caldrail

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

There's a recent spanish film caled Pans Labyrinth. For those who haven't seen it, its about a young girl in spain in 1944, at the end of the civil war, struggling to cope with reality and immersing herself in fantasy. At the end of the film, its impossible to know whether she was deluded or really the princess in exile. Its a film that doesn't baulk at showing violence and human nastiness, and one with some haunting visuals. The quality of the film is excellent. You know, I sometimes wonder if there's a little of the Pans Labyrinth in each of us. We all interpret the world around us, and some have what seems to me some very strange perceptions of how the world is. One for instance is that as I'm an unemployed person then I must be wothless and useless. I gave my CV (resume) to one company, listing all the achievemnets and higher profile jobs I've undertaken in the last five years, showing a consistent level of competence and responsibility. So I get a phone call from that one company asking me if I'd like to consider a part-time job labouring in unsocial hours. Have I imagined the last five years? Veteran Car of the Week Goes to an Alvis convertible sports car of fifties vintage. Good condition, still used as someones daily drive, and looking fantastic in maroon paint with that well-used patina. I'm sure the reality of driving a car like that would be a nightmare, so whoever owns it must regard it as a labour of love. But its great to see an old girl still going strong!

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?