caldrail

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.

Control of the legions was done by proxy. Legates were representing the authority of the state and the upper class. It is true that making sure these men stayed on side was a major concern. What is also true was that politics in the city of Rome were aimed at grabbing a share of both personal power and profit. Rome was an intensely competitive state - politics was no different.

Converting costs into modern currency is for me a non-starter. The actual value of things is often relative, and what we really need to know is not how much an ancient coin is worth in todays money, but how much that sword would have cost the warrior in terms of his own income.

Your professor cannot possibly be right. A sword that expensive would have made the weapon unavailable to the common warrior. That doesn't mean a noble wouldn't pay for a fine sword costing that much (or more), but rather that swords were often cheaper. The 'fighting class'? Does he mean the chivalric classes? Common people fought too, of course, although they never had the same affinity for fighting that the upper classes revelled in. The cost of a sword was not the originating factor in any case - it was a societal development based around the horse and land ownership, evolving from Roman and Germanic culture, as swords were used by all classes and could not therefore be a defining factor.

Jeez, Ursus... I can see you liked it but good grief it was the most forgettable film ever. Sorry, what were we talking about?

You will find that a majority of those same young men aren't all that expert at military history either. Some of them are very knowledgable - but that's not the same thing. It's a natural instinct for youngsters to learn endless facts and information, and to readily identify with violence or those forces employing it, but often they lack the maturity or worldliness to appreciate why these conflicts occur and also the more human aspects of them. I would point out that after the economy had recovered from the stockmarket crashes of the late twenties the mood was more bouyant. Nations were deveopling again and a sense that things were possibkle had returned, not just in Germany. By the time of Chamberlains visit to Germany many people had woken up to the possibility that Hitler was not going to stop. Although some, especially in America, had lauded Hitler for bringing Germany out of the mud and restoring it to a vibrant and confident nation, there were plenty who recognised that all was not well, particularly since jews were being forced to emigrate at that time and brought with them stories of what was actually going on. There was clearly a general preparation for possible German aggression by 1938. War requires leadership. Even in situations when another nation is hated, nothing much beyond angry demonstrations will occur, as populations do not go to war without someone to tell them to (the phenomenon of the 'terrorist' has developed from victorian times but evven them represents a minority of of individuals who desire a form of unofficial action). Churchill was not well liked in British circles - he was biewed (correctly) as something of a loose cannon, an adventurer, whose schemes had already cost Britain heavily. He was however a figure that was able to lead a nation in war, and Chamberlain was not The Romans tell us that too. Vegetius sighs and says the 'strength and substance of the legions has gone'. Zosimus accuses them of effeminancy and homosexual practises. At face value this would agree with your young men's views although I accept the situation is more complex, as for instance Sebastianus selected a corps of keen recruits to lead his crack raiding formations ahead of Valen's column. Successfully too. Yet it was Roman prosperity that attracted the Germans across the frontier in the first place. It's well known that in some aspects the empire was doing okay in terms of agriculture and so forth. The financial problems were due to increasing bureaucracy and inefficiency, and a desire from common people to avoid tax and military service. I would point out that Caesar was a rarity as an individual, combining charisma and adventurous spirit, who took initiaitive for himself. The Roman state preferred safe and cautious commanders to avoid military disaster and offset the possibility that these generals would rebel and mount a coup, which I would also point out was what Caesar did.

By and large cavalry charge at infantry to 'break' their formation in terms of morale and commitment rather than actually collide (horses are animals too and don't like getting hurt, though they are somewhat heavier than us and if you study footage from those police video tv shows, clearly people have a natural tendency to want to back off from an advancing horse, and couldn't do much if they decided otherwise). In other words, a cavalry attack aims to frighten the infantry and push into their ranks rather than collide, which would almost certainly bring down the horse and render the whole thing rather pointless from the cavalry point of view. This is especially true of the ancient era when horses were valued for mobility and were more expensive anyway, never mind relative rarity and social exclusivity. The idea of a couched lance attack is not typical of the period (the shorter lances were used overhand in stabbing attacks back in Roman times) and in any case, such attacks were primarily against opposing cavalry even in later periods (hence the medieval jousting lists) because a horse at speed would pass through the opposing formation, which wasn't possible with compacted infantry.

1)whether you feel that the Roman oligarchy/republic was worth saving The Roman oligarchy was still there in the Empire but under new management. If however do you mean was it worth putting back in charge, the answer is probably no, because they were no less self-serving than the Caesars who ordered them around, and in any case, since Julius Caesar had proven that autocratic power was possible, that there would always be ambitious members among them waiting to grab sole power in some way. 2)whether it was possible, anyway, to save it As a ruling concern? It very nearly resumed control on a number of occaisions and some changes of Caesar were inspired by senatorial instigation. In fact, I would say that the julio-claudian era was a period of transition between oligarchial and autocratic power. Augustus was a sly dictator who wrested power out of their hands. Until Nero was declared 'Enemy of the State' and committed suicide, the Senate was working toward running the empire again right under the noses of the Caesars, though in fairness, some Caesars were quite happy for the assistance. 3)had you been there, at the time, what actions you would have taken to save it Create a constitution which established succession and the legal limits for control of the empire. The idea that a man could be Dictator For Life (as the Caesars were) would be made illegal and fixed term offices re-introduced.

Normally in ancient battles cavalry initially faced each other off to settle who controlled the flanks - not all battles followed this conventional wisdom. Against each other they would often be seen riding back and forth, remaining mobile, and only closing in for melee to force the issue. In terms of action against infantry, this was generally reserved for harassment attacks (in which the horsemen threaten the infantry and lob volleys of spears) or pursuing the hapless losers of a melee (and it was a fortunate infantryman who got away unscathed). If the flanks were decided an attack from the side or rear was possible. The sort of frontal cavalry charge against infantry we normally think of was very rare in ancient times, although becoming an accepted practice toward the end of the empire with the regular use of heavy cavalry, and even then, was not entirely successful until medieval times capitalised on the rarity of professional infantry.

This practice was developed to allow the soldier to draw his sword in tight formation without bumping the guy next to him, bearing in mind he was holding a shield (a square/rectangular, elongated hexagonal, or oval scutum) and thus could foul the sword when the soldier least expected it. With a short blade it remains practicable, and note that centurions wore their swords on the left side.

The biggest issue with AA was targeting. It wasn't easy to get shells at the right point although the Germans became quite skilled at it. However, AA was clearly not bringing down enough allied aeroplanes over Europe and so the Germans began experimenting with ground-to-air missiles. They had a number of projects on the go but the targeting problem remained the same.

Lots of red-heads in Britain, although many would have whitened and spiked their hair.

Not quite. You need to go back a few years for that. But the day/month is correct. Hic.

Yet the appearance of germans in Rome inspired a fashion for blonde wigs, suggesting that blonde hair is mostly an imperial import both real or imitation. Also women are known to have dyed their hair - there's a letter from one Roman husband giving his wife the benefit of his opinion after frequent re-colouring caused her to go bald.

It doesn't, and the pike wielding soldier would know that, although he wouldn't be immune to the normal sensations of standing there in front of a cavalry charge. A lot depends on what the horses sees. If it believes it can barge past a few individuals of lesser stature, sort like us really, then a trained horse can be urged to do so. If it perceives the infantry unit ahead as a big solid barrier - such as a compact mass of frightened guys behind a shield wall - the horse will in all probability refuse and deliver the hapless rider in front of the enemy unceremoniously if he's not quick witted or skilled enough. No sensible rider in the world is going to impale his mount on a stick in any case. Realise that a cavalry charge isn't about impact, it's about playing chicken. Who will give way first? Will the infantry soil their underwear and 'break', or will the rider wheel away at the last minute? In warfare cavalry does not impact upon formed infantry in defence if they have reasonable means to do so. It will however exploit a weaker formation and woe betide any infantryman who gives a cavalryman enough room to get into the formation, countered by the possibility that the infantry could unhorse the rider (in which case he generally doesn't live long, armour or not)