caldrail

Why? Do the Italians have oil?

Its become apparent that many people are struggling to understand the roman system of command and control. Of course you do, so does everyone else, we have only a few scant sources to go by and no-one of the lower ranks has left any record of their experience. The modern military is easy to understand. We have grown up and been educated in an era where the modern system exists, some of us have experience of it in real life, and for us its almost second nature. The romans thought of their own system as second nature too, and although their methodolgies sometimes paralleled our own, it belonged to a different culture and mindset. Sure, we can compare various subdivisions and attempt to equate those with forces we undertstand, but isn't that like trying to understand real life by studying soap operas? The modern regimental system has its origins in the 1600's, and only really developed in sophistication over the last 100 or 200 years to cope with the need to occupy huge swathes of territory and cope with mechanised warfare with heavy weapon and air support beyond visual range. Modern armies are widely dispersed, way beyond the ability of a general to see for himself whats going on, and he relies absolutely on communication from lower strata to know whats going on at all. For the roman general, everything is close at hand. Even if he commands huge numbers of men, its likely he can view directly much of what goes on. Also, the need for soldiers of ancient times to communicate up and down a chain isn't necessary. Such means are not available in most cases, so they act on their own cognisance, based on what they observe and the need to support each other. Units are not dispersed - they are massed together. They cannot radio for artillery or air support - the technology doesn't exist. All their battlefield assets are already in place (although there are cases of allies approaching from another place - such things have always happened in warfare). Comparing a roman legion to a similar size unit in the US Marines is ridiculous. The two are composed of men with different fighting methods and mindset. Consider this... Your unit, a small infantry squad, is ordered to advance along a road to secure a small village. You come under heavy fire. Pinned down, you call your HQ for support. They tell you to hold tight, and within fifteen minutes shells start whistling overhead. Unfortunately this has attracted attention to yourselves, and your squad leader observes enemy AFV's approaching along the road nearby. Your situation is getting out of hand. HQ informs you they have no more support (presumably the enemy is reacting across a broad front elsewhere too) and a fall back is required. However, the general will soon learn via his intelligence officers that an enemy counterattack is in progress. He assigns reserves some miles back, and by tomorrow your brigade will focus its attention on your original target.... You see? its all communication back and forth. The easiest way to beat an enemy is to wreck his command and control. Once you take out the ability of the pyramid to pass mesaages up down and along, the whole organisation crashes into chaos. The romans never really had that problem. Marc Antony was able to control an army of thirty legions, some 150,000 men, plus naval assets anchored along the coast. He had no radio. He had no pyramid structure to pass messages to and fro. What he did was organise the legionary commanders and make them aware of exactly what was required for the next day. Now thats easy to interpret in terms of a pyramid - whats the difference you ask? - but that army of thirty legions was simply a gathering of thirty legions. There was no corps, division, or brigading of those men to enable local command. Antony wanted as much direct control over his legions as he could. Your cohort is ordered to advance - you heard the trumpet call. The centurion calls the order but its expected anyway. The order came from the generals position up there on the hill, and the entire legion - all of its cohorts - advance as one. The village nearby is ignored - it has no military value. A man does not skulk in the shadows, he stands shoulder to shoulder with his friends and fights with courage. The enemy have seen your advance. How could they not see it? Arrows swoop down in great clusters. You use your shield for protection - waht fool wouldn't? - but the advance continues as you step over a handful of dead or wounded legionaries. Does the general observe the enemy archery? Probably, but risk is everything in warfare, and as you approach, the trumpet call for "Charge!" is heard. The centurion raises his sword, calls the order, and you begin to rush forward as the barbarians ready themselves for mortal combat. The next line behind waits ready to rush to support you, but for now, you must fight....

Help me out here. If there weren't a command structure, how could a legion march anywhere, let alone do battle? Who'd tell the rear guard and flankers where to go? ]There was a command structure. There were officers. The Consul/Legate/Tribune with Consular Powers would give the orders, as would the junior officers and centurions, and so forth. You're thinking in modern terms. The modern armies do not concentrate their forces any more than they have to - its dangerous to have too many soldiers in one place and therefore a chain of command is absolutely vital to conduct their business. For the romans, it was the opposite, it was very beneficial to have as many of your troops in one place as possible. This meant it was easier to command directly, and indeed, the romans preferred to do so. After all, the cohort developed for this very reason, to cut the number of lesser ranks. The army commander - a consul or praetor - orders his men where to march and form up. The tribune of the day ensures his legion conforms. Centurions have a part to play in manoevering but remember command was made by trumpet as well, and that was very direct - there was no need to issue orders down a complex pyramid structure. In any case, when the fighting started, the centurion was leading by example at the front right in the thick of it, to inspire his men, and thus was too busy to pass down commands. a legion is almost the same size of brigade. I think my analogy can be salvaged, by comparing the Legion to a Brigade (which RW has already done). Like a Napoleonic Brigade, a Roman Legion is made up of several independant/semi-independant units: Battalions or Cohorts. There's no comparison. So what if a brigade is roughly the same size? They're completely different formations for different era's for different purposes. A brigade exists to provide local control and support. There was no such structure in the roman armies and no requirement for one. Since a brigade exists to control units in a local area, it has no comparison to a legion, a self contained military division, which operates in one place together. NO! the senate have many many consul that run the government, the legions and the province. I missed this gem earlier. Just for you RW, here's some definitions of a consul. Chief roman magistrate during the republican era. Two consuls were elected by the senate every year Imperial Rome Second Edition C J Carella The years two counsul's were the senior elected magistrates of the roman republic, and held comman in important campaigns. Sometimes the senate extended their power after their year in office, in which case they were known as proconsuls. Roman Warfare Adrian Goldsworthy The number of lesser offices changed with time, but Rome always had two serving consuls. Though the office was originally restricted to the patricians, plebian aristocrats later succeeded in having the consulship shared between the two orders, so that there was often one patrician and one plebian consul. Consuls were legislators and generals. Originally they commanded Romes principal armies, but as time went on they tended to remain in Rome and spend their consular year in civil activities, afterwards commanding abroad as procinsuls. Chronicle of the Roman Republic Philip Matyszak

These class descriptions date from a later time - they were 'reverse engineered' by roman writers and must be viewed as suspect. In particular the equipment, which probably wasn't strictkly adhered to and in any case the individual soldier bought what he could afford or obtain, not what the class dictated he could.

Tried to log on to the PC at my local library this morning. Apparently my domain did not exist and therefore I'm a non-entity the computer network doesn't recognise. Hey, I know I'm unemployed but this is a public facility right? The man at the desk assured me it was merely my login card that had expired. He tapped a few keys, smiled, and sent me on my way. Right then, log on... wait.... Oh joy, I'm still a non-entity. So having gone back to the man at the desk I discover there's now a long queue of non-entities struggling to log on, and most of them have jobs. The somewhat flustered gentleman went back to the PC with me to check that I wasn't some klutz who couldn't get his password riight, fending off queries from others sat waiting hopelessly at their PC's. having seen me fail to log in, he then attempted the log in for me (can you imagine how smug he would have looked?) but that failed too. Running out of options, he then logged me in as a guest. Hi. My name is Mr Guest. Can't wait to find out if Caldrail is still a non-entity tomorrow morning.... Accident of the Week Goes to me. Along the main pedestrian shopping area I strolled down to the bank. The sun was out although the ground was still wet from a heavy rainshower a few minutes earlier. There I was minding my own business, threading my way through the disinterested crowd, when.... My foot slipped a little. Whoops, lets regain my balance.. whoops, slipped again, worse this time.... Uh-oh, this doesn't look good... Oh no! I'm falling over! Well I didn't just fall over, I left the ground entirely and dropped to the pavement with quite a thud. A concerned gentleman kindly asked if I was ok and offered to help me up, but that was too much after making such an exhibition of myself. I thanked him and was on my way. I've got quite a bruise on my right knee.

I thought the stuff was running out? Not sure I want to put that to the test.... Oh, come on. One Bear more or less isn't of any consequence in the ontological scheme of things. Doesn't that depend how many bears there are in the first place? And since I'm the one on the receiving end of a somewhat miffed bear with pellet damage to its fur, that I cannot run faster than it, that I cannot climb trees better than it, and that its a great deal bigger and meaner than me, I'm not keen to pick a fight. Rambo was trained to eat raw bears, I wasn't.

There's fifty or more horsemen coming at you fast. The horses are heavy, their hooves are pounding the ground, you can feel the ground vibrate. The riders are screaming for your blood and raise their weapons to strike - its not good for morale I can assure you. Granted its unlikely the charge is actually going to bump into you as such, but these riders can use their weight, height, and mobility to advantage. In roman times, the cavalry was used in a light role, standing off where-ever possible from the infantry and pestering them with spears, making them nervous, keeping them occupied until the enemy infantry arrive, possibly from another direction - and making it very lethal to consider running away. Infantry can survive cavalry attacks if they maintain close order with some means of defence, otherwise the horsemen will start pulling them apart.

The great dangers of reconstructing career patterns primarily from epigraphy are that we impose an artificial order on the evidence or force it to conform to our own preconceptions of what an army should be like. It was no coincidence that the german scholars who pioneered the reconstruction of the roman army's rank structure in the late 19th century created an image of a force that was remarkably similar to the german armies of their own day, especially in the great variety of NCO ranks. Later, british scholars were inclined to see similarities to british arms... ...We need to be both very careful of imposing anachronistic cultural assumptions on the romans and aware that there are many things which our evidence cannot tell us. The Complete Roman Army Adrian Goldsworthy This information applies to the pre-marian legionary levy. The Levy Service in the legions was the right and duty of the Adsidui, the body of citizenry owning property of at least 400 denarii in value and so able to support themselves financially. A census was held every five years, in which the Adsidui were registered in tribes and distributed into five classes according to wealth. The census concluded with a religious ceremony of purification, known as the 'lustration' lustratio. The proletarii, citizens whose property fell below the minim levy for inclusion in the census classes were not normally required to serve in the legions during this period, other then in times of dire emergency. Roman males became eligible for military service during their 17th year, and were only required to perform military service as iuniores, until their 46th year. In times of emergency, such as the mobilisation of 170BC for the Third Macedonian War, the oath could be administered to the seniores up to their 50th year. Normally citizens were required to perform six years of service continuously in the same legion, or sometimes in seperate levies. They could serve as long as 16 years in the infantry, or 10 in the cavalry, and even longer as a volunteer. When an army was levied, the citizens would meet in a dilectus or 'choosing', at which they were allocated to the various legions. Infantry were paid one third of a denarius daily, cavalry a full denarius, and from this deductions were made for food and equipment. The Legion ...Each legion had six tribunes attached to it. Service as a tribune brought great honour, and even ex-consuls would serve as tribunes. Normally the six tribunes would divide themselves into three pairs, each pair taking it in turn to command a legion for two months (the pair may have taken it in turns to command on alternate days). In the imperial period the legion was commanded by a legatus. Polybius does not refer to military legati[/i]; they became incrreasingly common as the 2nd century BC drew on, though still not as legionary commanders...[/i] Republican Roman Army 200-104 BC Nick Sekunda & Angus McBride Further information is available about the somewhat longwinded process of selection for a levy of this period - By this time the Roman army in most years consisted of four legions, divided into two armies, each commanded by a consul. There were twenty four military tribunes, six to each legion... ...Polybius also describes a most elaborate method of appointing military tribunes and selecting the men, which as Parker says, "resembled picking up sides for a game". The four tribunes named first are posted to the first legion, the next three to the second, the following four to the third, and the remaining three to the fourth. After the distribution and posting of officers has been made so that each legion has the same number, those of each legion take their seats in seperate groups, and they draw lots for the tribes, and summon them individually in order of the draw. From each tribe they first select four young men or more or less the same age and build. When these are brought forward the officers of the first legion have the first choice, the second the second choice, those of the tird the next choice, and those of the fourth take the last. Another batch of four is brought forward, and this time the officers of the second legion have the first choice and so on, those of the first being last to choose.... ...By continuing in this way to give each legion the first choice in turn, each gets men of the same quality. The Roman World John Wacher The rigmarole concerned with the levy is astonishing. Each man in the legion, some 4200 men strong (or even 5000 in times of emergency) is brought forward to swear an oath to obey orders. Then the legions are dismissed with orders to present themselves at a certain time and place unarmed, at which point the division between velites, hastatii, principes, and triarii is formalised. Polybius proceeds to describe the system of mobilisation; each consul appoints a seperate meeting place, for he had his own share of the allies and two roman legions. The allies are commanded by officers appointed by the consuls, who are called praefectorii sociorum... The Roman World John Wacher The 'army of four legions' needs to considered in the light of their requirements, not our modern day experience. Whilst there is little comparison between modern times and the post-marian professional army, there is even less for the citizen levy described by Polybius. Firstly, the roman army of this time did not actually exist as a permanent organisation. It was levied every year or at the start of a campaign, and whilst four legions were traditional in this period, this was not a necessarily mandatory.organisation, which might only last for one campaign season of six months anyway. A Praetor for instance would be given command of a single legion as an army commander if smaller forces were needed. Also, significantly, there were several occaisions when the minimum property qualification was reduced deliberately. The size of the armies quoted by Polybius is therefore misleading, because Rome at this time rarely needed anything larger. It was a manifestation of roman conservatism rather than strict ruling. Second, the roman armies described are an evolution of the warband, the 'assembly of armed men', a citizens army as opposed to a professional standing force. Notice how the tribunes share command - no man is held to be permanently in charge- a very republican sentiment. Officers are selected before the men, and none hold their positions permanently - including the consuls, rulers of Rome, who are elected annually. Thirdly, the legatii were not permanent army commanders until the reforms of Augustus, and during the period described by Polybius would appear to have functioned as executive officers of some kind. Fourthly, notice the solemnity and ritual involved in assembling the troops. My own feeling is that the dilectus must have taken at least a minute, possibly more, to select between each group of four candidates. A group of similar men had to be found, ordered forward, and then chosen by the tribunes. Even allowing for the boredom of the event as it wore on, it could easily have taken an entire day from sun-up to sun-down, considering that the cavalry also needed allocating and the extraordinarii too (Those who would fight in the center of the line). There's no mention of refreshment either. Since roman tradition was so important, one wonders if this ritual was a limiting factor on the size of the consular armies and what would happen if time was an issue or if larger forces were desperately needed. Polybius is therefore describing an ideal event, rather than an exact procedure that occured every single time.

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