caldrail

Difficult to say, and we should remember that these artillery pieces were intended as siege weapons primarily. On the battlefield, they were usually immobile, which suggests a defensive battle is the best form of deployment and then on higher ground with infantry cover and support. The battlefield is a dynamic place so the utility of these weapons is limited, and the cases where we know they were used is almost invariably against an enemy position. In fact, I can't think of any case where roman artillery was used openly on the battlefield.

Hey NN, good to see you around! Actually, the impression I get is that most of these suicides were of an honourable variety rather than wanting to end it all. There are cases of people killing themselves merely for being accused of scandal rather than being found guilty in court. Societies with organised and ritualised family lifestyles sometimes show these tendencies. Shame, or the fear of humiliation, are sometimes strong motives for suicidal behaviour.

As far as I'm aware Lancelot is a medieval literary invention, a man who falls to temptation against his liege lord in typically medieval unrequieted love for the queen Quinevere (who is based on a historical character apparently). Thats the reason why Galahad exists in the story - a man who replaces Lancelot in the arthurian mythos as the pure and noble knight. Any claim of somewhere that it's connected with Lancelot in real life is basically talking out of a smelly orifice. That said, it would be wonderful if there was some older inspiration for the character.

So does life on this planet period. Some species are an essential counterbalance to CO2 levels if some climatologists are to be believed. We're not I have to say, but then I don't believe we have a right to expect a comfortable technological civilisation forever. We've done well as a species, but our survival is no more guaranteed than any other, and there's plenty of species that have died out because they couldn't adapt to changing conditions. Humans do have an advantage of course, in that we build our own enviroments (and we're getting good at doing that), but that depends on our abaility to exploit the planet. In fact, I think humanity as a successful technological society has a limited lifespan. I can't honestly guess how long the good times will last, and there's some real tests waiting just around the corner. What I will say is we've become a very specialised creature (at least the modern western variety) and that makes us vulnerable as a species. Nature does this. Creatures evolve to exploit the enviroment and become better at it until the enviroment changes, leaving the creature with little or no chance of surviving. In any case, the planet will change beyond recognition eventually. Our sun won't last forever, and as it uses up hydrogen stocks it will burn hotter, making the earth somewhat unpleasant for most species. Eventually the oceans will boil away and thats it. The sun will then swell into a red giant once it starts to burn helium (so I understand) and you won't believe how big its going to get. We might be enveloped by it! Or perhaps there'll be a very very bright and hot star filling the sky. Who knows? It all seems pretty bleak I guess but then look at the bright side. You're here, you're alive, and chances are you can do something to make life wonderful.

What we typically find in britain is that local communities like to get in on the act regarding legends. It gives local pride and offers an excuse to extract cash from easily impressed strangers. For instance, on Dick Turpins epic 12hr dash north to York, we have every old public house along the route saying he stayed there for the night! Where Arthur is concerned, we have a bigger problem, because the earliest records are so imprecise. His battles for instance appear to be fought here and there with no apparent logic to it, and in one sense I agree with you because the likeliest sites put forward are mostly the north of england or scotland. What muddies the water is the modern popular view of Arthur as a medieval king - well he obviously wasn't was he? That was an invention of Geoffery of Monmouth (or perhaps he related these tales by other unknown sources?), whose history of england is a little embellished by such invention. Now we do know that Arthur was given the title Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) as related by Nennius. This is significant and also more so that it is mentioned in a history of Wales, as our redoubtable warrior fends off all-comers in twelve battles. England at this time was not unified. Following the roman withdrawal we see a collapse into petty kingdoms within fifty years, survival of the strongest, but eventually the situation stabilises around seven kingdoms at the time of Arthur. He was king of none of them, and his legend is part of each. So, he was either a general much in demand, or he's being credited with victories he never took part in, or simply that someone was fibbing to sell a good yarn and the story stuck. As for being heroic, there's no doubt at all that Arthur was fearsome in battle. What he wasn't was a noble chivalrous leader. In fact, the older stories suggest a cruel and hard-nosed guy who wasn't going to take crap from anyone, and I think possibly his almost rebellious hot-headedness was the real reason he did not become a king. Revered by the people he personally saved perhaps, but loathed by the more sophisticated nobles who may have seen him as a coarse and dangerous upstart. Which is why he was made Dux Bellorum and tasked with defending Britain regardless of national borders? As you can see, there are many inconsistencies in this tale, which makes it all the more fascinating.

There was also Legion (using an established game engine) but that wasn't too good. Also there's a game featuring gladiators. I can't remember the title off hand, but don't try too hard to buy it - its rubbish.

Yes thats typically roman isn't it? One thing I must add to the discussion on mental health is the outburst of violence expected of legionaries, typically seen in successful siege assaults. Although the legions camped around the target often become bored and indifferent, once they get in the anger of their training and regime bubbles to the surface, and we see killing and looting that may not be encouraged by the roman leadership, but certainly isn't stopped. Its as if its the soldiers reward for their efforts, and the monetary gain is certainly of interest to the men. We have Josephus telling us that the value of gold halved in Syria after Jerusalem fell. Also, when the romas finally broke into that city, they began slaughtering the inhabitants regardless of age or sex. So many were killed that even the romans grew sick of it, and eventually decided to take the survivors as prisoners. Many were sent to Egypt as slave labour, the remainder distributed to the provinces for the arena.

We should also remember that roman artillery, whilst it was part of the imperial legions train, was also constructed on an ad hoc basis. We have Josephus describing some massive siege engines put together to attack Jerusalem which are far bigger than the standard items.

If Cato is correct and John is more accurate, then his account is arguably better because of the accuracy even if the early life is left off. Simply including the early is not necessarily of any importance or may it may be a later fabrication. In fact, by arguing that the entire story is related you are in fact accentuating a need for a good story rather than cold facts. Roman historians were storytellers first, and archivists second. They needed to be. They wanted people to read their books and there's nothing worse than a dry treatise that needs concentration to read. Theology is the whole point of why the bible survives to this day - it was a document providing a rationale for the belief structure of christianity, which is arguably a heretical cult of judaism itself. The early bishops of Rome were under no illusions about this faith, which was fragmented back then even more than today, and unashamedly used their worshippers as cash cows. Sounds familiar? It should. John is also supposed to have written the Book of Revelations even though he probably didn't, given the different style, and the only reason the Revelations still form part of the bible is that its been misunderstood since roman times. It wasn't a prophecy for the modern day, it was a call to arms against the roman empire. Lets not forget, the bible as we know it didn't exist until centuries after Jesus's death.

But thats necessary isn't it? With each modern sldier carrying the firepower of a platoon of 1815 soldiers in his hand, then he needs to remain as inconspicuous as possible. in ancient warfare, you generally see the enemy coming (apart from deliberate ambushes that is). From a long way off too. Now its true that ancient armies had missile weapons - bows, javelins, stones etc - but a lot of these are slow moving and in any case you carry a shield that may well deflect them if you're quick or lucky. Caesar complains that his pila salvoes weren't having the effect he expected - the quick-witted gauls merely sidestepped them and threw them back (a clue that the bendy tip wasn't always effective) Also, the big artillery of the day, the siege catapults, fired very slow moving missiles. At Jerusalem, the jews on the walls shouted "Here comes a baby!" when they spotted the bright white limestone boulders coming at them. Remember that missiles were often directed at the defenders or the internal structures, not the walls, particularly at Jerusalem where the walls were so strong that Titus despaired of getting in. In any event, the romans were forced to paint these rocks black so they were harder to spot. How do you spot an artillery shell? A guided bomb? A bullet? You can't. Whereas the ancient warrior was able to do something to further his survival the modern soldier instead must rely on better intel and communication to avoid getting hit. The mass effect of men grouped together is a two-edged coin. On the one hand, waverers are bolstered by the knowledge that their mates are standing firm and there's safety in numbers. On the other hand, if too many turn and run the general feeling is that its over and we'd all better scarper! Thats been true of warfare since the beginning and still rears its head today even with modern dispersal. Thats why Caesar sometimes stood behind a line, pushing frightened men back into the thick of it, or sometimes inspired his men to courage by fighting alongside them. In fact, a close grouped nit is usually finished as a fighting force before you reach 30% casualties. Human survival instinct is very strong and unless there's some resolve or strong leadership, the unit will break under pressure. Thats why cavalry was so effective. By threatening the enemy they become less willing to stay around and get chopped down. On the other hand, in some circumstances morale is bolstered by situation, and there's been odd cases of last stands throughout military history.

Whats often forgotten about industrialisation is that there were religious reasons not to proceed. Romans were very superstitious and creating a machine to do something a man cannot would have been considered an affront to the gods (especially if it didn't work or did something terrible0. Ok, there was always going to be romans who laughed up their sleeve at such things, and we know that some industry was in existence. There was a water powered stone cutting machine in one quarry for instance - obviously the profit motive succeeded against slave labour in that instance. However, roman technology was usually isolated. I don't mean the common or garden stuff, or the military items that once accepted would have been used by legions everywhere, but the really clever innovations are almost invariably limited to one site.

Notice that Onager, Ballista, and Scorpion are latin words. Trebuchet is french (although I expect the byzantines had another name for it).

It was late in the night when Marcus Laronius Ralla leant back from the pile of maps and notes upon the desk. He ran his fingers over his tired eyes, resting from his mental exercise. The oil lamp flickered briefly, its sombre glow lending a conspiratorial air to the tent. He listened, but the night had little to say. A few men snoring in the distance, the hooting of an owl. A peaceful night... The tent flap pulled open quickly as a dark robed man entered, his face hidden by the shadow of a heavy cowl. This impertinent stranger glanced outward, as if to check that no-one had seen him, then he yanked the flap closed behind him. For a moment, Ralla thought himself at risk. He tensed, his jaw opening involuntarily... The stranger lifted back his cowl. The grim countenance of Rome's nemesis, Romanus Darkus, nodded in greeting. "Gods teeth Romanus!" Ralla spat, "I thought you an assassin!" Romanus harumphed, pouring wine to a goblet and taking his refreshment for a moment. "Ralla, had I wished you dead, we would not be speaking now. I've had a long journey. Its lucky for you the wine is to my taste. But of more important matters. Our time is fast approaching. Very soon now we shall begin the work that will lead me to the Imperial throne. I have not forgotten what Augustus did to me... My revenge will be dreadful. And you? Ahh yes Ralla, our deal. Worry not. The East will be yours. I care not for that sandy wasteland and its petty tribesmen.... Well, have you a tongue?" "Uhh yes Romanus. Our deal is still on." "Good. Now listen. No-one knows I'm here. There's been a setback. Augustus has banished Julia to Pandataria." Romanus waited for the significance to become obvious to Ralla, then sighed irritably as he perceived the legate had not seen it. "Julia was our best spy. Augustus found out about her liaisons however, and I think he put two and two together. Still, we have learned much, and caused Augustus no small embarrasement. I shall have our men harangue Augustus in the street to return her... You never know, it might work." "And Postumus?" "Forget him. He's an oaf. Anyway, Augustus will probably realise he was involved and exile him too I shouldn't wonder. I'm more worried about Livia. She's sharper than the emperor and may see through our plans before they hatch. For that reason, we must move faster than planned. Did you speak to Nephele?" "Yes, but she hasn't said anything. I cannot guarantee she will remain uninvolved. Romanus... Augustus has something like thirty legions. I have but three..." Romanus thumped his goblet onto the desk in anger. Wine spilled across the map in semblance of blood. "Fool! Do you think Augustus will leave his borders unguarded? He fears the germans most of all. I tried to seek embassy with Arminius but he prefers to be king of a forest. It doesn't matter, he's expendable. He's already done what I required of him. With a bit of luck Germanicus won't find him. He's not the general the senate believe him to be. Look, we're not going to move openly until we must. Besides..." Romanus almost smiled, "We have support in the east. Palmyra can supply many troops, and some arab tribes are keen to throw off the roman yoke. We may be able to match the army of Augustus man for man." "So then... What is the next step?" Romanus leaned closer, so that he need only whisper...

To some extent, as I mentioned, but modern warfare is so much more insidious and sudden

Julius Ratus, sign here if you will. I lost one or two fighting those gauls, and there's always room for good centurions. Tribune, take Ratus to his new command will you? "YUS, MASTER!" Now I must study the maps... There is much work to do, and little time...

Well - fighting between human beings isn't unusual. Its actually normal behaviour, although generally it rarely goes further than pushing and shoving. We do that for dominance, sexual rights, or simply because we're angry at someone. On a macro scale there are other factors. Cultural survival, monetary gain, leadership/ambition, etc. In roman times, to pick up a sword and fight was considered something manly, not something mundane perhaps, but definitely an activity that a fit and healthy roman male should not shrink from. The greeks were no different. Nor were most of the barbarians Rome encountered. That was how you did business back then. For that reason, combat isn't going to have such a long-lasting effect. Where Rome differed perhaps is the extent they trained their personnel. As dehumanised soldiers there is a parallel to the modern day, and we know from the historical record just how violent and cruel legionaries could be. Modern training does exactly this. By harsh regime and strict repitition, men are moulded to a desired behaviour against their normal human instinct. We're getting very sophisticated about this mental preparation these days, but not so good at sticking plasters on these men when the fighting is done. Especially since we prefer a less rambuctuous society where ordinary violence is met with juducial sentences. In roman times therefore, men who had served as soldiers might be troublesome and potentially violent, but that was expected even if the romans didn't really understand the consequences of these factors. Today we do, but putting humpty back together again is more difficult, especially with the modern media and its often sensational depiction of world events. Whereas a roman soldier served his general and did what was ordered, now a soldier can return home to find his peers seeing him as a war criminal for doing his duty. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I don't pretend to be an authority on teasing out the historicity of the Bible, which is why I relied on Fergus Millar's treatment of the text. Although I'm not a Christian and haven't a religious bone in my body, I don't think that ancient history is best served by ignoring unreliable sources. If that's how we practiced ancient history, we'd have to drop Livy, Suetonius, and all the rest. Yep, understand the point, but the problem I have with the bible is that it isn't a history book at all. Its a story. Based on real events certainly, but then so are many novels, romances, and hollywood epics. Its rather like basing your knowledge of Spartacus on Kirk Douglas.

Its difficult to say who was the worst because Rome endured for some time and enemies came and went in many cases. The gauls were undoubtedly people to be reckoned with around 390BC (they invaded Rome) yet Caesar with one legion and a few mediocre allies conquered them. The germans were fierce tribal warriors yet it was only the leadership of Arminius that got them such a victory over Rome. The Britons kept more than a fair share of roman legions busy keeping the peace in Britannia, yet even with Boudicca's lead a huge army of british tribesmen were crushed by outnumbered romans. Spartacus gave Rome brown trousers, but even with his able leadership he was unable to compete with roman reinforcements. Hannibal ran riot in Italy but without a secure supply line he too was unable to compete with roman reinforcements. Shapur led a powerful persian army and threw the romans out of Mesopotamia, yet the city state of Palmyra with fewer troops than Rome had available pushed him back more than once. Leadership is a vital consideration. A well led enemy is something more dreadful than a few badly behaved and chaotic barbarians. Circumstance too - are you able to marshal your resources to defeat an enemy, or must you allow him to cock a snook at you whilst you deal with another threat somewhere else? In order to answer that question, you have to decide on the basis of longevity of threat and behaviour of the enemy. Its mostly opnion I guess, but yes, I agree Rome was its own worst enemy. Carthage must be considered too, because they fought three wars to a bitter conclusion in a struggle for commercial and cultural dominance. The gauls had a moment of glory - they weren't as strong afterward. The germans too must be seen the same way. I wouldn't overlook the persians. They were probably even crueller than the roman empire to their own subjects.

Wayland is a saxon name. Also, one of the reasons for the saxon land grab (it wasn't a military invasion, I'll accept that) was that the coastal settlements in europe were being inundated by rising sea levels, a process not finished since the end of the ice ages.

Not to the extent that we see today. Certainly there were men who liked violence and those who found it instrinsically awful - or anywhere between, just as we see today. However, the human psyche responds better to situations where we fight en masse with an enemy in front of us. In modern warfare, the risk of death is different, and more present in the background. You might step on a mine. You might be in the area of an artillery strike. An aircraft can drop a laser guided bomb on you without warning. A sniper can take you down from over a mile away. A parked car might suddenly explode. A civilian gift of food might contain a nasty suprise. Your enemy is camouflaged, hidden, and waiting around every street corner. Combine that with the noise and damage that modern weapons cause, you have a combat enviroment far less 'enjoyable' and definitely more stressful. I think in some cases you may have seen men with too many memories of things, but then again, that was a violent time and death was commonplace. The romans watched men fight to the death for fun. They watched animals being slaughtered for the same entertainment. They also watched criminals subjected to horrific executions. Ok, that was happening to someone else, but then this sort of thing was accepted by the ancient world as an everyday event and it wasn't just the romans. Remember how horrified the romans were when they heard the tales of what happened to the men captured by the germans in the Varian Disaster?

Its just playing with a name, because there's no literary tradition that associates Arthur with bears. 'Straws' and 'clutching' come to mind.

As speculation it can give all sorts of answers. Personally, I don't think the roman empire stood any chance of surviving that length of time. What we find in human societies is that cultures 'grow old'. They lose the dynamism, become stagnant, overly ritualistic, and inward looking. Roime's success, aoart from their penchant for organisation, was their willingness to commit violence to succeed. Now, in a position of necessity or strength, this is desirable (sadly), but in times of peace a culture can easily go off the boil. Humans like a certain amount of stress and we respond to dangerous situations sometimes in a very positive way - nature has designed us like that - its a major part of our social animal psyche and one reason for our success as a species (Violence is another). Without these external needs to pull together and survive co-operatively, human societies drift into a selfish hedonistic patterns, which indeed is what happened in the roman empire. The culture loses its edge, its combativeness, and younger, more aggressive cultures realise that they can assert themselves over yours. Again, this is social animal behaviour translated into politics and war. The young lion senses the old pack leader is past it, and rather fancies having the harem for himself, thus the risk increasingly begins to look worth it. Sometimes the old lion is still a force to be reckoned with, but that young male will be back. Interesting point about the old star trek series. The romulans were intended to be a sort of romanesque offshoot of the vulcans although STNG rather diluted that idea in favour of the Cardassians. Also, there was an episode in ST that featured a modern roman empire that ruled an industrialised planet.

Right. In ancient times the stars were brighter. Seriously. Modern light and atmospheric pollution has reduced visibility. They were looking for significant stars, not countless specks invisible to the naked eye (and their eyesight was in all likeliehood better than ours). Watching the sun/moon/stars was important to these people. That was how they measured time. It was a seies of phenomenon that they could not explain by mundane means and therefore something special, especially since the seasons were in unison with these observed movements. Some henges did have wooden structures, as temples they had specific purposes. For instance, Stonehenge was a place of the dead, whereas Woodhange (not too far away) was a place of life. Religious rituals between these two sites must have been very important to the people who lived thereabuts. There has been some excavation outside the circle, and these are variously explained as offerings, although some look suspiciously like sacrifices. The fact that someone found buried with signs of violent death means very little, more depends on the circumstances of the find and what was buried with him. Thats basic archaeology. Also, if a defensive site, why on earth did they create it on low lying terrain, and not the ridge to east? Neolithic forts were almost invariably built on high ground specifically for defense. Unsophisticated the neoliths may have been , but they were no less intelligent than us and knew full well the advantages of a steep hill. If defensive, what purpose would a ring of standing stones serve? Pointless. Better to build a stout palisade which is precisely what we find at contemporary hillforts. There really isn't any reason to believe Stonehenge and Avebury were of any military value, apart from the status of occupying the site.

Are they related? The reason I ask is that Garum made it to India, where it got reinvented as Worcester Sauce by the british (and reimported!) Perhaps 'Garum' also spread eastward too?