caldrail

By the late empire the need for a huge navy had long past. Rome was master of the mediterranean and they didn't need those massive triremes, quadremes, quinq... you get the picture. Sure there always problems with pirates but these were better handled with smaller faster vessels which remain in use to the end of the empire. Remains of warships found in various places show vessels much reduced in size and better suited to coastal waters than the dreadnought galleys of old.

Thats not disputed. My point is that the pointed sabre is an aggressive posture, not a form of attack. Imagine for a moment the cavalry are bearing down on you. Each is holding their sword forward and screaming blue murder - the impression is that the rider ahead of me is coming at me saying - "I'm gonna get yuh!". I don't know about you, but personally I think I'd probably gulp.... When they arrive at the target the cavalrymen involved are still going to swing their swords to attack. Thats part of the drill too. Saves on injuries and lost swords.

That was the original plot. Unfortunately it didn't kill him, merely made him violently ill. Narcissus was indeed sent in to finish him off the night before one of his performances in the arena.

I think we need to understand why triumphs were awarded to generals in the first place. Agricola has been mentioned as an example of one triumph awarded but never celebrated. When you look closer, Emperor Domitian did not like Agricolas success. If this general finally conquered Britain, he would return with legions behind him as a glorius conquerer. So Domitian ordered him home before the campaign was complete. The triumph would have been used as an excuse to ruin Agricola's possible attempt on political power. He realised this, and refused to accept the honours claiming he was only doing his duty. Truth is, he was only saving his neck. Popularity is a two edged coin in roman times. Without it, you cannot safely run for office or even potentially rise to the top slot. With popularity comes envy and emnity. Many of these generals knew this and were unwilling to risk exposing themselves to these dictators. This is reinforced by the knowledge that so many roman generals were cautious characters. The romans preferred such men to lead their armies rather than the charismatic, reckless, adventurer types like Julius Caesar who lets face it set something of a precedent by accepting honours as a way securing power.

As for getting around on the 'Hadrians Wall' projected bash - is it worthwhile hiring a minibus?

Caligula's behaviour was uncannily like a nasty small boy. Instead of pulling the legs off spiders, he pulled the legs off human beings as it were. Emotionally he was incapable of restraining his own behaviour - but I do notice that he seemed to calm down a bit once Caesonia was in the picture.

In AD192 the megalomania of Emperor Commodus was threatening to become murderous on a large scale, and those closest to him attempted to poison him in December of that year. This was unsuccessful so an athlete named Narcissus was sent in to strangle him. Amongst those who knew of the plot was an elderly city offical named Pertinax, a succesful ex-soldier and son of a freedman, who was then offered the throne and reluctantly accepted. A payment of twelve thousand sestercii to each Praetorian won him the necessary support. Pertinax attempted to curb the excesses of the Praetorian Guard, and made efforts to prevent further embezzlement by imperial freedmen. The public were delighted but too many people were now aggrieved at the termination of their perks. On the evening of 28th March AD193, drunken Praetorians broke into the palace to confront the emperor. He tried bravely to face them down and calm the situation, until one praetorian lunged forward with a sword and the spell was broken. Pertinax was cut to pieces by an angry mob. He had ruled for eighty seven days. The guilty praetorians fled back to barracks but realised they held the balance of power. In typically greedy fashion, they decided to auction the throne to the highest bidder and shouted news of the sale from the surrounding wall of the barracks. Most people were too nervous or disgusted to rise to this, but one man named Marcus Didius Julianus was egged on by family and friends and made himself known to the Praetorians. Didius Julianus was a man with a repectable senatorial career behind him, having achieved Proconsulship of Africa four years previously. By all accounts he had no shortage of money either. He was notorious for his hedonistic lifestyle including appearances in the arena as a gladiator. The Praetorians dropped a ladder and allowed him into the barracks. Another contender arrived almost at the same time. Titus Flavius Sulpicianus, the father of Flavia Titiana, Pertinax's wife. Sulpicianus had also been a consul before and currently enjoyed the office of Prefect of Rome. He too made himself known but the Praetorians feared treachery and refused him entry despite a promise of twenty thousand sestercii for each praetorian if they gave him the throne. Julianus however offered the Praetorians any sum of money they wanted. He reached an agreement to pay each Praetorian an astonishing twenty five thousand sestercii, and that the payment would be made immediately. Julianus promised to restore honours to Commodus and to end the restrictions on the Praetorians made by Pertinax. He also reminded the Praetorians that if Sulpicianus won the auction then he would no doubt seek revenge for Pertinax's death. Julianus was declared the winner. The new emperor emerged from the barracks surrounded by Praetorians in full battle dress, clearly expecting resistance. Both the Senate and the public made their disapproval known. Julianus was booed and jeered by people in the street, and he even resorted to travelling discreetly around the city. The promised donative to the Praetorians was never paid. Support for Julianus had virtually disappeared. It didn't take long for news of the death of Pertinax to reach the far corners of the empire either. Already there were stirrings in the provinces and three men rose as challengers to the throne. First was Gaius Prescennius Niger, Governor of Syria. In the middle of April AD193 four syrian legions proclaimed him Emperor. Niger was delayed at Antioch, his temporary capital, while he gathered more support. Second was Decimus Clodius Albinus, Governor of Britain, who declared himself Emperor in April with the backing of three legions and auxillary support. Third was Septimius Severus, Governor of Upper Pannonia. A grand total of sixteen legions, the entire Rhine and Danube army, were behind him after soldiers proclaimed him Emperor at Carnuntum (Near Vienna). Severus was a better politician than his rivals and reached an agreement with Clodius Albinus, promising to make him 'Caesar', a chosen successor, in return for his support. Severus marched south with twelve legions. News of this reached Rome and Julianus attempted to forestall the looming disaster. He ordered the Praetorian Guard to dig defenses around Rome, which at that time had none. The Praetorians were not used to manual labour and made every excuse to avoid it. He then sent assassins who failed to reach the heavily guarded Severus. Julianus went before the Senate and insisted that Severus and Niger were made enemies of Rome, offering an amnesty to their soldiers if they defected. Finally, in desperation, Julianus asked the Senate to appoint Septimius Severus as joint ruler of Rome. By this time Severus was near the city, and the Senate not only rejected Julianus's power bargain, but also passed a motion giving divine honours to Pertinax and sentencing Julianus to death, clearly hoping to curry favour with Severus. An officer was ordered to carry out the execution. He found Didius Julianus at his home on 1st June AD193, abandoned by his family and slaves. Cassius Dio recorded that Julianus went down on his knees and pleaded for his life. "But what evil have I done? Who have I killed?". The officer was unmoved by what he regarded as a display of cowardice, and promptly killed him. Julianus had ruled for sixty six days. Julianus's body was given to Manlia Scantilla (his wife), and Didia Clara (his daughter), who buried it in his great-grandfathers tomb on the Via Labica. Septimius Severus, the first emperor of North African origin, marched into Rome in triumph nine days after Julianus's death. The Praetorian Guard were exiled and replaced by Severus's own men, whilst the ringleaders were executed. Niger was defeated within a year, and beheaded in the suburbs of Antioch. Albinus rebelled when Severus declared his own son Caracalla as 'Caesar'. After losing a decisive battle at Lyons in AD197, Albinus committed suicide. Twenty nine senators who'd supported these rivals were executed. Septimius Severus was now the unpopular and uncontested Emperor of Rome. What can we make of this episode of roman history? As an act of folly its hard to beat. Julianus bought the throne, a heinous sin in roman eyes, since no self-respecting leader of Rome would dirty his hands on a grubby business deal. But it wasn't even that - Julianus bought the throne as an extravagance, a diversion, something to amuse him and his peers. He bought it because he could. Worse still he lost the only support he had by failing to pay the Praetorians an agreed sum. This was a man who had achieved senatorial success yet achieved absolutely nothing as Emperor. It was utter foolishness. To all intents and purposes there was a power vacuum after the death of Pertinax, with far more able politicians in the provinces seeing a throne ripe for the taking. Niger was too slow. He waited at Antioch for more support when it might have been better to move on Rome immediately. He was after all far more likely to win senate approval than his rivals. Albinus was bought off with a political deal and might be considered too trusting. By the time he reacted Severus was already in a position to defeat him. But that was always going to be the problem. Septimius Severus was a crafty politican who knew how to secure power. In the end, it was always going to be Severus who would win eventually.

To me it seems that Marcus Agrippa wasn't the sort of person who made a big deal of things. Not an extrovert then, but a man who preferred plain speaking and no nonsense. I wonder if Marcus Agrippa was a someone of limited imagination because he never comes to the fore during a period when everybody else is doing their best to do so. A dour personality? Well connected but perhaps at heart a very private man.

Seutonius records that thirty generals were given full triumphs, and many more were awarded privileges associated with them. If those thrity were part of the royal family all well and good, but it doesn't seem likely does it? The trouble is Augustus was very keen on rebuilding the class system in roman society which is probably why you read that he he reserved things for his family. I actually think he was more wary than that. To have done so was risking a rebellion by commanders who couldn't achieve high honours. I've never come across any record of the inventor. We'll probably never know.

Just a small criticism - The colours on the smock have too much contrast. Modern military clothing gets very dull and sun-bleached (These days thats even allowed for in the original colour) so the real german smock would appear more washed-out than your otherwise excellent illustration. Black quickly becomes medium grey for instance. Take a good look at colour photographs or cine film of the period and you'll see exactly what I mean.

(*belch*)

Lets start as we mean to go on. I've posted a thread about Augustan military reforms. Come on guys, catch up

With the beginning of the Principate, Augustus had inherited sixty legions, many of whom were veterans of the civil wars. Clearly this was a vast and expensive army for a state now offically at peace and he reduced the number to twenty eight. The roman army would remain more or less at around thirty legions for a long time to come. During the civil wars, the major players had understandably gathered cohorts of bodyguards to protect themselves against enemy action, or even treachery by their own troops. It wasn't lost on Octavian that Antony had gained so large an army because legions had changed sides when it suited them. These units of bodyguards were known as Praetorian Cohorts. Augustus amalgamated these cohorts as part of his military amnesty to form the Praetorian Guard which nonetheless remained a dilemma for him, because their loyalty as a whole could not be guaranteed. For that reason Augustus stationed only three cohorts within the city of Rome, preferring to billet the remainder in the surrounding country. Not until Aelius Sejanus became Praetorian Prefect during the reign of Tiberius would the Praetorians be brought entirely within the boundaries of the capital city. There seems to be an interesting change in Augustus's attitude toward the legions. According to Suetonius, he no longer called them Comrades. The old view of the legions as a citizens army was finally being swept away and from that point forward, Augustus always referred to them as Soldiers. This status was further reinforced by changes in reward for military conduct. Army generals were given triumphs to recognise their talent without hesitation. Thirty of them received full triumphs and a larger number lesser recognition. Clearly Augustus was mindful of maintaining army loyalty by keeping their commander sweet. For the ordinary soldiers however the awards for valour were now likely to be a valuable but inferior silver plaque or collar rather than the older respected Corona. The command structure of the legions was fixed by Augustus and each had a permanent genral, or Legate, of senatorial rank. His number two, the Tribunis Laticlavius, might be expected to be a military novice serving an apprenticeship in command. The third in seniority, Prefectus Castrorum, was intended to be an experienced career soldier in charge of the camp. Interestingly the command structure included five equestrian officers, the Tribunis Augusticlavi, who were allocated responsibilities as required. This innovation provided new roles for the equestrian order that previously hadn't existed. Regarding the auxillaries, Augustus organised them as seperate cohorts rather than legion sized units. On the one hand it made for a flexible support structure (the entire purpose of auxillaries in the first place), but also to ensure that any rebellious foreigners would be outnumbered by their legionary opponents. Augustus also brought back the cavalry contigent of the legion, one hundred and twenty strong, although the auxillary cavalry were better equipped. Perhaps ten perecent of men under arms during the augustan period were cavalry, who were going to become more important on the battlefield from this time. On two occaisions the class structure of roman culture was set aside in order to provide enough troops. The first was to protect the veteran colonies in Illyricum, the second to defend the Rhine against the germanic tribes. By roman law slaves were not permitted to serve in the legions but in each case household slaves were recruited and made freedmen in segregated units. They were not allowed weapons of standard pattern either. Augustus was very keen to prevent tainting roman institutions with slaves. However the use of freed slaves wasn't new to Augustus. In his eight year Sicilian campaign we see him needing to replace fleets of warships lost in storms. The new vessels were manned by twenty thousand slaves given freedman status, who exercised throughout one winter to help bring victory against the ships of Pompey. After Augustus mass recruitment of slaves was discontinued. Whilst Marius had not set limits to the number of years a soldier should serve, tradition dictated that sixteen years or campaigns were enough. Augustus made the sixteen year rule permanent, with veterans serving a further four years as immunes. The crises of manpower during his reign resulted in a full twenty year service that remained in place throughout the Principate. The length of service introduced was resented by the soldiers and it comes as no suprise that Augustus attempted to forestall mutinies by establishing standard pay and perks. An army treasury supported by taxation was introduced and fixed bounties according to rank were paid to men on completion of their service instead of the more contentious land-grants. Its noticeable that under Augustus some legions achieved a certain individuality and reputation. He did nothing to discourage this. Possibly he felt this was a positive move toward esprit-de-corps, and from this point a legion could title itself appropriately to commemorate victories. Soldiers were now taught individual legion traditions which made them proud of their unit. In fact, its possible that some legions refused to surrender their titles to reorganisation which is why the numbering sequence was so haphazard in later years. Contrary to popular belief the Lorica Segmentata, the 'banded armour' so typical of hollywood depictions, was a later development that first saw use from the reign of Claudius onward. The soldiers continued using the heavy mail shirt from the republican days. Helmets were on the cusp of change from the older flatter bowl to a more rounded shape. In the augustan age, gladiatorial combat (Munera) was increasingly popular alongside the affluence of roman society and some elements of their protection appears to have influenced the legions own. Helmets had larger neck guards and Murmillo shields were already curved and rectangular. It's also true that new tactical innovations like the Testudo (Tortoise formation ) were encouraging the use of newer curved rectangular shields. Although the legions attempted to standardise on this new design, many oval or truncated oval shields from the republican days persisted, and oval or hexagonal shield designs were still used by the auxillaries. As in the days of Caesar, legions carried only one pilum into battle instead of two as normally depicted. The gladius was in a period of transition too, from the graceful republican 'spanish' sword to the simpler 'pompeii' type that would emerge from Claudius onward, another sign of increasing standardisation during the augustan period. Unlike his mentor Julius Caesar, Augustus was a 'safe' commander who avoided rash decisions. Not all of them were so wise however. He had appointed Publius Quinctilius Varus as commander in the german colonies. Varus has been described as 'A judge, but not a judge of men'. Fooled by the german Arminius his command was led into an ambush in the Teutoberg Forest in AD9. The XVII, XVIII, and XIX legions were slaughtered and never reformed. From this disaster the roman policy of entrenchment began. Although Marius had set the foundations of the professional army, it was Augustus who gave them professional status. Yet despite the changes he made Augustus was unable to prevent the old problems of disloyalty and corruption. The roman legions would remain a turbulent force both in war and politics thereafter.

Not all native americans were peaceful. The iroquoi were positively warlike. Plains indians raided each other and there were some long term bloodfeuds. In fact, I can only think of the pueblo's as a peaceful bunch. Cherokee's maybe? Perhaps someone else has more info.

I claim my victory, but due to circumstance I must pass the honour of phrasing the next question to someone else... Who then shall be my successor? To whom will be passed the reins of power in this thread, and the glory of confounding the world?

yes, but then people vary. A houseproud person or one expecting visitors might keep up appearances, whilst someone who couldn't care less would use the space for more practical or perhaps wasteful purposes.

Am I right in thinking that Buddhism has no deity? Now, that sounds sensible to me. No, I don't think it does, but then they give the Buddha the same sort of reverence so I doubt that distinction matters. For me, God (or gods/goddesses) are human concepts, not absolute truths. Someone, somewhere, made it up. Otherwise how could you know? Did the god in question really pop up in front of you and introduce himself with a view to recruiting you for his cause? I wonder how many people throughout history have spouted all kinds of nonsense for their personal ends? Or enjoyed too many suspicious substances? For me, belief is something you hold to be true. Religion is something someone else tells you to believe. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you believe, rather a matter of how you live and treat others. To quote a certain hollywood legionary legate... "What we do in life, echoes in eternity". What a great line, and so true to life in reality.

The notorious Thracian Gladiator Brittanicus Brutus Maximus, having polished off the biscuits and displeasing the gods greatly, challenges allcomers to arm-wrestling contests and winks at a few likely ladies of quality. More wine slave!

When cavalry charge full pelt toward the enemy with sabre pointing forward, you need to realise that the horsemen are not going to stab the enemy with it. Far from it, the sabre is perfectly adapted for slashing strikes. The act of pointing the sword is mainly bravado, to encourage yourself and others in the charge with a display of aggression that hopefully will also frighten the willies out of the poor souls about to receive your attentions. When you actually get there, the sabre would be used conventionally in a swing of the arm. otherwise the sword buries itself in your target, he falls over, and you carry on past. You really will lose the sword there and then. All this is all very well, but it ignores an essential point about roman cavalry tactics. They were not used to charge the enemy in the manner we associate with napoleonic cavalry or whatever. Far from it. To do so was a very unhealthy situation as many cavalry units found out the hard way in the ancient world. Even the introduction of the cataphracts didn't relieve the danger - at least once such a heavily protected unit charged the enemy who promptly stepped aside and let them in, only to unhorse them and finish them off with little difficulty. Ancient cavalry had a supportive role. They were used to scout, to harass, and to pursue. Against another cavalry unit we see a more agressive stance, but against infantry there seems to be a more wary demeanour. Horses don't like charging massses of people and need to be trained to do so - this body of experience wasn't available in the ancient world. Regarding the spatha, this is a weapon with a longer reach than the gladius, essential for cavalrymen who want to hit infantry milling around below them. The spatha is not however a weapon ideal for charging. Its a melee weapon, designed to be used when the rider is in the thick of it. Roman cavalry wouldn't charge in that manner, they would prefer to disrupt the enemy formation by riding up close and throwing light spears. It may cause casualties, or it may distract them while the real threat marches in from another direction. One thing that might be said of the spatha is that it could be used in pursuance - when a broken horde of barbarians is running for the hills a unit of spatha-armed cavalry could conceivably cause many casualties by riding up close and swinging hard at their back/head/shoulder. Note however this wasn't done at the charge. That sort of speed wasn't necessary - a trot will easily gain on a typical tired barbarian looking backward in horror and stumbiling on rough grass.

A sort of spiritualist myself. Almost buddhist without all that buddhist ritual and stuff.

Possibly, but it might only have been a cool fashion item at the time. I'll do some digging about celtic/animal stuff and see what crops up.

Roman bread was grittier than our own and did nothing for their teeth. I'm not sure about the bread preference of the legions but if true thats interesting.

The spatha will come out of your hand immediately on contact with the enemy. It might even sprain your wrist. If you're galloping at full chat, a slashing attack will slide off the enemy instead of embedding itself. Can't quite see the resemblance myself, but if you say so... Stabbing from horseback has disadvantages. In order to do so, the rider must thrust downward which is less effective because the shoulder does not force the blow as it would for a man thrusting at the same height. Conceivably the rider could twist his upper torso to compensate (I love stretched muscles!) but the downward vector is still less strong. For an effective stab, the rider must lean forward to allow his shoulder to add to the blow. There's no doubt whatsoever this happened, you see re-enactors doing exactly that. The risk in reality is that this brings you closer to being unhorsed. The cut-oriented foe in this situation could actually have an advantage, because his upper-body strength is better placed. What makes the fight uneven is the horse - a large animal with considerable weight. If the rider uses a slashing attack, then his shoulder is usefully employed and thats when his advantage in height really shows. But you're not wrong really, because inevitably some stabs would have taken place - though this was more to do with finishing someone off than melee duelling.

A roof? Then its not a war chariot. Ceremonial or burial perhaps? Given they dug it up I'd like to know if skeletal remains were close by.

Looks a bit like the Domus Aurea in Rome, but thats an educated guess.