caldrail

Assuming the technical details are correct, I can see why it isn't considered a battlefield asset. Chariots are useful by virtue of their speed. They allow men to rush in close and deliver missiles quickly, or to intimidate and confuse formations by riding up close and sweeping past. A four wheeled chariot? How does it steer? War chariots are invariably single axled for manoeverablity. Intersting pic, but as an aside, shouldn't the Sumerians have a swarthier skin tone?

I didn't say he won by luck alone, I said that luck was part of it. You're arguing an extreme - I'm presenting a more general case. Nor was he utterly lacking in military ability. He won five or six civil wars for heavens sake. What I'm saying is that was wasn't the sparkling genius on the battlefield that Caesar was (Who was?) and you have to accept that he learned his trade both from the tutelage of Caesar (who tried to persuade his mum Aetia to let him go to war) and from bitter experience. He developed as a military commander (and relied on Agrippa) whereas Antony, his greatest rival, seems to remain no more skilled by the time of Actium, or even duller and distracted (for obvious reasons?) There we must be careful. Octavian behaved much like a mafia boss, as indeed so did his rivals, that was how romans of the time did business if they wanted to get ahead. There is that story that he sacrificed 300 victims who defied him. Now whilst I believe he was willing to cut people down (he did hire assassins to take out Antony), the overall trend in Octavians story doesn't really portray him as particularly religious, and I suspect the sacrifical side of the story is possibly anti-augustus muck-raking by his contemporary critics, who certainly lived on in the senate after he came to power.

Nero remains a controversial figure, and whilst I have to agree he was a loathsome character, he had style. Now its true he regarded himself as an artist and identified himself with Apollo, but then he was carried away with his own importance and lets face it, many people around were perfectly content to let him behave this way. nero enjoyed his power, but he wasn't maliciously cruel to the plebs as some emperors were to be. In fact, the plebs cheered him on by and large. In later times there was a slave who claimed to be Nero (and had a passing resemblance to him). It was very nearly a popular rising.

No, he removed his rivals from the senate. Thats not reinforcement. It may well be he did this for a partially noble purpose (he did retire voluntarily bless him) but he certainly made sure he profited from it, and made sure his cronies did too. Ok, but the generals competed to destroy each other rather than simply control territory. So? If you want troops to follow what amounts to open rebellion you want them behind you yes? So you legitamise your cause - and tell them anything that makes them believe their cause is just. Thats typical of rebel leaders. The senate continued after Sulla on momentum, tradition. The problem with such 'croney-ism' is that it always weakens a governing body, since older traditions of public service evaporate in the face of selfishness and no shortage of greed since the example has been set, and if so-and-so can get away with it why can't I? In that respect, Sulla effectively reduced to the senate to a gathering of wealth seekers and such bodies are prone to domination by powerful and ambitious personalities. The corpse was not truly buried. The republic didn't actually end, it simply had an imperial dynasty dominate it. And one should not be fooled into thinking the senate was the lapdog of the emperors. Senators very often made life difficult for emperors, there were always senators who wanted their job, and more than one emperor was declared an enemy of the state.

Exactly, he was an outsider who showed the 'leading romans' how to do it! Absolute rubbish. Octavian was groomed for success by Julius Caesar. Without his uncle, Octavian would have been another also ran in roman politics. Doors were opened for Octavian right from the start. That was NOT down to Octavians skill as a politician, since he was not particularly skilled at that stage, and for a long time even after coming to power his hold on the senate was a little dodgy. Why do you think his daughter julia got banished? Because she misbehaved? So did other peoples daughters. The problem was that she was lapping up the attention of influnetial men with pillow talk. The senate knew what augustus was doing before he he told anyone, and that meant he couldn't operate as freely as he would prefer. He didn't show leading romans how to do it, they showed him. Holding your cards close to your chest is something completely different to what I described. Sorry, your arguement is based on misunderstanding. And no, simply keeping silent doesn't mean you're any good as a politician - it simply means you know something someone else wants to. That's right, he created his 'victory'. I fall over laughing. Octavian was not the same class of general as Julius Caesar. Nor can anyone 'create' a victory on the battlefield. Its a contest of violence and tactics, and whilst you can load the dice in your favour, I notice that Octavian retreated in a big hurry at least once. Antony made insults to him because of it. Oh good grief. He didn't invent this committee out of thin air. These people needed a someone as a figurehead. He didn't weld this lot togther, he was chosen by them (now I know you're going to say that proves your point - no, it doesn't, not everyone in charge is holding the reins as you should well know). Remember Cicero's comment? Use him then push him aside? Octavians greatest victory was survival, not controlling the empire. Does that make him a great politician? Nope. There are many ways to survive in a political bearpit and some of those are far from honourable. I'm sorry, but you've swallowed the pro-augustus propaganda issued two thousand years ago. All those regal statues don't impress me, I'm more concerned with what he actually did. What he actually did was struggle for a long time.

So what? Thats typical of a young man from a well connected family, and I'm sure the senate approved of his efforts to deliver a speech. Octavian isn't the only young man who won his 'political manhood' by stepping in front of senators. Almost a rite of passage if you will. His family connections were half the battle there. Politics wasn't the only reason. Remember too that at that stage Octavian wasn't doing all of this by himself. He was being groomed by others, and progressed with their patronage. Hmmm... (taps finger on desk).... No. An able politican certainly, but there were better ones. Octavian looked decidely shakey in his early career compared to some other leading romans. In fact, I think Octavian showed considerable courage in his attempts to get ahead because if you read the story, he seems at times hesitant or unsure of himself. Lets also remember he was not guaranteed of victory. He was nearly killed at Perugia when a bunch of gladiators sallied forth from the besieged city and went after him. Politics? Hardly, he had a lucky escape. There is this rosey eyed vision of Augustus as the benign ruler. Good grief, thats exactly what he wanted everyone to think of him. Master politicain? There were occaisions when he stomped out of the senate with his tail between his legs, the senators taunting him with shouts of "Are you going to let us make a decision Caesar?". Look at his panic when Varus got ambushed. Where was the calm master politician then?

Long sightedness is not a faculty posessed by politicans. They adopt policies that will see them popular, or succesful, or personally well off when they finally get the push. Whether or not we all become extinct in a few generations rarely has any real bearing on politics. None. Our enviroment remains roughly as dangerous as it has always been, although it does mean that our survival as a species must be finite. Yes it could, though not perhaps in a useful capacity. However, I guess you mean can the species go on? Well... assuming we actually can do something to find new enviroments in which to survive then possibly, but in the very long term there's absolutely no guarantee of survival whatsoever. A meteor was observed falling over the Saudi desert in the late 19th century. A british explorer, who happened to be searching for lost civilisations in the area, made a study of the crater (I think it was around 50 to 100 feet across). The site was revisited in the 90's and has almost vanished. The earth has a measure of protection because of the atmosphere. Most impacts are very snmall. There was a recorded instance of a small rock (about the size of a large marble) that hit a house in small town america and ricocheted through the flimsy wooden construction. Not completely. The crater off the coast of mexico (the biggie that dropped on T Rex) has been located for instance. Ok, it was a huge crater with ripple formations around it, but that ones 65 million years old. There are craters known as astrons, the really really really big impacts, that can still be traced after billions of years. There's also a region in australia which seems to have been a target for meteor impacts (don't know why) and some of those craters are miles across. It probably makes little difference. Our perspective is very small. We live only three score years and ten and can only perceive the world in our locality, thus our experience of the world is necessarily limited. The modern media has raised our global awareness but we don't fully experience the images on TV as real. Also, this question assumes that by spreading into space we make ourselves somehow safer. Why? Because we can colonise other worlds? Fact is, we're vulnerable little creatures and the enviroment out there is none too friendly. Our new nests on other planets will very likely be vulnerable too. Humanity likes to be optimistic about such things - thats probably a good thing - but our expansion is not going to be easy if achievable at all. The engineering to send people to another world with a view to a permanent home is colossal, and our resources here on earth are finite. There's only so much raw materials we can use before our modern technological civilisation crumbles away and we all go back to surviving in the wild (and many of us won't survive that change). We are products of the ecosystem on earth. We like to think we can rise above that - that we're not animals, that we're somehow more superior, but at the end of the day we are still the same nasty animal we always were. That unfortunate inheritance also means that human behaviour will exist in our brave new worlds, and even if we do get our act together, discover some means of travel that doesn't take hundreds of generations, we aren't likely to be living in peace and harmony because with new territory comes competition. Also, given the difficulty of communication, its likely that one colony will advance far ahead of another and that produces all sorts of problems as a study of history shows. Socialism is all very well if a powerful government foists it on you, but many humans would soon adopt an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude, and there will always be those who resort to violence to grab the resources they need. Insurance policy? - There isn't one. Its a question of survival and nature has always dictated that the fittest should survive. Nature also dictates that a species who cannot adapt to new enviroments will become extinct. We are an increasingly specialised animal, and such creatures are always more and more dependent on the enviroment that suited them. Frankly, we'll be lucky if we get much further than we have today.

Not necessarily true. The garrisons were there to offset an external military threat but that does not mean the threat was permanent. However, it is true the men were already in arms before they were sent there.

I have a problem with the Augustus fan club. Now I agree he was a better emperor than many who followed, and that he went out of his way to appear a decent man (out of necessity too, he didn't want to be assasinated like Julius Caesar), but lets not forget a lot of this is anciient spin. Augustus made good use of propaganda. Notice his statues appear throught the empire as the marker of a personality cult. After two thousand years, the publicity department of palatine hill still sways opinions! We have reports of his public persona - the man he wanted to be portrayed as - but how much of this illustrates the private man? The man who before he was twenty took on all comers and grabbed the top slot for himself? Lets make no mistake here. Augustus wasn't given power by democratic vote from people swayed by his superior policies and debate. He took the empire. You either sided with him, against him, or tried to stay out the way. Wasn't it Cicero who planned to use the young octavian and push him aside when it suited the senate? Why else did octavian have a centurion tell the senate that he wanted to be consul or else? Thats aggression, almost a paramilitary coup, and certainly nothing to do with inspired oratory.

Wrong. The inuits are an exceptional people I've no doubt, but they live in an area of relatively thin ice over a sea packed with marine life. Now I relaise there was some opportunit for this lifestyle around the coasts of ice age scotland (and modern scottish seals are there because of this climatic blip - their pups are born white for camouflage) but the problem is such a lifestyle leave little evidence. Its possible, but no confirmation, and I doubt was there was a widespread culture of hunting like the inuits because our folk history preserves nothing like that. Thats clutching at straws I know, but the hard evidence is that ice age brits made use of temporary shelters built from whatever they could find or caves. The remains of polar bears and such have been found and these would date from times when the area was relatively free of ice but still very cold - during the change from warm to cold or back again? Most of these areas were low lying and prone to being underneath ice flows. Not all were according to my research though, and there are some caves in scottish valleys that show habitation in cold conditions. Now all of this means your arguement has merit but I have to say I doubt they lived the same way or hunted in exactly the same fashion as the modern inuit. I can't prove that - its just a gut feeling. I'm going back into the material I have on this and I'll see what I can dig up. However - the fact remains that during the ice expansions the british isles were very forbidding places. People tend to gather where resources are plentiful and the tundra of what is now the north sea bed (now called Doggerland) offered a far easier existence - at least for the warmer part of the year. That said, its all the more likely that these scots were present during the periods the ice wasn't. Is there any way of checking the dates with the find?

- Carthaginians (under Hannibal) Many of hannibals troops were mercenaries. Such men are often regarded as professionals (most often by themselves) but tend to be an undisciplined untrustworthy lot. That said, the army of Carthage relied on such men so there must have been a certain level of professionalism present. - Macedonians (after Alexander). Don't know. But after Alexander the phalanx was in decline if not gone surely? Since the greek hoplite was responsible for buying his gear in a very wealth orientated democratic fashion, they were the soldiers they could afford to be. I don't know of any standing army and therefore it they were an example of a levied army, responding to situations rather than sat in a barracks waiting for orders? - Parthians (under Surena). Don't know. Given the large numbers of tribal archers though, I suspect many fought for cultural reasons rather than pay, but I'm happy to be put straight on that. - Sassanids. Now the sassanids had evolved a sort of pre-medieval fuedal society. I don't know the specifics of their organisation but I suspect they served their lords in much the same way, out of obligation. Thats not professionalism, its a cultural bias toward service. Perhaps another forum member might know more? - Jewish (under Herod the Great). By and large, no. I'm not aware of any standing army in Judaea and therefore this would fall in the category of troops levied for a campaign?

Our ideas of elite military status are afflicted with the americanesque rambo mentality, the 'special forces', the 'mercenary' as a gun totin' hard man. Romans saw things a little differently. A man must show exceptional courage and skill in combat before elite status came his way, and the roman leaders liked to recognise such achievements as an example of roman military virtue. That I think is the key to understanding elite status in roman eyes. If you were the first man through a breach for instance - sufficient to earn you a corona. That said, the roman leadership wouldn't want these good men getting a bit full of themselves. They still needed to be part of the roman line and historically the romans moved away from individualistic combat. There are examples of men breaking away from the line in the days of the servian phalanxes and fighting heroically, only to be executed for 'deserting their post'. What do I think of the men mentioned? Well, I never met them, so its hard to say, but we're dealing with hardened men who may well enjoy violence. Lets remember that a picked force of bodyguards weren't necessarily there as elite soldiers, they were trusted capable men who would watch the leaders back.

No, there's no mistake, I'm talking about Augustus. How he behaved in power is one thing, but you don't get the top slot in the roman empire from scratch by being nice to everyone. Fact is Augustus carried out proscriptions like anyone else who wanted to consolidate power in Rome in a potentially hostile situation. Augustus fought a turf war and won.

Considering how intolerant Caracalla was as an individual his granting of citizenship was very much a way of widening the tax base. I don't think Cracalla had any intention of using that wealth for the benfit of ordinary romans, more likely to bolster his own political strength and fund military adventures. I also doubt that Caracalla cared too much how romanised people were. He wanted their obedience and servitude. Culture wasn't his subject at all. In fact, I see Caracalla as something of a man who really didn't like Rome at all. He was a soldiers man, someone who enjoyed military life and had little time for courtesy or ettiquette.

You have got to be kidding me. In britain during the last ice age there were cliffs of ice a mile high stretching across southern england - roughly where the M4 motorway is today. Thats accepted by researchers of this period. Now whilst I accept there must have been some ablation or break-away, the fact is the ice was a forbidding barrier with very little to live on up there. Yes, you can assume that, but thats only an assumption. That may well have been the case early on in the freeze, but in england the ice got very thick very quickly. We're much further north than generally assumed, somewhere on the latitude as Labrador. In conditions that are arctic to say the least without the resources to support them. Life on a freezing mountaintop doesn't strike me as worth the effort, nor are the remans of human habitation found there. Invariably the human remains are at much lower elevation in places and periods where the ice did not obscure them. The ice age wasn't one long freeze, there were warm periods in between and at least once britain had a climate similar to modern africa for a while. Now that I do agree with. Where I live, where the edge of the ice cliffs were, the terrain is scoured by ancient watter channels, now somewhat eroded and at first sight not too obvious. The Marlborough and Labourn Downs are hills that have been cut deeply by meltwater - northwards too in some places which is interesting and a sign that the end of the ice age wasn't a general retreat, but left huge buttes of ice in places. For brief periods, remembering that the glacial flow was building up rapidly in response to changing climate and falling temperatures. The glaciers were in full retreat from 13,000 years ago, and the floods from meltwater must have made travel into these regions somewhat hazardous. Most human populations however preferred to live out in Doggerland, the surface of the north sea which was dry land until rising sea levels drowned it 8000 years ago. Settlements have been found off the coast of britain, and remains of steppe animals regualrly get pulled up from the sea bed. In fact, people went upland into southern england mostly because they were forced too, as the living on the river deltas of doggerland was infinitely easier than land recently reclaimed by nature with sparse fauna and flora.

Arguably the worlds greatest politican? Now that I will definitely argue with. No, he wasn't. He was king of the hill, the survivor of a fight for the top job, which he did by the exercise of military power, by ruthlessness, by some guile, and it must be said, by some luck too. He didn't mount a political campaign as we understand it. A centurion marched into the senate and told them that if they didn't make him consul, this will... showing the hilt of a gladius to the senators. Is that politics? Arguably

I find your answer a little imperfect, to say the least. American colonists were not 100% british. French and spanish populations were evident in other areas than the east coast, which also had german and dutch groups. Romans may never have been greek, and its true they detested greeks more often than not, but their culture was based on hellenistic principles before they dumped their royal court. They weren't eventually hellenised, the western empire diverged from the hellenistic ideal toward oriental influences, although I do admit that the romans built their own culture on top of hellenistic principles.

No. Soldiers go where they're told. professionalism is derived from profession, your trade, your daily job. Wow, tough question.. Regular pay is an agreed amount paid according to an agreed schedule. Hope that explains it... Of course real life isn't that simple and soldiers have fought with late or non-existent pay ever since this innovation was brought in. That doesn't change the terms of service, it simply annoys the troops. Are you serious? You sign on the dotted line and your backside is ours for 25 years. How fixed is that? Roman soldiers signed a contract of service (at least in their later manifestations - the early roman armies were levied and therefore temporary). No, but the circumstances might. The huns were warriors by birth. It was their culture to fight and expected of them. They did so for status, peer pressure, and for the sheer fun of it. A roman soldier of the professional era fought by vocation. He had chosen to earn a living as a soldier of Rome. A volunteer for a war isn't necessarily a professional, but if he chooses to remain in the army after the war is over and everyone else goes home, then I would say he is. A professional chooses to serve, others serve because they must. Its all a bit of a grey area really and I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. You're dealing with a real world situation here involving service and pay and these things are changeable according to situation. However you might like defining things precisely you won't reach an exact solution. At the end of the day when you join an army for a wage you assume a professional status as opposed to someone who responds to a national emergency and does his bit for Rome.

Since there's some confusion arising from a quote from Livy, I feel its necessary to understand the differences between earlier roman armies. The pre-Marius armies went through three major stages. The first was theTribal Army which is the origin of the levied legion. Then followed the Servian Army, a hoplite citizen force copied from the etruscans, then the Polybian Army, the Consular or Manipular Army that served until the reforms of Marius. This is a quote from Livy. It refers to the Servian army rather than one of manipular organisation of three ranks of hastatii, principes, and triarii. Traditionally the romans adopted a hoplite army during the Servian reforms. Servius Tullius was the sixth king of Rome (578-534 BC) and whilst there's some doubt he even existed, he is traditionally the man who organised Rome according to wealth, something that lasted throughout the Republic. Therefore there's also doubt on his achievements, because Servius is given credit for every move considered a basis for the Republic since, and for instance the 'Servian' Wall, the first defensive work around the city of Rome, could not have been built by him because archaeology has dated it to the 4th century BC. According to the story, the Etruscans had noted that their treaty with the Latins had expired, and they decided to make war on them considering the unstable political situation in the court of Servius. Etrusca was already fielding a hoplite army and the romans knew of the hoplite system from greek colonies in Italy. Servius ensured that Rome adopted the hoplite system too, and we know that a army of this kind was in existence by the 4th century, although its likely that the conflict with Etrusca had brought the hoplite system to Rome by the mid-6th century BC. Part and parcel of the hoplite system is that it represents a citizens army, graded according to the ability of a man to purchase his arms and armour. Therefore we would expect the best equipped men to be the most scarce, and the bulk of the soldiers to have a bare minimum. The classification of the Servian army as given is based on the work of Livy and Dionysius, who agree apart from minor points. The problem for miltary historians is that the classification is heavily biased toward the wealthiest class with heavy infantry in the first three classes, meaning that the most wealthy people in Rome prior to the 6th century were the most numerous, something at odds with the norm for human societies. Both Livy and Dionysius it appears were working from the same information when they recorded the Servian army and they had assumed that each of the census classes had formed a line in the army, something which is difficult to accept militarily because of the tactical restrictions. One suggestion is that they used the structure of the Comitia Centuriata, an important voting assembly that preserved traces of an earlier military organisation, and reverse engineered the organisation of the Servian army from that, given that they probably had no other information. In fact, the romans had moved from a prototype manipular legion (The word legion is derived from 'levy', a temporary army raised for defence of Rome) to a more democratic hoplite form in response to outside threat from the Etruscans. In other words, it's more likely that the Servian reforms actually introduced a single military class able to equip themselves as hoplites, whilst the remainder took to the field as light support troops, the divisions of the Comitia Centuriata reflecting the intense class awareness of later romans. The army created by Servius is said to have been 40 centuries strong, later expanded to 60. Although the numbers aren't disputed, the timing is, but the expansion to sixty centuries is likely to have occured by the start of the Republic (509BC tradionally). Livy tells us that military pay was introduced for the first time, this done in all likeliehood to relieve the burden of equipping troops for a ten year war against against the Etruscans 406-396BC that ended with the siege of Veii. This was not a permanent feature of roman miltary life until later, since the army was disbanded (like all citizen armies) at the end of the war. There is no reliable source for roman military organisation until the mid-republic. To answer the question about the elite nature of soldiers, military experience was a part of roman culture, an expected rite of manhood and political credibility. Therefore, a man with more military experience might expect to have more respect than his less experienced peers. For that reason, triarii have a higher status than the other ranks, but aren't considred elite in themselves. The romans had elite soldiers within the legion, most often applied to the first cohort which was supposed to be the best, but the status of triarii arises from their experience and not wealth or any assumed social class.

I think reports like this are misleading. It gives the impression that settlements were permanent, when in fact these people may have lived there for a short period before being forced elsewhere by conditions. Living on the ice sheets would have been an extraordinary achievement. You couldn't fish - the ice was up to a mile and a half thick in places - so what else could you have caught up there? Now obviously people living in those circumstances would have left little trace. When the great melt finally came, any sign of their habitation was washed away in the huge torrents of water. Caves provide shelter - human habitation from these periods are commonly found - but they needed to be exposed in order to be useful.

Christianity was useful. Constantine for instance shamelessly used it as a rallying point, both in politics and war. That famous speech he made saying he had seen a vision of the cross in the sky and god telling him to conquer in the name of it. Also, his empire was crumbling under the effects of civil war, so something like a homogenous religion to glue it back together was a bandwagon he jumped on, even though he remained a pagan until his deathbed. Now simply because three leaders decided christianity was useful has no bearing on the feelings of individual soldiers. Yes, there were many christians in military service (and given later history, we see that religions sometimes invent excuses for warfare if its convenient - christianity has done that too) but then christians have different levels of belief. Some adhere strictly to the rules, others pay lip service to them. Many christians are such in name only, to fit in, and avoid controversy, regardless of how they choose to behave. Others refuse to stray from their chosen behaviour, and if that meant telling the centurion they weren't going to fight (killing after all is a transgression of the commandments) then he was going to do that. This pacifist refusal became an issue for the late empire when they were struggling to find recruits. Remember the monk Telemachus in 392AD, rushing into the arena and stopping the fight?

No, they weren't. They were a warrior people who settled whenever they chose, who fought without regard for regular pay or fixed terms of service.

Oh no.... No, before Marius the elite were either wealthier or more experienced as warriors depending on the demands of who raised the army in the first place. A new recruit is unlikely to be better than an experienced soldier. It just doesn't work like that. True, there were capable warriors from barbarian lands and sometimes men from italy were born with a talent for violence, but experience breeds confidence. Try it. Walk up to a calm tough guy and tell him you want a fight. Chances are you'll lose - because he has experience and confidence in his ability to beat the crap out of you. Experience is a vital commodity in warfare, I cannot stress that enough. Working as a team does not mean that your own ability as a soldier is irrelevant. Far from it. A better man can aid his mates, inspire them even, and raises the average skill level. The modern british army has a recruitment slogan - "Be the best". They mean it. Individual prowess is important as an example to those who don't quite meet expectations or are still training, never mind their effectiveness on the battlefield. You want an example of individual proess? Read about Horatio on the Tiber Bridge. That man single-handedly defended a bridge against an invading army until his mates could break the bridge and prevent the crossing. Given some exaggeration for ancient sources, thats still an awesome effort by a very capable man.

The average height was indeed a modern 5'4". The desirable height for a new recruit to the legions was above average, for obvious reasons. Nero, when selecting his special guard, chose men at around a modern 5'9" or higher. There were people of this size, and it should be remembered that germans in particular were known for tall height, like many barbarian peoples, due to their meat-rich higer protein diet. We're dealing in a violent time. Life was short, brutal, dangerous. People who lived back then accepted that as the norm, and and once someone of a greater size discovers the advantage of physical presence and prowess he'is likely to find his way into a violent vocation - Size matters! Also remember the size of the recruitment pool, and that at its largest the roman army (albeit fragmented into factions) ran to something like 60 legions. Thats around 300,000 to 350,000 men in arms across the entire roman world, out of a total population of 28 million (estimate for the late 2nd century AD). Not all of these men were of the required height given the need to find men willing to serve 25 years and if sufficiently impressive the recruit may have passed for service if a little smaller. The availability of larger barbarians was another factor in the employment of foreign auxillaries. People don't shrink because their diet changes? I'm not that well versed in human biology, but I'd agree that they wouldn't get smaller quickly! I should point out that there is a tendency for people to get smaller in old age, though whether that has any connection to diet I can't say. The diet in early life is very influential to your physical state in later life. Modern japanese for instance are often over six feet tall these days, whereas in medieval times not even close. This is purely due to improved diet. A poor diet restricts the capacity of the human to grow and lets face it, regardless of political correctness concerning food, a great many people in older times ate absolute rubbish (I'm aware how much of our modern food is too, but there's a lot of quality food on sale and modern hygiene requirements help a lot! At least we have the choice)

Salve, amici. Here comes Titus Livius explaining the military provisions of the Servius Tullius' Constitution (Annales, Libri I, Ch. XLII-XLIII): Of those who had an estate of a hundred thousand asses or more, he made eighty centuries, forty of seniors and forty of juniors. All these were called the first class, the seniors were to be in readiness to guard the city, the juniors to carry on war abroad. The second class comprehended all whose estate was from seventy-five to a hundred thousand asses, and of these, seniors and juniors, twenty centuries were enrolled. He appointed the property of the third class to amount to fifty thousand asses; the number of centuries was the same, and formed with the same distinction of age, nor was there any change in their arms, only greaves were taken from them. In the fourth class, the property was twenty-five thousand asses, the same number of centuries was formed: Property lower than this comprehended all the rest of the citizens, and of them one century was made up which was exempted from serving in war. This is division by wealth, not status, although I accept that roman terms its hard to seperate the two. A point I must raise is that the army raised by Servius was not permanent - as with all earlier roman armies, it was a levy of available citizens at the time. Now Servius does therefore allocate men with some regard to status for that reason, but the prevailing trend of such levied armies was to take account of experience. The most experienced men were in the last rank to bolster the line and conserve that precious experience until required. This is known to be a policy of roman organisation and regarding Servius' classification of troops by wealth, is this a 'one-off' situation or are there other examples of such division?