caldrail

The interior of these forts has changed a lot over the years. I doubt even the late romans had the barrack rooms against the walls (purely for fire risk you understand) but I haven't seen any evidence for that either.

My two cents worth... The scutum is a big heavy curved shield - with a left hand draw it would cause problems with any sword. Because the gladius is a shortsword it was actually more convenient to employ a right hand draw. I've tried that myself and its actually very easy. The spatha can't be drawn like that so yes, it had to move back across to the left. Centurions used the left hand draw for convenience and possibly another mark of status. They didn't always have a shield to hand in any case.

As I stated, the testudo was a formation designed to minimise casualties from missile fire. In no way is it comparable to the phalanx and was never intended to be. Movement is necessarily slow, vision is limited, it cannot manoever effectively. Despite the defensive value of those shields, the testudo still remains vulnerable because it depends on zero casualties. Any unlucky legionary that falls away leaves a hole in the defenses that such a rigid formation cannot plug in action without exposing themselves to fire. When the testudo reaches an enemy group it must disassemble and return to a normal closed/open rank fighting block or achieve very little. If the testudo persists and attempts to push the enemy back, it really would be at risk of being surrounded. After that, a wall of shields won't help for long.

I understand your point. Rome was being culturally diluted. They're doing the same thing in britain at the moment to deflate patriotism, so that that integration into europe won't be such a problem. Any flag-waving is currently state-sponsored or approved. Otherwise a man from the council turns up and informs you you'll be prosecuted for flying your national flag. It has been said that the late senate was made of men descended from from slaves. The older families had evaporated in war and intrigue. By the time we reach Marcus Aurelius the imperial succession was not decided on merit or political influence , it was now passed from father to son in oriental style inheritance. Of course it never ran that smoothly in Rome did it? There were too many disgruntled soldiers or ambitious politicians who would rather not have to wait for things to get better (for them). Rome was becoming more insular, less secure. Foreigners were becoming influential people. The legions had become 'foreign legions'. The old government and taxation structure was slowly unravelling. There are many reasons for Romes demise in the west, but it amounts to a decay in standards and expectation.

I honestly don't know where it was. I saw a report of a cave system and one archaeologist had figured out that it was being used as a sort of 'augury theme park' by duping visitors into believing they were travelling deep into the underworld - with a steep entry price of course!

They also ignored or refused to consider many advances. It was military and architectural technology they only concerned themselves with. Rome was a great empire because it was ruthless, highly organised, and aggressive. A perfect example of a conquest state.

Correct, the horses of these early armoured knights were not destriers. All horses of the ancient world were smaller than the norm we see today. To add to my previous answer, the names 'cataphractii' and 'clibanarii' are used interchangeably. Romans did this sometimes - 'Catapulta' and 'Ballista' are also not specifically defined which caused me a headache at first. Its like describing a 'tank' or 'armoured fighting vehicle'. Both phrases can mean the same thing but the strict definition is different. Now - What exactly was the difference between cataphracts and clibanarii? Both were called cataphracts in strict definition, and their equipment was broadly similar, although the persian style used longer lances and heavier armour. It was this extra weighty metal that gave rise to the nickname 'clibanarius' derived from the word meaning baking-oven. The biggest difference is in fighting style. Sarmatian cataphracts approached the enemy at a leisurely trot and did not attempt to penetrate enemy formation, stabbing with the lance beyond the opponents sword reach. Persian cataphracts were more aggressive and used the weight of a charge to best effect. Many roman clibanarii units were in fact manned with persians. As a point of interest, one later clibanarii formation were horse-archers, not lancers.

The climate was warmer then, and despite a mini ice age of four years duration during the late 6th century the climate remained balmy into the early medieval period before reaching a low in the 18th century. (obviously the romans used gas-guzzling V8 donkeys :roll:) Woodland was more prevalent then - I wouldn't discount that as a resource. Caledonian bears were very popular for the arena too, and furs from many species would have been a possible export.

I'm a little suspicious. Claudius was not an adonis, and quite clearly was lucky he wasn't exposed at birth. Having been sidelined for his disabilities he nonetheless makes appearances at public events. Would the Divine Augustus want him married to someone so coarse and unappealing? Wouldn't that make the embarrasement of Claudius worse? Perhaps poor Plautia has received a bad press. She may not have been as desirable as some, but Boter got off with her didn't he? She was therefore willing to entertain an affair with someone of lesser status and quite possibly felt that being hitched to Claudius was a comedown despite being married into the royal family. It is interesting that she isn't described in better detail by anyone. A sign of an unremarkable woman?

Of course they were. The chief high priest of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, was a political appointment. The Vestal Virgins had some influence too. I also note that the concept of the Underworld was exploited in roman times by some cheeky individuals who set up an oracle service in a cave system somewhere (I don't know the location). I don't know of any specific examples of cult influence off-hand (except the various christian cults or mithraic beliefs) but given roman ways it stands to reason that cults were exploited for personal gain.

Heavy cavalry in roman armies is based on foreign concepts. Cataphracts, or sarmatian style lancers, begin to appear from the reign of Hadrian (117-138AD). Although they are heavier than other cavalrymen of their time, it would be more accurate to describe them as an intermediate stage. Clibinarii, or persian style lancers, were introduced by Constantius (350-361AD) as the real heavyweights, described as 'oven-men' because of the great heat they had to endure inside their armour. How effective were they? Whereas most cavalry actions in ancient times were scouting, skirmishing, and pursuing, for the first time horsemen are introduced who are ordered to break up an infantry formation by a direct charge. The whole point of these heavy cavalrymen was shock value. The arrival of these armoured horsemen may have worried less experienced troops greatly. Initially they would have seen success. Constantius was impressed enough by reports of persian victories to want this capability for his legions. Their armour protection was handy against enemy missile fire too. However it seems they may not have been as effective as intended. One account describes the infantry opening their ranks, unhorsing the hapless cataphracts, and clubbing them to death. They would have made a fine sight on parades whatever their capability.

The testudo was simply a way of avoiding casualties from missile fire. As an offensive formation it had the dsadvantage of being unmanoeverable - rather like the phalanx as you say. Too much emphasis has been placed on the testudo. It would only have been used where enemy archers/slingers or castle defenders were a positive danger. No, I'm going to rephrase that. The testudo wasn't unmanoeverable as such, it wasn't flexible enough for general use.

Roman armies didn't have much expertise in cavalry - thats why auxillaries were so important. That doesn't mean that roman commanders were unable to employ it effectively, it simply meant most hadn't the experience to do so. In any case, the auxillary commanders did have this experience and that was available for the asking by his general. The late army was beginning to favour cavalry (largely for mobility) and was therefore given a stronger precedence than it once had. Previously most cavalry was auxillary as you say, but remember each legion in the principate had a small contingent of horsemen. By the late empire expertise in cavalry wasn't unusual - especially when you realise that most roman cavalry were in fact goths at that time.

Wrong. Non-Romans used siegecraft often, its just that they weren't much good at it. The Sassanid Persians were an exception. Now they knew a few things about getting into castles. However, all non-roman cultures consistently showed how crafty human beings can be. Although their siege technique was poor they came up with all manner of ruses and tricks to gain an advantage.

Oh yes, when this sort of thing happens history gets very real indeed. You can reach out and touch it, admire it, but really you want to walk up to the guy, shake hands, and chat for all you're worth. I last got that feeling in the Auckland Museum, New Zealand, where they have a Mitsubishi Zero and personal effects of the man who flew it. The area where I live was inhabited by romano-brits. They dug sandstone from quarries, farmed, worked iron, and made pottery. A marching fort, vicus, and cemetary are hidden on the edge of town. Some of the finds are in the local museum. There isn't much, but it piques your interest nonetheless. The one thing there that did attract my attention was a saxon sword dug up from Beranburgh Field. The handle was small - too small for an adult. "Here son, now you're 13 years old its time to cast off childhood. Here's your first sword. Tomorrow we go raiding west toward Durocornovium!"