caldrail

Ok, but thats a matter of interpretation. What Forus is saying is that Augustus wanted citizens he could tax. He didn't invade as such, nor campaigned against the germans, what was going on was a sort of peace-keeping force on the ground whilst the romanisation process took place. Germany was a wilderness, there was no infrastructure or city to capture, thus conquest purely in military terms is impossible. So Augustus was creating them in turning Germania into a province. To Florus, that was the same thing, in that foreign soil became roman province. Remember that military and political divisions in the roman world were inseperable. Otherwise, as Florus finds desirable, Germania should have been made another client-state - Still an independent realm, but one considered an ally and amenable to roman culture.

You're still trying to prove the romans did things the same way as today aren't you? I've started to answer your hypothetical a few times now but I keep running into the same obstacle - any answer is also hypothetical. Command and control is by voice or instrument in both cases. The chain of command is different however - thats been covered elsewhere. The romans would try to fight in a large compacted group because anything else is leaving men exposed and vulnerable. The british would try to take cover and return fire, because otherwise they're at risk of being exposed and vulnerable. At the siege, the romans will offer terms and should the enemy refuse, the siege goes ahead and what happens after is the enemies own fault for not surrendering when they had the chance. Its likely the roman commander will want the siege over and done with as soon as possible and using rams, catapults, levers, ropes, towers, or tunnels, sooner or later his legion is getting in. Once inside, the legion is out of control and will tear the place apart for loot and cut down anyone they come across. The british are more gentlemanly - they too offer terms - and if refused use the artillery at length to reduce the enemy fort. What the british won't do is assault the place head on. That comes later, when a convenient entry has been made, and some measure of control over the troops is attempted, looting and murder regarded as undesirable behaviour from british troops (though the soldiers going in will readily use bayonets against enemies as trained to do)

Wrong. Rules on the track are strict and drivers can be black-flagged - or ordered to pit. Human psychology plays a large part in driving. What you say about experience is correct - absolutely - but that backs what I said about technique becoming second nature. But as to psychology - we think we're great drivers don't we? Watch cars go by on a busy road. Nine times out of ten, the male driver has one hand on top of the steering wheel. Its an 'I'm in control' posture, and actually poor technique, especially when driving a vehicle at speed. Further, you get some people (mostly business managers - self important people) who regard speed as a sign of status. Modern cars are very cossetting. They drive reasonably well, and feel safe. But human beings have a natural danger level which varies between individuals. Its the point beyond which the risk is viewed as too great and the individual backs off. If your ability behind the wheel is less that your perception of danger - sooner or later - you will have an accident. This is why you should never rate your own driving ability. I got race instructors to rate mine. (I was just below the top band. Good but not quite brilliant. It pays to remember such things) Self awareness is all important then. So is awareness of your situation. Whilst going to fast might contribute to an accident in some circumstances, its more often an accident is caused by lack of observation and avoidance.

Thats true of warfare in general. However not all roman enemies broke so easily, and its easy to get swept away with the romance of roman military superiority when all too often they had no great advantage. Hannibal proved that. Their equipment was made to suit their purposes just the same as everyone elses. Granted it was effective (you can't deny that!) but does that suggest that a barbarian weapon is ineffective? Far from it. What the romans did successfully was to marry equipment and tactics better than most. Unfortunately they were often let down by operational control on the field. Centurions very rarely acted in an independent manner. To do so invites chaos on the battlefield and since fighting in compacted large groups was the way to contest a battlefield successfully, the centurions were well aware of their place in the line and what might happen if they when solo. In fact, the roman discipline wasn't as all-encompassing as it seems. Certainly it was harsh, and gave what was effectively a bunch of armed thugs some measure of fraternity and control, but the behaviour of the roman legion was always like a badly behaved dog on a short leash. It was roman aggression and organisation that made the legion what it was.... And you could bring the legionary penchant for placing emperors on the throne into consideration. Wrong. The issue is leadership and the amateur status of their HQ. Poorly led, the romans were lambs to the slaughter. Without such adept leadership, roman discipline counted for very little, because the initiative at lower levels, whilst it appears to be encouraged in some ways, was blocked by rigid plans and poor insight of the army commanders. I can see what you're getting at, but the roman legions were adapted to fight in a particular manner. Look how they struggled against the parthians/persians. The roman 'heavy infantry army' might be formidable in some circumstances, but left high and dry if the opposing army refuses to fight it on the roman terms. Notice Spartacus was at large for two years before he chose (or was obliged) to meet Crassus in pitched battle. Notice how long Hannibal was able to fend off roman legions. The roman legions were good at what they were trained to do (I agree with that point) but they weren't trained to do everything.

Driving at high speed is something that requires some skill, and in most cases isn't a clever choice to make. I have the luxury of years of experience of driving fast cars and got some training from race car instructors on the circuit. Notice that these instructors don't teach you to drive fast, they teach you to control the car at higher speeds. A moving vehicle is a mass of dynamic forces and these require balancing with your control input. Steering, throttle, brakes are your input, but you also need to utilise the cars balance, position, direction, grip, weight distribution etc etc. It all takes practice because at high speed you cannot afford to wait and think about what you're doing - it needs to be an automatic reflex, and for that reason very few of us have the necessary skills to handle cars at speed (though we all like to think we can - and even I have to admit that I've never driven a car at 10/10ths). For any given road situation, there is a margin of safety. As you increase speed, that margin shrinks, until at a certain speed there is no margin of safety anymore, and if something goes wrong at that speed, tough, because you will not be able to do anything about it. This is why I say the Speed Doesn't Kill, even though the authorities in britian like to hammer the opposite into our heads. Its the decision to travel at an inapropriate speed in a given situation and possibly beyond your competence that causes accidents.

AD476 is traditionally given because that was the end of roman emperors - Romulus Augustulus was ordered off his seat by Odoacer and sent into retirement at a young age.

Doesn't seem likely, since most people were bound to the land under the manorial system and there were penalties for those who absconded. Besides, peasants were too busy paying tithes and taxes and if they travelled, what would happen to their strips of land? Its more likely that the legend of certain things - dog-heads, monopods, serpents etc - were a curiosity to many and the makers of maps felt bound to locate them somewhere. They were very real creatures to the average medieval person, even though they existed in legend, and a map that showed their location must have seemed more erudite.

No, he didn't want to conquer germanania, he wanted to to tax it. There was no campaign against the germans, but a long process of romanisation and a relatively calm colonisation. Roman towns have been found well inside german held territory much further than previously realised, abandoned after the Varian Disaster. Varus was not there to crush the germans, he was there to keep the peace and ensure taxes were paid. He went on the march because Arminius told him a rebellion against Rome had started - clearly unacceptable, and Varus would have been keen not to dissappoint Augustus with his control of the german territories.

The topic already exists http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8315 What I've found on these forums is that there's plenty of people who know the various latin terms and have some idea how the romans grouped their men, but have little real understanding of what it actually means, how they fought, or how they behaved. Thats understandable. The roman sources are very sparing on that point (since this behaviour was second nature to them, they never saw the point of relating it in texts, especially by educated writers who weren't about to portray the legions warts and all) so to some extent its necessary to interpret what the romans were actually doing. For instance, in one reply given above the romans are quoted as responding to ambush in a calm orderly manner. An ambush is not an orderly situation. The whole point is to suprise the enemy and if the enemy has time to form up - the ambush has failed. Also that procedure assumes the romans have room to manoever - typically ambushes are laid to prevent that. Furthermore, histoprical accounts suggest that in the chaos of ambush the much-vaunted roman organisation collapses like a pack of cards - a situation Hannibal exploited all too readily. Many of us are entranced by the relative sophistication of the roman organisation, and give it properties it never had. We see posts on this forum suggesting the roman legions were calmly efficient, almost businesslike in their approach. I really do doubt this. It is true the roman armies were well trained in AD50, but notice also the accounts of Caesar, who sometimes struggled mightily to stop his men from running away, and there's two mentions of standard bearers (very important for morale and placement on the field) - one threatens Caear with the sharp end, the other pushes his standard into Caesars hand and scarpers. The point is that when combat starts, its not conducted in a detached robotic manner. There are two blocks of men fighting each other, death and injury possible for anyone involved, and the emotional state of those involved can vary. We're dealing with men from poor backgrounds, subjected to a dehumanising, harsh, and physically demanding regime, which although providing a good measure of fraternal sentiment cannot alter what these men were. This is why I stress the role of the centurion. His job was not simply to pass on orders. He was chosen for his ability as a warrior, and for his character. The romans needed strong personalities who could keep hardened men in line. So, despite the organisation and its modern connotations, the men involved weren't much different from their enemies. This is one effect of our tendency to apply modern viewpoints to roman times. We assume that the romans, because of this organisation, had a similar outlook to modern armies. Not so. Modern armies have rules of engagement. The romans did not, and quite happily slew men, women, and children if ordered to do so, and requisitioned food and livestock from civilians with any regard to lawful behaviour. Modern armies have strict regulations concerning behaviour. Well, so did the romans, whose punishments were much harsher than the modern day, but notice this behavioural limit does not apply for extarnal matters. Within the legion, men must behave in a certain manner. If a civilian complains, he gets nowhere, because the military tribunal is chaired by senior officers who don't like civilian interference, and the civilian concerned would be advised to make himself scarce whether he wins or not, for the legionaries will certainly make their displeasure felt whatever the original complaint had been. The control over roman troops, despite the strict internal discipline, was actually marginal. Legionaries routinely bribed their officers for various reasons (one soldier is recorded as compalaining there were not enough opportunities to do so!), and all sorts of exploitation within the ranks is thought to have taken place. Further, notice how rebellious roman troops can be. The early part of the principate sees some very serious mutinies for instance, and legions were often only too willing to push their personal loyalties and their commander into becoming rivals for the throne. Rufus is unusual as a commander, because he refused to his troops request to challenge Nero. More often that not, they were only too willing to have the troops behind them when such opportunities arose. So, it isn't just modern organisation we tend to foist on the romans, but modern behaviour, and thats wrong. The roman legions were not as 'civilisied' as some people see them. They were rebellious, cruel, violent, corrupt, larcenous, and in peacetime a potential liability which was why the romans were keen to keep them busy with engineering projects - which of course the men did everything they could to get out of!

It won't get filmed. If a website for a screenplay writer includes a box to select your choice of A-list actor to play whatever role, you know the guy behind it won't get past first base. I saw exactly the same thing with a site about the Deus Ex film project. (Deus Ex was a computer roleplay game based on a near-future cyber-tech conspiracy. Darn good game when it came out, but as a film it would be too complex and the list of A-stars in one place generated by fans was hilariously expensive)

Because they understand what an NCO is. Its part of our culture. Even if you're not in the military and have no idea what the military do, you still have some concept of an NCO. For the record, a modern officer is 'commisioned'. That means his command is given to him by the nation state (or authority) he serves. A non-commisoned rank receives his command without that sanction, so therefore he's only going to receive it under the command of commisioned officers. Nonetheless, these are ranks. That means a series of graded levels of status which follow the individual whichever job the army gives him. The romans didn't do that. They received status from the particular role they were given, and even the centurions were named to prioritise their status, not their rank. Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum (hope I spelt that right) which means 'fort prefect'. Its not a rank, although that would make him 3rd in seniority, but a role, from which he derives status. Further, the tribunes were 2nd in priority and there was aays a number of them. Hmm.. I understand all this - but only by virtue of a reading of Roman History which more thorough than is the case among the general populace. I thought the idea of equating Roman with modern ranks was to illustrate a rough correlation to people who are generally unknowledgeable about the Roman world, or casually interested. To call someone an 'NCO' when he has a command numerically similar to a captain or major is misleading, and WAS misleading to me as a child, when I started reading in depth about this. Thats the problem. All this equating with modern practice is a numbers game. It has little to do with reality because the romans organised forces differently on the field. We adopt a pyramid philosophy where specialist units are grouped under higher, more general purpose organisations. The legion was a one-size-fits-all mini-army in its own right that relied on personal loyalty rather than to an abstract state, and also relied on the centurion being a rough-tough guy who doesn't take any nonsense from his men and can lead and inspire those men to fight. The centurion was a primary warrior, not simply a guy in charge. The NCO comparison just doesn't work.

Medieval maps were expected to be visually pleasing, and to some extent, the images of monsters were speculatory or decorative (reinforcing the image of lands unknown at the extremes of the world). Since many people reported sightings or close encounters with Dog-Heads, its a fair bet there were those who did believe.

Its known that some early christians also worshipped Sarapis. Although this seems hypocritical to christian belief, it should be remembered that christianity was not a unified movement in its early days, but a series of sects run by non-aligned bishops, with differences in what was taught to their flocks. Its also an interesting footnote that the male domainated clergy cam about because of roman culture. The earliest non-roman christians appear to have accepted feamle clergy as equals.

A note about Ferentarii - thats not a troop type, but a generic description used to cover troops used in a certain manner. Its the same concept as the Gregarii in gladiatorial combat. Not a specialist fighter, but a fighter used in a team whatever he was originally trained as.

Because they understand what an NCO is. Its part of our culture. Even if you're not in the military and have no idea what the military do, you still have some concept of an NCO. For the record, a modern officer is 'commisioned'. That means his command is given to him by the nation state (or authority) he serves. A non-commisoned rank receives his command without that sanction, so therefore he's only going to receive it under the command of commisioned officers. Nonetheless, these are ranks. That means a series of graded levels of status which follow the individual whichever job the army gives him. The romans didn't do that. They received status from the particular role they were given, and even the centurions were named to prioritise their status, not their rank. Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum (hope I spelt that right) which means 'fort prefect'. Its not a rank, although that would make him 3rd in seniority, but a role, from which he derives status. Further, the tribunes were 2nd in priority and there was aays a number of them.

All I see is blank white screen. But then yanks like cruising in cars, we brits like driving them, so we need better suspensions and steering. Its a demonstrated fact that a little 1.8ltr Lotus Exige can take on a full bore Rousch Ford Mustang V8 muscle car and beat it. Can't you just feel the smugness?

No he didn't overextend the empire. He was trying to expand his tax coverage and improve the security of his borders by a policy of romanisation (which was nothing unusual). Unfortunately, he made the mistake of assuming Varus could handle the administration and security of his new buffer zone, and hadn't figured on a charismatic and clever individual like Arminius to weld an alliance of german tribes.

No, they had responsibilities more on par with a tribal chief. Artillery and cavalry are very much specialist units to the british of 1875. Cavalry because they're superior beings on horseback (and its unlikely they'd leave the column to screen for ambush because they don't believe the enemy are capable, and prefer to remain with the column for safety), artillery because it relies on state of the art industry back home. The british will not assault the fort until artillery have pounded it into dust in any case. Artillery is not a specialist unit for the romans. Apart from the odd expert in their ranks, any legionary can do the monkey work involved. Cavalry almost certainly will screen the column - the romans are cautious in warfare, and its likely they'll assault the fort very soon, for romans don't like being in one place too long, and its more expedient (and more impressive) to accept heavier casualties and take the objective quickly. Ultimately, command and control is done by shouting loudly. The romans have trumpets, the british have bugles, so in that sense there's little difference. The british however are effectively an army of archers - given their use of firearms - and this affects their behaviour on the field, since they also have no armour and can expect the enemy to use firearms also. The roman have armour protection, relying on close quarter combat to do business. As to the situations, there's too many variables, and its impossible to guarantee that a commander will order his troops to behave in a set fashion. As a rule, the romans did badly in ambushes, but then the british had their fair share of embarrasements.

Ok, but isn't it also true the only reason his autocracy was so benign was simply to ensure his own survival? Had he a stronger grasp on roman politics, perhaps he might have reverted to the bloody terror of his youth?

Since Rome depended on military power, then success on the battlefield is the key. If you can dominate the roman legions they have no defence, and might afterward be willing to be subjugated. Besieging roman towns is pointless because the romans would simply trap you there - a fate Hannibal was wary enough to avoid.

In blighty we get a few yank cars. They look awful. Aprt from those 70's muscle cars perhaps. But usually when a caddy the size of an articulated truck leans round the corner most people point derisively. Funny thing, two mates of mine, jovial rogues by nature, were into fast cars in their younger days and once bought one of those massive cadillacs with wings. That evening they decided to show off their purchase to the neighbours and cruise around the block. They ran out of petrol three-quarters of the way round.

Apparently not. I'm too educated and experienced in the ways of civilisation. Wrong accent you see....

SSSSH! Don't tell everybody....

This is also the tendency of human beings to organise and classify - its easier to understand if you teach that Rome fell in AD476. It also carries that moralistic message about decadence and the inevitable falling by the wayside of an 'evil empire' as the christians saw it. It is, therefore, a very victorian perspective. Technically, I agree the roman empire survived until 1453 but isn't that simply reorganising by a different standard? For instance, Mommsen ended his history of Rome with the accession of Augustus, because as far as he was concerned the Empire was unworthy of the democratic principles of the Republic and represented an end to traditional roman culture, as if what followed was merely an appendix in roman history after the decline of a culture which he admired for its founding principles. Also, if you regard christianity as the protector of roman culture (and you can - latin would be a forgotten language without it), then the roman world has never gone away, and its empire survives under new management very succesfully thank you.

I wouldn't dismiss them entirely. You're there, nervous, waiting to fight, and a dozen men handling big heavy angry dogs loose their hounds at you. Those dogs are running at you, full of bared teeth and snarls, and dogs that want to be violent don't mess around. A big heavy dog intent on savaging you doesn't suffer the same morale problems as we do - it just goes at you. I understand what you mean - shields, greaves, weaponry - and to some extent if a formation keeps its nerve then the dogs will be defeated, largely because they become too focused on the one guy they're ripping into. But.... Wouldn't you be a little more nervous if a dozen snarling rottweillers ran toward you full pelt?