caldrail

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.

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.