caldrail

Someone should have told that to Scipio in Zama or Paulus in Pydna. Why? The Roman Republic conquered the Mediterranean world long before the Marian reforms; the logistical and communication problems that you mentioned were clearly solved in some other way. No, the logisitics and communications were more or less the same. Its true that logisitics became the roman forte, but the marian reforms didn't change that aspect of roman warfare for the simple reason there wasn't the technological advances to do so. They did become better at it, more organised, but that was down to experiment and experience, not one politicians decree. Also, it must be remembered that some commanders are better able to inspire their men and have a more intuitive grasp of strategy and tactics. Scipio I understand was one of Rome's better generals. Notice his victory took place at the end of the war, as very often the better commanders rise from the background to replace the failures of the more politically inspired choice of commander who is given command at the start. This ability also impinges on logistics and communications as well as the battlefield, and it may well be that some earlier commanders were better communicators than those in laters periods for instance.

The treatment of slaves varied according to circumstance. Many were regarded as 'talking tools', just means to an end. Industrial and rural slaves were the worst treated overall, and conditions in mines and quarries did not endear themselves to long term survival. Nor did gladiatorial combat apart from those with talent for fighting. Yet some of these hard-worked slaves did have pride in their efforts - gladiators being the prime example, though it must be said the opportunity to become wealthy and succesful via their trade was well beyond that of most slaves. Household slaves are a little different, since the personal interaction within the house and its family meant that relationships varied from little more than a 'tool' to something approaching a friend. A pater might take a shine to a comely female slave. He had the right to bed her at will, and if so tempted, I would expect in many cases he had a sort of relationship with her even if in private only. The other slaves might not be so friendly to her though, and its a fair bet the mans wife will have her revenge at every step. Kitchen slaves might easily take advantage of the good food being prepared, and educated slaves might find an easy living as tutors. The reason that a slave would be tortured before his testimony was accepted in court was to ensure he wasn't lying. His owner may have ordered him to relate a certain tale and a slave would be duty bound to obey. Much depends on the personality of the owner. Some romans were crueller and less inclined to humanitarian thoughts than others. It remains a fact though that manumission was popular, so much so that it became limited by law, although I accept some of this was the desire to appear a generous man both in life and death.

LEFT! RIGHT! LEFT! RIGHT! Come on, get those caligae up!.... You! Stop slacking or you'll get the optio's personal attention... HALT! Right lads, five minutes rest, you may take a draught of water, Marcus Didius Bestias, FRONT AND CENTER! You've got dust all over your Lorica.. Get it cleaned, where do you think you are man?.... Right, FORM UP! Yes I know I said five minutes, I lied... Come on, come on..... Cohort! QUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuick... wait for it, wait for it.... MARCH!

Someone should have told that to Scipio in Zama or Paulus in Pydna. Why?

I did hear that in portugal there's evidence that the last neanderthals there gave up independence and sought shelter among cro-magnons. The evidence suggests they were living alongside each other and interbreeded (no reflection on the portuguese intended). Elsewhere the two species were pretty much at war with each other over territory.

"Men of the Legiones Augustus Magna! You have trained hard. You have suffered the blisters and abrasions of men unused to army life. So do all legionaries. Be proud that you have made it through basic training, for now we must fight for real. Our allied legions in gaul are shortly to be besieged by those hairy barbarians of whom you have heard. Fear not. They are not roman, nor do they have roman courage. We march now to the aid of our friends in Gaul. Let no man falter. For all of us who return to barracks will be men victorious, men courageous, and men with gaulish gold!" Ahh, now that should rouse the mens fighting spirit....

Some of the first, in the new arena i guess. Most probably they thought at important peoples funerals, and there were no real arenas as we know them (I believe) at this time it was more of sand covered spot. Gladiators were fighting long before the arrival of public spectacle in purpose made arenas. Private homes, gardens, forums, indeed any open space, was used.

A story. Its as simple as that. The historical setting adds colour and interest, and inevitably clever use of that era is going to impress if its done accurately. Drama, emotion, and conflict between individuals has been the backbone of entertainment since the year dot.

I sometimes play a very loud one, but I'm not that good

The only mistake that Marius made in his reorganisation was to allow the cult of personality to take precedence. To him, it was a perfectly acceptable means of ensuring loyalty of the army on campaign. Remember that ancient armies did not have the logisitics and communications that we take for granted today. They built some great roads (for the ease of military and governmental communication, not the public) and they had clever signalling systems, but that just isn't the same as being able to radio HQ and tell them there's a problem and could they help please. A commander in the field must be able to tell his men to stand and fight. His men must risk their lives in hand to hand combat with real, sharp blades at his request. Battles can be dangerous places. Lethal ones too. Therefore, the leadership qualities of an ancient commander are essential to inspire and control his men. Therefore it was logical that the legions swore an oath of obedience, and that the commander assumed the role Rome's representative. Where this system becomes unstable is the motivations of commanders whose ambitions are not the same as everyone elses. The old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely was never more true in roman politics. To quote a recent movie - "With an army behind you, you could be very political..." Might is Right in roman eyes. This was a conquest state, an empire built on the back of military threat and action even in republican days. Yes, diplomacy and trade had a part to play, but it remains clear that Rome's success was based on a relentless will to fight. It was a competitive society - very competitive - where people literally murdered each other to get to the top. It therefore follows that army commanders would inevitably be candidates for political power, and this was the primary reason why Rome preferred safe, sensible, non-extrovert generals who knew their place and were loyal to Rome's leadership.

Well... Some people were born, some died, some got married, some had parties and celebrations, some gladiators stained the sand, some senators did well, some didn't, some people got rich, some didn't, some people had a great time, some people went through purgatory. Don't make the mistake of thinking history is purely about the great men and women who made the headlines back then. Its true individuals make a difference, but then, we look back and there is so much we want to know about how people lived, even just the ordinary day to day stuff. To conentrate entirely on earth shattering events is to fail to understand the romans as a people, that they lived lives with all the domestic drama that we get today. Problem is, no-one thought to write about those things, apart from glimpses by satirists such as Juvenal. I've no doubt that Julius Caesar would beam with delight if he knew he'd be a household name that everyones heard of two thousand years later. But then he was an exceptional man. What about the remaining millions of roman citizens? I want to hear their stories too, only thats a little harder.

Can't see any obvious flaw there... Nice one.

So mysterious I've never heard of it. Not heard of that one either. Religious sacrifices or criminal executions. Whats the mystery there? The Island of Santorini, which was a volcanic cone, exploded following an earthquake/eruption. The reulting depression wave caused a devastating tsunami that took out the minoan sea trade, and their empire collapsed into primitive cannabalism. Its been well researched and I don't see any mystery there either. Ok... slightly mysterious, but thats only because its not clear what the stones are there for. No mystery there either. He has this romantic legend that has developed into the story that the heir of the locksley estate was dispossed and started a rebellion against king john and his tax-huingry minions. Its a great yarn but essentially rubbish. Robin Hood wasn't all that unique a name, there are several robin hoods mentioned in medieval records. The reason we don't know who he was is because he wasn't a great hero. He was a common thief, a nobody. Its that china thing again isn't it? It wouldn't suprise me if the whole thing was bunkum, but you never know, and it is an intriguing possibility. Never heard of that one. Mummification isn't unusual in ancient societies, so that isn't mysterious. The tarim basin was occupied by the chinese until an army from india made it impossible to stay there. Yes... A little bit mysterious. But then I guess the way things are going in a few years we'll be studying the disappearance of the Indus Vally.

I must group the Agmen Magna before I attack. My three legions will have to force march from Italia, Germanica, and Lusitania. Well they're soldiers aren't they? Do them some good. However, I will require some days for them to recover from the march if they are to fight at full strength. I am currently busy with sundry matters pertaining to this campaign - why can you never find good adminsitrators? - and I leave the matter of who is the bait to you Bryaxis. merely name the place and we will march upon it. Might I suggest a ruse to aid things along? There's nonthing to rouse gaulish recklessness like a bit of roman atrocity. Whoever is the bait should find a gaulish habitation of reasonable size and assault it without delay. leave enough bodies - I'm sure that will be necessary - but enslave the rest and keep them out of the way. Rome for instance? The slave markets are quiet this season. Then, ensure that news of this atrocity reaches their ears. Make sure they know it was but a small roman detachment. It wouldn't do have a entire province rising in unison. oh, and also ensure that we buy off the tribes who aren't so keen spill roman blood. lets divide and conquer.

The point is that Kirk Douglas was inspired to make the film after reading the Howard Fast novel, but it wasn't based on the book, merely using it as a starting point. In typical hollywood fashion, scenes and plots were changed with 'artistic license' for dramatic effect. It remains a cracking good film though.

Masks were worn by roman cavalrymen - there's a good one retrieved from Varus' debacle - and the eyeholes are a reasonable width plus it must be said quite close to the face, thus the view restriction probably isn't as great as the crusader helmet mentioned above. View from a helmet is very important. Notice that the roman infantry helmets were developed to avoid screening the senses. The face was open, and the ears uncovered. The romans thought this necessary to make sure their soldiers could see and hear what was going on around them. It must have worked because they persisted with this design for hundreds of years given a few changes in shape and style. I'm not sure if the roman 'sports' cavalry helmet was actually covered with silver or gold, thats a very expensive helmet and not something I'd want to have lying around on campaign. Also, I have to say that roman cavalry were very proactive in combat. Whereas more recent riders behaved with something approaching beserk abandon, roman cavalry were taught a very different mindest, involving complex manoevers, feints, and quick advances and retreats. For this reason, observation is very important, particularly since many of these manoevers were performed in close order and therefore require co-operation to remain in formation. It therefore follows that eyesight was not badly restricted though its impossible to deny that such protection comes at a price. Is it purely function though? Is there some religious element, or is the frozen expression of a face mask intended to inspire fear in the enemy, much the same way as samurai did?

I can see where people are coming from - a mass movement of disaffected tutors isn't at all likely, and in any case, Rome was sufficiently cosmopolitan to have a wide range of nationalities - though I agree greek tutoring was accepted as the standard. It is interesting that despite greeks being sneered at, their language and culture was nonetheless the bedrock of Rome's. However, I'm not thinking just in terms of teachers with attitude. I'm also thinking of a slow drift in education, where teachers might not be disaffected exactly but who tend to dilute roman culture over time, given that some weren't entirley roman to begin with. Toward the late empire 'roman-ness' seems to fade somewhat. No doubt thats largely due to immigrants living in ghettoes and refusing to give up their former national identity - much as happens today - but I notice this attitude also affects the senatorial class. Again, since many senators (if not all) were descended from lowly families, you have to wonder if attitudes were anything like the old guard of republican days, and for that reason were they so keen to ensure a tutor taught the same values that their roman forebears once accepted as civilised?

I have an intersting question here - what was the influence of foreign tutors? Now please bear with me on this. After William I invaded england in 1066, the norman overlords often used saxon childminders. This is said to be the reason why saxon culture survived under norman control (I suspect there are others too!). The point made by a talking head in a tv documentary was that these childminders, nurses, and tutors were usually oppressed saxons, who didn't teach the norman kids quite what their parents thought they would. They were, if you like, taking the edge off norman arrogance at grass roots. Now you can argue about that, but I wonder if something similar was going on in roman times? After all, many teachers weren't roman at all, and pedagogues were very often educated slaves who mught originate from any part of the empire and beyond and weren't necessarily keen on romans at all. Roman education seems very steadfast during the republic and early empire, but I don't see much said about it after that, though it obviously continued. Is it possible that one of the reasons that romans became less.. well... roman... because they were taught by increasing numbers of people with axes to grind or perhaps more with less roman civitas? Thoughts anyone?

They didn't. They declared war on their generals enemies. Loyalty was to the commander, not the state.

Incorrect. Although Augustus intended that the legions should remain battle ready (and indeed they were for a long tiime), part of an effective army is experience. You cannot get away from this, and the romans themselves in the consular legions reserved the experienced triarii at the rear to prevent too many casualties. Once lost, its gone, and can only be won again by more battles and casualties. Without battles, you have no experience. Operation Barbarossa was not a training exercise - it was a full on invasion. Territory equal to twice that of germany was occupied in the first week by three million men advancing coast to coast. Many of them were raw recruits, who learned much during the campaign, but then much of that experience was lost again when the 6th army surrendered at Stalingrad. The luftwaffe for instance had been ordered to launch an air offensive to stop the allied advance in the ardennes in december 1944. They succeeded, but the luftwaffe lost too many experienced pilots and by that stage were not training new ones. Result? The luftwaffe was effectively spent. The americans were held up for three days. Thats the value of experience. You just can't beat it, and you can't get it without fighting.

So then, we have two armies to converge upon troublesome Gaul. Perhaps we should imitate the success of your nemsis oh Caesar and lead these gauls into a trap of our own devising? Inform them that we invade and can be found at a certain place? They're only ignorant barbarians. Such a ruse will make short work of them. Especially if they are unaware of a second army....

We're talking about a period of hundreds of years, dozens of generations. The roman people had 'stagnated' as a culture due to the long pax romana. Without the constant need to meet a standard, any army tends to get a bit lax, and the roman legions were no exception. Immigrants, less feeling of public duty, and in any case, the increasing size of the govermental bureaucracy had taken away recruits from the armies leadership pool. As we go through the empire, fewer and fewer soldiers are italian, until the in the late empire we even see press gangs roaming around to catch them, or edicts that two men without thumbs are as good as one man with.

I sense a certain amount of spin by Otho, who probably couldn't have cared a fig about Nero. Nonetheless, Nero did retain some popularity amongst the masses - witness the near religious cult of a slave pretended to be him returning from the grave - and I'd say that Otho was hoping to gain from that by association. These days we call it a media event.

Yes, now the first legion is looking like an army... Whats that man doing there? Have him flogged, I'll have none that plebby behaviour in my legions.... Well, centurion, are the men shaping up well? "Yus, Master" Excellent. I'll have to raise the other two elsewhere... Spain. I'll raise one in Spain. Nice and close to the theater of war for convenience. Have my servants send word to the governor there, you know, wotsisname... And the third? Germans. Definitely germans. All big hairy men you don't like the big hairy gauls. That way I form a trident from the east. Oh, scribe, write a message to our beloved Augustus, Invite him to a passing out parade so I may dedicate the I Legio Augustus Magna properly. Ah yes, this time the gauls will taste the sourness of uttter defeat... "Yus, Master"

Its important to realise that the standard of discipline, esprit-de-corps, and training refers to the roman army at its peak effectiveness. It wasn't always so - long periods of peace reduce an armies effictiveness and the romans were not immune to that. A thoroughly brilliant book I found at the local library. I've since managed to get hold of a copy. Lost Warrior, don't worry about not posting first, if you've something to add to the discussion go for it.