M. Demetrius

The problem with the retiring and renewing motion in Rome HBO, is that it would be foolhardy to attempt such a huge undertaking when the enemy was right there. From what I've read, and what little mock combat I've done, in fifteen or twenty minutes it's necessary to take a break. Both sides would be laboring under the same physical limits, with this generic exception: Most of the "barbarians" that fought with the Romans were lightly armored, so they would not be as encumbered, but they were not professional soldiers. The Romans were used to wearing their armor and marching all day, so they were more accustomed to the strain and weight, but nevertheless, people get tired when doing physical combat. If the enemy were right at the line, it would be unlikely that anyone would hear the hypothetical whistle. Nobody really knows how they signalled advnaces, flanking, controlled retreats, or other combat maneuvers. We know they used standards and different horns, but we don't know what kind of signals produced the results. An educated guess is that there would be a switch of the first couple of ranks when the enemy fell back to grab some air, but how that was accomplished is unknown. In Rome HBO, the command to rotate the ranks came after thirty seconds. During that switch, with the enemy soldiers only five or six yards away, there would be an immediate rush, and the crowded lines of moving men around would be incredibly vulnerable, seems to me. But it looked cool as all getout to see that overhead view of the troops moving. If anybody could pull that off, it would be the Romans. Sadly, there aren't any surviving drill records from the Republic, and AFAIK, none from the early Empire. Maurice and Vegetius are about the closest thing I can think of, and they are from later time frames.

We might never know for sure, but I think we can say with a great deal of certitude that it never happened. In the popular Roman mind, Christians were a sect of what we, today, would call demon worshippers that practised all sorts of vile rituals. It would be as if the judge who sentenced Charles Manson later on became a member of Manson's "family" and participated in the assassination attempt on Gerald Ford (this assumes I'm not the only one here old enough to remember). Truly, as there hasn't been a document to say one way or another, we can only guess, or decide for ourselves by whatever means or best guesses seem reasonable. It's recorded that there was at least one Roman centurion who became a Christian, sometime around 33-35AD or so. What that might have implied for the other soldiers in his command is probably a moot point. Within a few years, when Saul of Tarsus arrived in Rome, there were more conversions, but not necessarily among the soldiers. It largely depends upon whether one believes in the God of Christianity or not. If one does, one might be more inclined to believe there were many conversions; if one does not, one will likely be predisposed not to believe there were.

And since my own claim is based on nothing much other than sheer speculation, I'm afraid that I can't quite make a very good case for it. I've drawn and sheathed my gladius quite a lot of times, and I can see total advantage over having in on the left. Consider a blade that is very sharp (mine is not), with a shield close in. One would have to be very careful not to nick the underside of the left forearm, and a longer motion is needed, a sweep of the point, as it were. With the gladius on the right, however, turning the palm out, thumb to the rear, drawing directly up while raising the point forward with a half rotation (much easier to do than say) the amount of space needed for the arc of the blade point is smaller, lateral space used is basically nil, and all the point swing is toward the enemy. In close quarters, the man on your right is in no danger. Romans didn't make that tight shield wall all the time, but when they did, there would still be room. I'm sure someone else has already said that same thing. Anyone should know who has actually stood in a row and drawn simultaneously. It's easy, safer than it seems, and a simple, elegant movement. Nuff said, I reckon.

Thanks, that's a help, and I intuitively think that's the way the Thracian one is...it's a little different from a kopis, and very different from a falcata in shape. I'm going to go with the idea that it's a single edged weapon for the time being.

OK, another question. The Thracian carried a curved, hooked, or bent sword called a sica. Was it a single edged sword? If so, was the cutting edge on the inside curve or the outside? I'm making a practice one, and it makes sense to train with the mock weapon as if it were real...so?? I've seen pictures of it, but it's not all that clear. thanks

Salvete, Our group is planning to put together a gladiator troupe. My own first impressions will be a (ok, a little pudgy) retarius, and a Thracian heavy gladiator. I have a question, though, the retarius carried a formidable dagger...blade around 12" long. This is actually a little bigger than a typical pugio. How was the scabbard attached to the belt? Was it hung from two frogs like a pugio, or was it held on by laces around the belt through its four rings? Or was there some other type of scabbard/sheath for a gladiator? I've seen some paintings, but they are not old ones, they are Renaissance or later, so there's no sure bet on whether they were accurately portrayed. Anybody got any helps? Thanks, Pax et victoria! M. Demetrius ---I'm pretty sure this photo came from Romania, but couldn't find the credit for it. Sorry to whomever

Thanks for taking time to read my question, Dr. Keaveney. We are putting together a Roman reenactor/Living History group featuring Julius Caesar's 10th Legion. There has been much discussion elsewhere, but no clear conclusion on the shape of the scuta used by the Legions around the time of the end of the Gaulic campaigns and Caesar's final return to Roma. Some contend that most, if not all, the mainline legionary soldiers carried the curved oval scuta, while others submit that the rectangular curved scutum had replaced the older style. We mostly agree that the "painted spine" on the shields, for both legionary and auxilia are meant to imitate visually the raised spine found on the Gaulish shields which they emulated, and that the auxilia continued to carry the oval, flat shield. Could you weigh in on this issue, sir? We want to get it right, if possible, and there are so many blind alleys and link chains that lead to somebody's opinion, that we'd like to hear from someone who has committed the considerable time to that era that you have. Thank you so much, M. Demetrius Texas