longbow

I dont know mate,im quite enjoying my book too.I learnt a Primu Pilus gets 600,000 Denarii upon his retirement big money,The Legionaries get 3,ooo Danarii after 26 years.

I dont think it would be any different if the fight was on a plain,the Infantry would still dig pits and deploy caltrops.The Archers could still bombard the Horses.On flat ground theres plenty of warning time to reposition troops to counter flanking moves,i think the Infantry would still win that battle. Cavalry's overated,the Infantry are the war winners.

If you take at look at this map from Roman Britain.org it shows every known Romano British settlement.Whilst there is some settlements in Wales ,Cornwall has hardly any Roman activity.They may have kept the Language of there ancestors because they didnt intermingle very much with the other British kingdoms.

I think it was more to do with the use of stirrups,when riding with stirrups you can put so much more force into your strike.The Roman four horned saddle was good but it still wasnt as effective as stirrups,the stirrups give you a lot more agility so your able to fight better from horse back.With the Roman saddle you pretty much have to keep your backside planted in the saddle. Not every Army in Europes middle age was made up of levies and poorly armed peasant's (sigh),the English Army in the hundred years war was totally professional,there wasnt a poorly armed peasant in sight.But i do agree that the Infantry can beat the Cavalry.Look at the battle of Crecy (1346) for example,36,000 French to 12,ooo English,the English dissmounted there Knights and Men at Arms (no levies or peasants present) and formed three battle lines (horses moved to the rear) supported by six thousand Longbowmen and a couple of crappy Ribbalds.The French mounted Knights attacked those lines 14-16 times and were utterly destroyed in doing so.The estimated casualty's are 10,000 dead French with several hundred dead English.A good well trained Infantry Army could best cavalry all day long with support from Archers. Back to the topic, I dont agree with him,i dont see the Cavalry as a Roman weakness because they may not have had good Roman Cavalry units but they did have good Auxillia Roman Cavalry,Sarmations for example.

My Book arrived today too thanks very much UNRV.

I found this site whilst trawling for info on the Marius reforms,like most others i didnt know about the forum section of the site .The UNRV website kept my attention for a good while then i joined the forum where i was amazed to find other people with the same interests as me,i thought i was daft . I was allways interested in Rome and all history really,but especially British history.In school we used to go for day trips to Hadrians wall,when your 7 years old its quite an impressive sight.We learnt about Roman roads and the Villa lifestyle,i was hooked quite early on.Another factor was my Grandfather,he was an Artist and he had a painting of Vercingetorex surrendering to Caesar in his study and i used to stare at it for hours,it captivated me.I loved it when we went to Grandads house cos i could get his books out and look at the Renaissance paintings of the ancients,you know the kind of painting Achilles and Hector fighting etc.. But its not just Rome i like to study,i enjoy learning about the Celts, Saxons and Medieval periods just as much. Im currently reading about the Saxon withdrawal of Aengland and that got me to learn of the Varangian unit in Constantinople,so back to the Romans . Longbow.

Happy new year everyone

Nice site ,i wanted to add the 90210 post code but it never asked me for one ,they must have a UK license too.

I like the Minotaur,have you seen them in the 'Chronicles of Narnia' movie,they look pretty good.

Slings are very cheap and most of the mediterranean populace widely used them from childhood,so you have a good recruitment of slingers.Archers weaponry is more expensive to produce(especially the ammunition),but the slingers are just as effective,so you dont gain much by recruiting/training Archers.Of course,it doesnt hurt to recruit Archers for Auxillia units,from peoples who are allready adept at using the bow. L

Are the calendar events added during the year going to carry over to 2006 or do they need to be redone?

Thanks for the book suggestions,will check them out The British tried to expand the Empire into Nepal but were repulsed by the Gorkhas,both sides were so impressed with each other's fighting skill and bravery that they formed an alliance.Some history of the conflict. I dont consider todays Gurkha regiment to be mercenary's,there a well established regiment and an integral part of the British infantry.

What made Romans better fighters? one word,training.Celtic warrior castes would train from a very early age but the Celtic idea of warrior training was all about the individual soldier.The Romans would train as a unit and thats much more affective for Battles,200 Celts fighting as individuals wouldnt be able to beat 100 legionnaries fighting as a Century. Allso, the Romans had the ability to recognise superior equipment,and would adapt there fighting styles to suit,they wore a Celtic style helmet ,the Gladius is Iberian and Chainmail is a Celtic invention.If a Roman enemy is using a good weapon,they will take it train with it then change there tactics to suit it.

Me too, William the Conqueror is one of my pet hates,i detest the man.

Thanks for the reply's,i did a bit of online research but does anyone know of any good factual books regarding the unit? Thanks. It appears that money was the main motivation for traveling so far,the Varangians were the best paid troops in Europe.But you had to buy your way into the unit,any ideas on the amount of coin needed to gain membership?the English Saxons allso had an alteria motive,they were allowed to carry on fighting against the Normans in Sicily . L

Prince Vladimir of Kiev sent 6000 men to fight for the Byzantine Emperor and he made these Norse troops into his bodyguard (varangians).Why did the Emperor of the greatest military might of the time feel the need to employ foreign troops for his own protection? Allso,why did so many Saxon or Norse men travel so far to join the unit? after the Norman conquest of England some 5000 soldiers set sail for Constantinople,some settled in the east but most joined the Varangian Guard. Harald Sigurdsson (Hardrada) is allso a famous Guardsman,what attracted these people to Constantinople? Appreciate any thoughts on this as i really dont know much about the eastern empire at all,thanks.

To quote the philosopher Voltaire

I get all my online stuff delivered to my mothers house, im at work during the daytime when the posty comes a knocking .

A Spartan standing guard

Thanks very much! im looking forward to reading 'Legions,wars and campaigns' sounds great!! Merry christmas to all. Longbow

There was a recent case in Britain what shows the opposite reaction to what Flavius says,a young black lad was killed with a ice pick by two rascist yobs just because of the colour of his skin.Heres a quote from the victims mother "I've got to forgive them, my family and I still stand by what we believe - forgiveness."

I hear the British used to eat Pigeons, and raised them as a farm animal!

No,i dont believe anything Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote,especially the 'Grail' nonsence.In Celtic folk-tales Cauldrons are common,the medieval tales of the search for the 'holy grail' are probably a Christianized re-working of the much older 'cauldron tales.Some of the sources have Arthur down as a enemy of the christians,such as 'life of st padarson' ,in that he (arthur) was supposed to have stolen the saints holy red cloak and Arthur blackmailed him to get the cloak back.In the life of st Carannog's Arthur was supposed to have stolen the saints alter to use as a dinner table.St Cadoc was famous for being an adversary of Arthur and he wrote that Arthur was a thief and a rapist! Arthurs companions names were changed over the years to become more Christianised so some of the early sources write about characters who dont exist in the later story's,such as, Derfel,Amhar,Loholt,Culhwch,Ceinwyn,Gwenhwyvach,Dinas, Lavaine,Some of the names evolved, Nimue became Vivien,Cei became Kay and Peredur became Perceval. My point is,Arthur was a Pagan and the new religion of Christianity didnt like pagans,the monks (who did most the writing back then)they wrote there own version of history and changed the true tales to suite there own faith.Merlin,Lancelot and Camelot are historical nonsence,Camelot as a word didnt exist until the 12th century. IMHO

All the sources which mention Arthur have him fighting against the Saxons,i wonder where he's getting his information from? List of Arthurian sources

Do you use Mozzilla Firefox ?its a lot better at stopping the spyware and popups than IE.