caldrail
-
Posts
6,246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
145
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by caldrail
-
-
I think the final outcome for the defeated gladiator (death or life) depended on how well the fight was fought and whether it was a spirited fight, without any display of cowardice by the one vanquished.
Gladiators were valuable to their owners, who invested a lot of time and money in them and if they fought well in the arena but were yet defeated, I think it would be highly unlikely that they would be killed, unless the wounds were so debilitating that a death by way of mercy killing would be the most appropriate.
The editore (during the Republic, later the Emperor) was the only one who decided his fate, although Hollywood likes to think it was the crowd, showing a dramatic thumbs up or down.
The gladiator was often granted missio, which meant that he would be allowed to live and possibly fight again in all but the most extreme of cases, for cowardice or for a very poor showing in the arena - no skills or talent displayed. In that case, the gladiator would be worthless to the owner and he would not be angry at the editore for not granting missio.
As in everything, economic considerations played a large part in their decision, particularly the future worth of the defeated gladiator. Most of my observations are with reference to the Republic. In later periods, it may have been well different as many of the Emperors were quite blood thirsty and possibly killed off many a good fighter.
yes I agree by and large, but I would point out that gladiatorial combat became bloodier as time went on because the crowd (and the games promoters) wanted thrills and excitment. Throwing somebody to the lions? Oh they did that last year - yawn.
Gladiators were indeed highly skilled fighters (at least those with any survival chances were) and it wasn't cheap to buy, train, and keep them. It is true that the crowd wanted a good fight. The poet Martial wrote a tale based on fact about a fight at the colosseum where both men were allowed the victory palm for delivering the thrills. As for poor fighting, that didn't always condemn a man despite the crowds disappointment. It was just as likely to cause a huge reverse to the career of the games promoter. The mood of a crowd often dictated a mans fate. A crowd galvanised by excitment wanted blood - and usually got it. A bored audience would cough and jeer, muttering about what a plonker the promoter was for putting together such a poor show.
In fact, emperors often gave gladiators their freedom to please the crowd and this had no bearing on the owners investment. It was seen as the sign of a generous humane emperor who rewarded courage. The owner of course gritted his teeth and told the trainer to get Ursus The Angry up to scratch by the next games or else
-
Yes, this is a reflection of human nature. The early romans were derided as porridge-eaters. By the principate, we see wealthy romans spending fortunes on banquets to the extent that some individuals committed scuicide because they could no longer afford it. The poor of course ate bread and whatever else they could grow, purchase, beg, or steal - just as they always had.
Success has the effect of making humans lazy. Thats why big businesses and large empires collapse - because the little guys are hungrier and cut away at the big guys back. Thats an over-simplification perhaps but you get the point?
Morals evolve in similar ways. Focused disciplined people tend to have strong morals. When money is no object, then what do you do for kicks? You bend the rules, and morals are put aside as impediments to enjoying yourself.
-
To add to MPC's post. Discipline is a part of morale. Morale is 'espirit de corps'. If troopers are aware that they can count on their fellows at all times and that they are competant to handle all situations in the field; if justice is meted out equably, then the corps will be 'happy'.
Morale isn't just esprit de corps. That results from a sense of belonging, which requires an organisation with traditions. Morale is the mental state of your men. This can be affected by a number of factors. Faith in your leadership, discipline, availabiltiy of food and water, enviromental hardship, rewards of victory, punishments of defeat or cowardice, allied support... all sorts of things. If one factor goes awry then perhaps you can compensate. If too many factors are involved then eventually the men will get depressed or angry. Caesar - Its time to make that rousing speech I think.
-
The lorica segmentata protects the shoulders and torso from the expected sword blows from screaming barbarians. It did indeed serve them well, but it wasn't too quick to put on (you would need help from a friend for a good fit) and eventually they reverted to chainmail simply because of convenience.
-
Hannibal had good reasons not to stay in place. During the trek across the alps he had a meeting with his commanders about the lack of food. One of them suggested to Hannibal that they teach their men to eat human flesh and enjoy it. Hannibal refused this source of nourishment, but his army suffered horribly from starvation. He simply didn't want to have to find food for thousands of soldiers for months on end. Remember that he had no supply trains, he was foraging locally. In actual fact, in his case some of the intended besieged may have been better off.
-
Agreed. Locusts are the likely culprit. But the ancients knew full well what locusts were since Egypt was sometimes plagued with them. Was this merely an old-wives-tale to hide the real source? A quick-tongued merchant wowing his audience and slipping away when the story gets a bit too popular for comfort?
-
It was up to the games editor (or the emperor if he was present) to decide a gladiators fate. The crowd of course would heavily influence his decision. Does he justly condemn a man and make himself popular with the plebs? Or does he let him off and ensure his senatorial owner is still on friendly terms? As editor, your future career prospects rest on these decisions. In any case, if the crowd are making loud noises its a fair bet most of them are saying the same thing.
-
It is interesting that these commentators despise Tiberius. Was that because he made himself too remote? Or was he disliked for choosing not to provide public entertainment? He was also quoted as saying he was rearing a viper - he meant caligula, and if true then he knew full well caligula wasn't suitable for office and probably ensured he wasn't. That way old Tiberius would be remembered as not being so bad. Is that another reason forthe criticism of him - in that he had allowed a bad-apple to rule after him?
-
Was recruitment really so bad that they NEEDED thumbless soldiers, or was drafting them more as of a lesson for others, that cutting off your thumb is dumb because you still go to war. Drafting them would certainly send a message to others.
Recruitment in the late empire was getting to be a fairly desperate process. Draft dodging was widespread and press gangs operated to volunteer men for service. One emperor decided that two thumbless soldiers were the same as one fit & able soldier so there was no excuse for service. People simply didn't want a military life by that time. Rome was no longer the unified empire of old. People were tired of government interference in their lives and certainly fed up of paying extortionate taxes.
-
He was capable of it - he just didn't know it. Hannibal was criticised in the ancient world for not knowing what to do with a victory. He could win battles effortlessly but he had no experience of siegecraft and was unaware how undefended Rome was at that time. He was never able to grasp the need to exploit his victories. In fact, it was entirely possible that Rome might have surrendered to Hannibal without much resistance. Rome never really did put up a fight although I notice there were street battles during the Year of Four Emperors (69AD)
-
True, but we know that the legions posted there had a signal system to call reinforcements from larger forts away from the wall.
-
Its highly likely that the gesture had regional differences. In sicily today a 'thumbs up' gesture used to get a lift from a passing motorist is in fact a mortal insult and may well get you shot.
A gladiator who chose to die (and some did believe or not- it was a matter of professional honour and pride, or possibly some other reason behind the scenes) need only bare his throat. Usually he wouldn't get the choice. A ruthless opponent wasn't going to wait to let his opponent plead for mercy - we know that from the inscription on a tomb that says 'Take heed from my fate and show no mercy'. By being ruthlessly murderous you would quite likely find yourself without mercy one day, so most gladiators did offer their defeated opponents some chance to plead.
I doubt very much that gladiators would disarm themselves to allow another to commit scuicide. Once condemned by the games editor, the fatal blow would follow swiftly (Maximus took too long in getting ready to kill Titus of Gaul in the film Gladiator. Had that been for real, the blow would have landed immediately. But then Maximus was a bit of a softie in gladiator terms) Giving a weapon to an opponent and leaving yourself unarmed isn't too clever is it? Not all gladiators were honourable. There were plenty of dirty tricks in use.
The killing blow depended on the weapon in use. With a gladius, the preferred method was to plunge the blade through the top of the shoulder and into the heart. That way the blow is fatal and the ribcage doesn't get in the way. Throats were often cut instead, and the boomerang shaped sword of the thraex would be better in this fashion. A spear or trident might be used against the opponents head if no helmet protected him.
Now the gesture used by the crowd must have had some relation to the act of killing or not. The traditional thumbs down is still my personal favourite although there's no actual evidence to say thats what was done, and as I've mentioned before, no-one really knows no matter how many books they sell.
-
We know the various techniques they used but as far as I'm aware the actual codes used remain a mystery. All the signals used by the romans required line-of-sight unless a rider was sent instead. On foggy days this visual communication would have been useless. Fire signals and beacons served at night, and unless its a downpour its still possible to get a fire going as long as the wood you set light to is dry. Inflammable substances like pitch would assist you there.
-
Roman siegecraft was nicked wholesale from the greeks. Its just that the romans had a much more confrontational approach to getting in than most societies. Of course, they weren't the only ones who conducted assaults. The greeks had done so, and so had the assyrians.
-
I've been part of meets like this for some of my other interests. I would suggest the site is chosen well ahead of time to allow interested parties to arrange their affairs, and that some kind of informal agenda is put together in case everyone turns up and runs out of conversation quickly. Its a nice idea.
-
My own view is that Caligula wasn't mad - at least not a raving looney. He was a malignant mickey-taker who enjoyed seeing people suffer. He was a young man of questionable maturity given ultimate power, and oh boy was he determined to find out how far he could push it. Emotionally disturbed I would say. Nasty but not evil in the dramatic sense.
As for 'I Claudius', we have to remember this was entertainment - a tv adaption of a novel. Not really a source for insight into caligulas character then but a very good series I thoroughly enjoyed for what it was.
-
So basically the equestrians become a class of professionals as well as moderately wealthy people. The senatorial class was composed of wealthy men, many of whom were ambitious and some of them absolutely positive that they deserved power rather than that idiot giving the orders. Not suprisingly then, we see the senatorials weakened by purges and plots to the extent that the old families no longer exist. Therefore tradition is also weakened and the glass ceiling over the equestrians isn't so much a barrier that it once was.
-
I guess I was inspired by all those hollywood epics I used to watch on tv when I was a kid. I saw this huge empire, greedy, decadent, all-powerful, yet strangely vulnerable toward the end.
Face it, roman history is the most fantastic soap opera ever. Its got everything. Best all, it happened. For real.
-
This from Dio's description of the 64 fire:
The whole Palatine hill, the theatre of Taurus, and nearly two-thirds of the remainder of the city were burned, ....
The theater of Taurus was the Amphitheatrum Statilii Tauri, Rome's first stone theater.
Any case, ''the whole Palatine''...? I don't buy this, if so it would've wiped out several of the major imperial residences not on the damage list. Nero's Domus Transitoria was on the lower eastern edge and naturally got nuked. Since the fire started on the Palatine side of the Circus Max, I can see how it would get especially hit, also because the winds were coming from the south east. But the ''whole of it''?
Anyone have insight on this? Was anyone there to see the fire? If so, did you call 911?
Tacitus also states that the Regia was destroyed but invesitgations have shown that this isnt true.
Well I wasn't actually there (contrary to popular rumour) but as I understand the evidence shows partial damage to the palatine hill, not extensive. Certainly not all of it. The fire followed the course of three intersecting roads near to the circus maximus and spread to buildings nearby. The wind was a major factor in its spread, as were servants of greedy landlords setting their flea-bitten insulae ablaze to claim insurance and probably evict difficult tenants without recourse to lawyers.
PS - I can ring 911 if you want but I might be a little late.
-
Sometime in the mid 20th century, I read a news item about a Black African tribe, in southern Egypt or northern Sudan, that was still guarding a Roman fort awaiting the return of the Romans. Can anyone shed any light on this?
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.
-
Sorry, what i meant to say was I cannot find many textal sources which mentions Claudius' reasons for invading.
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.
-
Good point about the stress fractures Lost Warrior.
Other injuries which come to mind, which I'm sure must have been possible from the impact of shield upon shield would be rotator-cuff injuries in the shoulder. Just imagine the sheer force of two opposing armies smashing into each other. I think that there would be a considerable amount of injuries that would have to be dealt with even after a successful battle, since the strains on the body must have been immense.
I'm wondering, if a Roman soldier sustained an injury while he was in formation would it have been possible for him to safely withdraw from his position to seek medical attention and then have a soldier behind him replace him? Or could this cause a break in the line? Would the soldier be allowed to abandon his position? I think it would be possible if the formation wasn't too tight. Or did they constantly rotate their positions anyway since it would be so difficult to have the stamina to fight for extended periods?
Does anyone know the procedure or policy with regards to injured troops in the frontline of the battle? Were they expected to literally 'fight to the death' holding their position no matter what their physical condition was? Or were they allowed to move to the back of the lines to get medical attention, or would this cause confusion?
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.
-
I was wondering how the roman empire's economy was working?
Did the Empire borrow money to finance constructions or soldiers?
Who paid taxes and what was it used for?
Were taxes collected as currency or as commodity(grain,salt?)
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.
Roman Siegecraft
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted · Edited by caldrail
Unlikely? I understand your point of view and you may well be right. But put yourself in Hannibals place. He's committed himself to marching across the alps to outflank the romans. Its not a cakewalk by any means, and he's suffered losses of men, horses, and elephants on the way. If he gives up, his credibility is ruined and the romans remain in a strong strategic position. If he carries on, he MUST find food or his expedition is doomed. One of his commanders is not as moral as the others. Notice that this commander makes the suggestion, and is clearly overruled. It would've have been more convincing if his commander had been given a few sharp words about morality but Hannibal isn't portrayed as considering this idea.