Melvadius

As am I, it's good to have another practicioner on board so welcome.

I am not talking role playing I am talking from the viewpoint of someone who has been actively involved in small scale re-enactment combat - I know the odds and have seen or experienced these manouvers used in action. You can run between spear points if you wish I said 'around' ie in the situation you described it appeared that all four spear wielders were more or less in a line abreast and totally unerved by the Thane's tactics. Ignorign the possibility that other combatants in the area might have interfered on one side or the other in this circumstance a quick diagonal move forward was one possible attack method BUT if you wish the additonal issues which need considered by one man against four spear wielders these include: Are the spearmen 'apparently' experienced fighters, able to work closely together as a team or not? How far down the shaft are the spears being held? Are they being held by one hand or both? Are they carrying shields? Are they armoured? How close together are they? Are they spreading out to try and surround me? Can I manouver them so some of them will obstruct each others weapons or I can get one by himself? Are the ends of any of the spears metal shod? How am I equipped? Do I feel lucky? Is it a good day to die? If I am going to die anyway how many can I take with me? Depending on the answers to these and a few other questions any exerienced fighter with sword/axe and shield (or secondary weapon) can make a closing move AND take out at least one of their spear armed opponents before the others have time to react. A shield can be used to block and lift spear points out of the way as can a secondary weapon for the time it takes to advance one or two steps and 'kill' or disable the first of your opponents after that the odds will increasingly shift your way. A long hafted axe in particular is deadly at close quarters, a good friend was an expert with axes and could guarantee to take out a series of opponents lower legs by quickly shifting his grip and making a sweeping downwards blow at least nine times out of ten, even if only using a short hafted axe but more often with a long hafted axe. He was no means swordsmen and could make similar inroads even without his favoured axes or having the benefit of a shield most of the time.

There are a number of books around which will give you much of this information, the best in my opinion probably A Trevor Hodges \'Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply\' although \'The Water Supply of the City of Rome\' by Frontinus describes things from the Roman viewpoint and is also worth a look. [Holding reply follows...] There is a general article elsewhere on this site. However to try and answer your specific point from memory the simple answer is that the Romans drew their water supplies from a number of sources usually from either a river or underground source. The water was transported through aqueducts to where it was needed but would pass through one or more settling tanks which allowed the water to flow into the bottom and allow relatively clean water to flow out from the top of the tank with heavier contaminents dropping to the bottom of the tank. I think they also made use of sand filters but even so some of the water supplied to Rome via aqueducts was not deemed by the Romans suitable for anything except possibly bathing. In areas of the city supplied inthis way I believe more use was made of local, sometimes household specific, supplies of water from cisterns or wells. [Edit - expansion of answer] Frontinus I.15 (Loeb - Frontinus Stratagems Aqueducts: - Aqueducts of Rome) Hodge Roman Aqueducts & Water Supply Chapter 10 Urban Distribution – Hodge goes on to mention that there were 'vast heaps of pebbles removed from the Anio Novus by the settling tank at the Villa Bertone, Capanelle' and Hodge also mentions specific examples of filtration including a cistern at Ampuria (which had no aqueduct). The cisterns filter was made out of a circle of amphoras, which may originally have contained charcoal and sand. There is also an actual aqueduct filter at Cirta (Constantine) in Algeria although Hodge notes that water was a rarer commodity there. This may explain the elaborateness of this particular system:

I said This is a frontal assault which doesn't mean he physically runs behind the spearmen only diagonally beyond where their spear points are effectively pointing at him. He can then attack with relative impunity while they try to sort themselves out and get their weapons back into an effective position - ie retreat, shorten their grip on the spears or draw a close quarters weapon.

Britain is often seen as a two party state but the reality is somewhat more complicated, setting aside issues of parties strong in only one part of the Country (mainly Northern Ireland , Scotland and Wales) or parties with only one agenda, prior to the first World War the two parties in contention were the Liberals and the Conservatives/ Unionists but after WW1 Labour increasingly took over most of the Liberal vote in urban areas while during the Second World War there was a Government of National Unity which comprised members of all three major parties. There was a formal 'Lib-Lab' pact in 1977/78 when the Liberals formed part of the Government along with Labour but also several times when the major party nominally in control has felt the need to court semi-formal agreements within the Houses of Parliament with one or other of the minor parties to get particular Bills passed so the argument that only two parties 'mattered' isn't totally correct. N.B. Technically as the Liberal Democrats grew out of a merger between the Liberal and Social Democratic parties it would also be more correct to say that there is the 'possibility of Liberals returning to power'.

I understand that the best counter to horsemen in desert areas was traditionally always considered to be camels as you don't require to carry as much water and horses tend to dislike their presence - al;though this last is mainly providing the horses were unused to them;) More seriously I wouldn't agree that the Parthians/ Persians were unused to fighting against defended cities you only have to consider their siege of Dura Europas and the effective loss of Roman control in the area following its capture. The idea of using caltrops is interesting however they are potentially equally effective against foot soldiers however and its a big however think of how many you would need to fire to cover a sufficiently large area, you need to transport both them and the means by which they are fired. Any siege weapon is of limited utility against a manouverable target if you fire a bag of caltrops then horsemen could probably have easily evaded its flight path. Ballista bolts are more problematical due to the speed with which they are fired but you still need to transport a lot of missiles along with the ballistae to wherever they are needed as well as ensuring the tension is correct before firing missiles. Although the Roman may have moved the lighter missile firers around on carts and possibly used them in some battles the preference appears to have been to only use them from or against fixed positions.

I happened to pick up 'Total film' the other day and found the opening section of their review instructive but not for the reason they would have thought: As the book is set in Roman period Egypt possibly the reviewer didn't realise that 'Agora' is the Greek word for market place rather than the Latin one.

The problem is probably with the 'English' speaking market that there is a voracious desire to read something they can relate to, which normally means jumping onto the back of already available material which doesn't need translated QED yet more books get published about Roman Britain. To my regret I know that there is a lot of really good academic material published notably in French (e.g. the Thugga site report) as well as in German relating to North Africa and other parts of the Roman world which have been extensively researched by non-English speakers and with a few exceptions are poorly represented in English translations. I'm sure there are other works in Italian,and Spanish as well as other European (and some non-European) languages which would find a ready market if only someone translated them and could make them available at a reasonable price [Edit BTW from my perspective I think both the 'houses and society' and the 'glass-blowers' books may be worth a look if they are available when I'm next in an academic bookshop.]

The links in the examiner to the original articles are quite interesting although I must admit when I first went into them I did half wonder if the earliest might end up being date lined 1st April, luckily that wasn't the case. This report does fit in quite well with several earlier academic and religious investigations which have already shown evidence for a pattern of some older texts being rewritten into more suitable formats and then incorporated into the bible, which makes the unpicking of the original historical sources intersting to say the least.

Gun, clock, caravel, printing press, carriage suspension, the Indies... I'm not sure that you can really count 'the Indies' as a technological invention although it was one primary result of a series of improvements in sailing technology. As to 'carriage suspension' I would argue that early experiments in this were actually undertaken during the Iron Age into the Roman period even if they were not as technologically advanced as those undertaken during the Renaissance.

I would tend to agree that if the intent of this law is to ensure that the 'provenance' of artefacts is maintained while continuing to allow the sale of items which have been found by whatever means but not been deemed important enough to maintain in museum collections then there is no real issue. In my view the only people liable to have a 'real' complaint about possible 'restrictions' are those who operate totally through the black market in stolen antiquities as this will put limits on their ability to not only source but more importantly sell on such unprovenanced items. It may ultimately stop some of the more blatant devastation which can occur when archaeological sites are stripped bare by locals searching for anything of any possible monetary value to sell on. The amount of potential information on ancient societies which continues to be lost in this way is horrifying even if its full extent uncalculable. Mind you a similar complaint has been raised with the BBC reporting on the first successful prosecution of someone in Britain under the Treasures Act at the end of February. A woman in Ludlow apparently went into her local museum to get a silver artefact identified claiming to have found it 14 years previously. Despite being repetedly told that as it was considered 'treasure' under the Act she also had to report it to the cornerer to obtain title to sell it on if she wished she ignored the requests. This case has led to some further controversy with the BBc going on to report in early March how some numismatists claimed that it was a coin so exempt from the Act as not part of a hoard but it is generally agreed that the artefact is a piedfort - double a coin's normal thickness - and probably struck for ceremonial presentation in the French court of Charles IV so is included in the terms of the Act. The main thing in this case is not the level of the fine but the fact that it has fired a warning shot that if found to have deliberately acted illegaly people can be prosecuted under the Treasure Act and stand to lose financially by not complying with the the full terms of the Treasure Act in Britain. One can live in hope that a few more succesful prosecutions should bed in that knowledge amongst the 'nighthawking' community and put a 'crimp' in their future activities. Overall I would say that the proposed Italian Law is a step in the right direction towards ensuring that neither side losses out when a find has been properly recorded and an official decision made that it can be sold on through the open market. It should remove a lot if not all of the traditional risk of caveat emptor.

Personally I would question the extent to which Octavian or even his deputies in Egypt knew that his name had been added in a cartouche on this particular stele - how many of them passed where this stele had been erected and of those how many would have been able to read Egyptian hyrogliphics? An alternative hypothesis could simply have been the priestly class trying to carry on as normal and by tradition needing to put athe current pharoh's name into a standardised formula for the declaration. In these circumstances turning Octavian's name into a cartouche and adding it in at the appropriate point, as the next best thing being their current Roman overlord, could have been seen as a nice 'bureaucratic' solution that no one who could read the stele would have felt it appropriate to complain about to the Roman authorities.

An interesting item from Discovery News which shows the spread of Greco-Roman population (or at least influence) into 3rd Century BC Egypt. Although claimed as 'Roman era' I have added this to the world news as it comes from the pharonic period in Egypt rather than the later post-Caesar period when Egypt fell under direct Roman imperial control.

One against four if the indecision holds for long enough the Thane has a very good chance of being able to rush forward and get around behind the points of the spears so taking out several of his opponents in quick succession while they try to either back-pedel fast enough to get their spears pointed at him again or else drop their spears and try to draw a close range weapon in response. Either way, with a 'normal' short-hafted battle-axe the superior manouverability of the axe is liable to leave the spearmen at a distinct disadvantage with the odds rapidly dropping from 4-1 to 2-1 or 'evens' at which retreat for any surviving spearmen is strongly recommended. If he was using a long-hafted axe instead, as a Viking re-enactor friend used to do, then at best his opponents are all liable to find themselves 'short' a lower limb, as a sweeping downward blow is very difficult to guard against even with a shield, or even 'killed' outright. Retreat in the face of a lethally close axe bearer who lknows how to control his weapon is usually a preferred option. On a slightly larger scale, I have heard of one example of unexpected tactics where a 'shield-wall' met an opposing shield-wall and instead of approaching for a 'shoving match' (effectively phalanx angainst phalanx) split in two leaving a 'forlorn hope' (OK one very large and heavily armoured man) to crash into the middle of the opposing shield wall - instant confusion and subsequent decimation amongst the opposition as the two wings closed on the ends of the line and spears went wevery which way int he centre (axeman again). N.B. This engagement was followed by said 'forlorn hope' chasing his own side about the field of battle as no-one told him of the intended plan of attack In a full-sized military clash it always boils down to a combination of experience, terrain, equipment, discipline and unit tactics - especially the ability of the opposing sides to react to or initiate the unexpected.

I would suggest that a good first step wopuld be to check out the 'links' page at the Roman Military Research society (RMRS) website as it lists most of the currently active Roman reenactment societies so you may be able to get in contact with a local group who may be able ot help with practical advice or queries as they arise . Alternatively someone like Len Morgan at the RMRS may be able to advise on practical points about recreating armour and other legionary equipment as he makes some of the RMRS equipment (more details under the 'fabrica' section of the RMRS site. Possibly better for your purpose the Legio XX in the USA have some very good information on their webpages about making armour including some plans. In addition if you can get your hands on it Mike Bishop brought out a book on Roman Segmentata armour a few years back which is very good reference material for each of the different variations of armour currently known from the period: Lorica Segmentata: Handbook of Roman Plate Armour (JRMES Monograph) published by Armatura press and still available from some book dealers along with a companion volume by M.D. Thomas: Lorica Segmentata, Volume II: A Catalogue of Finds, JRMES Monograph 2, N.B. I believe the first volume at least is available as a free downloadable ebook but have never seen this version so cannot comment on how good it is.

A recent article in Nature covers a lot of the issues surrounding 'grey literature' which are unpublished or at least generally innaccessible archaeological reports.

Actually as has already been noted variations on the 'phalanx' formation have been tried and how you describe them depends on how the unit is formed and consequently is not necessarily based on a square or rectilinear formation. The Scottish Schiltron was a circular formation which made use of 12 foot long spears to reasonable effect although while it was a basically static defence against mounted knights and not primarily intended as an attacking formation. The real crux of the question is that a phalanx formation is now usually seen as a single mass of troops with forward facing spears/ pikes which were best employed against similar armies or as the core of an army with supporting troops on the wings where the phalanx's were used as the 'anvil' against which opposing armies could be broken or break themselves. The Roman's experimented with this formation notably in the earlier Republican consular armies but with limited success and soon started the series of reforms which led to the development of the more mobile legionary armies.

*Unfortunately this is unlikely since decimalisation in the late 60's. A QV penny is somewhat different from a modern penny so a 'modern British' analogy would have to be finding a QV shilling as the [first version of the modern 5p was] based on the same size as an old shilling. Mind you having said that not long back we found an old Victorian coin stuck inside a secret drawer of a piece of furniture on sale in an antique shop but that's another story [Edit (10/5/10) - My mistake when I originally posted this message I forgot that in the last few years the size of the 5p coin was reduced to about half the size of the old shilling (12d) and the original version of the 5p coin - it is now closer to the size of an old sixpence (6d = tanner). The equivalent would therefore probably be finding an old florin (2 shilling piece = 24d) mixed up with your change instead of a modern a 10p piece]

I checked the dates first before posting this but a 31 Mar 2010 item in the Heritage Key claims that:

I think you're very, very wrong. Let me explain why I believe this to be the case. A wall is, in purely military terms, a linear defense. Hdrians Wall was not primarily military nor intended as a defense in that sense, but rather a security line in what amounts to a very modern concept. The problem with assuming that troops were rushed from one section of the line to another is that it leaves another section of wall undefended. In other words, all the Picts had to do was create a feint, get the Romans to react, and then attack the vacated sections. An interesting contention but nowhere did I claim that the Roman's would have needed to denude sections of the wall garrison to repulse any possible attack. What I said was that most of the 'immediately available strength' was within a few miles of the wall both to the north and the south. i.e I was referring to the Stangate forts which are not on the wall nor are they the 70 plus miles away that York is from the Eastern end of the Wall. Put another way to repeat a quote from a book I picked up at the weekend describing how Hadrian's Wall was probably planned 'a wall without communications is a waste of rations'. I would say that it supports my view of the Wall as being a component part in a wider landscape - defence in depth if you will don't foget that despite having a large number of fortified positions throughout Briotain (and in deed the rest of the Em pire) the Roman's preferred method of dealing with any atack was in the field with the fortified positions simply used as bases. How does that differ from what I said? You are ignoring the possibility that the Roman's would probably have had scout's as well as patrols and the possibility of advance notice from informers and/or nominally friendly tribes which would have allowed them to mass defending/ counter-ofensive troops where they were needed. The assumptions which I made are in general based on established arcaheological facts - the periods of occupation of the forts along the length of the wall and in fact the number of forts in the area which seem to have remained occupied for most of the period of Roman occupation. To paraphrase John Poulter (2009) 'Surveying Roman Military Landscapes across Northern Britain' who by considering the landscape and the optimum positions to take bearings on the next landmark/ or decide on a possible change in direction has identified the probable direction in which Dere street, Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall were surveyed - even if individual sections were not necessarily built in the same directions. He found that although there may have been a defensive aspect to Hadrian's Wall in most cases the position of the Wall makes use of the lie of the land to have a good south facing viewpoint (and consequently signalling direction rather than being on the most defensible land or even necessarily having a good field of view to the immediate north - with the notable exception of the central section. This does not negate Wooliscroft's opinion that the use of signalling towers as 'repeaters' would have allowed messages to be passed relatively quickly along the length of the Wall. I should stress that when I have talked about the 'Wall' I am referring to the entire militarized area including the Stanegate and all of the associated military structures even out to the fort at High Rochester in the north. Poulter in his conclusions states his belief that the Wall was intended to serve a multitude of functions and therefore was a compromise but choices on possible alignments were usually 'related to the topography of the landscape' he therefore thinks that its planning was largely dictated by military factors however when 'a compromise in these factors had to be reached , it was the observation and signalling function that took precedence over a defensive stance and passageways for traffic.' N.B. in comparison the Antonine Wall normally took the optimum defensive line - the differences he put down to the pre-existence of the Stanegate forts along the proposed line of Hadrian's Wall while such a defensive line did not exist along the route of the Antonine Wall.

Back in 2002 the BBC ran a 50 minute documentary called Roman Soldiers to Be . I believe this may have effectively been the template for a couple of other programmes put out either by Channel 4, as you suggested, or possibly Channel 5 but with a quick search I haven't tracked them down. The other possibility is that some programmes such as the one on the discovery of a female burial with a 'possible' gladiatorial aspect incorporate generic military scenes. This particualr discovery I know led to the production of the 'Gladiatrix' programme in which some basic gladiatorial training was given to the girls who participated in it so the film crew could intercut the 'loose' discussion on the archaeological 'evidence' with some combat scenes.

I would tend to agree with Byraxis here given that any unit 'charging' would need to be able to keep control of their weapons and keep or at least redress their 'order' before contact with the enemy. The Hoplite Association who attempt to re-enact both the equipment and fighting styles of the period are definately of the opinion that given the shields were 'locked' together and the spear used overarm the only way to make 'first' contact with an enemy successfully is in a controlled block. To me this requirement would tend to strongly mitigate against any attempted rapid advance such as by a charge. From watching other forms of re-enactment the most likely movement that may have been attempted would be a short forward step with one foot follwed by the rearmost foot coming up behind the first in a step together motion.

Wishing you all the best for an enjoyable day

I wonder if this article from Scotland on Sunday that the Bronze Age cadavers found in the Taklimakan desert north of Tibet displaying both European and Siberian genetic markers may also indirectly provide the explanation for the recurring claims made of the descendents of Roman soldiers being found in Liqian in north-west China. DNA experts reveal China's ancient open door to West