Quintus Sertorius

Iam FULLY aware that retired Roman Legionnaires did were rewarded for their services.What I am concerned with is how people assume that just because Roman soldiers got what seemed like "pension" in modern times, that Roman soldiers received it in the modern sense such as loans for home and of course enough pension benefit for retired Roman soldiers to live comfortably without a job-which wasn't necessarily true as how great the benefits were depended on multiple factors like who the general was(unlike today where retirement benefits for veteran soldiers are standardized an organized);also to keep in mind was the the retirement benefit of Roman Veterans(and even their pay when they were still in the modern sense in "Active Duty") was pretty poor in comparison to what veterans received today.However just because they seem to be the closest thing to "pension in the classical world",people assume it was as practically the same as pension in the modern sense.Particularly people believe it was as beneficial for Roman soldiers as it is for todays veterans and practally works the same wasy such as offering modern benefits as house loans and having the government willing to take care of its veteran soldiers.Thats what Iam saying when people are errorenous assumption in Romans receiving pension-they modernized it today like how pension work for today's veterans. Sorry. I didn't mean to patronise or cause offence. Please forgive me...

Yes, again you are quite right. The anger part would have played a factor. However, the very fact Roman Soldiers can still be kept under reasonable control (there are exceptions : Caesar's Sack of Gomphi) despite them being significantly angry, having probably suffered a high percentage of casualties due to the nature of assault.

Yes. I do agree. We can see this with Corbulo and other imperial Legates. Also, the legions had no gladiators, from the sources I know of, they simply received similar training. However, one must agree that when in a high state of readiness and with a good imperator, the Roman Legionary was a pretty good melee fighter.

About the man who was trying to spear Caesar, it was at Dyracchium (Spelling) whilst fighting against Pompeian legions. Although the standard bearer anecdotes are quite accurate. But this WAS at the Battle of the Sambre, where they were caught unawares by an unusually well-organised group of "The Bravest of the Gauls" with a relatively newly levied legion from Cisapline Gaul.

That depends. Typically barbarian tribes in western europe used intimidation as a primary tactic, yelling, rushing forward swinging a sword with wild abandon, and melees tended toward masses of both sides standing apart with little actions going on here and there as the barbarians surged forward again when the braver souls decided to go for it. The Romans of course would try to maintain formation and silence. As such, an intent to 'break' the enemy formation wasn't the point. Breaking his morale certainly was. The barbarians wanted you to run away for your lives. I doubt they actually preferred a slaughter - that wasn't the way they thought. Eastern tribes, whether mounted or on foot, preferred to wither their opponent down to size before making any confrontation face to face. That is of course a general observation and you will find exceptions in behaviour. How successful was this intimidation tactic?I assume it was more successful than ho wmovies portray. This is how Movies portray the intimidation: 1)Barbarians yell, wear fierce clothes, etc. 2)It doesn't Work on Romans because of their "Iron Discipline" 3)Barbarians lose patience and decide to attack. 4)Barbarians get slaughtereed by "Disciplined" Roman units in formation Of course we on UNRV know it probably didn't go that way as Romans were not as "Professional" and "Disciplined" as Modern Military tends to hype them out to be(trust me on many other forunms I got to poeple LITERALLY THINK Romans had Retirement benefits,great pay, basically stuff that would motivate a modern professional army to be disciplined) and the Barbarians were not as stupid and ill-disciplined as the way movie portray them,where they are always shown stupidly rushing at "Roman Perfect Formations" and getting slaughtered easily.Nor are they even remotely reckless enough to risk their lives(afterall Barbarians are just as human as we are even with their "Warrior Cultures" and fear death just as much as the Roman Legions did). How did these intimidation tactics do in Real Life, not in Cinema and flawed and inaccurate General History Books and "Modernized" but very flawed and superficial Military History?Trust me, so many American Military Personnel go as far as stating that Modern Armies Directly Copy of the Roman Legions. I must say, the Roman's iron discipline only stretched as far as a general could inspire it (Roman Soldiers DID get pensions: Examples: Pompey's Eastern Settlement and Marius's Numidian Settlement: Indeed, Suetonius does mention that Caesar's father was involved in settling veterans in Numidia. Many of the Roman territories had Roman Veteran Colonies.) For example, men like Caesar and Marius could inspire their soldiers to great bravery, but men like Titus (the Emperor) were less talented and could exploit bravery only in some men: An entire legion routed according to Josephus at the siege of Jerusalem. The imperator was extremely important. In addition, I am shocked by claims of people here that Roman soldiers were "pretty naff" at hand-to-hand combat; especially claims that hoplites were better (???). I mean look at casualty figures from Pydna and Cynoscephalae (spelling?). In addition, at the Siege of New Carthage and other Sieges, one could see that they were plainly good at hand-to-hand in narrow places. Moreover, city-stormings, very dangerous occasions in the ancient world due to the narrow streets. However, the Romans were very successful at city combat. In the streets, one could not form heavy infantry formations and so had to rely on skills of individual infantry. Also, Roman soldiers (Post-Marian) were habitually submitted to gladiator training. Marius's army sent to confront the Cimbri and Teutones had received Gladiator training both to build up strength and be skillful with weapons. [/rant]

I'm looking for a punchy title for my next Punic Wars Talk. Please help. It is generally about the Second War, although the First and Third are in...

Indeed Ursus, however, the dogs were supposedly a disaster... The Roman Anti-Elephant tactics sometimes worked quite well...

Personally, I don't think Flaming Pigs did exist. It seems as though it takes quite a lot less than pigs on fire to scare elephants. If we look at sources from: Zama, Illipa and other battles in the Second Punic War (We must, of course, remember that the First Punic War only ever saw four significant battles (The course of one of which was affected by elephants: Regulus' Landing inn Africa). especially at Zama, we can see that the Velites and Lanes made in Scipio's line prevented elephants from stampeding Roman Soldiers. Possibly more significantly, the elephants who were making for the Roman Cavalry were made to run amok by a volley of Javelins from the Roman and Numidian (Massinissa (???)) Cavalry and made to stampede through and significantly weaken the Carthaginian Cavalry...

I'm not claiming expertise, but I was under the impression Trajan had to make his soldiers stop using the lorica segmentata as it was too vunerable to the Dacian Falx and moved to earlier chainmail worn by Marian Legionaries.

Hi! I'd like to say it is wonderful to be part of this brilliant website. I claim no special expertise in any fields. However, I do have a specific interest in Roman Military History and Punic History.