caldrail

Leather armour wasn't widely used by the legions at all. Sorry. It was used for stuff like tents, straps, boots, scabbards, or even ropes and catapult windings. There wasn't any demand for armour, and lets face it, there wasn't any knights in shining leather was there?

Only where such experience is available. Did the celts raid amongst themselves? If so, this would soon provide the necessary experience. Discipline isn't as necessary to travel as a group as you think. For the celts, its offset by peer pressure. These were men who placed great store in personal prowess. Imagine what would happen if Cantgetoutofbedix arrived after the fight had finished? His manhood would be held in contempt. Whereas the romans would try to get out of duties, the majority of celts would see it as fundamentally important to be right in there giving it their best. Of course they'd have the occaisional slacker, but the prevailing attitude was to show what you were made of. Hence it would be important to keep up and arrive with the rest. never mind having to face an angry chieftan when he discovered you'd stopped to smell flowers on the way! Strong personalities tend to be uncompromising types, so I suppose in that sense there's some informal discipline. Take the example of Shaka, the zulu chieftan. That guy was a total tyrant and had his army go through pain and sacrifice, not to mention executions if he didn't like them! Eventually his family had to bump him off. Now I don't think Vercingetorix was that bad, he relied more on positive leadership qualities. People respected him and followed his orders. Thats the clue with the celts. If a man proved he was fearless, able, willing to take the risks to be a success, and could make other people successful, then he was in a position to lead. If he also had ability, like Vercingetorix, then his talent rises to the fore and without any formal training tends to make the right choices. Spartacus had no training in leadership, but he led an army of amateurs on a two year campaign against the best that Rome could throw at him. Like Vercingetorix, he had talent. The celts were overrated as warriors in the first place. They were too civilised and fond of human comforts. Read Julius Caesars account of the conquest of Gaul, there's some interesting clues as to the real nature of celts. The germans on the other hand were much harder edged. Not suprising given their tough enviroment. Generalship is never overrated. One of the most vital abilities is to inspire men to fight for you. Besides the ordinary day to day organisational ability and a sense of strategy that very few people posess. Also remember that generals of this period didn't command from a comfortable chataeu thrity miles away. They were there - and in some cases, right beside their men in the front line. Drills and practice are all very well, but don't overlook the importance of experience. This is why veterans are so well regarded. They've already learned the hard way what war is all about and how to conduct themselves on the field.

The rise of freedmen as a professional 'middle class' began with Claudius and this offset the civic democracy to some extent. I have to be honest though, this isn't something I know much about.

One thing to be aware of is that roman historians were storytellers first and historians second. If they wanted to emphasise a particular point its not unusual for them to twist or invent an anecdote to fit. For the romans history is sometimes seen as a dry dull subject just as is today, so the roman historian wants to have his work read and therefore injects some measure of entertainment or interesting prose. On the other hand, its also possible they're relating verbal tales ad verbatim which were embellished by someone else.

yes, but notice the greed and corruption endemic to legionary life. The soldiers expect reward for their trouble, or there is likely to be some. Roman soldiers were expected to be obedient but that was an ideal. In many cases they weren't. They were not loyal to Rome. They were loyal to their commander, and therefore if the commander lost respect or was unable to inspire his men, he was in for a hard time. This cuts both ways so if a commander was especially loved and respected by his men, they might well begin to think that he would be a better emperor than so and so back in Rome, and then the legion mutinies as a whole. The roman social hierarchy is indeed part of the roman armies discipline but the it isn't simply a matter of obedience or punishment. A commander was expected to be a leader who inspires his men to victory. The emphasis on this was much greater than todays pep-talks by officers but even these can produce results. Notice that the class structure is still part and parcel of modern army life for good reason, even if many officers are actually from the same class as the rankers. The officers are educated and trained to fulfill their role as social superiors, as gentlemen. Roman armies have their own social structure after Marius rather than they wealth orientated structure of the early days which reflected the society they came from and their place in it.

Uh oh. Looks like I'm going to have to stay up all night getting Baldrick to help me fnish off my roller coaster of an essay in four hundred sizzling chapters....

I would say it was possible they trained as a group when powerful personalities rise to the fore, but training in formation? Celts fought individually, formations were alien to them. Not true. In fact, given the celts weren't worried about formations, it is indeed possible to cover distance as a group much quicker. Think about it. On the one hand you have a roman cohort marching four wide in good order and in step to the orders of a centurion wielding a pace stick. On the other hand, a mob of celtish warriors who can run quite happily in unco-ordinated fashion for some distance. Who gets there first? All it requires is a leader with enough personality to cajole his men onward. Celts weren't worried about efficiency. They were out for personal honour and glory as warriors besides any motivation supplied by their leaders. Discipline amongst vercingetorix's men is illusory. They were not an organised army in any way. In fact, it was down to Vercingetorix's personality that they were able to function as anything resembling a coherent army. Humans have a herd instinct which comes into play, but it requires strong leadership, without which a celtic army (much like any other) would fragment into smaller groups with more popular figures taking the initiative. I do see your point, but perhaps you're thinking of neatly ordered ranks of chariots moving together. Not so. British chariots were used individually, not en masse, although they grouped for mutual effect. Each would make a pass at the enemy but the whole point of chariot fighting is not to confront the enemy directly (fatal!) but to harass and wear down an enemy unit. The brits were using a sort of 'hells angels' approach to warfare on wheels, sweeping past and intimidating their foe with bold abandon. Agreed.

Chainmail might be labour intensive to make but remember we're taliking about roman times. Labour is cheap. In fact, chainmail is relatively easy to make if you don't mind spending the time linking it all together. Modern recreations are made by their owners without difficulty. I stand by what i said about leather. It simply wasn't cost effective. Give the legions some credit for commonsense. They used metal because it was considered a better alternative than the great and good as a status indicator. Its no good bleating on about how easy it is to make cuirbolli. If you make a mistake with leather, you've blown it. With metal, heat it up and rework it. If leather is battle damaged, what can you do? With metal, you heat it up and rework it. If leather armour cracks (and it can) throw it away. If metal cracks, well.. I suppose you could heat it up and rework it. Metal rusts I agree but any soldier who allowed his armour to get to that state is seriously going to regret it because the centurion would be down on him like a ton of bricks, and in any case he'd only have to pay for a replacement. No self-respecting soldier would allow his protection to go without a modicum of care. How many troops of any nation or period wore leather armour as standard? Think about it, because hardly anyone did, and if they chose to do so it was only the lack of a credible alternative. Metal every time. Just ask the romans.

I think I mentioned it somewhere else on this forum but a yoghurt made from curdled milk (I don't remember the latin name) was available but that was more likely to be a rural dish?

It is true that roman discipline was extraordinary, ruthless, and very harsh. We have that story of the centurion nicknamed 'Give Me Another' because he kept breaking vine staff on unfortunate soldiers. He also got himself killed because of it! Which brings me to an important point. Despite this fierce discipline the rank and file soldiers were not known for obedience. There are plenty of stories in which I see senior roman commanders pleading and persuading their men to back to their duties. The discipline produced some very hardened soldiers who simply weren't afraid of anyone and in some cases that included their officers. This is why I think that roman leadership was so important. Without strong leaders the legions simply didn't function effectively.

That underlines my view that a leather cuirass is a status indicator rather than functional armour. Interesting point about chainmail though. It must have been labour intensive to link together although the component rings weren't exactly difficult to make. Then again, I suppose there were always slaves you put on the job, and I would hazard a guess that since demand was there armourers both military and civil made copious quantities of it for instant sale?

Jim Beam? Jack Daniels? Have the romans no answer to these foreign witches brew? Caldrail is indeed to take part in festivities and sadly my gladiatrix will not. Phew. See you on the Friday.

Leather armour isn't as easy to make as you think. It takes longer than metal by a long shot and believe me it involves a very unpleasant tanning process. It might take weeks to produce a decent cuirass. Metal on the other hand can be worked in hours which was why it was preferable. It is true that the romans used leather tents. Why not, is was reasonably durable and much more weatherproof than canvas. However, the leather sections adjacent to the ground tend to rot according to modern research and needed replacement on a regular basis. It was much quicker to tan a hide and sew it into a tent than to go to all the effort of curing the stuff in hot wax. Don't be conned by all the nonsense from role-playing games. Leather armour isn't as cost effective as believed. Besides, why else was iron so important to the romans? True, they needed swords, but armour required more metal ore by far. If leather armour was so much better, cheaper, and easier to make, then why on earth didn't they use it as standard? Answer - Because it wasn't.

the Sicarii did want to wipe out Rome, because i think they believed that only descdents from david could rule judea. They killed other jews because they believed they were collarbarating with Rome or they didn't support armed rebellion against Rome. They believed that their god was going to descend from heaven and destroy the Roman legions. But all they accomplished was turning Rome more vicious in response to the jewish revolts, and they actually did alot more damage than any good for judea. The jewish sicarii were extremists with religious and patriotic motivations. Their homeland had been taken over by Rome after all. The thing is, we tend to think of these people as a coherent group but they weren't. They were divided amongst themselves just as much as modern islamic groups. There really is a parallel with today although circumstance is different. Its also worth stating that whilst many of the common people may have shared their sentiments they weren't prepared to act in the same manner. For them it was life as usual wherever possible, despite the roman presence. There is some speculation that early christians were also harbouring extremists. It was a young personality cult with an axe to grind - Rome had crucified its spiritual leader. Blaming the jews for this act came later during the hard line early medieval period. Romans weren't keen on these christians in their midst. There were rumours of drinking blood, cannabalism, and it was known that they only worshipped that one god of theirs and refused similar honours to the emperor. Some romans may have been curious (hence a trickle of recruits in the early days), but most wouldn't want to associate with them. The christians for their part must have felt this keenly. Their faith had effectively cut them off from polite society. Most would have accepted that as something unavoidable, and in any case they would have kept it quiet to prevent any ill-feeling. Some however, a small minority, may well have resented this attitude toward them. Unless the theory that these groups burned Rome in ad64 is correct, then it clear they never acted to the same extent as the jews given their smaller numbers. In any case, later christian leaders wanted their predecessors remembered as heroes and martyrs, bravely dying for their faith. If there were any violent or criminal acts in the name of christianity, it was brushed under the carpet.

A great deal is made of the roman sewage system but I don't think it was anything like as effective as some people think. In any case, I only know of a sewage system in the City of Rome, nowhere else. Particularly in poor quarters, people would throw crap out of the window just as any other time and place. We humans are mucky devils! Take a look at pompeii. These days the streets are sun bleached and quite clean, but notice the stepping stones across the street. During its occupancy the road was probably messy and stank like something awful. That would be typical of a town at that level of civic development. Waste pits have been found, and this would be a way of disposing of bulk waste that the street couldn't clear by rain and decay. The river tiber is known to have carried away a lot of waste too, including bodies of the masses slain in the arena. Like third world nations today, each town by a river might use it for all manner of purposes without too much concern of what was going on upstream. In each habitation there would be a locally acceptable place or method to dispose of rubbish.

Pardon? Caesar was not a man to pass on a chance of being the man in charge. He was a born autocrat. Would he settle for a years consulship? Well... no... he didn't did he? Even when a consul the joke was that it was the year of the consulship of Caesar and Caesar. The other guy never stood a chance By becoming dictator for ten years he set a new precedent, and by becoming dictator for life had set aside one of the most important taboo's of Rome, that no man would be king. You can argue about the title, but effectively thats what Caesar had become. He didn't destroy the republic, but he did create the precedent for empire.

This is a good point - but I think by that time, he had quite simply 'had enough'. I also think we do need to bear in mind that Tiberius was not exactly Augustus' first choice as successor - he was at least the 5th - even if we don't count Marcellus as a serious candidate in Augustus' mind at the time. And for him to listen in the Senate to the opening words of Augustus' will, where he bemoaned fate for robbing him of Gaius and Lucius, and offered Tiberius as the only option left - well, this would hardly fill the man with confidence in himself. You see, I am not so sure that Tiberius was actually born with his dreary personality; Augustus is not blameless in all this. But I also realise that I always judge Tiberius with a modern eye - which is most unscholarly and unhistorical (if there is such a word). I am quick to censure others for doing this with other historical persons It is just that, to me, Tiberius' personality seems to thrum with a very modern resonance. I know that Ursus, for one, has no patience with him, as he cannot understand why a member of the ruling class was reluctant to take on the mantle of government - and Ursus indeed has a good point, and is seeing Tiberius within the context of his own times. But I always think this a harsh judgment on a man who was introspective by nature - sympathy that would NOT have been extended to him in Roman times, to be sure. He is a real enigma and a very complex man, but all the more fascinating because of it. We're actually very close on this, because I do think, as I've mentioned before, that Tiberius resented being the 'last' to be considered for emperor and then only due to circumstance. I also think that Tiberius felt he had done his duty for Rome earlier in life and perhaps felt used and unrewarded for his efforts compared to more popular figures. Augustus never felt very well disposed toward Tiberius did he? If not, then thats something Tiberius was aware of. At the end of the day, Tiberius shows a distinct disenchantment with running with the crowd as he had in his early days, which would have resulted from a lack of personal popularity.

yes, this sort of thing is becoming clearer as I read about christian development. The early cults were sometimes militant but the lack of tolerance because of reputation by romans meant things were kept quiet. Also, later christians didn't want to record their faith as being responsible for militancy or acts thereof, so there's bound to a certain amount of religious license in christian history. The balance of power between church and government became an issue after Constantine when the faith was organised, if not completely unified. This movement in my opinion peeks later at the beginning of the First Crusade. Julian of course despised christianity and I wonder if it was partly the need to share power or populairty with them that led him to act against it.

The exact same statistical arguement applies to the larger legionary encampment and therefore you have argued that they couldn't do that either - but we know they did - it really is just a question of scale. Remember that we're not talking about a permanent fort capable of withstanding a siege. The surrounding ditch is just as useful for drainage as protection and the palisade not especially impressive. The whole point is that these camps were overnight accomodation only. Besides the obvious advantages of a more secure nights sleep and psychological intrusion into enemy territory, the other reason why this camps were built at the end of a days march was to keep the men busy.

Meat? If there was any. Barley was considered an animal feed by soldiers hence a suitable diet for gladiators. To be fair I have to point out that this is a very unlikely scenario. Both the lanista and the games editor had financial reasons to reduce the death count. The lanista had to buy a replacement, train him, feed him, equip him, and his loss meant no further profit from an experienced man. The games editor on the other hand had to pay a higher compensatory rent price if th gladiator died. Although the crowd were keen to see blood spilled, the organisers therefore were not. There was no moral compulsion to avoid death and injury. Far from it. Roman society was more violent than today and it was an accepted part of life. We read learned romans criticising the games, the contestants, and the crowd, but actually this had less to do with human decency than a disdain for what was considered a lower class entertainment, not really fit for wealthy people even though plenty of them cheered the fighters on. Modern statistics show a grim prospect to anyone embarking on this career. First, you must survive the training process. Although much of this was done with heavy blunt practice weapons there was adequate scope for injury. Those of you who've seen the kirk douglas 'Spartacus' film might remember a rotating post with two bars that alternately sweep at the head and ankles. This is authentic. Training was a very strenuous regimen. In fact, studies reveal that one in three trainees did not complete training due to death or injury. The next big obstacle was the first professional bout, the first time you enter the arena for real. Your opponent is no longer going to pull his punches! Again, statistics suggest that one in three gladiators died in their first fight. Experience is a great teacher and until a gladiator has accumulated this he's at risk of making rash decisions and fatal mistakes. Overall, a gladiator might expect a one in nine chance of meeting a sticky end during combat. Its not clear how many were killed during a frantic fight or were condemned to death after being unable to continue. The average life expectancy of a gladiator is reckoned on four years. This is based on the number of fights survived before death. Therefore, the majority of gladiators would die before their term of service was finished. Without doubt, entering the ring was a risk business and it really does say something about the macho, violent, greedy, and glory seeking mindset of romans from all walks of life. Dead gladiators were buried seperately from everyday folk. This was because of their 'infamy', or lowly status. Even the very successful famous gladiators were treated this way.

Much smaller and more basic, but generally of a similar format in layout. A simple ditch and palisade surrounding the camp and none too large, but enough for a modicum of prtection.

You can easily interpret the Book of Revelations in this way. It reads like an inflammatory article designed as propaganda against Rome, much like islamic tirades against america today. It also means that there were extremists trying to persuade their peers to take up the cause, and as always happens with extreme politics, they weren't able to inspire the majority to take action.

Metal is much easier to work into armour than leather. Whilst you might not have needed a blacksmith with leather armour, you would have needed other tradesmen. Metal is far easier to repair. A damaged leather cuirass remains damaged.

No sorry I don't, but Im fascinated that such memoirs would exist from someone of that profession. If you find them, please let us know. Not always true, it depended on demand, and how much money a lanista could earn by renting out his top men. Of course, they were valuable assets and not easily replaced, hence the reluctance of lanistas to risk them overly. The two or three fights a year applied to contract volunteer gladiators. Those condemned ad ludus stood a similar chance of surviving their sentence, usually five to seven years just like volunteers, but those condemned ad gladius - their task was to die for the crowd. Barley and beans. Its not a wonderful meal and modern research shows there's a variety of responses from those who have to eat it, but it did tend to fatten gladiators and help build muscle. Desirable for strength and also protection against minor sword cuts. Meat was indeed reserved for special occaisions, which was the pre-fight feast the night before, a condemned mans last meal in many cases. The meal was provided by the lanista as a mark of respect and often a chance for ordinary people to meet these men and for some women it meant a risque dalliance. This is another example of roman ambivalence, because the audience did not want to see an unfair fight. They wanted thrills and spills. If the fight had lasted as long as Russel Crowes efforts in the film 'Gladiator' I think the event promoter would staining his sublagaria No, not true. The whole point of a munera is to spill blood. The funeral rites demanded that blood is spilled to honour the dead. Now because the average mourner doesn't want to be a murderer, it was felt better to have slaves fight each other, at least that way they'd have a sporting chance. We also see etruscan rites (from which roman games evolved) where a man with a hood over his head must fight an angry dog with a club. Even at mundane displays, at some point, a man must die to satisfy the crowd. later of course the funeral and religious side of things gave way to public entertainment. Nonetheless, it is true that a wounded gladiator that survived the fight would receive the best medical care available. For a woman of good birth to seek the company of a gladiator is something considered scandalous - and that was part of the attraction. There is a story written in roman times of a wealthy daughter who runs away with a gladiator despite his facial injuries, forever throwing away her life of ease and luxury to be with this man of violence she has fallen in love with. Its the only example of a tragic romance that I've heard of in roman times. It has been speculated that Commodus was the son of a gladiator. he certainly bore little resemblance to his father Marcus Aurelius and his mother, the somewhat loosely moraled Faustina, was rumoured to visit ludii. Volunteer gladiators were slaves just like those condemned, except that they could retain their wives and families and would be allowed out of the ludus for rest and relaxation. It was well known that men of noble birth volunteered, either because they wanted stardom or because they were desperate for cash. Augustus made rulings to restrict the number of gentlemen entering the arena. For gladiators bought as slaves the ludus was little more than a prison. Indeed, it was a vigorous life. Studies of gladiatorial skeletons show heavy muscular development and signs that they lived barefoot. I should mention that the way a particular ludus was run depended on the character of the lanista. Lentilus Batiatus might have been a hard tasker but its likely he was also careless, hence the escape of Spartacus even after the plot was discovered. It depends. The morning event began with practice bouts with thr rudis, the wooden sword. This was designed to wet the appetite of the audience and allow them to place bets on the perceived skill of their favourites. Some fights were to the first blood, and the first obvious wound would have the referee stop the fight and announce the winner. Some fights were sine miisione, or 'without remission'. In those fights one man had to die, and no call for mercy to the crowd was heeded. Augustus banned those but I believe they returned later. usually a prize gladiator was given a lesser opponent for the reasons of survival and continued profit, but remember that this person was famous and in demand. Many of them died, so survival was never a sure thing. Those who had been freed by the editor or the emperor, or those who had bought their freedom from their winnings, sometimes returned to the arena later. Either because they couldn't make a life for themselves outside, or because they simply preferred the life they had left behind. behind the scenes were the financial deals done with lanistas. Mostly these were to increase the spectacle, to increase the blood spilled, and the lanista was getting some compensation for risking his best men. I wouldn't be suprised if on rare occaisions a lanista allowed a good man to be killed if sufficiently renumerated - it was only business.

Well lets be a little precise about this. The legions, praetorians, and the senate didn't usually act as a group any more than the roman mob. It always devolved to individual initiative from their leaders rather than popular uprisings. In the case of the legions, we don't the army revolting as a whole. Instead, the charisma and popularity of a single commander has reached the point where the soldiers dissatisfaction with the current emperor has resulted in them persuading or demanding that officer accepts the throne on their behalf. This is done away from Rome regardless of how anybody else feels. It is a mutiny by any other name, one in which the legions commander decides to lead his men both to satisfy his soldiers demands and to further his own career. If the remaining legions were pulled in a short civil war would result. The interesting thing is how often legions did not prevent these uprisings. Its as if the commanders of the legions decided that it was safer to sit on the fence and see who won. Otherwise it portrays the average emperor as a very poor general. With the praetorians, we see a group of privileged men who nonetheless are still typically greedy. Their closeness to the ruling caste bred a certain contempt I think, as they were witness to all the shenanigans that went on. The praetorians seem on the one hand to ignore public mood but I don't think they did. They were very mindful that without the emperor their cushy number was at risk. That said, a praetorian revolt was still usually the work of a handful of individuals, not the praetorians as a whole. The reasons were usually personal, not political. Caligulas murder for instance, after Cassius Chaerea had become angered at the insults andmickey taking aimed at him. Or when caracalla was marching east on campaign, he was murdered by a single officer while he went to the toilet by the road. The assassin was chased by praetorian horsemen and killed with spears. The point is that one person acted, the others retaliated. The senate was always a breeding ground for ambition. Whereas in the past there was always public office and the consulship to strive for, in the empire the top job was reserved. The senate only acted together for mutual interest, usually survival, and the case of ordering an officer to bump off Didius Julianus is an example. When a coup detat was in the air, it would again be the work of a handful of men, again working on personal motives rather than political. Senators who acted without regard to popularity often came off worse - again the case of Didius Julianus comes to mind. The situation in the roman crisis of the 3rd century is that popularity was becoming less important, and individual motive the entire point in securing the throne. There wasn't time to gain popularity, because if the individual didn't act quickly, the current emperor would become popular and that would make the murderous coup far more risky. So - always in the background is the consideration of public mood in one way or another. Without it, your survival after a coup was very much at risk.