caldrail

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.

And so it would not be wrong to call their practice sessions bloodless battles and their battles bloody practice sessions Josephus - A History of the Jewish War This famous quote from Josephus sets the mood. These are men subjected to a fairly heartless regime where infractions of the rules can incur dire punishments. Life for the soldier is disciplined. Every change of activity is heralded by trumpet. They eat together, work together, and march together. Idleness is pounced on by senior men. The earlier volunteer armies had strict discipline, but the professional army of the late Republic and Principate was worse still. We see that the Roman people have subjugated the whole world by no means other than training in the use of weapons, strict discipline in camps, and practise in warfare Vegetius, A Book About Military Affairs Vegetius also records much about the training of a recruit. Double-weight wickerwork shield, wooden swords, and shafts were used in practice against upright posts twice a day, morning and afternoon. Carrying sixty pounds of weight (43 modern pounds) they conduct route marches and camp building. They should regularly cut down trees, carry heavy loads, jump ditches, vault onto horses, swim, and even run in full kit. In this way the men were strengthened and toughened. On route marches, every man was expected to assist the building of a camp, for mutual protection. Guards were poisted, and if caught sleeping on duty, then they would find themselves sleeping outside the camp at night, with only barley (an animal feed) to eat. For severe cases, a soldier might find himself clubbed to death for exposing his unit to danger. The optio, the second in command to a centurion, would march behind the men, using a vine staff to make sure no-one spoke or fell out of line. Vine staffs were used for flogging men too, and famously one centurion was nicknamed 'Give Me Another' for his habit of breaking them during a punishment. Not suprisingly, that centurion was murdered during a mutiny. It was a tough regime, and inevitably some recruits never made the grade, finding themselves dismissed during basic training. Deserters might expect to be thrown to animals if they persisted in this behaviour, although Corbulo ordered this sentence without hesitation. Tortured to death on a rack or crucifixion were alternatives. The discipline did not let up even in battle. Modestinus writes that the first soldier to retreat is executed in front of his mates. A soldier who disobeys an officer in combat is executed even if his actions are heroic. Famously, a general might call for a decimation if the whole unit serves with dishonour. One man in ten is selected and beaten to death by his friends. One can only guess how they felt afterward. It wasn't just the ordinary soldier who was subjected to this discipline. At the Siege of Jerusalem, Titus (the future emperor) was so angry at his officers negligence in guarding against jewish ambushes that he nearly executed the lot of them, stopped only by appeals from the soldiers themselves. Augustus is said to have disciplined centurions, requiring them to stand to attention outside his tent for long periods improperly dressed and holding clods of earth. Given this harsh way of life it shouldn't be suprising that soldiers found ways to avoid onerous duties. Having artisan or clerical skills could get you immunes status, performing light duties. Paying bribes to a centurion might get you off the worst fatigues. Such corruption was widespread and although efforts were made to eradicate such behaviour, it continued unabated. If there is a requisition and a soldier seizes your donkey, let it go. Don't resist and don't grumble. If you do, you will be beaten and you will still lose your donkey Epictetus - Letters collected by Arrian If he (a civilian) seeks redress, his case is heard by a judge in army boots and big, heavy jurors seated on heavy benches... The whole cohort is hostile and all the maniples agree to make sure that the punishment requires medical treatment and be worse than the original injury... So dry your eyes and don't bother your friends to serve as witnesses, since they will only offer excuses not to... Juvenal - Satires There's no doubt that soldiers got what they wanted. Bullying and stealing from civilians certainly went on despite laws to the contrary. From the descriptions given it was clear that officers took a dim view of civilians interfering with military business. Yet civilians made a good living out of legionary forts. Soldiers generally blew their pay on wine and loose women, no doubt getting drunk and violent in the hours of darkness. Although for much of the empire soldiers were forbidden to marry, many did on the quiet, and since their children were potential recruits in the future this transgression was normaly overlooked. Military discipline in the Roman legions was severe. Nonetheless, the soldiers generally had a high degree of morale and pride. But legions did mutiny if pushed too far, and if badly led, it was often the case that roman soldiers were indifferent and bolshy.

We've got silk, we've got cloth, we've got wool, we've got strange stuff from India, we've got poverty chic, we've got bargains, bargains, BARGAINS! Are we making sufficient sales Manlius? "Yus, Master" Excellent. My seventeen slaves have been sewing for 48 hours solid, I've got contracted slaves all round the city preparing garments for you wonderful people. Now then, since the coffers are building up, to more serious matters. Lets have a look at these new recruits my wife has been gathering.... Hmmmm.... handsome looking lot. Why are they all smirking I wonder?

The trouble with Nero's reign is there was so much skullduggery going on and therefore its none too clear who set the flames. Actually, the fire started accidentially, I'm sure of that. If Nero was guilty, his building regulations to prevent fire are perfectly understandable since having burned Rome to the ground, he didn't want anyone else doing the same to 'his' Rome, the Colonia Neropolis. The great fire was an extensive disaster - lets remember that ten out of fourteen districts were razed. The fire wasn't one big conflagration either - the fire started again on the estate of Tigellinus, Nero's advisor. A revenge burning? Whilst its nonsense that he fiddled while Rome burned - he did after all rush back from Antium and organise relief efforts - there is a likeliehood that he sang briefly when viewing the flames from a tall viewpoint as related in the story, and that I agree is well within Nero's melodramatic character. A suspicious person might believe that Nero arranged for the fire to start and then to have him rush back from Antium to organise relief efforts. That too is within Nero's somewhat scurrilous character. The Great Fire of AD64 to my mind is the result of a series of people attempting to utilise a fire that occured accidentially, as so many did in the tinderbox that was Rome. What we'd all like to know is who, but since the men responsible weren't going to stand up and admit it, we can only speculate.

Hey pleb... You lookin' at me?

Roman cavalry did adopt face mask/helmets, often known as the 'sports' model because of its slimmer design. A silver/gold mask/helmet isn't something I'd expect a trooper to use on campaign, so I'd guess it was indeed for ceremonial use, or possibly even with religious purposes in mind?

http://www.unrv.com/forum/uploads/11852987...78_42_62627.jpg As you see in this game screenshot, the typical formation was the quincunx, or the 'chequerboard' formation. The whoile object of this was to support the line in front and plug the necessary gaps between units. I should point out that the legion pictured is underscale somewhat - there should be six times as many men. However, the romans had other formations that they could use. Single, double, and triple lines were employed on occaision depending on strategy and circumstance. The cohorts weren't necessarily equal. The 'first cohort' was always the elite of the legion, often with a larger unit size.

*COMMERCIAL BREAK* Hi, my names Marcus Laronia Ralla, and I'm a busy fashion designer. In this fast moving commerical world I can't afford to sit on my laurels. For this reason I have now introduced a new range of tunics, toga's, and sublagaria, in sensational colours and designed for the young executive senator and his family. We're offering all new items on special offer this festival - its bargain galore! So come on down to Rall's Tailors, at a market stall near you. We're open all festival. Be seen in clothes that show good taste. Be seen in clothes worthy of an emperor! All clothes subject to condition - caveat emptor - correct change only...

I think it might be be a good idea to look at battlefield command. This is a generalised article to give the reader an impression of how armies were led in ancient Rome. The two following images were cobbled together from Total War:Rome. This first one shows a consular ('polybian') legion lined up for battle. The actual numbers involved in these maniples would be around six times as many, but this is just an illustration. http://www.unrv.com/forum/uploads/11852987...78_42_18048.jpg The front rank are the Hastatii, young men in their teens and early twenties who are about to find out what battle is all about. The middle rank are the Principes, about ten years older, possibly with a campaign or two behind them.Their position means they support the inexperienced Hastatii, essential to prevent frightened young men from breaking and running away.This principal is again utilised by the third rank, the Triarii, who are the oldest and most experienced men. This system means that the initial casualties are taken by novices while the valuable experienced soldiers are conserved until the last moment. The {i]Equites[/i], the cavalry contingent, can be seen highlighted in the distance on the far left wing. Another Equite unit is off to the left of the picture. There aren't any Velites in this army, the poorest citizens who formed skirmishers. Its important to realise that the roman word for their army, Legio, means 'Levy'. These are men rounded up locally and sent to war to defend roman territory or claim barbarian lands for Rome. At the end of the campaign, they go home. The second image shows a post-marian legion of Julius Caesars time. Again each cohort would be six times as large in real life. http://www.unrv.com/forum/uploads/11852987...78_42_62627.jpg This legion has assumed the Quincunx, or 'chequerboard' formation. There's no cavalry - Marius had decided that legions didn't need them with auxillary cavalry available. Indeed, there's no cavalry with this particular legion at all! The soldiers are all heavy infantry, a standard troop type armed with gladius and pilum. These men are professionals serving for a fixed term. At the end of the campaign, they go back to barracks until required again. When you look at these images, apart from the inaccuracies and restrictions of a computer game, there are nonetheless some important observations we can make. Notice that the ground isn't flat. Our armies are deployed but not with parade ground precision. As far the legate is concerned, he has already dictated what his general battle plan must be, and his junior officers line up as best they can, bearing in mind they might be in a hurry. In fact, his junior officers must be ready to show leadership and initiative. Roman commanders were keen to encourage this, because if you look, the ability of a general to control his army is limited. The men are spread out, there will be noises of fighting, shouting, and screaming. Although the roman soldiers were taught to fight in silence, the enemy probably aren't, and in any case a wounded man might call out in agony whatever orders he's been given. Why the gaps? Surely the enemy would simply get between and break up the formation? Actually no, thats not what happens. The gaps are there to allow the cohorts/maniples to change formation without encroaching on their neighbours and causing confusion. For the same reason, each unit is visually seperated. Neither the enemy infantry nor cavalry are going to be keen to enter those gaps. If they do so, the roman rank behind will close in and form a trap, so in reality an enemy infantry unit would attack head-on in most cases. Not so the enemy cavalry. When they threaten the roman line, the romans would close up and try to form shield walls to deter such attacks. Historically, the enemy cavalry would prefer to attack on the flanks of the entire army for that reason and also to retain the option to back out. Attacking the rear was possible too, and as we know Hannibal used that to good effect at Cannae. Once outflanked, a roman army is vulnerable and unable to outflank the enemy. Cavalry were very keen to contest the flanks of the armies. How does the commander co-ordinate such large groups of men? The roman army functioned by co-operation. When the legate is too far away or out of sight, the centurions must act together. Signals are essential. There's some difficulty involved in shouting long distances given the background of men marching, cussing, yelling, and hacking each other to bits. Flags are easily misinterpreted or simply not seen in the heat of action. For the roman legion, trumpet calls are the best method. A man can hear something like that above the din of combat when he's otherwise occupied. There are instances of commanders riding from one place to another to direct efforts. This carries a time penalty and renders the commander vulnerable to counterattack. In some cases, an order to change formation must take place. During his battle against the Helvetii, the rear line of Caesars cohorts wheeled and faced a new threat at right angles. What is interesting is that Caesar says - We changed front and advanced in two divisions - The first and second lines to oppose the Helvetii whom we had already defeated and driven back, the third to withstand the newly arrived troops. For a man so keen to bolster his own image it seems odd that he did not say I changed the front and advanced in two divisions. To me, this indicates that Caesar was not necessarily giving the orders, that his officers may have taken the initiative. Eventually two units meet and combat begins. In his Civil Wars, Appian decribes melee combat. They met together in close order, and since neither could dislodge the other, they locked together with their swords as if in a wrestling contest. If a man fell, he was immediately carried away and another took his place. The legionaries had no need of encouragement or cheering on, for each mans experience made him his own general. When they tired, they seperated for a few moments to recover as if they were engaged in training exercises, and then grappled with each other again. This is an important description. As they approach, there's a hint of attempted intimidation, and certainly they tried to push the enemy back on contact - an important psychological goal, so on initial contact pushing and shoving with shields seems likely. The men involved are obviously well-trained and react accordingly. They do not wait for orders, but act as a team. It also emphasises the physical aspect of melee combat, how tiring it can be when you slog it out sword on sword. The men are not giving ground, indicating good morale and motivation, none too suprising since legionaries were taught to be aggressive and relentless. At no time does the centurion egg his men on or threaten them against failure. He's busy leading the fight, an example to his men, and we know that centurions were often fatalities in combat. So what do we learn from all of this? A roman army in the field cannot communicate anywhere near as easily as today. For that reason, a legate might prefer not to complicate matters. Simple and elegant plans are the best way forward, easily understood by junior commanders, and not so easily undone by enemy action. Yet the romans retain a flexible approach, and its noticeable that their worst disasters often occur when that flexibility is ignored. They rely on the junior commanders to support each other, particularly since a general might not be aware of what is going on. Caesar for instance sometimes fought alongside his men in the front rank, a position from which battlefield command is all but impossible. Since the modern pyramid structure cannot function under these conditions, the roman army instead employs co-operative and well-trained groups whose officers act on initiative in accordance with a previously agreed deployment, depending on terrain and circumstance.