caldrail

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.

Your namesake had been driven out of Greece after losing the the Battle of Thermopylae. In 190BC, whilst holed up in what is now Turkey, the romans advanced on him to force his hand before winter closed the campaign season (and possibly allow Antiochus to regroup and even find allies). Before the battle Hannibal had sought a safe haven with Antiochus, who asked him whether his army would be enough for the Roman Republic, to which Hannibal replied, "Yes, enough for the Romans, however greedy they may be." Apparently neither Hannibal nor Scipio Africanus were present at the battle. Antiochus had considerably more cavalry, and scythed chariots and elephants, but the restrictions of the battlefield meant he couldn't easily employ this advantage, but it appears the seleucid attack was succesful, forcing the roman infantry into retreat. however, the romans had encamped previously and this formed a redoubt which became the focus of a counter-attack. Once the elephants had been routed, the romans were able to assume control of the battlefield and the fighting eventually spread back to the seleucid camp before Antiochus's defeat. Try this summation (allow for historical exaggeration) http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Magnesia.html

Nonsense. The whole point of a maniple was that it was the basic combat unit before the reorganisation of Marius. As such, it was intended that a maniple could be used independently if required. To have to use a legion entirely is too restricting and does not not allow for tactical necessity. As for pressure, in some circumstances, perhaps. But that pressure isn't a sliding scale, and simply becaue one maniple has something else to do doesn't automatically mean the rest of the legion are going to be standing there knocking knees and soiling their sublagaria. Units rout because of the human instinct for self-preservation. Since there's safety in numbers, as long as a soldier remains part of a group, he feels psychologically safer (and usually safer in reality too!). If one other maniple goes elsewhere, that soldier is still part of his group and his sense of safety is unchanged. Now if this manoever means the unit is under pressure from an enemy, surely the commander wouldn't have split his forces in the first place? Or perhaps he has no choice but to. Warfare is all about necessity - you do what you have to. Roman commanders used maniples as they needed to. Generally speaking they would have fought together - that was the whole point of the quincunx formation - in order to retain command and control, to support each other, to prevent the enemy from outflanking the front line. Again, thats wrong. I accept that agreed plans and manoevers were organised before the battle where-ever possible, but any army that can't manoever to regain the initiative or prevent enemy initiative is going to lose. Cannae is the case in point, and you might want to read Caesars accounts of battle - he mentions having to reorganise the line at the last minute or face defeat. There are advantages to a consistent melee line, just as there are disadvantages. If the line is immobile, in a defensive stance, then a gapless line makes sense. If the romans mean to attack, that also means they intend marching forward, and since they will be organised in blocks of men (not in long thin ranks as the firearm would favour) to advance forward over rough ground means that there will be units that swerve, or slow, for all sorts of reasons. For a consistent line, this completely ruins the whole point, since the line inevitably forms gaps (disorganised ones) of its own accord. By marching in semi-independent blocks of maniples, the troops would find it easier to retain formation and all the advantages thereof, plus the maniple commanders would also find command easier. These gaps are supported in the quincunx formation by overlapping the line behind, which therefore confirms that these gaps existed.

AD points at a pile of cartons beside our porta-palace. "Caldrail, those parcels need to go by Slick Parcels today" Righto. Out with the signing book, fill in the details (do they really need all this information?), write up the labels and stick them on the parcels - except this one because that the other order, so carefully peel off the label and reapply it to the correct box... now it won't stick.... get the tape, and the labelling is done. Now to phone Slick Parcels and get this lot out the door. Tap in the number... The phone is ringing... This is Slick parcels. how can we help you? Oh hi. I got some parcels I'd like to send. Certainly Sir. Are you sending pallets or loose boxes? Loose boxes. Just let me enter that on my computer sir... won't be a moment.... And how many boxes are you sending? Three. And which carriage would you like? Huh? We do Economy, Next Day, 24 Hour, Saturday, Timed Delivery, and... Ok ok, just send them economy. Certainly Sir... (tap tap tap).... And how large are the boxes? Well, box sized. You know, sort of so big. You can lift them. Yes Sir, but I have to enter this on a comnputer. I've written the dimensions on your signing book, isn't that enough? No sir, I have to enter the details on my computer Ok. They're about half a meter cubed. Thank you sir.... (tap tap tap)... And how heavy are these boxes? I haven't the slightest idea. I can lift them no problem. I have to enter the details on my computer Sir Ok, fine, they're about 10kg each I think. Thank you sir.... (tap tap tap)... And when would you like us to collect these boxes? Well.. now would be nice, otherwise this phone call is going to put me out of business. Yes sir, but we do need to book the collection on our computer... Ok ok, as soon as possible then. Thank you sir.... (tap tap tap)... And where would you like us to collect these boxes? The Warehouse, third on the left, the industrial estate off the road near that big roundabout. Thank you sir.... (tap tap tap)... And what is the reference number? What? We haven't got a reference number!!!! Couldn't you just turn up and take them away? All this stuff s already written on the signing book.. Yes sir, but we do need to enter the details on our computer...very well, I'll enter a reference number for you... Won't take a moment... (tap tap tap)... And where are the parcels being sent to Sir? Weesellitt UK. Ahh.. Now you need to book a delivery with that company Sir. Pardon? You need to book a delivery time Sir. They don't take parcels as and when. You can do that on the internet Sir, I'll give you the address... Hang on a minute. All I want you to do is come and pick up a few parcels and send them to Weesellit. is that too much to ask? You need to book a delivery time Sir. I have to enter it on my computer. But we haven't got an internet connection. Can't you deal with it? No Sir. You need to book a delivery time Sir. I have to enter it on my computer. Tell you what. Cancel the collection. I'll send it by another carrier. Certainly Sir. Could you state the reason you don't want our services? I have to enter it on my computer....

That makes you a success, not a great man. There have been any number of successful dictators around the world throughout history, and I'm sure you could name a few, yet their reputations vary considerably even though their psychology is essentially similar. Augustus has the good fortune to have good press, but I do concede he won a lot of people over as they got used to his reign.

Thanks, but its its not really a victory. I used to see this sort of thing on the wargames table, where one guy has it all laid out, all lined up, all prepared. The other guy shrugs and does something different, and the whole plan goes up in smoke. I've made the same mistake myself! Woooah! Not stupid at all. Alexander conquered territory as far as India without supply lines and wanted to go further but for his mens refusal. Yes, there was a lot of supply needed, but don't think in terms of modern armies. The amount of supply is far less than we see today and mostly obtainable locally. Foraging from the local population has been the main way of obtaining supply since we started clubbing each other over the head. Further, the numbers of guards required is actually quite small, since generally speaking ordinary people don't like getting involved and are too busy simply surviving, and that there's not a lot of point in attacking a few wagons if the enemy troops can raid a few farms for their needs. This is why ancient armies are so mobile - they need to move on, or they get hungry. Notice also that these armies made do with very little. Hannibals troops are a case in point. They crossed the alps willingly (they were largely mercenaries, paid to fight, not really part of carthaginian society) and at one point even considered cannabalism. The reason why Parthia/Persia wasn't sundued was because they were an organised regime of a large enough size to field some competition, and notice that the romans did penetrate into the regions once or twice, even reaching the Caspian Sea in the AD90's. Further, the troop types that Rome encountered in these eastern regions were often light cavalry, perfect for covering the large distances in that terrain, and the archers of oriental origin were absolutely deadly as the romans discovered. It was a tougher campaign than they were used to, and its noticeable that the romans sometimes struggled when campaigning in wilderness.

The trouble with plans is that they sometimes go wrong. Warfare in the ancient world favoured the general who could think on his feet, and many of them did. The problem the romans had generally is that at the start of a campaign the generals were often appointed for political reasons, and got into trouble out of inexperience if nothing else. The romans didn't leave generals in command for long periods either, so they could not gain this experience (for political reasons, obviously). In actual fact well thought out plans are sometimes a hindrance in warfare because they inevitably constrain initiative - as at Cannae for instance - and may be based on poor intelligence of enemy positions and intentions, not to mention an invite to chaos if one part of your plan isn't carried out correctly. The ability to react and outwit are far more useful.

But thats just it - I don't see him as one of the greatest men in history. His whole reign wasn't about making the empire a better place, it wasn't about reducing poverty, disease, crime, or any other of the ills that Rome suffered. His reign was all about staying in power like so many other dicatorial types have done throughout history. many of the comments made to glorify Augustus have also been made for Saddam Hussein. He did well (no, lets rephrase that, he did very well), but realistically he did no more than any other capable survivor of the civil wars could have achieved - or wanted to achieve.

These were wars fought without modern logistics. To advance without long trails of wagons wasn't unusual and in many cases the only practical way to cross what was then wilderness. The romans were unsual in their ability to organise supply. Hannibal was a daring commander well aware of the risk involved. Sure, it may have been a revenge war, but then Carthage wasn't going to be allowed to survive anyway. His strategy was a gamble, like many other strategies before and since, but in his case it did not force the romans to surrender. As for requiring mercenaries, he had no choice, the armies of carthage were reliant on such men.... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7653 No, not a blunder, a gamble.

Christians like to make a big deal of Constantine because he was the first christian emperor.. well... at least on his deathbed anyway. Constantine also made big gestures, like stopping the persecutions, the vision of a cross in the sky, etc etc. Theodosius may have done it officially but by then christianity was looming much larger in the roman conciousness and therefore it was a foregone coclusion and didn't attract the same attention. Plus, I suspect Theodosius was a more sobre character than Constantine. The US, being more staunchly christian than some countries, readily accepts christian propaganda old and new. Mind you, I have sympathy about your teachers ignorance. I once suffered the wrath of my history teacher, a old fashioned public school type, when I put him straight about the Treaty of Versailles. Teachers often dislike pupils who are more knowledgeable. Come to think of it, I remember another history teacher humiliating me in front of the class a few years before that because I didn't draw the Sun with rays coming out of it. Part of growing up I guess. Anyhow, enjoy your victory over the teacher and make the most of it!

It did nothing of the sort. Rome remained very involved in petty politics and the Julio-Claudian family became extinct with Nero for that very reason. What kept it together was wealth and power of those running the show, and if they couldn't wield any power, then someone who could soon replaced them. But I can. There were grain shortages during that period, outbreaks of disease, military reversals, no end of political chicanery and incidents of outright rebellion. For many people, prosperity was a pipedream. Augustus made some clever moves early in his career, aimed at cementing his power and avoiding assassination. Nonetheless, he didn't have it all his own way, and more than once left the senate house with his tail between his legs. It took time for his reign to pull it all together and the quote that 'I found Rome in brick and left it in marble' applies to someone looking back at his life, not someone who changed Rome instantly. Also, Augustus was behaving in a manner very similar to a mafia boss. There was a guy in egypt who came to a sticky end because he had worked toward political advancement without Augustus's approval. Deals done on the quiet, ruthless control and punishment over anyone working his patch, and a public image of respectability. His numerous liaisons with women weren't unusual for roman men - perhaps we don't need to look too closely at that, but look closer at his administrative skills. Augustus had the assistance of able men in the background - he did right from the start by virtue of his family connections - and as a leader its noticeable how easily he panicked. Marc Antony had nothing but contempt for him, the viewpoint of a coarse military man. Augustus lacked the personal courage under fire that Caesar had in spades. Certainly he wasn't afraid to push himself forwards, yet there are instances recorded of Augustus turning tail. At the Siege of Perugia, when he was praying close to wall, a group of gladiators sallied forth and sent him running away. He ran from his first major battle. The defeat at Kalkriese stopped his plans for roman expansion completely. The conclusion is that his followers were supporting his reign. It wasn't only down to Augustus.

Nope. The lords of the manors were very concerned with coinage, usually to have as much as they could grasp. That was one of the primary motivations for taking part in the crusades. The manor was self sustaining up to a point, but the efficiency of the manor was something that developed as the period progressed - and it progressed along with cultural adoption of freedom of travel. In other words, serfdom, the binding of a man to the manor, prevented certain aspects of society from progress. That was fine with the manor lords who wanted their own petty realms if they couldn't aspire to the real thing. Roman society was different from medieval, and more organised. The problem with the fuedal system is that it depended on personal allegiances or verbal contracts that could easily be ignored or contravened. Hence the turbulent politics of the period. Another point is the outbreak of disease in the 14th century, which absolutely decimated english country life. Ordnance Survey maps show loads of abandoned village sites all over england. Cities may have languished during the dark ages yet many still had roman buildings in evidence by the end of it, these being demolished later for stone. Yet despite this the english were involved in wars on the continent as far as the holy lands. Free companies were notorious and the english were in the forefront of this mercenary activity.

Yes, a lot of barbarians came to that conclusion!

Interesting. I hadn't seen anything previously of roman activity down there.

Well if you've just joined us that was apparently a reaction from George Bush. We'll have an in depth translation of that on the hour. Meanwhile, in other news.... Park to become top tourist attraction How many times have I heard this about Swindon? Every so often they have this great scheme to put the town on the map, to make a bright, lively place to be, a town to be proud of. Trouble is, it hasn't occured to these ambitious planners that the average swindoner isn't interested in anything except clubbing on a saturday night, clubbing pensioners for chip money, or clubbing together in various third world ghettoes. Top tourist attraction eh? I wonder what the admission charge is going to be?

Oh we don't play at work

Scipio had the advantage of being able to land his forces close to the carthaginian capital and attack directly. Hannibal advanced across the alps and through northern Italy without a supply line, maintaining his troops by foraging (and was subject to considerable privation). That wasn't an error, that was a deliberate risk, the idea being that he would take the war right into the heart of roman territory. In the case of Carthage, they were unable to find fresh forces numerous enough to repel roman invasion. The romans on the other hand were better able to pull reinforcements in and therefore could withstand the losses that Hannibal inflicted.