caldrail

Morale isn't just esprit de corps. That results from a sense of belonging, which requires an organisation with traditions. Morale is the mental state of your men. This can be affected by a number of factors. Faith in your leadership, discipline, availabiltiy of food and water, enviromental hardship, rewards of victory, punishments of defeat or cowardice, allied support... all sorts of things. If one factor goes awry then perhaps you can compensate. If too many factors are involved then eventually the men will get depressed or angry. Caesar - Its time to make that rousing speech I think.

The lorica segmentata protects the shoulders and torso from the expected sword blows from screaming barbarians. It did indeed serve them well, but it wasn't too quick to put on (you would need help from a friend for a good fit) and eventually they reverted to chainmail simply because of convenience.

Hannibal had good reasons not to stay in place. During the trek across the alps he had a meeting with his commanders about the lack of food. One of them suggested to Hannibal that they teach their men to eat human flesh and enjoy it. Hannibal refused this source of nourishment, but his army suffered horribly from starvation. He simply didn't want to have to find food for thousands of soldiers for months on end. Remember that he had no supply trains, he was foraging locally. In actual fact, in his case some of the intended besieged may have been better off.

Agreed. Locusts are the likely culprit. But the ancients knew full well what locusts were since Egypt was sometimes plagued with them. Was this merely an old-wives-tale to hide the real source? A quick-tongued merchant wowing his audience and slipping away when the story gets a bit too popular for comfort?

It was up to the games editor (or the emperor if he was present) to decide a gladiators fate. The crowd of course would heavily influence his decision. Does he justly condemn a man and make himself popular with the plebs? Or does he let him off and ensure his senatorial owner is still on friendly terms? As editor, your future career prospects rest on these decisions. In any case, if the crowd are making loud noises its a fair bet most of them are saying the same thing.

It is interesting that these commentators despise Tiberius. Was that because he made himself too remote? Or was he disliked for choosing not to provide public entertainment? He was also quoted as saying he was rearing a viper - he meant caligula, and if true then he knew full well caligula wasn't suitable for office and probably ensured he wasn't. That way old Tiberius would be remembered as not being so bad. Is that another reason forthe criticism of him - in that he had allowed a bad-apple to rule after him?

Recruitment in the late empire was getting to be a fairly desperate process. Draft dodging was widespread and press gangs operated to volunteer men for service. One emperor decided that two thumbless soldiers were the same as one fit & able soldier so there was no excuse for service. People simply didn't want a military life by that time. Rome was no longer the unified empire of old. People were tired of government interference in their lives and certainly fed up of paying extortionate taxes.

He was capable of it - he just didn't know it. Hannibal was criticised in the ancient world for not knowing what to do with a victory. He could win battles effortlessly but he had no experience of siegecraft and was unaware how undefended Rome was at that time. He was never able to grasp the need to exploit his victories. In fact, it was entirely possible that Rome might have surrendered to Hannibal without much resistance. Rome never really did put up a fight although I notice there were street battles during the Year of Four Emperors (69AD)

True, but we know that the legions posted there had a signal system to call reinforcements from larger forts away from the wall.

Its highly likely that the gesture had regional differences. In sicily today a 'thumbs up' gesture used to get a lift from a passing motorist is in fact a mortal insult and may well get you shot. A gladiator who chose to die (and some did believe or not- it was a matter of professional honour and pride, or possibly some other reason behind the scenes) need only bare his throat. Usually he wouldn't get the choice. A ruthless opponent wasn't going to wait to let his opponent plead for mercy - we know that from the inscription on a tomb that says 'Take heed from my fate and show no mercy'. By being ruthlessly murderous you would quite likely find yourself without mercy one day, so most gladiators did offer their defeated opponents some chance to plead. I doubt very much that gladiators would disarm themselves to allow another to commit scuicide. Once condemned by the games editor, the fatal blow would follow swiftly (Maximus took too long in getting ready to kill Titus of Gaul in the film Gladiator. Had that been for real, the blow would have landed immediately. But then Maximus was a bit of a softie in gladiator terms) Giving a weapon to an opponent and leaving yourself unarmed isn't too clever is it? Not all gladiators were honourable. There were plenty of dirty tricks in use. The killing blow depended on the weapon in use. With a gladius, the preferred method was to plunge the blade through the top of the shoulder and into the heart. That way the blow is fatal and the ribcage doesn't get in the way. Throats were often cut instead, and the boomerang shaped sword of the thraex would be better in this fashion. A spear or trident might be used against the opponents head if no helmet protected him. Now the gesture used by the crowd must have had some relation to the act of killing or not. The traditional thumbs down is still my personal favourite although there's no actual evidence to say thats what was done, and as I've mentioned before, no-one really knows no matter how many books they sell.

We know the various techniques they used but as far as I'm aware the actual codes used remain a mystery. All the signals used by the romans required line-of-sight unless a rider was sent instead. On foggy days this visual communication would have been useless. Fire signals and beacons served at night, and unless its a downpour its still possible to get a fire going as long as the wood you set light to is dry. Inflammable substances like pitch would assist you there.

Roman siegecraft was nicked wholesale from the greeks. Its just that the romans had a much more confrontational approach to getting in than most societies. Of course, they weren't the only ones who conducted assaults. The greeks had done so, and so had the assyrians.

I've been part of meets like this for some of my other interests. I would suggest the site is chosen well ahead of time to allow interested parties to arrange their affairs, and that some kind of informal agenda is put together in case everyone turns up and runs out of conversation quickly. Its a nice idea.

My own view is that Caligula wasn't mad - at least not a raving looney. He was a malignant mickey-taker who enjoyed seeing people suffer. He was a young man of questionable maturity given ultimate power, and oh boy was he determined to find out how far he could push it. Emotionally disturbed I would say. Nasty but not evil in the dramatic sense. As for 'I Claudius', we have to remember this was entertainment - a tv adaption of a novel. Not really a source for insight into caligulas character then but a very good series I thoroughly enjoyed for what it was.

So basically the equestrians become a class of professionals as well as moderately wealthy people. The senatorial class was composed of wealthy men, many of whom were ambitious and some of them absolutely positive that they deserved power rather than that idiot giving the orders. Not suprisingly then, we see the senatorials weakened by purges and plots to the extent that the old families no longer exist. Therefore tradition is also weakened and the glass ceiling over the equestrians isn't so much a barrier that it once was.

I guess I was inspired by all those hollywood epics I used to watch on tv when I was a kid. I saw this huge empire, greedy, decadent, all-powerful, yet strangely vulnerable toward the end. Face it, roman history is the most fantastic soap opera ever. Its got everything. Best all, it happened. For real.

Well I wasn't actually there (contrary to popular rumour) but as I understand the evidence shows partial damage to the palatine hill, not extensive. Certainly not all of it. The fire followed the course of three intersecting roads near to the circus maximus and spread to buildings nearby. The wind was a major factor in its spread, as were servants of greedy landlords setting their flea-bitten insulae ablaze to claim insurance and probably evict difficult tenants without recourse to lawyers. PS - I can ring 911 if you want but I might be a little late.

I doubt they manned the battlements. What they did more likely was guard the area as a sort of special place they were holding in trust. This sort of aural tradition is very important to african tribes.

Its not just the moral background. The ancient world was a violent place. Warfare is a human extension of our social animal heritage and in military societies we quickly become used to it. Even those with a Judaeo-Christian moral background in those days were likely to accept violence as part of their lives (I know quite a few didn't, but then these were the same maverick reformer characters that we still see today). Lets remember that the defenders of Masada were a cult of assassins. The mindset of the average roman soldier probably isn't too removed from modern soldiers. I would say they were less restrained, less honest, but would smile knowlingly at the discipline and physical effort required.

Military credibility. Claudius, as you no doubt know already, was given power by the praetorians after caligula was murdered. Up until that point claudius had been regarded as something less than a man, a loser, a buffoon. Caligula had made him consul but one wonders if he wasn't taking the mick when he did that. In order for Claudius to be taken seriously by the senate and the army, he needed military experience and a new conquest would look very good on his CV. Britain was ripe for conquest - Caesar had been there twice and caligula might have if he'd had more patience and maturity. Roman agents and traders had already been at work in britain for some time. It was an obvious choice.

In combat things were happening fast. An injured man would automatically tend to fall back or fall over unless he was in a killing rage. If he couldn't fight, it was likely he would die very soon courtesy of an enemy strike. To some extent, his mates in the line would attempt to cover him or replace him in the line, but thats difficult to do with barbarians hacking at you right left and center. Once injured, survival would be down to circumstance. Were your forces advancing? If so you'd be left there while they carried on. Rotation of men during the fight isn't so easy although fresh men behind you would fill the gap very quickly. Roman troops weren't expected to fight to the death as such, but many soldiers would regard that as their duty. To do less was a sign of weakness or cowardice. Mind you, you would see weak or cowardly legionaries from time to time - every army has its quota of them. In the event, fighting to the death might not be a matter of choice. Medical attention was received after the battle, not during. They didn't have medics on call like you would today.

Generally speaking the economy of Rome wasn't planned. They didn't borrow money at government level (at least not usually - emperors like Caligula would borrow and didn't care too much about giving it back) because financing was done by individuals. There were some seriously wealthy people back then who were expected by public pressure to put money into the economy - either by donating funds to callers or by paying for public works. This wealth was gathered by all sorts of shenanigans both legal and distinctly dodgy. One of the reasons for the decline in the west is that money was being spent and not recouped by conquest. Taxation had risen so high that the economy was grinding to a halt, and a lot of coinage went abroad for luxury items or perhaps animals for the circus.

Medical care was a definite perk of service in the legions, and its peculiar that soldiers often livd longer than civilians. There are even reports of centurions still serving in their eighties. It made sense to a military society like Rome to keep their soldiers fit and healthy. In fact, modern medicine is based on the work of Galen, who tended gladiators for wounds early in his career. Some of their medicine is quite sophisticated, and they had a range of utensils that are similar to those in use to this day. As an aside, they tended not to sew wounds, but preferred staples made of silver which has good properties for this sort of thing. These would be snipped in half and removed when the wound heals. Bandages have been found at Vindolanda. Although the colour is lost (they're now a sort of muddy black) they would have have been an off-white colour like today.

The important point in this thread is leadership, an absolutely vital commodity in the ancient world. Unlike today, total obedience of your troops was not guaranteed. As a general, you would need to inspire and bully your men to go through considerable risk and physical hardship. People like Caesar had a skill in this area. And if Caesar brings you victory, glory, and sackloads of booty - hey - just tell us what to do Julius...

Apparently there's a problem with roman swords. Polybius describes a republican type but there's hardly any archaeological evidence for that period (perhaps only one or two against a great many for the principate onward). Republican swords, the Gladius Hispaniensis, is a weapon purely intended to stab or thrust. The 'Mainz' type is straighter but retains the long tapered point. When we get to the 'Pompeii' type the blade is straight and the point shorter. Pliny tells us that it was used as much as a slashing blade as a thrusting weapon. Noteably, there's a tendency for swords to get shorter toward the 3rd century AD since republican times. From then the spatha is increasingly used which is the longer cavalry sword, essentially similar to a pompeii pattern gladius but longer. These changes reflect the methods and standards taught in the legions. I generally don't mind film and tv showing romans slashing about because sometimes they did, and in any case its a lot safer for the actors and stuntmen to duel in that manner. However it does give a false impression. In close order drill with heavy infantry thrusting is the only practical method of attack. In open order, a more 'barbaric' style of swordplay is possible. The use of longer swords in later centuries indicates that roman legionaries were no longer as courageous or skilled as they once were. Fighting up close with a gladius requires nerve and practice.