Furius Venator

The Hellenistic states did not make use of infantry reserves, their 'heroic' leadership styles, though in many ways excellent, were unsuited to it. I agree that Alexander's battles were well thought out, yet he did not make use of reserves. He may have had a second line at Gaugamela but that is not the same thing (and even if it were, it is the sole example).

It seems to have been highly variable. Keppie reckoned either (or both) 6 or 16 years, Goldsworthy plumps for a 16 year standard but the truth seems to be that whilst either 6 or 16 to be normal, ad hoc local agreements might feature also.

The difference is of course that the Scots expect disaster, often losing to 'dreadful' teams. But just once in a while they pull off a stupendous win. It's the agony of not knowing how it will pan out that makes them worth following. The English actually expect to win... this outrageous optimism actually weakens the manager's position. The press effectively ask him to achieve the near impossible, then lambast him when he gives it a good go but fails...

An excellent question and one that causes a good deal of problems with 'standard' battle accounts, hence their tendency to gloss on details. I can think of several factors but, if I may, I'd rather take a more extreme (and more typical) example, that of pike armed phalangite versus legionary. The pike phalanx presents a dense mass of men with five or six pike points protruding from the formation. Let us suppose that the pike of the first rank protrudes fifteen feet (nearly 3m) forward. There will be another pike point at 12 feet, another at 9 feet etc. So clearly the legionary has his work cut out closing. The pila is key I think. The puropse of the pila is to slow and disrupt the enemy. A dense pike phalanx is especially vulnerable to any form of disorder and furthermore, pikemen cannot defend themselve by manoeuvering their shields. Hence a pila shower will disrupt their order and either cause contact in ragged disorder (disastrous for the phalanx) or cause them to stop and regroup. If a century does not discharge every pila at once but each line throws in turn, if they're formed 4 deep (common) then they can disrupt the pikes 4 times... a second century held in reserve could provide another 4 disruotions. Potentially then the advancing phalangites are going to be held up as many as eight times before they can charge home. This will allow individual units of phalangites to be 'teased' forward relative to others, exposing their flanks. Now often the phalanx is recorded as pushing the legionaries back. I think this is best interpreted as the legions falling back between 'pila showers' as pila-depleted centuries retire allowing fresh units to engage. The gist is that the Romans don't close unless the phalanx is sufficiently disordered by pila to allow it OR an individual phalanx unit has advanced sufficiently to expose its flanks to assault. That the phalanx was not a monolithic structure is attested in the sources, most notably at Gaugamela where the individual units of the phalanx became badly dislocated allowing large scale penetration. With hoplites, the Romans have a greater advantage as the hoplite relies very much on his shield. If this is rendered useless by a pila, the hoplite is rendered virtually defenceless. We should also remember that the Hellenistic nations seldom had a reserve, whereas the Romans usually deployed their units in two or three lines. Thus the Romans could better concentrate forces to exploit weaknesses in the enemy line as they were exposed.

I think its price is designed to deter the riff raff... Though actually it probably just reflects the tiny demand for such a work. It's probably expected that only libraries (and damn few of them) will actually buy it.

Thanks for taking the time to consider our questions: The actions of Tiberius Gracchus promted a faction within the senate to turn to violence in order to thwart his proposed reforms. This seems to have created a precedent of violence that increasingly plagued Rome until the end of the Republic. My question is this: what was it about the Republic pre-Gracchus that prevented recourse to violence? Mere lack of provocative legislation or a deeper rooted sense of responsibility? If the latter, then what changed?

The English have potentially a very strong team indeed (except for the weakness up front) Robinson Neville A Cole Carragher Terry Campbell Gerrard Lampard J Cole Owen ? Fortunately (I'm Scots) the manager is too conservative to play his best team in the most appropriate formation and instead picks the 'best' players, meaning they're saddled with Beckham unbalancing the side... So we'll see Robinson Neville A Cole Campbell Ferdinand Beckham Gerrard Lampard ? Owen ? And I look forward to them being humiliated once again...

Half way through now... A main point from part one is how conventional Caesar's early career was. He made himself outstanding through flamboyant dress and courageous acts of public speaking (much like Cato did with his shabby dress and vehement speeches). But he was really a typical, if talented, aristo...

However the combat stress suffered by the legionaries (battles usually over in a day, no artillery bombardments etc etc) means reasonably few would ever reach the 100-120 days exposure generally regarded as necessary to befin degrading performance. Caesar fought 50 battles, the next most prolific general fought about 30, most far less. Even though soldiers would likely fight more battles than generals, even Caesar's legions would struggle to hit 120 days combat exposure. Amalgamation due to attrition is a rather different thing

*Gloats quietly whilst smugly turning the pages in an ostentatious manner...*

Caesar, Life of a Colossus landed on my doorstep a few hours ago. I am pleased to report that thus far (50 pages in) it seems excellent, not least because I suspect certain remarks in it will infuriate our own beloved M. Porcius Cato... Not that it seems especially pro Caesar, but Goldsworthy's very strong on the imporatnce of precedent to the Romans and points to the fact that inherent political violence began with the Gracchi and was sporadically present from their time onwards, even when it did not lead to civil war... I'd like to do a review of this book when I've finished it if I may claim the privilege.

Nicole Kidman. Which I am reasonably happy with.

The hoplite spear was 8 feet (later 12 feet perhaps) in length. The two handed pike was considerably longer of course. The spear used by the triarii was a one handed thrusting spear about 8 feet in length. The Romans utilised a hoplite-style system (spear armed close order infantry supported by light troops) until they adopted the hastati/principes/triarii system. There were no Roman spearmen in the post-Marian army.

In Caesar's time the maniple was obsolete as a tactical unit. Neither is it appropriate to label those lines Hastati, Principes and Triarii as they were no longer grouped by age class in that way. The Romans did not invariably form up in three lines, sometimes they only used two.

Roman, you're reading too much into the names. Overwhelming evidence exists to support this. The pilum was a heavy throwing javelin carried by all of the hastati and principes. After Marius it was carried by every legionary. Overwhelming evidence exists to support this.

What Polybius means is that all three types carry the scutum and gladius and wear mail. But the Triarii are not equipped with a pilum but with a thrusting spear. That's all there is to it.

I agree, weapons and armour perceived to be good (which may not mean they were) would be very useful for morale. But too often historians use the argument that (for instance) 'the combination of pilum and gladius was irresistable' and attribute success to superior arms and equipment.

You need to give some kind of timespan I think, the weapons/tactics the Romans used changed significantly at least three times: pre Camillus post Camillus post Marius post Constantine (though probably the 'Camillan' reforms were over a fair time period while the other two were relatively rapid). When you say 'Rome had numbers in her favour', do you mean in terms of troops engaged, total mobilised manpower or total manpower? Rome;s opponents include: Etruscans, Samnites etc Carthaginians Numidians Hellenistic states Gallic, Germanic, Iberian tribesmen Dacians Goths etc etc it's just too vast for a simple reply (especially with sources). Narrow down your request to a specific time period would help. Truly though, weapons and armour are not nearly as important as morale. They are not insignificant but superior weaponry seldom turned the day for the Romans, superior morale often did.

I'm sure Clodius would agree... Of course. But Caesar was unlikely to get a fair trial. Please note, I'm not defending Caesar especially but his conduct whilst consul would give better grounds for prosecution than his actions as proconsul.

That is as good a reason as any for Caesar to have left early (ie to avoid his creditors). As to his popularity/unpopularity, that merely depends on which rent-a-mob one chooses surely. And as regards the legality or otherwise of the law, it would be for a court to decide whether he had overstepped his proconsular authority and we all know how well run and fair was the Roman legal system...

Just ordered my copy. There are (for the time being) only 3 more available. I have dim recollections of this series. I think between it and Goldsworthy's bumper book of Caesar, I've got the next fortnight's entertainment sorted... Thanks for pointing this out Phil.

Germanicus, my remarks were aimed at romanwargamer, not yourself. I'm entirely of your mind on this. Sorry for any confusion

I see. The Romans have specific names for specific weapons. So far, so good. Do why then do you claim that Polybius' pila (a distinct form of javelin) are not in fact pila but a light javelin and spear, each of which, as you pointed out, have very different Roman names. Polybius was a military sort of gentleman, he'd have been very aware of the difference between something designed to be thrown (the pila) and a thrusting spear.

Roman, be so good as to clear something up for me. In my innocence I have always assumed that the legion in Caesar's time was made up as follows: 10 cohorts, each made up of 6 centuries of (theoretically) 80 men each. Every man carries scutum, gladius and pilum and wears mail. There is no difference in organisation and equipment between or within any given unit be it century or cohort. This is, I believe the generally accepted view. Your view seems to differ from this. Will you now please clearly spell out how you believe the Caesarian legion was organised and equipped.

That's okay, an easy mistake to make I'm sure.