caldrail

Standard bayonet training includes twisting the blade before withdrawal. This not only worsens the injury, but might actually free the blade and allow it to be removed easily. Yes, it has been done on the battlefield since the invention of the bayonet. I do accept that the heat of battle is something different from training, and despite the practice back at barracks, when faced with an enemy trying to kill you some technique tends to fall by the wayside. Naturally a wound is going to hurt, but there are plenty of cases where a stab does not prevent your opponent from fighting on. A flesh wound is different from a thrust into an internal organ or artery. Remember the assassination of Julius Caesar? He was stabbed 23 times, yet fought like a 'wild man' during the killing including grabbing his assailants blade with his bare hands.

No, caesar used the standard bendy type. It all depends on leverage. If the pilum pierces a shield and the end of the shaft drops immediately to the floor, then the shank is resting on the shield and no bending takes place. The pila used weren't inadequate, its just that in some cases the pila didn't hit something in such a manner as to allow the bend to take place. We know the bending did occur, as pila tips have been found on battlefield sites with exactly this sort of deformation.

The romans got whatever cavalry they could find. Not everyone wanted to fight for Rome and remember in many cases it was only for money - they weren't particulalrly pro-roman. Caesar found this out with his Aeduii allies. These gauls were 'inordinately fond of their pampered and expensive horses', and when they met stone throwing german cavalry the aeduii fled, even though they outnumbered the germans heavily. We associate the roman army with having lots of highly trained and effective troops, but the quality of troops was just as variable as any other army. Lancers of one sort or another are a late development that pre-dates the medieval knight. Before that, cavalry might employ spears but I'll think you'll find these were lightweight weapons that were only intended to carried for harrasement roles - so the cavalry would ride up, throw, and wheel away. Of course these spears might be handy for pursuance too. The roman longsword, the spatha, was that length only because the rider needs the extra reach to be effective from horseback, but this melee weapon requires that the rider get in close. In pursuance this is the only way to achieve your intended result. In open battle, getting up close is always a risk because as cavalrymen have found throughout military history, determined infantry find ways to unhorse them. Therefore, if you want to be aggressive, then your best bet is to try to spook or disrupt the enemy formation. Once they're disordered and can't retaliate effectively, then individual infantry are vulnerable to your superior size and weight. Charging head on was attempted by cataphracts but this was a disaster at least once. It really does require that the horsemen use their momentum to good effect - and they must remain in tight order. To spread themselves like the cataphracts did is not good! Horse archers of course do not attack in this way. They remain at some distance and fire arrows into the enemy formation. Speed is their advantage and they will always turn away rather than fight melee if they can. The interesting exception are the cataphract-archers, of which one unit served in the late roman army. I don't know how effective they were, and possibly the extra armour reduced their ability in archery, but certainly no heroic stories are told of them.

I think there's a danger that we read into Suetonius what we want to. For some he will always be a gossip columnist, for others a roman Jerry Springer. For me, as I've already mentioned, he's an invaluable witness and commentator of times past. How many of us are truly objective when we watch the tv news? Suetonius tries to be and goes to some effort to record details that give his work authenticity. Thats why I read him. For all the inaccuracies and wild tales, something real survives there.

That malcolm McDowell film was very operatic and painful to watch in some places, though the generally abstract view of roman degeneracy and love of diversion whatever the human cost is well illustrated. His caligula suffers from the actor trying to find his feet in the role. Thats something John Hurt triumphed at - he pitched it perfectly. You could easily imagine caligula was exactly like that.

I've just discovered that the bendy pilum was in fact the original model. The hinged pilum was a modification made by Marius that never got general acceptance. Julius Caesar wrote of lucky or nimble gauls able to evade the slow pilum flight and even throw it back, despite the much vaunted 'one-shot' principle.

Its interesting to see aetheist/agnostic sentiments in roman history, because I've always said there would be people who would sneer at religion and prefer a more material life. Roman paganism did not satisfy the emotional needs of adherents in the way that christianity did, and with all the wealth and other temptations on offer I can well imagine many paid lip service to spiritual beliefs. It just proves that the romans were really not so different to us.

The interesting thing is most of the actors were apparently unsure of how to play their roles. The triumph of the series really is down to how adaptable the actors were.

Ahhh but I shall not be a slave of the state for much longer. My last fight is won and I reach the end of my contract. Freedom! And a return to trading strange curio's from the far distant east in the warehouses of dull Durocornovium...

Let's just say you had me stymied for a bit. Plus, I was distracted by that beefcake pic of you in the Gallery. I've a weak spot for gladiators. Caldrail, one of your noble relations was Laronius, noted for having been "an officer of Augustus in the Sicilian war with Sext. Pompey." Your cognomen of "Ralla" (usually belonging to the Marcii) means "tunic of fine fabric", indicating that your ancestors were snappy dressers. Your full Roman name is... M. Laronius Ralla (AKLNLADMRAAOLR -kdo +ius) -- Nephele Not bad! But please don't tell me my ancestors were purveyors of fine garments. Its like saying I'm Mr Haberdasher... I'm pleased to see that my family had a fine military career worthy of note. I'll use that in the forthcoming elections just as soon as I grab enough sestercii for a days games.. Thanks for the compliments about the pic. Many gladiators died to bring you that jpeg....

Okeedokeee Then please extend my anagram to..... AKLNLADMRAAOLR yep, I do happen to be of the male species. Have I finally defeated the Great Nephele?

Thanks also to Augustus Caesar for that erudite reply

Soldiers are very practical people. Why give your enemy a chance of surviving? A wounded man is dangerous. He might just be able to strike once more when you least expect it. So, take him out of action right there and then. Stab him, inflict the intial wound, then open it. The blood will flow more copiously, the wound will actually become more ragged and less able to heal, and the intense pain will drop him even if he wasn't killed. He might even die of shock before he loses much blood. So the point is really to make the stab count. It doesn't matter whether the man dies or not, just that he's rendered incapable. Notice that modern bayonets are aimed at the soft lower torso by training. The resulting wound isn't likely to kill you there and then, but oh boy will you suffer before you expire of blood loss and peritonitis. Regarding chainmail, its well known that it resists slashing blows very well because the blade simply slides across the links. On the hand, the thin metal links are not particularly strong and the long sharp point of a well thrusted gladius concentrates all its energy on a link or two - and it gives way. There might be some resistance as the penetration power is soacked up by the surrounding links, but also remember that chainmail is flexible and will therefore follw the point into the soft innards under pressure. So not all the gladius end goes in, but it will push inward.

The reasons that rome became divided was the same reasons rome fought civil wars. Too many people wanted their own slice of the pie, or indeed all of it, against an empire which is increasingly costly and inefficient. Its true certain emperors changed government and military structures, but did that really change things, or was it merely a sign of the times? There's a little bit of both in the answer I think. Where these changes had long term effects then its significant. otherwise the emperors were simply plastering over the cracks or sticking fingers in dams. An important point to realise is that emperors made decisions on the spur of the moment for issues affecting the empire at that time. By and large the long term effects weren't something that concerned them, particularly since so many of them ruled for short periods.

The impression I get is that romans were essentially musically ignorant, and that such entertainment was something very greek. Since the romans didn't like the greeks as people and regarded their culture as of lowly status compared to their own, then musicians are being tarred with a brush. I read some mentions of pipe, harp and cithara players, I know that singing was practised in Rome. I also note that the lyre seems to be an instrument intended to accompany singers rather than a musical instrument in its own right, rather like the guitar strumming of street buskers today. Drums just don't make the scene, and the romans really don't use them in any capacity other than curiosities. What intrigues me is the water-organ, an upright piano-like construction that uses water pressure to create sounds. I can well imagine a wealthy man inviting guests to a supper and having them entertained by these greek-style diversions. For the most part these would have been slaves. I wonder if their ability to play got them a higher price at the slave market at Delos? Would a wealthy man buy such a slave and keep him (or her) permanently for entertainment, or simply hire them as required from another owner? It isn't beyond the realms of possibility than a few romans were earning tidy sums renting musicians out, and thats really the sort of thing I want to uncover if it went on.

Music as background accompaniement does seem to be the general case. Evening dinners, even gladiator fights, are set to music to heighten the mood. I like the comparison with modern 'house'. However, surely there were musicians who were sufficiently talented? Nero after all went on stage competitively, singing alongside his lyre. Ok, so he was bound to win no matter how good or bad he was, but he apparently went to some effort to improve his ability. That indicates to me that musicianship was something that was taught and practiced, that one could achieve some recognition for in these arty competitions (not to mention awards). Is it such a big step to have troupes of musicians playing for hire? I would say not, but the romans, as you confirm, did not assign any real status to these people. Yes, they enjoyed it, they applaud, now what was it you where saying? For a culture that prided itself on the enjoyment of finer things it seems strange to me that musicians got such a raw deal. Thats why I think there's a possibility that musicians sometimes did better than we realise. I would love to find references on this subject.

During our UK meet in York I noticed the healthy state of local music, and wondered about how it might have been in roman times. Musicians and performers in roman culture aren't allowed much status, and they seem to lack the dynamic stardom attributed to successful sportsmen and fighters. In fact, many musicians would have been slaves, attached to their owners and used to entertain guests. Is it possible an enterprising man rented out his troupe for performances? I also wonder if reputable musicians toured the provinces in much the same way as today? I'd like to open this for discussion because roman music gets little attention.

Agreed, but then fossils of monkeys and apes have been found in France, Italy, greece, and Czechoslovakia. I do think there's a possibility of native populations that no longer survive, at least in southern europe.

Cavalry was at a premium in ancient times. Horses were expensive items and vulnerable in combat. During most of the period, we see cavalry used in supporting roles. Harrasement, scouting, and pursuing. Unlike the massed charges of more recent times the object of the harrasement was to occupy enemy units and perhaps cause them to break formation whilst the real threat marched up the hill. Scouting is obvious. Pursuance is a task that cavalry has always performed. When an enemy unit breaks the horsemen trot into the crowd of fleeing men and cut them down from behind, turning a retreat into a rout with heavy casualties, and ensuring that they're persuaded not to come back again! Later we see the persian influence with the introduction of cataphracts. Tactics begin to change and at last cavalry assumes a more aggressive role, charging the enemy. Not always a success tough. Its on record that such a unit was massacred when the crafty enemy infantry simply stepped aside and allowed them in before unhorsing them and... well it doesn't need much imagination. The tactical use of these units possibly improved over time but the lighter cavalry units retained their former roles, and indeed became more numerous as the importance of cavalry increased toward the end of the west.

No, you're wrong. Flesh does give way during this action. The wound isn't cone-shaped, its more or less the same shape as the intial penetration apart from stretch damage. What the twist movement will do, similar to modern bayonets, is to open the wound. It hurts, and is intended to put the target out of action even if he tolerates the intial penetration.

Apes were still present in one or two places but I don't have info on which ones or where. Gibraltar still has them doesn't it? The reason is because of the world hothouse during the Tertiary Period following the K/T event. Apes evolved rapidly and extended their range over mainland europe, retreating in the face of the colder climate in the Pleistocene. By roman times, outposts of apes were in short supply and I have no doubt whatsoever that they were also the reason why those outposts are not there today.

For the same reason people follow rebellious causes. They either believe they stand to gain from it or they really do believe in the cause. many of Spartacus's followers went on the campaign because Spartacus offered them the prospect of wealth as much as freedom from slavery or whatever. Then again, some people are very charismatic and others tend to follow them anyway. This is one of the characteristics of a great leader after all. Land, loot, rape, pillage, glory, travel, adventure, belief, necessity, opportunism.... All sorts of reasons, depending on the character of the individual soldier and his circumstances.

Well I guess this asks was the gladius designed or capable of puncturing/penetrating armour used by Romes enemies? Or was it used in mind to target unprotected parts of the body? Roman soldiers were trained to attack unprotected areas - the face, torso, thighs. Limbs as such weren't the target although I guess their enemies suffered wounds there. No, the gladius wasn't intended to penetrate armour. However, a solid thrust could easily go through chainmail. Thrust, twist, withdraw. The reason that troops were trained not to stab the upper chest if they could help it was because of the risk of the gladius sticking between the ribs and not coming out again. Thats not a fault of the gladius, all wide-bladed swords can do that.

Well I suppose since the rest of the world has done it, so should I... Go on, giive it a go. My name is composed of.. AKLADMROLR I await with trepidation

If arthur was scottish, then he must have been a traitor too. A large percentage of his enemies were picts or irish scots. The scottish connection is nationalist wishful thinking in my view, although its likely that some of the battle sites were in scottish territory. The Battle of River Bassus is thought to be Cambuslang by some experts.