caldrail

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.

The same could be said for any leader of any nationality with a strong power base and the usual streak of charisma and ruthlessness. However I would say that the opposite is true, that europe would have been more united had Arminius not succeeded and Rome continued to to colonise. I doubt Rome would have found this easy anyway - and lets remember the difficult campaigns of the german knights in the wilds of Prussia, yet on the other side of the arguement roman colonisation was developing under Augustus and surely would have become an increasingly prevalent method of imperialisation. As it was, europe was sort of divided between latinised and germanic culture. The result, as there always is between differing cultures and tribes rubbing shoulders, is territorial aggression. For instance, the modern conflict in Africa has been inflated by colonial divisions dating back to european control. All those artificial frontiers have litttle relevance to african tribes and is still the source of dispute today, since what the african tribes really want is tribal frontiers. Then again, we can't get too carried away with this analogy because tribes do fight for other reasons, such as blood fueds or contests over resources. To some extent that must have been the same for europe - and the recent wars in the balkans have shown how old divisions can rise out of nowhere.

Picture a busy day in the Warehouse. Sheets and sheets and sheets of orders are appearing in AD's hands as he emerges flustered from the offices. Our tame forklifter is depositing pallet after pallet from the racks. His quiet smile is very disturbing. Finally AD and his boss saunter off to their high level meeting. Time now to go into the offfice, sit down, and catch up with some of those tiny administrative duties that are such good excuses for an easy time. Close the door, shut the windows... Ahh what bliss... Relaxed and refreshed, I decide its time to go back out onto the floor and catch up with some of those pallets clogging our work area. The door is stuck. Ok, maybe there's a trick to this. Nope. The door is stuck, and I'm stuck inside the office. Everyone outside is flashing past on noisy forklifts, totally unaware of my predicament. There's no phone line yet, so no go there. Can't use the internet, we haven't got a connection. The fax is out for the same reason. I have a quick search for rescue flares, but no joy there either. Just as I was about to wave my shirt out the window with a handwritten plea for assistance in black marker pen, I remember my mobile phone. Except that AD is the only person in the warehouse I have a number for and he's switched his off because he's in a top level meeting. Nonetheless, I send him a text... He might read read it in a day or two. Remembering my survival training I look around to see what I can use to stay alive until rescued. There's a kettle, half full of water, tons of coffee granules, and some sugar in a strangely speckled white and brown colour. Everything I need to sustain myself for a couple of hours before I'm found! As luck would have it, our tame forklifter drives into our area with another pallet, looking a little confused as to why nothing has moved since his last visit. After some shouting and frantic waving of the arms, he realises I'm in need of assistance. He ambles to the window in curiosity whereupon I ask him to open the door. Please. Freedom! Eventually AD returns and I mention the one way door. He listened politely but you kind of get the impression he doesn't think I have any idea how doors function. Nonetheless, he assured me he'll look into it. I arrive for work the next morning. AD does the decent thing and admits that having tried the door, he couldn't get out either. Apparently he phoned for a locksmith shortly afterward who assured AD that doors don't stick like that. "Well try it yourself." AD suggested. He did. "Uhhh, lemme out will you?.." A muffled voice from inside the porta-palace could be heard. The door is now fixed. Headline of the Week The local newspaper had a headline to effect that obesity and poverty are linked. Not really sure how, since surely consuming more food requires a bigger wallet (or perhaps thats the reason in itself?), but don't you think this more reinforcement of social stereotypes? I'm not particulary wealthy these days, but obese? Rubbish. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to get an emperor-sized burger down the road...

Leeches? I'll have you know its the rising cost of leech supply thats brought our National Health Service to its knees. There's nothing like leeches, iodine, and the sight of a large saw to cure most ailments in our merry isles. You yanks have been mollycoddled by expensive private healthcare for too long. Now you know why we have such a stiff upper lip

And some areas of england too. I know of at least two llama farms.

The Middle Ages is sometimes seen as a period of incessant warfare because basically thats what they based their society on. For the chivalry and nobility of it (and most of that was period romantic fiction), the people who ran things in the middle ages were descended from warrior tribes. Sure, there were plenty of cultured people in that period, but fighting was a virtue and rule by the sword arm doesn't leave much room for cultural advancement. Those men who rose to rulership often did so because they were ambitious and ruthless characters, and generally speaking those sort of people have little regard for academic concerns. Further, since medieval society encouraged the use of mercenaries, there were always armed men looking for employment, and thats never good for a peaceful time. However, despite the political insecurity and occaisional epidemic, the middle ages saw the roman tradition preserved, it saw improvements in land management, exploration, trade, the first awkward use of gunpowder in western warfare, and not to mention some very astonishing building projects, usually connected with christianity.

Also, the roman mile was a little shorter than the modern one I believe?

Why bother? There's plenty left on the pavement on Sunday morning...

To some extent all religions are invented by someone, because someone had to start the ball rolling. If you credit christianity with an element of truth in its mythos you are therefore honour bound to do the same for other beliefs. I have always stated that God is a human concept, not an absolute truth. Its one depiction of the infinite in understandable terms, and notice that an established religion rapidly accumulates a sizeable body of lore - this is always deliberate, because then a man learned in this lore can be admired for this knowledge, and he can bamboozle or impress his peers so much the easier. Human nature being what it is, there are those who exploit the naive and innocent for their own purposes, and this belief system and its apparently complex depth, plus the psychological state of people with deep concerns for their safe future, means there is a ripe field to be harvested. It goes on today just like it always has, and I notice the christian churches of ancient Rome got a reputation for being wealthy very quickly. Indeed, you might argue that Paul, the main architect of the christian faith, had this in mind from the start. Whether Jseus did or not is harder to figure, since the story related in the bible is very distorted to portray him as the son of god.