caldrail

Gauls were in decline as a warrior people at the time of Caesars campaign. Those gauls who had spread across europe and sacked Rome three hundred years earlier were a dying breed. Your imaginative prose in the last post is possibly more accurate for the caesarian period. Gauls flourished under roman rule because they were ready for it. They had already been seduced by roman luxuries and taught a stark lesson of roman violence.

Personally I agree wholeheartedly. For the stirrup to be effective in 'shock' value it requires that the rider braces himself rigid. This would cause injury to the rider on impact because the full force of the blow transmits backwards too. In any case the human body is ill suited to bracing itself in that manner. The roman saddle is especially well suited to allowing weight and momentum to carry through, given the four humps that the rider sat between. Re-enactors tells us that these saddles are very effective and easily allow the rider to maintain his balance on the horse, although as I've mentioned elsewhere I suspect its a little easier to be unhorses without a stirrup to brace yourself against. I'm not sure of the value of standing with stirrups other than looking over a hedge I suppose, but there's nothing in combat that benefits from this. Its the saddle that transforms the momentum of the blow, not the stirrup. Notice the high backed medieval type for use with lances. If a blow is delivered with great energy the result is a backward force on the rider, who should then slide off the horse backward without friction or saddle to keep him there. The stiruup does nothing to assist, and might possibly trap the riders foot and cause him to be dragged behind the horse and even trampled by the back legs. Not really. Its perfectly possible to ride a horse bareback without them, which was the usual method for earlier cultures who first domesticated the horse. I doubt many of them would have considered the stirrup necessary since vaulting onto a horse is traditionally a sign of skill/manhood amongst riders.

For a while now I've watched an advert on global warming. Its a frightening prospect. All those greenhouse gases polluting our atmosphere and raising temperatures that render our world a very inhospitable place. You need only log on to www.climatechallenge.gov.uk to join the effort to save our planet. Except for one small point... IT'S RUBBISH! Sorry, but it is. The advert is blatant propaganda designed to pander to our current fad for enviromental concern and recruit well meaning citizens to the government cause by frightening their poor little socks off. So why is this advert propaganda? The current popular belief is that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. False. Global warming is powered by the sun. As the sun becomes more active, so our temeratures rise. The action of sunlight on the worlds oceans creates far more CO2 than we do. True. Pollution from volcanoes is currently the worst offender. True. Cosmic rays are responsible for the extent of cloud formation, not CO2. True. We also blame industry for the rise in geenhouse gases yet during the period from 1940 to 1975 when industry increased in leaps and bounds - the mean world temperature dropped. Its ironic therefore that greenhouse gases are caused by global warming. True. Serious climatologists have uncovered a time lag between mean temperatures and the amount of greenhouse gases resulting from it amounting to around 800 years. But what about the ice caps? Surely we have to stop the sea level from rising? Well it would be a neat trick but changes in sea level are nothing new. It happens all the time and always will. One of the reasons for the saxon incursions into england was rising sea levels that inundated their coastal settlements. The current perception also ignores the fact the dry land rises and falls too. Britain is rising out of the sea (slowly) after the collossal weight of ice from 10,000 years ago has now gone. London is sinking because the land mass we call Britain is slowly tipping over. The northwest is rising, the southeast falling. Why? Because tectonic movement is pushing Britain aside as it opens the Atlantic wider. Something similar is true of the Mediterranean. We know that the Meditteranean coast is rising and falling as it buckles under the strain of the African plate as it moves northward. The Alps are the result of it, and the sea is shrinking. Thats what powers volcanoes such as Etna, Vesuvius, and the reason why the island of Santorini blew up in distant antiquity. The fact is global warming is a natural event. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Where they beset with droughts and disastrous weather and flooding? No. In fact they benefitted from bumper harvests. Wine was produced in the now chilly north of england. When you consider the 800 year time lag between temperature and greenhouse gases we are in fact now receiving the 'tax bill' for the Medieval Warm Period. If you go further back, there are long periods in earths history where the world is significantly warmer than our predictions of doom. Only once in earths past, the late Permian period, was the temperature so high as to seriously affect life on earth. For those that don't know, that was before the dinosaurs. We're at the mercy of a ball of hydrogen undergoing a nuclear reaction 93,000,000 miles away. So what the heck is going on? Basically the study of climate has been hijacked by those people with agendas. Remember all those campaigners who tried to stop the deployment of nuclear weapons? The ones who played cat and mouse with whale hunters? Now their holy grail is global warming. The failure of governments around the world is that they now adopt the same attitude for popularity. These days if you mention global warming doors open. Point out that its all nonsense and you're a pariah. Its become a mantra of our time, and its based on misconceptions. One of these misconceptions is that we can predict what will happen. Although the current trend is for warmer temperatures, it might swing the other way with a vengeance if our ocean currents change too far. The computer models designed to make these predictions are based on the premis that global warming is down to greenhouse gases, and we already know thats incorrect. But because the global warming industry is in full swing no-one wants to hear that the statistics are based on mistakes. They only want to hear the answers that suit their purpose. So what can we do about global warming? Unfortunately, the answer is almost nothing. Really. We are literally helpless in the face of nature. But then nature has always insisted that survival of the fittest is the prime directive of life. Species survive because they adapt to changes. Species that become specialised can do well, like us, but ultimately their enviroment will change faster than their ability to change with it. Our attempts to be greener are laudable but it won't stop climate change. Like King Canute, we stand there trying to order back the tide.

I doubt the horsemen alone brought down the empire given that roman cavalry was evolving toward the end too, but certainly the increasing use of horses in battle and in some cases the development of heavier cavalry for shock value affected the flow of battle. I notice though that these heavy cavalry are quoted as having 'little endurance' in battle, both because of the extra weight of arms/armour but also because the added protection left them tempted to continue melee when it it would have been wiser to withdraw and regroup, thus they fought longer pitched fights. Be careful here because medieval chivalry was largely a romantic ideal. Most early knights were nasty beggars both in politics and war. In terms of the warrior class, it was going to develop that way in any case. Warrior societies whose function depend on an elite class tend to become more sophisticated and held back by ritual over time. No, I don't see it that way. Persian cataphracts had been the prototype of heavy cavalry for two centuries before Adrianople. Hadrian had experimented with them, and Constantius made them part of the legions, although I freely admit the tactical use and expertise of these early knights left something to be desired. Gothic armies were different from roman ones. Goths were warriors regardless of whether they rode horses or walked around the battlefield - they were effectively interchangeable. Its also noted that the goths were weighed down with equipment. In this case it seems to have served them well. I agree absolutely. Theodosius couldn't ignore the gothic success, and better that they fought for you. No, the development began much earlier (and elsewhere), but perhaps you could view Adrianople as a milestone in cavalry evolution. The gothic cavalry were very effective in this battle, and given they could continue to fight in the same way as their infantry if unhorsed, they had a certain edge in flexibility. The predominance of missile weapons in gothic hands cannot be underestimated. They could make repeated passes at infantry and whittle down their morale and coherence with little effort before closing in with the melee.

One wonders why china and taiwan haven't seen this business opportunity...

It seems the romans didn't care much for bodily hair. Was that merely a fashion, or was it to appear less 'animal-like', or perhaps to seperate themselves from the barbarians? I always read they dry shaved with sharp iron razors and I'll take Pertinax's recommendation on faith.... My own experience of dry shaving (due to circumstance on rare occaisions) is that it doesn't get a good result and whilst it doesn't actually hurt, its none too comfortable. Armpits, arms, legs, chest? Thats a lot of boldily hair and generally men are hairier than the ladies, so they must have gone to some effort to look their best. I'm not suprised there was a fashion for greek style beards!

Not in the manner you think. Colliding with dense masses of infantry isn't likely to happen. Horses refuse to do so, and lets be honest, so do many riders, though I accept napoleonic beserkers didn't think too clearly. Even if the horses can be persuaded to collide, all you get is a tangled mass of bodies either dead or struggling to get up, including all the horses who entered the fray like that. If you actually study the battles you've mentioned, you'll find there's no evidence of infantry being bowled over by masses of suicidal horsemen. Why would they do that? Its madness. You might win the battle but how can you prevent outflanking moves from enemy cavalry if yours were wiped out in the last one? I used to believe the same as you years ago, but its a fantasy, and I know its a fantasy because I read something on the subject somewhat more authorative than a web page on this very subject. Listing battles is no good whatsoever - it doesn't prove anything - and in the case of waterloo, I've already informed you that charging dense infantry achieved nothing except pinning the men down. They were NOT attacked in the manner you ascribe because they formed square, a dense mass of infantry, which cavalry of the time didn't charge into - unless the dense mass of infantry was already shaken - which is another point you don't seem to understand. These periods saw co-operation between cavalry and artillery to achieve this effect. Most ancient armies couldn't do this apart from the romans, but as yet I haven't found any evidence for roman field artillery being used in conjunction with the horses in this way, mostly because cavalry actions of this period were against each other to prevent outflanking moves by a highly mobile force. Heavily armoured cavalry do nothing different apart from the fact their protection makes them well nigh impervious in melee, not the charge. Lancers do not collide either. Jousting is all very well but notice both horsemen are kept apart by a fence. Your concept of cavalry action is wrong. Read reports and treatises of the time. Far more revealing and you'll become a better military historian if you do.

Yes it is possible to find these people. There's a magazine for re-enactors (I think its called 'Skirmisher') which has loads of adverts for people making stuff from all era's. Price dependent on quality and purpose I would say. Museum quality replica's are going to hurt your wallet, but a re-enactment object shouldn't cost too much.

Caldrail, in a sudden uncharacteristic 'kirk douglas' moment, whisks the elderly matron away whilst the Augusta is busy with Docoflove. He lifts her her on a passing wagon and tells the drayman to carry her to safety. Only doing my duty ma'am. Now a discreet return to the party before anyone notices I'm gone... Quick, find a group of people to mingle with....

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.