caldrail

Its unlikely the romans would use any gender division given the male domination of society. Women were offically the property of fathers, guardians, or husbands (although I am aware that roman women did at times escape this restriction) and although they would be expected to run the household, I doubt a virile roman male would feel comfortable in a feminised dwelling.

I'm not sure of the source but I remember a quote saying that the noise of living above a bathouse was undesirable.

Its also true that men were given day to day duties that seperated them from their 8-man teams for short periods. They might be posted as guards on civic buildings, bath attendants, clerical work, as batmen, as labourers - whatever the commander decided was required. It would have been rare to send men any distance although soldiers could apply for leave much as they do today.

Its difficult to pinpoint the origin of Rome because early writers smothered it with legend and myth. Etruscan kings did rule the area and they did so as part of their realm, not as a seperate province. From the etruscan view it was simply etruscan territory. From the roman view it was a city ruled by foreign kings. Early warbands were very ad hoc formations of lightly armed and armoured men. Typical protection was a smll square or circular breastplate, possibly greaves if you could afford them, and a simple helmet. Warbands such as these would have been used for a raiding style of conflict rather than the organised campaigning of later periods. In fact, organisation would have been poor. Warbands would have relied on foraging from the local area.

Gladius Hispaniensis - the spanish sword with a slightly leaf shaped blade as used during the republic. Went out of favour before the principate to be replaced by the 'mainz' style. This in turn was replaced by the 'pompeii' pattern by Nero's time which remained in service (albeit reducing in length) until the 3rd century ad when it started becoming abandoned in favour of the longer cavalry Spatha.

The armies decline was hand in hand with the decline of the west as a state - I would say both part of the cause and because of it. The enviroment can affect a society terribly. The ancient minoans were destroyed as a culture after the explosion of Santorini caused a tsunami of epic proportions. They simply couldn't recover and devolved into cannibalistic tribes. Its just that an event of that nature never hit the romans. The pompeii eruption was nowhere severe enough. However, some people believe that an eruption of krakatoa did affect the late roman empire as a whole, and we know that increasing disease had huge impact.

Actually I was missing the point wasn't I? The romans were very superstitious people. Every observable event in the world around them might have divine purpose or contain warnings for the wise. So in all likliehood the addition of medusa/gorgon motifs were simply there as wards against bad luck?

A few posts ago I mentioned that the gladius evolved from a long pointed, gracefully curved blade to a shorter and straighter weapon before the 3rd century ad. Now I'd mentioned that this might be partly due to the influence of the doctores (gladiator trainers) that were used occaisionally to improve legionaries swordplay, but I was left thinking - well that can't be the only reason. So here's another. The legions were being cheated. Follow this arguement.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Hello centurion, what can do for you?" "Ave swordsmith. I need two hundred gladii like this.... Can you you supply them?" "Certainly sir. That will be two months work at... (sharp intake of breath)... two thousand coins" "What! Too expensive. Make them for five hundred or I'll take the work elsewhere." "Right you are then sir." "Good. Now you've seen sense I'll leave you this one to work from. They must all be like this. Good day to you." "Pssst.. Take a look lad, has he gone? Right... Take this sword and grind off an inch or two. Then we'll copy it. I'm not wasting good iron on that arrogant so and so. More profit for us you see...." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder how true this scenario is? Caveat emptor was fundamental to roman trade, and for many years it must have been the same with the legions.

I know the legionaries could be re assigned to different parts of the Empire depending on where they were needed most,but would they go individually to far flung places or would it be as the centuriae that they got there orders?Or even the Cohort? Thanks,Longbow. Soldiers were very much part of their unit, and to split them unnecessarily was frowned upon. Bear in mind the roman talent for organisation was not going to keep track of hundreds of men going here and there all over the place. Men were part of their legion first, and this legion was posted to a region where it would conduct its duties. Men were always posted away from their home country to prevent a rebellion forming. Chohorts would then be assigned postings in nearby areas, but still within easy reach of legion command. Individual men might be given missions away from their unit, but they would always be expected back. The important point is command was only possible when the commander knew where his men were. Any commander who lost track of his troops probably wasn't going home in triumph

One thing that we need to understand about war in the ancient world is that it was up close and personal. It takes a fair bit of nerve to stand in front of someone armed and armoured just like you and go toe to toe for ten or twenty minutes before one of you gets too tired or makes a mistake. Face it, the result can be very fatal. In order to get men to fight like this you need to inspire them - they need to feel they need to do this and that they stand a chance of victory (even a courageous last stand can be seen as such). The great victories were won not so much by the men themselves, but the leaders who won their hearts and minds and made them believe they could do it. This is why armies in the ancient world are so hit and miss. Without the essential leasdership factor they become a hesitant armed mob.

The huns did settle down in some numbers. Part of the reason for migrating west was find new areas to live.

I have heard of this same thoery and to expand on it, it ties into the idea that every 500 or so years there is a climate change and using a rough idea of 500 or so years you can trace back when we have records of mass migrations of people, this could be an explanation for the sudden influx of barbarians moving south when during the late republic, early and high empire there were none. Climate change is continuous - it happens every year, usually in small increments. Climate is a dynamic enviroment and human memory can be very short and selective. The climate has changed over the course of the empire. But also remember the coastline, so important for trade, has also changed. Ports have silted up and the northward tectonic movement of the african plate has caused the mediterranean coast to buckle. Some places have risen and fallen against sea level (and still are!). Volcanic activity resulting from this has affected local economies. Romans devastated local ecologies in trapping animals for the arena and over-farming is nothing new. Enviromental factors have influenced things but the fall of the west was more to do with economic, political, and demographic change.

Doesn't this discussion rely on what we regard as good rulership? Rome would have emphasised different things to us and lets be honest, we look on the roman period from hindsight. What was important? Was it peace? Prosperity? Military glory? Survival? I think the romans would have as many different opinions as we do. A farmer wants peace and a healthy market for his produce. An artisan wants plenty of money in the hands of his customers. A general wants an excuse to conquer or progress his political career. Senators want power and full coffers. A slave? Enough food and as few duties as possible. So its horses for courses. How about a scoring scheme? I bet that would give some suprising results! What about... +1 point for each year in power +5 points for a peaceful death +5 points for each legion raised +10 points for each province conquered +20 points for being deified -1 point for each public protest -5 points for a coup attempt -5 points for a provincial rebellion -5 points for each battle lost -10 points for being declared an enemy of the state -10 points for having his memory erased Obviously I'm not going to go through every emperor scoring their efforts! But you see my point? Our personal preferences are sometimes interesting but how do we actually judge the worthiness of an emperor?

I would have thought this was simply down to the greek influence on roman culture. Medieval europe concentrated on dragons and sea serpents as its nemesis I think. These days we have a strange fascination for vampires and werewolves.

Oh yes - Augustus thought the region was safe enough for Varus to earn his spurs as a military man in relative safety. Strictly speaking it was - settlements were expanding, revenues were starting to come back, and the germans seemed willing after all to accept roman ways. However, it was Arminius who upset those plans. He rallied german resentment against Rome and had the cheek to tell Varus that a rebellion was in progress personally. It was a well laid trap. However ambitious Arminius may have been, his plan to rule Germania as king fell apart within ten years and he got himself assassinated. I wonder if roman money was behind that, or was it just envy from a rival?

Yes - without shadow of a doubt the roman army changed. Well it would, it was around for more than a thousand years not including the byzantines. First we have the tribal armies, then the greek style, then the republican, then the principate (which is the classic roman legion we immediately think of) then the 'dark age' style army of the collapsing west. Don't be fooled though, the romans lost a lot of battles early on, not just in their declining years. They had to bribe the gauls to go away in the 390's BC. Hannibal repeatedly ruined roman prestige, and just to emphasise the point, more than one bandit on the loose ran rings around the generals sent against them.

Recent archaeology has uncovered roman settlements much further into germany than previously thought. The principate was well on the way to colonising the near germanic regions and they certainly wouldn't have bothered unless they thought it worthwile. Whilst the resources from these regions probably weren't lucrative, it was definitely worth building a friendly buffer zone against the wilder barbarians. We know from the activities of german knights in later centuries that as they went deeper into the forest the natives got nastier. Varus was told to collect taxes from the newly colonised region. Augustus sent him because he'd married into the royal family and a lawyer wasn't going to get the respect without some military service. It was only the machinations of Arminius that turned things over. Varus has been decribed as 'a judge, but not a judge of men'. I agree with that. He was keen to quash a rebellion before augustus got annoyed and fell into the trap laid by arminius with almost careless haste. The varian disaster changed roman foreign policy forever and remains a defining moment in roman history.

Thats what I mean though. The image is pervasive and I have read elements of it on this site occaisionally. In some respects it would appear that the romans themselves were keen to present themselves as an unstoppable army and via inaccurate history and fiction, not to mention hollywood epics, this image persists to this day in the popular imagination. Agreed - but the legions did practice their skills and were required to perform route marches to aintain their edge. I don't know how often this was adhered to - it would depend on the commanders. Variable quality is a point well made. The fantasies I describe come largely from fiction and hollywood as I mentioned before. The apparent uniformity of roman units give them an image of faceless coherence which does have some basis in truth. They were after all well drilled (usually) and obedient. However, the writings of romans give a slightly distorted picture of roman capability. Julius Caesar was an extraordinary leader but he did exaggerate his victories for instance. I suspect a general proudly announcing his victory before the senate also indulged in a little over-statement. This has transferred through generations of history teachers who were keen to present the romans as the pinnacle of civilisation ( which to me seems odd given the view that they are also presented as decadent and mad by moralistic storytellers) I meant something more than simply providing food. Yes they did that although some roman units went short from time to time. What I also meant was that because the romans could raise another unit of replacements quickly the enemy could lop off as many arms as they liked, sooner or later they were going to get another punch in the face.

Yes, to some extent. The same thing happened later to the spanish and portuguese. When the supply of gold from the americas dried up, their societies faded somewhat.

The image we have of roman legions is seductive. Massed ranks of armoured men marching like steamrollers across anyone who dares oppose them. How true is that? Not very. Despite the roman talent for organisation and a training regime that was way ahead of its time, we see an impressive list of defeats. Most aren't studied closely but when you read histories written by romans they do mention them. It appears the roman steamroller wasn't quite as sturdy as imagined. Why? The reason is staring us in the face every time we read those histories, but I'll get to that. Romans and non-citizens join up for various reasons, but for most the legion offered a secure living. Remember that war was infrequent during many periods so a roman soldier, given the excellent health care and benefits, could easily expect to outlive his civilian opposite. Many of these men were hardened by life before they joined. Life in the ancient world could be harsh. Once the initial examination and interview was done the recruit was given a small sum of travelling money and sent to his training camp in the care of a few serving soldiers, who often delighted in making sure the travelling money went into their pocket. Was it like a modern army? In some ways yes, in others no. We would recognise many of their activities as similar. A recruit was trained to fight, to obey orders, to remain calm in battle, and to endure hardship. He might be trained in artillery, to ride horses, to swim, and if he had an education or a trade, a chance to avoid the fatigues that his fellows were ordered to complete. There lies the first clue. Life as a legionary wasn't as grim as might be imagined but it was hard graft. A commander was wise to keep his men occupied with labour or civil engineering projects. His men had no intention of breaking their backs building aqueducts unless they could help it. There is definitely a quiet reluctance to volunteer that I see. So how does that affect things? In order for the legion to function effectively it required strong leadership. Not just the legate (general) but his centurions and optio's too. This is why Julius Caesar was such a good general. Despite some poor choices of strategy he leads from the front, maintains good relations with his junior commanders, and clearly demands the best from his men. Since his victories put cash in their pockets, they were usually keen to follow him. And there is the second clue - Money. Now when we read the prose left to us by roman authors they concentrate on personalities - the focus of their story. So we read about commanders and a few heroic men who stood out briefly. The great mass of men who reluctantly did their bit for pay and reward do not figure in these tales unless they massacre, moan, or mutiny. However, every so often we read a passage that shows a more human side. Like men ordered to prepare the circumvallation at Jerusalem in 70ad for instance. They groaned, put their weapons down, and started building work. The jews attacked at that moment because the romans clearly weren't being too alert, and it was nearly a disaster. Or that moment when a young jew stole water from under the annoyed noses of the roman sentries. Boy did they feel like a bunch of suckers! The whole point is that our perception of the roman legion is coloured by fantasy. The truth is that we should see a bunch of hardened men, often corrupt, careless, callous, and mutinous. They were sometimes indifferent fighters. They were easily bored and prone to crafty dodges. Strong leadership, discipline, and punishment never eradicated these traits, merely contained it. The real success of the roman legions was its logistical ability. Good organisation, effective distribution of resources, and a seemingly endless supply of replacement recruits. Without the ability to equip and supply up to 350,000 men across the face of Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, Rome would never have triumphed. Unless of course, you have different opinions?

Jesus might well have been forgotten (he was the leader of a small sect in Judaea after all, not the center of he world) but it was Paul who created christianity decades after Jesus's death. They never met. Without Pauls efforts in Rome christianity probably wouldn't have emerged. It was the roman empire that eventually accepted this religion and supported it. There were plenty of alternative belief structures back then many of which were perfectly viable. Ideas and concepts don't spread like viruses. Lets say I decide that the moon is made of green cheese. I mention it to friends and they look at me like I'm a bit wierd. I write a book and get a couple of interviews on TV where I basically advertise myself as an well-meaning idiot. Its only when someone who has real influence says - "Yes -he's right - the moon IS made of green cheese" - that people find the concept acceptable. Then it becomes a matter of peer pressure - "Surely you don't still believe the moon is made of rock?" Take Adolf Hitler as an example. Early on in his career he was dismissed as an odd fanatic. By chance and design he reaches a position of influence - and we all know what happened then. Perfectly sensible people took part in horrific goings-on because they weren't able to stand back and say "No, this is wrong." Obviously I'm not comparing christianity with german nazi's but the spread of a conept requires that it becomes acceptable, either because the concept is non-threatening or because someone is threatening punishment if you don't accept it.

The wealthy have always adopted pets of one sort or another. Cats were introduced from egypt so I understand. Some romans of means even adopted child slaves as pets. Although this smacks of the darker side of human nature there wasn't usually any paedophilia involved. The child was a pet and treated as such. Of course when it got a bit hairy after a few years it was time to sell.

Pacified? No I wouldn't have said that. Large numbers of contientious objectors certainly, but the truth is most late westerners regarded the empire as a pain in the butt. They simply wanted to get on with their lives without all these heavy taxes and recruitment drives.

Crassus was extremely wealthy. In ancient Rome wealth bought power and influence and lets not forget how competitive roman society was. When the chance came along to effectively become a joint ruler without going to all the hassle of getting a short stay as consul, of course he went for it. If he didn't, he was outside the loop, and had less control over his own affairs. That wealth of his was not guaranteed if someone else had the power to take it away. He was also ambitious, although as his fate shows, he had little military ability in a conquest state.

Slaves also came from legal sentences or simply because it was a better choice than poverty. Pirates were never really eliminated in the meditarranean and captured individuals might be sold as slaves.