caldrail

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.

Spies are as old as tribal living. Once human beings had enough intelligence to plan the downfall of the rival tribe, someone had the idea of looking to see what they were up to first.

And until Crassus forgets the debt I'll wager? No matter, I shall make a few deals and sales to the good folk whom I get to know tonight and profit nonetheless.

Right-hand fighting was fundamental to roman warfare because of the tight large-shielded heavy infantry formations. Even if someone was left-handed, they would be taught to fight with the right hand. That was simply commonsense. If the recruit couldn't handle that, then out they go. I suspect, though I haven't seen evidence, that recruits identified as left-handed probably didn't go any further. Notice the parallel with gladiatorial combat, where left -handed fighting was tolerated but rare and unusual, since all trainees were invariably taught right-handed drill.

Going on a summer holiday? If manlius doesn't watch his step I'll have him pulling a cart for his keep. That gives me an idea? I wonder if I could charge people for rides about town? Hmmm....

I think there was a standard age during the height of the empire, but for the life of me I can't think of it now. I'll have to look it up. However, entry was probably more concerned with physique, so a well built youth from a desirable background might well be passed for service at his interview with the recruiters. Mind you, when the empire was declining there was an acute shortage of people signing up. Press gangs were roaming around to kidnap unsuspecting citizens for service, and instances of people cutting off their thumbs increased. This was done because it meant you couldn't hold a sword afterward, but one emperor cottoned on and issued a law that two men without thumbs were as good as one man with hands intact. The nshortage was one of the reasons why so many gothic tribes were fighting for the romans wholesale instead of old fashioned legions. Also regarding age is must be said that youths were expected to grow up faster in roman times. At the age of 15 you might be married and in business. It comes as no suprise to me that Saint Martin joined up at an age we would consider too young.

Correct change? What are you talking about Manlius?

Yes, this is an area of archaeology that needs working on. Its fascinating to find these glimpses of how people lived back then. Given the western style sophistication of ancient rome, I'm none too suprised at the similar lifestyles. Its more of an urban village in many cases I think, but that reflects the lack of inward-looking entertainment like tv or computers that we see today. Back then, people were more sociable (usually).

Count me in. Should be fun, and a chance to pick up where York left off. That should worry a few people Seriously though, a second romanesque holiday this year has got to be worth it.