Conan

Hi guys, Saw this topic on another forum and was interested if anyone here could shine light on if there was any organized criminal gangs in Rome? Be it republic or imperial times. Thanks

I love ancient warfare. The history, tactics, the campaigns its so ancient, distant, its almost like fantasy. The battles such as Thermopylae, are noble, glorious, maybe even romantic. Are there any sources that paint the darker side of ancient warfare? The detail of the heat of battle? The unimaginable violence. What it was like to stand in the front line holding your shield tight and bracing for the impact of the charging Celtic enemy. To be at the front of the legion, your shield arm is almost numb, your so exhausted every thrust/ slash of your gladius is agony. What it must have been like to thrust your spear into the face of your opposing enemy, step over him and allow the men in the ranks behind you to finish him of, making sure he doesn't get back up. To have to hack through a mans desperately raised hands and forearms to deliver the killer head blow. To stand in the baking sun after a grueling, grinding battle, you so exhausted your nearly sick, dehydrated, light headed, covered in blood only to raise your aching head to see fresh enemy troops formed up and heading to your position. Is there any sources that identify the psychological impact that battle/war must have had on some soldiers?

Well not just Cannae but the second punic war at its hight. Rome and it surrounding allied city states would have lost 10,000s of men during several years. Is there any mention of the social impact of this loss in any sources? In the way as in World War I there is the 'lost generation' were so many men were killed its seen as a whole generation of men being wiped out. Is there any indication that birth rate was effected? With so many men killed was there a shift in the social function of women such as seen in World War II? Just a thought I had, that I've never seen covered in these or any other forums.

Just been reading through the Military section of UNRV History and it claims that the Roman Legions were the first paid professional army in ancient history. What about Philip of Macedonia's foot companions (Macedonian Phalanx) if memory serves me correctly that was also a full time, paid, professional army and a good few hundred years before the Legions of the Empire.

Elite in the social/class sense it was the Triarii since veterans of numerous campaign's were likely to be wealth individuals. However when I say 'Elite' I mean in the combat sense. Who were or were considered the most effective in battle? This question stems from a thread in a forum a while back. The forum was the Rome Total Realism forum a group of modders who altered the original Rome Total War game to make it more historically accurate. Basically the Triarii units in the game were given higher attack and defence than the Principes making them more effective in battle. In the group there was a very out spoken individual who went to great pains to try and convince everyone else that it was the Principes who were the 'Elite' on the battle field and not the Triarii. The out spoken individual explained that the Triarii were a reserve and Principes were the soldiers in there prime sent in at crucial moments to turn the tide of battle and there for should have greater stats than the Triarii. I was wondering what is the forum opinion on this matter and historically is there any source or account that identifies either the Triarii or Principes as the elite/crack infantry of the republican army.

I've come across conflicting information... On one hand I've heard that Roman legionaries where short of more than one person. Yet another has said there was a minimum height requirement of 5'10" to be a legionary. Which is correct? P.S. When I refer to Roman Legionary I mean ethnic Roman Italians.

By caldrail. Is there any sources/references that back this up? I just find it hard to picture a sword with such a wide blade being able to penetrate mail.

Well I guess this asks was the gladius designed or capable of puncturing/penetrating armour used by Romes enemies? Or was it used in mind to target unprotected parts of the body?

I feel I must diagree on both those accounts quoted above. Although it is indeed possible to stab through mail I wouldn't say it is "relatively easy". As for the segmentata everyone one I have spoke to has agreed that nothing availble at the time of its use could get through a segmentata except possibly an artillery bolt. Also with regard to a thrust between plates I'm 95% sure I have read that segmentata where designed specifically to prevent such an occurance. Although I do not have the source at hand unfortunately to fall back on ^_^

Was the gladius designed to thrust into unprotected parts of the body? Slash? Or puncture/penetrate armor? I've spoke to a few roman re-enactures on the matter but have read very little on this in books and literature. Most people have said the gladius was used to thrust at unprotected parts of the body i.e. in the groin, face, arm pit, lower abdomen (below a breast plate/curiass) and in the neck/ throat. I've read that the gladius was used to slash as well as thrust and was capable of severing limbs even at the shoulder. However I personally find it hard to picture how such a short and relatively light weapon could gain the momentum to cut through a shoulder joint. Then there is the question could or was the gladius used to penetrate armour? I could accept that if there was enough force behind a thrust and the gladius sharp enough it could puncture linen armour but I could not see a gladius getting through a breast plate or mail/scale armour. However since I would have though most legionary opponents would have been mainly unarmoured especially there Celtic opponents the gladius effectiveness against armoured opponents was not essential. People thoughts and opinions much appreciated... Thanks

Seems a very "Roman" attitude towards a partner Is there any reference or source on Celtic attitudes?

First of all I would like to introduce myself I am a 23 year old graduate currently looking for employment. I have a keen interest in pre-fire arms warfare, especially classical warfare. I'v read a few books and have re-enacted the following periods - 7th -11th century darkage, 1st century Iron age Britain/Roman and greek hoplite (c. 480 BC) . My favourite form of warfare is greek hoplite but I also have a keen interest in the Punic wars after reading the fantastic book by Adrian Goldsworthy - The Fall Of Carthage. Which I highly recommend! I have recently read Persian Fire by Tom Holland which covers the Greek - Persian wars (I found a difficult read at times but never the less very enjoyable) in which he describes bisexuality and homosexuality as common place in greek sociaty. I am currently reading Alexander the Great - Man and God by Ian Worthington in which Philip II of Macidonia, Alexanders father is murdered by one of his body guards who it is claimed in some sources was one of Philip's lovers. Anyway my main question is what where the attitudes of roman and celtic society towards homosexuality?