caldrail

As an addition tio some of the points raised before, I refer to A Guide book to Arthurian Britain by Geoffery Ashe. Ambrosius Aurelianus (according to legend) is the uncle of Arthur and the brother of Uther Pendragon. Arthur is associated with battles fought in scotland and the north of england, yet its only the west of england that maintains traditions of his birthplace. Its also intersting that Plutarch relates a tale about britain, whereby a benign british god had been banished to a western island where he sleeps until he returns. After the christian domination of the british isles, this legend, now effectively forbidden to pagans, was transferred to Arthur instead thus we have the tale of the king who will one day return.

Just to add my own two sestercii... Simply for that reason. The roman forces need to be trained in roman methods and so forth - it all takes time and money. On the other hand, there are barbarians across the border with all the skills you need. So pay them, offer them citizenship for loyalty and long service, and hey presto, instant units. It was risky. Arminius, Tacfarinas, Spartacus, for instance, were all trained in roman warfare and used that knowledge to good effect against Rome. But then, roman units were not noted for their loyalty anyway. many rebelled or mutineed. One famous legion, the XII Fulminata, served with Zenobia's army in the Palmyrene Revolt of the third century. Then they have no-one to trade with, no-one to watch their borders for them, no-one to ally with or apply political pressure, and no ready source of extra troops.

From The Roman War Machine by John Derrie. There is continuing debate about the manner in which these weapons were deployed. According to Vegetius there were ten onagers to each legion, a scale of one per cohort, and one carroballistae per century, but it is militarily difficult to believe that they could have been usefully handled individually in this manner; the distribution provided by Vegetius may perhaps simply represent a legionary scale of entitlement. The principles of of concentration of force and firepower would by themselves have demanded that weapons of this category be 'brigaded' (used together - Caldrail)... Again, in the set-piece battle, as we have seen above (discussing Caesar, Vespasian, & Arrian - Caldrail) , it was frequently mustered with the reserves, to the rear of a mass of infantry, or deployed to protect the flanks. Thus, in each phase of roman war, in columns of march, in defence, in set-piece battle, in siege warfare, and in the assault, artillery weapons were grouped for operations, an entirely logical arrangement, since it is not easy to judge that a solitary carroballistae could have offered much benefit to the century

The impression I got from Tacitus's account is that one was recovered early on, the remaining two were located by the defeated Cherusci and recovered from where they had been buried. Its interesting that there's a difference in the account.

"So, Lucius, what of Macers command?" The tribune looked up from his paperwork and grimaced. "He raises cohorts of Crupellarii. Other than that, we know little." Venetius Felix raised his eyebrows. "So he wants to hide his men behind armour does he? Foolishness. They'll be tired long before our men, and less able to run away. More sport for the auxillaries then?" The tribune chuckled. "Well. lets ensure to fight on a rainy day. With luck his troops will slip and struggle to rise. We know how deal with fallen men! You know, Tribune, I believe Macer has made an expensive mistake. It doesn't matter. I have the warrant for his arrest. Send a dozen good men and bring him in." "At once Legate..." ------======######======------ Zabbia Mahaballath was in an amorous mood. The cool night air had refreshed her and so too, she hoped, her new husband. He was a strange one this roman. "Marcus..." She whispered, then pulled herself across. Her weight pressed upon his left shoulder - He woke with a start, groaned sharply, and pushed her away. Ralla fell back upon the bed for a moment, then he reached for her arm and held it in something approaching apology. "Your shoulder? It still hurts?" "Yes, it does... More than you know." "Ahh" She nodded, "Some wounds hurt long after the pain has gone. I shall cure your pain Marcus, you will see, but you must forget the wife you left behind. I shall do my duty for Syria as you must do for Rome. Why make it a chore?" Ralla sat upright and held her face. "Zabbia... The world is turning to war again. I have set myself upon a path and cannot turn back. I am swept along by forces stronger than my will to fight. I..." She pressed her finger over his lips to silence him. "Marcus, do not be so foolish. We are all in the hands of gods who bend us to their will. Or dark men brought back from exile by chaldaean sorcerors... What? You think I don't know? What sort of princess would I be if I played the silly girl?... Tomorrow we travel to the Wells of Afqa. There we shall speak with tribal elders and raise the army you need..." She leaned back and laughed out loud. "Marcus you are so ignorant! The Priests of Baal foretold that the Dark One would walk among us and rattle the Wolf's cage. And also that the wolf's cub would be mine to keep. Why else do you think I agreed to this marriage? My father was killed by Marc Antony - I have no love of Rome. Our destiny awaits my little wounded cub. If you treat me well - I will tell you more. No... Rest. We have a long way to go..." She waited for Ralla to fall asleep before she slipped from the bed and went to the window. The city of Antioch was quiet before the dawn. Zabbia knew peace was slipping away so she stayed by the window and waited for the sunrise.

Columbus blew the whistle. Whilst many ship crews may have sighted land in that region (or even landed) they hadn't told anyone for fear the secret would get out and some valuable resource lost to someone else. Cross-ocean trade was difficult then, and a possible source of great wealth - not the sort of thing to be shared. Columbus was after status as much as wealth, and chose to go public. He wanted a monopoly from the crown and the fame of finding the route to the east indies, the orient. As I mentioned, it seems even from the standard yarn that he was already aware of the existence of the landmass we know as the americas, that was the whole point of staging the expedition.

Sextius Flaccus laughed out loud at the antics of the comic gymnast, leading the applause and offering the man a donkey, so that he might not stumble on his way home. His friends appluded the jest. Livilla Piscatoria leaned over and plucked a grape from the bunch in Sextius's hands. He looked at her with a sly grin, she remained aloof. Ahh, the night was yet young... There was a rumour that Macer was gathering troops, but Setxtius remained unconcerned. His warrant for Macers arrest was already in the hands of the spanish legate, and very soon Macer would be joining his predecessor for a very special contest in the arena... Sextius gave way to temptation, dropped the grapes, and lolled over the couch with an unprotesting Livilla Piscatoria while her meek and mild husband gritted his teeth in the far corner...

The war with Germania is described in The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus. The story is too detailed to reproduce here, but it amounted to a revenge campaign by Germanicus for the Varian Disaster and the loss of three legions at the hands of Arminius. However, on reading the tale there are some interesting aspects of roman warfare in the wilderness. The ability of roman legions to mount military campaigns is almost legendary, and their reputation as invincible soldiers survives to this day. We know of course that they weren't, and this is highlighted by the ambush of the 17th, 18th, and 19th legions in the Teutoberg Forest. The terrain of Germania in those days is somewhat different than the farmland we see today. This was a temperate rainforest. Tacitus described Germania as 'fearful forest, and stinking bog'. Everything was against the Romans. The waterlogged ground was to soft for a firm stand and too slippery for movement. Besides, they wore heavy armour and could not throw their javelins standing in the water. The Cherusci on the other hand were used to fighting in marshes. They were big men too, whose thrusts with their great lances had considerable range. Annals of Imperial Rome - Tacitus Then Arminius ordered the germans to attack. At the head of a picked force, crying that here was another Varus and his army caught in the same trap again, he broke through the roman column. His chief target were the horses, which slipped in their own blood and the slimy bog, and threw their riders, scattering everyone in their way and trampling on those who had fallen. Annals of Imperial Rome - Tacitus At first Vitellius had an easy journey. The ground was dry or only slightly waterlogged. But then at the autumnal equinox, when the North Sea is always at its roughest, his column was harassed and confused by a northerly gale. The country was deluged. Sea, land, and shore all looked the same. There was no way to distinguish solid from treachorous ground, shallow water from deep. Men were knocked down by waves and dragged under. Pack animals, baggage, dead bodies floated about and struck each other. Units lost their identity. Men stood up to the chest or even the neck in water. Then they lost their footing, and were carried away or went under.". Annals of Imperial Rome - Tacitus At first glance then the Romans were out of their depth (literally) in such difficult terrain. Germanicus refused to accept this. Tacitus reports a speech he made to his men in which he points out that with suitable tactics even forest and rough ground can fought over by roman soldiers. Open ground is not the only battlefield suitable for a Roman. Woods, wooded hills, are good too, if he acts sensibly. The natives great shields and huge spears are not so manageable among tree-trunks and scrub as roman swords and javelins and tight fitting armour.. Annals of Imperial Rome - Tacitus Because the usual march and countermarch of continental warfare is difficult across such forbidding terrain, we see the romans evolving strategy to cope. In the spirit of revenge the romans target german sites ruthlessly, settlements or religious groves, commiting their occupants to the sword regardless of age or sex, but the domination of area was more important than discrete sites by the end of the campaign. At one point Germanicus orders three of his commanders to construct a fleet of ships to carry men fro m the coast upriver into the interior of Germania. Tacitus reports a thousand vessels were constructed (Officers were sent to Gaul to raise funds for these) of various designs. Some flat bottomed, others double ended for manoeverability. This was amphibious warfare in its infancy, yet it seems a wasted opportunity because the troops disembarked short of their destinations and resorted to bridge-building. Since the romans were unwilling to leave such bridges undefeded, this slowed the roman movement. Since the lack of roads meant that travel had to be made by circuitous routes or by watercourses, speed of movement was a vital consideration. The ability of the german tribes to ambush and fight in these bogs and forests was not lost on the romans after the Varian Disaster. With resilience and no shortage of stubbornness, Germanicus defeated the tribes long enough to recover the three legionary standards captured from Varus.

Be careful. Was the macedonian army simply paid for a campaign? The roman army after Marius was a permanent institution with units consigned to barracks when not campaigning.

Careful Augustus.. I sense a little hubris. Your arguement should carry weight, not your own description of your status and qualification. Plenty of people with letters after their name have made fools of themselves simply because they assumed they were right and could not be questioned. Actually I think your knowledge of astronomy is good.. But that doesn't mean you're right. However, since you've wiped the floor with my statement, dunked me in the bucket and cleaned off the dirt, I step back from the floor, sit down, and lick my wounds...

The republican armies didn't organise their troops by status, they did so according to experience. Hastatii in front were the least experienced and therefore the most expendable. The Principes were experienced and second. The triarii were the veterans and bolstered the line by being placed behind, where they were also conserved unitl the last moment. Those soldiers who did achieve elite status were given recognition by other means. Cronae (medals) for instance, or were grouped into a smaller category of those considered the best, but the organisation of the republican armies did not reflect this status.

Suetonius lists Julius Caesar as the first emperor. He does so deliberately, and for reasons I agree with. In the republic, there were checks and balances to ensure that no one man could dominate as an autocrat. Power was short, temporary, and by consent. What Julius Caesar did was not only to become Dictator (and thus autocrat by consent for up to six months), but dictator for ten years. This was a new precedent, but that didn't satisify Caesars lust for power and soon afterward he became dictator for life. That meant he was a permanent autocrat. The senators no longer had any route to power over Rome, because Caesar was in charge and wasn't going to move. It also smacked of royalty, something abhorrent to roman thought, at least for senior romans anyway. There was that incident at the lupercalia where marc antony attempts at least twice to crown julius caesar as king, and caesar steadfastly and publicly refused. A publicity stunt aimed at putting down rumours of Caesar becoming a new roman king. Did it work? Nope. As dictator for life, Caesar had all the power of emperor as we understand it. As previously mentioned, the romans did not use the term emperor. That is a modern corruption of the roman word Imperator, meaning military leader, a title conferred on a leader, not assumed by him. Was Julius Caesar the first Emperor? Yes, in real terms he had assumed that status by another name. In strict terms however he had been given a different title even though his power and status were essentially the same.

Yet on the plateau south of where I live, near the site of Wroughton Airfield, is where saxons fought the locals for control of the area. The remains, including saxon weapons, have been found. The hill-fort on the hill south of that was taken by the saxon leader (Bera) and used as a burial ground. A monk of the time writes that the saxons are 'a race hateful to god'. They did not mount a military blitzkrieg. What they did was colonise britain, especially after rising sea levels inundated their coastal settlements on the continent. They had become adept at using ships, and were commiting raids and acts of piracy in the english channel. We know they attacked the ex-roman settlement at Pevennsey and razed it. Once the saxons realised they could beat the brits they started expanding. It wasn't a short campaign of occupation. It was a slow intermittent take-over by people who wanted land for farming, or rather they wanted the land owned by the locals, and were preapred to take it by force. The vikings behaved in a similar way to saxon tribes except with a stronger emphasis on raids, and way back in the 300's BC the gauls had gone through a similar expansion albeit on land. This was a cultural expansion, by force if necessary. The result is clearly visible on the maps of britain as Pertinax points out, with saxon-derived place names everywhere.

Religion. It makes people do all sorts of daft things. No, the night was as dark as it is now more or less. But visibilty was usually better - weather and volcanic activity permitting, so the stars were more visible etc. A similar purpose, just like every other stone circle in britain and europe. The culture of the megalith builders is a curious one. Although a unsophisticated society they went to great lengths to create these monuments. Its pointless arguing that tribesmen just out of caves wouldn't waste time building them - they did - and we have the proof. Also, survival as a community is easier than survival as an individual. Think about it. On your own you have to do everything yourself, and much is wasted. As a community, tasks are shared, less is wasted, and more free time is available. You're going to have to accept that these people wasted time erecting a giant stone circle so they could tell the seasons, because no-one else could have. Their religious life was very important to them. Humans often build massive structures for religious purposes. Look at the vast medieval cathedrals for instance. Is that any less pointless? Ermm... no. The river flows past, not around, it doesn't flow particularly close, nor are there any signs of watercourses dug to employ the river defensively. Sorry, but stonehenge is almost indefensible. No evidence. Thats an opinion, but not good history and definitely not based on archaeology. Correct. They weren't. They are known to have competed for territory back then and that inevitably involves violence. Because they occaisionally fought tribal wars doesn't mean they couldn't feel close to nature or observe rituals. Didn't the native americans have a similar outlook on life? Ok, stick around and get murdered. The whole point of a hill-fort was a place to retreat to when times got tough. Most neolithic people lived in the surrounding area. They were also communal centers for gatherings etc, so they weren't just used for military defense. Thats because your theory isn't supported by the evidence. Stonehenge was not a military structure. Its design is not intended for protection, nor does the surrounding terrain show any sign of military work.

Describing Stonehenge as an astronomical observatory is laughable. These people were not studying the stars as we might today. It was a religious facility, whose rituals were intended to take place at certain times of the year and therefore it was necessary to mark these days. Human beings are good observers (even if their conclusions are sometimes odd) and they were well aware of the cycles of sky and season. All four events, solstice or equinox, were important. If there was any emphasis on one or the other we'll never know, but this druidic tradition survives from these times.

"Senators!" The powerful voice of Assinius Nepos cut across the general hub-bub of conversation. The talking died away with an occaisional cough as the assembled senate politely waited for Nepos to continue. "I think we all know why this session has been convened!" An eruption of agreement rose from the wealthiest and most powerful men in Rome. Assinius Nepos pointed with a scroll toward Augustus Caesar, who sat uncomfortably in the hostile atmosphere. "This man once came before us and told us he did want to rule as dictator. How we all begged him to remain in power. The threat of brutish Antony and shameless Cleopatra had been averted. The civil wars were finally at an end, and we could now look for someone to rule Rome in peace. I confess, like yourselves, my voice was raised in assent. Now - I raise my voice to condemn him!" Angry voices called from the Senate. Who called for or against? Rash men were at the forefront, others weighed the matter in their minds. "Senators! Some of us have had our children taken. Kidnapped! Houses broken into during the night, or pedagogues beaten and left unconcious.Where are the peacekeepers, the protectors, that Augustus gave us? The Vigiles? The Urban Cohorts? Praetorians? Has it escaped your notice, Senators, that many of these men are spending money liberally and sleeping off their purchases in whorehouses? Has it escaped your notice, Senators, that Augustus Caesar does nothing?" Assinius glared angrily toward Augustus with many voicing agreement. "This is intolerable! While our children disappear before our eyes, so do our provinces! Narbonensis! Numidia! Sicily, Sardinia, and Syria! All these no longer pay roman taxes, nor do they look to Caesar for leadership. While this man, Augustus Caesar, plays the conquering hero in Gaul a rebellion has broken out!" The Senate erupted in condemnation. They began clapping in unison. Assinius raised his hand to call for silence, and in command of the floor, turned to face Augustus. "This man thought he could buy off his generals with parades. We all witnessed Macer strutting across our floor like a stuffed peacock. Who has he conquered?... Senators, I put it to you that a tribe of gauls were deliberately slaughtered to take our attentions away from the collapse of the roman world. This man, Augustus Caesar, tries to fool us into thinking our lands and property are safe! And how we know they are not!... Yet one of Caesars generals saw things for what they were. Marcus Laronius Ralla, a mere haberdasher by trade. Such a humble man - who now works hard to protect Rome, refused the empty honour of a triumph. He chose to retain his legions. I have been told that he tries to secure Syria, while... this man... looks the other way. Yet Ralla does not assume the mantle of ruler. No. He has chosen to follow another, exiled for so long, exiled so unjustly, who has put aside his own grievances and works to save Rome from disaster. I speak of none other than Romanus Darkus...." Assinius noted the shocked hush that held everyone spellbound. "Senators... I speak of none other... than Imperator Caesar Romanus Darkus, Restitutor Orbis and Pater Maximus! Let us rally behind the man who fights for Rome, and throw aside the man whose mask has fallen!" Many in the Senate rose in approval and cheered. A few glowered from their seat, some left the Senate as discreetly as they could manage. Assinius stood with folded arms awaiting the exit of Augustus...

Meteorite showers are commonplace. Tons of material falls on earth every day. We have bits of the moon and mars dropping on us for instance. How? Because they suffer meteorite strikes too, and without the thicker atmosphere to burn these objects down before collision, and the weaker gravity, debris from these craters can travel into our gravity field. Look into the night sky (preferably away from a built up area with its light pollution) and you may well see the odd meteorite falling. It appears as a speck of light - hence the phrase 'falling star'. A meteor is essentially the same phenomenon but on a larger scale and definitely more impressive to look at, which is why it has its own name. Perhaps you might consider some revision?

I thought it might be useful to post a picture of a typical hilltfort. This is Barbury Castle, south of Swindon in Wiltshire (Its a country park and easily accesible) The hill looks quite shallow doesn't it? Believe me, it gets a lot steeper when you try to climb up there! This is a pic of Bincknoll Castle, a hillfort southwest of Swindon and little visited, which illustrates better how steep some of these hills can be. These are the ramparts of the fort. The earth is eroded since they were built thousands of years ago and somewhat less impressive. Also, the original wooden palisades are gone. For added interest, here's a pic of whats left of Waylands Smithy, near Uffington Castle (another hillfort). Although it seems a little unimpressive by some ancient monument standards, back then it must have been a spooky place.

Correct - it wasn't. It was built on a plain where there no terrain obstructions to viewing the rising and falling of astronomical bodies. Secondly, and somewhat inconveniently, there are't any mountains in that part of the world. Given that, and the fact that the nearest high ground rises a few hundred feet, it was unlikely that it occured to neolithic people that the view was signifcantly better at high elevation. These people were not studying the night sky as scientists. The sun was bright enough wasn't it? It was red at first then again late in the day. Was there any other detail they needed? They certainly couldn't have studied it with the naked eye. There are other alignments too which is why the equinox has significance. That was the whole point of stonehenge - to mark these alignments for convenience. Yes, but then you're not a tribesman in neolithic england who has genuine fears of what the english weather is going to do to your prosperity. The passing of seasons is a vital consideration. Agriculture was very primitive and hunting always a gamble. These were days when we still had wild pigs, bears, and wolves running around what is now pastoral wiltshire. These ancient people had a rich religious life - quite possibly hard edged - and these sites were not places of worship in isolation. We know there are tracks and paths between many of them. Truth is, we don't know exactly what the rituals were nor have they left many clues. This gives rise to all sorts of well-meaning suggestions. The prevailing opinion is that stonehenge was a place symbolic of death, given the offerings and bodies buried around the place, and that Woodhenge was within easy reach especially if they travelled via the River Kennet. Woodhange, as the name suggests, was built from lumber and wasn't a stone circle, and as I mentioned is believed to have been a symbolic place of life. Wiltshire has plenty of defensive works in the area. Barbury Castle, Liddington Hill, Uffington Castle, Bincknoll Castle (those are just the ones in my area that I know of) - all hill-forts with ditches and ramparts surrounding a habitation most often used in times of danger. The saxons took Barbury as a burial site - The name means 'Hill-top fort of Bera'. They also totally misunderstood Waylands Smithy some distance east on the Ridgeway. It was a burial chamber dating back as much as 5000 years, but the saxons decided it was a place worthy of their legended hero, Wayland. You see? Without knowing what the place was for or how it was used, the later people invent all sorts of theories to explain it. Logic has some use in determining things, but it might help if you study the surrounding area as well, for such sites belonged to communities who didn't simply exist in one spot. The archaeological record is just as important too. Without that, any conjecture has no proof.

Merely a nova I'm afraid. The star coughs and throws off waste material from the surface, resulting in a bright flare. Such things are rare enough, but supernova (The complete destruction of a star) is incredibly rare - I did read of one expert who reckoned there's been three during the life of our galaxy. In any case, an observable supernova had better be a long way off because the explosion has dire consequences for nearby star systems. So, are you saying that the Crab Nebula and such others are only the results of novae and not supernovae? I have to confess I haven't read any up-to-date stuff on astronomy for a while, so this interests me, Caldrail. From my reading years ago I always thought the main nebulae in our galaxy and others were the results of supernovae. Has research proved otherwise now? And I had heard that Betelgeuze (?sp) in Orion was going to be the next big supernova. Have you any up-to-date info on this? It's an unstable red giant, but will it be a mere nova when it goes, or a big blast? Its a question of scale, and many reports of these things are written by people who don't understand the difference between the two events. It may well be that Betelgeuse is primed and ready I'll check into this for you if I still have the info to hand. ------======######======------ No, sadly I don't have that info anynore. From what I remember there's only a limited range of stars that have the potential for supernova, and its not a sure thing that they will. For a general definition then, a nova is an explosion that does not destroy the star, the supernova on the other hand does. You are right though, the Crab Nebula is apparently the smoking evidence of such a supernova, although I understand a pulsar is still there in the center. Its difficult to appreciate how vast such an explosion is. Think of the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now make that bomb sun-sized, thousands of times bigger than the earth. Now make that a giant star, less stable than our own. Get the picture? Thats one BIG explosion!

Please excuse me for this - its a little off thread - but Columbus did not sail due west. Thats the popular story they teach in schools, but its far more likely he crossed the atlantic further south than presumed given where he landed up. I don't remember the reasons why he would have done that - sailing isn't exactly my subject and I can't remember the arguement - but doesn't the sargasso sea have something to do with it? In fact, if columbus avoided getting stuck then he either already knew about the hazards of being becalmed or was incredibly lucky in choosing his route. We now resume normal service...

The vikings did indeed colonise westward beyond iceland but the actual places are not confirmed. There's some confusion over the name. The most westward expansion translates into english as 'grass-land' which kind of spoils the north american claim considering their terrain is unashamedly forested. It simply isn't clear exactly where they went.

The romans had their own culture but it was influenced by the etruscans. Not really an extension I'm afraid although there is some commonality. The romans were hill farmers before the city was built using the valley between the seven hills as a meeting place between the villages. As I mentioned, the etruscans dominated the region - the romans voted for etruscans as their kings more often than not. I have read on these forums that the etruscans (being a little known culture these days) were not indigineous to the area. They also provided funeral rites that helped inspire gladiatorial combat in later times.

It depends. Roman military architecture was standardised for efficient construction regarding wooden fortresses - almost a flatpack product - but in deserts? The roman forts out in the sahara are very different from the stone and brick tile construction we see in europe, and large sections of Hadrians Wall were originally built up from turf. Local materials are likely to be used so its a fair guess there was local variety. Despite the often quoted point that the layout of roman fortresses were the same layout, under close examination it turns out that apart from a basic similarity no two fortresses are the same.