caldrail

The celts used stuff they had tried and tested. Unfortunately, the modern world focuses on equipment and in technological societies superior equipment can make a huge difference, but ultimately it still boils down to the courage, skill, and motivation of the men using them. Since one sword isn't too different from another, this was even more important. Also, its a mistake to believe that all roman weaoons were top notch. They had to paid for, and because it wasn't unknown for a legionary to commision a better sword if he had the cash, clearly the issue swords weren't so special. Remember that roman artisans were notorious for cheap and shoddy work if they could get away with it. Why make something expensive when you can sell a cheap item as such? Caveat Emptor.

Hey man, which window is that bell at? Package my brain? Anyone got a matchbox? Nome is a good place huh? I mean, plenty of bears and squirrels and stuff? And that warms me up huh? Well, considering the cost of air travel to alaska, I guess I'll carry on paying the heating bill... Well, actually I use electricity... Not sure I want to put that to the test....

RW - you are way down a blind alley. You're trying to reconstruct the roman legion as you see it, not how it was. I'm sorry, but these list of ranks and titles bear little resemblance to what was actually going on and trying to compare that to a modern army is pointless - they organised themselves differently. The modern army requires a pyramid structure (which you seem so fond of). They need to exercise command of fighting men right down to squad level, and even a dozen men are viable combat unit these days. The romans fought en-masse. The lower positions of responsibility weren't necessary for control of the cohort, the basic fighing unit, which is considerably laerger than a dozen men. In a modern army, if you're promoted to a rank, you can be moved to any job in the army and retain your status - its fixed by your rank. In the legions, you were promoted to a job, and that gave you a certain status. If you changed jobs, your status changed with it. Sorry, but all of this is complete rubbish. The romans did not organise themselves in this manner. They did not have an army. There was no coherent and formal organisation of their fighting forces as we expect today. Every legion was autonomous, its leader owing loyalty to either the senate or the emperor (or arguably, themselves sometimes).

I think you exaggerate just a tad.... I am officially poor after all, so my pounds are really very few. Who from? I'm alone in several hundred square miles of wilderness. I can do that in england -I just stop paying the heating bill. Cool. I'll buy my bandana and survivalist magazine now.... Yes.... well.... I think I need to study the small print here..... Not quite like parting with a few pence in a supermarket is it? At least there the food doesn't fight back. But whats the point? If I don't need to buy anything, whats the use of gold? If I haven't any roads to blast down in a ferrari, whats the point of my own oil well? Anyhow, I'm hungry, so if you'll exuse me I'll whack that bear over there.... Its not running away GO... Erm, GO, its standing up on its rear leg and making loud angry noises..... So where's this oil at? I'm unemployed. Not getting out of bed is mandatory behaviour. One wonders why.....

Isn't there a quote somewhere about the cloaca maxima being large enough to drive a cart through?

The Europa Universalis engine is getting a bit long in the tooth. Also, I hate to say it but... its a bit like Wargaming for Accountants. Still, if you have the patience, its a reliable system.

Where exactly are you getting all this stuff?

Roman warfare prior to the adoption of hoplite formations and equipment. You're talking 7th, 8th, perhaps even 9th century BC.

Oh? They have gardening centers there? Wanted - assistant to deal with customers and storage. Pilots license with floatplane experience an advantage. Must be computer literate, hairy chested, able to cope with social deprivation and grizzly bears, and a minimum of five years experience with hunting rifles. Apply now....

The evidence for the earliest armies of ancient Rome is very sparse, and the contemporary tales are interwoven with legend making it very difficult to be sure how accurate it is. The traditional tale of roman origin is that Romulus and Remus, both sons of the god Mars and suckled by a she-wolf, founded Rome in the 8th century BC. Research suggests the City of Rome actually came into existence after the amalgamation of the Quirinal and Palatine communities sometime around 600BC. The warriors of Romulus's time fought on foot. Chariots were not used, and even Romulus's triumphal parade after killing King Acron was pedestrian. Romulus is supposed to have had a bodyguard three hundred strong called Celeres ('The Swift') giving rise to speculation about cavalry. It doesn't seem likely that true cavalry were used at this early date, and if horses were present, then they were employed to take the soldiers to the battlefield where they fought on foot, a category of soldier also used by the spartans. On the other hand, Livy and Cicero tell us that the three tribes were named Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, and all three names were later associated exclusively with cavalry. According to Livy each had two centuries of cavalry assimilated in the later Servian reorganisation. The first reliable account of roman cavalry is dated at 403BC. Only the wealthiest wore armour. In fact its entirely possible that the original division between patrician and plebian families was simply that only the patrician families could afford to be warriors. There must have been an etruscan influence too, as Rome was part of the same cultural area at that time. Roman writers tell us that their society was divided into three tribes (the word tribe is derived from tri, or three) who are each supposed to have contributed 1,000 warriors, and thirty curiae, a word derived from that meaning 'assembly of armed men', and clearly the warriors of Romes earliest societies were the ones permitted to vote - enshrined in the oldest voting assembly of Rome, the Comitia Curiata. At this time the word legio meant 'levy', and the organisation of later times does not apply. It isn't known exactly how these warbands organised themselves on the battlefield, and although hoplite warfare came later, some sort of less rigidly enforced formation must have been used. However its clear that early roman warfare was far from sophisticated, mostly concerned with small raids and cattle rustling, and set piece battles must have been rare. There were no generals, and important warriors led their men by example, providing booty and success against rival warbands. There is a strong possibility of these men using a shield wall even at this early date. The Ancile is the legendary shield with miraculous properties, and interestingly, images of the rounded and convex rectangular roman shield (scutum) exist on 8th century stone carvings despite the trend of the time for circular shields. There are other aspects to this. Etruscan cities of this period are known to have fielded their own armies, and therefore Rome was following the fashion with its legio of three thousand men. Further is the case of the salii, the priests of Mars. Two colleges existed in republican and early imperial period - The Salii Palatini and the Salii Collini. The first is connected with the ancile, the second with Quirinus, the sabine name for Mars and derived from their word for lance. Both were headed by a magister, from an etruscan word denoting military command. The salii were latin in origin, not exclusively roman, and other colleges existed in latin cities. Since the origin of these colleges is very old, the significance is that these men had formed warrior bands, perhaps limited to a dozen members who were not heads of families, dedicated to the worship of Mars in return for protection in battle. These rituals survived into later periods - the helmet of the salian colleges, the apex, is based on a conical helmet worn by early warrior-priests. In fact, it appears that religion played a conspicuous part in early roman warfare. The salii held dances in March, along with horse races (Equirria), purification festivals for weapons (Quinquatrus), and another purification festival for battle trumpets (Tubilustrium). The close of campaigning in october resulted in three more such festivals, the {i]Armilustrium, Tigillum Sororium[/i], and the October Equus. The last named was a sacrifice of a horse to the god Mars. Information gathered from - Greece and Rome at War - Peter Connolly Roman Warfare - Adrian Goldsworthy A History of Rome - Le Glay, Voisin, Le Bohec Early Roman Armies - Nick Sekunda, Simon Northwood, Richard Hook

But your still trying to paint the roman legions in modern terms. They didn't do things like we did. I'll say it again so you're clear on this.... The roman legion is a self-sufficient military division and army in its own right. It was NOT part of a larger formal structure, and command of armies was by arrnagement, not by fixed rules or ranks or pyramid structures. The legion of late republican times is the organised development of the very early warband culture.

Yesterday I was strolling home from a visit to a supermarket a few miles away from where I live. Its an old country road that was swallowed by a huge redevelopment of the farmland around west swindon back in the 70's. In fact, for cars its a dead end, because much of the road is now a deddicated bus route. Imagine my suprise when a car drove past gently. The driver had come down the road, seen the NO EXIT sign to the adjacent main road (the slip road is for buses only!) and proceeded to drive the wrong way down a single lane for buses coming the other way (The bus lane is clearly marked on the road surface with a directional arrow too). The usual procedure in these situations is to say "Ooops" and stop, reverse gently, and turn around if need be. Not this guy. He continued at a gentle pace looking for a turn off - sorry, its a bus lane, only one exit ahead. Directly onto a busy dual carriageway facing the wrong way into flow of traffic, not to mention a large roundabout exit in front of him. So what did he do? Well... There were no screeching of tires, horns blaring, or irate shouts from flustered drivers. He just pulled out and in total confusion found his way out of difficulty without causing a major accident. A few seconds either way and it would have been different. Job Interview of the Week part of the conditions for being paid benefits is that I make myself available for work. There's a list of stuff I have to do each week to qualify. One is that I phone a service for job searches, and one vacancy they gave me was for a garden center. The contact was a Mr LW, and I duly phoned the number provided. A woman answered, with a heavy local accent. I asked to speak to LW but she replied "He's not here... Wots it concerning?" I'd like to discuss the job vacancy you have. "Ohh the job. What do mean 'discuss'?" Well I would like further information. At this point I get the impression she's not too bright. "Do you want the job or not? Why do you need to discuss it?" I was given this number by the employment service. What I'd like to do is find out more and.... "I think you're wasting my time.... (click BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR) So I'm not going to get the job then?

GO - You are now my guru. I base my entire life on your teachings....

Possibly some thought like that, but they would be people with a better overall view of the roman world, which means you're talking about connected people - senators for instance. The average joe probably only cared about keeping a roof over his head, and roman prestige isn't useful for filling his belly. The patriotic element is difficult to justify. people generally didn't owe those feelings to the state, but to an individual - their patron, their commander, or their emperor. Remember that Rome was a city-state, not a nation. Nationalism was undesirable from the roman view because it inevitably led to rebellion.

Yes, the romans did do things like that. Its wrong to believe that roman generals were part of a pyramid structure with an assigned rank - they were inviduals tasked with completion of a military venture and given the status/responsibility applicable for that reason. I don't know whether these arrangements between generals were formalised or ad-hoc by mutual agreement, but if two legions are marching together - who takes command? Its either decreed by the roman leadership, or some accomadation is made between them. Both are technically equal in status as legionary commanders although reputation and connections might swing it. A time-sharing arrangement of overall command might relieve any frustration if both adhere to the agreement.

Up to a point, but was this wealth sustainable if it paid for roman arms elsewhere? After all, egypt was never as wealthy after the romans as before them. Neither for that matter were the others you mention - although I do accept under islam some areas did become prosperous again, at least for a while. The roman economy was not as organised as we might expect today. They were paying huge sums for foreign luxuries and animals and thus wealth was gradually exported. Notice how strapped for cash the later empire was, to the point they had no choice but to offer tax breaks to invite goths to settle in roman territory, both to increase provincial populations (and therefore the recruitment pool), and to provide extra tribal units for defence directly, plus the possibility of more tax income if the goths became extended landowners. Ha ha very funny But have you considered that conquering and romanising scotland would have probably reduced the need for military occupation and saved costs in the long term? Or that the african east coasts were wealthier than they are today with great opportunities for trade into the indian ocean? Not really, because most faceless administrators from more humble backgrounds stood little chance of achieving the credibility needed to run an empire or even mount a threat to it.

amen to that

Yep, you still don't understand what a legion is. The word means 'levy' and refers to the old citizen recruitment at every campaign or year of conflict. The legion is not a formal division of a structured army. Each legion was seperate, a self contained military entity that could operate as an army in its own right, although they could be grouped informally under a comman commander. Such groups were always temporary and for a specific military objective. If you continue to describe the roman legion in modern terms you will run into difficulty. They did things differently to us. Their organisation wasn't about fixed ranks with responibility attached, it was about responsibility, status, and role within the legion. They did not therefore have a pyramid structure nor required one. A man was promoted to a role within the legion, not to a higher rank, and his status was derived from the role he played, not because he had achieved stripes - which didn't exist then. Arguably the centurionate had ranks within its structure, both for seniority and to provide a career path for this long term permanent junior officers who really were the backbone of legionary operations. However, there was no guaranteed promotion path into or out of the centurionate - it was a class apart.

There is a parallel in modern britain to the western firearm. Until recent decades handguns were rigidly controlled but available if you went through the rigmarole. Then after a shooting incident by some nutter the government banned them. Result? Handguns became a black market commodity, and this meant they were now getting into the hands of dubious citizens. Youngsters in particular who now see their handguns as fashionable items, a label denoting manhood and superiority, a means to 'respect' as they see it, and in some cases, a means to defend yourself against those who also have guns. The actual condition of these weapons is possibly poor, as the great majority of the youngsters (or older crooks to be honest) have no actual knowledge of firearm maintenance, and in any case many gunsmiths went out of business following the ban. However, if confronted with some smiling young man with a pistol held sideways up, do you really inspect the gun for condition before doing what he wants? In general, children are much easier to impress with gun safety than adults, who generally think they know better. I was trained to use military firearms in my youth, and whilst I would hardly consider myself an expert, I do not wish to own real weapons for any purpose nor do I do stupid things with the inert guns I did own. I do admit to having owned collections of deactivated or replica weapons in the past but a gun nut I am not. I'm well aware of the nature of these things and whilst I collected them from a historical perpective and interest in military affairs, I wouldn't dream of pointing them at a bank teller. I once showed my collection to the brother of a girlfriend. He went glassy eyed, and staring at a real but deactivated Bren LMG asked me if I had the guts to raid a post office. I told it didn't matter if I did or I didn't, that was wrong and I wouldn't do it. He ignored my answer and me again if I had the guts. Lets close the cupboard eh? Seriously though GO, I really think you'd struggle to fly a B36 on your tod, evenif you knew how to fly at all, and something tells me that you'd fail completely to use the Missouri for similar reasons. Its easier to use a handgun isn't it? Especially when tv and film show how easy it is to use them and that its always the 'bad guys' who get hurt. A angry or greedy individual so armed is definitely going to see others as the bad guys, and so believes he can use this weapon to achieve his ends and does not consider the results of his actions, and in fact becomes more dangerous when he realises the gravity of his situation and becomes frightened/desperate.

Exactly. A federated state relied on fuedal loyalty and although this was similar to the roman client/patron relationship, at the top end of the scale a roman wanted it all, and wouldn't subordinate himself unless it was in his interest - and he'd still be waiting in the wings for chance of winning it all. Not so. Why else would constantine have to persuade wealthy romans to travel east. I understand what you mean though, because trade with the orient came through the middle east by three or four routes including byzantium, but then the wealth was widely distributed and due to continued miltary action distributed further, including into the hands of the parthians/persians. The authority of the imperial office required the support of the military. Even Auigustus knew that. Legitmacy and stability was dependent on the rulers ability to contain the threats against him. Rome really was an extrapolation of the lions pride. Nonsense. Rome could expand in all sorts of directions. Why did it never complete the conquest of scotland? Why did it not conquer ireland? Why did it not retain the middle east provinces conquered by Trajan? Why did it not expand southward along the african east coast? Why did it not expand its interests into the baltic area beyond a few trade expeditions? Augustus had the right idea - change from military conquest to colonial expansion - it was a little unfortunate that the germans were united under Arminius and fortunate that Arminius did not seek southward expansion. But this was all the earlier part of the empire. After Hadrian the empire did not expand and his policies reinforced the strategic view of consolidation and retention of primary territory. The romans were looking inward, they were not as dynamic as they had been, they were becoming entirely concerned with luxury, bread, and circuses, and were trying to keep the rest of the world out of their happy little empire. To all intents and purposes, the romans were becoming close to sticking their head in the sand, only dealing with threats defensively once they were a real danger, instead of an aggressive response that they might have once engaged in. Yet the army was not a unified organisation. It was a collection of autonomous self sufficient divisions that ultimately owed their loyalty to their commander, not the city of Rome. Further, after the civil wars that saw constantine come to power, the legions were much reduced in scale and although its easy to see that in terms of retrenchment, it was also a direct policy aimed at reducing the possibility of military rebellion. Because emperors saw value in men given careers without the influence to accrue power, whereas a career administrator from a senatorial background would eventually become dangerous. And he accepted didn't he? Where was his loyalty to the established order? Diocletians politics did not change roman character and ambition, nor the incessant under-the-table deals that ran it.

The observance of respect in days of british yore is a hangover from earlier times, when lords were masters of their manor and part of a chain of fuedal loyalties. The commoners had rights, but knew their place. The manorial lord was potentially a mean SOB and could quickly punish them for their lack of respect. The commoners were banned from riding horses, regarded as a social and military privilege (not to mention advantage). Ordinary hand weapons were the preserve of professional soldiers - though I don't recall a medieval prohibition on swords, yet there were weapons encouraged by the upper classes. Archery practice was mandatory in the 14th century and football was banned for that reason. In later centuries, this developed into the traditional british class system, where those of higher status were regarded as superior (mostly by themselves). America offered something different. A new land, a new beginning. Although there was definitely more than a hint of the same cultural structure they had left behind, the classicly inspired new leaders attempted to create a better society. On the frontier however, things are less organised, more rough and ready. Violence was never far away and thus a macho protocol emerges amongst those who lived and worked there. Since a firearm made any man the equal of another, it became an inherent part of their society, something enshrined in american law, and deeply embedded in their psyche.

Exactly the scenario Diocletian was trying to avoid. Whilst he ran it, he succeeded, but his overall authority was the key. Once he retired, the empire was effectively anybodies. This was less of a problem than later, because Constantine decided Constnatinople ('City of Constantine') was to be his new capital and thus gave incentive to a movement of money eastward. No it didn't, but that doesn't mean the empire was stronger as a unified whole. The whole point of the tetrarchy was introduce a federated state instead of a monolithic empire. What Diocletian could not do was change the nature of roman politics. The question of weak political instutions is all very well but their day had long since passed. Even before the empire they had concerned themselves with their own privilege and business, and after the populist policies of Caesar had effectively been circumvented despite retaining their status. As a group of wealthy and influential individuals however they could still affect roman politics greatly, since emperors were obliged to seek their support and more than one leader found themselves condemned by their senate. No, it was the reliance of the roman state on past glory and booty. The city of Rome sat on its laurels apart from one or two emperors. Having spent countless sestercii on foreign luxuries and entertainment the wealth was dissipating - haven't you noticed how outrageously over the top the Julio-Claudians were compared to later rulers? Sure, there were a few characters to come, but does it really suprise you that the empire could no longer afford military expansion and turned to a defensive policy more often than not? The empire was no larger. The new posts were not necessarily effective and represent the increasing size of an increasingly inefficient government. But its also true the emperors were well aware that the fat cats of the senate were less suitable to government posts than the upwardly mobile equestrian class, which had developed from its humble roots to become something more of a roman middle class. It also undercut the power and influence of senators by excluding them from government, a trend that had been current in roman times since Augustus. Its difficult to say. An usurper often claims to be doing it for the people, or for the good of the nation, whilst actually wanting to lord it over everyone else. I doubt many of them were serious about restoring Rome as it was, and were more likely thinking of putting Rome back together to suit themselves.

We haven't been at war with Mugabe - he just uses us as a scapegoat to take attention away from the fact he's clueless about how to run the country. Further, his quest to remain in power has seen his country turn from being the breadbasket of Africa to just another chaotic and despotic african hell-hole. As it turns out, the only reason he wanted a recount of the votes was so he could track down those who hadn't voted for him. As for ordinary folk, I've no doubt there's a few who look back at how things were and wish it were so again - many don't, they prefer their independence at whatever cost, and there are plenty of people that think Mugabe is the best thing since sliced bread and is trying to save Zimbabwe from British invasion. Thank you for your faith in british rulership. Sadly, since George III has recovered from his madness some time ago, its unlikely we'll be back

Awareness of my environs? They found the body in a marshy area at the west side of the lake. there's a country road adjacent to it at a higher level and the undergrowth is fairly thick. Although the police haven't found evidence of foul play yet, you do have to wonder why this person was wandering around in a reedy swamp. Perhaps I'm more aware of my environs than he was?

But it was transitory. At soon as he retired, the whole system collapsed, so the only reason it worked was because his personality allowed it. As always, the roman need to compete and dominate worked against it, since there were always men who thought they were better or more deserving of power.