caldrail

Larconius Ralla presents Doc with the nice purple number and heck, take the slave as well. They were a job lot from Lugdenensis - I can get more. AC, I would be proud to sell you a few but I how could I possibly demand payment from Caesar? Choose one of my slavegirls at your leisure. I notice GO's interest, and tell the slavegirl in the fetish gear to entertain him...

Time Team on channel 4. They presented a program about Doggerland and its inundation a few months back - a topical subject given the current vogue for global warming - but fear not, they got that information from expert climatologists working in that field. Time Team are a light hearted bunch but they go to great lengths to ensure their information is correct and they have some very experiencd archaeologists. The program showed sonar readings of the North Sea floor which indicated a massive river valley linking the Seine, Rhine, and Thames into a single estruary. There's a lot of study taking place of the north sea because there's so much archaeology down there left undisturbed by the encroaching waters. The rate of inundation is frightening, something like losing 700 yards in a week. Thats purely down to melt water. Near where I live is the marlborough downs, and if you look around, you can see places where the ground was carved by the melting ice sheet. Looking at the terrain, its easy to see a temporary lake covering north eastern wiltshire and some very strong rivers feeding it. This area is on the boundary of the ice sheet I should point out, and possibly not quite as high as the mile and a half thick interior around the midlands. There is plenty of evidence for glaciers on the Downs. Sarsen stones litter the area (just exposed rocks basically) and these were deposited by glaciers during the last ice age.

many poorer homes had no facilities to cook, so I guess fast food was a necessity really, and one exploited by traders.

There's a point about roman pronounciation that interests me, because modern english borrows from latin and yet the pronounciation varies from word to word. Now I know english can be a lazy language and the japanese I worked for insisted that it was a bitch to learn compared to some, so is it possible that latin words varied in pronounciation, especially with regional dialects, or was it really a case of getting it spot on like those sadistic public school teachers of old, given that latin only survived through the church and was not spoken as an everyday language for many centuries?

I'm a bit curious about those etruscans. The fact their language is different suggests to me they developed it in seclusion from the native tongues in italy at the time, so is their physical origin from elsewhere? A displaced people? Conquerers? Migrants? or is the language similar but the alphabet they used for reading and writing unique and therefore as yet undeciphered?

The use of thrusting attacks by roman soldiers is dictated by close order drill. There's only a narrow gapbetween shields - a vertical slot if you like - and thusting is therefore the most sensible way to attack without losing formations - or friends. If they used slashing attacks as a rule, then a wider formation is necessary to prevent whacking the guy next to you and the legion loses its shock value in advance. With that in mind, a shorter sword of some sort was bound to be used, and also remember that the curved shield made drawing a sword from the left hip awkward and prone to getting snagged behind the shield. It made more sense to pull from the right hip and that also dictated a shorter sword.

Really? At the end of the last ice age, mean temperatures rose 7 degrees in fifteen years. Doesn't seem such a long time to me, and that was only 8000 years ago. The resulting flood inundated Doggerland (the bottom of what we now call the North Sea), costing europe a landmass equal in area to the british isles. There was the Warm Medieval Period, with temperatures higher than today. What about the Big Freeze in the 6th or 7th century, lasting four years? Or the Mini-Ice-Age of the 18th century? Tempertaure fluctuations occur regularly but some are very pronounced and definitely can change very quickly indeed.

Beats the heck outta me....

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