caldrail

This is an intersting point. Once, many years ago, I was at a race meeting at Hexham and as the horses piled down the finishing straight, I leaned out to take a good look (safely, mind you). I was struck by the sensation of weight coming at me. The ground was vibrating, the hooves were pounding audibly, and the sense of unswervable purpose in the riders came across. had they been wielding weaponry, it would have been a very daunting experience.

That would depend on how much interaction with natives taking place. I don't know anything about the local population of natives there, but where there any in the area?

A breach in the wall or gate is a signficant moment in that it allows enemy troops into the fortification. That does not mean the defenders can't repel them, only that they are under pressure and their defenses are weaker for that breach from that point. The usual defensive tactic is to withdraw to inner defences which is often the case with fortifications. Many castles have an inner bailey which is an extra gate to be breached (the gates being usually the easiest point of forced entry). The defenders at Masada built crude inner defences, consisting of stone and timber layers, knowing full well the Roman legions would eventually breach the wall. However, since the defenders will eventually succumb to dehydration, disease, starvation, and poor morale, a well timed assault has every chance of success.

He doesn't hate religion, he just doesn't believe it has any intellectual value. I do note however that he seems to assume that religion is doomed for the very reason he refuses it, ignoring that for many religion is an important part of their lives and may indeed be a necessary part of the human psyche irrespective of which relgion you ascribe to.

Sorry, I wouldn't know where to find it. I only saw the program by chance.

Perhaps, but these things are relative given the different means of achieving the casualty rate. It takes a certain amount of time to approach, fight, and slay/overcome an opponent. Direct fire weapons are much faster in reaching their objective even with greater distances, and given the modern ability to compound the effect with mechanical repetition at a high rate, the conclusion is obvious. Therefore the result at Cannae has to be seen as the result of manual attrition as opposed to mechanical or automatic attrition.

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a series on life after God. He uncovered interesting statistical research that shows moral behaviour compared between religious and non-religious people is hardly different, only the religious people feel shame about it. Strong religion does not like independent thought, because intellectualism questions standard teaching. We see the same tendencies in political regimes too. As I said, the strictness of religion goes hand in hand with the strictness of society.

The length of service was already defined. However we know that legions in Pannonia during the reign of Augustus had kept men on for thirty or forty years plus active reserve duty, thus requiring of those men a life long service, which was not standard policy and hadn't been since Marius brought standing armies in being. Tacitus further hints that such things weren't exceptional. The issue might have a number of causes relating to recruitment and training, which far from being 'the best ever' as is usually stated, were not at an all time peak in Illyria at least. The issue of taking out the commander is something we see where a soldier has the option to target him, so this has become particularly heightened in the firearm era, especially after aimed fire began to dominate group fire (which was not well aimed to begin with, and considering the musket was too inaccurate, often pointless). Note that ancient missile weapons, arrows, javelins, sling stones etc, all had the potential for aimed fire if the user was skilled, but that the use en masse tended to make aimed fire a secondary consideration. In other words, fighting hand to hand in a large formation makes it unlikely that the commander was at any more risk than anyone else despite obvious recognition. Since battlefield commanders only started to become anonymous in the reign of the rifle, we can see historical evidence for this. There is ione example of aimed fire at a commander that I can think of relating to the ancient world, though I cannot vouch for historical fidelity. In one battle, Julius Caesar ordered his men to advance upon the enemy Romans. They refused to budge, being somewhat exhausted and demoralised under campaign conditions. Caesar was furious. He demanded obedience. He threatened them with dire punishment if they didn't obey. He swore at them, describing them as poofs. No-one moved. Eventually Caesar grabbed a shield from the nearest legionary, drew his sword, and strode down the hill toward the enemy line, who clearly could not believe their luck. A volley of pila was aimed at him. Caesar stepped aside from some, took others on the shield (which I imagine he was unable to hold up further). In the silence that followed, Caesar beckoned his troops to follow him into battle - and they did.

There was no requirement for centurions to retire. There is one record of a serving centurion aged 80, but that must be something exceptional given the period, and although their experience was valued as leaders and trainers in the legions, most would at some point opt for a quieter old age. However I should point out that the casualty rate for centurions was higher than a typical legionary on average, mostly because they led from the front, but also in a minority of cases because they were obvious targets for retaliation in mutinies, but again, I stress this was a very rare event.

The question of whether religion is tolerant is not driven by the structures and teachings of the religion itself, but the nature of the society that interprets it. Intolerant societies have harsh religions. Tolerant societies are less fussy. To complicate matters of course there are often divisions in society where intolerant members want harsher religious belief. Also, the issue of what we consider as harsh is also relevant. Take druidic practises for instance. In theory, the druids were a class of overseers of religious rites - it was written that no sacrifices were allowed without a druid present - and thus presented a limiting factor on sacrificing human beings to assuage the gods or read the signs. They did however oversee such sacrifices and we know such sacrifices continued after the Romans arrived (Evidence for instance of human remains found in a vertical cave where they'd been dumped before death in the north of england, dated in the 1st century ad). During druidic times a typical sacrifice was to hit the victim over the head to stun him, strangle him (one set of remains show a violent application of a noose that actually broke his neck and killed him), then cut his throat. Everything was in threes - a significant number in druidic religion - and sacrifial rites followed this pattern. It has also been observed that one victim may have been prepared beforehand, possibly even voluntarily, although we cannot be sure. Of course the neo-pagans of the modern day who claim to follow druidic belief do not generally have any concept of the somewhat grim iron-age beliefs and wouldn't like it if they did, because they want something they consider more in tune with simple superstition that probably has more in common with neolithic/bronze age beliefs. So they see druidism in a positive light, ignoring the bloodletting. It comes down to a matter of mindset. The ancient iron age peoples believed their human sacrifices had a positive purpose whereas today it would be abhorrent for most people.

Granted, yet I notice the relatively rare mention of such things, and as far as I can gather, with the demise of Roman morality from late republic onward (mostly associated with the prosperous early principate but co-existent with christian standards in later times from the evidence of surviving sermons), there was even less desire to undertake the deed. You might think a less restrictive moral stand would mean an incresed prediliction to violentce, but the opposite is true. Harsh retribution is more indicative of harsher moral stance, consistent with what I read of the earlier republican periods.

Cheers chaps. I'm making a good recovery and hope to be coherent by the end of the week

The right of a father to kill household and family members is a very old tradition in Roman culture but not one often carried out in practice, mostly because the act, however legal, carries accusations of cruelty and barbaric behaviour in terms of public image. I would hazard a guess that most incidents came from the lower classes rather than patricians, who had more to lose from bad reputation and rumour than those classes of societies who were almost anonymous in the record as much as social standing.

I had a long chat with a re-enactor about armour a few years back. The weight is apparently well distributed once worn so not actually encumbering, and the worst feature he mentioned was heat, followed in second place by pinching (which depended on adjustments and how carefully the armour is worn). When I asked him whether he would have actually worn this stuff in combat he unhesitatingly replied "Yes".

I would have to say the casualties from arrows far exceed those from Roman short swords. Once you include firearms into the equation, the gladius vanishes off the graph, and explosive devices may well have killed more than that.

Mostly the punishment was divorce and public ignomy, though I accept legal punishments were in place. Wouldn't the punishment also depend on the degree of adultery? The status of the individuals, the extent of skulduggery, and what the adulterer stood to gain?

Like any piece of metal, it will eventually give away if you apply enough pressure and/or shock load, but I have to say the armour worn by a re-enactor was a formidable strip of metal nonetheless. The problem with the lorica segmentata, and very likely a major reason for the armours demise, was that it's complexity created difficulties. It required the assistance of another legionary to tie in place and had an unforuunate tendency, if badly worn, to pinch the wearer painfully. Banded armour also kept the wearer hot, uncomfortably so after strenuous activity or warm weather.

It's my understanding that the proportion of Italians recruited dropped to a minority of around 20% by mid-imperial times, although I don't remember where I read that so that's not a good reference. One of the reasons for that was the decreasing patriotic martial spirit in comfortable settled Italy whereas the surrounding tribal people were, perhaps not suprisingly, still up for a fight.

Polybius gives the game away. He underlines the hatred that existed for Carthage and anticipates their final destruction (he wrote ghis hisotries around 150BC, just before the final war). I think what we ought to bear in mind is that warfare in ancient times was far less concerned with protocol and ettiquette than later eras. It was often all or nothing. Rome smelled blood and wanted to be rid of their rival. Polybius refers to Carthage as a state in terminal decline politically and irredeemably decadent. Clearly there was a common sentiment in Rome that Carthage really ought to be pushed over the brink and gotten rid of once and for all.

The issue of colour was sometimes very significant to the Romans. Legionaries did not wear white, but rather natural undyed tunics that were a sort of off-white (although soldiers of senior positions undoubtedly used whiter tunics than the common legionary. Concerning red for centurions, that is the accepted norm, but it might be a distortion of the fact, since red was also used to simulate purple by over-dying the cloth, and purple was very sugnificant as a status marker.

Women's Rights are a modern issue. Whilst Roman women were given a definite place in society, it was possible for them to exceed those boundaries. One lady in Pompeii was known to have run a business after her husband died (although in fairness, she was due to be married in order to satisfy public expectation but then again I suspect she would have carried on running the biusiness regardless. Some of them, as we know, became influential in politics. Nowhere in the sources do I find a suggestion that women were unhappy with their lot in the way we find in recent times. Arguably the Romans found a balance that was acceptable, flexible even, to some degree, but one that allowed the woman a measure of respect if she conformed (an attitude that is pretty typical of the Romans in general, they were a somewhat conformist society). I'm also reminded of a possible fate attributed to Zenobia, the former rebellious queen of Palmyra. Having led her armies in the field (yes, she really did that, dressed in armour and everything). Some versions of the story have meeting a sticky end, but one suggests strongly that she was allowed to marry a senior Roman and live as his wife as long as she accepted her lot.

There was always a tendency in America to record events for posterity. Before photography, artists used to travel into the wilderness and left us some very evocative renditions of the native American and his day to business. As soon as cameras were available, even those clumsy glass plate jobs, people were taking pictures of everything and anything. It was, after all, proof of all those frontier tales if nothing else, and in terms of news a far better record than the laborious wood cut artwork they used in the victorian era, once they found a method of printing photographs mind you. In fact, the desire to photograph has never really left the American. take WW2. Germany made huge use of propaganda, Russia re-enacted evrything for the newsreels, Britain was full of cheeky chappies and giving the Jerry what for, but America? They filmed evrything. Absolutely everything, live action and usually in colour film. I've said this before but one of the most saddening pictures of the civil war was of a pile of discarded limbs piled against the brick wall of a hospital for disposal. Surreal and real at the same time.

This is probably isn't all that new, but I spotted the following report... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jesus-had-wife-newly-discovered-gospel-suggests-202727064.html

It does sound that way, I agree, but modern researchers and period testimonials all agree that this was the case. To what extent this was commonly seen I can't say. Unlike many native american tribes or the modern re-interpretation of native american culture in general, the Iroquois were in fact quite belligerent by nature. Although I find the period evaluations of their courage a little arrogant and stilted, a warrior culture tends to breed individuals that have pride in their resistance to adversity, so perhaps there's a grain of truth in it.

Much hath been said, & many Exclamations thrown out, even in Parliament, by some popular Orators in the Opposition, against employing the Indians, to whom they give the Appellation of Savages Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution) In 1778 that British Parliament had spent seventy five thousand pounds on gifts for native americans in the south alone. Savages or not, they were potential allies in a conflict and everyone knew it. Their contribution in the Feench & Indian War was not forgotten, and as always the relationship between settler and native was a troublesome one. Nonetheless there was a general desire to limit civil strife in the American colonies on both sides, and indeed, there was considerable sentiment for loyalty toward England in private correspondence at the beginning of the American Revolution, with some perplexity concerning the reasons why war was breaking out in the first place, sentiments that quickly evaporated as war became a reality for many people. Clearly there was a reluctance to make a bad situation worse in colonial, British, and Indian circles. We are unwilling to join on either side of such a contest, for we love you both - old England and new. Should the great King of England apply to us for aid - we shall deny him - and should the Colonists apply - we shall refuse. Oneidas Tribe,(Speech to Governor Jonathon Trumbull of Connecticut) This is a family quarrel between us and Old England. You Indians are not concerned with it. We don't wish you to take up the hatchet against the King's troops. We desire you to remain at home, and not join either side, but keep the hatchet buried deep... Continental Congress ( Address to the Six Nations, July 1775) However warfare is about advantage over your enemy, and the desire to recruit allies to the cause was creating pressure upon the Indian tribes in spite of official resistance at the same time. The British were appealing to the Iroquois to "feast on a Bostonian and drink his blood", providiing a roast ox and wine to set the mood. They were however slow off the starting block I know how to shute and ambush just like Indian and want your warriors to come and see me and help me fight Regulars. You know they Stand all along close Together Rank and file and my men fight as so as Indians Do and I want your your warriors to Join with me and my Warriors like Brothers and Ambush the Regulars. If you will I will Give you Money, Blankets, Tomehawks, Knives, and Paint and the Like as much as you say because they first killed our men when it was Peace time. Ethan Allen of Vermont (Speech to the Iroquois, May 1775) General Gage would order Guy Johnson and John Stuart to bring the Indian to the British cause at the first opportunity in mid 1776. Johnson took his orders to heart. He arrived in London with a Mohawk indian he introduced to high society as Joseph Brant. Such was the acclaim and reception the Indian found that he was utterly convinced of the British cause on his return to the colonies. Colonel John Butler made another attempt to bring the Iroquois to the British side, using the same arguments the French had made in the earlier conflict to the effect that Indian land was under threat of appropriation from dangerous colonial lunatics and that it was in the interest of the Iroquois to get onside. However the Iroquois revealed a somewhat better relationship with the colonists than we might expect.. You say their powder is rotten We have found it good. You say they are all mad, foolish, wicked, and deceitful - I say you are so and they are wise for you want us to destroy ourselves in your War and they advise us to live in Peace. Their advice we intend to follow. Chief Flying Crow (Answer to John Butlers request, Summer 1776 By 1777 the Iroquois finally became embroiled and the Six Nations were split, with Oneidas and Tuscaroras favouring the rebellion, and Mohawks, Cayugas, Senecas, and Onondogas siding with the British. The native americans had a fearsome reputation. It was said that the Iroquois in particular had a culture of courage under torture, in that a prisoner who bore his agony with laughter was rewarded with a quick merciful death. An anecdote concerning General Amherst tells that when captured by Indians he was tied to a tree so the natives could throw hatchets at him. With a fatal blow looming, Amherst laughed out loud, and that act so impressed the Indians that they let him go. The concept of savagery versus civilised behaviour is a common thread in writings of this period. The Iroquois indian is respected for ferocity and skill, yet he is also a warrior who does not fight with the steadfastness assumed by colonial writers. The native fearlessness in war was said to be motivated by bravado rather than civilised notions of what courage entailed. 'True courage', we are told, ' involves honour and mercy', aspects of behaviour discounted in native americans. One diary that the stories of cruelty by indians are completely false, though that is contradicted that a few entries later. Every Nation hath something Peculiar in its Mode of War. An Indian prefers the Mode of fighting behind a tree, or of skulking in Bushes. He prefers the Hatchet, the scalping Knife, & the Tomahawk, to the Bayonet, the Sword & the Cutlass. His Weapons give, at least, as sudden, if not less a painful Death, than the Englishman's Weapons. In truth he doth not discover what is called english courage, of standing undaunted in an open Field to be shot at; he rather chuses to be safe in his own Person, while he destroys the Person of his Enem, but this is all, the Custom of Particular Nations. If you incline to put him to Death in a painful Manner, he will convince You, that he can undergo the most excrutiating Torture, without a Groan. Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution) Peter Oliver informs us that scalping was much encouraged by bounties paid by the settlers, and mentions that scalps of Indians were at a premium. In fact, Oliver blames the settlers themselves for introducing scalp hunting to the Indian in the first place. Rather more chillingly, he also adds that it was unknown for an englishman to take a scalp until the Battle of Lexington when such barbaric behaviour is first mentioned. Let Patriots roar as loud as they please, about the Barbarity of an Indian scalping knife; but let them know, that an Indian savage strikes the deadly Blow before he takes of the scalp. It was reserved for the New England savage, only, to take it off whilst his Brother was alive Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution) So much for the superior morality and civilisation of the European. But of course this was war, and conflict brings out the best and worst of all sides. General Rutherford who commands the Militia Brigade from Mecklenberg & Salisbury is a perfect savage & bears the most rancorous hatred to Tories. Robert Gray (Observations Of The War In Carolina 1782) Whatever the truth, Indian raids were not taken lightly by either side. Ethan Allen, who had earlier attempted to rouse the Iroquois to war, was also quick to mention in his recollections of the Revolution that the 'cruel and blood thirsty savage' (and he had nothing but scorn for the Indian) would find it impossible to carry on a war, unless supported by the trade and commerce of a civilised nation The very same Ethan Allen entertains us with an account of an Indian attack... ...and in half a minute after a savage, part of whose head was shaved, being almost naked and painted, with feathers intermixed with the hair on the other side of his head, came running to me with incredible swiftness; he seemed to advance with more than mortal speed. As he approached near me, his hellish visage was beyond all description; snakes eyes appear innocent in comparison of his; his features extorted; malice, death, murder, and the wrath of devils damned spirits are the emblems of his countenance... Ethan Allen (A Narrative Of Col. Ethan Allen's Captivity) Allen was actually saved from this attack by the intervention of witnesses nearby. However the depositions made by veterans in the 1830's when applying for a military pension rarely mention Indians, let alone describe interaction with them, despite the extraordinary variety of personal stories they recounted. On the other hand John Struthers recalled going to war with every intention of inflicting defeat on the Indian. On his patrols he tells us the men watched Indian warpaths carefully when patrolling, as the Indians might appear out of nowhere and melt away just as quickly. David Welch recalls his hand to hand fight with natives... Presently I saw through the brush two Indians sitting by a smoke that appeared to have been kindled to keep off the mosquitos. I instantly laid myself flat down, keeping my eye upon the spot to see if there were more than two. In a few moments I became impressed with the belief there were but the two. I was not more than eight rods distant from them. After much hesitation as to what might be most proper, I finally came to the conclusion that my companions were proceeding on and might perhaps soon be suprised., as there might be more Indians within a short distance. I drew my gun, and whilst lying thus flat on the ground, I took deliberate aim at one of the Indians and shot him dead. The other Indian instantly sprung upon his feet, seizing his gun, and started to run. Without reflecting upon the consequence, I immediately run after him, having my gun unlloaded. The Indian made but a few leaps after I started before he turned and fired upon me, but his fire missed as I supposed by several feet. He then dropped his gun and came at me with his tomahawk. I encountered him with my empty gun. The first blow which he aimed with his tomahawk I warded off with my gun, and in doing so I was fortunate enough to hook the deadly weapon from him. It fell upon the ground behind me. I was then encouraged and sprung to get the tomahawk, in which effort I succeeded. Whilst I was yet bent in picking up the tomahawk, the Indian, who had drawn his knife, gave me a cut, giving me a deep but short wound upon my right lega little above my knee. He then aimed a second stroke at me with the same weapon. This blow I warded off with my left hand, in doing which I received a wound between the thumb and forefinger..About the same instant, with the tomahawk, I hit him a blow upon the head which brought him to the ground, and with another blow after he had fallen I made sure he was beyond doing me any further harm. David S Welch (Deposition, 1832) Stirring stuff. It's also noticeable that Indians came and went from British camps with barely a glance. We might conclude that native americans were not involved in large numbers..However, records indicate that sizeable numbers were employed in specific instances, such as the seven hundred Indians that accompanied Major Butlers expedition of four hundred troops. Wheeling Fort was attacked by two or three hundred Indians according to John Struthers. Early in the Spring of 1780 intelligence was received, I do not remember how, that a large body of Indians were on their march to devastate the whole country from Wheeling to Fort Pitt. This news was either not believed or at least not heeded until until a party of them, crossing below Wheeling, had penetrated nearly halfway from the Ohio to Catfish Camp... ... They had taken a number of prisoners but, becoming alarmed, speedily retraced their steps to the Ohio and murdered all their male prisoners along the way John Struthers (Deposition, 1841) Similarly he describes other raids that frightened the local population greatly, though in each event civilian casualties were not great at all and the Indians did not seem to extract any advantage other than catching their quarry off guard. Most raids were of nuisance value, perhaps a scalp or two from luckless pickets, a few stolen horses, or barns set ablaze. Inevitably then a punitive expedition was mounted that attacked the Indian setlements apparently causing hundreds of deaths among them, men, women, and children, an event that John Struthers explicitly declared he took no part in nor found agreeable despite his willingness to engage the Indian at war. George Washington considered the Indian raids by those allied to England to be serious enough to warrant official retribution and sent John Sullivan on such a mission to the inaccessible western reaches of the Iroquois. Following the Susquehanna River he penetrated the tribal lands of the Senecas, the most powerful of the Six Nations, who abandoned their vilages and cornfields to be burned by Sullivans troops, an episode that left the Senecas with a deep foreboding of the White Man. In letters and diaries it was common to read of peoples admiration of the American wilderness despite the difficult enviroment. It was also an anonymous enviroment that inspired many covert actions. An officer called Samuel Brady had even conducted a raid with his men dressed as Indians, and asserted that 'the only good Indian was a dead Indian'. George Roush brought up an interesting point that some raids were actually nothing more than hunting trips of no threat to the armies or civilians, so clearly the difference was difficult to discern when a body of Iroquois were spotted moving stealthily through the forest. Curiously there are hints contained in the various writings of witnesses that those native americans not actually engaged in raids were astonishingly unwary, as if their innocent purpose would protect them from harm, and all too often they discovered a musket ball does not respect such sentiments. Time and again they are picked off when travelling harmlessly. For all the dangers of Indian interaction, we also learn that among the people 'made beggars of' by the war, a large number sought sanctuary among the native american settlements and received it without complaint. What can we make of the Iroquois at war? The American Revolution was fought on the frontier as much as the battlefield, armies forced to travel by river for lack of roads. Away from the battlefield and the reluctance to act without orders, warfare in the wilderness was a hazy interaction of hostile forces with a clear willingness to shoot first and ask questions afterward. The relationship with the native american was complex, with respect, hatred, expedience, and some exploitation identifiable on all sides. There's no doubt that even allowing for some natural exaggeration of old soldiers making deositions for pension payments, there was no shortage of courage and daring among those who faced the Iroquois, who for their part don't seem to impress the modern reader overly with their performance infighting. They were, after all, relying primarily on speed and suprise. Of course we have little record of what the Iroquois themselves thought. They were understandably baffled and frustrated by the behaviour of the immigrants, ill at ease with the military regime so different from the informal warfare that came naturally to them. And when it was all over, when the war was settled, the Iroquois expected rewards and appreciation from the British for their efforts. They got nothing. The Revolution Remembered (ed. John C Dann) The American Revolution - (ed. John Rhodehamel) The History Of The Indian Wars (Robert M Utley & Wilcomb E Washburn)