caldrail

At jerusalem the size of projectiles employed by heavy catapult is very impressive indeed. It was only the stout nature of that cities walls that prevented them from making a very deep impression. Not all walls of this time were so strong. The romans also employed ropes and grapples to pull walls down with manpower or beasts of burden. Large catapults might fire all manner of projectiles for different purposes. Including rotting bodies/carcasses to spread disease. I agree that siege weapons were employed to clear the walls of defenders but this was a taks left to the lighter equipment. Firing a stone ball weighing more than half a ton takes time and the defenders might easily see it coming. They did at Jerusalem. In fact the romans had to paint the missiles black so the defenders wouldn't spot them in flight. On the other hand, a ballista bolt is a fast moving missile that you'd have great difficulty in reacting to quickly enough. Battering rams are unlikely to be used against a wall. Whilst it might have happened a ram was better used on weaker obstructions like palisades or gates. Now assuming the picture depicts a city rather than a castle, there's no reason to assume that a ditch would be present. If the roman commander wanted a siege tower brought in to scale the wall then any ditch would be filled in. A wooden 'tortoise' would be rolled up close so fascines and earth could flatten the gap. The picture is ok. The walls height as opposed to the stone blocks is of no relevance. These things varied according to local material, cost, and ability in construction. The size of tower would vary anyway and I don't regard that as a valid critiscm. If the artist wanted to depict a particular site with complete accuracy then more research is needed. As a depiction of a generic roman siege its a good effort. The only real critiscm I have is that the commander has assembled his men too close. They're within range of enemy fire and clearly have a day or two to wait before an assault can take place. Also, the picture suggests that the romans are in short supply of wood. I don't see any representation of a circumvallation or engineering such as ladders, cranes, tortoises, fascines, towers etc. Please don't be deterred - the quality of artwork is very good. We're only arguing over historical detail.

Rome suffered many outbreaks of disease, and in its later years disease was a constant problem. Although rome could supply fountains, baths, and wealthy homes with fresh water the cloacta maxima was not able to rid te streets of rome completely of refuse. Remember that a common practice in poorer parts of the city was to dump their doings out the window (just like any other city in europe prior to the flushing toilet). Its believed that disease was a major factor in the decline of rome as a city.

as I said before the roman was not subtle. They were relying on numerical superiority and their biggest mistake was to assume that hannibal could not counter such an advantage. They were simply unprepared for a clever ruse - they were not expecting one. By the way, does anyone know where paulus and varo were? Were they in the midst of their army or watching from a hill?

Spring steel is a material that resists bending in a way that returns it to its former shape after deflection. There isn't any great advantage in using such material for helmets. Spanish swords were of this type of material. It was said that the test of such a sword was to bend the blade over ones head and have it touch the shoulders. It would spring back straight. Actually the quality of steel would vary according to circumstance and skill of the forger so don't think all spanish swords could do this. Caltrops (for those who don't know) are an early form of anti-personnel device. Its a multi-spiked weight that will pierce the foot if trodden on. The size is probably something that would fit within your fist comfortably, and it was employed by placing in the path of enemy travel. You could throw them in the path if you wished. Indeed, you could even even employ them as hand thrown missiles.

First and foremost the fasces is a symbol of office, not a weapon per se. As regards to weight I couldn't say although these lictors must have found it bearable. A good job? Probably. I haven't read about problems with lictors and the impression I get is that they took their responsibilities very seriously, so it was a job that brought respect certainly.

A thought occurs to me. I wondered earlier if Tiberius was getting a bit flakey in his older days. Let me suggest something. Is it not possible that Tiberius wanted some sort of private world of his own? If true, then the young girls prancing around as 'wood nymphs' weren't there to satisfy any sexual urge, they were there to populate his fantasy. It was not paedophilia, just a desire to escape rome completely. Now this is just an idea for discussion but it would naturally be the source of many of the rumours we read of today.

I don't think the lictors were bodyguards as such. They represented roman authority and acted in its name, as a sort of policeman or government official. His office gave him certain power which must have acted as a deterrent on behaviour. If the gentleman wanted protection then he'd hire a gladiator or two, or surround himselve with friends or slaves. If someone made an attack in front of a lictor I doubt it would be long before a short trial and public execution.

Seems unlikely. The trend of human migration in the ancient world is westward, although they probably have common ancestry.

Excellent idea. Typical of local initiative but I wonder if the men were a bit dubious. After all, they weren't equipped with such weapons (were they?) and surely such things were the preserve of auxillaries? Maybe, maybe not. Its more likely it would have been done to keep the men busy at camp. I'm no expert on archery but I'm dubious about this claim. Just a gut feeling really. Extraordinary! Makes the 13th legion roman ninjas doesn't it? If this was true, then it indicates some very clever and forward thinking. However, I don't know how practical it is to employ a sling whilst wearing full legionary armour and equipment. This might be another case of a good idea that wouldn't work too well in practice. Another example of local development that may or may not improve on the design of armour. It wasn't used by other legions nor did the 13th legion persist with it did they? Perhaps it was uncomfortable or even unnecessary. Ho ho ho. The knives perhaps, but if you start sharpening shield edges you run into all kinds of problems. An upward stroke of a heavy shield isn't going to deliver much power. Largely pointless. The shield is better employed as a 'punching' weapon. This just beggars belief. Sorry - I don't believe it. Caltrops are nasty little things and not something you want on your person if you're engaged in strenuous physical activity. Like fighting, for instance. No, I don't believe this. Quite possible although against the general trend of the time. How exactly was this spring steel used? Roman helmets follow a similar design that was well tested. The forehead was already protected by the helmet with a strong forward facing ridge that prevented enemy swords from sliding down across the face. Making a helmet with spring steel isn't really going to help the wearer much and I suspect the author doesn't really understand what spring steel is.

Hmmm... Some of this sounds like normal roman electioneering rather than conspiracy. People who conspire to overthrow do not advertise. They daren't. Once the enemy cottons on its curtains! On the other hand, in a peaceful quiet time, it might not be unusual for individuals to mount a political campaign. To create serious opposition. That sort of thing is normal for us too - look what happens in british politics. Is this sort of thing normal roman ambition or are we reading about real conspiracy? I'm not sure.

Not necessarily so. Often times we do see generals coming to the plate and turning some pampered or defeated legion into a disciplined and effective force through proper training. Corbulo's re-organizing the eastern legions for his Parthian campaign comes to mind, along with th younger Scipio's in Spain. For Corbulo, Tacitus does state that it was the relative peace of the empire which had hijacked the quality of the legion. During the empirial high point it was no joke to be a legionary, you went through extensive training and drills which I could not imagine anyone forgetting completely; should a proper leader come by, he could kick back to shape any legion - ofcourse there were exceptions, the Praetorians often come to mind - with the right moves. However the general himself forgetting the drills or simply leaving them out in order to be popular or the whole system simply forgetting or losing touch with old chores - Vegetius tells us that the Romans in his time didn't even make proper camps - will render a 5 year campaign pretty much worthless... Any army sat on its backside for 5 years isn't going to fight well. It just doesn't. Peace, fun, and relaxation do nothing for the fighting spirit. Modern armies understand that their men need motivation and caged aggression. You mention that a general might turn up and turn around these losers into a bunch of fighting fit heroes. Quite. Thats my point entirely. If they don't train - if they don't practice, if their life is too easy - they became soft. People are like that. Soldiers need a harsh regime and *constant* training to remain at their peek. If that general turns up and hones his men all well and good, but they'll only weaken if he goes away. That general really needed to find good centurions and put them to work doing what good centurions do best.

You have. Most of soldiers wouldn't know the work existed, much less read it. Some of those who did read the book at the time of writing may have spotted mistakes but chose not to say (for their health?), or perhaps did but slagged it off to their mates and thought no more of it. I mean, they didn't review books the way we do these days did they? Books were handwritten and rare, so few copies were available.

I might be able to dig that one up so to speak. I'll let you know. Its time for me to eat humble pie. As to whether the '*or*' in question was actually found I can't say, but I tracked the reference down to a book called Caligula:Divine Carnage ( by Stephen Barber and Jeremy Reed, both of whom should be ashamed of themselves). Under no circumstances whatsoever should ever bother reading this book. Its just sexual fantasy pretending to be history. Truly awful stuff. Phil 1, Caldrail 0

As I've mentioned before, cannae is THE most studied battle ever, and takes pride of place in military colleges. There are important lessons on strategy to be learned from it. Its easy to eulogise hannibal but then its easy to overlook just how talented the man was.

Recently I was told the sad news that a family friend had died. Not too unusual, I've lost family, friends, plus a stranger or two in my time. I won't bore you with gory detail but the gratuitous nature of his death has left me very reflective, and I find myself asking what the romans thought of such things. My instincts are that the same viewpoints we see today existed then. Some were horrified or entertained. Inconsolable or smirking, sympathetic or smirking. Theirs was a society that tolerated and enjoyed violence. Crowds thrilled to the sight of two men fighting for their lives with swords and shield. Expensive and exotic animals from faraway lands were herded in for slaughter to the very same crowd. They watch criminals put to death by imaginative means. Boxers use metal gloves to protect their fists and hurt the opponent. Wrestlers in the pancration can do almost anything to the opponent except gouging his eyes out. Slaves are killed during theatre plays for realism. A mob riots for lack of food. Soldiers are permitted to rampage murderously in a captured town. Gangs of drunken young men assault innocent passers-by at night, if they avoid the muggers and cutthroats. Rape is considered an occupational hazard for prostitutes or serving wenches. Unwanted babies are abandoned, exposed, left to die or be taken by slavers. The poor did not expect medical care and disease lurked in their quarters. Now unlike the violence that pervades roman society it seems disease is something they were genuinely wary of. Out of ignorance for the most part, but also because it was a silent killer - something that takes away their virility and liveliness. These days our lives are protected by countless rules, regulations, practises, and techniques designed to prevent us coming to harm (and from having fun too I might add). A woman was killed during a storm some years ago. Her car was waiting for traffic lights to change. A tree threatens to break and fall on her. Pedestrians warn her, but instead of driving four feet forward or back she sits open mouthed until the last minute, when she protects her head in her arms to no avail. It was probably the first time anything actually dangerous had ever happened to her. The romans did not feel the need for safety legislation. It was a dangerous world. Earthquakes, fires, volcanoes, famine, floods. The gods will smite a man who offends them. Barbarians lurk in dark forests. Your rival may taint your food. A slave who injures himself in an industrial accident can be replaced without too much difficulty. A gladiator regards it as a point of honour to accept a fatal blow if he's condemned by the crowd. Charioteers take huge risks to win their race. Soldiers must kill men, women, or children on command. Noblemen should commit suicide rather than face humiliation.Young men are expected to be boisterous and rowdy. Only two out of five romans survive the age of twenty. You may well be a grandparent at the age of thirty. Life is short and often brutal. It seems then that the romans viewed death as commonplace, and I think they had less fear of it than we do today, especially if they could watch someone else suffer it.

Try 'globi' - which is cheesebread spread with honey and sprinkled with poppy seeds. Or 'melca' - curdled milk that formed a sort of yoghurt.

You might be suprised how modern some roman dishes were. Pasta was indeed cooked in roman times although I don't actually know what format it took. Burgers were available from traders in the street (seriously, although they're a bit cruder than our modern rubberised products). Bread, a staple roman of diet, is grittier than we would tolerate because of the milling process but I accept that there might be some variance in quality. Eggs are popular, figs too, and vine leaves are often used creatively to wrap meats or perhaps as side dishes. For the wealthy, pastries can be cooked. Fish are popular, eels too, and oysters were common even for poorer people. We might see mushrooms as a side dish for instance. Pork and poultry products are common but I wouldn't expect to see much beef - cows and oxen are not primarily raised for slaughter. Lets not forget Garum - a sauce made from rotting fish (eeuww). very popular but you'll find that worcester sauce is the modern descendant. Not the same as, but similar. The sort of extravangant tit-bits we sometimes hear about in tales such as lampreys spleens and larks brains - well - those are the reserve of the wealthy I would say, and none too cheap to acquire. Those are just a few ideas to get you going.

Augustus made the proud boast that he found Rome in brick and left it in marble. A prosperous period then with plenty of beautification and redevelopment going on. Brick was and would be afterward an important building material. Concrete was basis of some extraordinary roman civil engineering. But how much of these creations were truly roman in design? The arch is undeniably a sign of roman influence IMHO, but we can't discount the greek inheritance. So much of public building work is almost pure classical greek. Were roman architects attempting to recreate greek glory or was it simply a matter of copying someones elses ideas wholesale? What do you think?

I understand that sleeping naked was not unusual, at least in warmer times and climes. Common sense dictates that blankets and such were employed where necessary and poorer people simply slept in their clothes if need be.

In a way I agree with you. hannibal did know what he doing at Cannae - he was talented commander. The two opposing roman commanders - as you say - weren't so hot. They had numerical superiority and assumed they could steamroller the carthaginian army flat. Thats why they attacked in a deep chequerboard formation. In fact, the discipline and order we associate the roman legions with worked against them in this battle. Their orders were to advance en masse so they did. The flanks must have been getting nervous when they saw themselves marching past columns of enemy troops. However - hannibals masterpiece was to draw the enemy in. He fooled them with a ruse, a tactic employed by many successful commander over the ages. The roman generals thought they had a victory in the palm of their hand until the trap closed. Now we need to understand what happened at that point. The carthaginian cavalry returned from seeing off the roman auxilliaries and sealed the exit - the roman army was now bottled up despite have a huge advantage in numbers. The romans lost control there and then. Their formation became disordered into a mass of helpless soldiers. Despite their numbers, the romans were slaughtered in droves which wasn't the first time that had happened either. Now - what if the roman commanders, Varus and Paulus, had their heads screwed on? My guess is that the roman army would have split in two and tackled each carthaginian column head to head. The carthaginian cavalry was superior so the romans would have struggled in that instance, and the weaker carthaginian line that fell back would have been a problem still. By sheer weight of numbers, I believe the romans would have pushed Hannibal back at great loss. Both sides would have gone back to camp to lick their wounds. The important result in this case is that the romans can replenish their numbers at will, given time, whereas hannibal could not. It would have forced hannibal on the retreat and he wouldn't figure so heavily in the history books. Hannibal must be given credit for the victory because his strategy was superior to the roman one. He took on a force twice as numerous and beat them. Don't forget how important leadership was in these ancient battles. From the events we can see that Hannibal had already expected the roman army to behave in a certain manner and he used that knowledge expertly. The returning cavalry didn't just do their own thing - they knew where to go and what to do when they beat their roman adversaries. It was all planned ahead and well executed. The history channel is correct - Hannibal walked away with it because he was by far the better general. But I do understand why you see Cannae in a different light.

I might be able to dig that one up so to speak. I'll let you know.

It depends on what sort of siege tower you're building. A wheeled tower would need flattened terrain or some sort of track to allow it to approach, but also remember that the romans built siege towers in place, even against the walls of a fortress if they could get away with it. Before you ask, yes, they did suffer casualties. Regarding siege machinery, its also important to remember that breaking down the walls might be impossible. Usually the lighter weapons were used to keep defenders heads down whilst the real work went on, and in many cases a heavy siege weapon would be used to wreck the internal buildings and hopefully cause enemy casualties. To shell them into defeat if you like. Getting in was likely to be via ladders, cranes, towers, or simply by ramming a hole in the gate. In rarer cases the wall might be brought down by mining underneath it. Having said that, we do note that roman soldiers were getting medals for being the first man through a breach, which to me suggests that siege engines were concentrating their fire on a more vulnerable spot on the wall instead of just a wide barrage which was largely ineffective.

And how exactly is this tale relevant to the question that WotWotius posed? Not very when I read it again! I'm off to the shops now to buy a thinking cap

Supernatural influences notwithstanding, the romans experienced difficulties with the partians/persians because their numbers were comparable, their nation states coherent enough to mount stern resistance, their economies strong enough to pay for armies, and because the tactics employed by them were alien to roman warfare. In fact, Rome seems to have struggled to adapt.