sonic

Probably the most famous legion would be Caesar's Tenth, which went all over Gaul and into Britain with him. Most of the so-called 'famous' legions are only famous because a certain Emperor raised them, not for any specific deeds of bravery etc. You could also investigate the legions in a certain battle, for example those that took part in the assault on Masada during the Jewish rebellion. For historical works, try Adrian Goldsworthy 'The Complete Roman Legion' for the general period feel, and maybe his biography of Caesar for the Tenth Legion, and then work your way from there.

A devastating loss. How can we replace such a genius. All I can say is deepest condolences to his family, but that doesn't do justice to the man.

Indeed; forgive my brevity, but I was thinking of the tactical concept of stirrups allowing for the full momentum of a horse behind a lance. 'Heavy cavalry', before the 7th century or so in Europe or Asia (Near and Middle East) couldn't deliver the shock the likes of the Carolingians could; the energy transfer from the horse to knight to lance was enabled primarily by the coupling of the stirrup. It connected the horse's 1,000 pounds and 40-mile-per-hour speed to the end of the couched lance, held under-arm, by way of the knight. This massive momentum was used much like a tank to take down massed foot troops or mounted warriors. The entire major social system, it seems - the feudal system - evolved around this simple mechanical device. This triggered debates, however, as scholars argued that it couldn't be that simple. As many modern historians and experimental archaeologists have pointed out recently, the stirrup actually has little effect on many aspects of cavalry warfare. The main use of the stirrup, even by modern riders, is not to maintain their balance but to mount hteir horse in the first place. Even in medieval chivalry, although the stirrup was used to gain a little more purchase on the horse to enable a slihtly more powerful thrust, the main stabilising force was the saddle. It was the design of the saddle and the straps fastening it to the horse that gave the medieval knight his power: not the stirrups. In Roman times, it's now been shown that to actually dismount you have to want to dismount, as otherwise you are held firmly in place by the four horns that are placed on either side of the hip/upper leg. As a final clincher, although the tirrup was available for a long time after the Avars came West, it remained of little importance up until the turn of the millenium. A very slow adoption for an item of 'such vital importance to medieval warfare'.

Northern Neil, are you familiar with Rondellus? You might want to check out their Sabbatum: A Medieval Tribute to Black Sabbath. You can listen to excerpts from tracks at that Amazon link I gave. The group plays classic Black Sabbath songs with medieval instruments circa the 14th century, and vocals are in Latin. I've got the CD, and I quite like it. -- Nephele My favourite such spin off group has to be 'Dread Zeppelin', a reggae group with a lead singer who is an Elvis impersonator (called 'Tortelvis'! I think) that do cover versions of all your favourite Led Zep numbers. Stairway to Heaven is brilliant. Back to the theme: Motorhead/Thrash metal are German, Led Zep/ My Chemical Romance are Celtic, Genesis/Marillion are Roman, and Duran Duran are *&^%$$

A quick word regarding Roman camps. Roman camps were, whenever possible, set out to the format set in the guidebooks. However, a close inspection of those camps found in Britain show that the Romans, who were exceptionally realistic, could make camps of different shapes and dimensions when the local topography was unsuitable for the square/rectangular ones. For anyone interested, check out 'Roman Camps in England: The Field Archaeology' by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. It's available on Amazon.co.uk but is a bit expensive. Maybe a trip to the library...?

Unfortunately, the BBC don't always achieve perfection in their historical dramas. There were never four emperors of Rome, except possibly if you include all of the individuals who rebelled and set up for themselves. The situation before Constantine became emperor was that there were TWO emperors. The other two individuals were 'Caesars'; that is, they were below the emperors in rank, but acknowledged as being successors to the emperors when they resigned. The two emperors resigned, but the two Caesars did not inherit the thrones. Civil war broke out, during the course of which Constantine ggradually increased his power and became sole emperor in AD 324. However, even this is a simplified version of the situation. Diocletian, the man who set the system up, always remained 'senior emperor', even telling his partner that he had to resign at the same time as he did. Realistically, the empire only divided after 395 when the sons of Honorius became equal emperors of the two divided halves. Interestingly, although the men of the Empire seem to have called themselves 'Romans', Procopius always seems to refer to the capital city as 'Byzantium', not 'Constantinople'.

Hello J P Veira. I must agree that this is a very good illustration. I was wondering if you could send me others through email as well. Especially if you have any from the Justinian era, c. AD 525 - 565 ?

Since most professors began their intellectual life as "wet-behind-the-ears teenage brats" themselves, they're mostly thrilled to hear any intelligent commentary from students, even if it is challenging. Of course, what's disappointing is that most (but not all) commentary from students is at best a rehash of something they read or heard elsewhere but with no awareness of the supporting evidence that justified the original insight. The traditionalism being advocated here is simply turning this habit of thoughtless imitation into some kind of principle. I have met professors who do not like their students to think too much, as well as some who were willing to listen to any drivel in the hope that it might spur on the student to innovative thought. But overall I agree.

It is fair to say that all historians have in-built biases and misconceptions, even though many of us try to overcome them. It is also true to say that what we like and dislike when reading history as individuals today was determined by what we were taught or believed yesterday. We all bring these biases to our reading of history, whether we like it or not. The older authors, such as Gibbon, were brought up in a society where Rome and Greece were admired for their contribution to modern society. Many authors took ancient authorities at face value, without any analysis or criticism, and often made mistakes. What they did have, as anyone who has read Gibbon can confirm, is a vast amount of background knowledge that they could use to put their views into context. Without context, history is treated as just a series of isolated episodes, without relation to what went before, what happened after, and, just as important, what was happening at the same time. This is bad history. The newer, 'revisionist', historians, do not have the same breadth of knowledge and can therefore make mistakes when seeing incidents in isolation. This also is bad history. What they do have is the ability to analyse their sources, compare and contrast them to other sources, and reach a reasoned conclusion that is likely to be more accurate than those of Gibbon et al. However, by the very nature of their research they must be classed as 'revisionist', as they are looking at the evidence with fresh eyes, using new techniques, trying to revise our interpretations of the past. So, do I prefer the newer 'revisionist' historians, with their analytical ability but their lack of context that can lead to misconceptions, or do I prefer the older historians, with their context but a naivety towards their sources that allows them to make mistakes? I am slowly gaining a greater degree of trust in the older historians, whilst bearing in mind that they can be mistaken. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, their broad knowledge enables them to see the wider picture. This is vital in history, as I will try to show in a miinute. Secondly, there was less pressure in the past to 'make your name' by writing 'extreme' revisionist history, so they are writing what they believed, not what they thought would make a name for themselves. Thirdly, although naive, their use of sources is usually accurate. Let me give an example of two of these points. I am currently conducting research into the life of Belisarius. When it came to the Battle of Ad Decimum, my first choice was, of course, Procopius. He was an eyewitness and could be expected to give an outline of events as they happened. Once I had read the report of the battle and believed that I understood it, I turned to my secondary sources. By chance, the first book I picked up was 'The Life of Belisarius' by Lord Mahon, first written in 1829. His account matched what I had read and I felt confident that I now understood what had happened. By a further chance, the second book I looked at was 'Byzantium: The Early Centuries' by J.J. Norwich. His account does not match that of Procopius. (If you don't believe me, read them yourself: Procopius, Vandalic War, Book 1, Chapters 18-20; J.J.Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries', 1988, p.208-9.) After much thought, I believe I understand what has happened. Modern historians recognise that they are part of a tradition that, In Theory, goes back to Herodotus. Therefore, they - like me - read secondary sources in order to help make decisions about history. The 'traditionalists' (here meaning pre-c.1970) believed that most of the groundwork had been done. Historians such as Gibbon, MacCauley, Mommsen, Alfoldi etc had built up a framework that simply needed to be adjusted by fresh ideas, but was in essence 'The Truth'. Yet there was a problem with this viewpoint. Writers in the 18th and 19th centuries usually made suggestions about history that might be true, later generations acknowledged that they probably were true, and even later generations knew that they were true: concept had become undisputed fact. This is what had happened to Norwich. Rather than reading the account of Procopius himself, he relied upon his predecessors and their accounts, which - over time - had become warped away from reality. Modern, 'revisionist', historians do not rely upon their immediate predessors for their information, prefering instead to look at the primary sources and make their own, revised opinions. In many cases this is a good thing for history. without revision, we cannot learn where authors in the past have made mistakes, or assumptions that are actually open to dispute. Unfortunately, modern history as taught at Univesity is becoming more and more narrow in its outlook. The age of the scholar with a vast breadth of knowledge is passing. This lets modern historians down. They now attempt to place their 'revised' version of history into a context which i) they have not studied in depth, and ii) has not in itself been revised. Taking all of the above into consideration, I now believe that earlier historians are unlikely to be tainted by the misconceptions of their immediate predecessors. Therefore, as long as you bear in mind that their use of the sources may be a little primitive by today's standards, they are preferable in many respects and should be read first. Then read the newer revisionists, comparing and contrasting as you go to make up your own mind. And always keep an open mind: university lecturers and history writers are renowned for their closed minds: after all, would you want to spend twenty or thirty years writing scholarly tomes only to have some wet-behind-the-ears teenage brat come up and point out that the basis for your life's work is actually wrong? I think not......

Thanks for clearing it up! If you'd have said the Confederate Flag, I'd have understood!! I've never heard it called the 'Stars and Bars'! It's nice to live in ignorance in England!

I'd be a deserter - there's this big yellow streak all down my back.....!

Every army might train its men in the hope that they will not run away, not every army punishes those who run by decimation, or by forcing them to stand up to eat for the rest of the war (one of the legions after Cannae, I think!).

By conventional standards, perhaps, but those standards have absolutely nothing to do with civilization. Are you seriously attempting to argue that Rome was uncivilized? With regards to its attitude to warfare, yes. Don't you think that the attitude of 'We'll beat you and make you do what we say' is uncivilised? What about free will? What about democracy? The Romans were the bullies of the ancient world. Bullying is not accepted as 'civilised' behaviour. Do you also think that what happened in the Roman 'Games' was civilised? I think before this can go anywhere, you'd need to define what you mean by 'civilised'. My dear Sonic, Bad mouthing Rome on this forum would be like wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the Stars and Bars to a Martin Luther King Day march. As another commentator pointed out, when it came to brutality in the ancient world I think the Assyrians take the gold medal. Their monuments actually show enemy POWs being tortured and mutilated. I'd give the silver medal to the Akkadians (q.v., stele of Naram Sin ascending the mountain where he walks upon the dead bodies of his enemies). The Romans wouldn't even rate the bronze for cruelty. I never said that the Romans were the worst; I simply pointed out that they were in no way perfect. I also don't believe that I have 'bad-mouthed' Rome: if you go through the world with rose-tinted glasses believing that Rome was wonderful and better than today or whatever, then you have a problem with reality. The Romans were different to what we are today. The average Roman probably lived his entire life within a twenty mile radius of his home: we take international travel for granted. They had medical facilities that were good, but didn't have our knowledge of the causes of disease etc. And their code of 'ethics' was completely different to ours. for example, slavery is now illegal in most countries. As historians, we need to be aware of all facets of the peoples and societies we are studying. If we ignore the bad points and concentrate simply on the good, we are doing ourselves and the ancients a great disservice. Not long ago, somebody asked me - knowing of my fascination for history - which period I would prefer to live in. My answer was 'the present'. I am interested in Ancient Rome, and have actually got a Masters Degree in the subject. But I wouldn't want to live there! Knowing my luck I'd be a slave in a salt mine!! One last thing. 'Bad mouthing Rome on this forum would be like wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the Stars and Bars to a Martin Luther King Day march.' I'm British and don't understand this. Can somebody please explain??

Could somebody please help me out here. I thought that Roman legionaries were taught to fight using wooden weapons that were twice the weight of the real gladius, so that they would find the real thing much easier to use. I have also seen somewhere that they were trained to use a variety of strokes against a wooden post, including both stabbing and slashing. If this is true, doesn't it point to the idea that our concept of a tight-knit formation does not always hold true? Or is it just me being a bit thick!???? It was the training that made the Roman army what it was, not the weapons or the armour. With good training a man with a sword will easily beat a man with a sword, shield, lorica segmentata and kitchen sink. The Romans were trained to fight, and were trained not to run away: this is the difference. When armies rout is when the vast majority of casualties occur.

I'd also like to point out that the Assyrians treated their defeated enemies quite badly, as did the early Mongols, the Japanese, and many others. My objection to the use of the word 'civilised' is that in the vast majority of cases it is applied out of context. If in this forum we are treating ancient civilisations within the context of their own times, then of course the Romans were civilised. It is too often applied by modern writers as a direct comparison between then and now - mainly because of the similarites between our cultures, such as stone buildings, flowing water etc.

The original question was 'what was the gladius designed to do?' It was designed to kill people. It doesn't matter about the length, or whether it was good for slashing or stabbing. It was designed to kill people and the individual soldiers used it to slash and/or thrust depending upon their circumstances at the time. The fact that it was shorter than enemy weapons meant that the troops using it had to be confident, otherwise they would cower behind their shields as the longer swords came at them and they didn't dare to take the fight to the enemy. Anything else is simply armchair warfare. It's easy to talk about cutting and thrusting when you're sat in front of a computer; when you're on a battlefield, you smack the enemy however you can.

By conventional standards, perhaps, but those standards have absolutely nothing to do with civilization. Are you seriously attempting to argue that Rome was uncivilized? With regards to its attitude to warfare, yes. Don't you think that the attitude of 'We'll beat you and make you do what we say' is uncivilised? What about free will? What about democracy? The Romans were the bullies of the ancient world. Bullying is not accepted as 'civilised' behaviour. Do you also think that what happened in the Roman 'Games' was civilised? I think before this can go anywhere, you'd need to define what you mean by 'civilised'.

This is what people call Hellenistic warfare: war on a limited tactical scale where both sides stop fighting once their losses outweigh the possible gains. Rome, however, fought a total war. It may be called Hellenic warfare by students of Greek History, mainly because most of the Greek states fought in that manner, but what I am trying to point out is that the vast majority of states in History have followed the same concepts. By calling the system 'Greek', in most peoples' minds you are limiting the whole system to that of the Classical Greek and Macedonian world. It existed long before and long after the times of the Diadochi. What I am also trying to point out is that what we call total war is a modern concept; the Romans were odd in that they practiced it 1,800 years before the rest of us. That is why they conquered an Empire, and also why the Carthaginians didn't send reinforcements. By any civilised standard, the Romans should have accepted defeat.

But Rome was the exception. Everybody expected Rome to 'go away' after 'a few defeats'. Treaties were signed as an acknowledgement that you had either won or lost. You were not expected to cease to exist. After the treaty, normal countries carried on regardless of their status; life returned to normal. Every civilised state followed this custom. Rome was not a civilised state.

Why should the Carthaginian senate send reinforcements to Hannibal in Italy? He has won several major battles, most of them inflicting huge casualties upon Rome. To my knowledge, only two nations have ever had the Roman attitude to war of, 'if defeated, keep fighting until you win': Rome and Britain. People who say that Hannibal was fighting a 'Greek' war and expecting Rome to accept defeat after losing one or two major battles are missing the point. Nearly every country that ever existed would have admitted defeat after Cannae, Lake Trasimene etc. To Hannibal, as to most people, Rome's defeats should have led to her capitulation. Finally, I believe that Hannibal missed a chance when he failed to agree with Maharbal and send a cavalry force to Rome immediately after Cannae. The cavalry could not have besieged Rome - in fact, with his entire army Hannibal could not have besieged Rome; this would have enabled vast numbers of raw recruits to be mustered away from the city and they would have attacked Hannibal while he was stationary. Hannibal was a 'mobile' commander, used to taking advantage of local conditions of the territory through which he was passing and outmanoeuvring the Romans. A 'static' battle would have resulted in a war of attrition. Hannibal could not win that. What the cavalry may have done is scared the Romans into accepting some form of treaty with Hannibal. Such a treaty may have undermined the Republic and fomented revolt amongst the Italians. There was never really a chance of revolt with Hannibal in Italy. Better the devil you know.........

Me again. In the course of my research, I've just found another: the Battle of Mount Bourgaon, fought by Solomon against the Moors after they had rebelled following Belisarius' reconquest of Africa. Solomon managed to get troops behind the Moors and the army routed without a fight. In the course of the pursuit, Procopius claims the Moors lost 50,000 dead without a single injured Roman.

The reason why Germanus was not chosen was probably down to the influence of Theodora, Justinian's wife, Germanus had the military ability that should have guaranteed him a great career under Justinian but because of Theodora's prejudice against him he never really reached the military heights he should have. In my opinion Theodora was the driving force behind Justinian. I agree. Belisarius was also fortunate in that his wife was a great friend of Theodora. I wonder if he married her on purpose.....

Hi folks. Rude of me to start posting without introducing myself, but what can I say? Sonic is my nickname from university, my real name is Ian. I have a Masters Degree in Late Roman History, specialising in the auxilia. However, that was quite a while ago so don't expect much! I'm currently writing a book on Belisarius, so I am finding the discussions on Belisarius and Justinian very interesting. Unfortunately, I now find myself spending more time here than writing the book! I came upon the site by accident, looking for information on Scipio Africanus. Keep up the good work.

It was never really practical. Although the Vandals and the Goths were relatively easy to beat, there was little chance of the Byzantines conquering the Franks in Gaul. The Vandals and Goths were Arians, the population Catholic, so the Empire was helped by the population. In France, the Franks were Catholic and so were the population, whilst the Empire was 'Eastern' (you can't really call it 'Orthodox' yet). The Empire would not have received any support from the natives. It could have got somewhere without Belisarius: Justinian actually had some superb generals, many of whom stand up well in comparison to Belisarius himself. Whether they would have gone about the invasions the same way and with the same effect will never be known. which other generals? Narses was good but all the other generals that justinian left to be in charge of italy rarely helped eachother and just squabbled. Thus Belisarius was recalled once again from the persian front Good question. Strangely, nobody seems to be aware of some of these men, although they are all mentioned in Procopius. Germanus, the cousin of Justinian was an excellent commander and used around the Empire to plug gaps. However, his relationship to Justinian probably meant that he would not be trusted with a large army - he was too likely to rebel. John the Armenian, who served under Belisarius in the Africa campaign. An excellent general, and trusted by Belisarius to pursue Gelimer, he was killed in a bizarre accident prior to Gelimer's surrender. If he had been in charge, he would not have been killed. However, we don't know whether he would have stood up to the pressures of a lone command. Dorotheus, commander of the foederati. Classed as a good general and liked by the troops, he died of an illness in Sicily prior to the landing in Africa. OK, so he couldn't really have taken much part, but the fact that I can name three off the top of my head shows that Justinian had many good generals in his service. It is possible that the main reason for Belisarius' success was the trust he had from Justinian. Let's be fair, he also squabbled with Narses and others, but he had the piece of paper saying that he was in charge! Germanus was given an army except he died in Durazzo from a fever i think... Yes, Germanus died, but this was after the recall of Belisarius from Italy, and, at the time of his death, Germanus had an army and was about to invade Italy. Therefore, Germanus would have been available for the initial invasions of both Africa and Italy. Why Justinian chose Belisarius and not Germanus is a different question, but is not necessarily one centred upon military ability!

Some very good points here, but they miss one vital element. If Belisarius had accepted the job as King of the Goths, most likely Justinian would have moved heaven and earth to dispose of the man who had betrayed his trust so badly. Even with Belisarius as their leader, the Goths did not have the military capacity to face the full might of the Roman Empire and its reserves of manpower. Belisarius would have been defeated and killed and he knew it. Apart from his loyalty, Belisarius was also a realist and so there was never any doubt that he would turn down the offer.