caldrail

In the ancient world, posing as someone else was a primary tool of subterfuge. Zenobia for instance dressed up a slave and paraded him through Antioch (I think that was the city concerned) as the 'captured emperor'. We have a slave pretending to be Nero long after his death. I like the plot though - Agrippa Postumus escaping his fate at the hands of assassins and struggling to regain his former status and inheritance. Free men did hide as slaves sometimes. In the reign of Augustus there were scandals about rural slave barracks that harboured men who kidnapped travellers and enslaved them, and Tiberius investigated these places, not only for that, but also because the same barracks were housing free men who'd rather not sign to a legionary draft. These men would rather pose as a slave then join the forces. So the attitude we find commonplace in the later empire was already in existence at the start of the principate. Or are we dealing with a deliberate 'false churchill'? That this slave Clemens was brought into Postumus's service because of his resemblance? Such a man would be useful in a dangerous political bearpit.

I'm curious about Postumus. I've read the passages in Suetonius/Tacitus and the quote above merely restates the same views. So what exactly did he do? Ok, the description suggests he was overly aggressive, rude, perhaps arrogant, and certainly didn't care too much what people thought of him. But there's no mention of any one event that shows him in a bad light, and given Suetonius's penchant for recording sensationalist gossip in particular, why hasn't his behaviour been illustrated by an anecdote as most historical figures of the time did? I find that most curious...

I'm not sure that the eruption being unexpected was the cause of Pliny the Elders death - even if he'd known the eruption was to occur, his scientific instinct was to investigate, and he would have sailed across the bay to have a closer look anyway. In any case, it was gas that killed him, a lingering by-product of the eruption rather than the immediate fallout.

Given they were sworn to serve and did what they were told, inevitably their motivations were bound to be similar and much less ambitious that they guy handing out orders.

Exuberantly fertile (clad in vineyards) and rustic. Regrettably with a solidifed magma plug firmly emplaced. Mountains grow for two reasons. One is that tectonic movement is compressing two areas together so like putty the rock is squeezed upward. Thats the cause of the himalayas for instance, as India collided with asia in prehistory, and releatively recently too. Thats a slow process. A much quicker one is a by-product of this tectonic movement, as volcanic pressure pushes up the mountain from underneath. Don't laugh, it happens. The same phenomnenon was observed at Mount St Helens shortly before it blew. Yes, the image of Vesuvius painted at Pompeii is romaticised to some degree. Nonetheless, the picture shows a pronounced peak. Now as to whether this is down to the angle of view or not I can't say, but looking at modern photographs of the mountain this sort of peak simply isn't there now. Was Vesuvius something like a third higher than today? It looks that way. No, they didn't, not being so erudite about the world around them. This is something we notice about humans, that they soon get used to the dangers of living close to volcanoes. The soil is often fertile and in survival terms, although a risky investment, its usually considered worth it. For superstitious romans, the volcano is merely an act of the gods. In fact, in AD79, the romans were unaware that Vesuvius was an active volcano at all.

The real trick to understanding romans, I think, is to remember that as humans they were no different from us. We are descended from them, our own culture is partially based on their principles, and even in a small way, there are bound to be similarities. I remember working for a japanese logisitics company in recent years. The oriental mind is very different from the west, as I discovered to my cost. I was told when I joined them that they were an alien species - How right that gentleman was. But the romans are not so alien. Sure, their culture, taboos, customs, andbeliefs are no longer with us... or are they they? I notice our wedding rituals are theirs, preserved by the christian church. We exchange rings, we carry our bride across the threshold in celebration of the Rape of the Sabines. The giving of gifts at Christmas is unashamedly roman. Our sporting activities have developed along similar lines to roman ones. Sure, we don't watch people killing each other for fun any more - our society wouldn't tolerate that level of cruel barbarity - but we still see wrestling, boxing, martial arts, football. These days we see conflict around the world served up to us on prime time news. We watch horror films containing the most horrendous pyschopathic behaviour, and overtly sexual material is big business. In a rather remote way, are we any any different from them. Not really. As people we still respond to the same stimuli, we have the same range of emotional responses. Given the technology and circumstances of the time, I don't see the romans as fundamentally different to us, we could be like them very easily if our society drifts toward conquest and hedonism - and lets be honest - isn't there a part of us that ever so slightly wants to be part of the roman world?

Excellent. Thats exactly the roman depiction I was thinking of.

One roman vs one spartan? Isn't that determined by the individuals capability in combat as much as tactics or equipment? Very difficult to answer questions like that and to be honest there isn't much to be learned from it. In phalanx marching forward the formation would inevitably skew against the wall of the tight pass you describe, so the spartans would lose formation and potentially a disaster ensues. In that situation, a tight shield wall and stout hearts are far better then attempting to push back an entire army, who need only allow you to march forward and eventually outflank you in one way or another. A phalanx cannot be totally effective alone - it needs flank support and the walls of that narrow pass are only partially capable of that. Fine if the unit is coherent but is the pass consistent in width? The correct width? Its unlikely. Put 300 romans there and outflank them in the same way as the spartans were.... Well, I suspect the romans would have fared no better in that case. Its a matter of initiative and response. If the romans were suprised by persians coming behind them then their fate was the same as the spartans.

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus? Tacitus reports this, but it isn't his idea - he's merely stating a common rumour that did the rounds. Perhaps it was just an ancient conspiracy theory - Augustus was indeed an old man and therefore liable to a natural death, but gossip was just as prevalent then as now and people usually less informed, so its inevitable that wagging tongues would seek to sensationalise the death of Augustus.

Course they would. But the target of the centurions attention would soon understand his attention is required.

A large number of defiant gauls regroup down by the river, tired, bloodied, and many confused by the sudden action on a misty morning, many left without weapons. Men of the Legio II Austus Magna surround them yet the command to halt is given. The gauls glance amongst themselves. What roman trick is this? A centurion shouts out across the silence... "Gauls! Our general will speak with you!" Ralla pushes his horse through the ranks of waiting legionaries, but remains level with the first rank. "Proud Gaulish warriors! Your folly has led to this. You have fought bravely, but for no good purpose. I call upon you now to see that your defeat is inevitable. You cannot escape. Those who run from our swords will be carried away by the river and drown. Throw down your swords! If you surrender with honour, then with honour you will be treated." A single gaul steps forward. A tall muscled man, scarred by much combat in his youth. "Never will I drop my sword to roman invaders! I spit on you! And if my death is to come, then let it be said that I died in battle!" With that he screams loudly, raises his longsword, and rushes forward. An auxillary arrow meets his shoulder, another his throat, and the gaul falls forward on the wet grass. He tries to stand, but his life ebbs away hopelessly. The gauls look despondent. Some clearly wish to end this and remain alive. Another gaulish voice calls from among the throng. "But what assurance do we have from a roman? One who attacks while we sleep. One who shoots down a brave warrior?" Ralla raises his hand and silences a rising murmur of agreement amongst the gauls. "We are the victors. Surrender now, or any survivors will suffer far more than that gaul on the grass before you!" There was a moment of thought, hesitation, and a few gauls call their surrender and throw their swords to the ground. A murmur of discontent is heard amongst them. The prouder men seethe and curse their fellows for cowards. "Centurion, escort the men who surrender through there... And centurion, that man who talked back to me, see that he is executed when we have them in chains" "Legate! Right then, Gauls, this way... Come on, come on, we haven't got all day" About a third of the gauls remain defiant, women and children among them. A few are already trying to sneak away, one man carried off by the strong current in the rive behind. Ralla saw their heart - he knows they seek to remain free gauls - and with no hesitation, Ralla calls for the legion to ready. The gauls see their fate, and wait no further, rushing forward en masse. The romans raise shields and meet their charge, a bloody melee where no quarter is given or asked for. The fight rages, the gauls pushed back, and at last a soldier raises a bloody gaulish head high and shouts "Roma Victor!", and a cheer sounds from the men. Ralla salutes his men, and calls for the wounded to be taken to the medics. He then turns and rides to the column of surly gauls being chained for their fate in the markets of Rome. One gaul spits as he rides past - this defiance will not be tolerated - and Ralla orders him bound and thrown to the river with his dead friends. Rome has conquered this place. Let gaul know that. A handful of gauls are taken aside, their right hands cut off, and pushed away into the countryside to spread the word of roman victory - that Rome will not be defied.

A centurion has eighty men under his command. Some are well known to him, either because of rank or long service. Others may not be known. They might be recruits, soldiers who don't attract attention to themselves, or replacements from another source. In many cases, the centurion will point and shout "YOU! SOLDIER!" - what other choice has he? "Ermm... Optio... Who's that soldier over there?... Oh you don't know either eh? Find out for me will you? I want him to stop playing dice and do some work" You see what I mean? Actually your question is valid and I don't know the answer. I'm going to assume until I know better that they adopted something like the modern practice.

Not necessarily. They're not going to keep hundreds of items for a single movie. Most large screen epics require costumes to be made for it (equipment too) and if they can source stuff already xisting, they will use it. If that means they cut a corner or two, then so be it. Large budget productions don't have bottomless pockets - a major film can easily run over budget if tight control is not kept.

I read with interest an article in National Geographic (September 2007) which desribed the history of of Vesuvius and its potential for a new disaster to come. Apparently a major eruption, bigger than AD79, took place in 1780BC. There was a minor eruption in 1944, and fears are mounting that the volcano is building up for another display of natural violence. What interests me particularly is the shape of the mountain. Clearly, a large part of the mountain top is simply not there any more. Roman art in Pompeii shows a wooded mountain with a pronounced peak - not any more. In AD79 a huge amount of rock was lifted skyward in the same way that we saw in the eruption of Mt St Helens. It really is awe inspiring when you grasp just how much of that mountain blew up. Regarding Spartacus, he is said to have hidden in the crater following his escape from Capua. Did he? He certainly camped on the mountain but there was more of it back then, and perhaps his campsite no longer exists? It is true the volcano appeared inactive in those times and I read somewhere that the only previous eruption was recorded as seven hundred years before Spartacus's time. It must be said the romans were warned. There was an earthquake ten years before that ruined the city, and even at the time of the eruption work had not finished to rebuild the place.

I doubt Caesar made much of his political plans to his men - they were soldiers, grunts, labour. They were there to do as they were told and had sworn an oath of service. In fact, Caesar was a capable leader who did inspire his men well, and whilst he wouldn't want them knowing exactly what he planned, he would if need be give them them a rousing speech with enough of an excuse to persuade to follow him. The soldiers of course knew Caesar was a winner. He had led them to victory, he'd given them bonuses and gallic slaves, and certainly in their conquest of Gaul there would have been a certain amount of booty amongst the victorious legionaries. Training and discipline in the roman legion of that time was very hard. We read of soldiers in the mutiny after Augustus' death who'd done thirty years service without hint of being demobbed. However, what remains clear is these men were also quick to spot weakness in their leaders, and if they did so they would soon revert to a lazy armed mob. The legions had a degree of esprit-de-corps but that was a feature accentuated after the reforms of Augustus after he made legions a permanent fixture, a 'regimental' system in other words. Back in Caesars time leadership was essential to keep men in the field and we read hints of how hard Caesar worked to maintain that. Remember this was a general who sometimes fought in the front line to inspire his own men with his personal courage. It worked. Officers who lead from the front often do inspire great admiration from their men. As for the individual soldier who wasn't happy about marching into italy, he also had a certain amount of peer pressure to deal with. many of Caesars troops were willing to follow him on this campaign and anyone who voiced disagreement might find his standing amongst his friends is changing for the worse. Also, if the malcontent happens to be a more charismatic individual who talks his mates around, remember that the roman command structure (Principales, Optio's, Centurions etc) won't want to see men in their command backing out, and would stamp on such opnions as soon as they were made aware of them. In fact, Tactitus makes it clear that in mutinies the centurions are the most frequent victim of the mens anger - "Give Me Another" was just one example.

For exposed corpses, the remains vanish after ten years in open air. Animals and nornmal decay soon take away the flesh, the bones disintegrate after a longer period. Regarding the buried remains, it may just be that the cemetary hasn't been found. Roman practice was to bury the dead well away from habitation, and in seperate areas for the underclass.

I thought not. The trouble with prime-time re-enactments of the romans on tv or the big-screen is that it suffers from a modern perspective. Have you noticed that in modern 'period' films the actors behaviour is almost invariably modern californian? The old attitudes, mindset, and accepted behaviour have gone. We sometimes find B&W war movies a bit stilted don't we? Yet many of those actors were in fact war veterans themselves, and in one or two cases, were actually re-living their past. There are exceptions - 'A Bridge Too Far' for instance, which does a very good job of being consistent with that period. This of course spills over in roman period films where the director or producer wants something visual that shows a certain 'alienness' in roman culture in order to give to appearance of depicting an ancient culture. So we see a clip where a wet nurse deposits her milk in a corpses mouth as previously mentioned. In order to depict romans with any accuracy (and we can't be exact - there's no living witnesses after all) a great deal of research is required and some effort by the actors to learn those mannerisms expected of roman citizens. That would add up to a verrrry expensive production, so instead we get these odd scenes or the unhistorical mix of gladiatorial equipment in Gladiator, or the easy-going brashness of modern interaction in Rome. Could they do better? Oh yes. Wiould they do better? Too expensive, and in any case the whole point is to entertain, not educate.

Slavery was commonplace in the ancient world. The middle ages produced a different version, the serf being a half-slave if you like. Our modern age is generally against slavery as a matter of course yet it still goes on today, possibly right around the street corner if you look for it.

Etruscan rites did indeed involve bloodletting of a violent kind, and therefore provided an ancestor for the gladiatorial games. However, it would have remained merely a funeral rite apart from the various influences that acted on roman society such as the need to impress your peers at funerals for political success, and the ever present background of heroic greek myth. Combat man-on-man is deeply buried in the human psyche and the romans turned it into entertainment rather than simply a reverential rite, thus the need to stage something more spectacular than anyone else produced an industry of astonishing size.

i will call that type of soldier as javeliner and i will not call them as heavy infantry. Please don't, because the roman soldier of the post-marian period was indeed a heavy infantryman and as a wargamer you really ought to know that. Bear in mind the large square or squared-oval shield and heaps of armour. Not lightweight at all, and calling them a javeliner is silly, because they relied on the gladius to get in and dirty once both vollies of pila had been thrown at the enemy. Are you serious? The whole point of skirmishers is not to get in close, but to wear down the enemy. The heavy infantry with sword and javelin on the other hand are trained for that hand-to-hand stuff. They didn't, as Polybius tells us, but that similarity is interesting. Roman words are not always as precise in meaning as we like to think. Catapulta and ballista are words used interchangeably for instance, yet a machine of this kind could be designed to fire large arrows or stone shot. By convention, we apply more specific meanings and as I'm all too aware, it can cause confusion. The same happens with cataphractii and clibinarii which have similar applications. The romans sometimes used these terms interchangeably too although we like to define the clibinarii as having an armoured horse for convenience, which was often the case. So does this explain why triarii and pilanus connection exists? I would suspect it does, since many roman writers weren't necessarily experienced in warfare themselves, and one major source (Vegetius) was writing about legions that had been superceded centuries before. Its rather like discussing AFV's and Tanks - we know the meaning, but in two hundred years it might not be so clear.

It was expedient. Raising a standard consular army requires that veterans are available as well as raw recruits. Marius was in a position where he was sent to relieve a commander in the field, without senatorial approval. Therefore he needed a way of raising troops to a required standard and he thought it easier to standardise a trend already existing in roman legions where the Hastatii, the raw recruits, were becoming the predominant part of troops available. Without having to fuss over details of equipment and organisational status, it was simpler to recruit en-masse and equip them with arms readily available and with expertise on tap to train them.

I was under the impression that the jobs of Legati and Tribunes was reserved to men of the Senatorial and Equestrian rank and the simply soldiers could be promoted at best to the rank of Centorian. As a rule, yes. There were exceptions however, and notice that only one man ever achieved that distinction during the empire.

For the record: Roman slaves were not Roman citizens; they didn't have patriotic duties. Not strictly speaking, but they were expected to act in their masters name who did indeed have patriotic duties. Subinfuedated duties if you will, and romans were very keen to see slaves do their bit out of loyalty to the master or the state if need be, provided it did not conflict with common decency, law, or task. As Cicero said when describing the courage of gladiators - "...If a mere slave can do this, then what can a roman do?..."

It appears roman gods were happy enough with sacrificed animals, and in any case, the spilling of human blood in rituals seems to be something reserved for slaves who didn't really matter that much. Caligula of course thought differently, and during one rite he beat a priest to death with a hammer or something like that, but then he wasn't particularly pious as I recall.

No wait!... Spare that gaulish woman. She'll fetch a high price at the ludum...