caldrail

I doubt they manned the battlements. What they did more likely was guard the area as a sort of special place they were holding in trust. This sort of aural tradition is very important to african tribes.

Its not just the moral background. The ancient world was a violent place. Warfare is a human extension of our social animal heritage and in military societies we quickly become used to it. Even those with a Judaeo-Christian moral background in those days were likely to accept violence as part of their lives (I know quite a few didn't, but then these were the same maverick reformer characters that we still see today). Lets remember that the defenders of Masada were a cult of assassins. The mindset of the average roman soldier probably isn't too removed from modern soldiers. I would say they were less restrained, less honest, but would smile knowlingly at the discipline and physical effort required.

Military credibility. Claudius, as you no doubt know already, was given power by the praetorians after caligula was murdered. Up until that point claudius had been regarded as something less than a man, a loser, a buffoon. Caligula had made him consul but one wonders if he wasn't taking the mick when he did that. In order for Claudius to be taken seriously by the senate and the army, he needed military experience and a new conquest would look very good on his CV. Britain was ripe for conquest - Caesar had been there twice and caligula might have if he'd had more patience and maturity. Roman agents and traders had already been at work in britain for some time. It was an obvious choice.

In combat things were happening fast. An injured man would automatically tend to fall back or fall over unless he was in a killing rage. If he couldn't fight, it was likely he would die very soon courtesy of an enemy strike. To some extent, his mates in the line would attempt to cover him or replace him in the line, but thats difficult to do with barbarians hacking at you right left and center. Once injured, survival would be down to circumstance. Were your forces advancing? If so you'd be left there while they carried on. Rotation of men during the fight isn't so easy although fresh men behind you would fill the gap very quickly. Roman troops weren't expected to fight to the death as such, but many soldiers would regard that as their duty. To do less was a sign of weakness or cowardice. Mind you, you would see weak or cowardly legionaries from time to time - every army has its quota of them. In the event, fighting to the death might not be a matter of choice. Medical attention was received after the battle, not during. They didn't have medics on call like you would today.

Generally speaking the economy of Rome wasn't planned. They didn't borrow money at government level (at least not usually - emperors like Caligula would borrow and didn't care too much about giving it back) because financing was done by individuals. There were some seriously wealthy people back then who were expected by public pressure to put money into the economy - either by donating funds to callers or by paying for public works. This wealth was gathered by all sorts of shenanigans both legal and distinctly dodgy. One of the reasons for the decline in the west is that money was being spent and not recouped by conquest. Taxation had risen so high that the economy was grinding to a halt, and a lot of coinage went abroad for luxury items or perhaps animals for the circus.

Medical care was a definite perk of service in the legions, and its peculiar that soldiers often livd longer than civilians. There are even reports of centurions still serving in their eighties. It made sense to a military society like Rome to keep their soldiers fit and healthy. In fact, modern medicine is based on the work of Galen, who tended gladiators for wounds early in his career. Some of their medicine is quite sophisticated, and they had a range of utensils that are similar to those in use to this day. As an aside, they tended not to sew wounds, but preferred staples made of silver which has good properties for this sort of thing. These would be snipped in half and removed when the wound heals. Bandages have been found at Vindolanda. Although the colour is lost (they're now a sort of muddy black) they would have have been an off-white colour like today.

The important point in this thread is leadership, an absolutely vital commodity in the ancient world. Unlike today, total obedience of your troops was not guaranteed. As a general, you would need to inspire and bully your men to go through considerable risk and physical hardship. People like Caesar had a skill in this area. And if Caesar brings you victory, glory, and sackloads of booty - hey - just tell us what to do Julius...

Apparently there's a problem with roman swords. Polybius describes a republican type but there's hardly any archaeological evidence for that period (perhaps only one or two against a great many for the principate onward). Republican swords, the Gladius Hispaniensis, is a weapon purely intended to stab or thrust. The 'Mainz' type is straighter but retains the long tapered point. When we get to the 'Pompeii' type the blade is straight and the point shorter. Pliny tells us that it was used as much as a slashing blade as a thrusting weapon. Noteably, there's a tendency for swords to get shorter toward the 3rd century AD since republican times. From then the spatha is increasingly used which is the longer cavalry sword, essentially similar to a pompeii pattern gladius but longer. These changes reflect the methods and standards taught in the legions. I generally don't mind film and tv showing romans slashing about because sometimes they did, and in any case its a lot safer for the actors and stuntmen to duel in that manner. However it does give a false impression. In close order drill with heavy infantry thrusting is the only practical method of attack. In open order, a more 'barbaric' style of swordplay is possible. The use of longer swords in later centuries indicates that roman legionaries were no longer as courageous or skilled as they once were. Fighting up close with a gladius requires nerve and practice.

Surely thats not possible. Christianity by definition is the worship of Jesus as the son of god. There were certainly a number of judaic religions/cults around that time.

I'm reliably informed that actors and re-enactors get tired quite quickly hauling the shield around, which is why I believe that for normal carrying it would be better to keep the shield arm straight to avoid strain. The only drawback is the lower height of the shield as you approach. Perhaps the training of a legionary compensated. After all, I'm not used to carrying a shield all day.

You wouldn't say that if you were on the receiving end of a clibinarii charge. They were plenty heavy. Scale armour and long lance? Thats heavy cavalry. Not by late medieval standards perhaps, but this was still the ancient world.

And since the smaller roman armies needed to be more mobile to catch enemy intrusions they weren't always in the right place, which to a civilian means guarding them. Therefore they were keen in times of trouble to seek protection.

I doubt they rested it on the head, but an overhead shield wouldn't be too difficult to hold there bearing in mind that other peoples shields help spread the weight (except for one rank!) and that the weight is comfortably centered over the shoulder. I take note of your bag-lifting in earlier days.

The emphasis should be on culture, not colour.

There are plenty of titles in the Osprey series that serve your needs, or try 'The Complete Roman Army' by Adrian Goldsworthy

Regarding tactics, you're basically identifying the same thing as me. The testudo cannot effectively attack on its own - it must do something else when it gets there, or have someone do it for them. Also, the light troops supporting the testudo's prevent the enemy from surround the formation, pulling shields out of the romans hands, and plunging sharp pointy things into their suprised faces. As for the shield question, get something around 5-10 lbs in weight. Now keep lifting it to shoulder height. Soon gets tiring doesn't it? Now lift the weight above your shoulder and keep it there. You can support that weight for some time.

Well they often did didn't they? How about Barates, from Palmyra, getting hitched to a former slave in Britain?

Sexual activity from the male viewpoint was considered virile and normal. Falling in love was something of a situation to be pitied. Emotional slavery if you will.

The trouble is that today we've gotten very sensitive about racial concerns (understandably) but I'd say that looking for a truth is probably correct. Whether its dirty or not depends on your personal views. Racial stereotyping is dodgy business, yet time and again we see the same characteristics from people of various regions or stock. Now that doesn't mean its something to sneer at - all human beings are fundamentally the same despite their quirks - but people foreign to you are going to have different backgrounds, opinions, and experience. If you introduce them into your society, they tend to seek the company of like-minded people. This is true today and was true then. Rome had ghettoes - 'Little Greece' for instance. There's nothing wrong with charting racial origins and culture so long as you don't start excluding others for their differences. Discuss and be damned I say.

Communites hired barbarian tribes for protection in the late west. Sounds like everyday mercenary activity to me.

I understand your point, but really you've only underscored what I said. The Testudo needed protection? Or other troops to be devastating? As I said before - the testudo was used to the men to where they wanted to be without losing casualties. Once there, they had to do something else. Raising shields against archery is quite correct. However, keep on doing that and you're going to get tired - and this is where the testudo starts to make sense.

Holding up the shield like that can work, but not with a scutum whose handle is behind the metal boss in the center. You wouldn't be able to see anything!

Local availability is always important in considering things ancient. True, trade was widespread and imports were common - if there was a profit from it.