caldrail

Hmmm.... I would attempt to draw the enemy across the path of my reinforcements if possible, thus leading them into a nasty ambush, or even have them surrounded by their own folly. Attack Rome? Tch tch tch...

A point not covered adequately in this discussion is the use of open or close order battle drill. Close order, which is how we normally see roman soldiers behaving, is a tight defensive formation, or perhaps used as a column of men to push deep into the enemy. The soldiers in this formation are restricted because they can't rotate the wounded or tired, nor can they do much else but stab. Open order drill allows the throwing of pila, rotating tired or wounded men, and a more aggressive open style of swordplay which we know the legions were trained for. Although they were indeed taught to stab as a primary method of attack, the blades were sharpened for a reason.

Quite clearly the offer of roman citizenship was a strong motivation for people living in the roman world. Once everyone had that by right, it was no longer desirable - and I think that was a major factor in the decline of the west.

Didn't Caligula have a personal unit of germans? I think Nero did something similar too but for for soldiers over 6' in height (military capability a low priority there I think) Oh - before I forget, Septimus Severus replaced the praetorians with his own men on gaining power.

If the romans formed square with spears then the charge wouldn't connect - if they had any sense - it would simply wheel away frustrated. However, as you correctly state, a square formation is essentially immobile and therefore a sitting target for missile fire. Before too long, enough casualties would have broken the defensive value of the square and the survivors might not survive much longer. If they stay, they continue to be whittled down. If they flee, the cavalry are at their backs. This was the problem Rome had when facing eastern horse-archers. They just just didn't fight fair

Frankly, this is nonsense. If you knew anything about the lives of real slaves (especially agricultural ones), you'd be ashamed to have written this. Not ashamed in the slightest. Mill owners at the start of the industrial revolution were often tyrannical. Don't forget, they were teaching new work habits. Prior to this, no-one worked fixed hours or a shift. Real slaves received variable treatment also. Some were favourites, others not. Some were valuable skilled people, others were just labourers. Their owners varied too. So it was in Roman times. We have people like Cato who regarded slaves as mere cattle, or Cicero who earned a high regard from his slaves. Most slaves aren't treated well as a rule because human nature being what it is many owners enjoy their power over others. Superstition ranks high as a reason why technology did not progress although I dare say greed was a stronger factor. And what would one do with thousands of slaves if we build these infernal machines everywhere? Truth is, the romans had an easy life and never felt the need to introduce labour saving devices. I know this sounds like I'm a bit hypocritical, but the difference is that it wasn't actually the slaves that caused the lack of progress. The owners, the people with cash to invest, would have thought it better to keep up with the joneses. After all, if your neighbour suddenly frees 99% of his slaves and builds a large wooden contraption instead you'd think him a little odd wouldn't you? Don't know about you, but if there's a drought this year and that spring dries up we'll know who to blame, hmmm?

Josephus writes in his 'The Jewish War' "Men trained to fight by the book and to obey orders without question are easily demoralised by innovative and enterprising tactics" That is so true. What you're quoting is an example of leadership. Without it, roman soldiers usually lost despite their other advantages. Julius Caesar was an excellent general without doubt. I suspect his centurions in that action were of a high calibre also.

Regarding roman ships in the north sea, there are many instances mentioned either in Caesars account of his british expeditions or from Tacitus describing a naval voyage around the northwest european coast that show the effects of weather, and how difficult it was for roman crews to cope with it. Other mediterranean nations were better sailors - the phoenicians successfully traded for tin in Cornwall for instance.

Unlike the towns, villages were simply places for local population to live together as they always had done, so village life depended on locality. In Italy it would have been essentially roman of course, and the presence of country villas would have meant that villages were less independent than at other times. But ancient brits in mud huts were still ancient brits in mud huts even with romans next door. The only difference was that they now had easy access to roman goods and services - and thats a big bonus.

Water and provisions are important factors, but also bear in mind that although the Mediterranean was a 'Roman Lake' it was still a sea, and sailors of that era preferred to remain close to shore. That way they could anchor quickly due to weather or nightfall.

Are you kidding? Thats a heavy shield with a metal boss thats been shoved at you by a sturdy, healthy, agressive soldier. You get a scutum in the face you'll know about it - Briefly.

Ending slavery doesn't equate with technological progress. During the industrial revolution in Britain workers were extremely downtrodden, poor wages, terrible working conditions, living in squalor almost. To all intents and purposes they were enslaved to the mills they worked for. I think romans viewed technology with blinkers. They used it for a single purpose and didn't really adapt it or make connections that would lead to other advances. It wasn't lack of expertise or intelligence - they had plenty of that. It was their attitude to such things that kept advancement down, not slavery. Having said that, 'talking tools' were more adaptable. A machine does one thing and won't listen to you. A slave can be trained to do other things and will communicate if required.

I would see it a sympton of decline, not a cause.

Oops. Here's the answer I posted elsewhere. 1 - Any formation in rough terrain in vulnerable because the normal spacing is interrupted. Given that they're clambering over rocks too, a good series of spear/arrow/slingshot volleys would disrupt the unit even further. Stronger in defence I would say, and perhaps the samnites would have local knowledge to choose good ambush locations? 2 - Cavalry in forested areas is at a disadvantage, Russel Crowe notwithstanding. Its more difficult to charge because trees are in the way. Its more difficult to ride because you have to avoid branches. The ground is likely to be full of undergrowth and hidden dips hazardous to galloping horses. You could still usefully employ cavalry in lighter forests, and in the event of melee, a cavalryman has the 'higher ground' regardless. Its just that cavalry is so much better suited to a clear path. Hiding your horses in the trees and mounting a swift ambush would be great. 3 - Slaughters in the forest are best avoided by prior knowledge. 'Intel', as we like to say these days. Spies, prisoners, deserters, travellers - they all have little pieces of information that an astute commander can use to second-guess his enemies moves. Julius Caesar was a past master at that. 4 - The heavy infantry of classical legions would be advised to have their pilum to hand. Not a brilliant weapon for fending off horses, but it would do. Cataphracts are a difficult case though because it depends on whether they have reached charge speed. If so, the longer reach of their lance (kontos?) would definitely prove itself deadly. Once halted, roman soldiers might evade the longer shaft of the enemy and close in, meaning the cavalry then adopt a sword or something instead and a normal melee ensues. Of course, the heavily armoured cataphract can still fight with some defensive advantage here. 5 - Leadership is so important when structured units are in the field. Romans were strong when well led, but the opposite was true. Men used to obedience and standard moves tend not to think much, initiative is not always appreciated in armies. You might for instance have a unit where the leader hesitates or dies. The men are asking themselves - 'Well are we going to do something or what?' - but the initiative is lost.

1 - Any formation in rough terrain in vulnerable because the normal spacing is interrupted. Given that they're clambering over rocks too, a good series of spear/arrow/slingshot volleys would disrupt the unit even further. Stronger in defence I would say, and perhaps the samnites would have local knowledge to choose good ambush locations? 2 - Cavalry in forested areas is at a disadvantage, Russel Crowe notwithstanding. Its more difficult to charge because trees are in the way. Its more difficult to ride because you have to avoid branches. The ground is likely to be full of undergrowth and hidden dips hazardous to galloping horses. You could still usefully employ cavalry in lighter forests, and in the event of melee, a cavalryman has the 'higher ground' regardless. Its just that cavalry is so much better suited to a clear path. Hiding your horses in the trees and mounting a swift ambush would be great. 3 - Slaughters in the forest are best avoided by prior knowledge. 'Intel', as we like to say these days. Spies, prisoners, deserters, travellers - they all have little pieces of information that an astute commander can use to second-guess his enemies moves. Julius Caesar was a past master at that. 4 - The heavy infantry of classical legions would be advised to have their pilum to hand. Not a brilliant weapon for fending off horses, but it would do. Cataphracts are a difficult case though because it depends on whether they have reached charge speed. If so, the longer reach of their lance (kontos?) would definitely prove itself deadly. Once halted, roman soldiers might evade the longer shaft of the enemy and close in, meaning the cavalry then adopt a sword or something instead and a normal melee ensues. Of course, the heavily armoured cataphract can still fight with some defensive advantage here.

The average roman was 5'4", and legionaries were expected to be taller. Nero put a unit together from men 6' or taller, which means most of those were probably of celtic origin such as gauls or germans who'd had a better diet in childhood.

Having dusted off the soot from the explosion, I'd like to say that there isn't any puzzle whatsoever. Metal can be manufactured into armour within a very short space of time, leather much less so. I really don't believe leather is more efficient and that's not what I pick up from reading on the subject. Chain has disadvantages though in that a direct thrust will penetrate quite easily - thats because its made of thin rings. Also - is leather more resiliant in the field? I doubt it. And if it degrades its not as easy to replace or repair is it? If it was, the legions would have used it. They didn't.

Gladiators must have been fit men. Going toe to toe is strenuous activity and certainly not good unless you've had the correct brand of breakfast cereal And it is true that long one-on-one fights were interspersed with brief rest periods, so even as fit as they were it was sometimes a long slog. The 'blink-and-its-over' style of Russel Crowe heroism isn't anywhere close to reality. The roman crowd would have booed, not cheered. We came for a fight, not a five second massacre! About digestion though - joking aside - I've never seen recorded anywhere exactly when the gladiators were fed on the day. Ok, they had a slap-up meal the night before (although I suspect this was only the paid contract fighters, not the poor POW's about to be dispensed with). Did they have a snack before their fight? Would they have wanted one? Men about to fight for their lives tend to get very focused.

A legionary probably carried two pilum. So each had two volleys. I doubt anyone other than the front rank or two would have thrown until their turn, so to speak. This means that the volume of spears thrown is less but there are several volleys to go before the legionaries resort to their trusty gladius.

Time to explode a myth. Leather is hopeless as armour. Such items were decorative or to show status. If you wanted real protection, then you'd adopt metal like everyone else. Unfortunately, leather has very little resistance to sharp implements and won't do much against the blunt ones.

I would want to have my cavalry attack the rear or flanks at least, with the intention of breaking up their advance rather than a head-on melee. After that, go get 'em boys. Nice and simple.

Its also true that roman patricians viewed science with some distaste. Without their support, ideas fell by the wayside. If it made them money.... well... perhaps we'll try it and see if the gods don't get upset... Technology tended to be localised - there wasn't the great spread of ideas unless military engineers could use it. For instance, in one quarry there was a water driven stone cutter. Great. Fantastic. But as far as I'm aware, it was only used there.

yes I said that. There are such circumstances, mostly when the soldiers involved have no other choice. As I mentioned before, human beings are social animals and warfare is an aspect of that. When you're in the line and men are falling about you stone dead or screaming in agony, you instinct is to move away from danger, to return to the safety of the herd. With humans this occurs quite soon. Most military units are finished before 30% casualties are reached (some run away as soon as the fighting starts). Now it has to be said that the roman legions were well trained and aggressive. But they weren't arnold schwarzeneggers either. I do not believe that a roman unit would ordinarily fight until 70% causalties. By that stage, the unit is more than two thirds empty and being cut to pieces because they cannot support each other. After 30% losses in close combat the casualty rate increases dramatically. In cases where romans did fight until 70%, then they had some reason for it. Were they pressed against a wall? Were they closely supported? Were they attacking, not defending?

Gladiators as a whole tended to be large men. Obviously a big bloke is going to find it easier to carry armour and shield rather than a seven stone weakling, never mind wield a weapon with some force. Lanistas used to feed them a diet of barley, which will fatten up a man noticeably. A layer of fat was considered a good defence against minor sword cuts. The retiarius on the other hand, was different. He needed to be agile and quick, so a layer of fat wasn't desired in his case. Lanistas also liked to put pretty boys into retiarii training because their face was visible. Although despised by the blokes as a cowardly way of fighting, the ladies would swoon as he strut his stuff in the arena. Pretty boys need to be slim - as today, fat men have more of a problem attracting womens attention. Bestiarii and Venators? Apparently agility wasn't always required according to mosaics, which strikes me as odd because I would expect agility to be vital when facing off against a carnivore twice your weight.

With regard to number 3, almost every book I read that has pictures of Roman architecture and engineering that stresses that "this bridge" or "that aqueduct" are still serving some kind of practical purpose today, so it's not a long stretch to assume that some of the infrastructure continued to be used for some time after the end of antiquity, is it? With regard to number 2, many aspects of the Roman civilian and military bureaucracy remained after the fall of the empire (admittedly, many of these were late Roman inventions, not from the High Empire). The Roman command system of the duces and comites became the "dukes" and "counts" of medieval times. There are examples of the Franks and Arabs continuing to use the tax collectors, record keepers and other bureaucrats left over from the late Roman/Byzantine administration. I don't think it's fair to say that all these things simply vanished. Well it wasn't a clean break I agree, but continuance? Thats more difficult to swallow. Roads for instance almost fell out of use despite being major through routes. Some were maintained if the locals thought it useful, but it required labour and techniques that were being forgotten. To some extent thats also true of bridges and aqueducts. They weren't maintained like they would once have been, instead they were used until they... erm... stopped being usable. Also I don't think the medieval system of dukes and counts was anything close to romanesque despite the use of latin-derived names. They were hereditary titles, not offices. The fall of the west is sometimes seen as a discreet event in its own right - it wasn't. It was like a rickety old building collapsing in stages. Bits fell here, then there. I'm very interested that the Franks/Arabs used existing administration, but as mentioned in other threads, isn't that just ordinary people trying to keep their part of Rome alive? Sooner or later it fell into disuse leaving the medieval people to begin a slow recovery.