caldrail

Jerusalem was a tough nut to crack. The walls were tall, strong, and well made, resisting efforts to bring them down. The romans tried tunnelling underneath to collapse them and even that didn't work! Therefore it shouldn't come as a suprise that some of the largest siege engines built by roman legions were used there. The missiles were carved from a light coloured stone, easily visible, and when these large rocks were fired the defenders got into the habit of shouting "Here comes another baby!" as a warning to lie flat. Clearly the aiming point of the stones was the top of the wall, which means - as always - the romans weren't so much concerned with breaking the wall down by that method, but rather to break down resistance by either forcing the defenders to either take cover or die horribly. Collateral damage within the city wasn't the main concern but I doubt the romans cared too much. Eventually the romans took to painting the missiles black to make them less visible, or so the story goes, which I find a little odd, since the terrain is mostly lightly coloured (at least today anyway) and surely a black missile was more obvious? Apparently not.

The republic was a very staunch regime in its early days, as it was formed in response to public outrage against the actions of the kings. After the punic wars, this patriotism began to wane and for the last two hundred years of the republic there is a gradual decline, brought to a head by the civil wars that ushered in the principate. The military salute is probably not far from the truth, since the legions had evolved a very strong esprit-de-corps (which was further improved by the Marian & Augustan refiorms). That said, roman soldiers were often problem cases. Many were far from honourable. Virtues are something of an ideal, and few people meet those standards. Also, the great men of the past are seen with rose tinted glasses, as legends and stories gloss over the reality of what these people were. Spartacus for instance. Today he's thought of as a working class hero, a man who fought for freedom against slavery. The truth is he was nothing of the sort. He was a rogue, a deserter, a bandit, and eventually a rebel whose objectives may have been freedom at the beginning but turned to something more selfish later. The romans themselves didn't think too well of him and they never regarded as a hero - and even some of the roman accounts romanticise his rebellion, so perhaps this was because it was better to fight a noble enemy than a bandit, especially when that bandit runs rings around the legions sent to stop him.

I still think you underestimate the difficulty of crossing rivers. This is why fords are so important. I'm also thinking of the campaigns in Germania led by Germanicus, when roman soldiers had to route march in flooded terrain. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7350 Also, its notable that the biggest migration of germans into roman territory happened when the Rhine froze over, making the crossing somewhat easier. Further, although it may be easier to cross in some places than others, if you have to travel to another area to do so you may well run into a territorial dispute with the locals, who might not appreciate armed men roaming across their lands on the excuse of finding a crossing point. Another interesting restriction is religion. Now I don't know if this affected the germans at all (I somehow doubt it) but certainly the romans were very superstitious about crossing rivers. The reason of course is that it angered the local gods if crossed without the proper observances, and the river would claim lives in payment of that offence. That of course highlights the risk of men weighed down with equipment getting swept away. Finally, notice that in the accounts of battles the river is always a constriction to movement. We don't read of troops crossing rivers during the action (apart from those crossing bridges, using boats, or simply too scared to care whether the gods would get annoyed). Even cavalry doesn't generally take to the water either. You've highlighted the easier travel by water than dry land. Agreed. But the placement of fortresses was made for other reasons too, and roman policy of ortress placement was either behind the frontier as a support base or well across the frontier, as a forward stronghold.

Lighter ballistae could have been placed on such a wall, for direct fire at the defenders to persuade them to duck at the very least. Whilst ducked they don't shoot back or push objects down on the attackers below. This was done at Masada for instance, where stone piers in the earthen ramp built by slaves supported such weapons. The larger catapultae are too heavy for such placement, besides being a little unwieldy to move around. Instead, bearing in mind the effect of such a roman wall in front of the obejective, these would have been employed to bring down indirect fire on the defenders, firing over the heads of the romans manning the wall. The purpose of this is too make life hell for the defenders since they would be always in fear of being crushed by stones (even by night too, so harder to sleep?) plus the actual damage caused.

Had the romans lost, it wouldn't have been a total disaster for them, other than a political reverse for those whose career depended on success. This battle was fought at the close of the campaigning season. Although its possible that Antiochus could have marched on Rome afterward he'd already retreated to lick his wounds after Thermopylae. My guess is that both sides would have regrouped for the next year, with perhaps some small territorial shuffling along the boundaries of their influence. As to whether the romans thought the seleucids were weak I can't say, but they knew they were weakened after their previous defeat (Antiochus had retreated a long way) and perhaps hoped to land a killer blow by attacking at Magnesia. Antiochus had at least enough savvy to reinforce his army in anticipation of roman attack.

Seriously though, its occured to me that the romans, whilst not the greatest sailors in the world, did get their feet wet beyond the mediterranean. They were sailing around north west europe and risking the english channel and north sea, plus venturing deep into the Indian Ocean. If I remember right, they also rounded the top of scotland in an attempt to discover the boundaries of the british coastline and thus also strayed into the Atlantic and Irish Sea. We also know they traded northward, so were crossing the Baltic too. Now some of these votyages were done by local seamen hired by roman traders, others were done by roman agents or military crews. Its not that the romans couldn't sail as such, since they'd picked up a lot of knowledge from other peoples beside their own experience of nautical matters. What limited them more was the seaworthiness of the vessels they operated.

In pre-marius organisation the maniple was the basic combat unit - at that time the century was an administrative unit and the reason it became the base unit instead of the maniple in later times was because it was found that it was more convenient. Now Marius didn't introduce these changes off the top of his head, he formalised across the board certain trends that were already appearing in the roman military. So therefore, against normal procedures, commanders must have been increasingly using centuries instead of the more unwieldy maniple. The reason why troops in the legions formed up in blocks is that it allows for support and 'impact' value in melee. A thin line is fine for missile fire but hopeless under attack and extremely vulnerable to cavalry action. A block has the advantage of being able to turn or reverse direction easily with disrupting the formation, something almost impossible with a thin line to all practical purposes. Caesar refused his flanks more than once, he was forced to do so against a gaulish attack. So the Rhine isn't a barrier? Lets get real. Drop by the biggest river in your neighbourhood. Notice the width of water you have to cross, the unknown depth, the strength of the current. The Rhine is a big river and yes, it is a formidable barrier unless you can build boats or bridges. If you doubt me, try crossing it without the aid of modern infrastructure. My guess is that you'll think twice.

The weather was nasty. Strong cold winds, heavy showers - it felt like I was walking home along the deck of a ship in the midst of an Atlantic squall. The car salesman stood leaning in the doorway smoking as I stumbled past. You could see his mind working. I felt an unsteady red dot land on my wallet. That salesman is starting to spook me a little. I wonder if he's a cannibal on the quiet? Another thing is starting to spook me a little too. Why is it that drivers of brand new shiney Subaru Impreza's (bedecked in rally style paintwork) always floor the pedal when they pass me? Whats the point? I'm not envious - I hate those silly cars anyway - but I can't afford one even if I thought they were the best thing since Thrust SSC. But why don't they do that with any other pedestrians? Is this some sort of conspiracy by a network of Subaru owners? Is there a secret society for drivers of hyped up steroidal versions of family cars? Perhaps I haven't learned the correct handshake yet. Eco-Friendly Move of the Week It appears that vehicles are now to be subjected to enviromental testing on entering inner london. heavy lorries are the first to be targeted, requiring that fleets of goods vehicles must now be modified to bring them up to standard. Which of course means that on top of heavy fuel duties (non-brits might be shocked at how much tax we pay on petrol - its about 75% on top, plus we get taxed on that) hauliers must now pay for this work to be done, and for fines if they don't to [pay for the army of snoopers employed to enforce this new law. Which makes transport more expensive, which hurts the economy, which puts people out of work, which means there are fewer customers and less need for lorries in the first place. Excellent. Lets improve the enviroment by dismantling the british infrastructure. No noise, no pollution, no leering lorry drivers, no blocked roads..... and no food in the shops. But hey, since our roads are now blocked by floods caused by lorries melting the polar ice caps, perhaps this is to be expected? I don't know about you, but I think these enviromental rulings are just excuses to extract cash.

Thats the standard view of the dark ages. I do agree that within fifty years of the roman withdrawal the system of government in britain had essentially collapsed, and its recorded that britain was split into a large number of petty kingdoms ruled by whoever had the loudest voice and strongest sword arm. Saxon incursions in the long run did britain a lot of good, becoming a stabilising factor although the methods they used to appropriate the good farmland they wanted left something to be desired. Viking incursions were more about wealth and slaves than territorial conquest (though they did that too later). However, its known that people did travel to and from britain and whilst a postal service was no longer available, messages could be sent. English and continental rulers were in contact with each other during the period for instance, there was that chap collecting christian documents to return to York, and with the saxon settlement of the southeast coast came a vast improvement in trade and communication.

My previous boss couldn't either. She knew I was into roman stuff and questioned the point of it all. My answer was... A man once said that to know nothing of history is to remain forever a child. You know who said that? A guy called Cicero, a roman, who lived two thousand years ago. If you don't learn from the past you just make the same mistakes all over again. How can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been? I don't think I turned her into a historian, but she didn't question it again!

A temporary anti-siege wall built by the romans to bring missile fire down on the defenders and allow the siege towers to be brought up with the minimum of resostance. Josephus indicates that sometimes the romans built towers for this purpose, even right up against a wall in some cases. Yes, they did lose casualties in building them - something the roman commanders accepted as a necessary evil in assaulting an objective.

The romans are credited with all sorts of clever sword moves, but the fact is, with a legionary trying to stand shoulder to shoulder with his mates, a large heavy shield in one hand restricting his movements, there really isn't an awful lot you can do that is anything as fancy as claimed. Most of the classic roman swordplay is very direct and unfussy - you see a gap - you stab it. However, once the sword begins to change during the principate there is an increasing emphasis on more florid styles of swordplay (at least in training). By the early 3rd century the gladius has become a different sword to those used in Caesars time. Shorter, straighter, and a less pronounced point, indicating a move away from stabbing as the primary attack. However, the skill required to use a short sword like this in a duelling style of melee requires practice, not to mention the nerve to toe to toe up close, so much so that the gladius begins to be abandoned in favour of a longer spatha, the cavalry sword, a weapon which the barbarian recruits would be more familar with and one that can be used with less training (and you keep further away from your opponent - a definite advantage to a newbie legionary)

Because everyone else was sailing for them

trouble is, there are people who like to make money out of outlandish theories about ancient science. We know the egyptians at some point invented a primitive battery, which they used for simple things like plating ornaments, but that - whilst astonishing enough - is not proof they flew gliders, generated strange energy fields, built huge monuments with anti-gravity, colonised the world, and invited space aliens to tea. Its all about marketing ignorance. In fact, the people who do well out of this genre use the same techniques as religious preachers, by asking questions in such a way as to provoke 'revelations' in the mind of the reader. For instance.... A stone has been uncovered in the egyptian desert, dated to around 3500BC, which has an external groove carved into it. This groove could not have been cut by the human technology of the day. Could it be possible, therefore, that the egyptians had access to superior stone cutting technology? How could these simple peoples achieve these technologies without assistance from alien visitors? See what I mean?

I know what you mean. We're getting foreign lorry drivers bringing in loads from the continent (not for us, but we happen to have the only office-like structure in plain view) asking for all sorts of things in languages I couldn't even begin to understand. Half past ten mate.

The romans would sneer at a lot of our sensibilities I think. Equal rights for women? Good grief, we've even got women in the front line! Are our armies now so effeminate? I notice soldiers now have instructions on how not to upset people, and that they are bound by laws of conduct? How do you fight wars like this? Societies for the protection of animals? Folly! Romans are masters of the known world and therefore we must master nature too. Besides, what does it matter if a few beasts die in the arena? It entertains the masses and demonstrates how skillful and courageous our venatorii can be, for if such slaves can be brave and skillful, what then can a true roman do? Oh and by the way, your sportsmen are definitely faking some of those injuries. Give them swords I say, and lets see what men they really are! I notice entertainers are treated like royalty these days, some more wealthy than their social betters. It isn't right you know. Look, if you do things properly - like romans do - then you'll get more respect.

Numbers without comparison do not impress me Caldrail. Show me the numbers of city dwellers from the zenith of the (Urbanized) Empire and then we will talk. Additionally from where did you obtain this number of 10%? Is it from studies of a particular country or region? It was from a book describing britain during the dark ages and with particular emphasis on the the year 1000, but offhand I don't remember the title or author. The book is a fine summary of current archaeology/historical research and I do recommend giving it a read (I'll try to find the info on it for you). Thats a good arguement! Long distance travel was a minority interest in times past for sure, but what I tried to get across was that long distance travel did not suffer too much from the turmoil in england, which was patchy rather than consistent.

I think the most interesting aspect of this particular battle is that the romans were losing it. It was their ally, Eumenes, who turned it around with his cavalry.

No, the Rhine was important to Rome. It was a natural barrier and frontier line, it was also a trade route given that water-borne trade was far easier than overland (roads didn't always go where traders wanted to and in any case, roads were primarily for administration and military use). There were many tempatations for Rome north of the Rhine. Taxation for instance, the primary motive of Augustus's early attempt to colonise the germanian wilderness. Also, there was that unknown factor. Sure, for most romans the germanian forests were nothing but 'fearful forest and stinking bog' - or was it? Curiosity of the unknown breeds all kind of stories of wealth in hidden places and even Julius Caesar was tempted by this sort of thing - notice how disappointed he was that he never found the sources of precious metals in Britain that he'd heard of.

The officers weren't always aware either. Centurions had a higher casualty rate than common soldiers because in order to inspire and lead their men, they often led from the front - which in roman times meant at the sharp end. That was why the romans developed a more flexible command system in the field.

Yes it did. So the poor design of the vessels, and the relatively poor seamanship of roman sailors (which wasn't up to mediterranean standards of the day and even that wasn't so hot. Ship captains preferred to hug the coast where-ever possible to beach overnight, and for most vessels of the time, poor design or not, a trip across the open water was a risk.

I don't know if you have this problem in the states but here in blighty a lot of telephone services have been transferred to compainies in India where labour is cheaper. Trying to understand these unfamiliar accents spoken by people for whom english is not their first language is a real pain.

Free Companies were groups of mercenaries. They were therefore both military and commercial, and also greatly interested in achieving their propserity regardless of legal restrictions. Not so. English mercenaries were notorious around the mediterranean. Also, trade during the dark ages was flourishing despite the turmoil in england. Ok, the deprivations of saxon and later viking invaders would cause considerable upset, yet those very same saxon peoples established ports (Port is from a saxon word meaning 'market') along the southeast coast. By the end of the dark ages its reckoned that as many as 10% of the population were town dwellers, which means that rural production was making at least a 10% surplus in order to support them, and we know that people during the dark ages owned items from as far away as India. For the masses, piety was a strong influence - I've said the same thing previously. The psychological hold that christianity had over the populace was frightening. By the end of the eleventh century moves toward a christian european empire under the rule of the popes was advancing, with a capital to be sited at Cluny, in France. There were a number of factors involved in the first crusades. Firstly, the pope of the day wanted the politcal kudos of freeing Jerusalem from non-christian domination (as he saw it), the population as a whole wanted to do the right thing for God, and the nobility wanted cash, land, and an excuse for a good scrap (though I accept that not all worshipped the coin). The problem was that the pope had declared publicly it was not so great a sin to shed the blood of non christians, and that fighting in Gods name was a penance for this in its own right. Its a very Augustine excuse indeed which was adopted largescale. For the official crusaders, there was political jostling as the three main leaders all wanted sole command, and hence the glory of winning the campaign, which would no doubt bring them power and wealth. For the unoffical crusades of ordinary populace, they simply threw away the fuedal obligation to remain bound to the land and migrated east in the optomistic hope that they would free Jerusalem.

Quite, but your perspective is modern and caring. For the romans, they were less concerned with the value of life and indeed since people did well to survive into their twenties, there was a background of acceptance that life was short. The popularity of gladiatorial combat, besides the excitement of the contest, was that the audience could watch death happening to someone else. Tiberius was well aware of his vulnerability as emperor, that at any moment an envious rival might attempt to push him aside, and that in roman societies family bonds were very strong. Children traumatised by the execution of their parents often become embittered adults, and Tiberius was not about to allow enemies to flourish under his nose. For him, the execution of the children was a politcal and personal necessity. To have the children assume a brutalised form of adulthood beforehand was to conform to roman custom, and prevent bad luck from the gods disfavour as well as causing an even worse outrage amongst the public for flouting these customs.

Unfair? Not at alll, and the whole point of levying standards is that it provides the basis of civilsation, in that members of the herd must achieve a certain level of behaviour or be disenfranchised. You could find fault in anyone I suppose, but the achievements of a man can be measured in many different ways. I was always taught that the greatest gift a man can make is to lay down his life for others, (Now obviously there aren't many dictators willing to do that!) but surely the same selflessness makes a man great even if the result is not fatal? You see, a man who beats his chest and fearlessly confronts is often admired, but his actions might be selfish. A man who sets aside his own ambition to aid those in need does not act selfishly. Either personality has risen to the fore in history, usually the former it must be said, but its up to you to decide which is more admirable and whether the standards they set are too high.