caldrail

Larconius Ralla circulates, making discreet inquiries as to the whereabouts of Sextius Hirtius Maximus...

The problem the romans had in distributing fish throughout the empire was that it went off very quickly, as they had no means to preserve fresh fish. True, fish could be caught locally, but produce from rivers cannot compete with the potential of fishing from coastal waters. So, whilst they may have savoured fresh fish, for many the only way to secure enough was to have it supplied as dried instead. At least thats my understanding.

"Ale? Ale? Surely not the drink of the common classes Docoflove? No, I shall enjoy the fruits of the vine tonight, sensibly warmed and watered, though I might tolerate some honey and resin for flavour if the grape was insufficient.. Lets try... Ah yes, I know this one. Five years old, a poor harvest, not enough sugar... But I'm showing off. Nice peacock feather... but I'm afraid Manlius is immune to such suggestions. If you'll excuse me?" Now then... According to this scroll, someone owes my patron a considerable sum. I think Manlius might be gainfully employed this evening...

Manlius remains standing arms folded.

Coins are not reliable for size estimations. But yes, there was a species of smaller elephant thats now extinct.

Not necessarily. It depended on perceived threat and as we know, hadrians Wall was an economic barrier rather than military. Why waste good men on border patrols when they would be better employed as reserves in case the poorer troops made a mess of things in an emergency. The cautious nature of roman military leadership would do little else I think. Quite! The english were required by law to practise archery and football was banned for that very reason in the middle ages! I take the point about military development though I have to stress in my own re-enactment it was the heavy cavalry that swayed the course of battle, something the roman legions were ill-equipped to face (Obviously). Also, the almost religious zeal for combat displayed by many medieval men is not to be underestimated. Their whole culture was based on fighting. The romans were more organised in their approach to conflict and a sustained campaign would go their way I think. A one-off confrontation is another matter.

All populations/cultures have an instinctive need to weed out those they find undesirable. This tribal sectioning is part of the cultural bonding process inherited from our distanr ancestors in the wild. Its an unfortunate human characteristic that we really need to stem in our own society for that very reason. Where the romans are concerned, they didn't need 'race' to pour scorn on, because there were enough lower classes, barbarians, or undesirable foreign nationals in their midst. I used the greeks as an example but remember the greeks are essentially the same 'race' as the romans themselves. In fact, this culturalism is one of the reasons that becoming roman was so desirable. If you live in Rome, then do as the romans. That way you achieve social acceptability and probably lead a quieter and more profitable life. Those that choose to retain their national characteristics have effectively segregated themselves and I suspect the romans felt no qualms about pouring scorn on them.

Thanks

How'd you come to that conclussion? do you ride Caldrail? The Horned saddle is good but with stirrips you can lift your seat out of the saddle which gives more impact to your crouched lance,doesnt it? I have ridden in the past, but whilst I'm no expert on horses, the line of impact is well above the stirrup and to some extent the stirrup might act as a pivot point if you stand. One of the reasons for the use of the four-pronged roman saddle is that it gave support to the seat and in effect braces the body. I'm not aware that standing in the saddle makes the impact any more powerful.

Hannibal got his elephants from Africa, including Carthage. There were still such animals roaming around the northern coastal areas and the deserts weren't quite so dry back then. No, he didn't breed them. Some were bred by animal handlers but most I suspect were captured from the wild. Regularly employed in Spain? Probably, but in small numbers if so. I wouldn't think these animals were kept in a standing army so they would have been taken on strength as required, they were just too expensive to keep in peacetime, and I suspect there was little demand for beasts of burden this big. You are spot on about moving elephants by sea. Not for the faint hearted. Elelphants do panic sometimes and its believed a number of roman ships were lost carrying elephants to the games. Hannibal must have faced the same problems. A ship might carry two or three and remember the considerable forage and water that such large animals require. In fact, Hannibal lost most of his elephants before they got to Italy. In particular there was a difficult river crossing where the elephants were fooled by leading them onto what appeared to be a jetty, but was in fact a series of rafts tied together. Some of these animals paniced on the crossing and swam to shore after the raft capsized and drowned many of the men on board, including the mahout. The alps were very hard on the elephants too.

Oh yes. None too bright and he only knows two words of latin. But hey, when a customer forgets to pay, Manlius makes them remember for me.

It was late in the night when the knock upon the door brought a message from Crassus himself, delivered by his slave to Marcus Larconius Ralla, owner of several haberdasheries in the Greek Quarter. What a tale! Brutus Brittanicus Thrax, an oafish gladiator of some repute has thrown an agent of Crassus into the pool! And now I, Larconius, must infiltrate this party on behalf of my exceedingly wealthy patron. After that last shipment of cloth went down in the Mare Internum near Massilia my profits have vanished. Tomorrow I will need cash to gamble at the side of the arena and show everyone that Larconius is both wealthy and generous. If my mission succeeds tonight, Crassus will reward me greatly.... "Manlius!" I call impatiently for my big nubian slave, "Manlius!... Ah there you are. Lamps and a litter. We travel to the party tonight and... bring my box... you know, the special one?" "Yus, Master." And so the slave is about his business in his unhurried and unstoppable manner. I kiss my wife goodbye as I ignore her whining about never taking her anywhere. Perhaps I'll tell her one day that I know of her secret assignations at the Ludum... The streets are quiet at this time of the evening. A warm night. Ugh! The stench does not agree with me... There! Was that a sicarius hiding in the shadows? No matter. He knows better than to mess with Manlius. Ah, at last, the party. In full swing I see.... To business. I step over the panther pooh on the atrium floor and enter the fray... Who's that by the pillar? Gasp! Augustus Caesar! Tonight we play for high stakes indeed! "Ave Caesar. You're looking well. Hmmmm... Homespun.... No thats definitely not you. I'll have my slaves prepare a suitable tunic for you Caesar. No no, one should look the part in front of their adoring public. Psssst! If its not too forward of me Caesar I'm aware of your reputation with the ladies. Perhaps a little something special for the weekend? Manlius... the box...." "Yus, Master." "Here Caesar, a gift from the Larconii. An aphrodisiac potion that caused Cleopatra's heart to flutter in the company of your lamented great uncle. Your secret is safe with me...... Ahhhhh! The Augusta! What present can I give Rome's first lady? Manlius, the box..." "Yus, Master."

Wow! Such a cool cat! Hey guys, come and have a look at these teeth....

Longer swords have disadvantages. By the late empire, the advantages were that you didn't have train your soldiers to stab without question, and by then the close order drill of older times was giving way to looser formations of less protected troops. There's no getting away from it, the longer sword is far better suited to slashing attacks and that requires more room. The whole point (pun not intended) of using a short stabbing sword is because during the roman armies golden years the legions were packed shoulder to shoulder with large shields. There was only a small gap to use a weapon in and the gladius was a perfect answer. The disadvantage is that the trsining needed to be better in order to install certain instincts into their soldiers (what we call 'muscle-memory' these days) Semi-Spatha? I've read some very enlightened texts on roman weaponry and no-one mentions anything of the sort. Could you give me a source on that? The weit#ght of a spatha was greater than a gladius because of the similar construction and longer reach. The center of gravity for this blade is further out and therefore less suited to thrusting. Marcellinus backs what I said, although I notice he hasn't mentioned that a spatha is awkward in close formation. Its the open order that would make late emperial infantry so vulnerable to cavalry whatever sword they used. The warfare in the late empire was developing toward the medieval style and in that sense, yes, you're right. However, bear in mind that the type of warfare was partly dependent on the tactics adopted by legions less well equipped, and armed with a sword they found easier and more natural to use than a gladius, which as I mentioned, required practise and drill to use with the deadly effect we see in earlier periods.

Panther? Now we're talking....

I think it depends on what you want to learn about Rome. Many of us are drawn by the violent glory seeking we see in the arena or the battlefield. And despite the somewhat murderous decadance popularised by film and tv, many romans were simply trying to live good lives and have a great time in the process. Whilst AD's book firmly concentrates on the more arty pleasures (and so it should, given the title), the text also contains a lot of clues to roman nature and behaviour. Worth a read even if only to expand your roman consciousness, but also a reminder that Rome was not always blood and guts.

The use of a lonsword would have meant that the large rectangular scutum (shield) was too big and inhibiting for roman-style combat. Training would have declined because a longer sword requires less expertise, since you're relying on reach and swing. It would have required a less compact fighting order to make room for sword swinging, both reasons leaving the infantry more vulnerable to cavalry action, aside perhaps for the fact that a longer sword could tackle riders easier - and thats possibly another reason why the cavalry spatha was adopted wholesale in the later, more cavalry dominated, declining empire. All in all, the longer sword would have made the legions less capable, and indeed, the use of the spatha by infantry is often quoted as the sign of legionary decline.

Not because of race. The romans are noted for their lack of racism. They were after all a cosmopolitan society and as long as you adopted roman ways, the colour of your skin didn't matter. Theu did notice that skin colour got darker the further south you travelled, but for them this was merely a curiosity. For instance, Trajan was laughed at when he first spoke in the senate. His spanish accent was a matter of hilarity to the wealthy roman establishment, but he still became an emperor, not to mention one who was regarded as one of their best. Syrians and at least one arab also made the top slot. However - the romans were definitely culturalist. They regarded thenselves as the center of civilisation and no barbarian culture was regarded as equal in their eyes. The romans for instance were not keen on greeks. They regarded their language as essentially 'lower class' and vulgar, despite its importance in art, commerce, and literature. Greeks were regarded as disreputable and untrustworthy because of their national image, not because of racism. Individual people would have been abused certainly. That was standard practice in politics and intrigue, where slaves or clients were paid to harangue your rivals or paint graffitti on their houses.

Computer games are fine but they're intended as entertainment, not simulators. The Total War series are great fun but if you look closely they play around with physics and tactics for visual impact. Thats understandable - its a commercial enterprise. However, there are circumstances where computer games spawn real-world applications. The Doom engine was used for a US Army training aid, Operation Flashpoint spawned a military simulator for the same purpose, and if you ask nicely the creators of the IL2 series will present you with a sim version of their new Battle of Britain engine, for documentaries or such like. None of these are cheap because it represents a lot of work for few customers. Ancient bows for the most part were small lightweight affairs, although suprisingly sophisticated using compound construction rather than simply using a carved wooden stick. These bows were designed to attack the people the archers encountered in battle. Only in the medieval period with a serious need for penetration were larger, more powerful bows derived. I seem to remember a mention of longbows from the ancient world (not as powerful as the the english I must add) but I'll have to dig around to find a reference to those.

The bonuses of stirrups are nowhere near what some people suggest. They add nothing to the charge or the impact of weapons because the rider cannot brace himself against them. The reason medieval cavalrymen didn't change horses every five minutes was because they couldn't - a destrier stallion (the size of those big cart horses) is an expensive commodity, much pampered by its owner. Is anyone seriously suggesting he's deliberately going to injure that horse by colliding into a pack of men? The horse wouldn't have any of it, and the riders of that time knew it. Like every cavalryman of every period known to cavalry history, they either stopped or went round if the infantry didn't give ground. Apart from a few nutcases and mistaken horses I imagine, but those men and horses were dead meat. I cannot stress this enough. Cavalry only penetrate an infantry unit at the charge if the infantry give ground. I mean, if you see a heavily armoured rider galloping toward you are you going to want to stand there and let him collide? Takes a bit of nerve I think. In any case, the point of this thread is roman tactics. Roman writers have left us with descriptions of cavalry tactics and behaviour on the battlefield. They operated as light cavalry, they rode mares as opposed to stallions, they rode smaller horses than today, they stressed mobile and complex manoevers to outwit the enemy, they rode against opposing cavalry first as a priority, they are known to refuse a head on charge against infantry, preferring hit and run fights that allow them to exploit their mobility. Anything else is a romantic fantasy.

No, not trinkets. Resources - people - animals - all sorts of things. The romans became wealthy and chose to spend that wealth on luxuries and public entertainment in such a way that saw an export of money to all intents and purposes. Their balance of payments was a joke.

I've noticed some of the posts on this thread are claiming that Rome was uncivilised. By whose standards? We think very highly of our democratic, increasingly socialist and restricted modern west, but the romans thought very highly of their state. To be frank, if you were able to voice your criticisms to them, they'd probably laugh or shake their heads. Are we so different from the romans? No. Ouir culture is broadly based on the ruin of theirs, and we have much to thank them for. What you must remember is that they lived two thousand years ago, in a world that was universally harsher and more violent. Life was short for everyone due to accident, disease, or violence, and if the romans employed violence as a means of preserving peace, were they doing anything worse than their rivals? Or are our wars more ethically sound than theirs? The only difference between our culture and theirs that matters is that they institutionalised violence in a way that we now find abhorrent. But ask yourself - Are we that far away from where the romans were? The answer is unconfortable - because the answer is buried in human behaviour and with different circumstances, we too would be like them.

Nothing grand I'm afraid. Anyone expecting yards of green baize and thousands of brightly painted lead figures is going to be disappointed! No, the game was played on a cofee table with coloured carboard as military units. The battle took nearly one and a half hours to play, and about twice that to set it up. Rules were... oh gawd this is going to ruin my credibility.... Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, with units and casualties instead of characters and hit points. The reason I did that is because I was familiar with the rules, and these rules cover both periods... sort of. Not historically accurate to the nth degree by any means but it produces a passable result.I used to do things like that a lot back in my wargaming days, but I suppose you shouldn't take the result too seriously. After all, I only recorded it for a talking point to expand the discussion.

I'm not interested HC. We're discussing ROMAN cavalry, not something that happened nearly a thousand years afterward. In any case, you still miss the essential point about cavalry vs infantry. In a charge situation, its a game of chicken. Who's going to give up first and get out of the way? usually the horse decides that for the rider which is why few cavalry ever do anything so rash. Tell you what. Find a site on medieval history. You'll impress them perhaps?

Its political correctness. They don't want adverse publicity because someone got upset and wrote a stiff letter of complaint. I imagine the friends and family of the kidnapped child would indeed get upset at such a storyline - they've got reason. I think most people who write in over this would mean well but really ought to be sympathetic and helping rather than sticking their oar in. These days I guess the BBC has no choice. The kidnapping is after all still in the headlines of the media.