caldrail

My own objections about this comparison are based on the following criticisms of the Jesus story. I know christians won't like me saying these things, but then I'm a lone voice, and they've got plenty. 1 - Jesus was not divine Why did God wait until the beginning of the 1st century AD? If his own son was to have any meaningful impact, surely there were times and places better suited for the purpose. Why was he born to an insignificant mortal family out in the sticks? Why was he born a mortal? Why was he born at all? As the Son of God, why wasn't he given to Mary as such? Why was Mary's purity violated by the need to bear a bastard child? Since his status as Gods only begotten child requires faith in the absence of evidence, the assumption of his divinity is only backed by the story of Mary's supposed purity. Since Jesus was mortal, and that his mother gave birth to a child that was not his fathers, the conclusion is somewhat obvious and has been glossed over in the Bible to prevent any controversy. 2 - Jesus was a cult leader Acccording to the story, Jesus is a lay preacher, outside the accepted priesthoods. He pulls in a band of followers, attempts to attract others to his cause, and makes his living in this way. Typically, such charismatic people don't behave in quite the same way as most folk, and as an outsider to polite society there is no fundamental difference between Jesus as related in the Bible and modern day cultists. 3 - Jesus was a failure His own family disowned him. Further, whatever message he wanted to spread, he failed to do so, despite the glorification in the Bible. It was his followers who made christianity a success decades later, after his life story had been embellished. Depending on which source you believe, Jesus died by crucifixion in Judaea or of old age in India. 4 - Jesus was obscure A son of god, a prophesied messiah, is born in Judaea and goes on to perform miracles. But no-one says anything? Why didn't Suetonius relate an anecdote in his 'Life of Tiberius' about some guy in Judaea claiming to be divine? And why didn't Tiberius have him delivered to Capri for a personal demonstration of his miracles? Admittedly Tiberius cared little for provincial politics, but a genuine miracle-worker would surely have picqued his interest. According to some sources, Jesus travelled to Cornwall in England with traders. Whilst possible, there is no record of this journey other than folk tales from the places he was rumoured to have passed through, and the same might be said of his alleged early years in India. 5 - Jesus is largely myth Ok, he existed. But much of his reported life is apparently borrowed from eastern mysticism and pagan mythos. Much is said about Jesus's message being important rather than his metaphysical significance, but his 'message' is reported in the Bible, an account assembled from stories told decades after his death, sometimes by people who never met him, later subject to sectarian variance during the early and mid roman empire, later still censored to form the original drafts, which themselves were then retranslated and reworked in much the same way as other legended characters such as Arthur or Robin Hood. 6 - Jesus's death was meaningless Why is his death so low-key and if intended to die for our sins, why was there a need to do this? The Bible does not relate any threat from God to repeat the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the Judaean dislike of roman culture (though arguably, the later Book of Revelations predicts the downfall of Rome) The statement that he was crucified to save mankind is a message that a christian should therefore feel guilty if he does not follow the christian teachings, and is another example of inventing significance to explain mundane events in the real world.

No, it limits his options. There were always rare exceptions and for instance one man rose from the ranks to become emperor. What happened to your dictated position there? That might true of equestrian men selected for direct entry into the centurionate. It certainly never applied to those promoted from the ranks. One of the duties of the comitia centuriata was to elect consuls, and because the centuriata was restricted to citizens, there were limits to the numbers eligible. In fact, although this voting assembly was originally intended to encompass those with a military record, I can\'t find any limitation on attendance other than citizenship. Also, the assembly was a civilian institution, not amilitary one, and had nothing to do with being a pool of officers. Thats purely fantasy RW. No, they become centurions of the legion, with command responsibility for a century. Whether all citizens could vote is not the issue. There were three other voting assemblies anyway so I suspect they could vote, even if the issues voted on wer restricted. Any Consul who ignores citizens may well find himself unpopular and this will affect his career afterward. So? So? Mr Gamer. The Comitia Centuriata was not a secret organisation, it was not an exclusive officers club, it was a voting assembly for men who had fought for Rome, who were therefore considered as worthy of that right.

Ah yes.. Luck... But isn't it true you make your own? So, in true romanesque fashion, I shall have the slaves copy my Curriculum Vitae and distribute copies to all merchants and societae. Think it might be as well if I don't daub grafitti on my rivals homes however....

Looks like we're getting thrown out then

I'm a little uncomfortable with all this talk of 'demons', which to me seems a little more recent than roman Judaea. Still, these researchers know more than I, so if true, it shows those judaic beliefs in a new light as far as I'm concerned, especially since how little talk there is of demonology in the bible. Apart from the Revelations, the only mention I recall of demons is Jesus's dismissal of tempatation - which has to be an allegorical tale designed to underline Jesus's divinity. Further, since the story of Jesus is skewed by later christian authorities to reinforce this idea of divinity, and something that causes some very odd recorded behaviour from Jesus, how would Jesus actually benefit from asking Judas to betray him? Judas after all is symbolical of betrayal, and the man is said to have committed suicide afterward, a crime in christian eyes. Since this means he couldn't actually be a christian by virtue of his 'abhorrent' actions, he is therefore a jew, and a jew responsible for Jesus's death - something that spawned killings that began in the crusades and reached its zenith in the Holocaust. So it begs the question - is Jesus asking Judas to set him on the road to martyrdom (a desirable christian image) or is he saying - "Judas, you're not one of us are you?". The researcher in this case is using evidence to stress the religious side of the equation but nonetheless the translation is literal. Is there any possibility that we misunderstand the word 'demon' in applying it to a creature of infernal origin, when it might mean 'Person Infected By Evil Intent'?

The vicus of a roman fort is a settlement next to the roman military and serving their needs as the basis of their economy. It contains ordinary citizens, artisans, merchants, and prostitutes, besides any unofficial family of the serving soldiers. It was therefore a small community in ts own right rather than married quarters just off base.

I wasn't quite correct though. It was possible for a soldier to be promoted to the centurionate from the ranks (if he displayed the necessary qualities and a vacancy existed), which may well mean he was not a citizen, and therefore ineligible to attend an assembly covened by the comitia centuriata.

Yep, thats me. Mr Cranky Pants My new neighbours keep locking the outside door and leave me struggling to get in and out of my own home. They keep starting to play loud music and I've got a sore foot banging on the floor. I keep applying for jobs but Swindon employers have recently had lobotomies so they can't understand their own recruitment procedures. The Saturday night Town Cryer Association is still in business and vocal in the early hours. My car is starting to look a little weather worn and dishevelled. Doesn't matter, I am too. I think I'm going to end up looking like Tom Hanks in Marooned. Ahh, Mr Caldrail, thank you turning up to this interview. A banana? No?, well, lets begin. So... How long have you been a part of western civilisation?... I see, and you have your own cave?... Excellent.... So, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to buy a pair of garden shears... Positive Moment of the Week The lady at the employment office was impressed. No, really, she was. You've been busy She said with raised eyebrows as my jobsearch logs tumble onto her desk. Oh yes, its a great feeling, watching her totally unable to question my existence as a dole seeker and forced by circumstance to get me to sign on for another fortnight. But thats not really positive enough is it? Ok, after I left my house a few days back, a passing lady asked if this was the road she was looking for. I said, yes, it is. She went away happy, I went about my business content in the knowledge that she hasn't become lost in the rainforests of Darkest Wiltshire. What a nice day.

With or without copious quantities of wine?

And further, a centurion doesn't need to be a member of the comitia centuriata, because he already is. The term centuriata refers to centuries, not centurions, and any citizen enrolled in the roman legions - as a member of a century - is eligible to take part in the assemblies. The assembly wasn't exactly democratic as it seems though, since the wealtheir members were given a disproportionate say in what was voted for and in any case voting was done on a block principle.

Its curious that DNA evidence suggests we're all descended from seven women - all the other blood lines have become extinct. Also, that if human beings hadn't migrated out of Africa when they did, we might not have been here at all. As to distribution, there might be any number of factors why certain populations didn't spread. Native inhabitants, lack of survival resources across wide territory, or simply that they'd found a place that was ok and didn't want to go anywhere else. People generally migrate because they need new sources of food and other desirable bits and pieces, either due to their own over-use or because climate change is working against them. I don't know much at all about our very earliest ancestors but is interesting.

Another little gripe about libraries... Well, I seem to spend a lot of time in them these days. Sometimes I stroll across town to the local library at a sports centre. Today, as I log on, its become an impromptu day care centre. There's a whole tribe of infants all sat around singing nursery ryhmnes. Maybe its my age, but I feel an urge to morph into AM, and shout "WILL YOU LOT SHUT UP! I'm trying to type my emails." Oh no, not another nursery rhymne. Twinkle twinkle little star... Now they're clapping along too. I thought libraries were supposed to be quiet? Mind you, all those innocent little angels sat back there transifixed by their renditions of the latest nursery top ten are tomorrows thugs, burglars, dole cheats, joyriders, and vandals. Now you know why they turn out bad. Headline of the Week The latest headline in our local newspaper proclaims that Booze has cost town

Not quite, however... The Mig used a russian version of a british jet engine. The Sabre and the Mig both used data derived from that gathered from german research in WWII, so they were guided toward the same results. Aerodynamics concerning flight at transitional speed (ie, speed of sound and compressibility effect) were not clearly understood by either manufacturer at the time, and since the designers of both sides were pretty much at the same point, they came to similar conclusions about methods of coping with such obstacles. Interestingly, against north korean pilots the americans did very well, as expected. The covert use of russian pilots - with WWII experience in many cases, came as something of a shock later, and in fact the americans were almost outclassed in their tenacious attacks.

We'd get thrown out!

Blush? What on earth are talking about? No, I don't blush, I admit to an error. I always have. Thats why I log onto this site, so I can learn. Unfortunately, RW, your info-dumping is often not relevant to the thread and sometimes factually in error. Further, you miss the point sometimes when errors or details are pointed out to you. Further still, whilst you may well go to some effort in learning facts and figures, you clearly make no effort to understand it nor do you apply any thought to it - you simply repeat what you read regardless of its accuracy. Firstly, if you're accused of making something up, then list the reference you got it from. Its easy. You still might be wrong - as sometimes happens to me - but at least you avoid the smell of bovine refuse. Secondly, much of your earlier posts were 'workguesses'. If you want to guess, then stop portraying your info-dumping as authoritive. If I 'workguess', I say so, and leave it to the forum to add their opnion or correct my mistake. There is no shame in not knowing, but wilful ignorance is a crime. Thirdly, did Richard I, Coeur De Lion, really carry a copy of Vegetius around with him? I seriiously doubt it. He was not a studious man, he was a born fighter. He loved combat. So much so that he went off on crusade so he could win glory in the holy lands and enjoy a good scrap. A bookworm he was not - and I don't recall any mention of his being able to read and write. The website may well be exaggerating there. Fourthly, I said the centurion had authority akin to a 'tribal chief'. You leaped in with both feet and pointed out the original roman tribal structure, and in doing so completely missed the point of what I was saying. I wasn't drawing any connection with roman cultural structure - I was showing that a centurion ran his century as a warband, as a barbarian style gathering. He didn't motivate his troops as we might do today, he imply flogged them if they didn't obey. There was no subtlety - roman discipline was thuggish and harsh by necessity. Fifth - You cling to the victorian ideal of roman efficiency and smartness like its some sort of unassailable rock. That image of the roman legions is more than a hundred years old and reflects military thinking as it was then. Come on RW, we've moved on. Archaeology and history has become more sophisticated in the last quarter century and with it has the way we look at roman culture. The roman military was a great deal more basic than Vegetius infers. Sixth - As smug as you like to be, you've had cause to blush more than I. In fact, you're trying to score points off me by sneering. I'm very sorry I've doubted your word RW, but you do make exceedingly good errors. The difference is that I admit it and move on. You either go silent, dump some irrelevant info to look clever, or attempt to grab the moral high ground. You're not the first to try that with me, and I've seen off people more knowledgable than you. Seventh - You read what you want to, you extract the information that agrees with your thoughts, you do not apply any critical thought. For you roman history is a religion and anything that does not agree with that image of roman history you have up there in your head you discount. Thats not history at all. The evidence is out there, RW, but it doesn't fit your conclusion. Eighth - Finally, I couldn't give a monkeys if you happen to know more than I about roman history. Great. Brilliant. Thats what this site is about, its discussing that subject, and asking questions is the first step to understanding. You I notice, never ask. You want the status of expert. But you're not prepared to earn it.

Publication standard work. How do you keep the proportions accurate? Do you paint over linework?

As usual, we line up outside the library waiting for it to open, so we can all enjoy the public internet access. Read books? Ahem. The doors open, and the library assisteant, a clean cut lad, is brushed aside as the experienced library goers are keen to log on. Poor lad nearly gets trampled to death. Good grief, AM's friend has bought himself a new coat. Instead of the filthy padded jacket he's owned since 1976 he now wears a raincoat, very suitable for spring sunshine and long days in the park. Err.. feeding birds that is... AM himself is his usual self. The world exists for him to whinge about, and as usual, his attempt to send emails to Mauritius fail and he gets uptight about it. He loudly informs us all of how difficult the computer is to use, and how easily it doesn't do what he wants. Having informed and educated us, he eventually harasses the library staff and an incredibly patient lady shows him the correct button, the one he was shown last week. So we sigh with relief, and do our own thing. Then one person opposite speaks into her mobile phone quietly.... "Hey!" Spits AM irritably, "We're trying to use our emails, could you be quiet please?" Well, most of us already were, but he went red-faced as myself and others try desperately not to guffaw too loudly.... My Event of the Week I got a phone call yesterday. Wrong number. Ok, back to sleep...

The deformation of roman lines is not a lack of discipline. Its the natural consequence of decreasing space in which to manoever and fight. All armies, however disciplined, react in this way. March an army into a defile and you get an unformed mass of men pushing at each other. Unfortunately for the romans, this caused chaos, because their style of command required cohorent blocks of men, and since lower ranks were for administrative duties without any role on the field, there was no local initiative. Well, just another day on the farm? Roman soldiers were often bolshy, which was one reason for the harsh discipline. Lets not forget what the roman soldier was. The romans wanted men to fight and kill for Rome - to stab a child to death if that was the order. He was from a poor background, a labourer, a hunter, a scumbag, more often that not a barbarian in roman kit. Sure, the romans had better training and discipline than other armies of their time, but they weren't robots. The actions of the romans might seem to us to have a lack of discipline, but step back, see a bigger picture. Are modern day troops any better? Yes in some ways, but the dehumanising side of strong discipline also makes men who are capable of terrible cruelty - as the media reveals with relish. And since that point has been made, notice how the presence of media on the front line has changed the behaviour of modern soldiers. Back then, a roman soldier was paid by a culture that tolerated and even enjoyed violence. That culture existed in a time when violence and cruelty was normal everywhere. Yet for all their organisation it still boiled down to a bunch of men with swords fighting another bunch of men with swords. Its a tough, gritty gritty, unpleasant business (though you will always find those that enjoy such a lifestyle) between two cultures not far removed from each others own technological level. We like to think the romans were civilised, more advanced, somehow better... But their legions were composed of the same people they fought more often that not, and discipline can break down very quickly once command loses its grip. But it wasn't lack of discipline - it was standard roman practice. The romans didn't think beyond the immediate prize of a retreating carthaginian army, and since the control of infantry was broken down into local blocks without any sense of the general situation, they were acting to orders and S.O.P.'s. Had the romans shown a lack of discipline, would the sides of the army not turned to face a threat of carthaginian columns either side? Or failed to advance as one? Or failed to turn up in the first place?

I think Augustus thought he was going to run the show for himself. Preserving the republic wasn't his motivation, and if he could have gotten away with it, I'm sure he would have swept much of republican institutions away to make his rule stronger.

When you answer my challenges, I'll answer yours. But in case you think I'm making it up, check some of the works by established experts like Peter Connolly, Adrian Goldsworthy, and others. I do. Its a little more revealing than some of those websites out there. Further, I also read a broader range of history than you do, so I get information about the roman legions you haven't come across. Further, I think about whats written and use what I know of human behaviour and military history as opposed to copying list of information. I'm a wargamer too, RW, have been for a long time. But pushing lead figures around a table to a set of rules teaches you very little.

I never served with the armed forces - I did apply to the Royal Air Force twice when I was younger to no avail, although I have worked alongside british and american servicemen since. Actually, there is a hint of shame in umemployment in Britain. There are so many dole seekers claiming money illegally that the government has gone to great pains to advertise about dire punishment if caught. This means that you get tarred with a brush. I've wondered if the reason my last two cars were ruined was simply that - Someone thought I was working illegally and decided to righteously do something about it. About my supervisors - yes, there are one or two. DS has been a bit vocal about it outside my home on her way to painting the town red on a saturday night. She gets a little contemptuous of those she stands on but I notice how helpless she is without her crowd of minions to fix everything she can't. The woman carries a leopard skin handbag for crying out loud - thats the sort of woman she is.

Race drivers do get pulled over, even the best of them sometimes.

Yes, and it's true of the Romans. The Roman generals were not up to Hannibal's challenge and were caught in a trap. The lack of discipline and the failure to hold their lines uniformly allowed Hannibal to envelop them and slaughter them wholesale. Had they held their center lines... Wrong. It was discipline - the adherence to orders and formation against the normal roman practice of turning to face enemy threat, that allowed Hannibals plan to work. The flip side of strong discipline is a lack of initiative for fear of punishment, and its very true the roman soldier was more afraid of his commanders than his enemy. Thats the standard line handed down from victorian military antiquarians, who equated what the romans did with their own practises. Roman officers had to work hard to ensure their men stayed in line - Caesar says that. There are some interesting aspects to roman organisation that aren't generally appreciated - I've just posted a thread on the subject - and clearly they worked on the principle of utility rather than strict order of command. No, I'm not, I'm pointing out that whilst the romans did have strong discipline, it was a two-edged sword. The armies of the 1st century AD were more disciplined than those of the republic yet this was after the major conquests and perhaps the Varian Disaster is just a blip? No, it was poor leadership. Varus was led by the nose into an ambush, the worst scenario for the disciplined roman troops who could not react fluidly - how could they? - they had no pyramid command structure. It shouldn't be. Any army, even some rag-tag barbarian horde, requires a measure of discipline to stand there and fight together. That requires some leadership. Without Arminius, the germanians wouldn't have mounted that ambush, but engaged in local struggles as they did afterward. Aside from the bravado of warlike cultures, its their discipline that allows them to keep fighting toe to toe with roman legions. The roman discipline was strong and achieved the same end - just - and although it could be an advantage, it was not simply discipline that kept these men in line - it was an officer pushing them back from the rear. Thats not discipline is it? There's a very defined limit to how disciplined these men were. Hand to hand combat can be very wearing on the nerves and the romans were not immune to it even with all that training. The romans were good, but far from perfect.

Questions have been raised about command and control in combat situations for the professional armies of the 1st century AD. I've gathered some info on this from various sources along with some notes. In the roman army, it was the wind instruments which played the major role. Since the time of the Republic, three successive calls controlled the departure from a camp; at the first call, wake up and start the day; at the second, dress and standby; at the third, move off in the regulation fashion. Diffeerent calls, accompanied by visual signals such as raising of the standards, would sound the alarm (Caesar, B Gall, II.20), or order a retreat (B Gakk, VIII.47). Widely used in camp music, also added a stimulus to the field of battle. When troops launched their attack, the trumpet calls added to their shouts (clamor) to encourage them as well as frighten the enemy, and different calls, audible over the noise of battle, pased on the officers commands. Weapons of the Romans - Michel Feugere Certain procedures were adopted as routine by legionary command. Josephus and Polybius both list the same procedures two hundred years apart. Each morning at daybreak the centurions still report to the tribunes tents and then go with them to receive their orders from the general. They then return to their centuries, who are assembled waiting to receive their work orders for the day. If it has been decided to to break camp, they wait for the signal to be given by the trumpeters. On the first trumpet blast the tents are struck and the soldiers gather up their equipment. On the second the tents and other surplus baggage are loaded onto the mules; the remaining wooden structures in the camp are burnt and the soldiers assemble for the march... ...On the third trumpet signal the stragglers rushed to take up their positions in the ranks. Before setting out, a herald standing to the right of the general enquired three times whether the soldiers were ready for war and three times they shouted "We are ready!"... Greece and Rome At War - Peter Connolly Legionaries are depicted on Trajans Column as marching bareheaded - Caesar had noted that in times of emergency, it was common for soldiers to be unprepared and unable to don helmets, uncover shields, and form up correctly in time to meet the enemy. Josephus also records an instance of bored soldiers getting caught unawares by jewish forays from Jerusalem and being seperated from their weapons. Despite their organisation, ambush situations were not the roman forte. It isn't suprising then that the cautious romans took care to avoid ambush - they were well aware of the risks, and a column would certainly be screened with cavalry or even infantry formations where-ever possible. If they had time, a roman army might form in a large square facing outward if the direction of the enemy attack wasn't known. Its an important point. Although the roman practice was to be aggressive, to advance where-ever possible, it was also possible that they could find themselves bogged down in confusion. Its also theorised that some cockades fixed to helmets (and easily removable for marching) were functional as markers for the men to recognise and form on. It was sometimes felt necessary to impose a higher level of command over the c.5000-man blocks formed by the legion. Caesar routinely divided his army into a right wing, centre, and left wing, ech under the control of one of his legati, and this appears to have been standard practice. The Complete Roman Army - Adrian Goldsworthy The division of a roman army in this way is an ad hoc affair, rather than any formal lasting appointment. Increasingly during the Republic the generals were to be found behind the lines, on higher ground where possible, in order to gain a better overview of events. This unfortunately also means the generals cannot react to situations quickly. Caesar was often found in the front line fighting with his men, an older roman practice, and one that endeared him to his men. This meant he was not always aware of changes in the flow of battle, and at least once his subordinate commanders took the initiative and saved the day. Armies deployed relatively close to one another, sometimes as little as quarter of a mile apart. It wasn't unknown for ancient armies to indulge in single combats and skirmishes before the main action started, and commanders would be quick to point out any lack of courage or skill on the part of the enemy. Morale, extremely important to men about to engage in hand-to-hand combat, was bolstered at every opportunity by wise commanders. Caesar noted that troops were better motivated if they met an enemy charge whilst advancing. This does appear to be a standard tactic, although not always practible in very large formations. Whilst republican armies adopted a practice of banging their shields to intimidate the enemy (who would probably be trying something similar on the romans), the sterner discipline of the principate era meant that armies now advanced in silence, in order to hear commands the easier and avoid confusion. Its been speculated whether a silent or a noisy formation was more intimidating. The general feeling is that a noisy one is more so, and that the creation of noise aids morale, but the confidence of the advance is a subtle display often picked up intuitively by their opponents. Melee was not a long drawn out fight, but a series of intense combats in which opposing units drew apart and taunted or threw missiles at the enemy, until one side was ready to push in again and the other responded.There isn't any clear indication that this was done to order, and might simply have been an impromptu 'follow the leader' situation. It is likely though that centurions were leading men back into the fray in this manner. The roman style of command was highly effective, but also very dangerous. Generals were conspicuous figures, marked out by their red cloaks, and often eben more spectacular costume. Moving around only just behind the fighting line they risked being hit by missiles. There was also the danger that individual enemies would single them out in an effort to win glory by killing the enemy commander. The Complete Roman Army - Adrian Goldsworthy Officers are close to the action, moving to where they felt they were needed the most, directing efforts at close hand to the men involved. Command is therefore as direct as possible, and since most centurions were busy fighting at the front to inspire their men, a necessary element of command. Caesar records forcing men back into the line as they wavered. It also means that some units involved weren't commanded at all - they had their place in the line, the officer was elsewhere, and the men were responding directly to the exhortations of their centurions to fight on - not always by command - but by example too. There was little opportunity for individual cohort tactics hence it wasn't necessary to hold the centurion back. Centurions were vital for restoring order after combat, functioning as the lead warriors of their 'tribe' in pretty much the same way as their barbarian opponents. Adrian Goldsworthy has suggested that cohorts were commanded by senior centurions, the Pilus Prior, in order to provide a chain of command. However... ...there is no evidence whatsoever for this. The Pilus Prior may have had seniority, but this status was not a seperate rank distinct from that of the other five centurions in the cohort. because of ancient Rome's strictly classified system of social class, centurions could not command bodies of men larger than a century. The simple fact is that the legionary cohort of late republic or early empire did not have a commander; and this is supported by the fact that neither did it have its own standard or 'genius' (spirit)... ...This seeming anomaly - the absence of 'middle management' from the legion - is logically explained in the limitations of communications on the battlefield. Once battle was joined the first battle line was often beyond the control of the general and his legates; the centurions each led as many men as could be effectively commanded by a single man in the chaos of battle. Roman Army Battle Tactics 109BC-AD313 - Ross Cowan, Adrian Hook

thanks for Caldrail, he now knows what it mean even partially, a year ago, he do not even heared or read of it. Neither had you before you read that Vegetius website. Don't be so cheeky. You hadn't defined the ferentarii either. Sorry mate, I beat you to it