caldrail

Consider me committed. I'm flexible on dates so it shouldn't be a problem.

I agree that such concern existed - of course it did, the romans were human beings after all. However, this concern is modifed by society as a whole. You see, in general, if someone shows concern and gets laughed at by his peers as a softie, its likely he won't show that concern again whether he feels it or not. Whether that person continues to act on his concerns afterward without the knowledge of his peers is another matter, and that depends on his personality. We see in the romans a society that has mixed influences. On the one hand, there is a democratic element, on the other, personal power sometimes verging on the absolute. We see a society that derides romantic illusions, that regards love as a form of mental slavery, yet retains a strong family virtue. We see men who keep little children as pets, and despite their complete familiarity, these same men quickly sell the child when it gets older and potentially scandalous. We see slaves as trusted followers, personal friends, or more usually - as 'talking tools'. One thing to be said about this testerone rich culture is its virility. The romans do seem to have this sense of achievement and pleasure in life, almost as if they know it could be so short and should therefore make the most of it. And so they should know it was short. Much is made of the romans medicinal care but this was costly and unavailable to common citizens outside of the legions. Disease was ever present, there was always a risk of death or injury in the active lifestyle of romans, even the competitiveness of Rome caused casualties. Death was something the romans were familar with. In fact, they make it a virtue to be contemptuous of it. Honourable suicides are recored in ancient sources and what comes across is that some senior romans would prefer that to scandal and dishonour. Perhaps this shouldn't suprise us. Such a man who falls from grace can often be treated with utter contempt by those who instigated his fall, or even torture, public ridicule, or even a staged execution if it suited the purpose. It shouldn't come as a suprise then that the romans made courage a virtue, that they applauded those who did not bow to fear. Like Caractacus, who stood in the senate and gave them a piece of his mind whilst his family cowered and pleaded for mercy. A certain death sentence commuted to life at Rome as an ordinary citizen, something I note that was accorded to Zenobia too. This contempt for death has another side, the nasty side that sees people murdering each other readily. Nero, as a young man, joins his friends in late night violence in the streets of Rome, something considered usual for young men and never really dealt with. In Nero's case of course, he delights in stabbing the victim and depositing the corpse in sewers. Is that only typical of Nero? Not really. Whilst it may not have been so commonoplace, such killings were known to occur in the darkened streets, and its entirely possible that watcmen, whose job was to deter such behaviour, may have been bribed at times to be somewhere else. Money was preferable to justice it seems, and surely this indicates not only contempt for death, but something approaching indifference to it?

Hmmm... Not sure about that. Arminius was a clever guy, a real sneaky rat. In fact, its better to say that without Quntilius Varus he wouldn't have been able to do it. Perhaps a more able commander and one who realised that Arminius wasn't being honest may well have prevented a disaster. That siad, Arminius had already formed an alliance of german tribes and was a force to be reckoned with north of the Rhine. The Romans were going to be in trouble anyway. Notice that Arminius did not pursue the romans across the Rhine. He knew they would eventually field too many men to contend with. Instead, he attempted to force the romans to withdraw and leave Germania to him. In that he succeeded, but roman training wasn't essential. The german tribes weren't trained in roman fighting but I do agree that the military intelluigence that Arminius could provide was useful. What was more useful was Varus's inability to see through a ruse.

Yes, the romans lost a considerable number of men. During the course of the Second Punic War Hannibal marched his army around Italy defeating every roman commander sent against him. At least twice roman armies were surrounded and slaughtered, Cannae being the most well known. When you consider the numbers involved, it seems like a huge portion of roman manpower was eliminated, but notice that after each disaster, the romans were able to field more men. True, the romans were brought to a state of panic, but they had access to a large recruitment pool by virtue of their empire, which even then was of a considerable size. This was Rome's advantage. If they lost troops, they simply called for more. Carthage on the other hand was dependent on hired mercenaries to field a professional army, and there was a limited number of these men available on the market, so we have a situation where Rome is playing for time, keeping Hannibal busy, and fighting a war of attrition. On a local level, there must have been parts of the roman world that suffered the lost generation syndrome, although it must be pointed out that families were larger then (a necessary survival characteristic of poor families) and it was unlikely that all the male children went to war. Rome as a whole did not reach that point. I haven't seen any evidence of a fall in the birth rate. The social function of women was unchanged. This was before the increasing leisure time of wealthier families gave women a measure of freedom (that also reduced the birth rate funny enough - they simply had too much fun and childbirth was beginning to be viewed as a serious impediment to their social life). Back in the Punic Wars, the role of women was more traditional, and life for romans generally was more austere than in the Empire anyway.

They fought in the quincunx formation as a rule, the whole point being that formations were not conflicting on space and supported each other, as well as covering the gaps and making them potential traps for less organised enemies. The legions were very disciplined, and retained that mindset even in combat, so that chaos was avoided and the troops could readily follow the centurions orders. If you think about it, these disciplined formations allowed superior command and control across the entire army, and with the coded trumpet calls and verbal orders, changes in formation and strategy were more easily controlled.

I'm not making this up. Those guys have been dismantling the world and his dog for thirty years. They're incredible - they really are - they just seem unfettered and unhurried by life and simply will not conform to society. The world will be poorer without them!

Cruel and unusual dictatorship? I think not. Party on dude...

Gladiators were spared for popularity, not for humanitarian concerns. Quite the reverse, the lower classes often called for the deaths of these men and we see a change in the style of fighting toward the end of the empire, when weapons designed to wound rather than kill outright were becoming commonplace. Make no mistake, this is a culture that routinely exposed its children and left them to die or live as slaves. I agree this wasn't always true - sometimes an unwanted child was given to friends or deserving couples, or even given to slavers directly (at least the child would then live, however poor and downtrodden). The thing is that although individual sensibilities may have been humanitarian, and there is plenty of evidence that such people lived in roman times, roman culture was hard hearted. It had developed from a time when they scraped out a living on hillsides under threat of invasion or tyranny from their neighbours, and this mindset persists in the roman psyche for centuries. Its easy to get carried away with the actions of individuals who call for death or torture at a whim. But lets use another example. In the war against the Lusitanii the roman commander, Galba, knew they were tired of the war and hit on a ruse. He let it be known that if they surrendered and gave up their weapons, the romans would call it quits and give them land to farm if they paid taxes. So thirty thousand or more turned up at three camps and did so, whereupon Galba had nine thousand slain on the spot and carted off the rest in chains for a life of slavery. The senate were appalled, not to mention the bad publicity, and had galba prosecuted. He of course was a little more wiley, and brought in his tearful children to sway the hearts of the senators who couldn't bear the thought of these children going without a father. Now then - what seems a humanitarian decision is in sentimentality, the roman love of family, which this case is being exploited by Galba. Exploitation is the key word. Thats what romans did. They exploited human beings as much as any other commodity, and that does not breed humanitarian sentiment. If there was, why did romans not campaign to dismantle the slave trade? Why did they allow the slaughter of vast numbers of exotic animals? These are not humanitarian viewpoints. There was a fourth century writer lamenting the loss of these fine creatures, commenting there were no more lions in Thessalay, that rhino's and crocodiles were vanishing from africa. Of course they were - there was a massive export business to have these animals killed for public entertainment - but did he decide that the games were a bad thing? Of course not. Exploitation of the natural world was a natural thing to him, he did not see that by changing things the loss of these animals copuld be averted. It simply did not occur to him. The games were there, that was how roman society functioned, and who was he to attempt to change entertainment of the masses? A monk named Telemachus (amongst others) tried to in AD392, by rushing into the arena and attempting to stop the gladiatorial fights. An impatient gladiator cut him down and the fights continued... The point must be recognised that roman culture was inherently biased against humanitarian considerations, that it supported exploitation, that it tolerated violence and death in many circumstances. Roman society had clear divisions on what was acceptable. For a father to kill his errant son was for a long time acceptable practice. For a son to kill his errant father was a heinous crime. Rape of a barmaid was tolerated - what did she expect working in such a place? - but to break into a womans house and commit the same crime left romans horrified. You see? There's a black and white morality here, a line beyond which which what we see as a criminal act is no longer considered so by romans. The lower classes must take a large portion of the blame. Their poverty breeds a hardened frame of mind, that survival must come first. They were the ones who revelled in gladiatorial deaths, who thrilled at boxers fighting with metal gloves, who stood captivated as a charioteer met a grisly end. They were not educated people. Their sentiments are not generally recorded, and although I would have to accept that some, perhaps many, felt human kindness toward one another there were many who didn't. The unwanted child is a burden - it must be exposed. The child is old enough - it must earn its keep. I cannot earn enough - I must go the the patron and kiss his feet for a handout. I cannot feed my family - I mustl take money from late late revellers who stray into my street. I cannot pay my creditors - I must consider slavery, You might say that these sentiments are understandable and necessary for survival. My point is that such sentiment inevitably hardens peoples attitudes, and that roman culture as a whole was biased toward a macho, callous attitude, where aggression underlies roman interaction and entertainment.

In the shed next door to ours is a load of disused racking. UT, otherwise known as the 'Gypsy', has always insisted that the site manager, NF, had told him he could take it away anytime. NF on the other hand argues the opposite, and insists on payment. Well finally The Gypsy had his way and turned up to dismantle the racking and cart it away fror scrap. He borrowed a screwdriver from us for the purpose. UT and Small H have their own way of dismantling. Instead of top down as any sane person would, they insist of doing it from the bottom up, and manoevered their van to support the structure and prevent it knocking the sheds over. As usual UT stopped by to eat lunch and have tea, and apart from having to chase after his van to pull the handbrake on, life carried on at a leisurely pace. "Have you got that screwdriver? " I asked. UT told Small H to fetch it. Small H said he didn't know where it was. There then followed a series of farcical searches and accusations. This continued until AD threatened to withdraw teabreak privileges. The screwdriver was quickly found in UT's toolbox. "Don't know how it got there..." They said.... Revelation of the Week According to Small H, millionaires have the habit of going to London and busking as One Man Bands. He knows because he's seen it, and Small H admitted to performing as a One Man Band in his younger days. He had to give it up because he didn't want to be famous. Now you know...

Deep in the rainforests of Darkest Wiltshire, the natives are restless. The Independent Peanut Republic of Rushey Platt has decided to go public, to reveal its ancient mysteries to the world. I suppose that means we have to accept tourists too but you can't have everything. So what is the Republic of Rushey Platt? Well, when I was unemployed I decided it might be a cool idea to declare my idependence from the UK government. That way I could ask for Foreign Aid and get paid millions of pounds like those immigrant families with thirty eight kids. Needless to say, the british government has steadfastly refused to acknowledge my little realm in the depths of south west England. Nor did the United Nations. Nor did I get paid. Well things have moved on since. I now work in a shed at the back of an old hangar once used to build spitfires. Its a rotten little edifice that the architect proclaimed as structurally dodgy, and currently provides dwelling for thirty nine thousand species of native woodland spiders. And from the mess we found lurking under the pallets at the back, one or two rats, although we think the spiders ate them. The idea was to move some of these dust-gathering pallets and get rid of them. The days of our tenure in The Shed are now numbered, and a plush warehouse awaits our business (and rent payments) down the road. So let me introduce AD, a veteran of a warehouseman, a Bristolian, my mentor in the ways of The Shed. "One day, Caldrail, all this will be yours..." He said, though I must admit there is a rival to The Sheds throne. He is SB, a true troglodyte in british fashion, a man for whom sunlight is a forgotten experience, a man whose tyrant of a wife demands a new house every year and therefore poor old SB must go without holidays or weekends. However, there's an even rarer species of warehouseman at large behind the Hanger. The Big H himself. Trolls were never this big in fairy tales, and never was a man so adept at communicating with a grunt. A shrug of his shoulders says more than words can say. Or those wandering scavengers, the scrap metal dealers, who take away anything not bolted down. Or use an axle grinder if it is. UT, a fine figure of a man whose hobbies include racing dogs in Ireland, is nonetheless poor and humble. Dogs are very expensive. Not so his sidekick, the Small H, who's understanding of the world is limited to Lift That Bale, Tote That Barge. Come to think of it, UT nearly had me manhandling industrial motors into his truck... Welcome to Rushey Platt. It only gets better...

A number of people have expressed sympathy for the death of my families friend. I would like to take a moment to thank you for those sentiments, but in all honesty, I only met him once and knew him solely through my relations. His death was unnecessary and deliberate, and like many others who lose friends and family in this way, it shocks you that people you know personally can end the same way as names on the tv news. Thank you kindly nonetheless.

Their system of values were different to ours, and whilst a person may show affection or concern for others, that was an individual expression of humanity, not the general mindset of a culture, whose attitude toward human life was more concerned with expedience. Your point is valid - I just think it needs to be put in perspective. There were many romans who wouldn't have cared one jot for that female child slave. Plenty more at the market.

Thats an interesting concept from a roman perspective, and I think although the romans were what we would now consider sexist, there are opportunites even in their way of life for women to assume responsibility and freedom. What interests me more is that there's no record of intervention. Rumours and stories are passed around in taverns nearby, and people whisper and gossip amongst themselves about these shocking events. In fact, its Antonia's respectability and status that allows her to get away with it. She is seen as doing the 'right thing', to punish her child for a murder, to exercise the roman right to control the family, an important principle in roman law and order, yet this is a right extended to the senior male member rather than a woman. Antonia wasn't married at that point was she? She was a widow, and therefore as the inheritor of an estate she was powerful in her own right, since there was no male partner to assume the reigns of family power. Mater Potestas is absolutely spot on.

There is something deep in the human psyche that emerges when confidence and power are attained. Some historians have commented that Hitler was trying to create a germanic Rome, and since he he was justifying his regime with all sorts of invented connections, there is reason to believe this. However, the romans did not simply create their own grandiose ideas of Rome out of nowhere - it was for them a natural expression of their own success, and modern dictators who follow the same route might also be said to be expressing the same sentiments. Roman republicanism was an ideal, not an an established paradise. Was it such a giant leap for mankind? That seems a little overstated, and there are other political forms that claim the same moral high ground. If we want to see roman republicanism as a giant leap, we have to see it in terms in the improvement of mankind for the better. There the romans failed. In fact, the romans had little intention in improving things for the common man. Instead it was a system of government evolved to suit the ruling oligarchy. In the Republic, the idea was that no single man would dominate politics, that no excessive rule from a king would again scandalise and ruin Rome. For that reason, power was shared, power was temporary, and power was by consent. On the face it this system appears very egalitarian and perhaps our view of it is coloured by our own experience of extended democracy. The romans had no such illusions. Although they ensured that power was not hijacked by dictators (modern sense), they chose their leaders from amongst those who were qualified by wealth. There were senators who thought kindly of the common man and made some rulings in his favour, there were also plenty who wanted the common man kept firmly in his place. Lets be a little more precise here. Rome did not have a national identity as we understand it. It was a city state, a dominant power, the ruler of an empire. Citizens did not live within a nation, they lived within an empire who ultimately answered to one city. Thats what SPQR meant. Senate and People of Rome. Notice the differentiation in status. The people of Rome were something seperate from their ruling class, people who must look to their leaders for support and protection. It is an identifiable marker of patronage, a system of very basic human interaction across social class that said - "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". Is that your superior culture? Also, we need to understand the extent of corruption that coloured roman life long before the Pricipate let its hair down. Corruption was a roman way of life. It was how they did business, and even though some individuals attempted to curb or eradicate it, the majority simply accepted that the way to get what you want was to slip a few sestercii. There are cases of ordinary soldiers complaining because the opportunities to bribe their senior commanders were becoming scarce. The superiority of roman civilisation is somewhat illusory, and is based on the imagery and hype we see in film, tv, and ancient monuments. Make no mistake, the addition of these stone edifices was intended both to glorify the individual commerorated, and to demonstrate the superiority of Rome both to its own citizens and to visitors. That does not imply the superiority is real, merely that wealthy romans were building public images to sell to the bystander, usually to ensure personal success. Dominance does not imply moral superiority. Ok, Rome was a cruel culture - we know that - but that was not unusual for the ancient world and once you examine contemporary civilisations, whatever their redeeming features, they always demonstrate a harsh and unforgiving side. If Rome held leadership to these ideas then thats a success of propaganda, military, and political will that has endured in the popular conciousness via the christian churches to this day, and has assumed a legendary status in true traditional human manner. Superior? No, of course not, it wasn't any better a system than anyone elses, but it was a successful one for some time, whose hellenistic and capatlistic principles are the bedrock for our own cultures. But aren't we therefore guilty, by building our world on theirs, of swallowing the same roman hype? The point about 'mediterranean culture' also brings up an interesting aspect of human psychology - our need to classify. We like labels. We like to pigeon-hole, to put everything in its place. There are also people who like to place other peoples opinions in their place (Yes, I get accused of that too!) and therefore a 'new' label' is one way of taking this knowledge and giving a different credibility and perhaps even devaluing the opinions of those who supported an older label.

We often see civilisations as entities in themselves and therefore their achievements tend to be viewed in isloation. However, all cultures learn from those they come into contact with (or usually perish in the superiority stakes) and so it must be said that behind the success of any society there is the influence of others. That needs to put into perspective though. The chinese were an aggressive nation in the 90's AD, even to the point of defeating an army from India and sending a military expedition that reached the Caspian Sea. But how much influence did they take on board? The chinese are notorious for their intractable viewpoint. In military terms, some foreign ideas must have been adopted either because they were clearly better or perhaps because the situation was forcing them to consider new methods. From a purely cultural view thety were instensely conservative. So how dowes this apply to the romans? Well we know the romans were only too keen to adopt foreign ideas. Again, its in military terms that we see this accentuated. But literature and art were unashamadly hellenistic. We also observe that hellenistic influence increases with time, not withering away like you might expect. The harsh 'survivalist' latin culture gives way to a softer, more passive hellenistic way of life. Not only were the Romans influenced by foreign ideas, they were colonised and ultimately converted to them.

To some extent the experience of seeing death around does dull your sensibilities - there's plenty of modern evidence for that. There's also a cultural angle too. Some societies adopt the concept of honour, thus the risk of losing it is a 'fate worse than death', since the disapproval and rejection from your peers is too much to bear - its also a loss of status. Therefore the person so afflicted sees nothing but torment ahead and then honourable suicide offers a chance to redeem his name is some small way, since the ending of your own life by choice is something that rails against our survival instincts, and so carries with it a notion of courage and... well... honour. Its a matter of dignity in this case. To die as punishment inevitably means someone (or something) does that to you. Honourable suicide, even if enforced, does not carry with it the stain of someones elses hand, that in some way the act of killing has been transmuted to something acceptable.

I agree completely. Hype and mindset are all strong influences on human endeavour. Social behaviour in human beings is designed by nature and modified by those who wish us to conform to their ideas. Strong personalities sometimes do attract followers even for groups spouting some of the wierdest rubbish known to man. There is something buried in human psychology that makes us prone to this, and their are plenty of modern examples. Understandably, we see the same thing happening in the ancient world. Our view of roman times is heavily influenced by fantasy. Film and tv have projected a swords-and-sandals image of Rome (and particularly its christian conversion) that give a version of Rome that sits comfortably with many peoples sensibilities. I think the reality is a little more mundane, and although there was a certain decadence and excess at times, much of roman history actually shows these people with a gritty resilience that sees them through national crises in their early years. This austere regime contrasts with the early principate, the inheritors of roman success, and we see this quote that "The gods have given Rome an empire without end". For those in power at the time, it was inconceivable that Rome would fall. Rome was the center of the universe in many romans minds by that time, and perhaps many barbarian minds too, given how readily they sought citizenship. Of course they usually had practicle reasons for this migration and acceptance of roman culture - because it was a land of milk and honey compared to the hard subsistence life they led at home. In the same way that eastern europeans flock to Britain to profit from its generous economy, so too the barbarians wanted roman wealth and success. The parallel in evolution of empire isn't so easily dismissed. Its easy to simply state that Rome fell because the barbarians invaded, but thats too simplistic. They too, like our modern neighbours, found gaps in roman culture to exploit, and the changing nature of roman economy and law allowed this situation to develop. Like them, we cease to expect that they adopt british ways if they want to live here, and allow them to maintain their culture under the benign protection of our own. This is something the Romans lost, this sense of roman integrity. You could argue it was roman arrogance, and you'd be right, yet that arrogance was born from pride in roman culture and its achievements. You may well scoff at that, considering that much of this was supported by a brutal regime that thought nothing of condemning men to death and indeed did so for public entertainment, but isn't that applying our own ethos on their actions? The ancient world was a harsh enviroment. It was a violent time and cruelty was endemic. We emphasise the roman callousness yet many cultures of this period were equally cruel. For the romans, whose life was likely to be short despite better medecine and urban facilities than some other cultures, there are a different set of values. We think of gladiators fighting to the death, and whilst it appeals on a basic competetive level the thought of dying for another mans pleasure is abhorrent to many of us, yet for the roman perspective this was an expression of roman military and personal virtue besides an exciting demonstration of skill and courage. So too their fondness for animal slaughter. A demonstration of Rome's mastery over nature, of the hunters skill, and lets not forget, an opportunity to profit. Roman success is not just conquest, glory, and blood on the sand. It was also the ability to earn wealth, an important cornerstone of rome society, an opportunity to further your interests and those of your family. For all the roman excess and cruelty, there remains a strong family life that rises to the surface in the tales of power and politics, and thats something in our modern private and often lonely lives we sometimes overlook. They had a sense of community we seem to have lost, and it might be argued that they too lost this communal belonging toward the end of the Western Empire. Objectivity about roman history has to begin with the acceptance that they had their own viewpoint, that the world must have appeared very different to them, that they lived in ways that seem sometimes so similar to us yet with different rules and emphasis. A fiercely competitive society breeds strong men and this underpins the roman sense of power, of its self-confidence as a state that grew from its imperial gains.

I see it a little different. Its rather like all this indian culture has been colonised by western film making techniques, so these productions are almost trying to please traditionalists and westernphiles at the same time. They must be doing something right, they do make a whole load of cash out ofthese films.

I disagree with that point. Most wars are fought with gold, and are fought over resources (although to be fair you might include gold as such)

Salve, SP As far as I remember, Caligula (1979) tried to please both History and *or* fans; eventually nobody was pleased. Too much *or* for the historians, too much history for the *or* fans. Actually I don't think the history side was important at all, it was merely an excuse to portray human excess and indulgence in an almost surreal manner. This unreality was deliberately intended to water down the *or* element and make it acceptable to a mass market, whilst appealing on the level of roman myth. Personally I think its a truly awful film. The characters are two-dimensional and even John Gielgud does the decent thing by committing suicide almost as soon as we see him. Like many such films, the actors have little idea who they're portraying and seem to fill the gap by acting a little 'mad'. Is there anything [positive to be said for his production? Well, yes. The overall mood is consistent and there is almost a balletic quality to some scenes. It has a style all of its own, a fairy-tale vision of decadent Rome.

...the Carthaginian Empire was almost entirely dependent on mercenary troops and saw both the benefits and the costs. At the conclusion of the First Punic War (264-241 BC), the hired army, which had not been paid and was threatened with disbandment, revolted, in what was known as the Mercenary War. The rebels were only put down when the Carthaginians were able to hire other mercenary units. In the next war however, the Carthaginians returned to a contracted force with great success. Hannibals army of hired, expert soldiers crossed the Alps and dominated the Roman citizen army in the Second Punic War (218-202 BC). It was never defeated in battle but ultimately was unable to overcome Carthages inferior material position. The war was essentially lost when Rome took Carthage's silver mines in Spain, meaning that the city-state could no longer afford to maintain a large hired army. Corporate Warriors P.W.Singer Aside from the relative merits of the commanders involved, we have here one of the primary reasons for the ultimate defeat of Carthage. Rome could call upon a larger recruitment pool, whereas Carthage relied on hiring a largely mercenary army to fight for them. This did not imply any lack of expertise. Far from it, Hannibals army were remarkably successful in winning victories on roman soil. Mercenaries are nothing new - Indeed, there have men willing to fight for hire and reward rather than patriotism or necessity since warfare began. Compared to mercenaries of later era's however, these earlier troops demonstrate a level of commitment to their cause that contrasts with the greedy fickleness more usually expected. These men fought on campaigns that involved some considerable privation. There is a story of Hannibals crossing of the Alps that when the men were desperately short of food, one of Hannibals officers suggested that the men should be taught to eat human flesh and enjoy it, a suggestion which Hannibal would not consider under any circumstance. Despite this, the mercenaries did not abscond in any great numbers. Was this due to a potential financial reward if they stayed, or was Hannibals qualities as a leader sufficient to retain discipline? During the First Punic War, the romans had put Carthage on the defensive with the war degenerating into a series of sieges. Regulus, the roman commander, defeated the Carthaginian army twice on their own doorstep and had them on the point of surrender. The terms laid out by Regulus were so bad that Carthage turned to a spartan soldier named Xanthippus, who trained the Carthaginian troops with such capability that he was rewarded with command of the entire army. The romans, in sight of victory, were repulsed with appalling losses. From this we can see the power of leadership confirmed as an important factor of victory in battle. Undoubtedly, with troops only there for a bag of coins, strong leadership must have been essential. Hannibal now assembled a vast army of 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry, and about 40 elephants, and prepared to bulldoze his way through northern Spain. Polybius does not give a breakdown of this army but it contained the nucleus of the troops with which Hannibal intended to invade Italy, the remainder must have been expendable. It can therefore be calculated with reasonable assurance that that Hannibals army was made up of 20,000 African infantry, 70,000 Spanish infantry, 6,000 Numidian cavalry, and 6,000 Spanish cavalry, the expendable elements being the Spanish... ...The bulk of the Carthaginian army was made up of foreign mercenaries. They came from many sources: Celts, Spaniards, Balearic Islanders (famous for their slingers), Ligurians, half caste Greeks (mainly deserters and runaway slaves), and the largest element, the North Africans. Carthaginian discipline must have been imposed on these troops and one would have expected them to serve under Carthaginian officers. However, it is clear from Polybius' account of the siege of Lilybaeum, in the First Punic War, that the mercenaries served under their own officers, as the superior mercenary officers tried to betray the town to the Romans.... ...No attempt was made at conformity; each native group fought in its own way and had to be used to its best advantage... Greece And Rome At War Peter Connolly We have then a confederate army composed of largely hired troops equipped predominantly in hellenistic fashion, at least as far as the current evidence suggests, and in any case Carthage was unwilling to risk its small citizen base in warfare. Adrian Goldsworthy however has pointed out that some contingents were not hired, but provided by neighbouring kingdoms as part of their treaty obligations. This appears to be particularly true of Numidian troops and certain tribes, Celts and Spanish, were also formally allied to Carthage. ...Even the troops clearly hired as mercenaries were not all recruited in the same manner. In some cases these men were hired as a group, a leader or chieftan offering his own and his warbands services for hire. The leader received payment for his services and then supported, and distributed rewards amongst, his followers much as any chieftan would do. In the tribal societies of Europe there was a strong tradition of warriors seeking service with the leaders who could support, and give them wealth and glory, for a martial reputation was highly valued wherever it was attained. The bond between a chieftan and his followers was intensely personal. They fought for him and would just as happily fight with or against Carthage as their leader chose. We hear of one group of Gauls led by a chieftan who served several masters in succession and proved of dubious loyalty to each of them. The loyalty of such soldiers must have been significantly different from that of men who had been directly recruited and were directly paid by their carthaginian leaders. Presumably some units, especially those which included Roman and Italian deserters and escaped slaves, were of mixed nationality... The Punic Wars Adrian Goldsworthy Given the range of nationalities, there must have been difficulties in translating orders. It's almost impossible to describe a typical Carthaginian army, since each was composed of whatever troops could be found at the time without regard to any standard of type, equipment, or formation. The success of Carthaginian leaders in presenting a threat to Roman armies is clearly a remarkable effort, and it comes as no suprise that Carthage was usually hesitant in committing itself to battle. Although the hired units came for the cash, its obvious under closer inspection that many Punic mercenaries took part in campaigns simply because they wanted to fight.

Just a quick point - given roman arrogance and culture, any foreign officer would be expected to learn enough latin to function in the roman military. Foreign languages will not do, its all bar-bar-bar-bar....

The zulus were not nomads. They lived in fixed locations by their heyday and as a result were able to organise themselves in social and military terms. As troops, they had a reputation for extraordinary discipline. This was true under Shaka, whose innovation of the assegai made the zulu warrior a much more effective close-quarter fighter. By the time of Rorkes Drift, we see Cetswayo attempting to recreate the glory of Shakas regime. For all their heritage and native qualities, the troops who attacked Rorkes Drift under Cetswayo's brother, Dabulamanzi, weren't as motivated as the story tells. Returning to the kraals after failing to defeat the british they were derided as cowards. Its a different tale to Isandlwhana, where the british column was slaughtered. As for learning the white mans tactics, I doubt they were too concerned. As hunters they understood the need for speed and suprise and probably saw the british as easy targets. The zulu's had already developed an enveloping style of battle formation which they used to good effect, and I would say that british tactics were largely irrelevant if the situation was favourable. In fact, whilst agree the point about geurilla warfare its clear the zulu were capable of more than that, that they could fight a set-piece battle, and that they attempted to use the situation to their advantage, particularly since they were fighting on home ground. Its also clear that despite their discipline they tended to be dispirited if a quick victory was not forthcoming. They weren't used to long campaigns, they were used to sudden death style of conflict.

I think in many cases if you claimed to be a citizen you were taken at your word, and heaven help you if you got found out. If you read between the lines the romans left clues that people did try to pass themselves off as different classes than they actually were. We have runaway slaves trying to join the legions, former slaves assuming the status of freedman on the death of their master etc. However, people generally didn't travel much, and in the small town or local area of the big city, if you posed as something you weren't chances are someone would know or realise. Since romans were very class concious I doubt such circumstance would be allowed to continue for very long. Was proof of citizenship required? In most cases no, so without the need why would proof be provided? In the case of retiring soldiers its a mark of respect to be awarded the bronze plaque and something I've no doubt that most kept with pride, and with a rough nature and soldiers accent, probably necessary to assuage suspicions. That brings up another point. A well dressed roman with a clearly educated voice and bearing isn't likely to be questioned. Would anyone dare? A man walking up to someone who appears to be of a wealthy class and demanding he proves his citizenship is being disrespectful after all, and going back to the point of local knowledge, it wouldn't take a magistrate long to figure out who was telling lies.