caldrail

There is a lot of truth in that, and a desperate man soon resorts to desperate measures. Thats where training breaks down. However, an experienced soldier can retain his cool much longer, and thats one reason why experience was (and is) so vital. Its also the reason why novice gladiators were more likely to be killed on their first professional live bout. For a brilliant illustration of this, watch the 1960's film 'Zulu'. The bit where the colour sergeant takes on the zulu horde behind the wall makes the point very vividly. It is true that roman soldiers were taught very specific styles of fighting. A well-formed legion is restricted in its use of a sword. Each man must fit between another, all have big shields, with a narrow slot between them to thrust a gladius forward. Slashing around is only possible when casualties or melee make room for it.

Medieval knights prefferred big, aggressive stallions for obvious reasons. Roman cavalry preferred to ride mares, as mentioned by Varro and Pliny the Elder, because they were more obedient and easier to control in tight complex manoevers. Regarding stirrups, these were introduced by the huns from further east as I recall. However, they weren't used by the romans until after the fall of the west. Roman saddles had four prongs which the rider sat between, using them to brace himself. Re-enactors say these saddles work very well and its easy to support yourself by pushing your thighs into them. Nonetheless, the lack of stirrups is one of the major vulnerabilities of the period, because riders were easier to unhorse without them. I don't know if the roman saddle was any better in that regard - I actually think once a rider was losing his balance he might not have been able to recover.

Nephele! Get this.... dog... off my leg....

Yes but these are Mummies in captivity. We need to preserve Mummies in the wild, in their natural enviroment

A treaty would only allow Rome some breathing space and to recoup its losses. I really don't believe the carthaginian senate understood that rome was not going to go away because of a few defeats.

Children were valuable. They assured your family succession and fortune, not to mention assisting you in your old age, though I guess for wealthier families this was a lesser consideration given the presence of slave labour. Parents often doted on their children, and allowed them to be extraordinarily cheeky, which apparently amused roman sensibilities. Notice also how they grieve at the loss of their young ones. However - without the social care and income patterns of the modern world, the romans had to raise their kids with the consideration of the enviroment they lived in. An unwanted child is a financial burden even back then. Better to expose it, and romans who did that knew full well the child might be taken in by slavers or childless couples. In fact, a woman whose child is unrecognised by the father as his might well offer the child to a friend in the hope that it will have a happier life elsewhere. The father has the right to refuse his offspring as his, and indeed, has the right of life or death over it according to roman custom. Its an interesting point that in the sewers of Ephesus we find skeletal remains of babies, disposed of by prostitutes more often than not. Children are sent to school - which might actually be a tutor teaching on the street to save renting a premises, and oh boy does that teaching get tough. Vine staffs are wielded mercilessly. The schooling didn't molly-coddle them like today. Roman children educated this way learn a sense of discipline and inner strength I think, and we see this in the confident young men who compete for public office and military command. Roman society has a hard edge. Although they 'love and nurture' with parental indulgence they can be very hard hearted too, usually for necessity. I do agree though, as we find today, there will always be parents who have no regard for their offspring and given roman cruelty their life must have been horrible.

This is due to disordered infantry. To be able to penetrate an infantry mass required some confidence and to some point, disordered opponents who aren't putting up a coherent defence. You could argue that at Cannae the roman rear needed only to turn 180 degrees surely? True, but that means they are effectively unsupported by the mass of men still facing the other way, and they have different orders. Also, at Cannae the romans were drawn into a ring of carthaginian forces that caused their massive chequerboard formation to compress into a disorganised mob, a circumstance from which a roman commander could not manoever his men any more. To follow my analogy, the disciplined formations of romans had become something more akin to armed rioters under pressure from all sides without effective leadership or room to retreat.

This is terrible. With the acccent on saving the enviroment and wildlife in it, has no-one thought seriously of saving the Mummies? I suggest legislation to bury people in egypt in the time-honoured fashion so later generations can tomb-raid and evade their curses. PS - I know what you're thinking... That wasn't what I meant

Thought you were already there!

It is interesting that people of humble birth were able to climb the roman social ladder. The important point was that they stood by by a social better to do so in most cases, and as mentioned above, this was why Agrippa was happy to play second fiddle, although I agree he hoped that he or his children would benefit from this support in later years.

Yes thats true, but Claudius didn't buy the throne. He bought the praetorians loyalty. The praetorians had already given Claudius, indeed, almost forced him, to accept the title of Caesar.

When we consider cavalry actions, we are drawn to those heroic exploits of the past. Gaudily dressed swordsmen riding pell-mell to death or glory in the face of withering fire. Troopers riding to the rescue of the wagon train with that familiar and rousing bugle call. But these are later periods with different troops and tactics. Would the romans charge headlong in such a manner? Well, yes, if they could. Now lets discover why they couldn't. 1 - Lack of penetration The cavalry can charge an enemy formation if they wish, but the barbarian infantry are not lined up wide in three ranks deep. Instead, they assume a solid mass of men. Therefore when the horses arrive they cannot proceed further. There is no penetration of a tight crowd, and although plenty of barbarians are injured, the horses effectively become stuck. Thats assuming the horses will charge into them in the first place, because a thick mass of barbarians cannot be easily pushed through or jumped in the same way a line can, nor will the horses be persuaded to enter a mass of men who aren't running away. The same is true for cavalry fighting roman infantry formed up in square formations. 2 - Enemy protection The enemy may well have protection. Armour is not so common amongst barbarians, but shields just as frequent. A charging horsemen has a metal, leather, and wooden obstacle to his initial strike. Many spear or sword thrusts that should kill the opponent either glance off or impale a shield. Indeed, the multitude of shields may even cushion the impact of a galloping horse and would bring the animal to a standstill. Should the target be wearing chainmail or perhaps some form of banded mail, or a solid breastplate, there is a chance the weapon will do no more than stun and bruise him. This is also a time when the helmet comes into its own, since the higher stance of a rider makes the enemy infantrymans head more vulnerable . 3 - Sharp objects On arrival the horsemen may well discover that the barbarians have a nasty suprise. They're armed to the teeth. Those wielding spears or pikes may well ground them for support and leave the cavalry facing a wall of sharp points. No rider is going to take that on - its suicide. Immediately after contact the horsemen may also discover the barbarians have swords which are every bit as sharp as their own. Once engaged in melee, the rider must prevent himself from being unhorsed by the infantry milling around him. To fall from the horse is deadly - they'll be on you in an instant. 4 - Valuable assets In a word - Horses. In the ancient world the horse is an expensive animal and in short supply. Risking them in a free-for-all melee is undesirable, and even less so injuring them in a headlong charge against your foe. Without the horse, the rider is merely another footman, with possibly less protection or lighter weaponry. All this means that a charge in the usual sense is unlikely. There is little to gain from charging an enemy well prepared to defend themselves. In fact, it was not the job of the cavalry to attack the infantry at all, but to protect the flanks from intrusions of enemy cavalry. The effectiveness of this can be seen from the Battle of Cannae in 216BC, when the victorious carthaginians closed the trap behind the roman rear. Even in the late empire, cavalry training was broadly the same as before, and a 2nd century document Tactica, by Arrian, describes complex manoevers that stressed skirmishing with feints and hit-and-run tactics. Interestingly, he also says this - Charging in a straight line forwards they then veer to one side, as though turning to make a circle. This turn they make to the right, that is to the spear-throwing side. For thus nothing stands in the way of javelin throwing, and the shields afford protection to those throwing as they charge. Notice the charge is directed at right-angles to the frontage of the enemy. Expert opinion agrees. If the opportunity presented itself, they would try to hit the enemy infantry in the flank after their cavalry support had been driven off. Horses could not be made to charge formed bodies of men on foot, but if the infantry lose their formation it was a different story. Then, fighting as individuals, the mounted men have a significant advantage. Once an infantryman lost his nerve and broke and ran from his formation, he would be easy meat for a pursuing cavalryman Late Roman Cavalryman 236-565ad - Simon Macdowall/Christa Hook So how did the roman cavalry behave on the field? Lightweight spears/javelins were thrown from horseback to harass and divert the attention of the enemy. The cavalry might ride in quickly, loose a volley of these spears, then ride away to wheel around for another pass. Horses are faster then men and a wise commander uses that to his advantage. Roman cavalry, like many other armies, employs its forces to scout, to mount defensive screens, to ward off enemy horsemen, to harasss, and to pursue. Against an enemy cavalry unit things are more equal. The men are getting in close and fighting each other from horseback, either stationary or moving, and the horses are paradoxically less at risk aside from misplaced weapon strikes. Attacking enemy infantry with swords from the flank or rear, the cavalrymen don't charge. They ride in, up close, and use their horse to extract them from danger where possible. The horse also has weight, which a skillfull rider can usefully employ to push men back. I should point out that horses of this time were smaller and lighter than today, useful for speed and essential for the quick turning manoevers practised by the auxillaries. There are lessons to be learned from the modern day. In a riot notice the behaviour of the crowd when police horses canter in. These horsemen don't charge, and don't need to. The unprotected rioters give way immediately and retreat in most cases. A horse will naturally kick against something it doesn't like, and thats not something to underestimate. Toward the late empire things begin to change. Cavalry was in the ascendant. The oriental cataphract, an early version of the armoured warrior on horseback, is becoming more frequently seen both in roman armies and their opponents. These men are in the vanguard of the first attempts to have cavalry adopt a more aggressive role - The Charge. Using lances, the cataphracts charged headlong to maximise the effect of their weapons. The enemy infantry opened their ranks and allowed the horsemen in, who were then unseated and despatched. The science of the cavalry charge was not yet mastered.

Caldrail turns to wander back indoors - and is very amused by NN's attempt to distance himself from the elderly matron. Then he discovers a henchman of Crassus ruining the party. Oh no you don't sunshine.... And into the pool he goes! Now back to the fray!

It depends how you look at it. Exposing a child was certain to kill it except for the practice of taking these children left abandoned. A ready source of slaves for one thing, or imagine the joy as a traveller returns home to find his loyal wife has given birth to a child in his absence....

Maybe not mindless idiots. There's good money to be had from antiquities on the black market. Egypt for instance works hard to stop smugglers taking their heritage abroad to private collectors.

Nope. I'll post why this afternoon.

To my mind it seems as if Hannibal is doing everything because his countrymen are doing so little. They seem utterly dependent on Hannibal for any military initiative. There's no doubt he was a great general, but his strategy had fundamental flaws. Firstly, he seems unwilling to land the killer blow, which I find peculiar for someone with such a native grasp of warfare. Second, he seems unable to realise that Rome will simply keep on sending legions against him no matter how many battles he wins. Its as if Hannibal dare not risk a siege in one place for any length of time and continues to run riot around italy instead until his forces cannot. His long term goal remains a bit odd. Did he want victory or not? Rome was the key and he never grasped that nettle. PS - I just realised I answered my own question. Hannibal couldn't maintain a siege because the romans would keeping bringing in new reinforcements and if necessary besiege Hannibal in situ, a situation much like Caesar/Vercingetorix at Alesia.

Great find, but the Russel Crowe comparison is hype surely? Was Montanus legate of the Felix legion? No, just a retiarius favoured from the reign of Commodus, and there's no guarantee they had any dealings. Commodus seized the property which depicted this Montanus, who may have belonged to the original owner? Or was a favourite gladiator?

me? Definitely one of the immunes. Not for me the manual labour of civil engineering or the constant marches, camping, fatigues, punishments... Here you go, Centurion, something for you and the missus. Now every legion needs a historian to record our victories surely? Hmmm?

Because thats what they were taught to do, thats what napoleonic cavalry did. Roman cavalry weren't used in this overly aggressive manner. Back then, horses were too expensive to waste in foolhardy charges. In napoleonic times there were military stables breeding horses like no tomorrow. Not so in ancient times. Remember that the roman legions were very biased toward infantry, at least until the later empire when the situation begins to evolve. A frontal charge by roman cavalry? There weren't many commanders back then who would have chosen that course, given the likeliehood of sharp implements to run into. Notice that during the pike and shot era, cavalry mashed musketeers but avoided the pikemen. The same principle applies to our earlier period.

Rome was a human society and therefore had its share of thieves, rapists , and murderors. We know that thieving was widespread because of the laws against it and the number of people prosecuted for these crimes. Homes and apartment blocks in Rome rarely had windows at street level and if they did, it was likely there were iron guards to prevent entry. I recall someone offering a monetary reward for the return of a stolen kitchen pot for instance. Rape is an unpleasant side of human behaviour and the romans weren't so keen to punish it as we do today. Partly because of the difficulty of proof, but also because many women were operating in areas like brothels and taverns, and if a man took her, well what did she expect working in a place like that? Extreme cases were punished severly though. One young man of good birth was prosecuted for rape having broken in through the door of her house to get her. The magistrate was unimpressed with his defence. Murder? All too common in violent Rome. Sicarii waited in dark alleys to mug or kill passers-by for their purse. It wouldn't suprise me at all to learn that some men bribed vigiles to turn a blind eye. Some of this would have been down to organised crime. A wealthy man drops a few coins in the lap of a poor vigile to go away whilst the men working for him clean up the area for a very healthy profit? I doubt individual men would bribe a vigile if their own hand was dirty - the risk of treachery and justice was very great. Raptores? Now thats a class I haven't heard of. I gather the word means 'plunderer' which might refer to looters, after a fire for instance? Now thats a good excuse to bribe a vigile and one they might not baulk at.

She was born on November 6th AD15, so she was 44 years old when this escapade occurred. As I've pointed out, there some possible holes in Tacitus's story. He gives far more detail than Suetonius which is good, but some of the behaviour seems a little odd if you take the narrative at face value. However, something close to this occurred so perhaps a little editing took place? Perhaps not by Tacitus, who may well have told the tale as he heard it, but certainly from the men involved who lets face it, weren't about to brag. I do agree, Agrippina Junior was a formidable lady indeed. She was willing to do pretty much anything to achieve her goals but there was never a sense of desperation about it until that story of being suggestive toward her son in public. In many ways I do believe Fabius Rusticus hit the nail on the head. Nero had some fantasies about his mother and she knew about it. There is this tale that Nero slept with a woman who resembled his mother closely, and given the number of loose women he associated with, its not impossible that Agrippina had interviewed some of them to find out exactly what her son got up to. "So thats what he wants, is it?". If thats true, then she exploited it shamelessly. And uselessly.

Interesting point. But when did 'morals', as we perceive them, kick in? Did these very primitive societies lay down rules for the protection of the family, say - and was that based on primeval notions of territory and such like? In societies before there was organised religion or philosophy, what form would these 'morals' take? I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this. As for the phalluses - didn't they always symbolise fertility? Or did they have other associations? As social animals we therefore have elements of 'pecking orders', 'mating rituals', 'feeding rights' etc. Morals are an extension of our social behaviour. Our intelligence and self-awareness has modified these behaviour patterns in accordance with the enviroment we live in. Primitive societies deal in survival and so their moral code is fairly simple. Modern western folk have much more freedom and free time with little worry of where to get food and water, thus their moral code tends to be more individualistic. Phalluses often symbolise fertility, but good luck charms or wards against evil are also common. There's one part of the world (I really cannot remember the area) where the locals paint phalluses on their walls for that very purpose today. It looks very odd to our eyes!

Legionaries really were ordered to do seriously dumb things by some commanders! A large porportion of the Limes were nothing more than a palisade - a fence, with an occaisional watchtower in the vicinity. Almost impossible to defend without regular patrols I would have thought.