caldrail

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.

Caesar I salute you. My three legions will be The I, II, and III Legio Augustus Magnus in your honour. *pssst* Manlius, how much money have we got in the till? Oh dear....

Very subdued I think you'll find. Nero was kept in place by his mother, a very strong willed woman who wanted Nero as an obedient son for political purposes. If you notice, Nero's early reign is largely a growth of his independence from her. He consorted with a greek slave-woman, Acte, whom Agrippina loathed. He wandered about the city at night with his jack-the-lad mates, beating up passers-by and womanising, just for kicks. It was almost a teenage rebellion against his strict public life, a growing sense of his increasing self confidence, which was always a little shakey in the early half of his reign and the cause of his panic when the senate turned against him. Nero has this image of wanting the bright lights, to be adored by the public, a man whose childhood had probably seen little love or happiness.

Diagnosing ancient ailments isn't easy. The writers of the time are prone to exaggeration and inaccuracy. This means that all sorts of wierd afflictions get put forward - like with caligula's apparent illness for instance. Regarding Sulla, it reminds me of a program I saw on TV. It was about a vet in africa on a game reserve, and one antelope was in a bad way. A wound was infected by some very nasty maggots who were literally eating the poor creature, leaving a ghastly open crater in the animals back. Its tail was ready to fall off. Horrible. Had Sulla been in africa? Or had something like this passed by him? Its always conjecture and no diagnosis seems to fit the description exactly.

In a sense, the appearance of cataphracts and clibinarii was an ancient arms race. The balance between Armour/Weaponry/Mobility that we see so accentuated in modern AFV's was in its infancy then. These early experiments weren't always succesful - I'm thinking of the heavily encased rebel crupellarii that were pushed over and their armour hacked open with pick-axes by frustrated legionaries. I sense an element of this was the story of that ill-fated charge by cataphracts, where the infantry simply opened their ranks, let them in, then unhorsed them and bye-bye... The cavalryman is potentially very effective. hje has weight and mobility on side, plus the higher position of the rider gives him the higher ground. The approach of cavalry is intimidating, so infantry close up and attempt to present an inpenetrable barrier to prevent being overrun by the horsemen. Like other periods of military history, there's a balance to be met amongst troop types. Who has numbers? Who has weight? Who has penetration? Who has speed? Who can do the most damage? Who can intimidate more? And never forget, who can organise a better strategy?

Well Caesar, I see much puffing of chests and grandiose claims. I even notice a woman attempts to lead Romes finest. Whatever next! I've heard tales of wives nagging commanders to drill men on parades, but this! I on the other hand have genuinely led military men on campaign. I have stood at the rear of mighty armies issuing orders for the glory of Rome once or twice. Yes, it is true I lost the Battle of The Narrow Unnamed Pass, but is it not truly said, that we all learn from our mistakes? I will not regale this honoured company with exaggeratted stories of victories that exist in the imagination. Oh no, for I have suffered both the sweet taste of victory and the utter humuliation of defeat. I commend myself Caesar to the command of your army, by virtue of many years of military study and practice at the head of armies of many nations.

Only in the public eye. His 'image' was everything in roman politics.

Nero's reputation as a 'star' lived on. I don't remember the name of the individual, but there was a slave who had a passing resemblance and pretended to be Nero himself. It caused a bit of a stir and a popular uprising had to nipped in the bud, though in the end it was only worth a historical mention.

Bah! Macer is fat and unfit, an old man living on past glory. Aghatocles I fear will only succeed in rendering our army drunk, since no legionary can easily be parted from wine! No, Caesar, you need the aggressive instinct of a successful businessman born of a proud military family (Ralla sticks tongue out)

She wanted power. The most convenient method for her was to ensure her son, Nero, became emperor. Nero, as something of a mummy's boy, would do as he was told. That was the plan, and I'm reminded of a stone relief from turkey which has Agrippina fussing over Nero, and also coins from that period show them with equal status.

Well, despite his 'rock star' lifestyle, Nero wasn't a pleasant personality. The christians got a rough deal but then you have to realise the nature of their faith lent itself to persecution. They were divided amongst small secretive cults, all worshipping this judaean god (and not the emperor!), whose practises were rumoured to be cannabalism and drinking blood etc... All very disturbing to sane roman ears. There is of course this possibility that a few disaffected jews/christians did in fact commit an ancient act of terrorism that night as their way of striking back at the 'Seven Headed Whore of Babylon' (The seven hills of Rome?) but there's no definitive answer. Nero helped relief efforts out of duty to his citizens. He had a melodramatic side to his character and no doubt felt he should do something - 'My people need me!', and his self importance would never allow him to sit back and allow someone else to gain political influence by doing all the rescue wotk while he sent a message of sympathy from Antium where he partied with friends! He really felt threatened by the public mood didn't he? Such was the opinion of the plebs that he found a scapegoat - and that sort of thing is definitely within Nero's character.

I fell for the symbol? I'm only mentioning that the inca's did wholesale and pointing out that vikings are a potential source of the legend. Thats only because of the vikings extraordinary sea-going skills which we do know of. That doesn't mean that other europeans hadn't reached american shores before without common knowledge, either accidentially or by design. Columbus for instance may well have known exactly where he was going even if he mistook the destination as another continent. He knew the landmass was there in other words, not what it was. Notice how confident he was at pulling the wool over his sailors eyes. But like the vikings, its only conjecture. Its just something I find fascinating and enjoy discussing. If I wanted to prove the theory, I would have to back it up and to the best of my knowledge, such evidence is a little sparse to say the least.

Marcus Larconius Ralla throws aside a tunic and stands up. In the name of my illustrious ancestors, who fought for Rome, I too would do my bit.

No, it started on the evening of July 19th.

The need for power and status is part of human nature, and as social animals we often compete for dominance. Roman society stressed that instinct and resulted in a very competitive society indeed. Cruelty was common in the ancient world, although it seems extreme to our sensibilities. Life was short and suffering an everyday observable event. Agrippina the Younger was no different, but being a woman, she was at a disadvantage in political life. By nature she was an ambitious character.

He didn't. He wasn't allowed to. Augustus was heckled in the streets by people calling on him to bring her home. It was a rough judgement and many citizens in Rome felt it too harsh. In fact, Augustus did bring her back quietly five years later, letting her live comfortably in seclusion away from Rome. Julia was one of two things. Either a spiteful daughter who gave away her fathers plans for status and attention, or a complete idiot who did the same thing to remain popular amongst her senatorial friends. She was either a mischief maker or was being used by clever men seeking to make capital at Augustus's expense. Her story seems to paint her as something of a dutiful daughter who endured political marriages to please Augustus.

Nero has carried the can for this fire ever since it happened. As an anti-christian icon, symbolic of madness, indecency, and persecution, there have been willing coverts to the idea that he deliberately set fire to Rome. The story is that he wanted to rebuild it and needed some method of slum clearance, enjoying the spectacle by singing about the fall of Troy as Rome burned. Now when the fire originally started Nero was thrity five miles away, in Antium with friends. On being being told of the disaster, he rushed back to organise relief efforts. I seriously do believe that Nero was sincere in his efforts. Although he was getting a little carried away with his own importance, he was nonetheless very keen to be seen as a great ruler, a man upon whom the citizens of Rome to call upon to lead them in times of need. When he eached Rome, he sought out a tall building to view the flames. Totally in awe of the firestorm in progress, another story says that he was so moved he began to sing. I don't think he was enjoying the spectacle in any way. Far from it. That was his city going up in smoke. Also, it should be remembered that Nero could just as easily ordered slum clearance if he'd really wanted to. That wouldn't have made him very popular it must be said, and popularity was actually very important to Nero. As a typical celebrity mentality, he enjoyed and needed that adoration. The problem is that Nero decided to reorganise and rebuild Rome following the disaster. With thousands still camped in shanties outside the walls, there was Caesar marking out wide boulevards - and even worse - appropriating a large area for private parkland and a new palace. His original home, the Domus Transitoria, was damaged by the fire. His new home, the Domus Aurea, was so grand that he announced that at last he could like a human being. The mind boggles. Anyway, some of this rebuilding had beneficial results, as Nero introduced anti-fire building legislation. He didn't want a repeat of this inciident. It might be worth mentioning the superstitious nature of roman society. Whilst one great fire might be seen as a terrible event, another would surely be seen as the will of the gods? That the fire started accidentially is almost certainly true. We know that some individuals helped spread the flames, as if that was actually necessary. This was early summer, a warm wind was fanning the fire, and the city itself a recognised tinderbox. Unscrupulous landlors may have wished to cash in on a disaster. Rivals might have taken advantage to ensure that a persons property went up too. It might be worth mentioning that many senatorial homes on the palatine burned to the ground - these were homes where politics were made as much as the senate, a fact Nero was well aware of and a point in favour of his complicity. Also in the frame are the christians themselves. Nero blamed them for the fire as scapegoats afterward, burning them on the crucifix as lamps. In fact, so cruel was Nero's punishment tht many romans felt sympathy toward this secretive cult who rumour had it drank blood, practised cannabalism, and sacrificed babies. In fact, many christians were obviously innocent of any part in the fire, although there is some possibility that a few disaffected refugees from Judaea committed an act of terrorism. The biblical Book of Revelations, so beloved of prophecy seekers, evolved from political propaganda - it was a call to arms, a prophetic vision of Romes downfall. Is Nero guilty? Truth is, even if he was completely innocent of any part in it he left himself open to criticism by his grandiose ideas and lifestyle. On the one hand, he wishes to help his citizens in their hour of need. On the other, he builds the biggest, most expensive palace ever amongst the ruins. His senatorial rivals lose their homes and power bases, and the christians get burned for their trouble. I don't personally think Nero had any part in the fire. Perhaps some of his associates did without Nero's knowledge. There were too many people in Rome who stood to gain from misfortune that it comes as no suprise that the roman firemen, instituted by augustus himself, were prevented from fighting the fire by threats of violence.

The cataphtract/mongol comparison is intersting because it complements what I've said about roman cavalry too. Light cavalry prefers not to receive a charge from opposing cavalry if it can be avoided, and therefore you get a fuid style of melee where mobility is useful - even a lifesaver. Notice though that cavalry only charge head to head by doing so in open order. To close ranks is to present a barrier to the horses, and not unnaturally, they tend to shy away from collision. Mongols of course preferred not to charge home in any case. As horse archers they could ride past delivering withering fire without risking contact, and by remaining mobile present a more difficult target to enemy missile fire. If I remember right, the mongols used curved swords? If thats the case, then these weapons are adapted for slashing blows - the curve lends itself to a cutting action - which suggests they attacked whilst riding past an opponent rather than simply ride up to him. Given the mongols carried very little protection, it would seem beneficial to avoid melee wherever possible. A mongol charge might therefore be a sweeping movement alongside an enemy formation designed to whittle down his numbers before regrouping for another pass. This hit and run mentality is typical of ancient cavalry action. With the extra string of horses a rider has access to fresh mounts and can therefore remain mobile. It might be construed that these horses were there to offset losses in melee - it could work like that - but notice that the mongols would leave their fresh horses out of harms way, and therefore if unhorsed in melee, there's going to be some difficulty in getting back to the herd. Regarding the cataphracts, we see a different mentality. These men are there on the battlefield as shock troops. Their purpose is frighten the heck out of enemy infantry by making maximum use of their presumed invulnerability. The weight of armour that these men and horses carry tires them out quicker than lighter troops, and this is something that they had very much in their minds. Ancient writers describe them as attacking at the trot to prevent wearing out their horses. Against lighter cavalry then they have a disadvantage. The enemy can simply spur their horses away and leave the cataphracts standing. Since ancient warfare stressed horse-on-horse combat as a necessary stage of safeguarding the flanks of your army, this means that reliance on heavy cavalry is undesirable, and perhaps this is one reason why cataphracts were so often employed against infantry instead. The approach of enemy cataphracts must have been a matter of concern to infantry units, since their weight and reach was a definite bonus in melee, never mind their protection. It all devolves into whether the infantry keep their heads and stay together. Once intimidated and pushed apart, the cavalry assert their dominance. Should ligt cavalry get caught by cataphracts without an escape route - it could happen - then they suffer the same disadvantage as the infantry albeit they fight at the same level. This is of course the major reason for the mongols to avoid getting to grips with the cataphracts until they're tired, when the added protection is less of an advantage.