caldrail

There are some different variables on this. The situation, the terrain, the troop types available. In open land, scouting with cavalry is a must, and where possible the romans did this. I don't think they were any better or worse than anyone else bearing in mind cavalry were foreign auxilliaries in most cases, and at least they were loyal to the general at least to some extent rather than simply a purse of coins. In forests there's little possibility of cavalry scouts proving effective, because they cannot range ahead as usual and in fact might be more restricted than infantry in wilderness. Swampland too inhibits the use of cavalry for scouting sometimes. The romans did indeed encounter ambushes, and toward the late empire were setting a few themselves. Intelligence, as today, is vital to prevent these traps. The only way to get this information apart from your own scouts is to question locals, travellers, and enemy deserters or captives. Remember that Quintilius Varus thought he had good intelligence on the german uprising thanks to the information forwarded by Arminius During a ambush situation, much depends on the initiative and leadership qualities of the officers on the scene. A quick witted centurion might well save his command from disaster whilst a politically placed inexperienced officer, bored with military life and fed up of dealing with all this day to day nonsense isn't likely to react quickly enough. I'm not aware of any standard tactic the romans used in ambush situations, but its probable they grouped and formed up as quickly as possible - if possible - to present some form of organised resistance. The worst case is where the troops are seperated out and outnumbered in melee, because with limited reserves available at the scene it might not be possible to help them.

I must have been drunk.... :?

This was due to the use of local mercenaries, which inevitably comprised a large part of the carthaginian army in conflict. Before the hellenistic style became the norm, I'd expect many troops would have been less sophisticated tribal types.

President Roosevelt, 1936: "We shun political commitments which might entangle us in foreign wars". Gallup poll, March 1937: 94% of the american people want to keep out of all foreign wars. Gallup poll, (?) 1939. 99% of the american people want to keep out of all foreign wars. If Great Britain and France looked to the United States for assistance against Germany... The mood was not auspicious... History of World War Two, AJP Taylor. The Neutrality Act of 1937 prohibited the export of arms and munitions to all belligerent powers. Apart from this, powerful members of the Congress were determined that the United States should have no part in the european war. History of World War Two, AJP Taylor. I hope that the United States will keep out of this war. I believe that it will. And I give you every assurance and reassurance, that every effort of this government will be directed to that end. As long as it is within my power, there will be no blackout of peace within the United States President Roosevelt. If you elect me, I shall never send an american boy to fight in a foreign war... Wendel Wilson, 1940 presidential election speech In America we've had many reports of Germanies new government and in many cases this has caused hated demonstrations everywhere. I can now say to you that the American people today realise that these stories are untrue and without foundation. I find that there's a new fresh vitality here in Germany under your great leader and chancellor, Adolf Hitler, of whom I'm a great admirer. The new regime will live, because you have the best centralised government in the world today. American journalist speaking on a german newsreel. There was a strong anti-british antipathy in certain parts of the country. It was felt that Britain was trying to drag us in. There was even sentiment that England would fight to last American Norman Corwin, American Radio Journalist I haven't the slightest idea of european affairs... Let Europe fight its own battles... Another war - not for me - this time America should keep out and I know I will.... This war they start in Europe - I think America should heed the advice of its first president and avoid all foreign entanglements... American citizens on newsreel footage In the past, we have dealt with a europe dominated by England and France. In the future, we may have to deal with a Europe dominated by Germany Charles Lindbergh Our country was enormously divided. The America First Movement advocated isolationism... George Ball, Roosevelt Administration The American Nazi Party called for America to aid Britains enemies at a 1940 rally. Britains ambassador to America reported in early 1940 that nine out of ten americans wanted to keep out of the war. Business interests regarded Roosevelts moves to assist Britain and France almost as the works of the devil, because they saw no profit in it. Unions, until 1941, resisted war production and some rioting on anti-war sentiment took place. Four times as many american workers were on strike in 1941 than the previous year. A strike at North American Aviation delayed deiveries of aircraft to Britain for several weeks and troops were called in to end the action. I think that accounts for a lot more american anti-war sentiment than two individuals. Have I made my point? There's plenty more of this stuff...

The whole rationale of christianity is that there is one god, that jesus is is son (and the figurehead of the faith), plus a whole host of supporting characters who get some attention from worshippers. Since the roman catholic church descends directly to the earliest bishops of rome, they therefore can claim to be the 'true' sect from that point of view. I'm not aware if any other of the countless sects and variations on christianity are still around or claim direct descent. Perhaps the pope is trying to reignite catholic pride and importance, particularly in the rise of islam and other belief structures. Its all a bit worrying really because its exactly this political posturing that causes religious wars.

This is Dabulamanzi himself sometime around 1879. The 60's film Zulu is as close to the official story as was possible, although the real characters involved weren't the same. Stanley Bakers character actually wanted to cut and run in real life, and the effete commissary Dalton was in reality the stout courageous chap who insisted that the lads stand their ground and show the natives what the british were made of. It was in fact a political cover up, but the film represents the reported story very accurately indeed. Not african testimony? You might like to know that the african version of events agrees closely. The zulu's are a proud nation and in many ways justifiably so. The have an oral tradition of warfare. Shaka is held in awe and one should remember that he terrified his own people. It was only when he started to exterminate them that his fate was sealed. The same tradition remembers the british defenders of rorkes drift as fellow braves, a rare distinction for europeans, and therefore honours them as well as confirming the british account. Regarding the wikpedia entry given above, there are some inaccuracies. Originally the zulu's used a lightweight spear in combat for throwing, but as shaka noted, the spear wasn't damaging enough and the enemy might throw it back. So instead he introduced the assegai, the melee spear, a shortened weapon with a broader cutting blade. The image depicting the assegai with a european blade is wrong, and therefore the wikpedia account is misleading. The artist who drew the picture obviously hadn't seen a real assegai, and therefore drew a spear as he recognised it. An artists impression. Here's a pic of a fierce chappie from the period, a real zulu.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you there. Prior to 1941, America was taking a firm anti-Nazi stance: unlike in WWI, 'lend-lease' was limited to the Allies only; FDR gave frequent talks on how the USA was the 'great arsenal of democracy'; many political pressure groups (including many civil rights organisations) were actively against the atrocities taking place in Europe--the CR campaigner Phillip Randolph at this point was already talking of launching a 'double V campaign' (Victory over tyranny, and Victory over the civil administration); and come Operation Barbarossa, the USA extended 'lend-lease' to the USSR as she was now an ally of Britain. I admit that all of this was before Britain and the USA's 'special relationship', but you cannot assertively say that the US viewed the UK as just a neutral partner to sell arms to. Pearl Harbour was only a catalyst for further military support--in other words the USA would have entered eventually. Prior to 1941, the americans were sympathetic to the nazi regime. They admired the organisation, the dynamic qualities, and lets be honest, many americans were of german descent. There's a filmed interview with an american journalist who praises germany left right and center. There was an american pilot who flew german fighters and pronounced them 'superior to the british' though one wonders how he knew that. Roosevelt however wasn't so easily fooled. Against public opinion he pushed to allow lend-lease and thus become the 'Arsenal of Democracy'. I think roosevelt was more of a canny politician who understood that hitlers regimes wasn't as positive as the propaganda machine declared, and in any case, he had access to intelligence reports. Pearl Harbor merely a catalyst? I think not. America as a nation was dead against foreign involvement. memories of the horrors of WWI (even though the american contribution was eighteen months long) were still very much to mind. Roosevelt may well have been out of office if he started spouting warlike messages, hence his support for britain and russia. There was never anything inevitable about america joining the war, except possibly the u-boat menace sinking american ships. In any event, Hitler declared war on America (why?) and spared roosevelt the trouble. As for the japanese, they didn't want a war with america. Far from it. The raid on Pearl Harbor was to knock america out right at the start, and the famously late declaration of war was merely there to save face. A risk strategy that ultimately failed. They tried again at midway but the americans won and retained naval-air superiority in the central pacific. Stalin of course was caught up in his own political battle with the army. After the terrible failure to beat Finland in the Winter War the red army had nearly its whole senior officer structure executed in a massive purge that left the army weakened. It wasn't for nothing that Hitler said that 'one kick and the whole rotten edifice would collapse'. Stalin was well aware of the risk of nazi aggression. He'd signed non-agression treaties. But he didn't trust us either, so when we sent messages warning him that the nazi's were about to invade he thought it was a plot and ignored it. We were allies in name only. Thats why churchill kept on pushing for another front to stop the potential of russia pushing into europe in the event of nazi defeat, which indeed is pretty much what happened. Stalin was adamant that the allies should open a front in europe and relieve stress on his country. The fact that we only did so in mid-1944 only served to confirm his suspicions. The fact the D-Day invasions had to be so large meant it could not be launched earlier.

Brutus smiles and passes a goblet of wine to the twice dampened Doc. A bewildered Nephele is helped out the pool and given similar hospitality. What is water to me? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow I kick ass in the arena.

Not in this case. Shaka was a true psychopath who rather enjoyed putting his men through tortuous activities. He once got annoyed at his senior warriors, and had them dancing on thorns in bare feet for a whole day. His family were a little more sympathetic and asked him why he needed to do this. Shaka apparently shrugged and told them they'll be sorry for a day or two, then tougher afterward. Honestly, Shaka was a ruthless dictator in every sense of the word. After all, his family poisoned him because they feared for their own lives. The view of Shaka that we know comes from his own people. In fact, Cetshwayo raised his rebellion against britan in emulation of him, although it was his brother(?) Dabulumanzi who attacked Rorkes Drift. The film Zulu is very accurate in its depiction of the event, and the actor who played Dabulumanzi looks identical to the existing photographs.

On a tv program called Countryfile, the presenters talked about a roman fort at Melrose, in Scotland by the river tweed.. Once called Trimontium (Place of Three Mountains) its a typical roman fort and vicus. Something like three or four thousand civilians lived there, with a garrison of up to two thousand. There's even an amphitheatre there, a basic affair consisting of an oval depression in a hillside with evidence of a 'stand', a covered seating area very reminiscent of a football ground, in which rituals and parades were held. The significance is that the local experts say its the most northerly fort of the roman empire. Thats the view of the researchers. Anyone know different?

Given the roman penchant for bathing and personal hygiene, I would think it was highly unlikely they considered that washing hair was unlucky. It just wouldn't make sense.

Oh no. Brutus rises from the pool with a grin set hard. His eyes narrow. He strides purposefully forward toward Doc who realises the gladiator is about mischief. Brutus lifts her on his shoulder whilst she shrieks and thumps his back. Undeterred, he turns and deposits the good lady in the impluvium. Without further ado, he hunts down nephele amongst the partygoers. She too is lifted on his shoulder and... just as doc was stepping out of the water... has neph unceremoniously thrown to neptune. Ooops, sorry Doc, didn't see you there.... Brutus wipes his hands in completion of the manly deed and loudly challenges anyone to throw him in again. No? He laughs loudly and seeks convivial company where the wine is being served.

The second or third century AD still had a strong slave trade, although without wars of conquest the numbers of prisoners or war declined rapidly. Most of Trajans captives fought their last in the colosseum. The figure represented is being taken in a literal sense - that a bound man is obviously enslaved. Not so. True, it might represent a POW, but it might also be a criminal, and the figurine is commemorative of justice of one sort or another. It might possibly also be that the figurine is a religious symbol of some kind, since I find it odd that so many were found in britain as opposed to the empire, and that the slave trade in britain was never recorded as being particularly bigger in scale than the mediterranean. The fact is the report is second guessing the motive behind this artifact. It would help a great deal if the circumstances of the find were noted, because the surroundings of a find are often as revelaing as the find itself.

But that assumes the gauls were a static society, not changing in any way, which to me is nonsense. All societies evolve in one way or another as a new generation shifts emphasis. Rome might have been a supeerpower but remember that caesar was working alone with the legions he had. There was no overt senatorial support nor military support for a campaign in gaul - it was caesar mounting a ten year expedition for military glory on his own cognizance. The gauls on the other hand hardly mounted any resistance at all until it was too late. They were disunited and clearly not spoiling for a fight. I'm reminded of the descriptions given by caesar and tacitus. For instance, caesars gaulish allies, the aedui, were especially fond of their expensive warhorses and wouldn't risk them as when they encountered a smaller group of german raiders who set the gauls to flight by throwing stones. In fact, these aedui had made a living (which paid for these horses) by banditry, extorting tolls from travellers. Not very honourabble for a warrior society, and certainly not the behaviour we see in the 390's BC when the gauls expanded across europe violently. Warrior cultures seem to go through such an expansive phase. Whilst they fight or raid each other, they remain in check by each others rivalry. Once they get organised, either by consent or because of charismatic leaders, then there's little to do but fight someone else, and since everyone else is not as practised in warfare the warrior society expands by conquest. Once they grab the best land it all fizzles out. The vikings, saxons et al all behaved similarly. The gauls of the earlier period were therefore much 'harder' and accustomed to fighting. The gauls of caesars period were settled and less keen to take up arms. Partly this was due to the actions of roman traders, 'seducing' the gauls with luxury goods, but also because without internal conflict the gauls had indeed gone soft.

teach rhetoric in schools? Brilliant. Now the kids can talk back to their teachers and avoid punishment by way of clever arguement...

Be cool? Hun, I'm a gladiator. How cool is that? A wicked grin crosses the face of Brutus....

Much depended on individual personality I imagine. A greedy and unscruplous senator might hold dignity very important, but pay lip service to honour. A legionary officer from a military family might instead hold honour as paramount, but virtue might be seen as an obstacle to the very practical mindset of serving soldiers. Roman virtue was more important in the republic. Life was more austere, and in an odd sort of parallel with the 1950's, many people might have felt life was better, despite the more restrictive moral expectations. Once the civil wars were over peace and prosperity followed. Ok, not everyone wealthy by any means, but there was enough propserity to exploit if you had any commercial savvy, and many romans did. The empire let the roman hair down so to speak, and again, in an odd sort of parallel with the 60's, a lighter mood emerged and as usual with human societies moral codes evaporate in an atmosphere of plentiful entertainment and personal hedonism.

Sorry, but I disagree. I'm sure there would have been caravans across North Africa selling goods of all sorts, including slaves. The Sahara was, as has been pointed out, savannah as well as desert, and not as inhospitable as today. As for camels, Caesar introduced them to Africa in the first century BC. Camel bones have been found in Ostia and there is a VIVARIUM or animal holding area just south of Ostia (for beasts brough from North Africa for the arena in Rome). There is, I believe, a Roman toy camel in the British Museum. Also my characters travel by camel caravan from Sabratha to Volubilis in my forthcoming book... so that proves it! Flavia Not across the interior. Along the coast or the nile certainly, but the romans regarded the interior of the sahara as inpenetrable and horses/oxen/donkeys weren't up to the job. In roman times the desert was well in evidence, and whilst I accept your point about grassland, these areas were found on the periphery, not the center. The only reason nomads were able to survive on the arid border was the presence of oases, these are in short supply as you get further in. There's no historical record of trans-saharan trade that I'm aware of, and what trade existed with more southerly parts of africa was either by ship of egyptian barge. Addendum - The only trade routes that I've found go around the sahara, not across it. There wasn't much to trade on the southern edge and I don't think the romans were aware of anyone living down there. The inhabitants of what is now Chad traded east with a christian nubian kingdom called Alwa, somewhere in the sudan area during the late empire/byzantine era. There is however mention of roman exploratory missions into the desert but apparently all they found were 'troglodytes' (presumably cave dwelling tribesmen) whom they had a confrontation with. Also, dromedarii are recorded in egypt around 150AD, but apart from a few agricultural animals introduced by the romans from the middle east they were not widespread in north africa until later periods. The Roman World by John Wacher has a chapter on roman north africa and egypt, although it emphasises strategic concerns.

Anyone selling beliefs to another is a potential quack. Most religions have a fair few in their ranks and christianity is no exception.

Brutus puts down the panther. The great beast rolls on its side and rests. He hears a comment about a spear in buttocks and almost falls for the gag. Hmmm... a joker eh?...

No not really. If the north african agriculture produced surplus then they could easily feed themselves and seek markets regardless of whether the city of rome demanded it all. Granted there would have been an economic decline because foodstuffs wasn't going to get sold in the shortterm, but I don't read this in history. Africa doesn't seem to suffer the market collapse you'd expect, but then they had a large population and it could survive alone quite happily. The invasion of the vandals doesn't seem to have caused any long term upset either, since they were keen to live off the prosperity of the african coast.

Agreed, but the decision on whether to fight to the last or commit mass suicide occurs when all alternatives have run out. For the jews at Masada, the roman assault had begun and the jews knew they weren't going to take prisoners. For them, a more dignified way out seemed important. They chose their own way of death rather than having the romans exact whatever punishment they chose.

Ahh now this is more like it. Vossler has dedicated a section of text to his memories of the march home. Most of the army struggled homeward in large groups of mixed type and nation, since the risk of stragglers being picked off was very real. So was the cold. Vossler witnesses many people with exposed fingers and toes suffering frostbite and amputation because of it. Very unpleasant, and the worst side of human nature soon emerges. Some soldiers take clothes off the dead as you might expect, but they also do this to others they deem as unable to stop them, leaving them for dead. Any source of food is pounced on and no living (or even dead in some cases) beast escapes the cooking fire. Vossler doesn't say it, but the text suggests that a small minority were resorting to cannabalism. Dead soldiers are used as seats around the fire - there's no longer any room for sentimentality. Villages offered valuable shelter and everyone crowds into whatever buildings they can find. Stronger men form gangs and evict the weaker. Sometimes buildings are simply set on fire to provide warmth. There you have it. The winter of 1812 was no worse than anything normal experienced in russia, but not the sort of place to be caught without protection.

Shaka of course was long gone by the time the zulu's fought our lads at Rorkes Drift. He was something of a merciless tyrant too, eventually bumped off by his own family, a real nasty headcase. I haven't seen any assegai with euro-style blades and that description is the first time I've come across them. However, photographs of zulu's from the Rorkes Drift era show the more primitive and more easily mass produced leaf shaped blade. Also by that period there was a tendency toward elaborate headdresses, even for battle. The idea was that it helped camouflage the zulu in long grass, though I suspect status also had something to do with it as most photographs show the double head ring.

Julius Caesar might be described as an increasingly influential independent politician. An outsider with frank views but a lot of charisma and support amongst the common people. A self made war hero too, so a very colourful character that was not above the sort of military adventuring that gets people hauled into court these days... but then his rivals nearly did that didn't they?