caldrail

Recently Decanus_Canada asked...

Rome was not concerned with lifestyles at all other than loyalty and tribute to Rome were observed. For instance, in my home area, a hillfort was occupied by the local Britons throughout the occupation and the Romans don't seem to have bothered them. Remember that free will and self determination were extremely important in Roman culture - it was what made human beings superior in their eyes - anything else was either a slave or an animal. Of course obedience was necessary sometimes such as military discipline in the legions, but these were accepted exceptions. Note what happened in Germania after Publius Varus took control. He was sent there to administer the occupied territories (Rome had not officially annexed them) and to secure tax revenue for Augustus, keen to fund games and civic improvements. Although Varus was told that the German tribes were going to revolt, he believed that they would see Roman law as superior and adopt the invaders culture willingly, an impression aided by the apparent complicity of the tribes. He was well and truly fooled. People often talk about 'Romanisation' today, declaring that within a generation or two Roman culture was adopted and to all intents and purposes the empire was solidly Roman from one end to the other. This is a very deep misinterpretation. It didn't matter if the locals chose not to Romanise - that was their choice. Tacitus sneers at the Britons for their attempts to mimic Roman culture, and mentions the Gauls as most closely emulating them. It was an example of the bell curve. At the extremes, a local might discard anything Roman, or adopt the culture completely. In between, the majority took on board whatever level of Roman ways that suited them. Naturally the Romans offered their culture both as a reward and a means of compatibility, thus they persuaded local leaders to become 'Roman' and thus they could be plugged straight into the Roman political network and employ their local networks of loyalty usefully. Then again, malcontents might expect something a great deal harsher.

The Romans took a very practical view on this, although considerable greed was evident. They did not ordinarily set out to capture territory, rather to defeat the threat against them. Acquisition was made not for the victory itself, but for the advantages of bringing the territory under Roman control. So for instance Trajan wages war upon the warlike Dacians. Hadrian, his successor, creates a peaceful resolution by returning occupied territory - but kept the areas with gold mines. Or consider the events leading to disaster. Warlike Germanic tribes were constantly raiding Gaul. After Julius Caesar had conquered Gaul for booty to pay debts and kudos in his career, Germanians attacked and defeated the 5th legion garrison under Marcus Lollius. Augustus sent an expedition to teach them a lesson and they stayed in occupied areas after the victory against the Germnians, with Publius Varus - known to be a greedy man after his governorship of Syria - to administer those territories before they had become provinces of Rome (Something the Romans noted in their histories). The Germanians didn't like the Romans trying to tell them how they ought to be living and rebelled. For ten years Germanian provinces were out of reach until Germanicus re-conquered them, but most of this was punitive and the territories not kept. Indeed, Augustus would later advise Tiberius not to extend the frontiers. Or consider client states. This was a legal means of acquiring new territory by making a tribal state a client state. The ruler was allowed to continue as a friend of Rome, only that when he died he was supposed to bequeath his land to Rome for the privilege. This was the source of the Boudiccan revolt. The Iceni king had done this but left half his realm to his family. The Romans considered the Iceni lands to be theirs. Bear in mind that Roman control of territory was not uniform. They had provinces of different levels of civic status, military districts (two created in lesser Germania by Augustus), client states, and Tribal states (such as most of Italy into the imperial period - only after the fall of the west were Italian tribal lands called 'provinces' although from Augustus onward they were increasingly less independent)

Worth a read without being too academic about this.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestal_Virgin

Some gladiators received fanciful stage names, others effeminate ones, for theatrical reasons rather than performance. So matching #Flower' against Panther' was probably not unknown. Please remember however that your game may well be second rate if you go down the 'Hollywood' route and simply create a fantasy deathmatch arena. I've played games like that before - they're awful. Gladiators became professional fighters with rules, referees, rest periods, and local variations. One on one fights were standard in fixed classes. Fights were until one contestant could not continue and asked for mercy (or died). There were fights to the death (sine missione), but these were banned by Augustus although they returned later for extra drama. Equipment was strictly defined within classes. Note that many fighters had padded left legs or right arms. Not for defence, as you might imagine, but to prevent injuries against shields. Some fight styles had fixed areas a fighter could not leave. Other men were sometimes chained to each other to prevent cowardice (this happened in Britain) with the chains going through a central stone to stop them cooperating. There were wooden platforms defended by one man and attacked by more than one opponent. Criminals were sent into the arena with no protection and one knife bwteen them. The winner had to pass the knife to a fresh criminal contestant and continue.

I've considered this a lot over the years. We know Roman infantry carried two sticks but this would not be enough for a camp palisade or sturdy enough, given they must be carried along with other gear, to fend off any attack. In fact the Romans merely say they carried sticks to help build the camp so we might actually be looking at measuring implements rather than defensive assets. The camp was primarily defended by a ditch and rampart. No gate as such, but guards posted at the gaps used to access the site. This was a marching camp after all and not a permanent defensive work. If they did erect a fence around it, for practical reasons it could not have been much better than one you might use around your garden. Note that the Roman sources do not discuss the defensive strength of camps. They do however discuss the behaviour of guards.

Given the unstable nature of political and military security in the north of England - which the Romans never completely suppressed - the risks of sending british tribesmen north as auxillaries would not seem particularly clever. Off he goes with his fellow recruits to Gaul, etc, with a few sestercii travelling money and serving soldiers as guides.

Forces were allocated to regions on the basis of perceived security risk. The Romans were well aware that long garrison duty meant troops became lazy and ill-disciplined (there are sources that mention these issues). Thus when a situation arose, it was wise to send a new commander with a mission, someone with the talent to lead and the will to shake up the unit into some order. This is especially so in the case of Corbulo, sent by Nero to Syria to pick up a legion to march to Armenia and settle the government there. He arrived to find an army that had not even bothered undertaking basic military duties. He went on to win the war in Armenia. However, his methods may well have been very heavy handed although some historians put this down to poor regard and reporting (Nero ordered Corbulo to commit suicide despite his victory)

I've had a brief search on this and I can't find any specific restriction. The thing to bear in mind is that horses were used primarily by the Romans as assets of war or perhaps status - they did not use horses to pull wagons. It was more likely a matter of whether the rider was allowed to present himself on a horse rather than the horse itself, and as an act in itself, might have been seen as somewhat arrogant. On the Palatine, certainly, if the rider has the status and purpose to match. In the Forum - for special occaisions possibly.

Part of this sort of thing is that it was expected. These days people are prone to acting in a very lazy and inconsiderate manner. Communal spirit was stronger back then purely because they needed support from each other and lived close enough to know who was who and what they did. Obviously human beings exhibited some of same poor behaviour - and indeed, Rome tolerated far more violence in their society than we would today. Another case in point. A city on the eastern Nile delta was a major strongpoint in Egypt's frontier security. Pi-Ramesse was a large and prosperous community. However, the delta often changes course and when that happened the city was left without a water supply. The Egyptians responded by moving the city stone by stone to Tanis, elsewhere on the delta. Think about that. Huge monuments and structures taken apart, moved across potentially difficult terrain, and rebuilt at a new site, all by manual labour in the face of need. But the 'Wall'. This would have been an ongoing project. We know much of the original stretch was made of turf because that was the material to hand when the Romans began construction. Parts of the wall have different thicknesses. as project management gradually ensured the wall would be built to a plan. What we don't know is how smooth the project went, other than it was completed with no apparent fuss worthy of a mention in the sources - although it is worth pointing out that there was a rebellion in Britain during Hadrian's reign. Evidence from the letters of Vindolanda suggests the Romans might have coped with some considerable issues with material supply (labour was taken care of as the military were engaged to do that). Later the wall would be whitewashed from one end to the other.

The abilities of ancient civilisations are quite stunning but then they didn't have the machinery we take for granted in this day and age to make our working lives easy. Even in the Victorian era, an Irish navvie working on a railway was expected to move twenty tons of 'muck' a day. Try it. You won't get close. Their diet was extraordinary, consisting of several meals a day with steak and lashings of beer. The ancient Egyptians are a case in point. We often point to pyramids but they built other stuff too. Fort Buhen, now at the bottom of Lake Nasser since the sixties, had a circumference of more than a mile of thirty meter high walls and a dry moat. That's one substantial castle, even by medieval standards. Or perhaps Stonehenge, with larger monoliths dragged twenty miles to be uprighted, and smaller bluestones taken from quarries in South Wales before roads were constructed in Britain. Bear in mind that when discussing Roman legions, they were expected to march with campaign gear and at the end of twenty or so miles a camp enclosure with a ditch and rampart was always dug (though loose stones were also used to build low walls in the middle east - re: Titus' campaign in Judaea in 72ad. It is also worth pointing out that the Roman legions were being used as spare labour when not on campaign. Not because they were all expert engineers - they weren't, though they had capable men among them - but because a major project would otherwise require expensive recruitment of contractors and local labour. Always keep a military unit busy. Always.

You'll see a lot of stuff written on the internet about individual skill, some claiming the Romans were martial artists or such. The truth is that the Romans were well aware that despite choosing the more robust members of their society as soldiers and rejecting anyone with either a weak physique or family background/profession, not everyone was going to be any good at fighting. What they did was boil things down to a set of standard moves they could instil in recruits by constant practice (actually many modern armed forces have long since come to the same conclusions). Although I haven't found any specific evidence, I do believe they taught swordplay 'by the numbers' - this was how fighting skills were taught to gladiators and we know that gladiators were occaisionally used in the training process. That sort of approach would suit a methodology geared toward strict and tight formations which we know the Romans favoured. The fly in the ointment is that whilst the late republican legionaries used close formation religiously (the tall rectangular shield was most common in that era) the imperial era legions were said to have swung their swords as much as thrusted, meaning they must have used looser formations - along with heavier armour such as the classic lorica segmentata and for a while, arm and leg pieces. This went hand in hand with sword lengths that were reducing in parallel with gladiatorial styles until the wars that saw Constantine come to power when generally the gladius was dropped in favour of the longer cavalry Spatha. In other words, the late empire demonstrates a loss of skills and the sources do tend to underline that. So the emphasis was on group effectiveness. Stand firm, show no fear, and thrust your sword into your opponents face from a few carefully thought out positions in formation. It worked. You didn't have kill the guy - one thrust in the face or stomach and he's in no state to continue. Attacks into the upper abdomen risked a sword sticking in the ribcage and therefore were discouraged. The legion practised this until every useless recruit got the idea and could do it at will, without thinking. However, legionaries loved their gladiator combats and they wanted to emulate their heroes. So some commanders used their slaves to teach soldiers fighting tricks to keep them amused. On the other hand, it's clear from the sources that sometimes the commander decided his men needed a little more panache and used their slaves deliberately to improve the skills of individual soldiers. Whether this was effective in the context of normal legionary practice isn't clear. But in both caes, improvements in the soldiers confidence and moral did no harm.

Firstly have a read of this thread.... https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/8226/how-quickly-could-the-roman-legions-march-how-does-it-compare-to-the-mobile-cav Bear in mind that the terrain and weather could significantly restrict the ability of a legion to move. A forced march of men carrying their own gear along a road would cover substantial distances in a day. The idea that they found this easy is perhaps illusory since reconstructions and re-enactments show how physically demanding such marches would have been. Nonetheless they did undertake them. Or consider that usually legions on the march took animals to carry heavy gear - even weapons might by loaded onto a cart in some circumstances. The used of such a baggage train might reduce the range by anything up to 75%. Or consider the floodwater that troops encountered in Germanicus' revenge camaign against the German tribes. Some of them were trying to wade through floodwater up to their necks, quite literally, and many died, drowned because with marching gear and armour, they could not stand up when floundering after insecure footing.

The office of Emperor is all illusion. We call them that, they didn't. Mary Beard will insist "of course they were emperors!" which she has written in her book SPQR, but I disagree intensely. They did the same job - but 'Emperor' wasn't a proper job anyway (As discussed by Greg Woolf in interview with Mary Beard on tv). The word 'emperor' descends from Imperator which meant 'Victorious General', a traditional honour given by soldiers to commanders who win wars, but later, used from Augustus onward to describe their status as de facto control over the legions - but then, legions were notoriously fickle and certainly not regiments in a state army organisation. All independent, and all prone to deciding loyalty for themselves. Please note that nearly half the major battles fought by Imperial Roman legions were against each other. The thing is the Romans didn't organise their political and military sphere as we do today. They compartmentalised everything. So that when Augustus hands power back to the Senate, it isn't actually a ruse as is often described but a traditional requirement he obliges the Roman state with and one that only parts company with a certain allocation of power. He still has his powerful CV, his authority and status in Roman society, his senatorial influence, his wealth, his catalogue of influential friends and contacts, and most telling of all, the adoration of the common folk. He could afford to lose a privilege or two. It made his career less contentious. Sorry, I'm getting distracted. Caligula. Well Claigula comes to power with the high hopes of Roman society but manages to alienate everyone except the remote common people within four years. He struggles to retain respect, and that black humour of his spoils everything. The elite tire of his antics and disrespect. But a few held grudges. Especially Cassius Chaerea, the Praetorian Prefect and war hero of the Germanic campaigns. Caligula ribbed him mercilessly for his soft voice, and for a man of action rewarded with the highest military post of the time, it was too much. Chaerea was among the leaders of the insurrection and helped murder Caligula in the passage leading from the theatre.

Not sure - Galba never attracted my attention. But you might try Tacitus Histories which deals with the year 69ad in quite some depth, or possibly Cassius Dio. Other sources might only be brief mentions.

Hardly whitewashed, and it might be worth pointing out that Galba took advantage of an existing breakdown in civil order that led to a senatorial decree that Nero was an enemy of the state, which meant anyone could legally kill him. Nero panicked, as he often did, and fled, eventually failing to commit suicide and commanding a slave to do it for him. Nero had abused elite Roman sensibilities with his artistic career and publicity stunts. Worse still, he had used the patricians as a cash cow, blackmailing to leave everything in their will to him and commit suicide rather than punish their families. His popularity with the masses was affected due to episodes such as the murder of his mother - yet he retained a very loyal following nonetheless as the rebellion of a slave who happened to resemble him would later show. Granted, Galba had already been given a death sentence by Nero and was effectively a rebel anyway, but Galba did not march on Rome until he had heard of Nero's death.

The problem is that so many people seem fixated on proving the Bible is correct when they should be investigating whether it's right. I've seen missionaries (who often pose as archeologists) who spotted a rock formation in Anatolia that resembles the shape of a sea going craft and proclaimed it immediately as Noah's Ark, despite the fact that rock doesn't float, the site is solid and composed of native material, and there is evidence of glacial melt in the area. The Old Testament is not a history book. It's a religious text and creates a mythology for the use of Judaean sects including what would become Christianity. The Book of Genesis has some interesting assertions and indeed, the idea of parallel with science & research is something I've heard since I was a child - I have yet to be convinced that in distant antiquity the processes of planetary development were understood or even known about (Please forgive me but filling in that assertion with claims of extra-terrestrial visitations just won't cut it). Human beings are good at pattern recognition. That's why we lay random accusations at other people or influences so often with passionate belief. Is the Book of Genesis a parallel? No. It isn't. The Bible is literal, not allegorical, and you cannot stretch the text to suit an alignment that was never there to begin with.

That's interesting because I've seen news reports of archaeology demonstrating a very early beginning for Jericho. Part of the problem here is that the Bible is a religious text adopted from Judaean sources, censored by Roman sources, and rewritten since. Whilst there might well be history in it, a history book it is not and the Bible should be considered very unreliable. The Ark of the Covenant has by mythology a vast store of power (and is reputedly kept locked away out of sight in modern Ethiopia). Personally I find the story a little hard to accept but then Christianity is a matter of faith, not substance. As for the revision of archaeology I can't say, and since Kathleen Kenyon appears to be the only one interpreting the data this way, it remains her personal conviction. I have no idea whether she's right, but I will bear in mind what has been said for both sides of the argument.

http://roman-britain.co.uk/military/campaigns-paulinus.htm

It has become clear to me that fame as a poet is in this aspect largely irrelevant. The stories of other common soldiers was every bit as telling albeit less resonant beyond an accepted art form. I will indulge myself here. As a young child I once asked my grandfather what he had done during the First World War. I wasn't expecting tales of heroism, simply tales of his own experience as a matter of curiosity - especially since my parents were grooming me for a career in the armed forces although at that young age I wasn't aware of it. I remember his face darkening. Quite shocking to me, given he was always a cheerful positive soul. He didn't tell me about derring do, comradery, or the acts of courage on the battlefield. He told me about the privations of life in the trenches, the ever present threats, the grim reality of being part of a such a conflict. He even made me promise never to join the Army. It was an agreement that would cast a shadow of my life ever since but he was a good man, and I will stand by that agreement even though the choice is now academic given my age. I learned later how he was sent ashore at Gallipoli, to assist the Australians, in attacks on Turkish trenches. He had made bayonet charges against them and that affected him for the rest of his life. He could never completely rationalise what he had done, knowing in his own words that he had killed some mother's son. In the event, in 1916 he was sent home as a skilled shipwright to the yards on the Tyne, because after the Battle of Jutland there was a huge demand for replacement vessels. That order probably saved his life on the Western Front. I don't resent the Armed Forces, nor the undesirable conspiracy that took place to persuade me to join the Army to follow my father (of whom I have rather less respect). I agree they are protectors of freedom and life despite their violent profession, for in the course of human activity, aggression is part of politics, even everyday life. My path was to be different. My awakening self determination as a young man, my increasing resentment of parental influence, and my own desires to forge a path unique to myself would dominate. But whilst I might not make big noises about the tragedies of the Guns of August, I do nonetheless respect the price they paid as what they considered their national duty and moral imperative, whatever our contemporary revision of history might say, for I remember the words of one veteran at least.

It was more a question of time and resources. Rome could not summon a sizeable army instantly but then neither would a siege end abruptly (although given the panic in Rome at the time one wonders if a surrender would be rapidly forthcoming). Worse for Hannibal, his supply situation becomes increasingly difficult the longer he remains in one place, especially if interdicted later by arriving Roman forces. He may have lost an opportunity to win the war, he was also not stupid enough to losing by an uncertain siege operation. Where Hannibal did fail is that Rome was not intimidated into surrender by the poor performance of their armies against Hannibal. Florus refers to Cannae as "Rome's fourth and almost fatal wound".

As with everything the Romans were ambivalent. If the infames had no redeeming features then it was a matter of disdain. Strictly speaking that person could still be a client although the treatment handed out by the patron would be less than respectful. However, some actors and athletes achieved popularity and it was their success as performers that gave them some respect despite their social order. A top gladiator or charioteer might have been a slave - he was also a virile, successful male, and the Romans connected success with favour of the gods or in some cases elements of divine nature, though I do note in the latter case it would be unlikely that they would go that far with infames. If the slave was such an individual, the patron would wish to show him off, to allow him access to social functions, to gain some kudos from his connection with success. Patrons of all status indulged in such behaviour when it benefitted their careers. In a more wordly view, it should be remembered that gladiators and charioteers kept some of the prize money for victories themselves, and one fellow, Diocles, won so many chariot races he became absurdly wealthy - in modern terms, an estimate of around $15 billion is quoted. You would want him in your social group, surely? :D

Civic monuments are visible in some of the most primitive societies albeit probably less impressive than huge stone triumphal arches. Religion, commemoration, festivals, and so forth are part of our behaviour as social animals and manifest themselves at all levels, though clearly the scale of Roman monuments displays the power, wealth, and sometimes, ego of the persons involved. The Romans loved to see statues of themselves, especially in military guise. Theirs was a society that was acutely aware that life was short, and that courage in facing death was as important as anything done in life. I recall one funerary inscription - "I did not exist, I existed, I no longer exist". A man with little to say for himself clearly, yet the majority display an intention to be remembered for what they did in life , even if merely remembered as a beloved relative or colleague.

The other day I strolled into a music store in my home town, thinking of upgrading some recording equipment. It’s been a while since I took music seriously and having been unemployed for the better part of a decade, I could hardly afford to. But, with money in my pocket, time to splash out and get ready to impose my music upon the unsuspecting world. “They don’t make those any more” Said GK, someone who has sold me all sorts of instruments and gizmo’s for the last thirty years. After a short converstation, it was clear that music was not the hobby it had once been. I looked blankly at him for a moment and in that moment of awakening I said “Heck, I’m getting old….” GK couldn’t stop laughing. But I’m beginning to realise what a fantastic period of history I lived through as a young man. The days when you could walk into a computer or music dealership and buy just about anything are gone. The world has changed, and not for the better. Changing the Country The hullabaloo over Brexit continues with continued calls for a second referendum. Really? Didn’t anyone realise it was going to be difficult? Fact is, we had a vote, we voted to leave, that’s it – it’s going to happen. As much as EU strategy is to have our legs wobble at the sheer scale of our endeavour and ask to come back with our tail between our legs, Britain is made of stronger stuff. Or at least, some of us are, given how much whinging the remainers are making. But what do I hear from Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party leader? Renationalise everything. His radical new plan to save Britain is more or less to recreate the seventies when left wing politics still had some clout in this country. I well remember the seventies, and it wasn’t a high point in British history. Terrorism, strikes, the Three Day Working Week with the family sat around of an evening by candlelight, rubbish bags piling up on the streets. If there was any solid reason for keeping Corbyn out of power, it’s the 1970’s. Change of the Week There I was, walking home after a late shift in the wee small hours, when I spotted a fox. No, two foxes. No, three foxes. That’s a little unusual. But what startled me was that one of those foxes actually growled at me. Foxes don’t do that. They just silently retreat or flee. Not this scruffy young fox, as it turned to face me once it through the gates of the local park. Bared teeth is alarming in a dog. But a fox? Disturbing.

It's as well to remember that Roman military practice was very dependent on the availability of Greek medics and physicians. Also, despite some advanced practices for the age, there was a great deal of their methodology that was still mired in ignorance and religion. Prayers were just as important as medicines. Many medicines for that matter probably harmed the patient more than they helped, something that would hamper medical practises into recent times. The Romans were very able, via their Greek experts, of treating wounds. Not so good at anything else.