caldrail

There are important considerations with a shield wall however. In static form it is as defensive as possible, in that the wall is formed without distraction. Once employed more aggressively, although the shield makes a useful asset in melee, it also introduces temporary potential weaknesses in the line that an alert enemy could in theory exploit. With the wall advancing, there is a risk that the wall will deform and disrupt. Strictly speaking the Romans had for centuries advanced with a semi-shield wall successfully, though in their case the coverage was by shield design in close order formation with gaps between shields for the gladius to be employed.

At that time ordinary legionaries typically wore the banded cuirass, a curved rectasngular shield, and a flat style helmet with neck guard. Some units had extra armour like thigh and arm protection but in fairness I don't know if such experiments were used in Britain. Other shapes of shield existed but square was most common in the period. Tunics are a matter of debate but more people are coming to the idea that off-white natural colours were used, although weather-cloaks were not restricted in colour. Centurions wore chainmail with a harness to mount deciorations and honours. Their helmet mounted a crest transverse across the head to show rank, and in all likelihood, displayed red clothing for the same purpose. legiionaries mounted the gladius on their right side to avoid conflicting with the shield when preparing for battle. Centurions wore theirs on the left for convenience being not usually encumbered by shields. Auxillary troops were simlar but wore chainmail and nothing other than oval shields. Osprey sell booklets that cover this sort of information very well indeed. Check out... http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en-GB&q=osprey+roman+military+clothing&gbv=2&safe=active&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=316087495265380978# http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/The-Roman-Army-from-Caesar-to-Trajan_9780850455281

It makes sense that he did - 1 - Because he would be keen to display his architectural nous 2 - Because he would want to remain beneficient and generous in the eyes of Romans back home while he was gone 3 - Because it would be part of his overall plan to create an elevated latin society

There were Germans living in Britain during the Roman occupation, regarded as 'good citizens' on the whole, sometimes settling in appreciable numbers, especially those involved in military occupations. There is evidence for late empire saxon burial grounds in my area. Enjoy your meal.

There's some confusion about this. A formed wedge is defensive and designed to deflect incoming cavalry (although seriously I haven't seen any authoritative confirmation the Romans did that. The Romans also used a style of attack called 'pigs snout' or something similar, in which two advancing columns converge toward the same enemy frontage, using mass of numbers to force a breach in their line. Further info is available... http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Roman-Battle-Tactics-109BC%E2%80%93AD313_9781846031847 PS - Cuneus, or Pig's Head, is the name I was thinking of. The Roman's also employed an advance with flanks refused, which means the legion moved with cohorts in an arrowhead formation to achieve the same effect.

Not everyone had access to itineraries or the strip maps showing connections and stops. Since the local hostels would know which road led where, a courier, soldier, or other traveller would quickly find advice on which direction to go, plus it happens that the natural reaction of common people when asked by a stranger about directions is simply to help them as conventiently as possible.

There was a time we feared aliens on their tripod legs, martian bullet ships, venusian seductions, goblinesque abductions, and various experiments performed on hapless US farmers, but now our revenge is imminent as the local area of the Milky Way is being prepared for Noddy Holder's battle cry "It's Chrisssmmmassss!". Quake in your magnetic space boots, little green men everywhere. I should know. I've been traumatised by that ghastly record since it came out in the seventies.

It does seem an unlikely idea to me. Lawrence was a misfit by nature and empathised with arabs because they didn't see his differences in quite the same way as his fellow britons.

A study of this sort of thing I read recently is quite revealing. generally there were no road signs whatsoever. If you wanted to know which road led to somewhere other than Rome, you simply asked someone. In fact, it wasn't unusual for a person to begin a long journey without the slightest idea of where his destination actually was. You took the journey in stages, making progress by heading in more or less the direction someone suggested you ought to go. And yes, robbing hapless travellers on the road was a known hazard of getting around in those days.

Since the Romans don't mention the symptoms you want to discuss, it doesn't look to me like it was a big deal if they ever encountered them at all. In any case, I stand by my original point. Human beings are naturally aggressive animals (some more than others of course) and thus the odd spot of violence wouldn't usually have any long lasting effect (apart from any bad injuries or noses put out of joint). Modern warfare is different. There's much less security in numbers, a heightened sense of individual vulnerability, more intensive methods of inducing desirable behavioural characteristics during training irrespective of long term effects, and a great deal more suprise and sudden noise. Ancient and modern are two different battlefield enviroments. I can't go into too much detail because I'm already bending forum rules.

It refers to the period of joint rule otherwise the reference would have been different. The Romans used such means to date events as a matter of course - in earlier times the event was listed as taking place in the consulship of the two Romans concerned.

I must admit I've never looked closely at this point. I'm curious to know why you see a differentiation, since the Romans tended toward immediate punishments for crimes (or exile for the upper classes) and their prisons were always holding cells in some way or other, even if just forget the poor individual so incarcerated. Could you point us toward specific mentions that brought you to this idea?

I think you're wrong. The Romans have not once, as far as I'm aware, ever mentioned anyone suffering from problems associated with military trauma. Clearly the ancient battlefield was not a pleasant place (Ammianus Marcellinus depicts what the reader might expect to see) but even he doesn't tell us that people were suffering mentally afterward. That doesn't mean that some individuals weren't haunted by their experience, bad dreams and guilt so to speak, but that isn't post traumatic stress.

Access to Plutarch and Suetonius? You'll have to explain why you think that. Current research does not support your origin. The symbolism had less to do with religion than a disguised call for rebellion against Rome. Since the temples were suffering under the weight of Nero's demands for funds to rebuild Rome as Neroplois after the fire of ad64, it would seem the call to arms was aimed at those who had genuine reasons to see off the Caesars, and in any case, the author (whoever he was) didn't need access to rare books to appreciate current events. Lack of input regarding the imperial cult of the 1st century? Not sure I understand what you mean.

Please note that the cutting edge appears on the concave side. This is consistent with a blade used not for stabbing (as popularly depicted) but either slicing a curved bodily feature or even a deliberate incision to remove an organ. As far as I'm aware, the celts did not practice the latter ritual (I have no information on that) but they did habitually remove the head of a fallen victim or adversary - this was done to use the head as a trophy (it might be presented as a gift as well in some cases) but also to 'capture' the qualities of the dead person. In fact, the legend of the Holy Grail originally stems from ritual practises involving heads and cauldrons - it was the medieval romances that conected the Grail with christian motifs, and many arthurian tales have celtic origin.

Professionalism? That word ought to carry a UNRV health warning because although much is made of the supposed 'professionalism' of the legions, we don't see much of it in the written record. I agree they were trained to fight effectively (though they didn't always carry it off) but to imagine that the Romans had an esprit-de-corps and expectations of public behaviour in the same way we now expect of our armed forces is pretty much imagination only. The Romans wanted hardened killers and tolerated some pretty shabby behaviour from their soldiers on the grounds that they were paid to fight for Rome, amnd since legionaries were not loyal to the state per se, but to personality and their wallet, it's hardly likely they showed similar professionalism. They were good at what they did - that much we can say. - but to give the legions aspects that are anachronistic or indeed completely imaginary is not history.

Some slaves did well for themselves. A generous owner might allow them to raise a family or run a business on their behalf. Whilst I agree that for many slavery was not a good thing, it was a fact of life in tha ancient world and part of their daily lives. Their view of things wasn't quite coloured by our modern revulsion, but then, even today people can find themselves enslaved in one way or another. It's not just a question of ownership, but also perspective. The same was true back then.

I wouldn't pay much attention to the ramblings of the Book of Revelations. That was written by a disaffected jewish exile with reason to revile his Roman persecutors. In general slaves were only branded if they misbehaved, especially if they ran away, so everyone would know not to trust them.

Nonsense. Christianity had such a control over the average person by that time the knights as a class of champions made no difference whatsoever. In any case, many of those same knights - despite the extraordinary influence of christianity at the time - were very worldly, although some such as Tancred struggled (initially) with christian teaching on one hand and lifestyle choices/martial credibility on the other. After all, it was the missionaries that spread christian teaching into the pagan world and knights had nothing to do with that. Which wars were aimed at the Catholic Church? I can't think of one.

Slavery was a matter of expedience and profit as it usually was with the Romans in all things. The treatment of slaves was hugely variable according to circumstance and indeed changed over the period. It is worth noting that officially a slave was no longer human. By becoming property a slave was no longer free to self-determine, and that freedom was an inherent part of Roman culture since they dumped Tarquin Superbus by the wayside. They believed that a man should be responsible for his own fate by his own decisions (and note that Dio frequently refers to men being made slaves of when all that happened was that they were forced to obey someone else - no actual condition of slavery having occurred). Therefore being unable to act at your own volition meant by default that you were no longer human, therefore slaves were not. In the expanding late Republic slaves were common, largely via war. The slave market at Delos boasted they had traded ten thousand slaves in one day (although that level of trade vanished later). With such a surplus, human life was cheap, and we have reports of the wretched state slaves could get into, which was part of the inspiration for the Slave Revolts in Sicily and also the temporary success Spartacus enjoyed in accumulating followers. The attitude of owners to slaves became gradually more humane as the supply dwindled in imperial times. Although slaves by definition had no rights (and never would), laws on slavery increasingly restricted what owners could or couldn't do. Nonetheless slaves were beneath the horizon. The majority were kept in barracks or housed in poor conditions in cellars. On estates it was not unusual for the bulk of the labouring to be kept out of sight of those arriving at a villa. Those who worked in industries were treated without care, as miners and quarrymen had short and hard lives (which was why lanistas often went to such places to find new stock - fighting in the arena was sometimes considered a better bet than being worked to death in unhealthy conditions). It is true that some slaves did well. On occaision people found it advantageous to become slaves, such as those seeking possible fortune in the arena, or those that sought a better living via slavery at the cost of social credibility. Wealthy men in imperial times sometimes kept a boy as a pet, eventually selling or reassigning him when approaching adulthood made it publicly embarrasing. Jealous wives could easily make a slaves life hell, as men were entitled to have sex with their property at will (and women weren't - though this was a risque activity in imperial times as women became independently wealthy and stories of well to do ladies sneaking into the ludus for a liaison with her favourite gladiator were known. For some slaves their fame made them exceptions. Athletes, charioteers, and gladiators attracted the attention of the wealthy classes because they were valuable prize possessions, and whilst they were still a means to an end as far as their owners were concerned.

They coped because... a ) They had no choice b ) Their conditions were probably no worse on balance than where they came from c ) The legions were organised with a supportive familial structure embedded in it (the contubernae "Close Friends") d ) It was possible to bribe their way out of most of the bad things e ) Discipline in peacetime was often remarkably laz f ) Post Traumatic Stress is not caused by violence (which some men enjoy and the majority cope with) but the sudden noises and suprises of modern war which our nervous system is not evolved for. g ) Social interaction with civilians was a very much on the side of the legionaries. Romans moaned about how larcenous they were, and how violent they could be if the crime was reported. Besides, like all soldiers ancient and modern, all they wanted to do was gamble, have sex, and get blind steaming drunk.

The Romans gave the woman a matriarchal position within the home, and were teated with some respect (by legend Romulus organised a heist of rival tribes ladies because the Romans did not have enough to go around. There is no suggestion of slavery or violence and therefore we can assume their was a good deal of respect involved. After all, if the woman wasn't impressed or happy with the abduction, then either imprisonment or escape would follow). Also, given the bonus of free time and social largesse that wealth provided, upper class ladies enjoyed considerable advantages in later times. It was possible for women to inherit businesses. Some were influential in politics, quite openly, though I doubt they had the freedom of the Senate. The reality for women of poor background was the same as it always was (and often still is). Hard work or prostitution.

Firstly, the 'knight' evolved for social reasons, not military, and it can claim descendancy from Roman culture. The adoption of heavier armour would have occured much earlier had the Romans suitable horses strong enough to carry the extra weight without disadvantage - remember that ancient cavalry action was highly fluid and depended absolutely on mobility - cavalry were very concious of wearing out their horses first. Horses are not robotic machines. Secondly - any horseman has 'shock' value, and unfortunately the idea that armoured cavalry collided with infantry at full gallop is hilarious. Whilst it would result in a lot of dead and injured soldiers, it would bring the horse down and the rider with it. Accounts of medieval melee describe horsemen 'pushing' into formations, not colliding with them. Lances were used in a joust-like manner against opposing cavalry who could easily make room for the enemy to pass through at speed (thus the game of 'jousting' in the first place). Also we need to remember that trained or not, a horse is a very nervous animal that doesn't care too much for hurting itself. Should a horse perceive a block of enemy infantry as an unavoidable barrier, it will rapidly come to the decision to stop dead, and the man riding it usually falls off. Thirdly, Oman's description of the empires 'collapse' is pretty standard but ignores the reality that the attacks on the empire were not to destroy it, but to steal from it, and indeed when the last western caesar was ordered off his throne the empire was not destroyed but subject to a barbarian takeover (although the empire did not survive as a single political entity) Fourthly, the late Roman infantry were not quite what we popularly imagine, and in fact the prototype for the middle ages was already developing. They were becoming typical ancient/medieval infantry with their glory days behind them, although it's al;so true that the older heavy infantry were no longer the best solution to the empires military needs any more. Vegetius tells the strength and substance of the legion had gone in his day. Zosimus would later pour scorn on those late empire soldiers, referring to homosexual practises, effeminancy, cowardice, and we also see in Marcellinus a considerable reluctance of the legions to fight at all, with a culture of feathering your own nest among the rank and file. Fifth - the legions of the late empire were well aware of the increasing ascendancy of cavalry which allowed barbarian raids to penetrate far into the empires territory. That was why they split the legions into two classifications. One to guard the borders, another to react and obstruct the threat on home ground. This introduced a complexity into military defence that forced the Romans to develope a simple 'army' organisation above that of the legion, in order to coordinate efforts, but politically this was never going to work successfully in an empire that was increasingly less willing to remain actively part of the whole because the distinction between civilian and military in senior positions was still not seperated thus politics and war were all part of the same deal. In any case, the added complexity did not result in improved coordination because the imperial network was fragmented and more difficult to administer.

I don't believe the Romans ever named the classes as such, and the source that describes does so retrospectively, suggesting an older form of organisation that had become blurred and disused. Whilst the information clearly is factual (at least as far as our Roman author was concerned), we should be careful of drawing too many conclusions from it. Were these classes fixed or mutable? Did a person move from one to the other based on current fortune or was his place defined at some point regardless? I know that the reference to republican legions is based on these categories but again I think it's too simplistic to simply state these as 'units' of organisation, especially since they were civil in nature and represent a very cogent idaea in Roman society that all citizens must be prepared to defend their land against aggressors according to their means.

Those examples are out of context. During the civil war you would expect a Roman politician aiming to be victorious to have a hands on approach - that was par for the course with the Roman upper classes - military service wasn't mandatory but it provided considerable credibility - and always had. During the earlier republic it wasn't unknown for senators to rip open a toga to reveal a war wound. "Look! I have fought for Rome!", which we can interpret as a demand for respect. Mind you, senators were a bit demonstrative during their speeches, almost theatrical performances we may well amusing today. But back to the proxy business - that was what a legionary legate was. A senior Roman in charge of armed men. As for the system breaking down, well, it was a bit wobbly now and then.