyler is not a separate person, but a [[Dissociative identity disorder|separate personality]]. As the narrator struggled with his hatred for his job and his consumerist lifestyle, his mind began to form a new personality that was able to escape from the problems of his normal life. The final straw came when he met Marla; Tyler was truly born as a distinct personality when the narrator's unconscious desire for Marla clashed with his conscious hatred for her. Having come to the surface, Tyler's personality has been slowly taking over the narrator's mind, which he planned to take over completely by making the narrator's real personality more like his. The narrator's bouts of insomnia had actually been Tyler's personality surfacing; Tyler would be active whenever the narrator was "sleeping." This allowed Tyler to manipulate the narrator into helping him create the fight club; Tyler learned recipes for creating explosives when he was in control and used this knowledge to blow up his own condo.

The narrator also learns that Tyler plans to blow up the Parker-Morris building (the fictional "tallest building in the world") in the downtown area of the city using [[homemade bomb]]s created by Project Mayhem. The actual reason for the explosion is to destroy the nearby national museum. During the explosion, Tyler plans to die as a [[martyr]] for Project Mayhem, taking the narrator's life as well. Realizing this, the narrator sets out to stop Tyler, although Tyler is always thinking ahead of him. In his attempts to stop Tyler, he makes peace with Marla (who has always known the narrator as Tyler) and explains to her that he is not Tyler Durden. The narrator is eventually forced to confront Tyler on the roof of the building. The narrator is held captive at gunpoint by Tyler, forced to watch the destruction wrought on the museum by Project Mayhem. Marla comes to the roof with one of the support groups. Tyler vanishes, as “Tyler was ''his'' hallucination, not hers.”<ref name="palahniukfc195">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 195.''</ref>

With Tyler gone, the narrator waits for the bomb to explode and kill him. However, the bomb malfunctions because Tyler mixed paraffin into the explosives, which the narrator says early in the book "has never, ever worked for me." Still alive and holding the gun that Tyler used to carry on him, the narrator decides to make the first decision that is truly his own: he puts the gun in his mouth and shoots himself. Some time later, he awakens in a hospital, believing that he is dead and has gone to heaven. The book ends with members of Project Mayhem who work at the institution telling the narrator that their plans still continue, and that they are expecting Tyler to come back.

==Characters in ''Fight Club''==
; Narrator : An employee for an unnamed car company specializing in recalls. He becomes an insomniac, which leads to the creation of his alternate personality. The narrator of ''Fight Club'' set a precedent for the protagonists of later novels by Palahniuk, especially in the case of male protagonists, as they often shared his anti heroic and [[transgressional fiction|transgressive]] behavior. The narrator in ''Fight Club'' is unnamed throughout the novel. Most avid fans or readers call the protagonist by the name of "Joe" because of the constant use of the name Joe such as, "I am Joe's boiling point." (It is actually, in the novel, Joe, but Jack in the movie) Contrary to popular belief, Tyler Durden is not the narrator, he is the narrator's alternate identity.
; Tyler Durden : A [[neo-Luddite]], [[Nihilism|nihilist]], with a strong hatred for [[consumer culture]]. "Because of his nature,"<ref name="palahniukfc25">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 25.''</ref> Tyler works night jobs where he causes problems for the companies; he also makes soap to supplement his income and create the ingredients for his bomb making which will be put to work later with his fight club. He is the co-founder of fight club (it was his idea to have the fight that led to it). He later launches Project Mayhem, from which he and the members make various attacks on consumerism. Tyler is blond, as by the narrator's comment "in his everything-blond way." The unhinged but magnetic Tyler could also be considered an antihero (especially since he and the narrator are technically the same person), although he becomes the [[antagonist]] of the novel later in the story. Few characters like Tyler have appeared in later novels by Palahniuk such as Sean Soltys, though the character of Oyster from ''[[Lullaby (novel)|Lullaby]]'' shares many similarities.
; Marla Singer : A woman that the narrator meets during a support group. The narrator no longer receives the same release from the groups when he realizes Marla is faking her problems just like he is. After he leaves the groups, he meets her again when she meets Tyler and becomes his lover. She is a [[nymphomaniac]], and she shares many of Tyler's thoughts on consumer culture. In later novels by Palahniuk in which the protagonist is male, a female character similar to Marla has also appeared. Marla and these other female characters have helped Palahniuk to add romantic themes into his novels.
; Robert "Bob" Paulson : A man that the narrator meets at a support group for [[testicular cancer]]. A former [[bodybuilding|bodybuilder]], Bob lost his testicles to cancer caused by the [[steroids]] he used to bulk up his muscles and had to undergo testosterone injections; this resulted in his body increasing its [[estrogen]], causing him to grow large [[breasts]] ([[gynecomastia]]) and develop a softer voice. Because of this, Bob is the only known member that is allowed to wear a shirt (breaking the sixth rule of Fight Club). The narrator befriends Bob and, after leaving the groups, meets him again in fight club. Bob's death later in the story while carrying out an assignment for Project Mayhem causes the narrator to turn against Tyler, because the members of Project Mayhem treat it as a trivial matter instead of a tragedy. When the narrator explains that the dead man had a name and was a real person, a member of Project Mayhem points out that only in death do members of Project Mayhem have a name. The unnamed member begins chanting, "his name is Robert Paulson," and this phrase becomes a mantra that the narrator encounters later on in the story multiple times. The movie differs from the book which only states that people in other fight clubs were chanting "Robert Paulson" for the same reason as mentioned above. When the narrator goes to a fight club to shut it down for this reason, Tyler orders them to make him a "homework assignment."

==Motifs==
At two points in the novel, the narrator claims he wants to "wipe [his] ass with the ''[[Mona Lisa]]''"; a mechanic who joins fight club also repeats this to him in one scene.<ref name="palahniukfc124141200">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), pp. 124, 141 & 200.''</ref> This [[motif (literature)|motif]] shows his desire for chaos, later explicitly expressed in his urge to "destroy something beautiful". Additionally, he mentions at one point that "Nothing is static. Even the ''Mona Lisa'' is falling apart."<ref name="palahniukfc49">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 49.''</ref> University of Calgary literary scholar Paul Kennett claims that this want for chaos is a result of an [[Oedipus complex]], as the narrator, Tyler, and the mechanic all show disdain for their fathers.<ref name="kennett5051">''Kennett, pp. 50–51.''</ref> This is most explicitly stated in the scene that the mechanic appears in:

{{quotation|
The mechanic says, “If you’re male and you’re Christian and living in America, your father is your model for God. And if you never know your father, if your father bails out or dies or is never at home, what do you believe about God? 
... 
How Tyler saw it was that getting God’s attention for being bad was better than getting no attention at all. Maybe because God’s hate is better than His indifference. 
If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose? 
We are God’s middle children, according to Tyler Durden, with no special place in history and no special attention. 
Unless we get God’s attention, we have no hope of damnation or redemption. 
Which is worse, hell or nothing? 
Only if we’re caught and punished can we be saved. 
“Burn the [[Louvre]],” the mechanic says, “and wipe your ass with the Mona Lisa. This way at least, God would know our names.”|''Fight Club''|page 141<ref name="palahniukfc141">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 141.''</ref>}}

Kennett further argues that Tyler wants to use this chaos to change history so that "God’s middle children" will have some historical significance, whether or not this significance is "damnation or redemption".<ref name="kennett5152">''Kennett, pp. 51–52.''</ref> This will figuratively return their absent fathers, as judgment by future generations will replace judgment by their fathers.

After reading stories written from the perspective of the organs of a man named Joe, the narrator begins using similar quotations to describe his feelings, often replacing organs with feelings and things involved in his life.

The narrator often repeats the line "I know this because Tyler knows this." This is used to [[foreshadowing|foreshadow]] the novel's major plot twist in which Tyler is revealed to be the same person as the narrator.

Another [[foreshadowing]] is in the subtle metaphor of one of Tyler's night jobs. He works as a [[projectionist]] in an old run-down movie theater and vividly describes how it is necessary for him to change the reels halfway through the film (a "changeover") with no one in the cinema realizing this has happened. This foreshadows how when the narrator falls asleep, he makes a "changeover" to Tyler's persona, with no one realizing the two are distinct from each other.

The color [[cornflower blue]] first appears as the color of an icon on the narrator's boss's computer.<ref name="palahniukfc49" /> Later, it is mentioned that his boss has eyes of the same color.<ref name="palahniukfc98">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 98.''</ref> These mentions of the color are the first of many uses of cornflower blue in Palahniuk's books, which all feature the color at some point in the text.

The theme of masculinity is also a motif throughout the book. Different symbols lead to this recurring theme, such as violence, and testes. Fighting is perceived as a masculine characteristic.

Isolationism, specifically directed towards material items and possessions, is a common theme throughout the novel. Tyler acts as the major catalyst behind the destruction of our vanities, which he claims is the path to finding our inner-selves. "I’m breaking my attachment to physical power and possessions,” Tyler whispered,“ because only through destroying myself can I discover the greater power of my spirit.”

==Subtext==
Throughout the novel, Palahniuk uses the narrator and Tyler to comment on how people in modern society try to find meaning in their lives through commercial culture. Several lines in the novel make reference to this lifestyle as meaningless. Usually Palahniuk delivers this through overt methods, but there are also some allegorical references as well; for instance, the narrator, upon looking at the contents of his refrigerator, notices he has "a house full of condiments and no food."<ref name="palahniukfc45">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 45.''</ref> This also denotes that modern society and consumerism has no substance, but is merely based upon making things appear to have substance; i.e condiments are not a main food source, they merely add flavor to existing food. Indulging in consumerism (shopping, like from the [[IKEA]] book) doesn't add any real substance to life, it only adds an appearance (like a condiment).

Additionally, much of the novel comments on how many men in modern society have found dissatisfaction with the state of masculinity as it currently exists. The characters of the novel lament the fact that many of them were raised by their mothers because their fathers either abandoned their family or divorced their mothers. As a result, they see themselves as being "a generation of men raised by women,"<ref name="palahniukfc50">''Palahniuk (''Fight Club'', 1999), p. 50.''</ref> being without a male role model in their lives to help shape their masculinity. This ties in with the anti-consumer culture theme, as the men in the novel see their "IKEA nesting instinct" as resulting from the feminization of men in a matriarchal culture.

Maryville University of St. Louis professor Jesse Kavadlo, in an issue of the literary journal ''Stirrings Still'', claimed that the narrator's opposition to emasculation is a form of projection, and that the problem that he fights is himself.<ref name="kavadlo5">''Kavadlo, p. 5.''</ref> He also claims that Palahniuk uses [[existentialism]] in the novel to conceal subtexts of [[feminism]] and romance in order to convey these concepts in a novel that is mainly aimed at a male audience.<ref name="kavadlo7">''Kavadlo, p. 7.''</ref>

Palahniuk himself gives a much simpler assertion about the theme of the novel, stating "all my books are about a lonely person looking for some way to connect with other people."<ref name="palahniukstfxv">''Palahniuk (''Stranger Than Fiction: True Stories''), p. xv.''</ref>

Paul Kennett claims that, because the narrator's fights with Tyler are fights with himself, and because he fights himself in front of his boss at the hotel, the narrator is using the fights as a way of asserting himself as his own boss. He argues that these fights are a representation of the struggle of the [[Proletariat|proletarian]] at the hands of a higher capitalist power, and by asserting himself as capable of having the same power he thus becomes his own master. Later, when fight club is formed, the participants are all dressed and groomed similarly, thus allowing them to symbolically fight themselves at the club and gain the same power.<ref name="kennett5354">''Kennett, pp. 53–54.''</ref>

Afterwards, Kennett says, Tyler becomes nostalgic for the patriarchical power controlling him, and creates Project Mayhem to achieve this. Through this proto-fascist power structure, the narrator seeks to learn "what, or rather, who, he might have been under a firm patriarchy."<ref name="kennett55">''Kennett, p. 55.''</ref> Through his position as leader of Project Mayhem, Tyler uses his power to become a "God/Father" to the "space monkeys", who are the other members of Project Mayhem (although by the end of the novel his words hold more power than he does, as is evident in the space monkeys' threat to castrate the narrator when he contradicts Tyler's rule). According to Kennett, this creates a paradox in that Tyler pushes the idea that men who wish to be free from a controlling father-figure are only [[self-actualization|self-actualized]] once they have children and become a father themselves.<ref name="kennett56">''Kennett, p. 56.''</ref> This new structure is, however, ended by the narrator's elimination of Tyler, allowing him to decide for himself how to determine his freedom.

==Awards==
The novel won the following awards:
*the 1997 Pacific Northwest Booksellers Association Award<ref name="pnba">Pacific Northwest Booksellers Association Awards. http://www.pnba.org/awards.htm. Retrieved June 20, 2005.</ref>
*the 1997 [[Oregon Book Award]] for Best Novel<ref name="oba">[http://www.literary-arts.org/oba_poetry.htm#fiction Oregon Book Awards]. Literary Arts, Inc. Retrieved June 20, 2005.</ref>

==U.S. editions==
*New York: [[W. W. Norton & Company]], August 1996. [[Hardcover]] first edition. ISBN 0-393-03976-5
*New York: [[Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group|Owl Books]], 1997. First [[Paperback#Trade paperback|trade paperback]]. ISBN 0-8050-5437-5
*New York: Owl Books, 1999. Trade paperback reissue (film tie-in cover). ISBN 0-8050-6297-1
*Minneapolis, MN: HighBridge Company, 1999. Unabridged [[audiobook]] on 4 cassettes, read by [[J. Todd Adams]]. ISBN 1-56511-330-6
*Minneapolis, MN: Tandem Books, 1999. School & library binding. ISBN 0-613-91882-7
*New York: Owl Books, 2004. Trade paperback reissue, with a new introduction by the author (bloody lip cover). ISBN 0-8050-7647-6
*New York: Owl Books, 2004. Trade paperback reissue, with a new introduction by the author (film tie-in cover). ISBN 0-8050-7655-7
*New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005. Trade paperback (fist cover). ISBN 0-393-32734-5

==See also==
* [[Revolution]]
* [[White Collar Boxing]]
* [[1996 in literature]]
* [[Anarcho-primitivism]]
* [[Generation X]]
* [[Masculinity]]
* [[Neo-Luddism]]
* [[Transgressional fiction]]
* [[Dissociative identity disorder]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==
*Avni, Sheerly. "[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/24026/ Ten Hollywood Movies That Get Women Right]". ''[[AlterNet]]''. August 12, 2005.
*Brookey, Robert Alan & Westerfelhaus, Robert. "Hiding Homoeroticism in Plain View: The Fight Club DVD as Digital Closet". ''Critical Studies in Media Communication''. March 2002.
*Chang, Jade. "[http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2799633 tinseltown: fight club and fahrenheit]". ''[[BBC]].co.uk''. July 2, 2004.
*"[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-29-fight-club_x.htm Fight club draws techies for bloody underground beatdowns]". ''[[Associated Press]]''. May 29, 2006.
*Jemielity, Sam. "[http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/dotcomversation/palahniuk/index.html Chuck Palahniuk:The Playboy.Conversation]". ''[[Playboy]].com''. Retrieved September 28, 2006.
*Kavadlo, Jesse. "The Fiction of Self-destruction: Chuck Palahniuk, Closet Moralist". ''Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature''. Volume 2, Number 2. Fall/Winter 2005. [http://www.stirrings-still.org/ss22.pdf PDF link]
*Kennett, Paul. "Fight Club and the Dangers of Oedipal Obsession". ''Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature''. Volume 2, Number 2. Fall/Winter 2005. [http://www.stirrings-still.org/ss22.pdf PDF link]
*Offman, Craig. "[http://archive.salon.com/books/log/1999/09/03/fight_club/ Movie makes "Fight Club" book a contender]". ''[[Salon.com]]''. September 3, 1999.
*[http://www.literary-arts.org/oba_poetry.htm#fiction Oregon Book Awards]. Literary Arts, Inc. Retrieved June 20, 2005.
*Pacific Northwest Booksellers Association Awards. http://www.pnba.org/awards.htm. Retrieved June 20, 2005.
*Palahniuk, Chuck. ''Stranger Than Fiction : True Stories''. Garden City: [[Doubleday (publisher)|Doubleday]], 2004. ISBN 0-385-50448-9
*Straus, Tamara. "[http://www.alternet.org/story/11049/ The Unexpected Romantic: An Interview with Chuck Palahniuk]". ''AlterNet''. June 19, 2001.
*Tomlinson, Sarah. "[http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/int/1999/10/13/palahniuk/index.html Is it fistfighting, or just multi-tasking?]". ''Salon.com''. October 13, 1999.
In addition, the following editions of the novel were used as references for this article:
*Palahniuk, Chuck. ''Fight Club''. New York: Henry Holt, 1997. ISBN 0-8050-6297-1
*Palahniuk, Chuck. ''Fight Club''. Clearwater: Owl Books, 2004. ISBN 0-8050-7647-6

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
*[http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/books/fight-club/fight-club Chuck Palahniuk.Net section for ''Fight Club'']
[[Category:Fight Club| Fight Club]]
[[Category:1996 novels]]
[[Category:American novels]]
[[Category:Novels by Chuck Palahniuk]]
[[Category:Fictional clubs]]
[[Category:Debut novels]]
[[Category:Postmodern literature]]
[[Category:Existentialist works]]
[[Category:Satirical books]]
[[Category:Cacophony Society]]
[[Category:Fiction with unreliable narrators]]

[[ar:نادي القتال (رواية)]]
[[cs:Klub rváčů]]
[[da:Fight Club (roman)]]
[[es:El club de lucha]]
[[eo:Bataloklubo]]
[[fr:Fight Club (roman)]]
[[it:Fight Club (romanzo)]]
[[he:מועדון קרב]]
[[hu:Harcosok Klubja]]
[[ja:ファイト・クラブ]]
[[no:Fight Club]]
[[pl:Podziemny krąg (powieść)]]
[[ru:Бойцовский клуб (роман)]]
[[simple:Fight Club]]
[[sk:Fight Club (román)]]
[[fi:Fight Club (kirja)]]
[[uk:Бійцівський клуб (роман)]]

Liste der Schulen in Sabah

2008-08-17T19:18:56Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by 60.52.17.40 to last version by 219.93.152.130.

{{dablink|For a general list of schools in Malaysia, see [[List of schools in Malaysia]].}}

This is a '''list of schools in [[Sabah]], [[Malaysia]]'''. It is categorised according to the [[Education_in_malaysia#Types_of_Schools_in_Malaysia|types of schools in Malaysia]], and is arranged alphabetically.

{{incomplete list}}

== Private schools ==
=== [[Chinese Independent High School]]s ===
* Beaufort Middle School 沙巴保佛中学
* Kian Kok Middle School, Kota Kinabalu [http://www.kiankok.edu.my/ 沙巴建国中学]
* Lahad Datu Middle School [http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/8322/ 沙巴拿笃中学]
* Papar Middle School 沙巴吧巴中学
* Pei Tsin High School, Kudat 古达培正中学
* Sabah Chinese Secondary School, Tawau 斗湖巴华中学
* [[Sabah Tshung Tsin Secondary School]] [http://www.sttss.edu.my/ 沙巴崇正中學]
* Tenom Tshung Tsin Secondary School, Tenom 丹南崇正中学
* Yu Yuan Secondary School 山打根育源中学

=== International schools ===
* [http://www.kismy.org/ Kinabalu International School]
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/kjs/ Kinabalu Japanese School]

=== [[Seventh-day Adventist schools]] ===

* Goshen Adventist Secondary School, Kota Marudu
* Sabah Adventist Secondary School, Tamparuli

* Bambangan Adventist Primary School, Kota Marudu
* Damai Adventist Primary School, Kota Marudu
* Gaur Adventist Primary School, Kota Belud
* Goshen Adventist Primary School, Kota Marudu
* Kelawat Adventist Primary School, Kota Belud
* Marabau Adventist Primary School, Tamparuli
* Podos Adventist Primary School, Kota Belud
* Rangalau Adventist Primary School, Tamparuli
* Sabah Training Primary School, Tamparuli
* Sungoi Adventist Primary School, Kota Marudu
* Tagaroh Adventist Primary School, Kota Marudu
* Tambarulan Adventist Primary School, Kudat
* Tenghilan Adventist Primary School, Tamparuli

== Islamic religious schools ==
=== Primary education: ''Sekolah Rendah Agama (SRA)'' ===
=== Secondary education: ''Sekolah Menengah Agama (SMA)'' ===
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/sma.limauan/ SMA Limauan, Kota Kinabalu]
* SMK Agama Inanam
* SMK Agama Kota Kinabalu
* [http://www.sekolah.com/sab/ran/smkar/ SMK Agama Ranau]
* SMK Agama Sabah, Kota Kinabalu
* SMK Agama Sandakan
* SMK Agama Tawau (Bugaya), Semporna

== National schools ==
=== Primary education: ''Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK)'' ===
* SK Ansip Keningau, Keningau
* SK Babagon, Penampang
* SK Babagon Toki, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Bahang, Penampang
* SK Bambangan Tambunan, Tambunan
* SK Bantayan, Inanam
* SK Bantayan, Tamparuli
* SK Baru-baru, Kudat
* SK Batu 4, Tawau
SK Masalog,Kota Marudu
* SK Bawang, Tamparuli
* SK Belatik, Kudat
* SK Benoni, Kudat
* SK Benoni, Papar
* SK Beringis, Papar
* SK Berungis, Penampang
* SK Bolong, Tuaran
* SK Bongol, Tamparuli
* SK Buang Sayang, Papar
* SK Buayan, Penampang
* SK Built Hill, Putatan
* [http://www.geocities.com/sk_bukitgaram/ SK Bukit Garam, Kinabatangan]
* SK Bukit Padang, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Bundung, Tuaran
* SK Bundutahuri, Tamparuli
* SK Bunga Raya, Keningau
* SK Convent St. Francis, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Daingin, Papar,
* SK Darau, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Darau Menggatal, Menggatal
* SK Gana, Papar
* SK Gayang, Tuaran
* SK Gayaratau, Tamparuli
* SK Gentisan, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Geras, Tambunan
* SK Giok, Tamparuli
* SK Gontung, Tamparuli
* SK Guakon Baru, Tamparuli
* SK Gudon, Inanam
* SK Inanam Laut, Inanam
* SK Kaiduan, Papar
* SK Kaingaran, Tambunan
* SK Kawang, Papar
* SK Kayau, Papar
* SK Kayangat, Tamparuli
* SK Kebagu, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Kebayau, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Kelanahan, Papar
* SK Kelatuan, Papar
* SK Kem Lok Kawi, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Kepayan, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Kerokot, Tambunan
* SK Keronggu, Inanam
* [http://www.sktitingan.com SK Kg. Titingan, Tawau]
* SK Kiawayan, Tambunan
*[http://www.skkionsom.com/ SK Kionsom, Inanam]
* SK Kinabaan, Tambunan
* SK Kinaluan, Tambunan
* SK Kindu, Tuaran
* SK Kipaku, Tambunan
* SK Kipovo, Penampang
* SK Kitapol, Tuaran
* SK Kitobu, Inanam
* SK Kogopon, Papar
* SK Kokol, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Koporingan, Tamparuli
* SK Kuala, Papar
* SK Kuala Namadan, Tambunan
* SK Kumawanan, Tambunan
* SK Langkawit, Papar
* SK Lapasan, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Laputong, Tamparuli
* SK Laya-laya, Tuaran
* SK Likas, Likas
* SK Limputong, Papar
* SK Lingan Baru, Papar
* SK Lingan Ulu, Papar
* SK Lingga Baru, Tamparuli
* SK Linungkuan, Tamparuli
* SK Loko, Tamparuli
* SK Lokub, Tuaran
* SK Longkogungan, Penampang
* SK Lotong Tambunan
* SK Luyang, Penampang
* SK Malangang, Tuaran
* SK Malangang Baru, Tamparuli
* SK Malawa, Inanam
* SK Mandahan, Bongawan
* SK Mandalipau, Papar
* SK Mantob, Tamparuli
* SK Mengkabong, Menggatal
* SK Mengkabong, Tuaran
* SK Meninipir, Keningau
* SK Merintaman Sipitang, Menggatal
* SK Minawo, Keningau
* SK Monsok Tengah, Tambunan
* SK Mook, Papar
* SK Moyog, Penampang
* SK Nambayan, Tambunan
* SK Natai, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Nongkolud, Tuaran
* SK Nukakatan, Tambunan
* SK Pahu, Tamparuli
* SK Padawan, Papar
* SK Patau, Tambunan
* SK Pekan Bongawan, Bongawan
* SK Pekan Keningau, Keningau
* SK Pekan Keningau II, Keningau
* SK Pekan Kinarut, Papar
* SK Pekan Kiulu, Tuaran
* SK Pekan Putatan, Putatan
* SK Pekan Papar, Papar
* SK Pekan Tambunan, Tambunan
* SK Pekan Telipok, Telipok
* SK Pekan Tenghilan, Tamparuli
* SK Pekan Tuaran, Tuaran
* SK Pengalan Kosob, Tambunan
* SK Pengalat Besar, Papar
* SK Pengalat Kecil, Papar
* SK Pengiran Siti Hafsah, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Penimbawan, Tuaran
* SK Petagas, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Pg Siti Hafsah, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Pomotodon, Inanam
* SK Poring, Tuaran
* SK Poring-Poring, Inanam
* SK Pukak, Tuaran
* SK Pulau Gaya, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Pulau Sepanggar, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Putatan, Penampang
* SK Puun Tunoh, Penampang
* SK Ragkam, Tambunan
* SK Rampazan, Papar
* SK Rangkalau Baru, Tuaran
* SK Rangkalau Lama, Tuaran
* SK Rompon, Tambunan
* SK Rugading, Tuaran
* SK Ruminding, Inanam
* SK Rungus, Tamparuli
* SK Rungus Nahaba, Tamparuli
* SK Sabandil, Papar
* SK Sacred Heart, Tanjung Aru
* SK Sambah, Tamparuli
* SK Saradan, Tamparuli
* SK Selupoh, Tuaran
* SK Sembulan, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Serusup, Tuaran
* SK Sintuong-tuong, Tambunan
* SK Sri Gaya, Kota Kinabalu
* SK St. Dominic, Lahad Datu
* SK St. John, Tuaran
* SK St. Mary Bandar, Sandakan
* SK St. Mary Convent, Menggatal
* SK St. Patrick, Tawau
* SK St.Theresa, Tambunan
* SK Sugud, Penampang
* SK Sumbiling, Bongawan
* SK Sung Siew, Sandakan
* SK Sungai Anib 1,Sandakan
* SK Sungai Anib 2,Sandakan
* SK Sungai Damit, Tuaran
* SK Sungoi, Tuaran
* SK Sunsuron, Tambunan
* SK Tambalang, Tuaran
* SK Tampasak, Papar
* SK Tampulan, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Tanaki, Papar
* [http://www.geocities.com/tanjungaru1 SK Tanjung Aru I, Kota Kinabalu]
* SK Tanjung Aru II, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Tanjung Batu Darat, Tawau
* SK Tanjung Batu Keramat, Tawau
* SK Talungan, Telipok
* SK Tansau, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Terian, Penampang
* SK Termunong, Tuaran
* SK Tikolod, Tambunan
* SK Timbou, Tambunan
* SK Tinambak, Tuaran
* SK Tinompok, Tambunan
* SK Tiong Wudu, Tambunan
* SK Tobobon, Inanam
* SK Tobobon, Menggatal
* SK Tombongon, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Tombovo, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Topokon Tuaran
* SK Tudan Ulu, Tuaran
* SK Ulu Lumagar, Bongawan
* [http://www.skumas.cjb.net SK Umas-Umas, Tawau]
* SK Unggun, Kota Kinabalu
* SK Viging Ulu, Bongawan
* SK Wasai, Tuaran

=== Secondary education: ''Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK)'' ===
* [[La Salle Secondary School, Kota Kinabalu]]
* SM Abaka, Tawau
* SM All Saints, Likas
* SM Holy Trinity, Tawau
* SM Konvent St. Cecilia, Sandakan
* SM Kota Kinabalu
* SM Sri Insan, Likas
* SM St. Anne, Labuan
* SM St. Anthony, Labuan
* SM St. Anthony, Tenom
* SM St. Francis Xavier, Keningau
* SM St. James Tenghilan, Tamparuli
* SM St. John, Beaufort
* SM St. John, Tuaran
* SM St. Joseph, Papar
* SM St. Mary, Papar
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/stmary/ SM St. Mary, Sandakan]
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/smstmike.sdk/ SM St. Michael, Sandakan]
* SM St. Patrick Membakut
* SM St. Patrick, Tawau
* SM St. Paul, Beaufort
* SM St. Peter, Bundu
* SM St. Peter, Kudat
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/sjk.speter.tpk/ SM St. Peter, Telipok]
* SM St. Ursula, Tawau
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/sm.smaris/ SM Stella Maris, Kota Kinabalu]
* [http://smuislamiah.tripod.com/ SM Ugama Islamian, Tawau]
* SMK Abdul Rahim, Kudat
* SMK Abdullah, Semporna
* [http://www.smkagaseh.com SMK Agaseh Lahad Datu, Tawau]
* SMK Apin-Apin, Keningau
* SMK Arshad, Kota Belud
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/smkbadin/ SMK Badin, Tuaran]
* SMK Bahang, Penampang
* SMK Balung, Tawau
* SMK Bandau
* SMK Banggi, Kudat
* SMK Batu Longoyan, Tulid, Keningau
* SMK Batu Sapi, Sandakan
* SMK Beaufort
* SMK Beaufort II
* SMK Beluran
* SMK Benoni, Papar
* SMK Berasrama Penuh Lahad Datu
* SMK Berasrama Penuh, Labuan
* SMK Berhala Darat, Sandakan
* SMK Bingkor, Keningau
* SMK Bongawan
* SMK Bugaya, Semporna
* SMK Bukit Garam, Kinabatangan
* SMK Bukit Garam 2 (Sri Lamag), Kinabatangan
* SMK Bum-Bum, Semporna
* SMK Bundu Tuhan, Ranau
* SMK Datuk Peter Mojuntin, Penampang
* SMK Datuk Peter Mojuntin, Penampang
* SMK Desa Kencana, Lahad Datu
* [http://www.geocities.com/smkelopura/ SMK Elopura, Sandakan]
* SMK Elopura 2, Sandakan
* SMK Gadong, Beaufort
* SMK Gum-Gum, Sandakan
* SMK Gunsamad, Keningau
* SMK Gunsamad II, Keningau
* SMK Inanam
* SMK Jalan Apas, Tawau
* SMK Jambatan Putih, Tawau
* SMK Kabogan, Semporna
* SMK Kabogan 2
* SMK Kabota, Tawau
* SMK Kalabakan, Tawau
* SMK Kemabong, Tenom
* SMK Kemborongoh, Ranau
* SMK Keningau
* [http://smkkdua.tripod.com SMK Keningau II]
* SMK Kinabutan, Tawau
* SMK Kinarut, Papar
* SMK Kota Klias, Beaufort
* SMK Kota Marudu
* SMK Kuala Penyu
* SMK Kudat
* SMK Kuhara, Tawau
* SMK Kunak
* SMK Kunak Jaya
* SMK Kundasang, Ranau
* SMK Labuan, Labuan
* SMK Lajau, Labuan
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/smk.likas/ SMK Likas]
* SMK Limbanak, Penampang (previously known as SMK Bahang 2)
* SMK Lohan, Ranau
* SMK Majakir, Papar
* SMK Mat Salleh, Ranau
* SMK Matupang, Ranau
* SMK Membakut
* SMK Menbedai, Labuan
* SMK Menggatal
* SMK Menumbok
* [http://smk.merotai.com SMK Merotai Besar, Tawau] (SMKMBT)
* SMK Muhibbah, Sandakan
* SMK Nabawan
* SMK Nambayan, Tambunan
* [http://www.geocities.com/tjapit/ SMK Narinang, Kota Belud]
* SMK Padang Berampah, Sipitang
* SMK Pamol, Sandakan
* SMK Pantai, Labuan
* SMK Paris, Kinabatangan
* SMK Pekan Kota Belud
* SMK Pekan Telipok, Tuaran
* SMK Penangah (UK), Sandakan
* SMK Pengiran Omar, Sipitang
* SMK Perempuan, Kota Kinabalu
* SMK Perempuan, Sandakan
* SMK Pinggan-Pinggan, Kota Marudu
* SMK Pitas, Kota Marudu
* SMK Pulau Gaya, Kota Kinabalu
* SMK Putatan
* SMK Sandakan
* SMK Sandakan 2
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/sanzac/ SMK Sanzac, Kota Kinabalu]
* SMK Sepagaya, Lahad Datu
* SMK Sikuati, Kudat
* SMK Silabukan, Lahad Datu
* SMK Simpangan, Sandakan
* [http://www.smsdld.cjb.net SMK St. Dominic, Lahad Datu]
* [[SMK St. Francis Convent (M), Kota Kinabalu]]
* SMK St. Martin, Tambunan
* SMK Sukau, Kinabatangan
* SMK Sungai Damit, Tamparuli
* SMK Tagasan, Semporna
* SMK Takis, Papar
* SMK Taman Fajar, Sandakan
* SMK Tambulion, Kota Belud
* SMK Tambunan, Tambunan
* SMK Tamparuli
* SMK Tandek, Kota Marudu
* SMK Tansau, Penampang
* SMK Taun Gusi, Kota Belud
* SMK Tawau
* SMK Telupid, Ranau
* SMK Tenghilan, Tamparuli
* SMK Tenom
* SMK Terusan Sugut
* SMK Timbua, Ranau
* SMK Tobobon
* SMK Tun Fuad Stephens, Tamparuli
* SMK Tungku, Lahad Datu
* SMK Ulu Sugut (Malinsau), Ranau
* SMK Umas-Umas, Tawau
* SMK Usukan, Kota Belud
* SMK Wallace Bay, Tawau
* SMK Weston, Beaufort
* [[St. Michael's Secondary School (Penampang)|St. Michael's Secondary School, Penampang]]

== National type schools ==
=== Primary education: ''Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (SJK)'' ===
* SJK (C) Chung Hwa, Tamparuli
* SJK (C) Shan Tao, Penampang
* SJK (C) Hwa Shiong, Putatan
* SJK (C) Lok Yuk, Likas
* SJK (C) St. James, Kota Kinabalu
* SJK (C) St. Philip, Tamparuli
* SRJK Chi Hwa, Sandakan
* SRJK Pui Gin, Sandakan
* SRJK Syn Hua, Sandakan

=== Secondary education: ''Sekolah Menengah Jenis Kebangsaan (SMJK)'' ===
* SM Chung Hwa, Tenom 丹南中华国民型中学
* SM Ken Hwa, Keningau 根华国民型中学
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/sm.lyuk.kk/ SM Lok Yuk Mile 1, Kudat] 乐育国民型中学
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/sm.lyuk.kk/ SM Lok Yuk, Likas] 乐育国民型中学
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/smshantao/ SM Shan Tao, Likas] 善导国民型中学
* SM Tinggi Kota Kinabalu [http://www.kkhs.edu.my/ 亚庇中学]
* SM Tiong Hua, Sandakan 中华国民型中学
* [[Sung Siew Secondary School|Sung Siew Secondary School, Sandakan]] ([http://www.sung-siew.com 双修国民型中学])

== Technical schools ==
* SM Teknik (Pertanian) Lahad Datu
* SM Teknik Keningau
* SM Teknik Kudat
* SM Teknik Labuan
* [http://www.sabah.edu.my/smt.likas/ SM Teknik Likas]
* SM Teknik Sandakan
* SM Teknik Tawau

== Others ==
* Maktab Nasional, Kota Kinabalu
* Maktab Rendah Sains MARA, Kota Kinabalu
* [[Maktab Sabah, Kota Kinabalu]]
* SM Sains Labuan
* SM Sains Lahad Datu
* [http://www.smesh-online.com SM Sains Sabah, Kota Kinabalu]
* SRS Datuk Simon Fung

== See also ==
* [[Education in Malaysia]]

[[Category:Schools in Malaysia|*]]
[[Category:Malaysia-related lists|S]]

Time Hollow

2008-08-13T19:49:30Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by SmackBot to last version by Drkirby.

{{cleanup}}
{{Gamecleanup|date=August 2008}}
{{Infobox VG
|title=Time Hollow
|image=[[Image:TimeHollow.png]]
|developer=[[Konami]]
|publisher=[[Konami]]
|designer=
|engine=
|released= '''[[Japan|JPN]]''' [[March 19]], [[2008]] '''[[North America|NA]]''' [[September 23]][[2008]] '''[[Australia|AU]]''' TBA 2008 '''[[Europe|EU]]''' TBA 2008
|genre=[[adventure|Adventure]]
|modes=[[Single player]]
|ratings=[[Computer Entertainment Rating Organization|CERO]]: B (Ages 12+)
[[Entertainment Software rating Board|ESRB]]: T
|platforms=[[Nintendo DS]]
|media=
|requirements=
|input=Nintendo DS stylus
}}

'''''Time Hollow''''' is an [[adventure]] [[video game]] developed and published by [[Konami]] for the [[Nintendo DS]] [[video game console]]. The game was released in [[Japan]] on [[March 19]], [[2008]]. An official North American date of [[September 23]], 2008 was announced at E3 2008.

==List of Characters==
Note: English names are taken from data embedded in the Japanese version of the game and may change before the game's official English release.

=====Ethan Kairos/Horou Tokio (時尾歩郎)=====
The main character of Time Hollow, a normal high school student who lives with his family. On the morning of his seventeenth birthday, he discovered that the world had changed into one where his parents died 12 years ago. In order to solve this mystery, he takes up the Time Pen, which has the power to change history.

Horou's name is a pun on the Japanese pronuciation of the word 'hollow' as well as on 'time corridor' (toki no horou).

=====Wataru Tokio (時尾亘)=====
Father of Horou. At his son's 17th birthday, both he and his wife disappeared. He looks older than his age... is there a reason for that?

Wataru's name means 'to cross time' (toki o wataru).

English name: Timothy Kairos

=====Aki Tokio (時尾秋)=====
Mother of Horou. She has a loose and cheerful personality and doesn't focus on difficult problems, but she's a caring mother who always puts her family first. She's said to have disappeared 12 years ago along with her husband Wataru. Aki means 'autumn'.

English name: Pamela Kairos

=====Tamotsu Tokio (時尾保)=====
Uncle of Horou (younger brother of Wataru). A free-lance writer engaged in chasing the long-ago incident. He's brusque, but has a serious disposition. Although it seems he didn't get along well with his older brother, he took Horou in after Wataru and Aki disappeared.

Tamotsu's name means 'to preserve time' (toki o tamotsu).

English name: Derek Kairos

=====Sox/Follow (フォ郎)=====
Horou's pet cat. Since getting attached to Horou, the cat often sleeps on his bed. Follow's an odd cat who moves lazily and has an idiosyncratic-sounding meow, "bunya".

=====Seisaku Ichiyanagi (一柳清作)=====
Owner of an antique shop. Is there more to him than meets the eye?

English name: Irving Onegin

=====Sakutarou Ninomiya (二宮朔太郎)=====
Horou's Homeroom Teacher.

English name: Jack Twombly

=====Motoki Mihara (三原元樹)=====
Horou's friend. Used to be in the basketball club, but quit due to an old injury.

English name: Vin Threet

=====Waori Mihara (三原和織)=====
Motoki's younger sister. She is a freshman at Horou's high school. She is a very energetic girl.

English name: Ashley Threet

=====Shunta Shidou (四堂駿太)=====
Horou's friend. Kind of a cowardly guy. Likes pancakes and pretty girls.

English name: Ben Fourier

=====Nagi Goshima (五島凪)=====
Horou's friend. A very studious fellow. Also likes dogs.

English name: Morris Fivet

=====Kotoko Rokujou (六条琴子)=====
Owner of the local coffee shop.

English name: Eva Sixon

=====Ryūnosuke Nanasawa (七沢竜之介)=====
Mayu's boyfriend. Shunta doesn't like him much.

English name: Aaron Seven

=====Mayu Yagi (八木まゆ)=====
Works part-time at the coffee shop. Shunta has a crush on her.

English name: Olivia Eights

=====Sachiko Kuri (九里祥子)=====
Waori's close friend. She is into fortune telling.

English name: Emily Niner

=====Sonoka Tokura (十倉　想乃香)=====
Receptionist at the local library.

English name: Sarah Tenneson

=====Arata Jūichitani (十一谷　新)=====
A young boy who enjoys walking his dog, John.

English name: Jacob Eleven

=====Kanon Jūnibayashi (十二林かのん)=====
A mysterious girl who suddenly became Horou's classmate.

English name: Kori Twelves

==Trivia==
* The main theme of the song "Time Hollow" was one of the new Consumer Software songs in the recently release Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA2 for Playstation 2.
*If noticed everyones last name has to do with numbers or time.

==Links==
*[http://www.konami.jp/time_hollow/ Time Hollow (Official Site in Japanese)]
*[http://www.konamistyle.jp/ecitem/item46084.html Konami Style Order Page]
*[http://ds.ign.com/articles/821/821442p1.html IGN Preview]

[[ja:タイムホロウ奪われた過去を求めて]]

[[Category:2008 video games]]
[[Category: Konami games]]
[[Category:Nintendo DS-only games]]
[[Media:Example.ogg]]

Benutzer:Autokrator/Spätrömische Armee

2008-08-10T02:59:15Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by 124.189.27.30 to last version by AnnaFrance.

{{RomanMilitary}}

The '''Late Roman army''' is the term used to denote the military forces of the [[Roman Empire]] from the accession of emperor [[Diocletian]] in [[284]] until the empire's definitive division into Eastern and Western halves in [[395]]. A few decades afterwards, the Western army disintegrated as the [[Western Roman Empire|Western empire]] collapsed. The [[East Roman army]], on the other hand, continued intact and essentially unchanged until its reorganization by [[Theme (Byzantine administrative unit)|themes]] and transformation into the [[Byzantine army]] in the [[7th century]].

The army of the [[Principate]] underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century. Unlike the Principate army, the army of the 4th century was heavily dependent on [[conscription]] and its soldiers were more poorly remunerated than in the 2nd century. [[Barbarian]]s from outside the empire probably supplied a much larger proportion of the late army's recruits than in the army of the 1st and 2nd centuries. There is no evidence, however, that barbarian recruitment damaged the army's effectiveness.

The army of the 4th century was probably no larger than that of the 2nd. The main change in structure was the establishment of large armies that accompanied the emperors (''comitatus praesentales'') and were generally based away from the frontiers. Their primary function was to deter [[Usurper|usurpation]]s. The [[Roman legion|legions]] were split up into smaller units comparable in size to the [[Auxiliaries (Roman military)|auxiliary regiments]] of the Principate. In parallel, legionary armour and equipment were abandoned in favour of auxiliary equipment. Infantry adopted the more protective equipment of the Principate cavalry.

There is little evidence to support the theory that the role of cavalry was enhanced in the 4th century army as compared with the army of the Principate. It appears cavalry was much the same proportion of overall army numbers as in the 2nd century. Nor does it appear that the cavalry's tactical role or prestige was any greater in the late army. Indeed, the cavalry acquired a reputation for incompetence and cowardice for their role in three major battles in mid-4th century. In contrast, the infantry retained its traditional reputation for excellence.

The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the upgrading of many existing border forts to make them more defensible, as well as the construction of new forts with much higher defensive specifications. The interpretation of this trend has fuelled an ongoing debate whether the army adopted a [[defence-in-depth (Roman military)|defence-in-depth]] strategy or continued the same posture of "forward defence" as in the early Principate. There is little evidence that the location of 4th-century forts differed significantly from the early Principate, which, together with continued cross-border operations by Roman forces, adds weight to the case for continued forward defence. Whatever the defence strategy, it was apparently less successful in preventing barbarian incursions than in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This may have been due to heavier barbarian pressure, or to the practice of keeping large armies of the best troops in the interior, depriving the border forces of sufficient support.

==Sources==
Much of our evidence for 4th century army unit deployments is contained in a single document, the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]'', compiled ca. 395–420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil. The main deficiency with the ''Notitia'' is that it lacks any personnel figures so as to render estimates of army size impossible. Also it was compiled at the very end of the 4th century; it is thus difficult to reconstruct the position earlier. However, the ''Notitia'' remains the central source on the late Army's structure due to the dearth of other evidence.

The main literary sources for the 4th century army are the ''Res Gestae'' (History) of [[Ammianus Marcellinus]], whose surviving books cover the period 353 to 378. Marcellinus, himself a veteran soldier, is regarded by scholars as a reliable and valuable source. But he largely fails to remedy the deficiencies of the ''Notitia'' as regards army and unit strength or units in existence, as he is rarely specific about either. The third major source for the late army are the legal codes published in the East Roman empire in the 5th and 6th centuries: the [[Theodosian code]] (438) and the [[Corpus Iuris Civilis]] (528–39). These compilations of Roman laws dating from the 4th century contain numerous imperial decrees relating to all aspects of the regulation and administration of the late army.

== Evolution of the 4th century army ==

=== Background: the Principate army ===

The regular army of the [[Principate]] was established by the founder–emperor [[Augustus]] (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD) and survived until the end of [[3rd century]]. The regular army consisted of two distinct corps, both being made up of mainly volunteer professionals.

The elite [[legions]] were large infantry formations, varying between 25 and 33 in number, of 5,500 men each (all infantry save a small cavalry arm of 120) which admitted only [[Roman citizen]]s.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 50, 78</ref> The ''[[Roman auxiliaries|auxilia]]'' consisted of around 400 much smaller units of 500 men each (a minority were up to 1,000 strong), which were divided into approximately 100 cavalry ''alae'', 100 infantry ''cohortes'' and 200 mixed cavalry/infantry units or ''cohortes equitatae''.<ref>Holder (2003) 120</ref> Some auxilia regiments were designated ''sagittariorum'', meaning they contained only archers. The ''auxilia'' thus contained almost all the Roman army's cavalry and archers, as well as (from the late 1st century onwards) approximately the same number of foot soldiers as the legions.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 56–8</ref> The ''auxilia'' were mainly recruited from the ''[[Peregrinus (Roman)|peregrini]]'': provincial subjects of the empire who did not hold Roman citizenship, but the ''auxilia'' also admitted Roman citizens and possibly ''barbari'', the Roman term for peoples living outside the empire's borders.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 80</ref> At this time both legions and auxilia were almost all based in frontier provinces.<ref>Holder (2003) 145</ref> The only substantial military force at the immediate disposal of the emperor was the elite [[Praetorian Guard]] of 10,000 men which was based in Rome.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58</ref>

The senior officers of the army were, until the 3rd century, mainly from the Italian aristocracy. Members of the [[Roman senate|senatorial]] order, the highest echelon, exclusively filled the following posts:
:(a) ''legatus Augusti'' (provincial governor, who commanded military forces in the province as well as heading the civil administration)
:(b) ''legatus legionis'' (legion commander)
:(c) ''tribunus militum laticlavius'' (legion deputy commander).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 60</ref>

The ''[[Equestrian (Roman)|equites]]'' (or "knights"), the second order of nobility, provided:
:(a) the governors of [[Egypt]] and a few other minor provinces
:(b) the two ''[[praefectus praetorio|praefecti praetorio]]'' (commanders of the Praetorian Guard)
:(c) a legion's ''praefectus castrorum'' (3rd-in-command) and its remaining five ''tribuni militum'' (senior staff officers)
:(d) the ''praefecti'' (commanders) of the auxiliary regiments.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 64–5</ref>

Hereditary senators and equites normally combined military service with civilian posts, a career path known as the ''[[cursus honorum]]'', typically starting with a period of junior administrative posts in Rome, followed by 5–10 years in the military and a final period of senior positions in the either the provinces or Rome.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 60, 66</ref>

Although the two aristocratic orders were hereditary, they were not closed to outsiders. Commoners could be elevated to [[Equestrian (Roman)|equestrian]], and ''equites'' to senatorial, rank by decree of the emperor, issued in his capacity as [[Roman censor]]. Elevation was usually granted only to those who met the minimum property qualification for each order (set by [[Augustus]] at 250,000 ''[[denarii]]'' for senators and at 100,000 ''denarii'' for ''equites''). As an exception to the property requirement, the emperor customarily elevated the ''primuspilus'' (chief centurion) of each legion to equestrian rank on completion of his year in office. This resulted in some 30 career soldiers, often risen from the ranks, joining the aristocratic order each year.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 65–6</ref>

=== 3rd century developments ===
The seminal development for the army in the early 3rd century was the ''[[Constitutio Antoniniana]]'' (Antonine Decree) of 212, issued by emperor [[Caracalla]] (r. 211–8). This granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, ending the second-class status of the ''peregrini''.<ref>The Roman Law Library ''Constitutio Antoniniana de Civitate''</ref> This had the effect of breaking down the distinction between the citizen legions and the auxiliary regiments. It is uncertain whether the legions retained their elite status during the 3rd century. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the legions were the symbol (and guarantors) of the dominance of the Italian "master nation" over its subject peoples. In the 3rd century, they were no longer socially superior to their auxiliary counterparts and the legions' special armour and equipment (e.g. the ''[[lorica segmentata]]'') was phased out.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref>

The traditional alternation between senior civilian and military posts fell into disuse in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as the Italian hereditary aristocracy was replaced in the senior echelons of the army by the ''primipilares'' (former chief centurions and their progeny).<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 164–65</ref> In the 3rd century, only 10% of auxiliary prefects whose origins are known were Italian equestrians, compared to the majority in the previous two centuries.<ref>Holder (1982) 65</ref> At the same time, equestrians increasingly replaced the senatorial order in the top commands. [[Septimius Severus]] (r. 197–211) placed equestrian ''primipilares'' in command of the three new legions he raised and [[Gallienus]] (260–8) did the same for all the other legions, giving them the title ''praefectus pro legato'' ("prefect acting as legate").<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 164</ref><ref>Tomlin (1988) 108</ref>

The early 3rd century also saw the steady build-up of the forces at the immediate disposal of the emperor, which became known as the ''comitatus'' ("escort", from which derives the English word "committee"). To the Praetorian Guard's 10,000 men, Septimius Severus added the legion ''[[Legio II Parthica|II Parthica]]''. Based at [[Albano Laziale]] near Rome, it was the first legion to be stationed in Italy since Augustus. In addition, he doubled the size of the imperial escort cavalry, the ''equites singulares Augusti'', to 2,000 by drawing select detachments from ''alae'' on the borders.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 107</ref> In total, his ''comitatus'' numbered some 17,000 men, equivalent to 31 infantry ''cohortes'' and 11 ''alae'' of cavalry.<ref name="g170"/> The trend for the emperor to gather round his person ever greater forces reached its peak in the 4th century under [[Constantine I|Constantine I the Great]] (ruled 312–37), whose ''comitatus'' may have reached 100,000 men, perhaps a quarter of the army's total effective strength.<ref>Zosimus II.43</ref> The primary function of the ''comitatus'' was not to serve as a strategic reserve, but rather as a deterrent against potential usurpation attempts.<ref name="g170"/> The disadvantage of a large ''comitatus'' was that it denuded the frontier provinces of a large number of elite regiments, weakening the empire's defence against barbarian incursions.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 190</ref>

The rule of Gallienus saw the appointment of a senior officer, with the title of ''dux'', to command all the ''comitatus'' cavalry. This force included some contingents of ''equites promoti'' (cavalry contingents detached from the legions), plus some apparently new Dalmatian light cavalry (''equites Dalmatarum'') and elements of allied barbarian cavalry (''equites foederati'').<ref>Tomlin (1988) 108</ref> Under Constantine I, the head of the ''comitatus'' cavalry was given the title of ''magister equitum'' ("master of horse"), which in Republican times had been held by the deputy to a [[Roman dictator]].<ref>Jones (1964) 97</ref> But neither title implies the existence of an independent "cavalry army", as was suggested by some more dated scholars. The cavalry under both officers were integral to mixed infantry and cavalry ''comitatus'', with the infantry remaining the predominant element.<ref name="g170">Goldsworthy (2000) 170</ref>

The 3rd century saw a progressive reduction in the size of the legions and even some auxiliary units. Legions were broken up into smaller units, as evidenced by the shrinkage and eventual abandonment of their traditional large bases, in Britain for example.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 244</ref> In addition, from the 2nd century onwards, the separation of some detachments from their parent units became permanent in some cases, establishing new unit types e.g. the ''vexillatio equitum Illyricorum'' based in Dacia in the early 2nd century<ref>Holder (2003) 133</ref> and the ''equites promoti''<ref>Tomlin (1988) 108</ref> and ''numerus Hnaufridi'' in Britain.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 223</ref> This led to the proliferation of unit types in the 4th century, generally of smaller size than those of the Principate. For example, in the 2nd century, ''vexillatio'' (from ''vexillum'' = "standard") was originally a generic term meaning any detachment from a legion or auxiliary regiment, either cavalry or infantry. In the 4th century, it denoted an elite cavalry regiment.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 219</ref>

In the 3rd century, a small number of regular units are recorded as bearing the names of barbarian tribes (as opposed to ''[[Peregrinus (Roman)|peregrini]]'' tribal names) for the first time. These were clearly ''foederati'' (allied troops under a military obligation to Rome) converted into regular units, a trend that was to accelerate in the 4th century.<ref>Jones (1964) 620</ref> The ''ala I Sarmatarum'', for example, based in Britain, probably composed of some of the 5,500 captured [[Sarmatian]] horsemen sent to garrison Hadrian's Wall by emperor [[Marcus Aurelius]] in ca. 175.<ref>[[Dio Cassius]] LXXI </ref>

=== 3rd century crisis ===
[[Image:104 Claudius II Gothicus.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Illyrian emperor [[Claudius II]] (r. 268–70), whose annihilating victories over the barbarian invaders of the empire saved it from collapse. Claudius was the first in a line of Illyrian emperors that were to rule the empire for a century. Debased silver [[antoninianus]] ]]
[[Image:Aureliancoin1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Emperor [[Aurelian]] (270–5), who completed Claudius' expulsion of barbarian invaders. He built the City of Rome's first set of [[Aurelian Walls|walls]] since the [[Servian Wall]] 650 years earlier]]
[[Image:DiocletianusFollis.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The emperor [[Diocletian]] (ruled 284–305), who launched wide-ranging reforms of the Roman army and government. Bronze ''[[follis]]'' coin]]
[[Image:The-tetrarchs.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Tetrarchs]]: Diocletian and his three colleagues. To the left, the two ''Augusti'' (co-emperors), to the right the two ''Caesars'' (deputy emperors). Note the Pannonian caps popularised by the Illyrian officer class of the Roman army; and the sword grips with eagle-head pommels. [[Porphyry]] statue on [[Basilica di San Marco]], Venice]]
[[Image:Constantin I.JPG|thumb|right|200px|The emperor [[Constantine I]] (ruled 312–37), who established the first large-scale ''comitatus'' (imperial escort army) and divided the army into escort army (''comitatenses'') and border (''limitanei'') troops, giving the late Roman army the structure described in the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]''. Bust in [[Musei Capitolini]], Rome]]
The mid 3rd century saw the empire plunged into a [[Third Century Crisis|military and economic crisis]] which almost resulted in its disintegration. It consisted of a series of military catastrophes in 251–271 when Gaul, the Alpine regions and Italy, the Balkans and the East were simultaneously overrun by Alamanni, Sarmatians, Goths and Persians respectively.<ref>Jones (1964)25</ref> At the same time, the Roman army was struggling with the effects of a devastating [[pandemic]], probably of [[smallpox]], the [[Plague of Cyprian]] which began in 251 and was still raging in 270, when it claimed the life of emperor [[Claudius II Gothicus]] (268–70).<ref>Zosimus I.24</ref> The evidence for the earlier [[Antonine Plague|Antonine pandemic]] of the late 2nd century, also smallpox, indicates a mortality of 15–30% in the empire as a whole.<ref>D. Ch. Stathakopoulos ''Famine and Pestilence in the late Roman and early Byzantine Empire'' (2007) 95</ref> Zosimus describes the Cyprianic outbreak as even worse.<ref>Zosimus I.16</ref> The armies would likely have suffered deaths at the top end of the range, due to their close concentration of individuals and frequent movements across the empire.<ref>Zosimus I.20</ref>

The 3rd century crisis started a chain-reaction of socio-economic effects that proved decisive for the development of the late army. The combination of barbarian devastation and reduced tax-base due to plague bankrupted the imperial government, which resorted to issuing ever more debased coin: the ''[[antoninianus]]'', the silver coin used to pay the troops in this period, lost 95% of its silver content between its launch in 215 and its demise in the 260's.<ref>J. Kent ''The Monetary System'' in Wacher (1988) 576–7.</ref> This inevitably led to rampant price inflation: the price of wheat under Diocletian was 67 times the typical Principate figure.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 115</ref> The monetary economy collapsed and the army was obliged to rely on food levies obtain sufficient supplies.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 110</ref> Soldiers' salaries became virtually worthless, reducing the army's recruits, once well-paid with plenty of [[disposable income]], to a [[subsistence agriculture|subsistence-level]] existence little better than that endured by their peasant families.<ref>Jones (1964) 29</ref> This in turn put off volunteers and forced the government to rely on conscription to find enough recruits.<ref>Jones (1964) 615</ref> But even this was not sufficient to plug the recruitment shortfalls caused by the plague. The only solution was large-scale recruitment of barbarians into the regular army. By the mid-4th century, barbarian-born men probably accounted for about a quarter of all recruits (and over a third in elite regiments), likely a far higher share than in the 1st/2nd centuries.<ref>Elton (1996) 148–52</ref>

=== Illyrian military junta ===
The Illyrian-speaking tribes that dominated the Roman provinces of [[Pannonia]], [[Dalmatia]] and [[Moesia Superior]], and included mountain tribes of semi-nomadic pastoralists such as the [[Dalmatae]] and [[Breuci]], had a fearsome reputation as warriors.<ref>N. G. L. Hammond ''The Illyrians and NW Greeks'' in Cambridge Ancient History Vol VI (1994) 428</ref> They were seen as excellent soldier material. From the time of Domitian (r. 81–96), when over half the Roman army was deployed in the Danubian regions, the Illyrian provinces had been the most important recruiting ground of the auxilia and later the legions.<ref name="t109">Tomlin (1988) 109</ref> In the 3rd century, Romanised Illyrians came to dominate the army's senior officer echelons.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 165</ref>

Finally, the Illyrian officer class seized control of the state itself. In 268, the emperor [[Gallienus]] (r. 260–8) was overthrown by a ''coup d'état'' organised by a clique of Illyrian senior officers, including his successors Claudius II Gothicus and [[Aurelian]] (270–5).<ref>Zosimus I.22</ref> They and their successors [[Probus]] (276–8) and [[Diocletian]] (r. 284–305) and his colleagues in the [[Tetrarchy]] formed a sort of self-perpetuating [[military junta]] of Illyrian officers who were born in the same provinces (several in the same city, [[Sirmium]], a major legionary base in [[Moesia Superior]]) or had served in the same regiments.<ref name="t109"/>

The junta succeeded in reversing the military disasters of 251–71 with a string of brilliant victories. Claudius II acquired his title ''Gothicus'' by a crushing defeat inflicted on a vast Gothic army trying to leave the empire laden with its spoils ([[Battle of Naissus]], 268).<ref>Zosimus I.23</ref> The Goths did not seriously threaten the empire again until a century later at [[Battle of Adrianople|Adrianople]] (378). A few months later, it was the turn of the Alamanni invaders in Italy, who were annihilated at the [[Battle of Lake Benacus]] (268). Claudius' deputy and successor Aurelian went on to despatch the Sarmatians and another Alamanni force in 270.<ref>Zosimus I.25</ref>

The [[Illyrian emperors]] continued to rule the empire until 379. Indeed, until 364, power was held by descendants of one of the original junta members. Constantine I' s father, [[Constantius Chlorus]] was a ''Caesar'' (deputy emperor) in Diocletian's Tetrarchy.<ref>Zosimus II.40</ref> [[Constantine I]]'s sons ruled after his death in 337 until the death of [[Julian]] in 363. After that the empire was ruled by the sons ([[Valentinian I]] and [[Valens]]) and grandson ([[Gratian]]) of another Illyrian senior officer, ([[Gratian the Elder]]), who was born under Diocletian.<ref>Ammianus XXX.7.1–3</ref>

The junta restored the army to its former strength and effectiveness. But the Illyrian emperors had a narrow political focus, solely concerned with the needs and interests of the military. Under them, the empire as a whole was subordinated to serve the army, rather than the other way round.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 177</ref> They were also divorced from the immensely wealthy Roman senatorial families that continued to dominate the Senate and owned much of the empire's land. This in turn bred a feeling of alienation from the army among the Roman aristocracy which in the later 4th century began to resist the military's exorbitant demands for recruits and supplies.<ref>Lee (1997) 221 (note 58)</ref>

=== Diocletian ===

Diocletian's wide-ranging administrative and military reforms were entirely aimed at providing the military with sufficient resources, both in manpower and supplies, and to strengthening border defences.<ref>Luttwak (1977) 177</ref>

To deal with the perennial problem of usurpers which repeatedly plunged the empire into civil war at immense cost in lives and treasure and were a greater danger to the empire than barbarian invasions, and also to address the problem that the empire was too vast to be governed effectively by one man, he instituted the [[Tetrarchy]]. This divided the empire into two halves, East and West, each to be ruled by an ''Augustus'' (emperor); each ''Augustus'' would in turn appoint a deputy called a ''Caesar'', who would act both as his second-in-command and designated successor. This four-man team would thus have the flexibility to deal with multiple and simultaneous challenges, while also providing a legitimate succession.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 166</ref> The system certainly did not prevent usurpations and civil wars, as the career of Constantine I demonstrates: he was himself a usurper and fought major wars against his rivals [[Maxentius]] and [[Licinius]]. But its core feature, the division of the empire into Eastern and Western halves, each governed by an equal co-emperor, proved enduring.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 166</ref>

Diocletian reformed the provincial administration, dividing the provinces into smaller units to allow greater control, grouped together into divisions called [[Roman diocese|dioceses]], in turn under a ''praefectus praetorio'' (the same title as the commanders of the Praetorian Guard), who was also the supreme commander of army units in the dioceses.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> Diocletian instituted the system of ''indictiones'' (tax demands issued in advance of the tax cycle), with the amount of tax demanded related to the amount of cultivated land in each province, aimed at making more efficient and more equitable the collection of taxes in kind. To deal with the problem of rural depopulation (and consequent loss of food production), he decreed that peasants must register in their home locality and never leave it.<ref>Jones (1964)</ref> (This measure was the origin of the medieval system of [[villein (feudal)|villeins]] i.e. [[serfs]] tied to the land). In the words of one historian, "Diocletian... turned the entire empire into a regimented logistic base" (to supply the army).<ref>Luttwak (1976) 177</ref> Diocletian completed the exclusion of the senatorial class, still dominated by the Italian aristocracy, from all senior military commands and all top administrative posts except in Italy.<ref>Jones (1964) 50</ref>

He also divorced military from civil command in some cases. The old ''legatus Augusti'' (governor) of the Principate had combined the role of administrative head with that of military commander-in-chief of forces in his province. Now, command of troops in some provinces were entrusted to purely military officers called ''duces limitis'' ("border commanders", singular form ''[[dux]]'', literally "leader": the origin of the medieval noble rank of ''[[duke]]''). However, this was not universally applied. In many provinces, the governor remained in command.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref>

The division of the empire among four Tetrarchs (each with his own court), the progressive split between civil and military administration, the proliferation of provinces (tripled to 250) and their superstructure of dioceses and praetorian prefectures, and the elaborate system of levies of recruits and supplies for the army led to explosive growth in the imperial bureaucracy. The Principate had been a remarkably slimline administration, with just 250 senior officials running the vast empire, relying on local government and private contractors to deliver the necessary taxes and services. But though few, these officials drew huge salaries, so their total cost was considerable (ca. 7 % of the total state budget). By the time of the ''Notitia'', comparable positions had grown to ca. 6,000, a 24-fold increase.<ref>Heather (2005) 228</ref> Admittedly, late high officials were paid far less than in the Principate, perhaps an average of a tenth as much.<ref>Jones (1964) 31</ref> Even so, the late bureaucracy would have been around two and a half times as expensive overall, swallowing substantial resources. The annual cost of the Principate bureaucracy has been estimated at ca. 750,000 ''[[aurei]]'' (= 1.125 million Diocletianic ''[[solidi]]'').<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 37</ref> Therefore the additional cost of the late bureaucracy would have totalled ca. 1.7 m ''solidi'', enough to pay 400,000 troops each an extra 4.2 ''solidi'' per annum, doubling or tripling their bonus payments and bringing their pay back up to 2nd century levels.

The late army was therefore unable to attract sufficient high-quality volunteers (except barbarians) as in the Principate and was obliged to rely heavily on reluctant and often poor-quality conscripts. Diocletian appears to have instituted systematic annual conscription for the first time since the days of the [[Roman Republic]]. In addition he is probably responsible for the decree, first recorded in 313, obliging the sons of serving soldiers (and officers) or veterans to enlist.<ref>Jones (1964) 615</ref>

Under Diocletian, the number of legions, and probably of other units, appears to have more than doubled.<ref>Jones (1964) 17</ref> But it is unlikely that overall army size increased nearly as much, since unit strengths appear to have been reduced, in some cases drastically. For example, there are legions in the mid-4th century that are documented with just 1,000 effectives, less than a fifth of their 2nd-century strength.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 111</ref> Diocletian and his three colleagues also each had a ''comitatus'' at their disposal. But under Diocletian, these remained informal and small in size and relied on reinforcements from frontier forces for major operations.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> Numbers "in the time of Diocletian" are given as 390,000 (excluding fleets and ''foederati'') by a 6th-century writer, although it is unclear whether this was at the start or end of his rule, or, as the wording implies, sometime during it.<ref>[[John Lydus]], ''De Mensibus''</ref> It is generally agreed that Diocletian increased army numbers substantially, but it is impossible to say with certainty by how much.<ref>Heather (2005) 63–4</ref>

Even more than increasing the size of the army, Diocletian's efforts and resources were focused on a massive upgrading of the defensive infrastructure along all the empire's borders, including new forts and strategic military roads. There is abundant archaeological and epigraphic evidence of this work, especially on the desert frontiers of Arabia and North Africa.<ref>jones (1964) 55-6</ref>

=== Constantine ===

Constantine I probably completed the replacement of provincial governors as commanders of military units in their provinces by ''duces''. The Praetorian prefects lost their military command and became purely administrative officials, whose central and vital role was to ensure that the armies in their circumscription were properly supplied.<ref>Jones (1964) 606, 627</ref>

After defeating [[Maxentius]] in 312, Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard, ending the latter's 300-year existence.<ref>Jones (1964) 100</ref> Although the instant reason was the Guard's support for his rival Maxentius, a force based in Rome had also become obsolete since emperors now rarely resided there.

Constantine expanded his ''comitatus'' into a major and permanent force. This was achieved by the addition of units withdrawn from the frontier provinces and by creating new units: more cavalry ''vexillationes'' and new-style infantry units called ''auxilia''. The expanded ''comitatus'' was now placed under the command of two new officers, a ''magister peditum'' to command the infantry and ''magister equitum'' for cavalry. ''Comitatus'' troops were now formally denoted ''[[comitatenses]]'' to distinguish them from the frontier forces (''[[limitanei]]'').<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> The size of the Constantinian ''comitatus'' is uncertain. But Constantine mobilised 98,000 troops for his war against Maxentius, according to Zosimus.<ref>Zosimus II.43</ref> It is likely that most of these were retained for his ''comitatus''.<ref>Jones (1964) 97</ref> This represented about a quarter of the total regular forces, if one accepts that the Constantinian army numbered around 400,000.<ref>Elton (1996) 120</ref>

In addition, Constantine appears to have reorganised the border forces along the Danube, replacing the old-style ''alae'' and ''cohortes'' with new units of ''cunei'' (cavalry) and ''auxilia'' (infantry) respectively.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> It is unclear how the new-style units differed from the old-style ones, but those stationed on the border (as opposed to those in the ''comitatus'') may have been smaller, perhaps half the size.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 239</ref> In sectors other than the Danube, old-style auxiliary regiments survived.<ref>Jones (1964) 58</ref>

The 5th century historian [[Zosimus]] strongly criticised the establishment of the large ''comitatus'', accusing Constantine of wrecking his predecessor Diocletian's work of strengthening the border defences: "By the foresight of Diocletian, the frontiers of the Roman empire were everywhere studded with cities and forts and towers... and the whole army was stationed along them, so it was impossible for the barbarians to break through... But Constantine ruined this defensive system by withdrawing the majority of the troops from the frontiers and stationing them in cities which did not require protection."<ref>Zosimus II.54–5 (Translation in Jones (1964) 52)</ref>

Zosimus' critique is probably excessive, both because the ''comitatus'' already existed in Diocletian's time and because some new regiments were raised by Constantine for his expanded ''comitatus'', as well as incorporating existing units.<ref>Jones (1964) 52</ref> Nevertheless, the majority of his ''comitatus'' was drawn from existing frontier units.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 111</ref> This drawdown of large numbers of the best units inevitably increased the risk of successful large-scale barbarian breaches of the frontier defences.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 179</ref>

It was probably this factor that led to the emergence of ''comitatus'' based in frontier regions (the regional ''comitatus''), distinct from the ''comitatus praesentales'' escorting the emperor(s). From the defeat of the usurper [[Magnentius]] in 353, there appears to have always been a ''comitatus'' in Gaul and one in the East, each under a ''magister equitum'', and one in Illyricum under a senior ''[[comes|comes rei militaris]]'' (literally "companion for military affairs", the origin of the medieval noble rank of ''[[count]]''), irrespective of where the emperor(s) were.<ref>Jones (1964) 125</ref> These regional armies became steadily more numerous until, by the time of the ''Notitia'', there were three in the East and six in the West.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> Their evolution was a partial reversal of Constantine's policy and, in effect, a vindication of Zosimus' critique that the ''limitanei'' forces had been left with insufficient support.<ref>Lee (1997) 216</ref> But the imperial escort armies remained in existence, and in ca. 420 the three ''comitatus praesentales'' listed in the ''Notitia'', each 20–30,000 strong, still contained a total of ca. 75,000 men.<ref>Treadgold (1995) 45</ref> If one accepts that the army at the time numbered about 350,000 men, the escort armies still contained 20–25% of the total effectives.

== Army size ==

The traditional view of scholars is that the 4th century army was much larger than the 2nd century army, in the region of double the size. The late 6th century writer [[Agathias]], gives a global total of 645,000 effectives for the army "in the old days", presumed to mean at its peak under Constantine I.<ref>[[Agathias]] ''History'' V.13.7–8; Jones (1964) 680</ref> This figure probably includes fleets, giving a total of ca. 600,000 for the army alone. [[A.H.M. Jones]]' ''Later Roman Empire'' (1964), which contains the fundamental study of the late Roman army, calculated a similar total of 600,000 (exc. fleets) by applying his own estimates of unit strength to the units listed in the ''Notitia Dignitatum''.<ref>Jones (1964) 683</ref>

But the Agathias-Jones view has fallen out of favour with some historians in more recent times. Agathias' figure, if it has any validity at all, probably represents the official, as opposed to actual strength of the Constantinian army. In reality, late units were in practice severely under-strength. The available evidence for the 4th century indicates that actual numbers may have been on average only about two-thirds of official.<ref>Elton (1996) 89</ref> Thus Agathias' 600,000 on paper probably were not more than ca. 400,000 in reality. The latter figure accords well with the other global figure from ancient sources, that of the 6th century writer [[John Lydus]] of 389,704 (excluding fleets) for the army of Diocletian. Lydus' figure is accorded greater credibility than Agathias' by scholars because of its precision (implying that it was found in an official document) and the fact that it is ascribed to a specific time period.<ref>Heather (1995) 63</ref> Indeed it is possible that Agathias' figure represents the official strength of the late army while Lydus is the actual strength in Diocletian's time.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 114</ref>

Jones' figure of 600,000 is based on assumptions about unit strengths which are probably too high. This especially concerns ''limitanei'' units (there is less dispute about the size of ''comitatus'' units, for which there is more available evidence). Jones calculated unit strengths in Egypt under Diocletian using papyrus evidence of unit payrolls. But a rigorous reassessment of the evidence by R. Duncan-Jones concluded that Jones had overestimated unit sizes by 2–6 times.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–17</ref> For example, Jones estimated legions on the frontiers at ca. 3,000 men.<ref>Jones (1964) 681-2</ref> But Duncan-Jones' revisions and other evidence suggest that frontier legions probably did not exceed 500.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 117</ref><ref>Mattingly (2006) 239</ref> The size of the late army was thus probably much closer to the Lydus figure of ca. 400,000 than to Agathias' 600,000.

At the same time, more recent work has suggested that the regular army of the 2nd century was considerably larger than the ca. 300,000 traditionally assumed. This is because the 2nd century auxilia were not just equal in numbers to the legions as in the early 1st century, but some 50% larger.<ref>Holder (2003) 120</ref> The Principate army probably reached a peak of nearly 450,000 (excluding fleets and ''foederati'') at the end of the 2nd century.<ref>MacMullen (1979) 454</ref> Furthermore, the evidence is that the actual strength of 2nd century units was typically much closer to official (ca. 85%).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 144–5</ref> It is therefore unlikely that the 4th century army ever significantly exceeded the 2nd century army in size.

{| class = wikitable
|+ '''ROMAN ARMY NUMBERS 24–337'''
! Army corps !! Tiberius ''24'' !! Hadrian ''ca. 130'' !! S. Severus ''211'' !! Diocletian ''start 284'' !! Diocletian ''284–305'' !! Constantine I ''end rule 337'' !! Notitia ''ca. 420''
|-
|LEGIONS
|125,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 124–5 (map)(25 legions of 5,000 men each)</ref>
|155,000<ref>Holder (2003) 120 (28 legions of 5,500 each: double-strength 1st cohorts introduced in late 1st c.)</ref>
|182,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 152–3 (map) (33 legions of 5,500 each)</ref>
|
|
|
|
|-
|AUXILIA
|125,000<ref>Tacitus ''Annales'' IV.5</ref>
|218,000<ref>Holder (2003) 120</ref>
|250,000<ref>Assuming that auxilia would be expanded by the same amount as legions. J. C. Spaul ''ALA'' (1996) 257–60 and ''COHORS 2'' (2000) 523–7 identify 4 ''alae'' and 20–30 ''cohortes'' raised in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries</ref>
|
|
|
|
|-
|PRAETORIAN GUARD
|~~5,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 cohorts of 480 men each plus German bodyguards</ref>
|~10,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 double-cohorts of 800 men each plus 2,000 ''equites singulares''</ref>
|~10,000
|
|
|
|
|-
|'''Total Roman Army'''
|'''255,000'''<ref>Implied by Tacitus ''Annales''</ref>
|'''383,000'''<ref>Hassall (2000) 320</ref>
|'''442,000'''<ref>MacMullen ''How Big was the Roman Army?'' in ''KLIO'' (1979) 454 estimates 438,000</ref>
|'''350,000?'''<ref>MacMullen (1979) 455</ref>
|'''390,000'''<ref>John Lydus ''De Mensibus'' I.47</ref>
|'''410,000'''<ref>Elton (1996) 120</ref>
|'''350,000?'''<ref>Applying mid-point unit size estimates to Notitia units</ref>
|}
NOTE: Figures exclude [[Roman navy]] effectives and barbarian ''foederati'' units.

== Army structure ==

The later 4th century army contained three types of army group: (a) imperial escort armies (''comitatus praesentales''). These were ordinarily based near the imperial capitals (Milan in the West, Constantinople in the East), but usually accompanied the emperors on campaign. (b) Regional field armies (''comitatus''). These were based in strategic regions, on or near the frontiers. (c) Border armies (''exercitus limitanei'').<ref>Lee (1997) 215–6</ref>

Types (a) and (b) are both frequently defined as "mobile field armies". This is because, unlike the ''limitanei'' units, they were not based in fixed locations. But their strategic role was quite different. The escort armies' primary role was to provide the emperor's ultimate insurance against usurpers: the very existence of such a powerful force would deter many potential rivals, and if it did not, the escort army alone was often sufficient to defeat them.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 170</ref> Their secondary role was to accompany the emperor on major campaigns such as a foreign war or to repel a large barbarian invasion.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 171</ref> The regional ''comitatus'', on the other hand, had the task of supporting the ''limitanei'' in operations in the region they were based in.<ref>Elton (1996) 214–5</ref>

=== Command structure ===
{{FixHTML|beg}}
[[Image:Late roman army.svg|thumb|right|400px| High command structure of the East Roman army ca. 395. Based on the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]''. Troop numbers based on recent unit size estimates. Reporting structure as in Jones (1964) 100 and 609]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
[[Image:Late West Roman army.svg|thumb|right|400px| High command structure of the West Roman army ca. 410–425. Based on the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]''. Troop numbers based on recent unit size estimates.<ref>Jones (1964) 100, 609</ref>]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}

{{FixHTML|end}}

The command structures of the Eastern and Western armies of the empire, as recorded in the ''Notitia Dignitatum'', are represented diagramatically in the organisation charts (right). The eastern section of the ''Notitia'' is dated to ca. 395, at the death of [[Theodosius I]]. The western section was completed later, in the 420's, after the West had been overrun by barbarian tribes.<ref>Heather (2005) 246</ref>

By the end of the 4th century, there were three ''comitatus praesentales'': two in the East and one in the West. The two Eastern armies wintered near Constantinople at Nicaea and Nicomedia and the Western army was usually based in the Po valley near Milan. Each was commanded by a ''[[magister militum]]'' ("master of soldiers", the highest military rank, also known as ''magister peditum'' or ''equitum'': these titles had lost their literal meaning and were no longer related to infantry or cavalry). Each ''magister'' was assisted by a deputy called a ''vicarius''.<ref name="j609">Jones (1964) 609</ref>

In the East, there were three major regional ''comitatus'', also with apparently settled winter bases: Oriens (based at [[Antioch]]), Thraciae ([[Marcianopolis]]), Illyricum (Sirmium) plus two smaller forces in Aegyptus (Alexandria) and [[Isauria]]. The large ''comitatus'' were commanded by ''magistri'', the two smaller ones by ''comites rei militaris''. All five reported direct to the eastern ''Augustus'', according to the ''Notitia''. But 5th century laws imply that the two ''comites'' were subordinate to the ''magister militum per Orientem''. This structure remained essentially intact in the [[East Roman army]] until the 6th century.<ref name="j609"/>

In the West, there were six regional ''comitatus''. By far the largest was in Gaul (Trier), under a ''magister equitum'' (literally "master of cavalry", although his army was composed mainly of infantry). The others were in West Illyricum (Sirmium), Britain, Spain, Tingitania and Africa, all under ''comites''.<ref>Elton (1996) 208–9</ref> All these officers reported to the ''magister'' in Italy, who was effectively supreme commander of the Western army. However, the Western section of the ''Notitia Dignitatum'' was drawn up in the chaotic conditions caused by the great barbarian invasion of Gaul in 406 and reflects the ascendancy of the half–barbarian military strongman [[Stilicho]], who was appointed by Theodosius I as guardian of his infant son and successor [[Honorius]]. It therefore represents a reporting structure and force distribution that was probably very different from that of 350 to 395. It appears that in the earlier era, both ''magistri'' reported direct to the emperor, but whether the ''comites'' also did so is uncertain.<ref>Jones (1964) 609–10</ref> There is some evidence that the two ''comites'' in Britain may have been subordinate to the ''magister equitum'' in Gaul e.g. Julian's despatch of ''magister equitum'' Lupicinus to deal with barbarian trouble in Britain in 360.<ref>Ammianus XX.1.3</ref> As regards force distribution, it is evident that the ''duces'' in Gaul have been stripped of troops to reinforce the ''magister equitum'' 's ''comitatus'' and would previously have disposed of much larger forces.<ref>Heather (2005) 247</ref> Similarly, the British garrison of ca. 18,000 men (which must refer to the period ''ante'' 410, when the Roman army finally evacuated the island) was probably much larger earlier in the 4th century, but had been denuded of troops by successive usurpers.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 238–9</ref>

Under Diocletian, the ''duces limitis'' (border commanders) reported to the ''praefectus praetorio'' of their diocese. When the latter were stripped of their military command under Constantine, the ''duces'' may have reported to the ''magistri'' of the imperial escort armies. From at least the 360's onwards, however, they reported to the ''magister militum'' or ''comes'' in command of their regional ''comitatus''.<ref>Jones (1964) 100, 609</ref>

=== Regiments ===

The changes to unit structure in the 4th century were reduction of unit sizes and increase in unit numbers, establishment of new unit types and establishment of a hierarchy of units more complex than the old one of legions and auxilia.

Regiments were classified in four grades, which denoted quality, prestige and probably pay: ''scholares'', ''[[palatini (Roman military)|palatini]]'', ''[[comitatenses]]'' and ''[[limitanei]]''. The ''scholares'' were the members of the elite ''[[scholae]]'' cavalry regiments that formed the imperial horseguards. The ''palatini'' (literally: "of the palace") were regiments mostly (originally only) deployed in the imperial escort armies (''exercitus praesentales''). The ''comitatenses'' were regiments mostly present in the regional ''comitatus'', although the term was also used loosely to include the ''palatini''. (The latter were only differentiated when the regional ''comitatus'' were established). Finally, the ''limitanei'' referred to regiments in the ducal border forces.<ref>Jones (1964) 610, 613</ref>

==== Unit sizes ====

The evidence for the strength of late army units is very fragmented and equivocal.<ref name="t113">Tomlin (1988) 113</ref> The table below gives some recent estimates of unit strength, by unit type and grade:

{| class = wikitable
|+ '''ESTIMATED SIZE OF REGIMENTS IN 4th CENTURY ARMY'''<ref>Data from: Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–17; Elton (1996) 89; Goldsworthy (2003) 206; Mattingly (2006) 239</ref>
! Cavalry unit type !! Comitatenses ''(inc. palatini)'' !! Limitanei !! XXXXX !! Infantry unit type !! Comitatenses ''(inc. palatini)'' !! Limitanei
|-
|Ala
|
|120–500
|
|Auxilium
|400–1,200
|
|-
|Cuneus
|
|200–300
|
|Cohors
|
|160–500
|-
|Equites
|
|80–300
|
|Legio
|800–1,200
|500–1,000
|-
|Schola
|500
|
|
|Milites
|
|200–300
|-
|Vexillatio
|400–600
|
|
|Numerus
|
|200–300
|}

Much uncertainty remains, especially regarding the size of ''limitanei'' regiments, as can be seen by the wide ranges of the size estimates. It is also possible, if not likely, that unit strengths changed over the course of the 4th century. For example, it appears that Valentinian I split about 150 ''comitatus'' units with his brother and co-emperor Valens. The resulting units may have been just half the strength of the parent units (unless a major recruitment drive was held to bring them all up to original strength).<ref name="t113"/>

In the ''comitatus'', there is consensus that ''vexillationes'' were ca. 500 and ''legiones'' ca. 1,000 strong.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) </ref> The greatest uncertainty concerns the size of the crack ''auxilia palatina'' infantry regiments, originally formed by Constantine. Ammianus twice mentions detachments of 300 men from unspecified ''comitatus'' units. It is likely that at least one of these was an ''auxilium'', implying a total unit size substantially in excess of that figure. A force of six infantry units sent to Honorius totaled 4,000 men.<ref name="t113"/> If all these units were ''auxilia'', that would imply a unit size of ca. 700. But the force may have included two ''legiones'' of ca. 1,000 each, since it was customary to mix the two types of unit in task forces and for units to operate in pairs.<ref>e.g. Ammianus XX.1.3</ref> If so, an ''auxilium'' would number ca. 500 men, which draws support from its similarity to the size of its predecessor, the auxiliary ''cohors''. On the other hand, Honorius withdrew five units from Dalmatia totalling 6,000 men, implying that each unit averaged 1,200 men. If this force included ''auxilia'', it would imply the latter were of similar size to ''legiones''.

For the size of ''limitanei'' units, opinion is divided. Jones and Elton suggest from the literary evidence that they contained ca. 500 men each.<ref>Jones (1964) 681–2</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 99</ref> Others draw on papyrus and recent archaeological evidence to argue that these units averaged perhaps half that strength (ca. 250).<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–70</ref><ref>Mattingly (2006) 239</ref> It is this discrepancy that is largely responsible for the wide range of estimates, of between 400,000 and 600,000 for the late army as a whole, as the assumed unit sizes have been multiplied by the number of units listed in the ''Notitia'' to arrive at an overall estimate.<ref>Jones (1964) 683</ref>

==== Scholae ====
[[Image:PraesentalisII2.png|thumb|200px|right|Shield insignia of regiments under the command of the ''Magister Militum Praesentalis II'' of the [[East Roman army]] c. 395. Page from the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]'', a medieval copy of a Late Roman register of military commands]]
The ''Scholae palatinae'' were elite cavalry regiments that acted as imperial escorts and replaced the ''equites singulares Augusti'', the cavalry wing of the Praetorian Guard of the Principate. They existed in Constantine's time and may have been founded by Diocletian.<ref>Jones (1964) 613</ref> At the end of the 4th century, there were five ''scholae'' regiments (2,500 men) under the western ''Augustus'' and seven (3,500) in the East. This compares with 2,000 ''equites singulares'' in the late 2nd century.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58</ref> They were outside the normal military chain of command as they did not belong to the ''comitatus praesentales'' and reported to the ''magister officiorum'', a civilian official.<ref>''Notitia Dignitatum'' Titles IX and XI</ref> However, this was probably only for administrative purposes. On campaign, the ''tribuni'' (regimental commanders) of the ''scholae'' probably reported direct to the emperor himself. 40 select troops from the ''scholae'', called ''candidati'' from their white uniforms, acted as the emperor's personal bodyguards.<ref>Jones (1964) 613</ref>

==== Comitatenses (inc. palatini) ====

In the ''comitatus'' armies (both escort and regional) cavalry regiments were known as ''vexillationes'', infantry regiments as either ''legiones'' or ''auxilia''.<ref>Elton (1996) 89</ref>

The majority of Roman cavalry regiments in the ''comitatus'' (61%) remained of the traditional semi-armoured type, similar in equipment and tactical role to the ''alae'' of the Principate and suitable for mêlée combat. These regiments carry a variety of titles: ''comites'', ''equites scutarii'', ''equites stablesiani'' or ''equites promoti''. These titles are probably purely traditional, and do not indicate different unit types or functions.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> 24% of regiments were unarmoured light cavalry, denoted ''equites Dalmatae'', ''Mauri'' or ''sagittarii'' (mounted archers), suitable for harassment and pursuit. [[Mauri]] light horse had served Rome as auxiliaries since the [[Second Punic War]] 500 years before. ''Equites Dalmatae'', on the other hand, seem to have been regiments first raised in the 3rd century. 15% of regiments were heavily armoured cavalry (''[[cataphracti]]'' and ''[[clibanarii]]''), suitable for the shock charge.<ref>Elton (1996) 106</ref>

Infantry regiments mostly fought in close order as did their Principate forbears. Infantry equipment was broadly similar to the that of auxiliaries in the 2nd century, with some modifications (see Equipment, below).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref>

About 100 regiments in the ''Notitia'', mostly ''palatini'', have the same name, but are designated ''seniores'' or ''iuniores'' e.g. ''equites Batavi seniores'' and ''equites Batavi iuniores''. The timing, origin and significance of the new titles are uncertain. The first documented use of the titles was in 356 (epitaph for a soldier of the ''Ioviani Cornuti Seniores'').<ref>Elton (1996) 95</ref> Most likely, however, this naming convention was first used extensively under Valentinian I (364–75).<ref>Lee (1997) 222</ref> In any case, the titles appear to have reflected precedence, rather than any difference in quality.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 204</ref>

Another feature of ''comitatenses'' units was the pairing of regiments to form a brigade, under the command of a junior ''comes'' (denoted here "junior", to distinguish from ''comes rei militaris'', a far senior officer that commanded a regional ''comitatus''). Such brigades would always operate and transfer together e.g. the legions ''Ioviani'' and ''Herculiani'' or the ''auxilia palatina'' ''Heruli'' and ''Petulantes''.<ref>Elton (1996) 91</ref>

==== Limitanei ====

In the ''limitanei'' forces, most types of regiment were present. For infantry, there are regiments called ''milites'', ''numeri'' and ''auxilia'' as well as old-style ''legiones'' and ''cohortes''. Cavalry regiments are called ''equites'', ''cunei'' and old-style ''alae''.<ref>Elton (1996) 99</ref>

The evidence is that ''comitatenses'' regiments were considered of higher quality than ''limitanei''. But the difference should not be exaggerated. Suggestions have been made that the ''limitanei'' were a part-time [[militia]] of local farmers, of poor combat capability. <ref>Luttwak (1976) 173</ref> This is almost certainly mistaken.<ref>Jones (1964) 649–51</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 99</ref><ref>Lee (1997) 234</ref> In reality, ''limitanei'' were full-time professionals.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 172</ref> Indeed, it was forbidden by law for them to work in the fields or herd animals.<ref>''[[Codex Justinianus]]'' XII.35.15</ref> The ''limitanei'' were charged with combating the incessant small-scale barbarian raids that were the empire's enduring security problem.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 203</ref> It is therefore likely that their combat readiness and experience were high. This was demonstrated at the siege of Amida (359) where the besieged frontier legions resisted the Persians with great skill and tenacity.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 112</ref> ''Limitanei'' regiments often joined the ''comitatus'' for specific campaigns, sometimes being kept on long-term with the title of ''pseudocomitatenses''.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 172</ref>

==== Specialists ====

Archer units are denoted in the ''Notitia'' by the term ''equites sagittarii'' (mounted archers) and ''sagittarii'' (foot archers, from ''sagitta'' = "arrow"). As in the Principate, it is likely that many non-''sagittarii'' regiments also contained some archers. Mounted archers appear to have been exclusively in light cavalry units.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> Archer units, both foot and mounted, were present in the ''comitatus''.<ref>''Notitia'' Oriens.V</ref> In the ducal forces, only mounted archers are listed in the ''Notitia'', which may indicate that many ''limitanei'' infantry regiments contained their own archers.<ref>e.g. ''Notitia'' Oriens.XXXI</ref>

A distinctive feature of the late army is the appearance of independent units of artillery, which during the Principate appears to have been integral to the legions. Called ''ballistarii'' (from ''ballista'' = "catapult"), seven such units are listed in the ''Notitia'', all but one belonging to the ''comitatus''. But a number are denoted ''pseudocomitatenses'', implying that they originally belonged to the ducal forces. The purpose of independent artillery units was presumably to permit heavy concentration of firepower, especially useful for sieges. However it is likely that many ordinary regiments continued to possess integral artillery, especially in the ducal forces.<ref>Elton (1996) 105</ref>

The ''Notitia'' lists a few units of presumably light infantry with names denoting specialist function: ''superventores'' ("interceptors"), ''exculcatores'' ("trackers"), ''exploratores'' ("scouts"). At the same time, Ammianus describes light-armed troops with various terms: ''velites'', ''leves armaturae'', ''exculcatores'', ''expediti''. It is unclear from the context whether any of these were independent units, specialist sub-units, or indeed just detachments of ordinary troops specially armed for a particular operation.<ref>Elton (1996) 104</ref> The ''Notitia'' evidence implies that, at least in some cases, Ammianus could be referring to independent units.

=== Accommodation ===

''Comitatus'' troops and border troops had different accommodation arrangements. Most border units were based in forts as were their predecessors, the auxiliary regiments of the Principate (indeed, in many cases, the same forts).<ref>Mattingly (2006) 245</ref> Some of the larger ''limitanei'' units (''legiones'' and ''vexillationes'') were based in cities, probably in permanent barracks.<ref>Jones (1964) 631</ref>

''Comitatus'' troops were also based in cities (when not on campaign: then they would be in temporary camps). But it seems that did not usually occupy purpose-built accommodation like the city-based ''limitanei''. From the legal evidence, it seems they were normally compulsorily billeted in private houses (''hospitalitas'').<ref>Jones (1964) 631–2</ref> This is because they often wintered in different provinces: the ''comitatus praesentales'' accompanied their respective emperors on campaign. However, in the 5th century, emperors rarely campaigned in person, so the ''praesentales'' became more static in their winter bases.<ref>Elton (1996) 208</ref>

== Recruitment ==
=== Romans ===

During the Principate, it appears that most recruits, both legionary and auxiliary, were volunteers (''voluntarii''). Compulsory conscription (''dilectus'') was never wholly abandoned, but was generally only used in emergencies or before major campaigns when large numbers of additional troops were required.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 77</ref> In marked contrast, the late army relied mainly on compulsion for its recruitment of Roman citizens. Firstly, the sons of serving soldiers or veterans were required by law to enlist. Secondly, a regular annual levy was held based on the ''indictio'' (land tax assessment). Depending on the amount of land tax due on his estates, a landowner (or group of landowners) would be required to provide a commensurate number of recruits to the army.<ref>Jones (1964) </ref> Naturally, landowners had a strong incentive to keep their best young men to work on their estates, sending the less fit or reliable for military service. There is also evidence that they tried to cheat the draft by offering the sons of soldiers (who were liable to serve anyway) and vagrants (''vagi'') to fulfil their quota.<ref name="j615">Jones (1964) 615</ref>

However, the recruitment base was in practice not universal. Firstly, a land-based levy meant recruits were exclusively the sons of peasants, as opposed to townspeople.<ref name="j615"/> Thus some 20% of the empire's population was excluded.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 356</ref> In addition, as during the Principate, slaves were not admissible. Nor were freedmen and persons in certain occupations such as bakers and innkeepers. In addition, provincial officials and ''curiales'' (city council members) could not enlist. These rules were relaxed only in emergencies, as during the military crisis of 405–6 ([[Radagaisus]]' invasion of Italy and the great barbarian invasion of Gaul).<ref>Jones (1964) 614</ref> Most importantly, the conscription requirement was often commuted into a cash levy, at a fixed rate per recruit due. This was done for certain provinces, in certain years, although the specific details are largely unknown. It appears that conscription was not applied evenly across provinces but concentrated heavily in the army's traditional recruiting areas of Gaul (including the two ''Germaniae'' provinces along the Rhine) and the Danubian provinces, with other regions presumably often commuted. An analysis of the known origins of ''comitatenses'' in the period 350–476 shows that in the Western army, the Illyricum and Gaul dioceses together provided 52% of total recruits. On the other hand, only 7% were Italians despite Italy probably being the most populous diocese of the West. In the Eastern army, the Danubian dioceses of Dacia and Thracia provided 54% of the total. Overall the Danubian regions provided nearly half of the whole army's recruits, despite containing only three of the 13 dioceses.<ref>Elton (1996) 134</ref> This picture is much in line with the 2nd century position.<ref>''Roman Diplomas Online'' Introduction</ref>

Prospective recruits had to undergo an examination. Recruits had to be 20–25 years of age, a range that was extended to 19–35 in the later 4th century. Recruits had to be physically fit and meet the traditional minimum height requirement of 6 [[Roman foot|Roman feet]] (5ft 10in, 175cm) until 367, when it was reduced to 5 Roman feet and 3 [[Ancient Roman units of measurement|Roman palm]]s (5ft 7in, 167cm).<ref>Jones (1964) 614, 616</ref>

Once a recruit was accepted, he was branded to facilitate recognition if he attempted to desert. The recruit was then issued with an identification disk (which was worn around the neck) and a certificate of enlistment (''probatoria''). He was then assigned to a unit. A law of 375 required those with superior fitness to be assigned to the ''comitatenses''. A law of Constantine decreed that the son of a cavalryman had the right to enrol in a cavalry regiment if he brought his own horse.<ref>Jones (1964) 617</ref> In the 4th century, the minimum length of service was 20 years (24 years in some ''limitanei'' units).<ref name="g208">Goldsworthy (2003) 208</ref> This compares with 25 years in both legions and auxilia during the Principate.

The widespread use of conscription, the compulsory recruitment of soldiers' sons, the relaxation of age and height requirements and the branding of recruits all add up to a picture of an army that had severe difficulties in finding, and retaining, sufficient recruits.<ref>Lee (1997) 221–2</ref> Recruitment difficulties are confirmed in the legal code evidence: there are measures to deal with cases of self-mutilation to avoid military service (such as cutting off a thumb), including an extreme decree of 386 requiring such persons to be burnt alive.<ref name="g208"/> Desertion was clearly a serious problem, and was probably much worse than in the Principate army, since the latter was mainly a volunteer army. This is supported by the fact that the granting of leave of absence (''commeatus'') was more strictly regulated. While in the 2nd century, a soldier's leave was granted at the discretion of his regimental commander, in the 4th century, leave could only be granted by a far senior corps commander (''dux'', ''comes'' or ''magister militum'').<ref>Birley (2002)</ref><ref>Jones (1964) 633</ref> Against this, Elton argues that there were no serious recruitment problems, based on the extensive exemptions to military service granted.<ref>Elton (1996) 154</ref> But Elton admits that while the ''official'' strength of ''comitatus'' units was probably 600 for cavalry units and 1,200 for infantry units, their ''actual'' recorded strength was 400 and 800 respectively.<ref>Elton 1996) 89</ref> The massive disparity between official and actual strength is powerful evidence of recruitment problems.

=== Barbarians ===

''Barbari'' ("[[barbarians]]") was the generic term used by the Romans to denote peoples resident beyond the borders of the empire, and best translates as "foreigners" (it is derived from a Greek word meaning "to babble": a reference to their outlandish tongues).

Most scholars believe that the regular ''auxilia'' recruited significant numbers of ''barbari'' throughout their history.<ref> Heather (2005) 119</ref><ref name="g208"/> However, there is little evidence of this before the 3rd century. The scant evidence suggests that the vast majority, if not all, of auxilia were Roman [[Peregrinus (Roman)|peregrini]] (second-class citizens) or Roman citizens.<ref>''Roman Military Diplomas'' Vols IV and V: Personnel tables</ref> In any case, the 4th century army was probably much more dependent on barbarian recruitment than its 1st/2nd century predecessor. The evidence for this may be summarised as follows:

# The ''Notitia'' lists a number of barbarian military settlements in the empire. Known as ''[[laeti]]'' or ''gentiles'' ("natives"), these were an important source of recruits for the army. Groups of Germanic or Sarmatian tribespeople were granted land to settle in the Empire, in return for military service. Most likely each ommunity was under a treaty obligation to supply a specified number of troops to the army each year.<ref name="g208"/> The resettlement within the empire of barbarian tribespeople in return for military service was not a new phenomenon in the 4th century: it stretches back to the days of Augustus. <ref>[[Tacitus]], ''Germania'' 28; Dio Cassius, LXXI.11</ref> But it does appear that the establishment of military settlements was more systematic and on a much larger scale in the 4th century.<ref>Lee (1997) 222–3</ref>
# The ''Notitia'' lists a large number of units with barbarian names. This was probably the result of the transformation of irregular allied units serving under their own native officers (known as ''socii'', or ''foederati'') into regular formations. During the Principate, regular units with barbarian names are not attested until the 3rd century and even then rarely e.g. the ''ala I Sarmatarum'' attested in 3rd century Britain, doubtless an offshoot of the Sarmatian horsemen posted there in 175.<ref>www.roman-britain.org ''Table of auxiliary regiments''</ref>
# The emergence of significant numbers of senior officers with barbarian names in the regular army, and eventually in the high command itself. In the early 5th century, the Western Roman forces were often controlled by barbarian-born generals, such as [[Arbogast]], [[Stilicho]] and [[Ricimer]].<ref>Zosimus books IV, V</ref>
# The adoption by the 4th century army of barbarian (especially Germanic) dress, customs and culture, suggesting enhanced barbarian influence. For example, Roman army units adopted mock barbarian names e.g. Cornuti = "horned ones", a reference to the German custom of attaching horns to their helmets, and the ''barritus'', a German warcry. Long hair became fashionable, especially in the ''palatini'' regiments, where barbarian-born recruits were numerous.<ref>Lee (1997) </ref>

Quantification of the proportion of barbarian-born troops in the 4th century army is highly speculative. Elton has the most detailed analysis of the meagre evidence. According to this, about a quarter of the sample of army officers was barbarian-born in the period 350–400. Analysis by decade shows that this proportion did not increase over the period, or indeed in the early 5th century. The latter trend implies that the proportion of barbarians in the lower ranks was not much greater, otherwise the proportion of barbarian officers would have increased over time to reflect that.<ref>Elton (1996) 148–9</ref>

If the proportion of barbarians was in the region of 25%, then it is probably a much higher proportion than in the 2nd century regular army. If the same proportion had been recruited into the auxilia of the 2nd century army (the legions were closed to non-citizens), then in excess of 40% of recruits would have been barbarian-born, since the auxilia constituted 60% of the regular land army.<ref>Holder (2003) 145</ref> There is no evidence that recruitment of barbarians was on such a large scale in the 2nd century.<ref>Holder (1980) 109–24</ref>

An analysis of named soldiers of non-Roman origin shows that 75% are Germanic: [[Franks]], [[Alamanni]], [[Saxons]], [[Goths]], and [[Vandals]] are attested in the ''Notitia'' unit names.<ref>Elton (1996) 136</ref> Other significant sources of recruits were the [[Sarmatians]] from the Danubian lands; and [[Armenians]], and [[Caucasian Iberians|Iberians]] from the [[Caucasus]] region.<ref>Jones (1964) 619</ref> In contrast to Roman recruits, the vast majority of barbarian recruits were probably volunteers, drawn by conditions of service and career prospects that to them probably appeared desirable, in contrast to their living conditions at home. A minority of barbarian recruits were enlisted by compulsion, namely ''dediticii'' (barbarians who surrendered to the Roman authorities, often to escape strife with neighbouring tribes) and tribes who were defeated by the Romans, and obliged, as a condition of peace, to undertake to provide a specified number of recruits annually.<ref>Jones (1964) 619–20</ref>

=== ''Foederati'' ===

Outside the regular army were substantial numbers of allied forces, generally known as ''foederati'' (from ''foedus'' = "treaty") or ''symmachi'' in the East. The latter were forces supplied either by barbarian chiefs under their treaty of alliance with Rome or ''dediticii''.<ref>Jones (1964) 611</ref> Such forces were employed by the Romans throughout imperial history: the battle scenes from [[Trajan's Column]] in Rome show that ''foederati'' troops played an important part in the [[Dacian Wars]] (101–6).<ref>Rossi (1971) 104</ref>

In the 4th century, these forces were organised into ill-defined units based on a single ethnic group called ''numeri'' ("troops", although ''numerus'' was also the name of a regular infantry unit).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 204</ref> They served alongside the regular army for the duration of particular campaigns or for a specified period. Normally their service would be limited to the region where the tribe lived, but sometimes could be deployed elsewhere.<ref>Jones (1964) 611–2</ref>They were commanded by their own leaders. It is unclear whether they used their own weapons and armour or the standard equipment of the Roman army. The more useful and long-serving ''numeri'' appear to have been absorbed into the regular late army, rapidly becoming indistinguishable from other units.<ref>Elton (1996) 92</ref> There is no evidence of irregular barbarian units becoming part of the regular Principate army until the 3rd century.<ref>Holder (1980) 109–24</ref>

== Ranks, pay and benefits ==

=== Common soldiers ===

At the bottom end of the rank pyramid were the common soldiers: ''pedes'' (infantryman) and ''eques'' (cavalryman). The 4th century soldier's remuneration consisted of (a) an annual cash salary (''stipendium''); (b) food rations (''annona''), which were paid in kind or in cash equivalent, always the latter from the late 4th century. In addition, cavalrymen received a fodder allowance (''capitus''), probably worth the same as the ''annona''; (c) an equipment allowance to cover clothes and maybe armour and weapons; (d) occasional cash bonuses (''donativa'') and (e) a discharge bonus (''praemium'').<ref>Elton (1996) 121–2</ref> The ''annona'' and equipment allowance were obviously not disposable, as they were needed for subsistence. The ''stipendium'' was in Diocletian's time ca. 1,800 ''[[denarii]]'', then officially worth 2 gold ''[[solidi]]'', but actually worth much less due to debasement of the coin's silver content. By the time of Constantine, it was virtually worthless and ceased being paid regularly in mid 4th century.<ref>Jones (1964) 623</ref>

The soldier's sole substantial disposable income came from the ''donativa'', as these were paid in ''solidi'' (which were never debased), or in pure silver. There was a regular donative of 5 ''solidi'' every five years of an ''Augustus'' reign (i.e. one ''solidus'' p.a.) Also, on the accession of a new ''Augustus'', 5 ''solidi'' plus a pound of silver (worth 4 ''solidi'') were paid. The 12 ''Augusti'' that ruled the West between 284 and 395 averaged about nine years per reign. Thus the accession donatives would have averaged about 1 ''solidus'' p.a. It is also possible that this bonus was paid for each ''Augustus'' and/or each ''Caesar''.<ref>Elton (1996) 120–1</ref> The late soldier's disposable income would thus have averaged around 2–4 ''solidi'' per annum. Even at the high end of the range, this was far less than for an early Principate soldier.<ref>Tomlin (1987) 115</ref> An auxiliary of the latter period had disposable income (after food and equipment deductions) of 140 Principate ''denarii'', equivalent to ca. 8 ''solidi'' p.a. (assuming he was not also paid ''donativa''). A Principate legionary, who certainly received ''donativa'', enjoyed about 12 ''solidi'' p.a. of disposable income.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 95</ref> The late soldier's discharge bonus was also minuscule compared with a 2nd century legionary's. The latter received 3,000 Principate ''denarii'', equivalent of 180 ''solidi'', a very large sum representing about 10 years' gross salary.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 35</ref> His late counterpart received a retirement package (including a plot of land) worth just a tenth of the legionary's.<ref>Elton (1996) 123</ref>
{{FixHTML|beg}}
[[Image:Roman soldier end of third century northern province.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roman infantryman in the time of [[Diocletian]] (r.284–305). Unlike the 1st/2nd century standard "Imperial Gallic" helmet, this late helmet has a nose-guard and its hinged cheek-guards cover the ears. This afforded better facial and head protection, but at the cost of reduced field of vision and hearing.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 202</ref> The armour is chain mail (''[[lorica hamata]]'') and the shield oval/round, the typical armour of the 2nd century auxilia.]]
[[Image:PICT0712small.jpg|thumb|right|200px|4th century foot soldier. Note the differences with 2nd century attire: trousers instead of bare legs; boots instead of sandals. The tunic has long sleeves, unlike the short-sleeved tunic of the Principate. This soldier is armed with a single heavy thrusting-spear]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
[[Image:PICT0709small.jpg|thumb|right|200px|4th century soldier wearing leather cuirass arguing with a ''tubicen'' (trumpeter) wearing a Pannonian cap, a typical military uniform headdress of the era. Note that both soldiers are armed with a ''[[spatha]]'' (a longer sword used only by the cavalry during the Principate) instead of the ''[[gladius]]'', the short sword that was the standard infantry weapon until the 3rd century. The sword is now worn on the left side, rather than the right as previously, probably to facilitate (un)sheathing of the longer sword by a right-handed soldier<ref name="g203"/>]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
[[Image:Sutton.Hoo.Helmet.RobRoy.jpg|thumb|right|200px|6th century parade helmet from the [[Sutton Hoo]] royal burial site. Based on a late Roman design, this type of helmet was commonly used by the Roman cavalry of the 4th-6th centuries.<ref name="g203">Goldsworthy (2003) 203</ref> Note the face-guard and deep, hinged neck-guard. [[British Museum]], London]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
[[Image:Armed-horseman.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Bas-relief of a Parthian heavily armoured mounted warrior. He is wearing what is probably a chain-mail face-guard. This is possibly the kind of armour denoted by the Roman term ''[[clibanarius]]'', probably meaning "furnace man" in reference to the heat that would build up inside such all-encompassing armour. Note the armoured caparison for the horse. From Taq-e Bostan, Iran]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
{{Externalimage
|align=right
|width=210px
|image1=[http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/paintingcataphract.jpg Roman cataphract cavalryman]<ref>http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/ ''Retrieved'' 7 February 2008</ref>
|image2=[http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/dogpng1/KOLR/horse7.jpg Reenactor as Roman cataphract]<ref>http://s85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/dogpng1/KOLR/ ''Retrieved'' 7 February 2008</ref>
|image3=[http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes_files/image013.jpg Reenactor as Late Roman staff slinger]<ref>http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm ''Retrieved'' 6 February 2008</ref>
|image4=[http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes_files/image011.jpg Reenactor as Late Roman archer]<ref>http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm ''Retrieved'' 6 February 2008</ref>
|image5=[http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes_files/image011.jpg Reenactor as Late Roman skirmisher with javelins]<ref>http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm ''Retrieved'' 6 February 2008</ref>
}}
{{FixHTML|end}}
Retired veterans were granted important tax privileges, as they were in the 2nd century. In the 4th century, veterans were exempt from poll tax, customs and market dues. They were also exempt from ''corvées'' (compulsory labour for the state). Finally, if they owned land, they were not subject to curial duties (i.e. service in the town councils, which was extremely unpopular, as it was unpaid and indeed expensive, as ''curiales'' were expected to pay for public works and events out of their own pockets).<ref>Jones (1964) 635</ref>

Despite the disparity with the Principate, Jones and Elton argue that 4th century remuneration was attractive compared to the hard reality of existence at [[subsistence agriculture|subsistence level]] that most recruits' peasant families had to endure.<ref>Jones (1964) 647</ref> Against that has to be set the clear unpopularity of military service.

However, pay would have been more attractive in higher-grade units. As in the Principate army, pay levels varied according to the unit's position in the military hierarchy. In the Principate, pay levels were (in descending order) Praetorian Guard, legions, auxilia, with cavalry paid 20–40% more than infantry in each corps. In the late army, the top of the pay pyramid were the ''scholae'' elite cavalry regiments. Next came ''palatini'' units, then ''comitatenses'', and finally ''limitanei''. There is little evidence about the pay differentials between grades. But life for a ''scholaris'' (''schola'' cavalryman), for example, would have been very comfortable. An ''actuarius'' (quartermaster) of a ''comitatus'' regiment was paid 50% more than his counterpart in a ''pseudocomitatensis'' regiment.<ref>Jones (1964) 626, 647</ref>

=== Junior officers ===

Junior officer grades in old-style units (''legiones'', ''alae'' and ''cohortes'') remained the same as under the Principate up to and including [[centurion]] and [[decurion]]. In the new-style units, (''vexillationes'', ''auxilia'', etc), ranks with quite different names are attested.<ref>Jones (1964) 634</ref> So little is known about these ranks that it is impossible to equate them with the traditional ranks with any certainty. Vegetius states that the ''ducenarius'' commanded, as the name implies, 200 men. If so, the ''centenarius'' may be the equivalent of a centurion in the old-style units.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 202</ref> Probably the most accurate comparison is by pay levels:

{| class = wikitable
|+ '''RANKS IN THE 4th CENTURY ARMY'''<ref>Based on: Jones (1964) 634; Goldsworthy (1995) 202; Holder (1980) 90–6</ref>
! Multiple of basic pay (2nd c.) or annona (4th c.) !! 2nd c. cohors ''(ascending ranks)'' !! 2nd c. ala ''(ascending ranks)'' !! XXX !! New-style units ''(ascending ranks)''
|-
|1
|pedes
|gregalis
|
|pedes (eques)
|-
|1.5
|tesserarius
|sesquiplicarius
|
|semissalis
|-
|2
|signifer optio vexillarius
|signifer curator? vexillarius
|
|circitor biarchus
|-
|2.5 to 5
|centurio centurio princeps beneficiarius?
|decurio decurio princeps beneficiarius?
|
|centenarius (2.5) ducenarius (3.5) senator (4) primicerius (5)
|}
NOTE: Ranks correspond only in pay scale, not necessarily in function

=== Senior officers ===

{| class=wikitable
|+ '''SENIOR RANKS IN THE 4TH CENTURY ARMY'''
! Pay scale ''(multiple of pedes)'' !! Rank ''(ascending order)'' !! Job description
|-
|12
|Protector
|officer cadet
|-
|n.a.
|Tribunus
|regimental commander
|-
|n.a.
|Comes (junior)
|commander, brigade of two regiments
|-
|100
|Dux
|border army commander
|-
|n.a.
|Comes (rei militaris)
|commander, smaller regional ''comitatus''
|-
|n.a.
|Vicarius
|deputy to magister militum
|-
|n.a.
|Magister militum
|commander, ''comitatus praesentalis'' or larger regional ''comitatus''
|}

A significant innovation of the 4th century was the corps of ''protectores''. Officers given a commission by the emperor initially held the rank of ''protector''. Although ''protectores'' were supposed to be soldiers who had risen through the ranks by meritorious service, it became a widespread practice to admit to the corps young men from outside the army (often the sons of senior officers). The ''protectores'' formed a corps that was both an officer training school and pool of staff officers available to carry out special tasks for the ''magistri militum'' and the emperor (as ''protectores domestici''). For example, ''protectores'' might be detailed to supervise recruitment for the army; carry out inspections of goods on public highways; arrest important persons; or supervise fortification works. The ''protectores domestici'' were organised in four ''scholae'' under a ''comes domesticorum''. After a few years' service in the corps, a ''protector'' would normally be promoted to command a military regiment.<ref>Jones (1964) 636–40</ref>

Regimental commanders were known by one of three possible titles: ''tribunus'', ''praefectus'' or ''praepositus''. ''Tribunus'' was the most common title and was often used loosely to mean the commander of any unit. Strictly speaking, the commanders of ''scholae'', ''vexillationes'', ''auxilia'', ''legiones palatinae'' and ''cohortes'' were called ''tribuni''.<ref>Jones (1964) 640</ref> In the Principate, only a minority of unit commanders were known as ''tribuni militum'' (mostly the commanders of milliary auxiliary regiments), with most ''tribuni'' serving as staff officers in the legions. The common use of the title in the later era lends support to the hypothesis that legions were split up during the third century to form smaller units.

== Equipment ==

The basic equipment of a 4th century foot soldier was essentially the same as in the 2nd century: metal armour cuirass, metal helmet, shield, sword, dagger. Some evolution took place during the 3rd century. Trends included the adoption of warmer clothing; the disappearance of distinctive legionary armour and weapons; the adoption by the infantry of equipment used by the cavalry in the earlier period; and the greater use of heavily armoured cavalry called [[cataphracts]].<ref>Elton (1996) </ref>

=== Clothing ===

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, a Roman soldier's clothes consisted of a single-piece, short-sleeved tunic whose hem reached the knees and special hobnailed sandals (''caligae''). This attire, which left the arms and legs bare, had evolved in a Mediterranean climate and was not suitable for northern Europe in cold weather. In those climes, long-sleeved tunics, trousers (''bracae''), socks (worn inside the ''caligae'') and laced boots were commonly worn in winter by the late 1st century. During the 3rd century, these items of clothing became much more widespread.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 120, 127</ref>

=== Armour ===

Legionary soldiers of the 1st and 2nd centuries had exclusive use of the ''[[lorica segmentata]]'' or laminated-strip cuirass which was a complex piece of armour which provided superior protection to the other types of Roman armour, chain mail (''[[lorica hamata]]'') and scale armour (''[[lorica squamata]]''). Testing of modern replicas have demonstrated that this kind of armour was impenetrable to most direct and missile strikes. It was, however, uncomfortable: reenactors have discovered that chafing renders it painful to wear for longer than a few hours at a time. It was also expensive to produce and difficult to maintain.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 129</ref> In the 3rd century, the ''segmentata'' appears to have been dropped and troops are depicted wearing [[chain mail]] (mainly) or scales, the standard armour of the 2nd century auxilia. The arechaeological record shows that most late soldiers wore metal armour, despite Vegetius' statement to the contrary. Officers generally seem to have worn simple bronze or iron cuirasses, as in the days of the Republic.<ref>Elton (1996) 111</ref>

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the standard design of the Roman infantry helmet is today called the "Imperial Gallic" type. Its essential features were a single-piece bowl with reinforced front to resist downward sword-thrusts, a wide neck-guard at a shallow angle and large, hinged cheek-guards. However, the front of the face and ears were left uncovered, to allow maximum field of vision and range of hearing.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 124</ref> This inevitably entailed frequent facial injuries.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 135</ref> The cavalry version of the Imperial Gallic differed in having extended cheek-guards that covered the ears and neck-guards that were much longer and more steeply-angled but also narrower than the infantry helmet. This afforded more protection to the rear and sides of the head, which were more likely to receive blows in cavalry mêlées than in an infantry line, but at the expense of poorer vision and hearing.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 137</ref> During the 3rd century, infantry helmets adopted some of these cavalry features. In some cases extra protective features were added, such as nose-guards, although the latter were by no means universal, as the reliefs on the [[Arch of Constantine]] show. Face-guards of mail or metal piece with eye-holes were also added occasionally, especially to cavalry helmets.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 205</ref> Later helmets were predominantly of the "Intercisa" design: the bowl was made of two separate pieces joined by a riveted ridge in the middle. This was simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the earlier single-bowl type, but structurally weaker and therefore offered less effective protection.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 123</ref>

The late Roman army contained a significant number of heavily armoured cavalry called ''[[cataphracts|cataphracti]]'' (from the Greek ''kataphraktos'', meaning "covered all over"). These were covered from neck to foot by [[scale armour|scale]] and/or [[lamellar armour|lamellar]], and their horses were often armoured also. Cataphracts carried a long, heavy lance called a ''[[contus]]'', ca. 3.65 m long, that was held in both hands. Some also carried bows.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 139</ref> The central tactic of cataphracts was the shock charge, which aimed to break the enemy line by concentrating overwhelming force on a defined section of it. A type of cataphract called a ''clibanarius'' also appears in the 4th century record. This term may de derived from Greek ''klibanos'' (a bread oven) or from a Persian word. It is likely that ''clibanarius'' is simply an alternative term to cataphract, or it may have been a special type of cataphract.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> It is possible that the term, which may refer to the build-up of heat in enclosed armour, refers to the use of a fully-enclosed helmet (similar to a medieval [[great helm]]) with slit-opening for the eyes.

This type of cavalry had been developed by the Iranic horse-based nomadic tribes of the Eurasian [[steppes]] from the 6th-century BCE onwards: the [[Scythians]] and their kinsmen the [[Sarmatians]]. The type was adopted by the [[Parthians]] in the 1st century BCE and later by the Romans, who needed it to counter Parthians in the East and the Sarmatians along the Danube.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 213</ref> The first regiment of Roman cataphracts to appear in the archaeological record is the ''ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum cataphractaria'', attested in [[Pannonia]] in the early 2nd century.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 138</ref> Although Roman cataphracts were not new, they were far more numerous in the late army, with most regiments stationed in the East.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref>

The legionary ''[[scutum (shield)|scutum]]'', a convex rectangular shield renowned for allowing troops to lock shields protectively in battle, such as the ''testudo'' formation, also disappeared during the 3rd century. All troops adopted the auxiliary oval (or sometimes round) shield (''clipeus'').<ref>Elton (1996) </ref>

=== Hand weapons ===

The ''[[gladius]]'', a short (median length: 460 mm) stabbing-sword that was designed for close-quarters fighting, and was standard for the Principate infantry (both legionary and auxiliary), also was phased out during the 3rd century. The infantry adopted the ''[[spatha]]'', a longer (median length: 760mm) sword that during the earlier centuries was used by the cavalry only.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> At the same time, infantry acquired a heavy thrusting-spear (''[[hasta]]'') which became the main close order combat weapon to replace the ''gladius'', as the ''spatha'' was too long to be swung comfortably in tight formation (although it could be used to stab). The infantry's adoption of the thrusting-spear as the main melee weapon, combined with enhanced missile capability, shows a greater emphasis on fighting the enemy "at arm's length".<ref>Elton (1996) 110</ref>

=== Missiles ===

In addition to his thrusting-spear, a late foot soldier might also carry a throwing-spear (''verrutum'') or a ''spiculum'', a kind of heavy, long ''pilum'', similar to an [[angon]]. Alternatively, a couple of short javelins (''lanceae''). Late infantrymen often carried half a dozen lead-weighted throwing-darts called ''[[plumbata]]e'' (from ''plumbum'' = "lead"), with an effective range of ca. 30 m, well beyond that of a javelin. The darts were carried clipped to the back of the shield.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 167; (2003) 205</ref> The late foot soldier thus had greater missile capability than his Principate predecessor, who was usually limited to just one ''pilum''.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 168</ref> Late archers continued to use the recurved [[composite bow]] as their standard. This was a sophisticated, compact and powerful weapon, suitable for mounted and foot archers alike (the cavalry version being more compact than the infantry's). A small number of archers may have been armed with [[crossbows]] (''manuballistae'').<ref>Elton (1996) 108</ref>

== Fortifications ==
[[Image:Theodosianische Landmauer in Istanbul.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Theodosian Walls|Walls of Theodosius II]] at Constantinople, built 408–413. Note the massive crenellated towers and surviving sections of wall. The walls actually consisted of a triple curtain, each one overlooking the other. They proved impregnable to even the largest armies until the introduction of explosive artillery in the later Middle Ages]]
[[Image:Roman Cologne, reconstruction.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Aerial view of ''[[Colonia Agrippina]]'' (Cologne, Germany) in the Roman era. Note (bottom right) the Constantinian fortress of ''Divitia'' ([[Deutz]]), on the opposite bank of the [[Rhine]]. Its main function was to guard the approach to the newly-built bridge (310) and to act as a base protect fluvial traffic. Several such cross-river forts were built along the Rhine-Danube frontier in the late period]]
Compared to the 1st and 2nd centuries, the 3rd and 4th centuries saw much greater fortification activity, with many new forts built.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 206</ref> Later Roman fortifications, both new and upgraded old ones, contained much stronger defensive features than their earlier counterparts. In addition, the late 3rd/4th centuries saw the fortification of many towns and cities including the City of Rome itself and its eastern sister, Constantinople.<ref>Elton (1996) 161–71</ref>

Roman forts of the 1st/2nd centuries, whether ''castra legionaria'' (inaccurately translated as legionary "fortresses") or auxiliary forts, were clearly residential bases that were not designed to withstand major assault. The typical rectangular "playing-card" shape, the long, thin and low walls and shallow ditch and the unfortified gates were not easily defensible features and their purpose was delimitation and keeping out individual intruders.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 134–5</ref>

In contrast, later forts were built to much higher defensive specifications, including the following features:
# Deeper (average: 3 m) and much wider (av. 10 m) perimeter ditches (''fossae''). These would have flat floors rather than the traditional V-shape.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 206</ref> Such ditches would make it difficult to bring siege equipment (ladders, rams, and other engines) to the walls. It would also concentrate attackers in an enclosed area where they would be exposed to missile fire from the walls.<ref>Elton (1996) 161</ref>
# Higher (av. 9 m) and thicker (av. 3 m) walls. Walls were made of stone or stone facing with rubble core. The greater thickness would protect the wall from enemy mining. The height of the walls would force attackers to use scaling-ladders. The parapet of the rampart would have [[crenellations]] to provide protection from missiles for defenders.<ref>Elton (1996) 163</ref>
# Higher (av. 17.5 m) and projecting corner and interval towers. These would enable enfilading fire on attackers. Towers were normally round or half-round, and only rarely square as the latter were less defensible. Towers would be normally be spaced at 30 m intervals on circuit walls.<ref>Elton (1996) 162–3</ref>
# Gate towers, one on each side of the gate and projecting out from the gate to allow defenders to shoot into the area in front of the entrance. The gates themselves were normally wooden with metal covering plates to prevent destruction by fire. Some gates had [[portcullises]]. Postern gates were built into towers or near them to allow sorties.<ref>Elton (1996) 164</ref>

More numerous than new-build forts were old forts upgraded to higher defensive specifications. Thus the two parallel ditches common around earlier forts could be joined by excavating the ground between them. Projecting towers were added. Gates were either rebuilt with projecting towers or sealed off by constructing a large rectangular [[bastion]]. The walls were strengthened by doubling the old thickness. Upgraded forts were generally much larger than new-build. New forts were rarely over one hectare in size and were normally placed to fill gaps between old forts and towns.<ref>Elton (1996) 165–7</ref> However, not all of the old forts that continued to be used in the 4th century were upgraded e.g. the forts on [[Hadrian's Wall]] and some other forts in Britannia were not significantly modified.<ref>Elton (1996) 167</ref>

The main features of late Roman fortification clearly presage those of [[castle|medieval castles]]. But the defensibility of late Roman forts must not be exaggerated. Late Roman forts were not always located on defensible sites, such as hilltops and they were not designed as independent logistic facilities where the garrison could survive on internal supplies (water in cisterns or from wells and stored food) for months or even years. They remained bases for troops that would sally out and engage the enemy in the field.<ref>Isaac (1992) 198</ref>

Nevertheless, the benefits of more defensible forts are evident: they could act as temporary refuges for overwhelmed local troops during barbarian incursions, while they waited for reinforcements. The forts were difficult for the barbarians to take by assault, as they generally lacked the necessary equipment. The forts could store sufficient supplies to enable the defenders to hold out for a few days, and to supply relieving troops. They could also act as bases from which defenders could make sorties against isolated groups of barbarians and to cooperate with relieving forces.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 132–4</ref>

The question arises as to why the 4th century army needed forts with such defensive features that the 2nd century army apparently did not. E. Luttwak argues that defensible forts were an integral feature of a 4th century defence-in-depth "grand strategy", while in the 2nd century "preclusive defence" rendered such forts unnecessary . But the existence of such a "strategy" is strongly disputed by several scholars, as many elements of the late Roman army's posture were consistent with continued forward defence.<ref>Mann (1979) 175–83</ref> An alternative explanation is that preclusive defence was still in effect but was not working as well as previously and barbarian raids were penetrating the empire more frequently.(see Strategy, below)

== Strategy and tactics ==
=== Strategy ===

[[Edward Luttwak]]'s ''Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire'' (1976) launched the thesis that in the 3rd and early 4th centuries, the empire's defence strategy mutated from "forward defence" (or "preclusive defence") in the Principate to "defence-in-depth" in the 4th century. This section contains a brief summary of the debate on this issue. Readers seeking a more detailed analysis should consult [[Defence-in-depth (Roman military)]].

According to Luttwak, the Principate army had relied on neutralising imminent barbarian incursions before they reached the imperial borders. This was achieved by stationing units (both legions and auxiliary regiments) right on the border and establishing and garrisoning strategic salients beyond the borders. The response to any threat would thus be a pincer movement into barbarian territory: large infantry and cavalry forces from the border bases would immediately cross the border to intercept the coalescing enemy army. <ref>Luttwak (1976) Fig.3.3</ref>

According to Luttwak, the forward defence system was always vulnerable to unusually large barbarian concentrations of forces, as the Roman army was too thinly spread along the enormous borders to deal with such threats. In addition, the lack of any reserves to the rear of the border entailed that a barbarian force that successfully penetrated the perimeter defences would have unchallenged ability to rampage deep into the empire before Roman reinforcements from other border garrisons could arrive to intercept them.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 136</ref>

The essential feature of defence-in-depth, according to Luttwak, was an acceptance that the Roman frontier provinces themselves would become the main combat zone in operations against barbarian threats, rather than the barbarian lands across the border. Under this strategy, border forces would not attempt to repel a large incursion. Instead, they would retreat into fortified strongholds and wait for mobile forces (''comitatenses'') to arrive and intercept the invaders. Border forces would be substantially weaker than under forward defence, but their reduction in numbers (and quality) would be compensated by the establishment of much stronger fortifications to protect themselves.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 132</ref>

But the validity of Luttwak's thesis has been strongly disputed by a number of scholars, especially in a powerful critique by B. Isaac, the author of the fundamental study of the Roman army in the East (1992).<ref>J. C. Mann in ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 69 (1979)</ref><ref>F. Miller in ''Britannia'' 13 (1982)</ref><ref>Isaac (1992) 372–418</ref> Isaac claims that the empire did not have the intelligence capacity or centralised military planning to sustain a grand strategy e.g. there was no equivalent to a modern army's [[German General Staff|general staff]].<ref>Isaac (1992) 378, 383, 401–6</ref> In any case, claims Isaac, the empire was not interested in "defence" at all: it was fundamentally aggressive both in ideology and military posture, up to and including the 4th century.<ref>Isaac (1992) 387–93</ref>

Furthermore, there is a lack of substantial archaeological or literary evidence to support the defence-in-depth theory.<ref>Mann (1979) 180–1</ref> (a) J.C. Mann points out that there is no evidence, either in the ''Notitia Dignitatum'' or in the archaeological record, that units along the Rhine or Danube were stationed in the border hinterlands.<ref>Mann (1979) 180</ref> On the contrary, virtually all forts identified as built or occupied in the 4th century on the Danube lay on, very near or even beyond the river, strikingly similar to the 2nd century distribution.<ref>C. Scarre ''Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome'' (1995) 87 (map)</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 157, 159 (Fig 13)</ref>

Another supposed element of "defence-in-depth" were the ''comitatus praesentales'' (imperial escort armies) stationed in the interior of the empire. But Luttwak himself admits that these were too distant from the frontier to be of much value in intercepting barbarian incursions.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 190</ref> Their arrival in theatre could take weeks, if not months.<ref>Elton (1996) 215</ref> Although they are often described as "mobile field armies", in this context "immobile" would be a more accurate description. Luttwak terminates his analysis at the end of Constantine's reign, before the establishment of the regional ''comitatus''. Unlike the imperial escort armies, these were close enough to the theatre of operations to succour the border troops. But their stationing may have differed little from the location of legions in the 2nd century, even though they apparently wintered inside cities, rather than in purpose-built legionary bases.<ref>Mann (1979) 181</ref> For example, the two ''comitatus'' of Illyricum (East and West) are documented as wintering in Sirmium, which was a major legionary base in the Principate.<ref>Elton (1996) 209</ref>

Furthermore, the late empire maintained a central feature of Principate forward defence: a system of treaties of mutual assistance with tribes living on the imperial frontiers. The Romans would promise to defend the ally from attack by its neighbours. In return, the ally would promise to refrain from raiding imperial territory, and prevent neighbouring tribes from doing the same. Although the allies would officially be denoted ''tributarii'' (i.e. subject to paying tribute to Rome, in cash or in kind), in practice the loyalty of the ally was often secured by gifts or regular subsidies from Rome. This practice was applied on all the frontiers.<ref>Jones (1964) 611</ref> The Romans continued to assist the client tribes to defend themselves in the 4th century. For example, Constantine I's army constructed two massive lines of defensive earthworks, 100–250 km beyond the Danube, totalling ca. 1,500 km in length, the [[Devil's Dykes]] in Hungary/Romania and the [[Brazda lui Novac de Nord]] in Romania. Their purpose was to protect Dacian and Sarmatian tributary tribes of the [[Tisza]] and [[Wallachia]]n plains against Gothic incursions. This created a Transdanubian buffer zone, extending from ''Aquincum'' ([[Budapest]]) all the way to the Danube delta, obviously contradicting the proposition that the empire's Danubian border provinces were themselves envisaged as buffer zones.<ref>Scarre ''Atlas'' 87</ref>

Late Roman emperors continued major and frequent offensive operations beyond the imperial borders throughout the 4th century. These were strikingly similar to the pincer movements described by Luttwak as being characteristic of forward defence in the early Principate. For example, Valentinian I's campaign against the [[Quadi]] in 375.<ref>Ammianus XVI.11</ref> [[Julian]] in 356–60 and Valentinian I in 364–9 carried out annual operations across the Rhine designed to force the submission of local tribes and their acceptance of ''tributarii'' status.<ref>Ammianus books </ref>

The late army's "defence" posture thus contains many elements that are similar to the Principate army's, raising the question of whether defence-in-depth was ever in reality contemplated (or implemented) as a strategy. But the debate about defence-in-depth is still very much alive in academic circles.

=== Role of cavalry ===

A traditional thesis is that cavalry assumed a much greater importance in the 4th century army than it enjoyed in the 2nd century. According to this view, cavalry increased significantly as a proportion of the total forces and took over the leading tactical role from the infantry. It also enjoyed much higher status than in the 2nd century. At the same time, the infantry declined in efficiency and value in operations, leaving the cavalry as the effective arm. In fact, there is no good evidence to support this view<ref name="g169"/>, and plenty of evidence against it.

As regards numbers, the 2nd century army had ca. 80,000 cavalry<ref>Holder (2003) 120: 75,000 auxiliary cavalry ; 3,360 legionary cavalry; 2,000 imperial escort cavalry</ref> out of ca. 385,000 total effectives i.e. cavalry constituted ca. 21% of the total forces. Estimating the cavalry share in the 4th century army is impeded by the fundamental problem that unit sizes are not known with any certainty. About one third of the army units in the ''Notitia'' are cavalry, but cavalry numbers were less than that proportion of the total because cavalry unit sizes were smaller.<ref>Elton (1996) 106</ref> The available evidence suggests that the proportion of cavalry was much the same as in the 2nd century: in 478, a ''comitatus'' of 38,000 men contained 8,000 cavalry (21%).<ref>Elton (1996) 105–6</ref>

There is thus no evidence for an increase in the relative importance of cavalry in the army. It appears that in the 4th century there was a substantial increase in the number of heavily-armoured cavalry in the East (''[[cataphracti]]'' and ''[[clibanarii]]'').<ref name="g169">Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref> It is important, however, not to exaggerate the role of cataphracts: only 15% of ''comitatenses'' cavalry units were cataphracts.

The supposed higher status of cavalry in the 4th century is also open to doubt. This view is largely based on underestimating the importance of cavalry in the 2nd century.<ref name="g169"/> Cavalry always had greater prestige than infantry in the Principate: in the time of Domitian (r. 81–96), although an auxiliary infantryman (''pedes cohortalis'') was paid less than a legionary foot soldier, a cavalryman from a ''cohors equitata'' (''eques cohortalis'') was paid the same, and an elite ''ala'' cavalryman (''eques alaris'') 20% more.

The view of some modern scholars that the 4th century cavalry was a more efficient service than the infantry was certainly not shared by Ammianus and his contemporaries. Ammianus describes three major battles which were actually or nearly lost due to the incompetence or cowardice of the Roman cavalry.<ref>Tomlin (1998) 117–8</ref> (1) The [[Battle of Strasbourg]] (357), where the cavalry, including cataphracts, were routed by their German counterparts at an early stage, leaving the Roman infantry right wing dangerously exposed. After fleeing behind the infantry lines, it took the personal intervention of Julian to rally them and persuade them to return to the fight. (The cataphracts were later ordered to wear female clothes by Julian as punishment).<ref>Ammianus XVI.12</ref> (2) During his Persian campaign (363), Julian was obliged to sanction two cavalry units for fleeing when caught by surprise attacks (one unit was decimated, the other dismounted). Later, the ''Tertiaci'' cavalry regiment was ordered to march with the camp followers for deserting the field just as the infantry was on the point of breaking the Persian line. (3) At the [[Battle of Adrianople]] (378), the Roman cavalry was largely responsible for the catastrophic defeat. ''Scholae'' units started the battle by an unauthorised attack on the enemy wagon circle, at a moment when their emperor [[Valens]] was still trying to negotiate a truce with the Goths. The attack failed, and when the Gothic cavalry appeared, the Roman cavalry fled, leaving the Roman infantry left wing exposed. The Gothic cavalry then routed the Roman left wing, and the battle was as good as lost.<ref>Ammianus XXXI</ref>

=== Role of infantry ===

The idea that in the 4th century, cavalry was the main tactical arm, with an ineffectual infantry relegated to a subsidiary role, is also false. The table above shows that the field armies continued to be dominated by infantry. The latter included large numbers of crack infantry regiments with an awesome reputation, including the famed [[Batavi]], still classified as elite after 400 years of service to the empire. The ''auxilia palatina'' were rated among the best regiments in the army.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 174</ref>

[[Image:Solidus Julian.jpg|Coin showing (obverse)|thumb|right|200px|Coin showing (obverse) head of emperor [[Julian]] (ruled 361–3) with [[diadem]] and (reverse) soldier bearing standard holding kneeling captive by the hair and legend VIRTVS EXERCITVS ROMANORVM ("Courage of the Roman army"). Gold ''[[Solidus (coin)|solidus]]''. [[Sirmium]] mint]]
Most battles fought by Roman forces in the 4th century continued to be essentially infantry encounters with cavalry playing a supporting role. A good illustration of the combat tactics of a 4th century field army is the [[Battle of Strasbourg]] in [[357]], described by Ammianus in a somewhat fragmentary account. The ''Caesar'' (deputy emperor) [[Julian the Apostate|Julian]], in command of the ''comitatus Galliarum'' (field army of Gaul) of 13,000 men confronted a major raiding force of [[Alamanni]] Germans which outnumbered the Romans by 3 to 1. Julian's force was seriously understrength (due to losses in previous campaigns against the Germans) but high-quality, including elite infantry regiments of ''[[Batavians|Batavi]]'', ''[[Cornuti]]'', ''[[Bracchiati]]'' ''[[Primani]]'' and ''[[Regii]]''. The encounter took place on a rise a few miles from the river Rhine near ''Argentorate'' ([[Strasbourg]]).

The battle started disastrously for the Romans, with their cavalry, largely made up of ''cataphracti'', routed by the German cavalry. But the infantry showed remarkable skill, discipline and resilience throughout, saving the day at two critical moments. The first was after the flight of the Roman cavalry, when the Roman frontline's right wing was exposed to joint attack by the German cavalry and infantry. The ''Bracchiati'' and ''Cornuti'' regiments on the wing managed to hold formation until the regrouped Roman cavalry returned to the fray. The second critical moment was after the German spearhead succeeded in breaking through the centre of the Roman frontline. Despite being split in two, the regiments of the Roman frontline managed to hold formation until the regiments of the rear line could move up to plug the gap in the frontline (see [[Battle of Strasbourg]] for a detailed account).<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 176–7</ref>

The excellent performance of the infantry, both ''comitatenses'' and ''limitanei'', is a striking feature of Ammianus' history, in contrast to the often lamentable failure of the officially senior cavalry service. At the Persian siege of Amida, Ammianus' eye-witness account describes the city's defence by ''limitanei'' units as skilful and tenacious, if ultimately unsuccessful.<ref>Ammianus XIX.1–8</ref> Even at the disaster of Adrianople, the Roman infantry fought heroically, despite being abandoned by their cavalry and surrounded on three sides by overwhelmingly superior numbers of Goths.<ref>Ammianus XXXI.13</ref>

== The "barbarisation" theory ==

[[Image:Aetius.gif|thumb|right|200px|Drawing of [[Flavius Stilicho]], the barbarian-born general who was ''magister utriusque militiae'' (commander-in-chief) of West Roman forces 395–408. The general is depicted in the standard attire of a common foot soldier of the time. He was made a scapegoat for the barbarian invasions of 405–6, although in reality his military skill may have saved the West from early collapse. Derived (1848) from an ivory [[diptych]] at [[Monza]], Italy]]

For the late Roman army, a common hypothesis has become established that the much greater number of barbarian recruits to the Roman army resulted in the decline of its discipline, reliability and effectiveness and was a major factor in the collapse of the western Roman empire. This view ultimately derives from [[Edward Gibbon]]'s 18th-century ''magnum opus'', ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire''. This hypothesis is known as the '''barbarisation theory'''.

According to this view, the barbarian officers and men recruited by the late army, coming from tribes that were traditional enemies of Rome, had no real loyalty to Rome and often betrayed her interests, colluding with invading barbarian tribes, especially if those tribes were their own. At the same time, the spread of barbarian customs and culture military led to a decline in traditional discipline, and internal army disunity due to friction between Romans and barbarians. Ultimately, the army degenerated into just a collection of foreign mercenary bands that were incapable of defending the empire effectively.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 208</ref>

But there is little evidence to support this view and compelling reasons to reject it. Firstly, the late army was clearly not ineffective. The Eastern empire did not collapse, even though its army contained at least the same proportion of barbarians as the West, if not greater. An analysis of the ethnicity of Roman army officers named in the sources shows that in the period 350–99, barbarians constituted 23% of the whole army. The same figure for period 449–76 officers, virtually all Easterners (as the Western army had dissolved) was 31%. <ref>Elton (1996) 148</ref> In the ''Notitia'', 55 Eastern regiments carry barbarian names, compared with 25 in the Western army.<ref>''Notitia Dignitatum'' passim</ref> The regular army in the West remained an effective and formidable force until the disintegration of the West in the period after 406. It continued to win most of its encounters with barbarian forces e.g. the defeat of [[Radagaisus]] in 405.<ref>Lee (1997) 233</ref>

Most damningly for barbarisation, barbarian-born troops appear to have been especially concentrated in the elite ''vexillationes'' and ''auxilia'' units of the ''comitatus'': in the elite ''auxilia palatina'' infantry regiments, the proportion of barbarians in the ranks appears to number anywhere between a third and a half of effectives.<ref>Elton (1996) 151</ref> This implies that they were considered highly reliable, as well as of first-rate combat capability.<ref>Lee (1997) 224</ref> Ammianus himself never chracterises barbarian-born troops as unreliable.<ref>Jones (1964) 621–2</ref> On the contrary, his evidence is that barbarian soldiers were as loyal, and fought as hard, as Roman ones.<ref>Elton (1996) 138</ref>

Incidents of alleged barbarian treachery in the regular army are very few (three in all) and isolated. They all involved officers who allegedly warned their own tribal groups of campaigns planned against them. Only one case is clearcut or certain. There is a tendency by some modern scholars to ascribe a degree of nationalist sentiment to ancient barbarians that did not exist. For example, German tribes were constantly fighting each other and even within such tribal confederations as the Franks or Alamans there was bitter feuds between the constituent tribes and clans. Conflicts of loyalty could only arise when the Roman army was campaigning against a barbarian's own specific clan. It is also a fact that most barbarian-born troops became assimilated into Roman culture. There is no known case of a barbarian-born soldier returning to his homeland after completing his service (although deserters often did).<ref>Jones (1964) 622</ref>

The performance of barbarian senior officers was no worse than that of their Roman counterparts. It is true that some barbarian ''magistri militum'' could be treacherous. A good example is Ricimer: it is likely that he colluded with the Vandals in Africa to defeat two Roman expeditions against them. This was disastrous for the Western empire, which needed African grain revenue to pay for its army. But Roman-born generals could be equally disloyal e.g. [[Flavius Aetius]], who used his contacts with the Huns to lead a Hunnic army into Italy in support of the usurper [[Joannes]] in 425. Indeed a key reason for the dominance of barbarian-born army leaders in the West in the period 395–476 is the fact that non-Romans could not aspire to become emperor themselves and were thus considered less likely to rebel against the child-emperors [[Honorius (emperor)|Honorius]] (ruled 393–423, acceeded at age 9) and [[Valentinian III]] (r. 425–55, acc. age 6) than Roman-born generals. Rebellions by barbarian-born generals were greatly outnumbered by Roman usurpation attempts.

After the Adrianople disaster in 378, entire sub-tribes of barbarians entered the empire with or without the Roman government's permission and proved impossible to expel. These were generally bound by treaty to provide troops for the Roman army in return for permission to settle certain regions. They were thus known as ''foederati'' even though they were quite different from the allied contingents that the empire had employed for centuries. These were certainly highly destructive, as demonstrated by the career of the Gothic leader [[Alaric]], who sacked Rome in 410. But they were not part of the regular army and thus were irrelevant to its performance. In any case, even these were not only liabilities for the Romans. Alaric himself and his men fought hard for Rome for several years before rebelling. Aetius was largely dependent on his [[Alans|Alanic]] allies for his success in maintaining Roman control over Gaul for almost 30 years (425–53).<ref>Lee (1997) 234</ref>

In conclusion, the barbarisation theory appears to lack any evidential basis as regards the regular Roman army of the 4th century. On the contrary, it is likely that barbarian recruitment was crucial to the army's continued existence, by providing a badly-needed source of first-rate recruits.<ref>Jones (1964) 621</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 152</ref><ref>Lee (1997) 223–4</ref><ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 209</ref>

==Citations==
{{reflist|2}}

== References ==
=== Ancient ===
* [[Ammianus Marcellinus]], ''[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Ammianus_Marcellinus Roman History]'' (late 4th c.)
* [[Zosimus]], ''[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Zosimus Historia Nova]'' (5th century)
* ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]'', ''[http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost05/Notitia/not_intr.html#Bibliotheca Augustana]'' (late 4th/early 5th c.)

=== Modern ===

* {{cite book |last=Duncan-Jones |first=Richard |title=Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy |year=1990}}
* {{cite book |last=Duncan-Jones |first=Richard |title=Money and Government in the Roman Empire |year=1994}}
* {{cite book |last=Elton |first=Hugh |title=Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350–425 |year=1996 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0198152415}}
* {{cite book |last=Goldsworthy |first=Adrian |title=Roman Warfare |year=2000}}
* {{cite book |last=Goldsworthy |first=Adrian |title=Complete Roman Army |year=2003}}
* {{cite book |last=Hassall |first=Mark |title="The Army" in Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XI (The High Empire 70–192)|year=2000}}
* {{cite book |last=Heather |first=Peter |title=Fall of the Roman Empire |year=2005}}
* {{cite book |last=Holder |first=Paul |title=Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian |year=2003}}
* {{cite book|last=Isaac |first=B. |title=Limits of Empire |year=1992}}
* {{cite book |last=Jones |first=A.H.M. |title=Later Roman Empire |year=1964}}
* {{cite book |last=Lee |first=A.D. |title="The Army" in Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XIII (The Later Empire 337–425) |year=1997}}
* {{cite book |last=Luttwak |first=Edward |title=Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire|year=1976}}
* {{cite book |last=Mattingly |first=David |title=An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire|year=2006}}
* {{cite book |last=Tomlin |first=R. S. O. |title="The Army of the Late Empire" in The Roman World (ed J. Wacher) |year=1988}}

== See also ==
* [[Roman auxiliaries]]
* [[East Roman army]]
* [[Structural history of the Roman military]]
* [[Battle of Strasbourg]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.fectio.org.uk/fectio.htm# Late Roman army reenactors]

[[Category:Military history of ancient Rome]]
[[Category:Roman Empire]]

Wiradjuri

2008-08-06T07:43:57Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by 203.32.82.172 to last version by ClueBot.

{{Otheruses4|the Indigenous Australian people|the place|Wiradjuri, New South Wales}}
The '''Wiradjuri''' (many other spellings; see below) are an [[Indigenous Australian]] group of central [[New South Wales]].

In the 21st century, major Wiradjuri groups live in [[Condobolin, New South Wales|Condobolin]], [[Peak Hill, New South Wales|Peak Hill]], [[Narrandera, New South Wales|Narrandera]] and [[Griffith, New South Wales|Griffith]]. There are significant populations at [[Wagga Wagga, New South Wales|Wagga Wagga]] and [[Leeton, New South Wales]] and smaller groups at [[West Wyalong, New South Wales|West Wyalong]], [[Parkes, New South Wales|Parkes]], [[Forbes, New South Wales|Forbes]], [[Cootamundra, New South Wales|Cootamundra]] and [[Young, New South Wales|Young]].

==Name==
The Wiradjuri name for themselves is ''Wirraaydhuurray'' (northern dialect; {{pronounced|wiraːjd̪uːraj}}) or ''Wirraayjuurray'' (southern dialect; {{IPA|[wiraːjɟuːraj]}}). This is derived from ''wirraay'', meaning "no" or "not", with the suffix ''-dhuurray'' or ''-juuray'' meaning "having". That the Wiradjuri said ''wirraay'', as opposed to some other word for "no", was seen as a distinctive feature of their speech, and several other tribes in New South Wales, to the west of the [[Great Dividing Range]], are similarly named after their own words for "no".<ref>{{cite book |year=1994 |title=Macquarie Aboriginal Words |location=Sydney |publisher=Macquarie Library |pages=24, 79–80, 87}}</ref>

The name has been attempted to be reproduced in writing in over 60 different ways, including '''Waradgeri''', '''Warandgeri''', '''Waradajhi''', '''Werogery''', '''Wiiratheri''', '''Wira-Athoree''', '''Wiradjuri''', '''Wiradhuri''', '''Wiradhurri''', '''Wiraduri''', '''Wiradyuri''', '''Wiraiarai''', '''Wiraidyuri''', '''Wirajeree''', '''Wirashuri''', '''Wiratheri''', '''Wirracharee''', '''Wirrai'yarrai''', '''Wirrathuri''', '''Wooragurie'''.

==Territory==
The Wiradjuri were the largest Aboriginal group in New South Wales. They occupied a large area in central New South Wales, from the [[Blue Mountains (Australia)|Blue Mountains]] in the east, to [[Hay]] in the west, north to [[Nyngan]] and south to [[Albury, New South Wales|Albury]]: the [[South West Slopes, New South Wales|South Western slopes region]].<ref name="Tindale">{{cite web | last = Tindale | first = N.B. | authorlink = Norman Barnett Tindale | year = 1974 | url = http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/archives/HDMS/aa338/tindaletribes/wiradjuri.htm | title = Wiradjuri (NSW) | work = Aboriginal Tribes of Australia | publisher = South Australian Museum | accessdate = 2006-05-26}}</ref>

The Wiradjuri tribal area has been described as "the land of the three rivers, the Wambool later known as the [[Macquarie River|Macquarie]], the Kalare later known as the [[Lachlan River|Lachlan]] and the [[Murrumbidgee River|Murrumbidgee]] (Murrumbidjeri). The [[Murray River]] formed the Wiradjuri's southern boundary, the change from woodland to open grassland formed their eastern boundary."<ref> Mary Coe, in her book ''Windradyne: A Wiradjuri Koori'' quoted at page 4 in {{cite web | last = Patrick | first = Kathy | authorlink = | coauthors = Samantha Simmons | year = 1994 | url = http://www.austmus.gov.au/ahu/pdf/wiradjuri.pdf | title = Australian Museum's Aboriginal Collections: Wiradjuri | format = pdf: 39 pages | work = | publisher = [[Australian Museum]] | accessdate = 2007-09-18 }}</ref>

Occupation of the land by the Wiradjuri can be seen by [[scarred trees|carved trees]] and campsite remainders. Carved trees are more commonly found around the Macquarie and Lachlan rivers in the north rather than the Murrumbidgee in the south. Campsites, which indicate regular seasonal occupation by small groups, have been found on river flats, open land and by rivers.

[[Norman Tindale]] quotes [[Alfred Howitt]] as mentioning several of these local groups of the tribe, for example, the Narrandera (prickly lizard), Cootamundra (Kuta-mundra) from kutamun turtle, Murranbulla or Murring-bulle (maring-bula, two bark canoes). There were differences in dialect in some areas, including around Bathurst and near Albury. The Wiradjuri are identified as a coherent group as they maintained a cycle of ceremonies that moved in a ring around the whole tribal area. This cycle led to tribal coherence despite the large occupied area.

==Lifestyle==
The Wiradjuri diet included crayfish and fish such as [[Murray cod]] from the rivers. In dry seasons, they ate kangaroos, emus and food gathered from the land, including fruit, nuts, yam daisies (''[[Microseris lanceolata]]''), wattle seeds, and orchid tubers. The Wiradjuri travelled into [[Australian Alps|Alpine areas]] in the summer to feast on [[Bogong moth]]s.

===Wiradjuri Language===
{{main|Wiradjuri language}}
The Wiradjuri language had effectively died out of everyday spoken use, but has recently been reconstructed from early European [[Anthropology|anthropologist's]] records by [[Stan Grant (Wiradjuri elder)|Stan Grant]], a member of the Wiradjuri Elder's Council, and [[John Rudder]] Ph.D., who has previously studied [[Australian Aboriginal languages]] in [[Arnhem Land]]. It is a member of the small [[Wiradhuric languages|Wiradhuric branch]] of the [[Pama-Nyungan languages|Pama-Nyungan family]].

The name of the town of [[Wagga Wagga]] comes from the Wiradjuri word Wagga meaning crow, and to create the plural, the Wiradjuri repeat the word. Thus the name translates as 'the place of many crows'.

==European settlement==
Clashes between European settlers and Aborigines were very violent from 1821 to 1827, particularly around Bathurst, and have been termed the '[[Bathurst Wars]]'. The loss of fishing grounds and significant sites and the killing of Aboriginal People was retaliated through attacks with spears on cattle and stockmen. In the 1850s there were still [[corroboree]]s around [[Mudgee, New South Wales|Mudgee]] but there were fewer clashes. European settlement had taken hold and the Aboriginal population was in decline.

==Notable Wiradjuri people==
Wiradjuri elders [[Isabell Coe]] and [[Neville Williams|Neville "Uncle Chappy" Williams]] are leading land activists and proponents in the [[Lake Cowal Campaign]].

[[Windradyne]] was an important Aboriginal leader during the Bathurst Wars.

[[Mum (Shirl) Smith]] was a community activist in the twentieth century.

[[Linda Burney]] is a member of the NSW Legislative Assembly.

[[Paul Coe]] is a lawyer and activist.

[[Kevin Gilbert (author)|Kevin Gilbert]] was a twentieth century author.

[[Evonne Goolagong]] was one of Australia's most famous tennis players.

[[Stan Grant (journalist)|Stan Grant]] is a notable Australian journalist.

The Wiradjuri elder, [[Stan Grant (Wiradjuri elder)|Stan Grant]], has been working on the reconstruction of the language. The elder [[Geoff Anderson (Wiradjuri elder)|Geoff Anderson]] is teaching the language to children and adults at Parkes.

[[Harry Wedge]] and [[Brook Andrew]] are notable artists.

[[Tara June Winch]] is an author.

[[Jimmy Clements]] elder, present at the opening of [[Old Parliament House, Canberra|Provisional Parliament House]] in 1927.

==Wiradjuri culture in fiction==

The short story "Death in the Dawntime", originally published in ''The Mammoth Book of Historical Detectives'' (Mike Ashley, editor; 1995), is a [[murder mystery]] that takes place entirely among the Wiradjuri people before the arrival of Europeans in Australia. The story prominently features various concepts in Wiradjuri folklore and tradition, such as the ''ngurupal'': this is an area within the tribal territory which is a public assembly space for adult male Wiradjuri who have been formally initiated into manhood, yet which is forbidden ground for females or uninitiated males. Some of the dialogue in this story is in the Wiradjuri language. "Death in the Dawntime" was written by [[F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre]], a British author who spent his formative years in the Australian outback, where he encountered representatives of many Aboriginal cultures.

In Bryce Courtenay's novel "Jessica", the plot is centred in Wiradjuri. Jessica's best friend was from Wiradjuri{{Fact|date=May 2008}}.

== References ==


{{reflist}}
==External links ==
* [http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/tindale/HDMS/tindaletribes/wiradjuri.htm from the N. B. Tindale's Aboriginal Tribes of Australia (1974)]
* [http://ausanthrop.net/resources/ausanthrop_db/detail.php?id_search=572 AusAnthrop Australian Aboriginal tribal database:Wiradjuri with bibliographic links]
* [http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/South+Western+Slopes+-+regional+history New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service regional history of the South western slopes]

[[Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia]]
[[Category:Australian Aboriginal culture]]
[[Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin]]

[[fr:Wiradjuri]]

José Bernal

2008-08-05T16:28:28Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by 99.145.93.140 to last version by Labs1950.

'''José Bernal''' (born [[January 8]], [[1925]]) is a [[Cuban-American]] [[artist]]. He was born in [[Santa Clara]], in the former province of [[Las Villas]], now [[Villa Clara Province|Villa Clara]], [[Cuba]]. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1980.

[[Image:JOSÉ BERNAL, 1952.jpg|thumb|225px|right|José Bernal in 1952]]

The art of José Bernal is distinguished by a highly independent body of work. His aesthetics stem from a fertile and heightened imagination, together with his Cuban birth and the experience of exile and renewal. Bernal's oeuvre from 1937 to present is diverse and prolific, at times hinting of masters of the distant past or those celebrated in more recent decades. His work has been described as [[modernist]], [[Abstract art|abstract]], and [[expressionist]], but the broad spectrum of his art defies categorization. The term [[postmodernist]] also may be applied to Bernal's diverse and complex body of work, specifically as he rejects the notion of the new in art, a characteristic imbued in [[postmodern]] theory.

== Biography ==
===Life in Cuba===
[[Image:J. BERNAL, MADRE TIERRA (THE GOOD EARTH), 1943.jpg|thumb|190|left|José Bernal, Madre tierra (The Good Earth), 1943]]
From early childhood, Bernal was intensely involved with art and music, encouraged and supported by his artistic parents. His studies led him to teach art, as well as to earn his [[Master of Fine Arts|MFA]] from the [[Escuela de Artes Plásticas Leopoldo Romañach]]. His musical and visual creations were recognized, performed, and exhibited in [[Santa Clara]] and [[Havana]]. [[Image:J. BERNAL, CAMPFIRE IN THE WOODS, 1950.jpg|thumb|235px|right|José Bernal, Campfire in the Woods, 1950]] Then, in 1961, "... during the [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]], Bernal was among the throngs of Cubans arrested for unpatriotic behavior[.] ... After his release, the threat of execution haunted [him] and his wife, and they cautiously initiated plans to leave the country with their three young children. It took more than a year to obtain visas ... [and] ... left Cuba in June, 1962.<ref name="Chaplik">Dorothy Chaplik, "The Art of José Bernal," essay for proposed monograph, as it appears in [http://www.artnet.com/awc/jose-bernal.html '''Artnet''''s ''Artist Works Catalogue''].</ref>

===Life in the U.S.A.===

[[Miami, Florida]], was the U.S.A.'s port of entry for the Bernal family. Their stay in the [[Sunshine State]] was a brief few months on account of the scarcity of employment. Subsequently, in autumn of 1962 they relocated to [[Chicago, Illinois]]. Bernal confronted the need to support his family and, because of language barriers, became employed in a factory designing artistic materials for commercial purposes. Meanwhile, he continued to produce personal art. Critics during this period observed his work revealed a transformation affected by the change in geographical environment. While in Cuba his palette did not reflect the brilliant, intense colors of his native land; but in Chicago he began to incorporate in his art the tropical hues of his Caribbean homeland.

In 1964, Bernal's art portfolio was reviewed by an executive at [[Marshall Field's]] and he was offered a position as [[Senior Designer]]. There, the director of Field's fine arts gallery persuaded Bernal to exhibit his [[impressionist]] portraits, landscapes and still lifes. Shortly thereafter, "... [[Betty Parsons]], art dealer, artist, and collector, discovered Bernal's work and began a series of orders to show and sell his paintings[.] ... The lucrative connection made it possible for Bernal to give up his job at [Marshall] Field's and return to school where he could pursue his dual dream of teaching and painting."<ref name="Chaplik" />

After being granted an [[Master of Fine Arts|MFA]] evaluation by the [[School of the Art Institute of Chicago]] in 1970, Bernal returned to teaching art while simultaneously continuing to create and exhibit his works. [[Lydia Murman]], art critic of the [[New Art Examiner]], wrote about José Bernal's 1981 solo exhibition of [[collage]] and [[assemblage]]: "Bernal's works involve the viewer because they resurrect the concern for art as a communicative force. The viewer reacts to the classical arrangement, in which found objects are manipulated with a respect for their physical properties and for their potential symbolic value. While warm wood, old newspaper print, tarnished metal, and antique objects produce an aura that absorbs the viewer and stirs archetypal images within his subconscious, some works, such as "Balancing the Unbalanced," in which a faucet is perceived as a faucet, invite the viewer to open the dialogue concerning substance and illusion, art and reality."<ref>Lydia Murman, "Collage & Assemblage: One Man Show, 1981," [[New Art Examiner]], January, 1982.</ref>
[[Image:J. BERNAL, DROUGHT IN PARADISE, 1974.jpg|thumb|195px|left|José Bernal, Drought in Paradise, 1974]]

"Although Bernal and his family didn't realize it, the first signs of [[Parkinson's disease]] began to appear during the 1980s, and he was eventually diagnosed in 1993. [However,] ...he continued to work, to move forward and fight back against the ravages of the disease[.] ... In 2004, Bernal [proposed] to the [[National Parkinson Foundation]] [in Miami, Florida] ... to donate a number of his paintings, which would be auctioned to benefit the foundation. Bernal's tremendous contribution has now expanded to some 300 works of art."<ref>"José Bernal Tribute (The Art of Fighting Back: Honoring José Bernal)," Parkinson Report Magazine, [http://www.parkinson.org] vol. XVII, issue 2, Spring, 2006, p.29, front cover.</ref>


Bernal's work is annotated in two books by [[Dorothy Chaplik]] on Latin American art: ''Latin American Arts and Cultures'' and ''Defining Latin American Art/Hacia una definición del arte latinoamericano''<ref>Dorothy Chaplik, "Latin American Arts and Cultures," Davis Publications, Inc., Chapter 7: The Modern World, p.112. ISBN 0-87192-547-8</ref><ref>"Defining Latin American Art/''Hacia una definición del arte latinoamericano''," McFarland & Co., Inc., Publishers, pp. 96-97. ISBN 0-7864-1728-5</ref> but in her essay ''The Art of José Bernal''<ref>Dorothy Chaplik, "The Art of José Bernal," essay for proposed monograph, as it appears in [http://www.artnet.com/awc/jose-bernal.html Artnet's ''Artist Works Catalogue''].</ref> she discusses Bernal's prolific, diverse, and distinctive oeuvre, as well as describes Bernal's artistic process as he traverses life's challenges, including political unrest in Cuba, his personal battle with Parkinson's disease, and his steadfast passion for his life affirming art.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

----

== Museum Collections ==

'''.''' San Antonio Museum of Art, San Antonio, Texas

==External links==
*José Bernal on Artnet's ''Artist Works Catalogues'' [http://www.artnet.com/awc/jose-bernal.html].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bernal, Jose}}
[[Category:Modern painters]]
[[Category:American painters]]
[[Category:Cuban painters]]
[[Category:People with Parkinson's disease]]
[[Category:1925 births]]

*José Bernal on Artnet's ''Jose Bernal on artnet'' [https://www.artnet.com/artist/424741684/jose-bernal.html].

Amdocs

2008-08-05T15:53:37Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by 210.212.5.85 to last version by Urbanrenewal.

{{Refimprove|date=May 2008}}
{{Infobox_Company |
company_name = Amdocs |
company_logo = [[Image:Dox logo1.jpg|250px]] |
Image:Dox haifa.jpg
company_type = Public ([[NYSE]]: [http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=DOX&selected=DOX DOX]) |
company_type = Public ([[NYSE]]: [http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=DOX&selected=DOX DOX]) |
company_slogan = Customer Experience Systems Innovation |
foundation = [[Missouri]] (1982)<ref name="incorporation">[http://dox.client.shareholder.com/ Amdocs.com]</ref> |
location = [[Chesterfield, Missouri]] |
key_people = [[Dov Baharav]], CEO, President [[Tamar Rapaport-Dagim]], CFO |
num_employees = 17 000 (2007) |
industry = COMMUNICATIONS, [[Broadband|BROADBAND CABLE]], [[Satellite|SATELLITE]], [[Advertising|ADVERTISING & MEDIA]], [[Financial services|FINANCIAL SERVICES]], HIGH TECH & SERVICES, [[Emerging markets|EMERGING MARKETS]], [[Telecommunication|TELECOMMUNICATIONS]], [[Customer relationship management|CRM]] |
industry = [[communications]], [[broadband cable]], [[satellite]], [[advertising|advertising & media]], high
tech & services, [[emerging markets]], [[telecommunications]], [[Customer relationship management|CRM]]
| products = Amdocs Billing Amdocs Self Service Amdocs Ordering Amdocs CRM Amdocs OSS Amdocs Search Amdocs Search and Digital Advertising |
revenue = $2.84 billion [[United States dollar|USD]] (2007)|
net_income = $364.9 million [[United States dollar|USD]] (2007)|
homepage = [http://www.amdocs.com/ www.amdocs.com]}}

[[Image:Dox haifa.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Amdocs branch in Haifa]]
'''Amdocs''' is a provider of software and services for [[billing]], [[customer relationship management]] (CRM), and business and [[operations support systems]] (OSS). Its traditional clients are [[telecommunications]] "Tier-1" and "Tier-2" providers such as [[AT&T Mobility]], [[Cable One]], [[Cablevision]], [[Comcast]], [[DirecTV]], Jupiter Communications, [[Sprint-Nextel]], [[T-Mobile]], [[Sensis]], [[Vodafone]], [[Fido Solutions]] and [[Rogers Communications]] (both of which use the ICM/CRM application). The company also offers outsourced [[customer service]] and [[data center]] operations. Headquartered in [[Chesterfield, Missouri]], Amdocs has more than 17,000 employees and serves customers in more than fifty countries.

Amdocs was originally spun off from the "Aurec Group" (from lat. Aurum - gold), established by Morris Kahn, and dealt only with directory services, e.g. [[Yellow Pages]] (in Israel, the name is translated as ''Golden Pages''). Other spinoffs from the parent-company were also given similar names: the former [[cable television]] provider ''Golden Channels'' (now amalgamated into [[Hot (Israel)|Hot]]), an [[internet service provider]] named ''[[Kavei Zahav|Golden Lines]]'' (now merged with ''Internet Zahav'' to form 012 Smile), and ''AIG Golden'' (a joint venture with the [[American International Group|AIG]] insurance company <ref>{{cite web
|url = http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=76115&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=232525&highlight=
|title = AIG'S JOINT VENTURE INSURANCE COMPANY IN ISRAEL RECEIVES LICENSE TO MARKET LIFE INSURANCE |accessdate = September 2007 |date = 1999-06-09}}</ref>

In the early 2000s, Amdocs branched out into the financial services industry with the Dutch bank [[ABN AMRO]], its first major non-telco customer. Amdocs also has its own consulting division called the '''Amdocs Consulting Division''' with offices worldwide.

Amdocs maintains development facilities in China, Cyprus, India, Ireland, Israel and the United States, operates a support center in Brazil, and has operations in North America, Europe, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region.

Amdocs' main products are centered around "Customer Experience Systems" (CES), first introduced as CES 7.5 in January 2008. CES is designed to help customers transform their businesses into next-generation customer-centered organizations through a complete product and service suite including products for CRM, customer 'self-service', and business and operations support systems, as well as a mobile [[advertising]], commerce and entertainment platform.

Dov Baharav replaced Avi Naor as Amdocs' [[CEO]] as of 2002.

==Acquisitions==

In October 2001, Amdocs purchased the Clarify [[CRM]] system from Nortel Networks. [http://telephonyonline.com/mag/telecom_amdocs_collects_clarify/] Amdocs purchased DST Innovis, a vendor providing end-to-end customer care and billing for broadband, cable, and satellite operators, in July 2005.<ref>[http://dox.client.shareholder.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=169233 Amdocs.com]</ref>

Amdocs purchased [[Qpass]] in April 2006, a Seattle-based company with an Austrian subsidiary that provides market-leading solutions to accelerate growth of digital commerce by enabling the marketing and merchandising of digital goods and services and by facilitating multi-party value chain business relationships. The acquisition cost Amdocs a reported US$275 million. In August 2006, Amdocs purchased [[Cramer Systems]], a [[Bath, Somerset|Bath]], UK based company that provides market-leading [[Operations Support Systems|OSS]] (Operations Support Systems) solutions to telecom operators. The acquisition was reported at US$375 million. This complements Amdocs' leading capabilities in [[Business Support Systems|BSS]] and allowed it to become one of very few companies claiming to offer a complete BSS/OSS product suite. Cramer Systems, combined with existing Amdocs OSS software groups, is now the OSS Division. In November 2006, Amdocs purchased Moria, a small Canadian software firm, known for its innovation in the field of account billing services.

In January 2007, Amdocs purchased SigValue, an Israel-based vendor of prepaid billing systems for mobile operators based in low cost markets, which have been growing rapidly. In April 2008, Amdocs purchased JacobsRimell, the UK based provider of user-centric service fulfillment solutions.

==Gallery==
<gallery>
:Image:Amdocs early90s.jpg|Logo used in early 1990s
:Image:Amdocs late90s.jpg|Logo used in late 1990s and early 2000s
</gallery>

==External links==
*[http://www.amdocs.com/ Amdocs homepage]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Companies based in Chesterfield, Missouri]]
[[Category:Companies established in 1982]]
[[Category:CRM software companies]]
[[Category:Software companies of the United States]]
[[Category:Software companies of Israel]]
[[Category:Private equity portfolio companies]]

[[he:אמדוקס]]
[[ru:Amdocs]]

Chevrolet S-Serie

2008-07-31T19:52:57Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by 68.184.44.187 to last version by SmackBot.

{{Unreferenced|date=July 2008}}
{{Mergefrom|S10 ss|date=July 2008}}

{{Infobox Automobile
|name=Chevrolet S-10
|image=[[Image:98-04 Chevrolet S-10.jpg|250px|1998-2004 Chevrolet S-10 regular cab]]
|manufacturer=[[General Motors]]
|production=1982–2004 ([[Shreveport, LA]]) 1995- ([[São Paolo]], [[Brazil]])
|layout=[[Front-engine design|Front engine]], [[rear-wheel drive]] / [[four-wheel drive]]
|predecessor=[[Chevrolet LUV]]
|successor=[[Chevrolet Colorado]]/[[GMC Canyon]]
|class=Compact [[pickup truck]]
|assembly=[[Shreveport, Louisiana]] [[São Paulo]], [[Brazil]]
}}

The '''Chevrolet S-10''' was a [[compact car|compact]] [[pickup truck]] from the [[Chevrolet]] marque of [[General Motors]]. When it was first introduced in 1982, the [[GMC (General Motors division)|GMC]] version was known as the '''S-15''' and later renamed the '''GMC Sonoma'''. A high-performance version was the [[GMC Syclone]]. The truck was also sold by [[Isuzu]] as the '''[[Isuzu Hombre|Hombre]]''' from 1996 through 2000. There was also an [[SUV]] version, the [[Chevrolet S-10 Blazer]]/[[GMC S-15 Jimmy]]. An [[Chevrolet S10 EV|electric version]] was leased as a fleet vehicle in 1997 and 1998. Together, these trucks are often referred to as the '''S-series'''.
In 2004, the S-series was replaced by new models: the [[Chevrolet Colorado]], [[GMC Canyon]], and [[Isuzu i-Series]].

{{TOCleft}}
{{-}}

==First generation==
{{Infobox Automobile generation
|name=First generation
|image=[[Image:1st-Chevrolet-S10.jpg|250px|Chevrolet S-10 Single Cab]]
|aka=GMC S-15 GMC Sonoma
|production=1982–1993
|engine=1.9 L I4 2.0 L I4 2.2 L I4 2.5 L I4 2.8 L V6 4.3 L V6
|transmission=[[Turbo-Hydramatic#THM200|THM-200C]] [[automatic transmission|automatic]] [[Turbo-Hydramatic#700R4_.2F_4L60_.2F_4L60E_.2F_4L65E|700r4/4L60/4L60E]] automatic Borg Warner [[Borg-Warner T-5 transmission|T5]] [[manual transmission|manual]]
|length=178.2 in. (short bed) 192.8 in. (extended cab) 194.2 in. (long bed)
|width=64.7 in.
|height=61.3 in.
|fuel_capacity=13.2 gal. 19 gal.
}}

The first compact pickup truck from General Motors was the rebadged [[Isuzu KB]] sold since 1972 as the [[Chevrolet LUV]]. The 1973 Arab oil embargo forced GM to consider designing a domestically-produced compact pickup truck. As usual, parts from other GM chassis lines (primarily from the [[GM G platform (RWD)|GM G-body]] [[mid-size car|intermediates]]) were incorporated. The first S-series trucks were introduced in 1982. The Chevrolet and GMC models were identical apart from the grille. An extended cab and "Insta-Trac" four wheel drive were added the next year along with two new engines.

Track width was similar to the former [[GM H platform|GM H-body]] [[subcompact]]s ([[Chevrolet Vega|Vega]]/[[Chevrolet Monza|Monza]]).

The sport utility S-10 Blazer and S-15 Jimmy debuted in 1983; GM was the second to introduce compact sport utilities behind [[Jeep]] but ahead of [[Ford Motor Company|Ford]]. This trend occurred again where 4-door variants were introduced in March 1990 as 1991 [[model year|models]] alongside the similar [[Oldsmobile Bravada]].

New heavy-duty and off-road suspensions appeared in 1984 along with a hydraulic clutch, while the big news for 1985 was the discontinuing of the [[Chevrolet Cavalier|Cavalier]]'s OHV [[Straight-4|I4]] in favor of [[Pontiac]]'s Iron Duke. The OHV-derived 2.2 L engine and Isuzu 1.9 [[Liter|L]] were both gone the next year, leaving just the Iron Duke and updated 2.8 L [[V6]]. A much-welcomed 4.3 L V6 was added for 1988, and [[anti-lock brakes]] came the next year.

The GMC S-15 became the GMC Sonoma in 1991, and the Sierra trim packages are dropped to avoid confusion with the new GMC Sierra [[full-size car|full-size]] pickup. The GMC Syclone also appeared that year. The Sonoma GT bowed in 1992. Added to this was the 4.3L V6 Vortec W code engine. This generation's last year, 1993.

The Vortec is essentially the standard Z code 262 in³ [[internal combustion engine|engine]]. The difference is the W code used a balance shaft, roller cam shaft, different heads, and Central Port Injection. The 1992 and 1993 engine came in either a 195 or 205 [[horsepower|hp]] rating. The High Performance version came with a larger diameter Y pipe, and was only installed in some of the Blazers and S-10 Jimmys.

<gallery>
Image:'92 Chevrolet S-10 Extended Cab.JPG|1992 Chevrolet S-10 extended cab
Image:'91-'93 Chevrolet S-10 Regular Cab.JPG|1993 Chevrolet S-10 regular cab
</gallery>

===Engines===
{| class=wikitable
!Years
!Engine
!Power
!Torque
![[VIN]] code
|-
|1982–1985||1.9 [[Liter|L]] [[Isuzu]] [[Straight-4|I4]], [[carburetor|2 barrel]]||84 [[horsepower|hp]] (63 [[kW]])||101 ft·lbf (137 N·m)||A
|-
|1982–1985||2.8 L ''[[GM 60-Degree V6 engine|60°]]'' [[V6]], 2 barrel Rochester||115 hp (86 kW)||148 ft·lbf (201 N·m)||B
|-
|1983–1985||2.2 L [[Diesel]] [[Straight-4|I4]]||58 hp (43 kW)||93 ft·lbf (126 N·m)||S
|-
|1983–1984||2.0 L ''[[GM OHV engine|OHV]]'' [[Straight-4|I4]], 2 barrel||83 hp (62 kW)||108 ft·lbf (146 N·m)||Y
|-
|1985–1989||2.5 L ''[[GM Iron Duke engine|Iron Duke]]'' [[Straight-4|I4]], electronically controlled carburetor||92 hp (69 kW)||132 ft·lbf (179 N·m)||E
|-
|1986–1993||2.8 L ''[[GM 60-Degree V6 engine|60°]]'' [[V6]], [[TBI]]||125 hp (93 kW)||150 ft·lbf (203 N·m)||R
|-
|1988–1995||4.3 L ''[[GM Vortec engine|GM 262inch 4300cc]]'' [[V6]], [[TBI]]||150–165 hp (112–123 kW)||230–235 ft·lbf (312–319 N·m)||Z
|-
|1990–1993||2.5 L ''[[GM Iron Duke engine|Iron Duke]]'' [[Straight-4|I4]], [[TBI]]||105 hp (78 kW)||135 ft·lbf (183 N·m)||A
|}
===1993 Sonoma===
Some 1993 Sonomas came with a factory equipped L35 W code engine. For 1993 no specialty labeling or limited edition tags were known to be used with the W code engine. Production totals for these vehicles are unknown.

{{clear}}
{{-}}

==Second generation==
{{Infobox Automobile generation
|name=Second generation
|image=[[Image:1994-1997 Chevrolet S-10.jpg|250px|1994-1997 Chevrolet S-10]]
|aka=GMC Sonoma [[Isuzu Hombre]]
|production=1994–2004
|engine=2.2 L {{convert|120|hp|abbr=on}} I4 4.3 L {{convert|165|hp|abbr=on}} V6 4.3 L {{convert|190|hp|abbr=on}} V6
|transmission=4-speed 4L60E automatic NV1500 (1996 and up with I4 engine) manual NV3500 (1990 and up with V6 engine) manual
|length=190 in. (short bed) 203 in. (extended cab) 205 in. (long bed)
|width=67.9 in.
|height=63.5 in.
|fuel_capacity=19 gal.
}}
The second-generation trucks appeared in 1994. All of the special models (the Syclone, Typhoon, and Sonoma GT) were gone, but the changes to the truck brought it in line with arch-rival [[Ford Ranger]]. The Iron Duke and 2.8 L 60° V6 engines were dropped, leaving just the 4.3 L Vortec and a new 2.2 L engine, itself a derivative of the old Cavalier OHV.

Much of the chassis components were the same as the first generation (the A-frames between the first and second generation were the same although they were originally sourced from GM's G-body vehicle lineup), along with the steering knuckle, leaf springs, and differential assembly. The second generation also offered an optional 8.5" rear differential (they were common with 4WD S-series with the ZR2 off road package, and 2000-03 2WDs including the Xtreme). [[Image:'98-'03 GMC Sonoma Single Cab.JPG|200px|thumb|left|1998-2003 GMC Sonoma regular cab]]Generally, for the [[Two wheel drive|2WD]] trucks, the 8.5" rearend was only used when it came with both a [[manual transmission]] and the large 262cid/4.3L [[V6 engine]]; it was standard for 4WD trucks with either [[transmission (mechanics)|transmission]]. This was also the year that GM introduced the [[RPO ZR2|ZR2 Offroad Package]].
[[Image:'01-'04 GMC Sonoma ZR5 Crew Cab.JPG|left|thumb|200px|GMC Sonoma crew cab]]
[[Image:01-04 Chevrolet S-10 crew cab.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Chevrolet S-10 crew cab]]The 4.3 L engines were refreshed for 1996 and a third (rear) door was added for extended cab models. The exterior, interior, brakes, and 2.2 L engine were refreshed for 1998, and "Auto-Trac" [[all-wheel drive]] was optional starting in 1999 for the Blazers. Also the SS package was replaced by the "Xtreme" sports model package (which lasted until 2004). In 2001 a Crew Cab option was added and was available in 4WD and [[automatic transmission]] only.

Base 2WD models came with 15x7 inch wheels with directional vents, [[Xtreme]] and [[ZQ8]] models came with 16x8" wheels while 4WD models (including the [[RPO ZR2|ZR2]]) used 15x7" wheels. The {{convert|14|in|mm|sing=on}} wheels used on the first generation were discontinued.
 
 
Second-generation S-series were also produced locally in [http://72.30.186.56/babelfish/translate_url_content?lp=pt_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww2.uol.com.br%2fbestcars%2fcpassado%2fs10-5.htm Brazil]; and are still in production even though the North American version of the S-series was discontinued in 2004. Brazilian S-10s have a different front grille, lamps and bumper, and are available with a 2.8 Diesel engine built by [[MWM Motores Diesel Ltda|MWM]].

==Engine Swaps==
The 2wd S-series Truck shares several front suspension components with the GM G-body platforms (I.e. Chevy Monte Carlo and [[Buick Regal]]). Along with the fact that the optional 4.3 liter V-6 shares several characteristics and dimensions of the early small block Chevy V-8 it has become a popular platform for Hot Rodders. Since the introduction of the S-series the ingenuity of its owners has made the [[V8]] installation one of the most popular American domestic engine swaps. With relative ease the V-8 swap has seen almost every size small block Chevy displacement produced from 262 cid to the large 400 cid engine. Some owners have even been able to install the large big block GM engines such as the 396-427-454 cid engines with minor modifications.

The LSx series powerplants (LS1, LS2 series) can also be swapped into the S-series.

===Engines===
{| class=wikitable
!Years
!Engine
!Power
!Torque
![[VIN]] code
|-
|1994–1999||2.2 L ''[[GM Vortec engine#Vortec 2200|Vortec 2200]]'' [[Straight-4|I4]], [[Sequential fuel injection|SFI]]||118 hp (86 kW)||140 ft·lbf (190 N·m)||4
|-
|1993–1995||4.3 L ''[[GM Vortec engine#Vortec 4300|Vortec 4300]]'', [[CMFI]]||191–200 hp (142–145 kW)||260 ft·lbf (353 N·m)||W
|-
|1996–2004||4.3 L ''[[GM Vortec engine#Vortec 4300|Vortec 4300]]'', [[CSFI]]||180–190 hp (134–142 kW)||245–250 ft·lbf (332–339 N·m)||X or W
|}

==External links==
{{commonscat|Chevrolet S 10}}
* [http://www.chevytruckfanclub.com Chevy Truck Fan Club of North America]
* [http://www.s10v8.com S10 V8 Conversion Forum]
* [http://www.syty.net Syclone/Typhoon/Sonoma GT Forums]
* [http://www.sportmachines.com GM sportmachine trucks]
* [http://www.S10Forum.com S10Forum.com - A great site dedicated to S-series enthusiasts.]
* [http://www.s-seriesforum.com S-Series Forum (SSF)]
* [http://www.s-series.org S-Series.org ]
* [http://www.zr2usa.com/mboard zr2usa]
* [http://www.mys10.com S10 Forum & 10,000 Pictures]
* [http://www.carsandracingstuff.com/library/s/s-10.php S-10 at The Crittenden Automotive Library] includes detailed 1999 specifications

{{Chevrolet Truck}}



[[Category:Chevrolet vehicles|S-10]]
[[Category:Flexible-fuel vehicles]]
[[Category:Pickup trucks]]
[[Category:Rear wheel drive vehicles]]
[[Category:All wheel drive vehicles]]
[[Category:1980s automobiles]]
[[Category:1990s automobiles]]
[[Category:2000s automobiles]]
[[Category:Vehicles introduced in 1982]]
[[Category:Goods manufactured in the United States]]

[[fr:Chevrolet S-10]]
[[lt:Chevrolet S-10]]
[[ja:シボレー・S-10]]
[[pt:Chevrolet S-10]]

JXplorer

2008-07-29T02:38:30Z

TestEditBot: Reverting possible test edits by Pegacat to last version by 152.2.221.116.

{{ Infobox_Software
| name = JXplorer
| logo =
| screenshot =
| caption =
| developer =
| latest_release_version =
| latest_release_date =
| latest_preview_version =
| latest_preview_date =
| operating_system =
| programming_language = [[Java_(programming_language)|Java]]
| genre = [[LDAP]]
| license = [[Apache License|Apache]] equivalent license
| website = http://jxplorer.org
}}
'''JXplorer''' is a free, [[open source]] client for browsing [[Lightweight Directory Access Protocol]] (LDAP) servers and [[LDAP Data Interchange Format]] (LDIF) files. It is released under an Apache-equivalent license. JXplorer is written in java and is platform independent, configurable, and has been translated into a number of languages. The primary authors and maintainers are [[User:Pegacat|Chris Betts]] and Trudi Ersvaer, originally both working in the [[CA, Inc.|CA]] (then Computer Associates) [http://ca.com/us/products/product.aspx?id=160 eTrust Directory] (now CA Directory) software lab in [[Melbourne, Australia]].

Several common [[Linux]] distributions include JXplorer Software for LDAP server administration. The software also runs on [[BSD]]-variants, [[AIX operating system|AIX]], [[HP-UX]], [[Mac OS X]], [[Solaris Operating System|Solaris]], [[Microsoft Windows]] (2000, XP) and [[z/OS]].

'''Key Features are:''' SSL, SASL and GSSAPI; DSML; LDIF; I18n (currently German, French, Japanese, Chinese); optional LDAP filter constructor GUI; extensible architecture.

'''Key Limitations are:''' inability to browse flat directory structures with more than ~2,000 nodes.

==See also==
* [[List of LDAP software]]

==External links==
*[http://jxplorer.org JXplorer.org]
*[http://sourceforge.net/projects/jxplorer sourceforge site]
*[http://openldap.org OpenLDAP.org - a compatible open source LDAP Server]
*[http://directory.apache.org/ Apache DS - a compatible open source LDAP Server]

[[Category:Identity management systems]]