caldrail

Are you kidding? Portray Augustus an old man? No - that wasn't done. Emperors had a say in how statues of them appeared. Caracalla for instance liked to be seen as Mr Nasty. Augustus wouldn't have appreciated anything other than the dignified young hero. I've also just realised that he needed to be recognised. A statue was like a logo - if it differed too much no-one would know who it was.

It wasn't a revolution- that implies a sudden change. The dominance of cavalry developed from roman times through the dark ages and reaches its height in the later medieval period. Gunpowder of course pulls it down to earth. Cavalry in ancient times was evolving. It was a learning process. At just to emphasis the point, it was the barbarians who became europes knights in shining armour, not the romans.

(groan) Now I doubt Ovid was being entirely honest. Romans were very macho so a little manly boasting wasn't amiss. Actually I'm jealous. But then modern clothes and manners don't really allow for this do they? Or am I attending the wrong parties?

Why conquer? Start convincing amenable tribes/nations to come over to your side beforehand with rewards for loyalty. That way, when someone complains about your troops marching up and down their lands, you've got allies at hand. The romans did this in britain. Its now believed that the king of the Atrabates, Cogidumnus, was rewarded for his assistance by Vespasian with a large villa at Fishbourne and status in the administration, besides other things we're not aware of. That was a large slice of southern england the romans never had to fight for.

Roman soldiers able to withstand 70% casualties? I don't think so. All armies fall apart after 30%. However - there are certain circumstances when higher casualties are taken Unable to retreat, self-sacrifice, and very strong leadership are the only three that come to mind immediately. All are unusual, even for the romans.

I'm referring to both cultures

If you can make enough hasta for the legions then there's no real reason why you couldn't make pila, although I concede that the pilum might be more expensive and more labour intensive. Possibly 2 spears for 1 pilum? Thats a guess based on what I've seen of them. I would prefer to think that the training of legions had devolved to the point where pila were not being used to good effect - "We don't need these things, Sir, too fussy. Lets use a spear, much easier".

And why was this true of the late republic but not early or middle republic? The reason is that (1) Marius opened up the legions to people with nothing to lose and everything to gain by blindly following their general, and (2) the general could support his legions out of his own purse. If the senate had kept their power of the purse (e.g., by retaining the sole authority to mint coins that were legal tender), they would have gone a long way to prevent Marians and Sullans from acquiring personal armies. I agree that Caesar didn't create this system, however. The Julio-Claudians weren't the only ones jockeying for power through court politics. Every imperial household did the same. The reason is that the Octavian regime provided no mechanism for accession and destroyed the distinction between the public treasury and privy purse. Consequently, the stability of the government was isolated to sporadic lulls between constant civil wars. During the Principate, around 50% of all emperors were violently deposed or died of unnatural causes. In contrast, only about 5% of consuls attained power through extraconstitutional means. This is simply not true. Rome expanded far more during the republic than during the principate, and against far more advanced enemies. As a republic, Rome defeated not only Carthage, but also attained the advanced civilizations in the east. During the principate, it failed to conquer any enemies as sophisticated. Moreover, during the principate, the military commanders were also "political appointees"--if an emperor thought a general was too great, he'd have him axed. I think even Augustus did this when he announced that a certain general was simply no longer his friend, leading the whole (servile) senate to turn against the general and leading shortly thereafter to the guy's suicide. Same basic pattern in the life of Agricola, wasn't it? As for the the late republic, I agree with what you say, however that situation hadn't evolved overnight. The decline of the senate allowed powerful men to basically cock a snook at them. Inevitably someone was going to march on Rome and Sulla did that. Caesar also did so because he felt he had no other option - to back down at that stage was to invite disaster for him. I merely used the julio-claudians as an example. Under Augustus things went pretty much ok, although I dare say a lot of scheming went on behind the scenes. Augustus used to wear a breastplate under his toga didn't he? The lessons of Caesars fate had not been lost on him, and even though he was in a powerful position its obvious he never felt completely safe. Rule by the consuls worked better because you only got the job be being voted in. Now the mechanism may have been biased and corrupt, but you had to show you were worthy in some way before the senate gave it to you. To me its clear that Rome would never have had a stable government because too many people wanted to run it. The ruler had power. Real power. They could dictate someones destiny and cash in, but there were always those who wanted that power for themselves. This was the drawback to an immensly competetive society - Nobody wanted to be a loser. With strong or popular leaders this anarchy was pushed to one side yet throughout the empire it seems there was always disaffected individuals plotting to bring that leader down. I actually think the real success of Rome was to survive in spite of itself. The principate would have ground to a halt anyway. Like an expanding balloon it required too much puff to blow the empire any bigger. The sheer size of the empire meant that rulership was only possible by the initiative and competence of local government. As Diocletian admitted, the empire was too big for one man. The legions as always were laws unto themselves. Time and again they decided their general was to be emperor. So, in the late empire, we still see generals as power brokers in their own right. Also, don't forget that the Varian Disaster cut deeply into roman confidence - it changed their foreign policy. Rome was learning to colonise the wilderness rather than annexe other cultures, but after that crisis they would never do so again. I absolutely agree wholeheartedly about the envy causing a generals downfall. Not just Agricola - Stilicho too, and I'm sure you can think of others. But isn't that the curse of the powerful general? If Domitian had allowed Agricola to complete the conquest of scotland and return in triumph, was there anything to stop him arriving with a few legions at his back? In the principate we see a balance between ruler and general. Augustus, as I've mentioned, was more paranoid than most people realised, and very careful not to let another generation of Pompey's and Crassus's ruin him. So - if this the case - then surely my point was valid in the first place? That generals were appointed on a political basis rather than military capability?

Making life easy for your troops has some important disadvantages. Firstly, they get lazy. Secondly, they get bored. Thirdly, they begin to defend their materialistic pleasures rather than their nation. Troops with time on their hands soon get drunk, rowdy, and violent to everyone around them. This is why the romans went to so much trouble arranging fatigues, duties, practises, and engineering projects. There is some evidence that portions of Hadrians Wall were plastered and painted. Now thats the military. Get them out in the freezing cold of northern england, I want that wall smooth as a babies bottom and so white the picts get blinded. No excuses legionary!

Careful.... I don't think Rome did it perfectly. They did very well indeed - can't argue there. They were perhaps more systematic than most cultures and in terms of military technique ahead of their time. In the field they were good, but they did lose a lot of battles, often through poor leadership. Roman invincibility appears to be a myth that has endured two thousand years. Caesar would be amused!

Funny thing is, I doubt promotion prospects were very high period. You would have to go some to prove your worthiness unless you got lucky or very wealthy.

Source? A poor one - a talking head on a tv documentary. I can't remember who the learned gentleman was. I'm not kidding, he did actually say that. Wonder if he's still in gainful employment?

The European Union is an attempt by politicians to make their names in the history books. Just by existing it will become a rival to the US. Truth is, it has nothing more to offer its citizens than they already have. The romans on the other hand had an entire culture packaged and waiting to export. Why did germanic tribes overrun it in the 5th century? Because they wanted the good stuff for themselves, although I agree they were persuaded by pressure from the east.

It does for some people. The same was true then.

Human beings are social animals. We prefer to be in groups when things get heated. If your group is turning and going away, usually so do you regardless of courage. There have always been exceptions of couse. Morale in battle depends on many things. Your state of mind, how aggressive you are, who the enemy is, your physical health, the state of your equipment, the weather, your position, your numbers, support in flanks and rear, our current fitness, your understanding of the whole picture.

No I don't think so. Only the last has any real lasting significance. Roads almost went out of service as soon as the roman legions left. The roman civil service vanished and wasn't replaced for centuries. The emphasis on drill, weaponry, equipment, and training comes when an army (any army) is constantly in the field and must improve to gain the upper hand.

They wore bear or big cat skins, but there are no examples of wolf being worn except by velites but not signifers, and certainly no sculptural or literary evidence (I know there are reenactment groups doing so but... ) Not necessarily all of the armour, but the helmet was most likely part silvered at least. His armour could have been brass if he wished. The crest could have been any colour and combination of, and made of horsehair or feathers. We have no solid evidence left of colours in the Roman army, hence the dreaded tunic debates (although red does seem to come out tops until the Late Empire) I don't think there's any evidence for that, and the legion could have come from anywhere. Any depiction of a big cat skin being worn could have been a tiger, lion or leopard, as the paint on any sculptural evidence has worn off now. Another sign of optio rank was a tall straight staff with an orb on top, and a beneficarius a lance, but bear in mind that ancient concepts of "uniform" would have been very different to ours. Regular standardised uniforms don't seem to have occurred until the 16th Century or so, except perhaps for individual units when kitted out by a rich benefactor or high ranking officer. As for Romans who knows? Cheers, Jim. Heraldry is more important that uniform in ancient & medieval armies. Because individuals were so often required to provide their own arms and equipment (even the romans did that early on) it varied in appearance. Therefore the only way to be sure who someone was fighting for was a flag or symbol. Legions adopted a 'uniform' appearance but this could vary between units. As for cat skins, it would have been a matter on where the legion was stationed. If an officer killed a beast and thought it would look cool, he may well order the skin prepared for use by his standard-bearers. It was also a superstitious thing too - the big cat (or any dangerous animal) would somehow pass on its courage and ferocity to the men.

1 - Clear the site. 2 - Mark out the boundaries 3 - Dig the ditch 4 - Put up the stockade 5 - Put up the tents To some extent some of this would have happened at the same time to make the process more efficient - most soldiers laboured at the wall while others put up the commanders tent etc...

They were used in the attack on Maiden Castle in Dorset, England.

You betcha. Garrison life is a routine enlivened by menial duties and fatigues, much the same as modern armies. This was why roman commanders were so keen to have their men build bridges, aqueducts, forts, and roads. The men of course, were keen to do nothing of the sort. They would have prefered to get the light duties, particularly the ones that netted in some cash. For instance, new recruits were given a modest amount of coins to pay their way as they travelled to their training fort. The recruits were escorted by serving soldiers who conned them out of those coins as quickly as possible. All sorts of duties took place in garrison life. Cooking, cleaning, washing, mending, marching, practice, latrines, ditches, plastering, painting, woodcutting, cobbling, admin, guarding - the list is endless.

I don't think you're wrong as such, but there's a deeper side to this question. Imagine Varus hauling these things through the german forest. Hopeless. Never mind the difficulty of travelling, even when the fighting started you'd have almost nothing to shot at, because your field of vision is so limited. Morale is difficult to quantify because some cultures favoured individual courage that made them sometimes oblivious to losses. Mind you, I wouldn't care to stand in front of a roman army either and the romans made sure their enemies felt that way if they could. So perhaps yes, there was a morale advantage even if most of your shots went straight past everyone. Phew, that was close! The auto-ballistae were criticised because the following shots hit the same target as the one already killed.

Generals of the late republic were powerful individuals. They were wealthy, they had legions, and supporters in the senate. Rome was a furiously competitive society so inevitably there could be only one. Funny thing is I don't think Caesar actually wanted to eliminate his rivals as such - remember how upset he was when the egyptians handed him pompey's head. Once the generals felt they were powerful enough to ignore or contravene Rome's laws and customs it was clear that a single ruler was going to emerge, because none of them could bear to let anyone else rule them. No, I don't think Caesar signed that warrant. Augustus stabilised the empire for many years until the rest of his family decided to continue the roman tradition of political superiority at all costs. It was this murderous and bitter infighting that brought Rome to brink of disaster many times. As a republic Rome would have failed against the barbarians even faster than it actually did. Why? Because the senate had always chosen political appointees to military command and chosen badly time after time. With the invading hordes, Rome had run into a force that had exactly the same advantage they had - a huge reserve of recruits. Rome could no longer play a waiting game as they had with say, Hannibal, or perhaps Spartacus. I know that bad choices were still made during the empire - Quintilius Varus for instance - but the central command of the empire had something going for it when a strong leader was at the helm.

I think its wrong to eliminate Julius Caesar from this poll. Ok, he wasn't an emperor. He was Dictator. For Life. Now that might not have lasted too long after he received this prestigous post but to all intents and purposes he had the same power. In any case, emperors got all sorts of titles from the senate or their own egos. I would say.... Nero. His albums may have been crap but what a show he put on! But I suppose Trajan has to smirk and walk away with the prize. Well done Sir. They may have laughed at you at first but who laughed last?

It wasn't quite like today. Romans only issued coins to facilitate tax and make political statements. Barter was as common as coinage. Soldiers would only be paid three times a year. Some employees would have received a sort of wage even if a slave, but cash was gained from providing a service or craft more often not. Scrounging too, lining up with the rest at your patrons house every morning to say hello. Perhaps you did well gambling last night? Did that stranger really believe the price you charged him? Or did that fool not check his purse until you'd gone?

Life got softer for them didn't it? You are correct about moral. The Foreign Legion is no easy option but its modern recruits are for the most part proud to be legionaires. So it was with the romans. When the regime was hard and glory to be won, romans would proud to call themselves legionaries. As life got easier, it got to be a chore and a bit of a drag. By later times your thoughts might be for your family under threat from barbarians so far away from where you were stationed. The legion wasn't quite the psuedo-family it had been.