caldrail

Thats what I mean though. The image is pervasive and I have read elements of it on this site occaisionally. In some respects it would appear that the romans themselves were keen to present themselves as an unstoppable army and via inaccurate history and fiction, not to mention hollywood epics, this image persists to this day in the popular imagination. Agreed - but the legions did practice their skills and were required to perform route marches to aintain their edge. I don't know how often this was adhered to - it would depend on the commanders. Variable quality is a point well made. The fantasies I describe come largely from fiction and hollywood as I mentioned before. The apparent uniformity of roman units give them an image of faceless coherence which does have some basis in truth. They were after all well drilled (usually) and obedient. However, the writings of romans give a slightly distorted picture of roman capability. Julius Caesar was an extraordinary leader but he did exaggerate his victories for instance. I suspect a general proudly announcing his victory before the senate also indulged in a little over-statement. This has transferred through generations of history teachers who were keen to present the romans as the pinnacle of civilisation ( which to me seems odd given the view that they are also presented as decadent and mad by moralistic storytellers) I meant something more than simply providing food. Yes they did that although some roman units went short from time to time. What I also meant was that because the romans could raise another unit of replacements quickly the enemy could lop off as many arms as they liked, sooner or later they were going to get another punch in the face.

Yes, to some extent. The same thing happened later to the spanish and portuguese. When the supply of gold from the americas dried up, their societies faded somewhat.

The image we have of roman legions is seductive. Massed ranks of armoured men marching like steamrollers across anyone who dares oppose them. How true is that? Not very. Despite the roman talent for organisation and a training regime that was way ahead of its time, we see an impressive list of defeats. Most aren't studied closely but when you read histories written by romans they do mention them. It appears the roman steamroller wasn't quite as sturdy as imagined. Why? The reason is staring us in the face every time we read those histories, but I'll get to that. Romans and non-citizens join up for various reasons, but for most the legion offered a secure living. Remember that war was infrequent during many periods so a roman soldier, given the excellent health care and benefits, could easily expect to outlive his civilian opposite. Many of these men were hardened by life before they joined. Life in the ancient world could be harsh. Once the initial examination and interview was done the recruit was given a small sum of travelling money and sent to his training camp in the care of a few serving soldiers, who often delighted in making sure the travelling money went into their pocket. Was it like a modern army? In some ways yes, in others no. We would recognise many of their activities as similar. A recruit was trained to fight, to obey orders, to remain calm in battle, and to endure hardship. He might be trained in artillery, to ride horses, to swim, and if he had an education or a trade, a chance to avoid the fatigues that his fellows were ordered to complete. There lies the first clue. Life as a legionary wasn't as grim as might be imagined but it was hard graft. A commander was wise to keep his men occupied with labour or civil engineering projects. His men had no intention of breaking their backs building aqueducts unless they could help it. There is definitely a quiet reluctance to volunteer that I see. So how does that affect things? In order for the legion to function effectively it required strong leadership. Not just the legate (general) but his centurions and optio's too. This is why Julius Caesar was such a good general. Despite some poor choices of strategy he leads from the front, maintains good relations with his junior commanders, and clearly demands the best from his men. Since his victories put cash in their pockets, they were usually keen to follow him. And there is the second clue - Money. Now when we read the prose left to us by roman authors they concentrate on personalities - the focus of their story. So we read about commanders and a few heroic men who stood out briefly. The great mass of men who reluctantly did their bit for pay and reward do not figure in these tales unless they massacre, moan, or mutiny. However, every so often we read a passage that shows a more human side. Like men ordered to prepare the circumvallation at Jerusalem in 70ad for instance. They groaned, put their weapons down, and started building work. The jews attacked at that moment because the romans clearly weren't being too alert, and it was nearly a disaster. Or that moment when a young jew stole water from under the annoyed noses of the roman sentries. Boy did they feel like a bunch of suckers! The whole point is that our perception of the roman legion is coloured by fantasy. The truth is that we should see a bunch of hardened men, often corrupt, careless, callous, and mutinous. They were sometimes indifferent fighters. They were easily bored and prone to crafty dodges. Strong leadership, discipline, and punishment never eradicated these traits, merely contained it. The real success of the roman legions was its logistical ability. Good organisation, effective distribution of resources, and a seemingly endless supply of replacement recruits. Without the ability to equip and supply up to 350,000 men across the face of Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, Rome would never have triumphed. Unless of course, you have different opinions?

Jesus might well have been forgotten (he was the leader of a small sect in Judaea after all, not the center of he world) but it was Paul who created christianity decades after Jesus's death. They never met. Without Pauls efforts in Rome christianity probably wouldn't have emerged. It was the roman empire that eventually accepted this religion and supported it. There were plenty of alternative belief structures back then many of which were perfectly viable. Ideas and concepts don't spread like viruses. Lets say I decide that the moon is made of green cheese. I mention it to friends and they look at me like I'm a bit wierd. I write a book and get a couple of interviews on TV where I basically advertise myself as an well-meaning idiot. Its only when someone who has real influence says - "Yes -he's right - the moon IS made of green cheese" - that people find the concept acceptable. Then it becomes a matter of peer pressure - "Surely you don't still believe the moon is made of rock?" Take Adolf Hitler as an example. Early on in his career he was dismissed as an odd fanatic. By chance and design he reaches a position of influence - and we all know what happened then. Perfectly sensible people took part in horrific goings-on because they weren't able to stand back and say "No, this is wrong." Obviously I'm not comparing christianity with german nazi's but the spread of a conept requires that it becomes acceptable, either because the concept is non-threatening or because someone is threatening punishment if you don't accept it.

The wealthy have always adopted pets of one sort or another. Cats were introduced from egypt so I understand. Some romans of means even adopted child slaves as pets. Although this smacks of the darker side of human nature there wasn't usually any paedophilia involved. The child was a pet and treated as such. Of course when it got a bit hairy after a few years it was time to sell.

Pacified? No I wouldn't have said that. Large numbers of contientious objectors certainly, but the truth is most late westerners regarded the empire as a pain in the butt. They simply wanted to get on with their lives without all these heavy taxes and recruitment drives.

Crassus was extremely wealthy. In ancient Rome wealth bought power and influence and lets not forget how competitive roman society was. When the chance came along to effectively become a joint ruler without going to all the hassle of getting a short stay as consul, of course he went for it. If he didn't, he was outside the loop, and had less control over his own affairs. That wealth of his was not guaranteed if someone else had the power to take it away. He was also ambitious, although as his fate shows, he had little military ability in a conquest state.

Slaves also came from legal sentences or simply because it was a better choice than poverty. Pirates were never really eliminated in the meditarranean and captured individuals might be sold as slaves.

Actually, the poor probably had more to worry about--they could afford to lose less; they were surrounded by more criminals; and they had less influence with the justice system. So if you couldn't afford a Hortensius or Cicero, getting a dog was probably a good idea. Especially since it wasn't money they would steal. It would be clothing, utensils, or food. Possibly even a child. For a poor person this would be disastrous. I recall a reward being offered by a roman for the return of a kitchen pot.

Interpretation, not conjecture. I understand your point but ultimately somebody was going to get a triumph if the influential wanted him to despite any rules or regulations. The romans were noticeably ambivalent about these things. The problem was people were beginning to demand triumphs for more trival reasons - Why else would Cato bother raising a bill to restrict them? Was he merely envious?

Each soldier in marching order was carrying two stakes to erect the palisade around the camp. These would definitely be pulled up for the march afterward unless suitable timber was in abundant supply and the originals were not in good condition. Mind you, carrying two of those rain-soaked stakes on top of sixty pounds of gear was not going to be fun! Using stakes in this manner required preparedness and in some circumstances the legion would have to build a fort with whatever they found in the area. Roman engineers were keen to find sites that allowed this. These of course were marching forts, a temporary place for the romans to camp with reasonable safety. Permanent forts were built in a far more solid fashion (obviously) and were simply abandoned if no longer required.

Roman infantry maintained its standards up until the 3rd century AD. The gladius was developing during that period, becoming shorter and straighter. Partly this was due to the influence of the 'doctores', the gladiator trainers that were used (sometimes) to teach sword fighting. Perhaps there were other reasons for this but I don't know of any. Then the chaos of the 3rd century hits, everyone is rushed through training and finds themselves wielding slightly overlong daggers against their opponents. Not suprisingly, they tended to say 'To Jupiter with this..." and picked up the nearest spatha so they could keep a healthy distance from their opponent. Roman cavalry rose to meet this gap in military technique to some extent but it was also for two other reasons. One was the first beginnings of the fuedal horseman society of the dark ages and medieval period. The other was the need to counter increasing numbers of enemy horsemen. The infantry were no longer strong enough to dominate the battlefield, cavalry was becoming heavier and more aggressive, and given the potential shock value of a cavalry attack its not suprising that cavalry eventually rose to dominance.

I would like to point out that the manual written by Vegetius was very late in roman times. Vegetius bemoans the falling standards of the legions and his manual was intended to help return roman soldiery to their former glory. He failed in that respect, but he left us a priceless resource. It must be understood that these standards and drills are probably not the same as the earlier principate, or the republican armies, although I accept that he based his work on traditional methods.

Well I wasn't disputing the walue of the infantry. If well trained and motivated the most important part of any army. I was expressing my opinion that the Roman cavalry was indeed an effective force. That it is a misconception that the legions were week in cavalry. "I agree with ya, the equites were prestigious, but there is a difference between prestige and effectiveness." Now sorry but this is bullocks. A prestigious unit in any army is prestigious because it's combat value is very high, or because it is perfoming a vital duty. "Ditto. Also, there are only so many nobles." Well you make that remark based on what? Being a noble was wastly different in Roman society than it was in medieval societies. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus, the rank of equite was officially defined. One could become an Equestrian when one had some 400,000 sesterces. However if one lost his fortune he immediatly lost his status too. Only during the secound century AD. did the Equestrian class changed into more like a class of bureocracy. And one more misconception. The Auxilliary units where also effective, and loyal units. It was one of the most original and effective method of Romanization (it is debated wether it was intentional or not)... Prestige in miltary terms is not a function of ability - thats a misconception. There are plenty of prestigous units around the world today who couldn't hope to live up to their reputation against determined opposition. Does this unit get any perks? Extra pay? Lighter duties? Better food? Is their vital duty onerous? Do they have a record of victory or defeat? Do their soldiers get promotions? Are their officers senior members of society? Prestige is a matter of perception. Roman cavalry wasn't brilliant. If it was they'd have gone to more effort with it. Only with the decline of the heavy infantryman and the need for mobility against a mobile enemy was cavalry seen to improve. Julius Caesar for instance used gaulish allies as his cavalry. These men rode expensive pampered horses and weren't too keen on getting to grips with the enemy both for that reason, and also because they all really wanted to ride home and extort tolls from travellers. Auxillaries weren't always capable. When we look at the roman legions its easy to see them as an invincible war machine that crushed opposition like a steamroller. Not so. They fought long and hard to achieve the pax romana and without capable leaders in the field (military ability not being a prerequisite for roman command) Rome would have fallen much earlier. It was their ruthless determination - their competitiveness as a society - that saw them through.

As regards the rapes, it wasn't a matter of cost, it was for the thrill of taking the woman anyway. As regards our spanish villains, the authority in charge of the case would send word to the governor that Sanchez didn't turn up and could he see that he does? The governor would then have one of his staff assigned to the task, who would then set someone on finding him before the roman authority loses patience.

Not really suprising. Claudius wasn't exactly the ideal roman leader. He was physically impaired in a world where such children were exposed or abandoned. He had habit of telling very poor jokes and the more sophisticated wealthy romans may well have sneered at claudius behind his back.

Now that an odd twist of history. The british seem to have had a lot of regard for the roman times yet the romans on the continent were only too keen to keep Rome at a distance in its twilight years.

Most buildings were wooden framed and therefore vulnerable to structural failures when fire rages. The marble/brick/stone was often facing material and not load bearing. Stones can actually melt if they're soft and the temperature is high enough. Not liquify perhaps, but certainly distort. Stones with air pockets can actually burst apart. Obviously the more stout constructions such as temples were not wooden framed.

Yes they were. Primarily as hunting animals, guard dogs, or similar tasks. A few would have been pets but most people couldn't afford those luxuries - an animal needed a purpose to be kept. I don't see any record of dogs used as beasts of burden by ancient brits but then why would they? They had stronger and more tractable beasts available. Using dogs in warfare was along the lines of setting a pack on a fleeing criminal. Dogs are chaser carnivores (besides being annoying scroungers!) and running down their prey is what they're good at - like their wolf ancestors. A dog would need training to attack head on, but needed only instinct to chase.

There were no official requirements for a triumph. It was an honour bestowed by the senate/emperor in appreciation of the victors efforts. Now obviously, that meant that the common pleb wasn't going to get one. A pat on the shoulders and a few coins for him. So you needed victory and status to be awarded a triumph, not to mention popularity. Parading an unpopular figure in front of the roman mob was courting disaster. cato would have raised this bill to prevent too many abuses of the triumph - to make it more exclusive. Not requirements, more like restrictions on abuse of a privilege.

First of all is the murderer known? A sicarius would hide in dark alleys to commit his crimes and in all likeliehood wouldn't be discovered unless somebody recognised something he'd taken. Young men of good breeding would routinely wander the streets beating up passers-by, sometimes fatally, or even commit rapes. To some extent this was tolerated (drunken young men have always had a tendency toward violence after all) unless the result was serious enough. Once someone was recognised, an outraged citizen might complain to his patron, or perhaps consult a lawyer if he was wealthy. In either event, word gets about, a deal is done, and the armed guards arrive to carry off the careless criminal for some painful and probably public sentence. There was no organised approach to law enforcement as such, which seems a bit odd for the roman mindset.

Praetorians were often selected from the better soldiers. After all, it was considered a perk and the emperors were keen on being protected, even if their guards were a little temperamental (ahem). It is true they lived better than regular legionaries. As for battle experience, that became quite common in later times until the praetorians were disbanded, but then many of them might have already experienced battle. Having said that, Rome wasn't always at war. Many soldiers never fought a battle throughout their twenty five year service thus neither would the praetorians.

Yes and no. There would have been an asiatic influence if they'd stayed there but remember that invaders often adopt local attitudes and customs in the long run. Take for instance the normans in england. After a few decades the saxon influence was diluting the norman culture - and thats simply because they interacted with each other. Although the norman invaders were the conquerers and very much in charge, their serfs, servants, and childminders were saxon. To some extent it all boils down to numbers and culture. The romans 'romanised' other places because they made it such a good choice (you can either accept our generous politico-economic model or lucius here will call out the legion). The hunnic culture was deeply ingrained in its people but as soon as they settled in east europe their warlike stance faded. Also remember that although gaul might have been over-run with huns the people there were romanic and were in contact with romanised people outside, so there would have been a strong influence against .. erm... asianism.

Correct. The jews believed in one god. However it wasn't a unified faith, just a collection of priests and lay preachers with their own flocks.

Its often forgotten that most gladiatorial fights were small scale, not the huge spectacle they put on for nearly a third of a year at the colosseum (sorry, Flavian Amphitheater ). Provincial contests were less bloody apart from executions, and perhaps one or two deaths would end the performance. Whereas large numbers of animals would be seen at Rome, perhaps only a well-renowned ferocious bear would satisfy the men at the fort. The variety of of fights would be less in the provinces too. Less theatrical and more likely just a straight fight between two men. Also, there were private contests where wealthy people would entertain party-goers with a fight in the garden or whatever.