Leaderboard

The late empire soldiers were once again forced to supply their own gear. Numbers of men under arms had occaisionally risen to huge numbers - the worst case being during Diocletians Tetrarchy when paranoia between the four leaders resulted in an arms race. That meant raditional means of supply no longer worked. Strictly speaking a Roman soldier had always been responsible for equipping himself - it was just that the Late Republic/Principate underwrote the costs and made the soldiers suffer stoppages in the pay to fund the equipment. Much of what the legion needed had been made by their own artisans in the major fort's workshops ort by local workers under contract when demand exceeded supply. Later, this system failed. Attempts were made to introduce a central supply system with larger scale 'factories' making stuff, but again, this did not work well. Bear in mind that the funding of military equipment was often made by the noble/politician put in charge if the local supply couldn't meet demand, but with money being far less available in the late empire (ironically the increase in coinage shows how little value late empire money had) that sort of sponsorship was less prevalent. Also the idea of booty from war used to fund military activity was less available too. Further, troops were often unpaid in later times thuis could not afford equipment anyway, so simply made do. basically then Vegetius is right. Many troops were badly under-equipped in the late empire. But before we settle on a financial answer - it also has to be said that Roman strategy and tactics were changing. The old form of heavy infantry dominance was no longer working effectively when battles were gnerally smaller, forces more mobile and less confrontational, and so the Romans had begun relying more on 'low level warfare' as Dr Goldsworthy puts it, such as ambushes and raids. The Romans were actually quite good at it, which was just as well, because the skills of fighting large set piece battles had largely been lost.

Caesar had an eye for the ladies but remember he was also a man of some status - not only from a good family, he reportedly claimed ancestory from the Gods, and having consorted with the Queen of Egypt (and the King of another state if rumours were true), clearly he was a man who liked to be seen with celebrities. Whether Caesar indulged in the Roman male habit of having sex with slaves (they were property - he had every right) isn't known. Whilst his dalliances are part of Roman legend he was also a very motivated and busy man. It certasinly isn't impossible that a woman could attract a Caesar (Sulla had been bewitched by a lady at the games) and the exploits of the later Caesars demonstrates that virile pursuits were a perk they tended to enjoy to the max. I would point out that Caesar was a very ambitious man, one who had political domination as his goal from the very start, and also a man who was not shy of ordering death and injury should it suit his puroposes. For instance, during the Gallic War he had Gaul prisoners released with their right hand chopped off - a clear startement and propaganda device - and had Cleopatra's younger sister Assinoe - who had tried to grab power and failed - publicly humiliated with a view to ritual killing later to please his important paramour. Caesar cancelled the execution when the crowd sympathised with the poor girl. So - how would a girl turn Caesars head? Firstly, she is going to have be somewhere where she will get noticed. Then she must find a means of getting noticed. If she's really serious about this, she may well want something else to tempt Caesar besides good looks and skimpy clothes. What can she offer politically? Militarily? Financially? In terms of social status? Ambitious girls are better at these sort of machinations than me but I think you get the picture.