caldrail

Actually in my opinion he was somewhat of a great general. I don't see why he should be considered so. The fact that people flocked to his 'cause' has more to do with prevailing conditions within the republic than any innate military superiority. Most of them were opportunists, not his followers as such. Spartacus was lucky to obtain such a large rebellion and I think it suprised him that he becamew such a figurehead. He was, if you will, a rogue who was having his fifteen minutes of fame. No, a great general would have realised that raiding throughout italy was doomed to failure. A great general would have planned ahead and fought for discreet objectives. Spartacus did whatever seemed appropriate at the time. His later actions were becoming desperate. He tried to swim and sail rafts to sicily at one point but the tide was too strong, lreaving him no option but to assail the wall built by Crassus to hem him in. In doing so, he threw his hapless followers against it and lost thousands of casualties for a handful of roman soldiers. Granted he did not have the resources to build siege engines, much less know how to employ them, but there wasn't any great idea involved. In fact, Spartacus lost the initiative as soon as he reached southern italy. The fact he retained freedom and raided for two years is remarkable but have others done similar things in roman times. Tacfarinas for instance. No, Spartacus as a great noble general fighting for freedom is a romantic myth. A brave man, a clever guerilla leader, a fierce fighter. He was also dishonest, possibly a little gullible, and hopelessly unable to accept discipline.

The arguement for the popular CO2 theory rests on the work of a single scientist, and his work has yet to be proven. In fact, the premise relies entirely on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Yet the temperatures at the crutial tropopause do not correlate with CO2 levels. I'd say I scored a point. Your serve...

The romans were superstitious and aware that certain numbers had some significance, but some of this is coincidence. Rome was founded with ten months, not twelve. The extra two were a later innovation.

Spartacus a communist? I fall over laughing at the mere suggestion. He had no intention of pursuing a political cause, he just wanted to escape restrictions and profit from it. The man was totally unable to accept discipline. He deserted the legions, and escaped from the regime of his ludum. his escape from Capua was not because he was afraid to die. He'd already pursued some dangerous professions already - Goatherder, soldier, bandit... No. He escaped because he could not tolerate the regime that his lanista enforced, but also because he rebelled again and refused to fight for someone elses pleasure. Of course, having escaped, he needed to stay free and embarked on his running battle up and down italy. Notice that he did not maintain his supposed primary objective of achieving freedom by continuing north. He turned south, either unable to control his very sizeable band of renegades or simply intent on using them to rake in more booty from banditry on a scale he'd never thought possible before. It is possible he had in mind to take sicily as a bandit realm of his own. I really doubt it was ever likely to be a communist state had he intended to exploit the potential of sicily as a home for rebellion, given the slave revolts that had already occured there. The army of spartacus is sometimes quoted as an army of gladiators. No, he had a small percentage of his forces from that particular source. Escaped slaves? Yes, there were a lot them, and a mixed bunch at that. But what is often overlooked is that many were simply malcontents and vagabonds who decided that throwing their lot in with Spartacus was going to be a lot more profitable (and potentially safer) than running with a small gang. Communist? No, just a crook. A very talented guerilla leader as it turned out, but not a great general.

There is one ancient battle where cavalry did face off in the center. That was Leuctra, in 371BC, where the thebans triumphed over a more numerous spartan army. Both sides launched cavalry action ahead of the infantry in the center. The spartan cavalry, apparently none too impressive to begin with, fell back and were trapped by their own infantry and unable to leave, thus encircled. This was an exception to the general rule and backs my point about the hazards of deploying cavalry without enough freedom of action.

Threads? Marcus Larconius Ralla snaps his fingers and brings in a succession of slave girls demonstrating fashionable threads for ladies of quality. Yes I know they're a little emaciated but I don't like spoiling my slaves. Notice the metal and leather outfit for the girls who want to visit the ludii....

I think you have to be careful of self-professed experts. All too often in the past they've made predictions that haven't happened or vice versa. There was a british scientist who publicly stated in the late 50's that spaceflight was impossible. There are learned men who today suggest that natural disasters are pure imagination, even though we're surrounded by evidence to the contrary. I live in britain. The rocks that compose this island have at times been at the center of steamy swamps, dessicated deserts, thick tropical and temperate rainforests, tropical archipelagoes, ice sheets, tundra... You name it, it happened here. What scientists like is observable trends. They tend not to like dramatic events because you can't really predict them with convenient formulae. The fact that temperatures are rising now is a trend. The same thing happened in the medieval period. It can just as easily go cold again. Thing is, if I say the things influential people want to hear, I get patted on the back and supported (possibly even paid? ). If I say something questionable or controversial I get hissed at, or possibly subjected to ridicule. Many of the current ideas surrounding global warming are based on one particular theory regarding CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Computer models to predict future trends are based on that idea. But what if that idea is wrong? The available data suggests that CO2 is not directly responsible for mean temperatures and is part of a natural cycle. Or is that politically incorrect?

RW, command on the battlefield is not a precise science. It isn't like a game of chess where both sides have the same pieces and both know each others strengths and weaknesses. In chess, you can only lose. Why? Because you have no advantage over the opposing player. In warfare, there are so many factors that determine success or failure. The most important is the personality of the man handing out orders. A brash adventurous type like Caesar throws everything on the roll of a dice - he gambles - and that sort of personality often wins becaue he's prepared to risk all. On the other hand, you might steady cautious types who know their forces but always hold something back in reserve, just in case. You get those who assume the enemy cannot think of anything clever to counteract their deployments. Battles are often won by men who think on their feet and adapt to circumstance, and certainly these quick thinkers prevent disasters by doing so. I'm not sure why you feel Philippi is so important with regard to cavalry tactics. As for the reasons why Antony and Cassius didn't use their cavalry, could I point out that they didn't have hordes of horsemen to do this? Also that the cavalry would have been out on the wings to deal with opposing cavalry, and that the cavalry that won the initial confrontation would attempt to outflank the enemy and strike his flank or rear, thus being in a perfect place to pursue if required? No ancient general worth his salt was going to waste his horsemen on fruitless head-on charges in the center. That would trap his cavalry in the center of the field and in some circumstances might even find them encircled. Cavalry have a major advantage in mobility which is better left to the flanks. Remember also that ancient cavalry were required to use their initiative rather more than the footsloggers because they were expected to operate beyond the convenient range of message-bearers. Cavalry in the ancient world are at a premium. There's a short supply of them. Horses are expensive creatures after all. Romans took horses on charge from three years old and only after they had passed the requirements for health and temperament. A docile nag was useless to the legions. The romans themselves have no native talent for cavalry action, and employ auxillaries from provinces or foreign lands who do. Losses in battle are therefore difficult to replace, so the cavalry want freedom to fight in their own way. The romans were sensible enough to allow them to do this. Remember Tacitus telling us that its not cowardly for cavalry to retreat and regroup. You can analyse a particular battle to your hearts content RW (and I do admire your tenacity) but isn't that giving you a biased picture? However much information you have on this battle how can you be sure the sources are 100% accurate? Most accounts of ancient battles are by people who weren't there, and the more literary generals are prone to exaggeration of their own part.

I thought we did. isn't that usually where we get drunk?

I remain a skeptic of sorts. Trouble is Global Warming has become a cult all of its own, with adherents who utter the standard arguments like religious doctrine. Whether it right or wrong isn't actually the intention any more. Its all about attracting new believers and extracting money by exploiting these beliefs. A popular movement like this brings pressure on others to believe also, whether overtly by argument/indoctrination, or subtely because humans like to be with the herd, to run with the crowd, and don't want to appear mavericks in case they attract criticism or derision. As for myself, I believe the climate changes we're seeing today are much more natural in origin than anything we do. There's a fuel crisis looming because reserves are vanishing, so what better reason to animate manufacturers and customers to change their ways than to tell them these climate changes are their fault, and that if they act 'responsibly' they can offset the changes. Its total nonsense. It really is. Climate changes all the time, mercifully in small amounts year on year. Now the trend is toward warmer temperatures. Has anyone seriously studied how active our sun is today? Its a known phenomenon that the earth wobbles in its orbit, and we also know that this wobble is increasing. True north and magnetic north are nowhere close at the moment. Its even speculated that the earth undergoes magnetic reversal of the poles over long geological periods, and that we are effectively overdue for another if that theory is correct. There are macro changes about our earth that no end of eco-friendly and enviromentally concious behaviour can ever hope to affect. I really do believe that there are many researchers out there hungry for grants and come up with all sorts of tosh to justify their applications. Governments have either swallowed this stuff wholesale or they've decided to exploit these fears for their own ends. Without doubt we're living in an interglacial period, somewhere near the start of it. Britain is set to return to the african style climate it once enjoyed or until the earth wobbles just a bit too much in one direction. Yes, there are going to be changes around the globe. Its happened before, it will happen again. Human beings are such idiots sometimes. We assume that because things were a certain way in our younger days that they will be so again. Remember the flooding of St Louis recently? Absolutely devastating I'm sure and used as a prime example of the effects we can expect of global warming. If you check the records, you'll see their instances of devastating floods in the mississippee delta all through the last century. It simply isn't that unusual. What is different today of course is our vulnerability. There are so many more of us now and our vital infrastructure is under threat. I guess if you look closely at ancient history, you'll find similar things happening. Its nothing new.

Surely this is just a coincidence that the media are playing with?

But all you've written here is a general account of the battle. I'm not sure what your point is or how that relates to roman cavalry tactics. If you're suggesting that infantry can cause havoc with opposing infantry, then yes, I agree wholeheartedly, thats happened in innumerable battles before and since Phillipi. That does not counteract what is considered standard cavalry tactics in that horsemen are far better suited to pursuing than men on foot.

I've not seen the whole film, but my impression was that its a typical christian biased tale of faith under duress. The accuracy of the arena scenes I saw are debatable, perhaps comparable to Quo vadis. I don't think the romans would have viewed a man with a spear attacked by a chariot driver as a fair fight, and is therefore atypical as a matched pair. However, given the plot showing this fight as a public execution, then as a spectacle it was interesting. However, the romans usually did this differently. Typically it was two men sent in with only one dagger between them, the winner being disarmed and forced to fight a newcomer armed with the dagger. And so on, until they were all dead, although I don't know how the man left over was treated. Given he would have been among the noxii I doubt his fate was favourable.

The remains at Ephesus have proven to be valuable resources on this subject. Gladiatorial training had been very harsh in republican days, when the smaller numbers of these slave gladiators meant that attention was given to making these slaves perform or else In those times, volunteer contract gladiators did not exist. Imperial times saw an increase in the professionalism of these men and some estimates reckon that half of all gladiators were volunteers on fixed term contracts. Given the high cost of purchase, training, and keep its not suprising that lanistas wanted their fighters kept in top condition. The stakes were higher after all, and so they received the sort of one-on-one medical care that few people other than the wealthiest could expect. People of those times wanted to see a good fight, not a mindless blood bath, although it must be said that in the late empire weaponry was biased toward causing wounds rather than sudden kills. It seems the promoters were trying to make the fights more interesting to the crowd, which was possibly beginning to dwindle given the costs of supporting the sort of show the mid-empire saw, and also because christian influence was beginning to make itself felt. However, these men were not always matched off precisely. An experienced and famous gladiator might often be matched against a newbie, to maximise the veterans survival chances (and retain his value to the owner). The first fight of a professional gladiator wasn't guaranteed to be easy, and many fell in their first fight for that reason. it was for appearances that gladiators were matched fairly, as the audience wouldn't have liked an obvious advantage on one side. Mind you, combat is never a sure thing and its known that some newbies were skilled, talented, or aggressive enough to defeat a far more experienced man. Or perhaps more lucky sometimes?

Marcus Larconius Ralla introduces the little grey barbarians to more refined concepts such as wine and gambling. Interesting people, from a place known as Planetus Zargus. Perhaps if I could conquer this frontier, I might find valuable resources and booty.... Must have a word with Caesar about his....

The review is on the homepage - Greek & Roman Warfare: Battles, Tactics, & Trickery by John Drogo Montagu. There's a lot of misconceptions and false assumptions bandied about. They're often dearly held opnions and even if these people wish to discuss them, they don't actually like being told its wrong. Its the same psychological demeanour you get with religion. Believe this or not, I'm not here to preach a particular message. What I want is the truth of what happened two thousand years ago and from time to time I have to revise my opinions. But I won't do that unless the evidence is there. I've had an interest in military matters since I was a child, at one time an avid wargamer, yet its becoming apparent to me that I suffered from many misconceptions myself even though knowledgeable to a small degree. The truth about warfare is somewhat more practical and gritty than the romantic illusions portrayed by film and tv, which do influence us, and often a lot less heroic. Perhaps we should all be polite and calm. Unfortunately the real world isn't like that and occaisionally we get a little heated. After all, isn't that why wars occur in the first place?

I stand corrected

Well thanks for letting us see that chart, but do you really expect a battle to proceed in a precise ordered way? Sorry, there are too many variables. You're assuming the units are lined up the way you suggest, that their paper strength is on the field, and that the generals think the same way you do. A specific instance is all very well but you cannot generalise from just one. I've just reviewed a book by a guy who's very knowledgeable about ancient warfare. He studied 700 battles in the ancient world to arrive at his conlucsions. No, please don't, one chart was enough. The comments about wargames are well made gentlemen. It does depend on the relative emphasise the rules place on one thing or another and often reflects the personality of the author.

A mans attractiveness to women is in direct proportion to his bank balance

Actually what I find is that psychology is half the battle. Forgive for relating this tale again, but I remember a friend from the dark age re-enactment telling me about a set-to between one noble axemen against four lowly spearmen. The axe isn't wielded in a historical manner as an overhead strike can cause serious injuries (no suprise there!) so as a re-enactment weapon it may be correct to use one but its awkward and not popular. Strictly speaking all the spearmen had to do was surround the guy and close in. Instead, the axeman came over aggressive. he threw the axe from hand to hand and manfully taunted and threatened his opponents. He won.

I've tried to find some references to this but so far the best I've come up with is a remark that a garrison was put in place at around that time when it could have been more usefully employed elsewhere. Its clutching at straws but the impression I get is that they were posted there as an emergency measure at the start of hostilities. Sorry, thats sicily I was talking about, not the other location.

We might misbehave a bit more! Seriously though, the athletes of Rome haven't received much attention, I suppose because as lesser forms of life they don't warrant much attention. The flogging seems a bit harsh given the susceptibility of these men to injury, but then, as a deterrent and a motivational factor I guess it works!

Yes it does. Its a generalised statement about battle tactics that holds true for any period. I'm not that anal. Really, you're wasting your time trying to make these precise definitions. No army in the world could successfully organise themselves for victory they way you'd try to. Cavalry are mobile, infantry are slow. If the enemy retreats, its cavalry that can get there first and do the worst damage. Your infantry - any infantry - would have to run and sprint to get to the right place and catch them, even if they could. As a result, they become disordered and prone to counterattack by enemy cavalry. Sorry, but the idividual unit type of infantry is irrelevant. Yes I could, but I'd only be repeating the points I made in earlier posts on this thread. Are you seriously a wargamer? The reason I ask is that your interpretation of roman tactics and deployment is at odds with everyone elses.

Yes, why worry about something that it's out of your power to change Early humans with stone age tehnology were succesfull in making extinct dozens (if not hundreds) of species of large animals.The begining of agriculture and animal herding changed the landescape in most areas of the Earth. Pollution from Roman mining in Spain left marks on Groenland's ice shelf. Most Europe was a forest 3.000 years ago. I believe theilian was being ironic here. But Kosmo, your points quoted above are mutually contradictory. If Romans in Spain could alter ecologies in Greenland, then surely it is well within our own power to curb the damage our own activities are causing. And as you point out, humans in ancient times were capable of making hundreds of species extinct, so why is it such a strange concept that modern human activity can alter climate? I believe I can rest my case. Lets bring this into perspective. Human beings live for three score years and ten on average, although modern medecine allows survival into an older age these days (provided you live in the right area or pay enough money). Our experience of the world is affected by our short life span, and only the advent of modern media have our attentions been brought to bear on these global issues instead of purely our own national or local interests. Whereas a disaster could have once occured and received a sentence in the morning paper, now we get news reports on tv on the hour every hour with interviews of locals and experts concerned. Our conciousness of the modern world is far and away greater than in previous generations, never mind our distant ancestors who probably never their village throughout their entire lives. Therefore, these changes to us seem new, frightening, and something happening that must be caused by something. It's far easier to destroy than create. Many species rely on enviroments that are small in size and vulnerable to change. Nothing new there, nature does that on a regular basis. Specialisation by adaption produces species that can survive in some of the most bizarre circumstances, but that specialisation is also a vulnerability. In any case, there are many species of flora and fauna that exist and flourish because of human activity. Can human beings really get their act together and save the world? No. Because.... 1 - The world is not under threat - its changing. Trouble is, we've become specialised with our modern infrastructure and are therefore vulnerable to change. 2 - Humans like to argue. One tribe generally doesn't like being told what to do in their own back yard by another. 3 - Humans like to exploit - its a survival characteristic that ensures we make full use of natural resources to live another day. Its also profitable. Politically there are too many people with vested interests in promoting this idea of global warming and what we can to to prevent it. Of course thats nonsense. Global warming was going to happen anyway, its part of a natural change. We cannot prevent orbital wobbling. We cannot prevent changes in sun activity. We cannot prevent plate tectonics. We cannot prevent volcanic activity. We cannot prevent the worlds oceans interacting with sunlight. We cannot prevent cosmic rays from creating conditions suitable for cloud formation. But everyone says CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, it is. It does have those properties. Yet studies have shown the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere on earth do not directly conform to temperature patterns. They never have, and earth is actually colder now than its historical average. We are still emerging from the ice ages. Some people believe this modern day is in fact an inter-glacial period, that another ice age is waiting in the wings. I agree with this. The fact that temperatures are rising now simply mean the climate is reverting to normal. Britain had periods like this. Between ice growths we know that this country had a climate similar to modern africa, and indeed shared many of its flora and fauna. Within a few thousand years, it was also a place of ice sheets up to a mile and half thick, with polar bears, mammoths, moose, woolly rhino's - all the flora aand fauna associated with the arctic. The fact remains that the levels of greenhouse gases we produce are far outweighed by those produced naturally. Perhaps our contribution isn't helping, but I really don't believe we can change the situation much. In fact, most of the issues surrounding enviromental lifestyles are to do with waste products and cost efficiency of dealing with them. Modern human society is a victim of its own success, just the same as any species that becomes too successful for its enviroment, and there are people out there who want to exploit the increasing panic. Money makes the world go round does it not? If you want a research grant these days, you increase your chances from zero to possible simply by stating its to research the effect on global warming. Its an enoermous bandwagon, stirred up by incorrect scientific theories that have been adopted by parts of our society that want us to live differently.

No, I disagree. When an infantry unit does break and run cavalry is at its most effective. Soldiers who survive that situation should consider themselves very lucky. Infantry can pursue but if they do that they lose formation, and are therefore leaving themselves open to counterattack by cavalry without almost no defence. Infantry can only realistically protect themselves against enemy horsemen by standing together in tight formation. Also remember that the testudo formation is purely protective. It does not form an infantry 'tank' and the men involved need to do something else when they arrive at the enemy.