caldrail

Not much of a contradiction really. As I said, for celtic warriors, the quality of their swords did not affect their style of combat. That was a cultural bias. In order to be viewed as a man you had to show bravery, and peer pressure to perform wild acts of heroic abandon is fundamental to celtic battle. I agree not all did, because human nature dictates that some are less willing to risk themselves than others, but that was the sort of battle they considered worthwhile. They fought individually, not as a disciplined team. It was their prowess that was on display. Archaeological evidence has shown some swords were of extraordinary quality. These were however expensive and only the wealthiest celts would own them. The rest would have to make do with the cheap stuff, but that still didn't change their outlook. To do otherwise would invite derision and disgust. It was true of roman swords also. Most soldiers had theirs provided by the state, although they still payed for them by stoppages in pay. A sort of hire purchase agreement. Wealthy officers would have better quality swords made for them to order. Quality is a very real issue in roman times. It displayed your authority and status, not your ability to fight.

The barbarian technology of sword making isn't relevant to the tactics they employed in battle. Although extraordinarily courageous, these men weren't very sophisticated in combat. The whole point of their tactics was to frighten the willies out of their opponent by yelling and charging headlong with a sword swinging above their heads. They fought individually, not as a unit. Thats all ok but that doesn't mean they were stupid too. The germans in particular had evolved methods of rapid mobility by horse sharing, yet they understood that throwing a stone was often just as effective as taking weeks to lovingly create a bow and a quiver full of arrows. Its just that barbarian cultures often prized individual bravery as a way of earning respect from their peers as much as their enemy, hence they conducted themselves on the battlefield in way that they thought would achieve it.

It would have to be pretty blatant too. Soldiers were notorious for sticking together and any crimes against them were tried by military court martial. Considering how lax the romans could be about enforcing rape charges, given the difficulties in the ancient world of actually proving guilt, it went unpunished in a lot of cases I'd imagine.

Ok. According to my reading the clibanarii used sarmatian style helmets (spangenhelm), sort of a rounded conical style, increasingly popular in the late empire. It is possible that some cavalrymen used helmets of the nature portrayed above as a matter of local supply.

I get the impression that Britain was regraded as a potential target, but that the romans were not hugely impressed with what they found there. The land and climate really didn't suit them. Besides the obvious glory in conquest it should be remembered that brittania and gaul had close links. Having put gaul under roman rule, Caesar would have been aware that their friends across the channel could support rebellions in gaul with almost impunity. It was also a matter of security that the potential threat of britons becoming troublesome ad to be addressed. The vikings would later later attack coastlines of europe because there wasn't anyone to stop them. Roman rule by then had virtually vanished in favour of local kings who simply hadn't the resources to stop committed warriors sailing up the estuary and doing viking things. Remember what happened with Alfred the Great. After he inflicted defeats on the vikings in britain and got a surrender from Guthrum, they settled peaceably. No more raids in britain at least.

You've quoted two extremes so yes it would appear to be a black and white issue. But we're talking about two cultures very remote from each other. Apart from trade, possibly some prisoners of war sold on as slaves, and an unlikely aborted attempt by the chinese to attack rome in the 90's ad, they had no contact. They were bound to be different. But the question of western vs eastern warfare is actually much closer to home in the context of roman history. In fact, the persians had developed a style of warfare much closer to medieval europe than its chinese influenced neighbours, a big development since their earlier parthian hordes of spearmen and horse archers. All the more cultured civilisations developed warfare to a much finer degree in whatever direction they thought effective. The barbarian cultures followed two vague patterns. Either the mass crowd of yelling maniacs or the swift horsemen running rings arounfd their foe. Even then you can see differences between groups concerning equipment and tactics on the battlefield. It simply isn't as clear cut a division as you seem to believe.

Clibanarii were inspired by persian cataphracts who had conical style helmets. Their appearance would have been similar. Most representations of clibanarii show them with persian style helmets and I wonder if there's any archaeological evidence for that?

To some extent I think decisions were taken without considering the local economic fallout. Again taking my area as an example, we have a fort being left abandoned. Since it was a staging post and not a barracks as such, then its clear that troops were not using it, so its probably safe to assume they were sent elsewhere. The vicus attached to Durocornovium vanished quite quickly too I'd imagine, since the market for their pottery and ironwork had gone. But also two villas are abandoned too. Now its easy to assume that these houses were the residents of officers or other people connected with the military but I doubt that. What I think happened is that without the vicus at Durocornovium these people lost income, and could no longer afford their grand houses (although they weren't particularly grand to begin with). All the empire wanted was troops here and there. The local effect of their business wasn't considered.

That doesn't make sense to me. If britain became more and more worth while then why the gradual retreat from the 3rd century ad onward? I'm thinking of my local area. It was on the road between Corinium (the second largest roman town) and the south coast. A legionary staging post at Durocornovium establish a small settlement which produced pottery and iron working. There were plently of landed families around. Villas have been found at Groundwell, Chiseldon, and Badbury. The last two, as well as durocornovium itself, are abandoned at the end of the 3rd century as the withdrawal of legions begins. It wasn't just the military withdrawal - there definitely seems to be a fundamental breakup (not collapse) of romanised society beginning. The british were reverting to a simpler less roman lifestyle whilst still living in roman towns and villa. I notice that the archaeological remains of villas around england show the same process. That occupied villas fall into neglect and become used as makeshift farm houses.

I don't agree with this. A succesful general of any culture exhibits similar qualities. They tend to be arrogant risk-takers with strong leadership skills and an intuitive grasp of their armies relative strengths and weaknesses, plus a good eye for terrain. The difference between western and eastern styles of warfare are not black and white, its all shades of grey according to cultural leanings.

I haven't read of this but I can't imagine a roman commander leaving these weapons lying around. Unrepairable ones would serve as firewood? Those suitable for repair would soon be in the hands of the weapon smiths. Why pay good sestercii for more?

Not to any great extent. Obviously some soldiers had their noses put out but since roman troops weren't particularly obedient surely you'd expect some form of dispute if they were genuinely angry? There wasn't any. In fact, I think the changes suited a lot of people. Firstly it meant the lower classes now had access to a steady job soldiering for Rome. It certainly beat labouring in the civilian sector. Granted it was a risk occupation but there were some definite perks to it. As for the higher classes, there was less demand on their services for the rank-and-file. I know rome was a militarised culture and that military service was an important step in political credibility, but it sure looked better on your CV if you'd served as a legate, tribune, or centurion.

We know that red dye was used by the legions, most likely for centurions or higher ranks. The particular tone of red would vary according to local circumstance - but also according to rank. Lower ranks would have a duller colour, and more vivid colour for commanders. This has historical precedent and we know that romans were particularly keen on colour in their culture. The material would vary in quality in the same fashion. However, as the poster already said, an off-white is more than likely for ordinary legionaries. The speculation about colour coding is probably correct in a subtle and low key way. After all, human beings have done that for their military since... well... ancient times. Heraldry after all isn't just identification, its a human derivative of a threat display in herd animals.

Excellent work. Since you're depicting a legionary in marching order have you considered the two wooden stakes he must carry to help build a marching fort? Granted they wouldn't always do that but it was standard practice.

There's a difference between a roman pilum and a barbarian javelin. Javelins are throwing spears and do indeed get used to cause casualties. After all, your enemy could throw the darn thing back so it was just as well to kill him first. Now the pilum can kill just as easily. It was just as much a weighty sharp point thrown in your direction. However, the soft iron shank meant that it wasn't going to get thrown back. The reason I refer to the pilum as a disabling weapon is because roman soldiers used it to de-shield their enemy deliberately, whereas a for a barbarian javelin this was a happy coincidence. It was the tactical use that differentiated them as much as physical properties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reference to a census in Judaea comes from the bible? There's no other historical source for one earlier than 6ad? The reason I say this is that I tend to think that much of that story is fiction. If there's an official record of such a census then fine, I've got no problem. The other reason I'm sceptical is we assume that Jesus was born on december 25th in the year 0. I doubt he was. Records of births weren't usually kept unless you were of a high born family. Now its true that Jesus's family weren't peasants but in Judaea at that time, despite the roman presence, I don't believe accurate records of births and deaths were kept. The traditional birth date for Jesus was settled at a much later time, three hundred years afterward, and it was fitted into the roman calender to fall at the end of the saturnalia, a very popular festival. All a matter of religious politics and christian marketing really. To answer the original question, surely a census taker would simply require everyone to register locally? Going back to the town of your forefathers carries hints of apartheid in ancient times and would have created financial problems for those forced to travel. Not good for the taxman then.

Please remember that although the etruscans dominated early Rome, the kings were voted for by the romans. It was a similar process to the dark age english if you like. There's a lot that doesn't add up about early roman history but do we have any better reference? Even the romans didn't, and creatively filled the blank space. Also remember that not all the kings of rome were etruscan. At least one was latin but I don't remember which one. Dig out 'Chronicle of the Roman Republic' which has some good information on this subject.

The bogbodies are almost always sacrifices. They were usually bound before being executed and dumped in the bog. Its only the sterile qualities of the mud that preserved the remains. Originally the romans thought britain was a mysterious island out on the edge of the known world, possibly inhabited by strange monsters and wild barbarians. They were half right! This view would have persisted even after merchants traded there. In fact, the phoenicians were well acquainted with the place having traded for tin in Cornwall. It was only after Julius Caesar made his two forays there and wrote about it that the romans began waking up to the truth of what brittania was. Nonetheless, the romans persisted with britannia and only at the end of the 3rd century do we see a retreat as legions began moving home. Agricola would have conquered the place but for Domitians jealousy, although I do notice that apart from an attempt to maintain the antonine wall no further conquest of caledonia was ever undertaken. It seems the romans decided there was no value in further conquest.

Reference please Wotwotius? Indeed , I was under the impression most thought it to be a globe, (given the rather accurate Greek calculation of its size)? That would be true if romans were educated in that respect. I don't think they were. Knowledgable romans may have read the greek hypothesis (and may or may not have believed the results) but that doesn't mean the average roman on the street knew anything about it. As far as I'm aware, the prevailing view at the time was that the world was disc shaped. I don't think the average roman actually cared what shape the world was - it was far more important to survive (with as much wealth and status as possible)

Local archaeologists have a tendency to overstate the importance of their own finds and produce their own theories of what was going on at that time. A few decades ago the Battle of Beranburgh (568ad?) near Swindon was seen as a major turning point in the saxon invasion of the south west of england and much was made of the evidence found on wroughton plateau. These days its a much smaller engagement. Actually it was still an important breakthrough for saxon colonists (Waylands Smithy is in the area) but the battle itself was hundreds rather than thousands, and may have only been handfuls. There is one roman expert who believes the saxon invasions were of a peaceful colonial nature. This is despite the roman coastal forts, the britons sending diplomats to Honorius in 410ad begging for assistance, or an english monk describing the saxons as 'a race hateful to god'. Its easy to evolve pet theories about how things were. Lets face it, I'm just as guilty. However, the real test is to be prepared to change those ideas when the evidence suggests something else. I think the overall picture and the local evidence must agree. If not, then someone needs to get on the case and figure out why not.

It is an exaggeration. Suetonius milked that victory for everything it was worth. But it was also a triumph of roman discipline and courage. Unfortunately we don't know much about the actual circumstances of the battle. I'll have to re-read about this one.

Under the emperors the old style of factional politics had gone. Now you had this single man, hopefully a strong noble leader, perhaps even god-like, whose status was above anyone elses and from whom all political power was derived. There was less to rebel against. But that doesn't mean that mob violence never occurred. The riot at the pompeiian arena during nero's reign left them with a ten year ban on games. Claudius was pelted with stale bread because of impending corn shortages. From the flavian emperors onward we see less mob violence. Egypt was now part of the empire and grain arrived regularly. The institution of bread and circuses had changed the public mindset. Life was easier, there was little to be angry about, and in any case, your emperor has very kindly (at his own expense) put on games lasting months. For your entertainment. Emperors following the example of caligula had begun appearing in the arena themselves if they were of a mind to do that - and what a spectacle! Your emperor himself in the arena showing his roman virtue in the face of danger. This perculated down and we see people like didius julianus entering the arena as consul for the same purpose - personal aggrandisement. Of course romans of all status had volunteered for the arena but these were always a minority, and it was frowned upon for a roman of noble birth to take to the sands ever since the days of augustus. The entertainment industry of rome had become a political mouthpiece. A way of diverting the crowds, of keeping them happy, and enhancing your own reputation even if you don't wield a sword down there.

Nero, like most powerful romans, had a nasty streak. He wasn't known as a pleasant character. But it was caligula who threatened to impose his horse Incitatus as a consul of rome, and that was done to insult the senate. 'My horse could do a better job than you lot'.

These extra names were honorific. Not hereditary as such, but if your father had earned the title (or received for the purposes of toadying) and you were coming into a position status and respect it was likely your peers would award you the same prerogative. I don't know for sure but simply calling yourself by these extra titles would only invite derision?

All the evidence this article has suggests that there were romans in ireland. Diplomats, traders, and who knows, possibly even some ex-patriots. Some had guards? A fortified estate? I think this evidence shows the initial stage of roman conquest. Individuals going there, trading, meeting, and working with the irish to cement relations with possible allies and find out who their enemies will be, as well as what to expect in terms of resources. The romans had done the same thing in britain and germany. No, not an invasion, but the groundwork for one that never happened?