caldrail

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.

Surely thats not possible. Christianity by definition is the worship of Jesus as the son of god. There were certainly a number of judaic religions/cults around that time.

I'm reliably informed that actors and re-enactors get tired quite quickly hauling the shield around, which is why I believe that for normal carrying it would be better to keep the shield arm straight to avoid strain. The only drawback is the lower height of the shield as you approach. Perhaps the training of a legionary compensated. After all, I'm not used to carrying a shield all day.

You wouldn't say that if you were on the receiving end of a clibinarii charge. They were plenty heavy. Scale armour and long lance? Thats heavy cavalry. Not by late medieval standards perhaps, but this was still the ancient world.

And since the smaller roman armies needed to be more mobile to catch enemy intrusions they weren't always in the right place, which to a civilian means guarding them. Therefore they were keen in times of trouble to seek protection.

I doubt they rested it on the head, but an overhead shield wouldn't be too difficult to hold there bearing in mind that other peoples shields help spread the weight (except for one rank!) and that the weight is comfortably centered over the shoulder. I take note of your bag-lifting in earlier days.

The emphasis should be on culture, not colour.

There are plenty of titles in the Osprey series that serve your needs, or try 'The Complete Roman Army' by Adrian Goldsworthy

Regarding tactics, you're basically identifying the same thing as me. The testudo cannot effectively attack on its own - it must do something else when it gets there, or have someone do it for them. Also, the light troops supporting the testudo's prevent the enemy from surround the formation, pulling shields out of the romans hands, and plunging sharp pointy things into their suprised faces. As for the shield question, get something around 5-10 lbs in weight. Now keep lifting it to shoulder height. Soon gets tiring doesn't it? Now lift the weight above your shoulder and keep it there. You can support that weight for some time.

Well they often did didn't they? How about Barates, from Palmyra, getting hitched to a former slave in Britain?

Sexual activity from the male viewpoint was considered virile and normal. Falling in love was something of a situation to be pitied. Emotional slavery if you will.

The trouble is that today we've gotten very sensitive about racial concerns (understandably) but I'd say that looking for a truth is probably correct. Whether its dirty or not depends on your personal views. Racial stereotyping is dodgy business, yet time and again we see the same characteristics from people of various regions or stock. Now that doesn't mean its something to sneer at - all human beings are fundamentally the same despite their quirks - but people foreign to you are going to have different backgrounds, opinions, and experience. If you introduce them into your society, they tend to seek the company of like-minded people. This is true today and was true then. Rome had ghettoes - 'Little Greece' for instance. There's nothing wrong with charting racial origins and culture so long as you don't start excluding others for their differences. Discuss and be damned I say.

Communites hired barbarian tribes for protection in the late west. Sounds like everyday mercenary activity to me.

I understand your point, but really you've only underscored what I said. The Testudo needed protection? Or other troops to be devastating? As I said before - the testudo was used to the men to where they wanted to be without losing casualties. Once there, they had to do something else. Raising shields against archery is quite correct. However, keep on doing that and you're going to get tired - and this is where the testudo starts to make sense.

Holding up the shield like that can work, but not with a scutum whose handle is behind the metal boss in the center. You wouldn't be able to see anything!

Local availability is always important in considering things ancient. True, trade was widespread and imports were common - if there was a profit from it.

It was only the arrival of railways that made a common time so important. The ancient world probably wasn't even aware that time zones existed.

One thing I've noticed on reading about roman legions is the assumption that they dressed in red tunics. However, every source I've seen says that roman tunics were ordered as white material. Were they dyed locally? Or did romans line up in white dress? Red was certainly a common colour for the legions and we know that higher ranks used it as a mark of distinction. Modern dyes are vivid and garish compared with the natural colours used in ancient times, so an off-white and dull red would be more accurate I think. The quality of cloth was important. Like most periods of history, the rank and file made do with cheap coarse material, whilst officers used finer stuff. Does anyone else have any good information on this?

The shield is carried with the left arm straight, so no lifting effort other than gripping with the hand is needed. To carry a scutum with a crooked arm for any length of time is likely to be purgatory. Try it with a heavy weight, a barbell for instance. Holding it with the arm straight is no problem. Holding it in any other position soon stretched the joints!

No, the testudo wasn't devastating at all. It was purely for protection. A formation like that cannot push the front row forwards without much cursing and bruised fingers. In fact, it would probably fall apart if you tried to. In no way was the testudo analagous to an infantry 'tank'. If it had been as effective as you say, then it would have been the standard method of roman attack. Quite clearly the romans didn't do this. A useful protective formation perhaps, but with strong limits on offensive utility.

Warbands would be the common formation. The greek/etruscan influence probably means they were more disciplined than some cultures (ie - they could keep a straight line) but the tactics would have been somewhat primitive compared to later periods. A more individualistic 'heroic' style of combat would have occurred. We see this sort of thing in the tale of Horatius guarding the bridge.