caldrail

The Corvus is a heavy piece of kit, and whilst useful for boarding actions and allowing the romans to fight aboard ship as if on land, it tended to make the ship a little top heavy. Also, it was only really usable on the largest vessels. Finally, the need to fight in this manner was much less after the defeat of the stronger carthaginian navy, and so by the Battle of Actium a more conventional method of naval warfare had been learned by the romans, since during the punic wars the romans started as novices. They didn't do too badly did they?

Film and tv gloss over the sheer physical effort of fighting with sword and shield. This was another reason why romans didn't like swinging swords around, it was too tiring and using the gladius as a thrusting weapon allows a legionary to attack without interfering with his mates standing in close order, as well as allowing for greater endurance in melee. That said, the advantage wasn't great. Also, a lot of melee combat isn't sword fighting. Its pushing, shoving, taunts, feints, even glaring helplessly at your opponent ten feet away sometimes. As you correctly state, going toe to toe for an elongated period is very exhausting and a major factor in the 'breaking' of one side.

We interrupt your normal reading to bring you the latest story, hot off the press. The Independent Peanut Republic of Rushey Platt has announced that they have annexed the state of South Carolina. Rushey Platt apologises to the USA for the incovenience, and assures citizens of their new dominion that they will not be required to fill in british tax returns. That concludes this newsflash, we'll bring you updates on this story as it happens. Over to our on-the-spot reporter, Sally Forth. Whats happening out there Sally? Well not much Caldrail. Everyone seems unpeturbed by the news, and having asked several South Carolinians, it seems they're totally unaware they're now part of Rushey Platt Thats excellent news Sally. We're still hoping to get a reaction from George Bush later in this blog. Stay with us, and we'll return to blow by blow coverage of Rushey Platt vs Spittle Croft.

Las Malvinas? Where on earth is... oh... you mean the Falkland Islands? Bit of a faux pas there GO. South Carolina would be fine. Please make the arrangements. Our MP isn't Bertie Wooster, but the Lord Mayor of London is Boris Johnson - He comes close. Rushey Platt Eleven against those wimps from Spittle Croft? Whats the point in turning up, we're bound to win. Just make the score 3-1 by default and we won't hurt anyone

Not as poor as you assume. The reason he didn't attack the city of Rome and secure final victory was because he could not afford to remain in one place. He had no supply line from Spain (nor via the sea) and he knew the romans could pull in reserves and surround him if they caught him in one place. What Hannibal was attempting was to bring Rome to its knees - and lets be honest, they were on the point of panic at one stage..

Hello, I'm Caldrail, she isn't, and you're reading The Albion News Network (brought to you by International Portakabins - "We don't break windows"). Todays headlines - Major logisitics company fail to deliver parcels.... Warehouse manager under investigation for failing to meet deadlines.... Security guard mocked for failing to send Caldrail to the right door.....Office girl sacked for failing.... We'll have more on these stories later, but now, an important message from our sponsors... Hi... Have you ever wanted a Portakabin? Well, you can. Here at International Portakabins we deliver industrial accomodation to anywhere around the world just when you thought it was all going to end in catastrophic explosions. Our clean cut square jawed heroes will save the day at a price you can afford... In other news, Brittania is to be removed from british coinage. What?!!! How dare they?!!! A symbol of our defunct empire is to be consigned to the rubbish bin, another cornerstone of our heritage erased in our governments quest to rebuild Britain as a third world banana republic. How else can they get us to sign up for the United States of Europe? In order to become europeans they must first disassemble british patriotism. It must be said that british history isn't taught in schools anymore, and kids are educated to feel embarrased and dismissive of past achievements. Why do they want us to part of Europe? It gets their name in the history books. It'll all end in tears eventually. After all, this move toward a united europe is an unconcious effort to recreate the Roman Empire. Thing is, Europe cannot offer anything we don't already have, so thats another reason why Britain is being pulled apart bit by bit. Ban politicians. Vote Rushey Platt!

Yes, I have read that 'being in love' for a man was regarded as something akin to emotional slavery. Its also true that romans married for practical reasons - romance had little to do with it. The romans also had a penchant for the body beautiful, and young men were often considered desirable purely for that. So I wonder if in some cases the ownership of these people was something like owning a flash car today - something to be envied and admired - although given the envy these cars arouse today one wonders whether the same human nastiness arose in Hadrians case? We'll never know.

A greek legend. I'm not sure if these women actually existed (would a woman really want to remove a breast purely to pull a bow?), but since women do occaisionally take on mens roles as it were, then perhaps there were one or two that started the legend off. Or maybe the greeks had sexual fantasies too?

Or as those cataphractii found out when they charged the enemy infantry only to have them open their ranks and let them in before unhorsing them. This sort of tactical chicanery was the key to success in ancient warfare. Thing is, apart from some minor differences in equipment and style, one man vs another is pretty much an equal contest. So if you want to win a battle, then you need to box clever - to outwit the enemy and gain the upper hand by subterfuge as well as military force. This after all was Hannibals strong point - He was a very clever tactician.

No you're all missing the point. When Octavian came to power he was very aware of the fate that befell Caesar (and others too, since Octavian had a hand in some of their deaths). Now lets remember Octavian wasn't the revered emperor when he first took control. There were many in the senate who wanted him out. They didn't want another Caesar, another dictator for life, another tyrant. Now if some enterprising chap had the resources to put even a small navy together, then the precious corn supply from egypt was under threat and lets face it, that corn was underpinning Rome's economy and Octavian knew it. Why else was he so concerned to keep personal control over that province? Therefore, by establishing a permanent navy loyal to him (as the new Caesar), there was far less risk of an economic blockade by ambitious rivals. The fact that all these rivals had already been dealt with was neither here nor there - there are always others waiting in the wings in a competitive society, and the victory of Actium must have left a lasting impression on Octavian afterward.

Point taken, yet the brits were part of the celtic tradition of heroic single combat en masse. Since she was their leader, she must have been somewhere near the front or else their army wouldn't have been such a threat. Celts weren't keen on generals leading from a tent thirty miles away, that was cowardice in their eyes, and lets face it, boudicca certainly had no reputation for that!

Like all Empires and Nations the business of Rome was business. You can't really have a great mercantile nation state without a fleet to protect it. Even if there were no active threats you couldn't really risk the chance that piracy or another Nation could disrupt your trade while you stopped to build a fleet to counter it. A standing fleet is well worth the cost of maintaining it. True, but as has been shown from time to time over naval history, the big ships are expensive and really only useful against each other. For anti-piracy smaller vessels were better, especially since they could pursue in shallower water and up river if need be. Deterrent is fine if the ship is actually there, but with more smaller vessels the risk to pirates is higher since they are more likely to be sited, and given a flotilla of smaller vessels, less able to escape. Regarding Augustus, its possible he saw the navy as effectively 'his', and theefore a deterrent to rivals from gathering naval support for their cause.

No, ordinary legionaries could do that sort of manual labour, although there were occaisions when prisoners or slaves were employed instead.

No, they must have had gaps in formations because otherwise the units would press against each other and command & control becomes difficult. Charging into melee is another matter. This doesn't mean the gaps were very big, but lets remember the roman penchant for organisation and that there were practical reasons for seperating constituent units (you see exactly the same thing in later periods of warfare too, even amongst ill-disciplined native types). There's a great deal of difference in formation manoevering and the realities of melee, although even then the romans preferred (at least until the 3rd century) to remain formed up in close order for mutual support, and a further point in favour of gaps, believe it or not, is the threat of enemy cavalry. With clear cut gaps between constituent units its easier in the confusion of combat to know where you are, and to react correctly under pressure. For units under pressure from cavalry, this means forming up tightly to avoid being 'broken' by enemy action. This inevitably creates gaps in the ranks anyway.

Rome saw itself as a desirable culture, whose citizens lived in the 'proper' way (or should do!), and in order to business effectively they were keen to romanise these acquisitions. I don't think the romans cared a fig for the barbarian or oriental ways, other than fashionable curiosities (hence undesirable by right-minded folk, and only picked up by those with time on their hands or people with a need to shock, to be different, to appear sophisticated in their tastes). To get ahead in roman life meant adopting roman ways - "When in Rome, do as the romans" - or else they'd treat you like any other barbarian. Rome did not absorb foreign culture, it was infected by it, further reinforced by the immigration of foreign nationals who remained firmly in their own ghettoes. Life under roman control was also easier by virtue of the organised lifestyle and infrastructure that provided these consumer goods. As you noted, after the removal of the roman military the collapse of government ocurred astonishing quickly under pressure from saxon raids, yet the resistance to this piecemeal occupation went on for up to two centuries afterward. Between AD500 and AD1000, long distance foreign travel still went on as before, although with the proviso that roman security was no longer keeping the peace. However, no-one was recording these travels and therefore we have this image of people cowering in their homes until the end of the dark age, something that simply wasn't true. For instance, one gentleman made repeated journeys from York to France in order to retrieve christian documents. Trade must have continued in a more opportunistic manner, since no hardy merchant is going to ignore the possibility of tidy profit from keeping in touch with foreigners with cash, and lets not forget, the trade links established in roman times in the Indian Ocean were still in place (albeit largely greek) for some time to come.

The East was richer. More plunder. Plus they had to avenge the recent defeat of Crassus and the lost of the legion eagles to the Parthians. The east also had definable targets to conquer, objectives such as cities and such. The forests of germany were a deep inpenetrable wilderness which probably didn't look too attractive to roman eyes. Also, there was more kudos to be gained from conquering the civilised east rather than a sodden patch of fir trees. As always, Rome wanted to expand into civilised areas first, in that they would be more amenable to roman luxuries and culture, and had the benefit of an existing infrastructure.

Then why would Augustus have built these two great fleets and headquarter them in Italy? Kudos. "Look, oh public, at this magnificent navy I have given you". Since there were no great seafaring enemies to combat one wonders what other reason Augustus had to create these fleets. I suppose there's an outside chance Augustus had in mind to use this navy to support operations on the german coast, but obviously that never happened. Otherwise, as stated, piracy was the main concern and a very real one. The deterrent of a large navy in suppressing piracy is a lesson we could learn today.

Strictly speaking yes, but since the roman need for a large navy was to combat Carthage, and since the romans had almost no experience of naval warfare up until that point, they adapted things to allow troops to fight as if on land. Once the mediterranean was effectively a roman lake, the need for such troops all but vanished. Roman ships were primarily concerned with piracy after that and there was less need for naval troops as such. It is interesting that a permanent navy only came into being during the reign of Augustus, as part of his reforms, and that the heyday of the large war galley was fast disappearing. Its noticeable that later vessels, apart from those intended for display, were much smaller and useful for sailing up rivers. The ships that carried the legions of Claudius to Britain however were mostly transport vessels as might be expected, rather than an armada of warships.

Starkey is actually a very clever historian. Whether you agree with him or not, he does have something interesting to say.

Following the reforms of marius, specialisation was reduced to a minimum. All troops might be expected tocross-train in all sorts of military activity, including artillery or mundane duties, and many were taught to ride horses (though this was often out of necessity rather than any training program). There's evidence that regular troops conducted covert operations in Germania in the later empire. There is of course an incident in AD69, at the 2nd Battle of Cremona, where the defenders fielded a unit of gladiators who were ordered to attack across a river by night in order to secure a bridge. The officers, none too impressed at having to command such scum, promptly went AWOL. The gladiators discussed the matter amongst themselves and decided to go ahead, only to discover the enemy had been well briefed about their impending operation. There is a difference between units formed for specialist purposes and units put on special duty. The romans on the whole preferred to utilise troops for anything they saw fit, another reason they were usefully employed as labourers (which conveniently kept them busy in peacetime) and engineers.

As to whether Claudius suffered a particular ailment is speculation and nothing more. The descriptions given by roman sources may not be entirely accurate and in roman culture, a deformed child was expected to be exposed, since it could not function as a fully healthy member of society and would therefore be a drain on the community to care for it. This was a hangover from the earliest days of Rome, which kind of inidcates that life on the farms back then was not a picnic. All the more ironic then that the romans considered the picture of rural bliss as an ideal of their society. Now since Claudius was not exposed he was therefore exposed instead to a great deal of ridicule from those who were fit and healthy. Given his mother thought him 'A man whom nature had not completed', one does have to ask why he wasn't exposed. I suppose in theory his father could have argued against it, but then Drusus had his fatal accident on a horse very early in Claudius's life. Perhaps Antonia saw him as all she had left of Drusus, and so was bitterly disappointed in his physical imperfection. Claudius without doubt did have some minor invalidity, and a number of commentators have suggested it was nothing as bad as Suetonius suggests.

I have read somewhere that the camel was introduced to north africa in ancient times (not necessarily by romans), and that there was a unit of roman camel corps in egypt by the 2nd century AD. For the most part, the camel was a beast of burden, even pulling ploughs.

Yes. It was a series of climatic changes called the Ice Ages Plus the arrival of mankind, which did local fauna no favours whatsoever.

The problem with sculptural depictions of this sort is that they're not photographs, they're artistic interpretations of what the sculptor imagines was the scene (though often he may have seen a few things first hand it must be said). Helmets for instance are very often shown as the greek 'attic' style, the same sort we see in film and tv, yet these were used for display purposes rather than combat, and we know roman troops used the more familiar bowl patterns. Its entirely possible that manicae were used by legionaries from time to time, since there was nothing to prevent a soldier paying for his own equipment (which he did anyway via stoppages in pay), and some may have seen the gladiators using these in the arena and thought it a good idea to get similar protection, or perhaps the gladiators were using idealised military hardware in their contests. As I've mentioned elsewhere, developments in miltary and gladiatorial combat went together and its not clear who took the lead. I do doubt though that manicae were in widespread use and its also possible the image on the sculpture is.. well... wrong...

A worthy answer Docoflove... (munch)... yeah I can see where you're coming from... (belch).... Darn good burger this.... By the way GO, not every day is a calamity, its just I don't want to boast excessively and in any case, lifes little trials are so much more entertaining to read. But just for you, here's what happened last night. I was at a celebrity party hosted by the beckhams when these terrorists burst in. Needless to say, I used my SAS training to employ a candlestick as a lethal weapon. Swinging in over their heads via chandelier I despatched the villains, won the heart of the requisite love interest, and discovered to my absolute joy I have a winning ticket in the lotto. Then I woke up.