caldrail

But you still require a connection between ideas to bring technology forwards. Roman communication wasn't geared for that. Also, as I've already stressed, roman conservatism didn't really provide a society receptive to technology. Except of course, when it helped them win battles. But even then the generals would have raised an eyebrow at some schemes. There was a way of doing things, and that was the roman way

Because it was taken for granted. Actually the benefits didn't disappear (hence the envious germans) but for romans it was a case of... well.. We're all citizens now, right, so why strive to earn it?

Competitve? Yes. Calm? Are you kidding? Keeping the peace was nearly impossible with riots and plots bubbling away. Receptive? As I said, the men with wealth to invest didn't have much time for foolish notions that didn't fit their class society.

This should be a separate thread, but what's the evidence for your claim? Were citizens less likely to serve in the army than non-citizens? If so, was this always true or only sometimes? When and when not? In my opinion, you're reversing cause and effect. It was only after citizenship became nearly worthless that it was extended to all, not that it became worthless by extending it to everyone. In favor of my claim, I can offer evidence that the value of citizenship declined prior to extension. Can you, in favor of your claim, offer any evidence that previous extensions led to a decline in the value of citizenship? If not, then the evidence doesn't support your causal story. Oh? Many served in the legions for twenty five years to earn their right to be roman citizens. That was a hard bargain and the the reward well earned in my view. The roman way of life had great appeal back then - something we're not too aware of these days. Why else would german tribesmen look enviously at the people across the river? Sure, they were pushed, but they didn't fight too hard to keep their hereditary homelands did they? When the germans overran Rome, they adopted roman airs and graces (must have been almost a farce at times). They wanted to be roman - in order to enjoy roman life - and that was the primary reason why anyone wanted to a citizen back then.

Maps were derived from the work of surveyors and sailors. All maps were hand drawn, rare, and therefore valuable. They would also look a bit basic to our eyes too.

You're right, it does sound a bit hypocritical - what you seem to be saying is that the salves themselves didn't cause the problem, but that slavery and it's functions did, which really means we agree. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There was no single reason for the failure to advance. Actually the romans were quite sophisticated in many fields, largely driven by military pressure. Were it not for superstition and the senatorial desire for the status quo, sooner or later someone would have made a discovery that put two and two together. The technological pot was simmering, not coming to the boil. The wealthy classes simply had no reason to adopt machines wholescale because life was too easy. Once the roman west declined (or struggled as in the case of the 3rd century AD) the heat came off. Something similar nearly happened in late medieval times - the monasteries were beginning to take the first steps toward an industrial society, brought crashing to a halt by Henry 8th when he closed most of them for personal gain. It seems the natural progression of ideas and concepts requires a receptive, calm, and competitive society to succeed. The romans never quite attained that, and the decline took away their chance to become a truly industrialised culture.

There is another reason why Rome did not complete the conquest of Caledonia - and that's Domitian. I don't think he was happy that Agricola was covering himself with glory, soon to return in triumph, possibly with legions at his back. Agricola was recalled to Rome by Caesar and that put an end to the campaign. The forts were abandoned incomplete, and the troops retreated behind the wall. Domitian would have justified his envious paranoia by stating that a conquest was unnecessary - Caledonia had been pacified.

The romans were nothing like as clever as you suggest. Time and again they were slaughtered by a failure of leadership. Take Jerusalem. They were told to build a circumvallation. As they did so, the jews counterattack. The soldiers have left their weapons lying about even in a combat zone. Almost a disaster, and Titus nearly had his officers executed for the humiliation of it. Roman soldiers were taught to fight without question. It was their commanders - the optio's, centurions, tribunes etc, that would make or break a legion.

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.