caldrail

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.

You make it sound as if there was a master plan from central government to improve and extend roman infrastructure. No. The senate/emperors did support and reward this activity (and yes, they did begin some initiatives themselves), but the bulk of roman development was spurred by local interest. After the augustan reforms it was roman policy to create city states in provinces rather than provide direct rule. These city's were mini-rome's in the making, part of a national franchise whose purpose was to generate tax income for Rome itself. Cities were keen to develop in order to gain concessions, patronage, or even simply get one over their rival city down the road. It was local initiative sponsored by central government. Your point about productive investments is interesting, but roads in themselves are not necessarily going to generate trade and may well be there purely to service the needs of the legions. Further, the need to keep legions busy generated civil engineering work when it may not have been strictly necessary. This all cost money without any particular gain. Also, industries such as mines etc were private enterprise were they not? Therefore if the roman government was a customer there was no profit for them in mining, farming, or quarrying? Roman expenditure was very high. Augustus claimed to have found Rome in brick and left it in marble. That didn't happen by clicking his fingers. It happened because he stumped up cash and persuaded others to do likewise. There is no productivity in this sort of beautification which was done purely to improve Romes majesty. It was a 'feel good' factor for romans to see their city as such a place of wonder. Augustus was making sure that his people saw him as a benign first citizen who generously gave his wealth to the peoples enviroment. On his terms mind, not theirs. The huge cost of staging entertainment is staggering. This was something provided free to the citzens of Rome, and therefore not profitable, apart from securing influence and popularity. Gladiators could each earn more than the average wage of a roman in one appearance, and that if they'd never fought before. An experienced professional would earn more than that. Vivaria held animals for the show. Elephants, lions, tigers, crocodiles, antelope, horses, ostriches - all sorts of beast imaginable kept until required for the venatio, and if you want to know how expensive it was to keep an animal, just ask your local zoo. Its astonishing how much food and water these beasts required. All that is after they had been caught and transported. Professional beast hunters, some of them serving soldiers, caught these animals for profit. They were transported by sea for profit, or if the entertainment was outsie Rome, then also by land to their final destination. There was a network of trade routes which catered for luxuries. Rome was for all intents and purposes a self-sufficient state, yet they spent heavily on foreign goods for nothing other than their own enjoyment.

I certainly detect a trend by wealthy romans to preserve and extend their privilege. It almost seems as if they want to live in a world apart, a place of people of means and therefore similar outlook. In some ways I think this is to be expected. Status was far more important and evident to romans than our modern selves, and glass ceilings much harder, even impossible, to penetrate. However, I think we have to get away from this image of the republic as a place of democratic and benign leadership, because its obvious that self-interest was hard at work. There is a landed class whose authority is based on wealth, and in no uncertain terms they mean to hang on to both power and purse. The republic too was a time of civil unrest. Reformers are assassinated, slaves rebel. Dare I say it, but perhaps Rome survived the same cultural turmoil that brought down the monarchies of Russia, France, etc?

The title of the thread was humourous. You weren't supposed to take it literally. As I maintained, my point was that romans did not make frontal charges that crashed into infantry formations at full speed. If the infantry remained steadfast the cavalry needed to do something else, and in any case, roman cavalry was rarely used in such an overtly aggressive manner. Yes infantry sometimes broke. That was the threat of cavalry action in the first place. I've already made that point. My goal posts are right where I left them, and still defended 1 - Roman cavalry were used to scout, counter opposing cavalry, harass, outflank, and pursue 2 - Roman cavalry preferred mares, not the more agressive stallions 3 - Romans cavalry was trained to feint and use mobility & complex manoevers, not to make frontal charges 4 - Roman cavalry are described as refusing to make frontal charges 5 - Horses do not like collisions - it hurts 6 - Roman cavalry charges were intended to spook the infantry formations, not injure them 7 - Roman cavalry charges were usually employed to bring missile weapons to bear rapidly before wheeling away 8 - Roman cavalry charged up to the enemy infantry and not into them These points are based on contemporary and modern expert opnion. Infantry units may get shaken by cavalry but they're well aware that if they stand together the cavalry cannot penetrate and therefore they remain safer. Thats true of any period and the reason that experienced infantry close up when cavalry come into view.

Its also misleading to assume that spartacus had command of an army of gladiators. His escapees formed a cadre of trained fighters, although there's no guarantee that all them were fully trained. Some may have been new recruits. The remainder of his army was formed from free citzens or absconded slaves who decided they stood to gain in some way from Spartacus's little venture. Mind you, its also forgotten that Spartacus was not the sole leader. Crixus and Oenomaus were also leaders who later broke off with their own contingent (and got trashed by roman legionaries soon afterward). What we have here is an example of quality of leadership. Mommsen actually ponders whether Spartacus was a 'scion of noble birth' for this reason, typical of the upper-class superiority attitude of his day. I really don't think so. The man was a rogue who had some talent for guerilla warfare, and some experience as a bandit which he put to good use. What comes across is the ease by which Spartacus & co got out. Even after their initial plot was discovered, security at the school did not stop the escape. Lentulus Batiatus, the lanista concerned, is sometime reckoned to have been careless. Possibly, but then the guards at the school don't seem to have done much either. Was it so unthinkable that slaves could escape? The slave revolts of Sicily were still within living memory and training in gladiatorial schools of this era was notoriously harsh and brutal. One thing that has to be said is that the escapees did not arm themselves at the school with swords or whatever. Evidently some security was in place and worked. Does anyone know what happened to Batiatus afterward? I don't see any mention of him in the historical records afterward!

Marcus Larconius Ralla boards the UFO and has sex with a pretty green woman. Didn't think much of all that prodding though. Might hire them as musicians for my own party. They actually said they want to study us and so they should. Barbarians, even these little grey ones, should definitely learn from their roman betters. Whats that Manlius? Three men in dark blue uniforms to see me? What do they want? Whats a 'weather balloon'?

No. They obtained the weapons from the kitchens of the training school where they were kept. They found a cart laden with gladiatorial weaponry soon afterward in the town nearby. A local 'takeaway' joint could have armed maybe three or four people, not up to seventy.

The point of the thread was to show that cavalry didn't charge into a mass of infantry - they didn't. The roman sources are very clear on that point. They fought melee on the edge of the infantry formation in order to retain the initiative - so they could pull away and regroup if necessary. Roman cavalry simply didn't have the protection and weight of medieval horsemen who were so invulnerable they could easily afford to push deep into formations - but notice they pushed into, not charged into. A cavalry unit must cause the infantry unit to 'shake' or break up in fear of injury or the whole exercise is a disaster. Once an infantry unit is lossened there are gaps to exploit, and thats manna from from heaven where cavalry are concerned. The image of a charge bashing into people like Total War Rome is ridiculous. Its a preconception that seems very appealing to those of us with those sort of instincts. I used to think that. However, the roman sources describe cavalry of their day in very different terms, and they should know, they were alive at the time. There is nothing worse than someone who has an image of how things were and then tries to persuade others even when the evidence says otherwise. What that person should do is read the sources, learn from them, and be prepared to put the preconceptions to one side in the light of what they discover. Regarding the adoption of foreign weaponry I have no problem with that at all. We know the romans had been influenced by foreign cavalry action, particularly since their own was usually so lacklustre, and most of that influence came from oriental sources. hadrian experimented with cataphracts but it wasn't until constantius that such units were adopted permanently. Hadrian was of course very pro-army despite his lack of territorial ambition, and constantius simply wanted to play an arms race with persia. The cataphract archers are an unusual addition but don't appear to have been too successful, I guess that archery whilst encimbered by scale armour on horseback didn't work too well. There was only one such unit. The increasing use of standard cataphracts (and their derived clibanarii) reflects the roman necessity of 'keeping up with the joneses'. Left to themselves, I seriously doubt the romans would have bothered except perhaps as a display unit. Now, regarding the use of the lance, we're influenced by medieval jousting. The image of two horsemen galloping at break-neck speed past each other isn't romantic fiction at all, but that was under controlled circumstances. There was a fence between them and nothing to run into. Indeed, against opposing cavalry the two units would leave enough space to allow this sort of attack in battle in exactly the same way that roman and foreign cavalry did in ancient times. Cavalry units didn't fight melee as a team, but as a mass of one-on-one combats from horseback. Roman sources tell us their cavalry could be very busy indeed, rushing back and forward to gain the upper hand against their opposing horsemen. There's at least one account of two units chasing each other until one unit's horses became too exhausted to continue, and only then did the other cavalry unit actually do any fighting. Tacitus informs us that is was not cowardly for cavalry to pull away, provided they did not leave the field. But lances against infantry? Here we run into exactly the same problem as before. If the infantry unit remains ordered and presents a shield wall, the horsemen will not collide. They daren't. Their horses will be killed and injured and thats going to spoil their entire day, not to mention relegating these riders to the infantry for the remainder of the campaign. Remember horses were not available off the shelf back then. There was no supply line to replace them. They were expensive beasts and none too common in ancient times for that reason. Its not for nothing that cavalrymen are usually found from amongst the wealthier portions of society. Therefore, the lancers have no choice but to effectively do the same as swordcharges - that is, to either bluff the infantry and go around or pull up short and skewer them at lance length, which is not as ineffective as you might think. The reach of the spear or lance is well beyond the infantry weaponry and therefore despite losing momentum the lancers still retain initiative. Mind you, an infantry unit unlucky or stupid enough to be in open order when the lancers arrive are going to see the cavalry at their finest! They really will grin and exploit that gap, although I would like to remind you of the roman cataphracts who did exactly that and were unhorsed en masse by the crafty enemy infantry. The same applies for attacks to the flank or rear, except in these cases the infantry is at a disadvantage and might even break there and then being forced to face two directions at once. Ancient warfare is something very spontaneous. There was rarely any planning - pointless in a world without infrastructure - they simply decided to go to war and went with what they could round up. The ritualistic approach of later periods is inappropriate when considering cavalry action in roman times, whose prime motivation was to prevent enemy cavalry from outflanking their army and cause as much mayhem without undue risk to their mounts. Lets put it like this. If you can find at least one example of a roman cavalry collsion with infantry in good order then I'll look at this subject again, but until you do, I'll accept the word of ancient writers and modern experts who know far more about this subject than any of us.

Read contemporary sources please. Romans fought cavalry actions primarily to stave off the threat of enemy cavalry. They were used in scouting, harassing, and pursuing. Roman authors tell us that their cavalry were not expected to charge infantry head-on, that they sometimes refused to do so, and that they relied on complex manoevers to achieve their ends. Later periods are not relevant becaue horse, equipment, and tactics had changed. There's another forum for discussing later history. What is made clear from roman sources such as Arrian and Vegetius is that in coming into contact with infantry - usually on the flank or rear for obvious reasons - the cavalry would ride up to them and then either make a pass with thrown/fired weapons or stop and conduct melee. They were not as heavily armoured as some later horsemen and could not afford to ride into the center of determined resistance. The horses would not allow them to do so. The romans preferred mares, not stallions, and they made this choice to suit their tactics. Charging head on is romantic fantasy where romans are concerned. They didn't do it. Read roman sources, they explain it all for you. The Charge of the Light Brigade belongs to english beserkers of the Crimean War, not the sensible organised roman light cavalry of two thousand before. You're dealing with a different mindset here and you need to take that on board. Even in cases where charges took place - as I said - its a game of chicken. Who gives way first? The infantry? The riders? Or the horses? The cavalry do not simply plunge into a solid mass of men and shields because they injure and kill themselves in the process. Horses, believe it or not, are not tanks and don't like getting hurt. However much you train a horse it still won't willingly injure itself for you. Try it yourself. Ride a horse at a solid obstacle. You'll be very impressed by the horses ability to stop when it decides its not a good idea to obey the rider anymore.

Yes... Marcus Larconius Ralla too has been given notice of his posting to some godforsaken farflung frontier. Think I'll need some thermals if the stories of Brittanicish weather are true... They say there are monsters in that land too....

Good health, good teeth, evidence of muscular development, and a certain amount of self-assurance. The romans were no different in health to modern soldiers apart from less willingness to recruit softies, who get PT and so on to build them up these days. Romans were expected to be fit from the start, which is why people from sedentary backgrounds had a harder time getting in. 5' 7" refers to roman measurements. Twelve roman inches is equal to eleven and a half imperial inches. Our 5'9" was their 6'.

They also staged fights in public places like forums and theatres, or out-of-town areas, or even at private dinners, either indoors or out.

Oh... Erm.... Hello centurion..... Look its a warm night and I'm sure your lads could with a little rest and relaxation after all those aqueducts. Why not step inside and cool off? Ale for the lads, and just between you and me, centurion, there's plenty of decent wine and who knows, if you make the right connections tonight you might be made equestrian very soon....

I think the worst thing is the false idea that we can all influence global warming. I really don't think that human arrogance is going to count for much. Sun activity and orbital wobbling are by far the worst culprits of climate change, followed by the much slower tectonic drift. CO2 is well down the scale I'm afraid, and sticking fingers in dams isn't going to stop it. Mind you, human activity does affect the natural balance the same way any other species might when out of balance with the enviroment. Look what happened when some well meaning idiot introduced rabbits into australia. Disaster! Grassy land quickly became sandy. Over grazing... hack-and-burn farming.... pollution... Yes, these do impact on us. Look at the horrendous effects that soviet and chinese schemes have had on their landscapes. The Aral Sea for instance is now the Aral Pond, with huge areas now dry land. Trawlers left rusting on a scrubby plain. But stop and think for a minute. Go back to the Jurassic. Herds of huge sauropods were felling trees at forest edges to get at the foliage they wanted. I know some species like the brachiosaur were adapted for that, but most weren't. Result? Deforestation of the older taller trees, and overgrazing by ever hungry herbivores. It occurs to me they may have had a significant impact over time, not to mention the amount of methane they produced from digesting vegetation. I've already mentioned natural pollution from volcanoes which has had terrible consequences in the past, but all species can destroy their own enviroment if they become too successful, which unfortunately includes us. The only answer to that is fewer humans, and I don't know anyone who wants to consider the ramifcations of that route!

This forum is now the greatest power in the universe. I suggest we use it.... ;0

Attention! Ghettoblasters at the ready.... Wait for it, wait for it..... PLAY!

Spy organisations are indicative of organised and sophisicated societies that can find enough profit/necessity to operate with justification. Other than that, spies are simply committed or trusted people who either volunteer or obey orders to go under cover for their master. Its easy to slot in an unknown person who lurks in the background apparently working innocently.

No I don't. I've thought about this. Perhaps the harder republic meant that children were more valuable than in more successful times later? The practice of exposure is something primitive societies develop and I find it difficult to imagine why a sophisticated cosmopolitan society, however cruel, would suddenly decide it was fashionable. However, I do accept that the influx of foreigners throughout later times would indeed import foreign customs. The flip side to that is the 'When in Rome, do as the romans' culture that roman citizenry much preferred. We know that roman people did this rather than simply just the foreigners in their midst, so I think the practice is much older and truly roman in character. So why is it not commented on? I think the scale of exposure increased later as people even used it to make political statements, whereas in earlier less populated times an exposure was a more personal heartfelt event and not something to dwell upon publicly.