caldrail

I see it more as greed and glory seeking, like most conquest states. The druids never invaded Rome as a seperate cultural entity, they were part of the celtic one and don't really deserve headline status. You say Rome didn't have political unity. I'm not sure thats right, but it certainly had cultural unity. Notice the way Rome expands its control by colonisation, by creating cities, sometimes in the wilderness. Almost like a computer game, these cities buy or build things that earn it status and achievement. A forum, a temple, an aqueduct, a statue, sewer system etc. These brought honours, tax relief, patronage, all sorts of rewards from central government in Rome. It was in many ways a franchise, and one that definitely went a long way to secure political unity.

Is any prejudice from Tacitus or the people who described germans to him? Most of these germans were the ones bordering the roman empire and possibly weren't so 'hard-core' as those deep in the temperate rainforest.

Caldrail remembers a conversation about cat-litter.....

There is increasing evidence that the graves in York were the result of a political cull of important citizens, not too suprising considering caracalla's extraordinary appettite for removing critics.

No, I said the opposite. You're just playing word games. Face it, colliding with infantry just wasn't acceptable to the cavalry. The cavalry charge as you see it is a fallacy. Roman horsemen used their heads, not their testicles. By the way, which was the last book on roman cavalry that you read?

It was interesting to compare this to a program on the same subject aired by Channel 5 (4?) a couple of years ago, and in fact, some of the re-enactment footage was the same. I was pleased to see that Vedius, the games editor, was in fact a real person. There was a gentleman looking for local prestige and was the deciding vote on whether a man lived or died. Columbus, the murmillo featured in the first program, isn't mentioned by Timewatch, but then I note that Timewatch says Euzabius was the only confirmed named gladiator. He of course was an expert, a doctores, who died when he was about 50 years of age and notably commemorated by his familia. The fact he lived so long in a violent enviroment suggests to me the guy was a natural fighter. Again, the level of strontium in the bones confirms a vegetarian diet - but why this is disputed is beyond me, because the romans themselves called gladiators 'barleymen'. Something that caught my eye though was the increasingly fanciful gear gladiators were using by the 4th century, at which time many weapons were designed to cause bloody wounds rather than killing blows. Instead of a straight fight and heroic/merciful death of the early principate, we now see gladiators slugging it out and spilling blood for the audiences delight. Evidence enough for the increasingly bloody munera. If you get a chance to see this program, please do, it gives a lot of information about many aspects of gladiatorial life. For a more complete picture, watch both programs. They dovetail very nicely.

Horses are expected to charge at infantry, not into it. I've given you a complete explanation. I've backed it up with five contemporary sources and two modern expert opnions. Could you please tell us which book on roman cavalry you last read?

Heavy metal is about bikers - warriors - beserkers - celtic nutcases. Roman history is too sophisticated, more like Genesis than Motorhead.

Yes I see things like this, and in one sense, I understand because the situation offends modern sensibilities. However the world was like this back then, not simply because of the romans, though I admit they did some pretty horrendous things. In fact, the treatment of persian citizens was worse than the roman way of life, much closer to a sort of oriental serfdom. Slaves bought for a roman villa are actually in a better position than most. Possibly their treatment might be a bit rough, depending on the character of the owner, but the slaves might also be well treated and rise to respected positions, even with responsibilities. There might be perks to working in a villa, such as good food (obtained without the masters knowledge perhaps?) However, in this case your master isn't so nice and treats his slaves badly. A bad master isn't likely to allow his slaves to find partners. You just might be allowed to have sexual intercourse occaisionally for the purposes of breeding, but only a decent owner would allow a slave to have a 'family', and even then your offspring belong to the master. Tough break about your partner getting sold off. Thats only business, but then if you'd paid more attention to your duties rather than mooning at someone else, that person would still be there - Roman masters could be very cruel and practical about such things. Your master regards you as a 'talking tool', not a person, unless you manage to achieve some sort of trust and relationship with your owner. If Hannibal returns and attacks the villa then you'd probably die too. Invading armies are none too fussy about who they kill and so what if this slave is begging for mercy because he's a captured slave?

I'm a bit hesistant over claims like this. It is true that roman civic planning favoured a north/south aligned grid and that town layouts are remarkably similar. This is more to do with roman aspirations then astronomy I think. The concept of polis, or the city state, is fundamental to the success of roman urbanisation. Each city is rewarded for achievement with patronage, honours, etc, and there was some considerable rivalry between them (even to the point of violence, as shown by Nuceria vs Pompeii). The city serves as an administrative and financial center for a region in lieu of direct control, which could never fully be trusted if the area is either successful or a failure. It made sense for towns to be essentially similar. Visitors would then know where to find goods and services, it maintained roman culture, and provided consistent examples of roman life to neighbouring regions. The roman talent for order and organisation would do nothing else I think.

I can imagine a party starting to flag.... the host summons a slave and whispers in his ear, who then rushes off... Then the host claps his hands. "Ladies! Gentlemen! I have a pleasant suprise. To celebrate my forthcoming election I bring a private viewing of a pair of gladiators, two men of renown from the arena's of Rome. Please make soom room in the middle there..." In front of the gathered party-goers, two men fight to the death in the same way they would in the colosseum. To the romans, this was culture just as much as greek musicians or whatever. So it isn't just entertainment, there can also be moments of excitement. Yet in the same party, a speaker might recite a poem and receive the same applause.

Horses do this as a matter of course. Watch the Grand National. Although these are trained racehorses you'll still get those that refuse to jump and down the rider goes..... You don't know that. Not relevant to this discussion. Especially since the french cavalry rode around all day without penetrating the squares. But thats how cavalry attack infantry. Firstly by breaking their formation if possible (no, a charge isn't necessary), and then by picking off stragglers on the edges. If a rider wants to get involved in a serious melee inside the formation, he really will need superior protection because he cannot fend off attacks on all sides. Given Caesars ruthless streak I wouldn't be suprised. However, its a known curiosity of human combat that horses are rarely targeted. The riders are of course because they're trying to kill you. The horses are neutral and can be captured to used by your side. So why kill them? Thats contrary to your arguement. At least try to be consistent. Goths may have been warlike nutters, but they're not going to charge a spear wall. I believe you said something along those lines earlier. Here's another quote from knowledable sources.... As horses refuse to collide into an oncoming line of horsemen, encounters between opposing units would have to be very fluid, fast-moving affairs. When combats occurred, it was either because the two lines had opened their files, allowing them to gallop through each others formation, or they had halted just before contact, at which point the individuals could walk their mounts forward to get within weapons reach of the enemy. The cavalry of the Principate was highly confident, and because it was so well trained and led, was able to rally more easily after a pursuit or flight and keep its its formation. The author of the Strategikon points out that it is not dishonourable for cavalry to take flight, as long as they return to the combat. Cavalry combats could sway to and fro as each side beat the enemy, pursued them, and were in turn beaten and pursued by fresh enemy troops. Normally the victor was the side that kept a formed, fresh reserve the longest Cavalry were not normally expected to charge well-ordered infantry, as the results would have been mutually catastrophic to the opposing front ranks. Besides, a horse, especially one being ridden, will not in normal circumstances collide with a solid object if it can stop or go around it. Tacitus describes loyal roman cavalry refusing to charge home on a solid line formed by the rebel Batavian cohorts. Cavalry, therefore, would employ typical skirmishing tactics, that is, riding up, shooting, wheeling away, and then rallying ready to try again. Roman Auxillary Cavalryman AD14-193 (Nic Fields/Adam Hook)

Gladiator is a good film, I do enjoy watching it. Russel Crowe comes across with all the right gravitas. Oliver Reed really ought to be remembered for his role in this, he was perfectly cast as the world weary lanista. Thing is, for a film that set out to depict Rome, it made some suprising assumptions. The bearded fashions of the time are nowhere to be seen, and the gladiator equipment is used in a sort of mix-and-match style which certainly isn't historical. Has anyone noticed that the colosseum is designed to look like the Pollice Verso painting from the Pheonix Art Gallery? Inspiration indeed, but I don't know about those obelisks in the arena. There's no record of any obstructions like those because it would spoil the audiences view. The sequence with tigers isn't so far from reality however. They really did things like that. The story is not quite historical, but the film has such class you just cannot criticise that point. Apart from Maximus's capture and descent into slavery which seems a bit abstract and leaves you thinking - Huh? What? Regarding the wagnerian soundtrack, Hans Zimmerman does admit that when it came down to it there simply wasn't any other way to suggest roman majesty. I think we can forgive him, and some of those tracks really do hit the spot.

Quo Vadis is pretty typical of sword and sandals epics. The romans are often clean cut american actors fresh off the set of another cowboy 'B' feature and clearly have no idea how to portray a roman! As always Peter Ustinov makes the role of Nero his own and in some ways its a believable depiction. As for Petronius I can't say. I agree totally with NN, those helmets are hilarious fancy dress party left-overs - and what the heck are those embroidered tunics doing on a senior roman soldier? His men ought to be making wolf whistles behind his back! Actually, the attention to detail in costume is basically zero, since everything was done as cheap as possible and made to look colourful on screen without any regard to historical accuracy. The same might be said of the plot, which is full of decadent excess but not really grasping the real story very well. The fate of Poppea Sabina in the film was done for dramatic effect - but then watching a pregnant woman getting kicked to death by an angry emperor was probably a bit much for 50/60's audiences. As usual, the christians are presented as noble martyrs - and I tend to agree with Nero - they're still singing? At least some attempt was made to present their fate in the arena and also as 'burning torches', a touch of reality. Not a fiilm to take seriously, but get out the popcorn, sit back, and watch romans a la Hollywood

Methinks you're going to be busy JP!

An important point is that this infantry line wasn't a long line of troops in a few ranks, but a series of square units with space between them and supporting lines behind? A thin line of troops were vulnerable to cavalry action (one of the few circumstances where a cavalry charge actually does make sense because the unsupported line gives way to a charging horse immediately!) but this is atypical unless archers or other missile troops are being used, who don't have shields or appreciable armour and must line up to maximise fire effect.

Exactly my point. However, experiments along these lines have shown that horses refuse to enter tight formations. If the enemy gives way, then fine, but otherwise the horse interprets a shield wall as a solid barrier and doesn't like bumping inti it. One of our american members wrote something to this effect, and I guess he knows more about horses than either of us. I could do, but we're here to discuss roman tactics, not something that occurred a thousand years afterward. As I pointed out originally, the tactics involved in combat depend on training, equipment, formations, and tactical employment. This differed from our preferred period. I searched out the details of cavalry combat for the roman period and came away with contemporary and modern interpretations that agree closely with my assertions. Quoting actions of post-historical periods is not good technique as was pointed out to me once. You need to look closer at why this victory occured. Half of any combat is psychology. If you faze the enemy, the chances are he'll lose. How do you faze them? By being more aggressive or appearing as a grave threat to their continued existence, much like animals do in the wild. How can you do that? Try charging at them. I once visited Hexham racecourse and peered down the track as the horses rode by. The impression of weight and speed was impressive even without military gear. That doesn't mean the horses have to collide physically with an mass of shielded men, and its actually a bad idea if that happens. Although the horse could in theory bowl over a few men like ninepins (and quite probably kill one or two) the horse will also get hurt. It will be winded, perhaps unable to move, or even unable to stay on its feet. If the horse goes down, so do you, and your future survival is in jeopardy. You said it yourself. The goths horses weren't armoured. What actually happened is that the approach of these horse rattled the roman defenders. Truth is, the romans weren't up to the fight. If cavalry won a such a victory over densely packed infantry then they were able to pick them off individually, which means they were losing formation, which in turn means they were... well... losing it. The fact that cavalry charge at someone does not mean they have to charge into them. In any event, the cavalry involved were not likely to have conducted a charge with swords drawn. Tactics of this time were different because the people involved knew that running into dense packs of men isn't too clever. Neither are horses, but nature gave them enough instinct to realise that apparently solid objects hurt if you gallop into them. What was more likely is that the goth horsemen closed in aggressively, threw spears, turned back or went around, and started pushing men aside on the edge of the increasingly ragged formation. What the riders didn't do is penetrate the formation. That was only going to isolate them and have them surrounded by desperate infantry who are not averse to pulling them off the saddle before they despatch the hapless rider. Thats not a situation I would care for. I would prefer to attack the side or rear and retain speed, weight, and initiative.

Hehehe More exciting journalism! Notice the retiarius is left handed. So was Commodus, who was very proud of of being able to fight in this rare mode. I might suggest his left-handedness is one reason why the emperor favoured him, though perhaps he might want to spend a bit more on mosaic artists

I would say the bulk of the evening was typically roman. However, something different during the proceedings are going to interest and entertain your party-goers. If you really wanted a splash, why not two different acts? It boils down to availability, originality, cost.

It doesn't fit. I'm getting a bit suspicious about that quote concerning republican infant exposure. I wonder if there's a whitewash going on here to portray the republic as morally superior? Especially since the republic was notably more austere and subject to hard times than the succesful empire.

Yes it does - which is why horses refuse to enter the throng. If you tried it, you'll get a flying lesson. Any rider will tell you that. Sorry. No, they get injured, like us. Horses are not tanks and unfortunately they can be more vulnerable than us, especially if some idiot tries to ride head on. Horse on horse charges worked because the cavalry on both sides were in open order, to prevent collisions. Horse on infantry charges rely on the horse being able to evade impact. If they can't, the cavalry go around. That happens in every era.

The legion attempted to fight as a solid wall of shields with sharp points coming at you at a steady unstoppable pace. It often worked, which is why the romans preferred the heavy infantry style. Of course, sometimes things would not go to plan, and then in many cases a confused melee becomes every man for himself until someone brings order or the enemy give up and run. Training was essential but you cannot seperate the arms and armour that went with it. A good man may well be able to defeat roman protection but they often didn't. The defensive value of roman equipment isn't bad. Every army trains its men not to run away. The romans were routed often enough though, and yes, I agree. A man who decides to run is on his own and takes his chances, which aren't good if enemy cavalry spot you.

Caldrail makes a wager with NN concerning the bereft lady wandering the villa for him....

No, it was, but they had different moral and ethical standards to us based on the world they lived in. The ancient was was a cruel dangerous place, and not only the romans are guilty of a very severe way of living. Perhaps what makes Roman culture unique is the way they used death as public entertainment, but the sophistication of that cruelty indicates civilisation. Not one we're fully comfortable with, it must be said, but they gave us quite a legacy all told.