caldrail

it's even less formal than that. The sources mention officers ranging behind the line attempting to rally or spur men on (Roman discipline was not invulnerable) rather than actually commanding troops (which was actually the job of the centurions). In fewer cases, such as Caesar himself, we see mentions of senior officers fighting in the line alongside their men, which again was primarily to inspire the men around them. What this means is that we have real identification of the lack of overall control by one man. Certainly senior officers had authority, but junior officers had considerable freedom (and responsibility) to show initiative and lead from the front.

Aha! Found it. I believe this page comes from a book written by Francis Hitchens in 1978. The symbology of 'the maze' appears quite inherent to human psychology and may well be a manifestation of instinctive behaviour that dates back to our primeval past. See what you think... BasicMaze.pdf

I've seen that before in an article. Apparently the pictured labyrinth is not a physical one, representing any constructed site, but more of a metaphysical concept dealing with personal enlightenment and transformation (apparently). The article infrerred that constructed labyrinths were bult to encapsulate this idea in physical form, to somehow attempt to make it real. I'll try to find the article but it was written in the 70's and I'm not sure where it is.

Can you believe this? I was banned from the accessing this site by my local library. Back online now, of course. Guess Caldrail knew too much

Guards would be supplied on the orders of the civil administration from whichever existing corps they deemed appropriate or convenient. The facilities would be secure but not necessarily fortified - it's unlikely such defenses were viewed as standard or were commonplace. Since the legions of the time were not reliably paid they often took civilian jobs to provide income and were not always primarily concerned with military activity despite the huge increase in numbers officially enlisted.

The issue of Roman command is subject to incorrect modern interpretation, as many assume the situation was exactly the same as today. In republican times the twin legion consular army used a system of power sharing, in which each general took command on alternating days and the other acted on his orders. This was done primarily to prevent ambitious leaders getting ideas, but the scale of warfare increased to the point where this system could no longer function adequately. It then migrated to a system of legionary legates in imperial times who were pretty much their own masters, subject to imperial or senatorial decree, with the proviso that in the provinces they were seconded to the governor. Thus day to day activities were under legate authorisation (although centurions did all the petty organisation) and military expeditions were either headed by the governor himself as the regional overlord (thus brigading the legions assigned to him and with him on campaign in one temporary army) or acting on orders to complete their objectives as individual formations. The idea of micromanagement is one largely dependent on the character of the commander himself. Some men prefer to delegate, others to take a personal interest. Quite how leaders like Antony and Octavian could micromanage their forces, up to around thirty legions apiece at their peak in the civil war, spread over large areas for practical reasons, is another matter. In imperial times please note that Augutus introduced a small number of tribunes to the legion, who acted as executive officers for ad hoc or assigned tasks.

Well he would wouldn't he? It's all deeply instinctual (and a little immature, but if you're that powerful, who's going to criticise?) and the basis for achieving political success, which is after no different to trying to dominate a herd/pack in the wild - you get mating rights and everyomne else slinking out of your path. However these lads don't have the experience of it. You can sort of tell can't you? The problem with playing king of the hill is that sooner or later a younger stronger man will want your place. That too is the natural norm. A great many dictators end their careers in igmony.

Firstly re-enactors aren't trying to kill each other thus their behaviour is slightly different, aside from anachronistic modern mindsetm (I'm not decrying their research and efforts, but be honest, the people who did this for real grew up in a world where it happened around them, unlike today). A shield wall is a temporary barrier of overlapping shields designed for maximum protection. The late roman empire developed the idea into two rows of shields, one above the other (jeez - those guys must have strong arms!). It is not possible to charge with a shield wall. It is, despite opinion given above, more difficult to maintain a shield wall during advance. The formation is primarily defensive for those reasons. When we consider the use of a shield wall remember that fighting throughout the event is not constant. Warriors get tired as sword & shield melee is physically intensive, thus there would be periods where both lines stand apart, regaining their breath, taunting the enemy, or simply readying themselves for the next surge. Descriptions of the battle wouldn't generally mention that (one roman source does but does so in order to stress the relentless and determined nature of legion vs legion), and although the actual fighting is sporadic or intermittent, both sides are confronting each all the time. It's also worth mentioning that pushing is as useful a tactic as swinging a sword around. Does that sound odd? Watch a modern riot with armed police. Human psychology is no different to other creatures in many respects and so getting pushed back is liable to induce a sense of failure or defeat. This is an inherent part of a shield wall in that it presents a harder barrier to force backward.

I wouldn't rule it out but Roman policy on helmets was to avoid obstructing the senses as much as possible, thus ears, nose, mouth, and eyes are not covered and incidentially whilst I understand the researchers inferences, there's nothing I've seen to suuggest that infantry used masks. It might simply be religious in nature if they did, not necessarily for combat.

I should add, in case of confusion, that there are only two reasons why old men were asked to stay on. Firstly to keep valuable experience in the legion, but also to keep numbers up. Recruitment into the legions was not guaranteed and legates did stoop to some dodgy means to maintain the strength of their command (indeed, long service was one of the gripes mentioned by Tacitus in the Pannonian Mutiny, so clearly these men were often persuaded against their better judgement to remain legionaries)

This should answer your question... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evocatus

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.