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 would like to add that the 'civilisation' of the roman soldier is a bit of a misnomer. Toward the end the legions were nowhere near the standard they had been, with german mercenaries en-masse, many of whom bullied the locals as a matter of course. Few italians would have liked life in the army by then, and most avoided it at all costs including a big increase in the practice of cutting off one's thumb so a sword could not be held.
-
Has anyone read ''The Battle that Stopped Rome'' covering Varus' defeat at the hands of Arminius and the German tribes?
I am attempting to fight my way through a Swedish copy, to no avail. (Much different than Norwegian.)
Any case, there are two schools, the old school that states the battle took three days or the new school that maintains less than one day and a few hours at that. What I'm getting as I wade through is that this book advocates the latter approach.
Difficult to say isn't it? The ambush took place over a long stretch of forest trail and was done peacemeal to avoid alerting the roman command. The final action, where Arminius trapped the romans between marsh and a prepared defensive (offensive?) wall, would have been over very quickly. I don't think there's enough evidence to categorically say 'it took this long'. It all depends on what you include as the battle itself.
-
Very good point, the Roman adversaries in many cases were bigger, but the roman soldiers were the best trained, along with the best weapons and tactics. Roman training was rigerous, and with the training, they became the best soldiers of their age.
They also became the most highly practised skivers too. The work was hard so if they could bribe or hide or excuse themselves on medical grounds.... yep.
-
ok, but perhaps I've generalised. An established fort would have a vicus - the dwellings of civilian hangers-on - which certainly would have included a brothel or several. Soldiers married covertly, or openly in later periods. Soldiers were also permitted to keep slaves. Now whilst most were probably male I dare say some might have been women, which brings up some interesting aspects to life in the 8-man rooms of barracks.
-
I've learned about military matters from an early age too, but put in front of a legion and told to win this battle - I probably wouldn't! Experience in combat is vital and hard won. Some people have talent for battlefield command, others never will whatever education they had.
-
Praetorians were an elite unit. But they knew it too, and exploited their privileges like any good roman.
If Romans thought it was so admirable to exploit one's priviliges, why were there so many courts set up to prosecute those who did exploit their privileges? Why were men like Cincinnatus celebrated?
Let's remember--for the Romans of the Old Republic, "rex" was an insult.
Roman ambivalence rears its head a lot doesn't it? There were all those laws and taboos but still many romans ignored them. However, as you quite rightly point out, many romans wanted to be good citizens. Some even commited scuicide because of an accusation, never mind a prosecution. The shame was too much to bear. others of course, squirmed and weasled their way out of problems while some stood firm and faced their accusers with honour.
-
In the case of animals, it still wasn't the blood that mattered. What did matter was that the public saw these animals in the way they expected. Elephants showing feats of strength, ferocious bears, lethal big cats etc. As for the poor sap that got torn limb from limb, well, he was condemned after all, right? With beast hunters, it was the same as gladiators in that a good fight was paramount.
Don't forget that meat was handed out to the poor during games - it came from butchered animals that lost their lives in the arena. Also the roman equivalent of hot dog stands were common, so the poor might have had a mainly bread diet but meat was there to be had.
-
I have and I am still of the school of thought that it was an evolution more than a complete fall.
AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied.
No one is arguing that Rome, the state and government itself did not fall, I am arguing that Roman civilization, and culture and society did not fall, it evolved.
The two are different.
I would argue that 'evolve' suggests it improved. It didn't. I would say.... decayed.
-
It seems the Roamn warrior had a physical advantage not theorized. Perhaps, just perhap they were so much stronger and quicker than other caucasians was their real strength. They were always outnumbered and their equipment was not superior(their bows especially) and the gladius being so short...this would require superior athletic skills to be sure. Their generals were not so brilliant compared to a Patton for example. It seems in hand to hand they were too effective regardless of training. In the ancient world all were trained to fight hand to hand at a very early age, so I feel Roman tactics were not the the answer. Looking at all their battles I have to conclude there was a physical advantage.... When they met superior archers or cavalry the Romans had much difficulty and perhaps their only real difficulty. Why? This nullified physical superiority. The Romans were not the tallest to be sure(5 ft 10 inch height rquirement) but either were neantherdals and modern humans wouldn`t last a minute against them without a weapon. I am just proposing a theory. Tear it apart if you will and I know the temptation will be great because it takes the Romance out of the legion.
Romans did not have a physical advantage. Far from it, their celtic adversaries were bigger. The Romans had training, discipline, and tactical advantages which compensated. When well led, they were highly capable.
Most Roman soldiers came from poor families. They would have enlisted having been used to some physical labour, and apart from useful artisan skills, this fitness was something recruiters looked for. Training was done with heavier practice weapons to build muscles, and lets not forget, soldiers were employed as manual labourers wherever possible. I don't think the camps were holiday homes!
As a legionary, you would be expected to carry around 60lbs of gear for 20 or 25 miles, then build a camp to stay overnight (and you might be required to go on guard duty overnight too if you hadn't paid off the centurion). These route marches were common.
I see the average legionary as a very hardened and brutalised person. It was a tough regime that produced tough men.
-
I would have thought cavalry was at a premium back then, so I doubt that generals on either side would be too willing to charge them headlong into the enemy. Both would have used them in scouting and forcing enemy formations to halt or break up. There's no reason to believe that celtic/germanic cavalry would be any more or less effective than anyone else.... except..... horses were smaller then. More manoeverable? Less momentum in the charge? Slower?
-
No, this couldn't have happened, at least not often. As soem one stated earlier, such a thing would not have been tolorated by the Roman Centurions and comanding officers. It quite simply wasn't going to happen anyways, why would any self respecting soldier choose rather to rape a hardened bloody sweaty disgusting warrior, and not the lovely young virgins of the town. Rape was part of sacking a city, not part of disgracing an enimies manlyhood.
By and large I agree. However its possible a more handsome enemy might have been dragged to a certain officers tent once in a while. Humans haven't changed much in 2000 years.
-
The vastness of Roman Empire caused the military forces of the romans to be spread out, in which the romans had trouble concentrating forces on hannibal, while others (Gaul, Celts, etc.) attacked the borders. Also, althought the Romans were the best trained, best equipped, Hannibal was an expert tactitan and came over the alps, catching the Romans off guard. Though in the end, the Romans destroyed his army and eventually him.
I think its often forgotten that they didn't have modern communications back then, and that an armies mobility was limited by terrain, forage, and local intervention. In order to fight your enemy, you had to find him. During the Punic wars romes borders were much smaller, their forces more centralised than the frontier lines of the imperial times.
Don't forget also that Rome's generals were amateurs. They were often political appointees who knew as much about warfare as I do about quantum mechanics. Time and again the first battles of a campaign were disasters. Only Rome's larger enlistement pool gave it enough breathing space for the generals to learn from their mistakes.
Also, troops of both sides would much rather sit the winter out. Some armies would go home in autumn for this reason.
-
Praetorians were an elite unit. But they knew it too, and exploited their privileges like any good roman. Trouble was, they were very close to men in power and I suspect many of them were a bit envious, so unless they were treated well they tended to get miffed as we see from the record of assassinations. Not only that, ambitious schemers would have used individual praetorians as spies and hired killers for handouts of cash. After all, why take the risk yourself when your enemy is guarded by disgruntled armed men?
-
The Roman soldiers were very disciplined. Roman soldiers did receive hand to hand combat training, in case of the lose of weaponry during a battle. This training insured that the Roman soldiers were the best.
Disciplined? Oh yes. But that has a side effect of causing frustration. We're talking about men who are at some periods denied wives (or even sex), who are trained to be aggressive, and to kill when ordered. Get them drunk, they fight. All armies are like that right through to today.
-
Personally I think Rome lost its dynamic fervour, and this more than anything led to the western collapse. There was less and less reward for individual initiative and less willingness to 'do your bit for Rome'. As I read about the later empire I'm struck by how little they match up to their forebears. The Rome of 476AD comes across as a pale shadow of its former self. That to me indicates that the people with influence and power had less ability and less drive. Truth is, the older noble families had died out, most later nobles were descended from slaves, and foreigners had increasingly risen to high rank. There goes the neighbourhood. Rome, essentially, became a run down area.
-
I was wondering if anyone knew any particulars about the laws (if any) restricting the possession and carrying of arms and armor in the Empire. Was it illegal for a man to have his own gladius and armor and not be a soldier?
Arms and armour were excluded from the city of Rome by custom. Praetorian guards wore togas on duty at the senate and would have kept blades out of sight. Out in the countryside? Anyone spotted with this equipment would either have it requisitioned by the legions or find himself volunteered for service (or dealt with as a deserter or thief). There simply wouldn't have been any need to have this stuff. You could always join the army if you did.
-
Hello,
I am a new "recruit" to this website, having recently joined because of my great interest in Roman history, particularly in relation to the military.
My concise personal biography aside, I have always wondered: did the legionnaires of the Roman military receive any distinct unarmed combat training, or was practise in such fighting techniques limited to combative sports, similar to those at the gymnasiums or public bath houses? Personally, I believe that, as they were highly trained soldiers in a professional army that was needed by the Roman government to conquer and occupy the known Western world, the Roman legionnaires were undoubtedly highly capable in unarmed combat skills.
In order for you to fully understand the question, I think some things need to be clarified or defined, particularly the phrase "unarmed combat skills" - by this, I am not referring only to wrestling or boxing, but also disarm techniques or principles that could be used to effectively neutralize an armed enemy. Before, however, you assume perhaps that this applies only to the battlefield (on which an unarmed, isolated Roman soldier would be quickly slaughtered), consider the known historical fact that Rome had well-established secret service organizations (the Frumentarii, founded by Emperor Hadrian, for instance). Additionally, it is highly possible that the Roman military included units that specialized in guerilla warfare, as a means of disabling the enemy before engaging them with the legions.
Overall, I think it would be interesting to read both historical evidence of Roman "special forces" units and the unarmed combats training they received as well as some of your opinions about whether or not these contingents and these martial arts existed.
Sincerely,
Legionnaire
A small degree of unarmed combat training took place but this was more like rough-house brawling than Jackie Chan. The soldiers would have have gotten plenty of practice after drinking hours anyway! Training concentrated on weaponry for combat.
Special forces? Yes, on rare occaision. Small troupes of gladiators were used in this manner, and we know that roman soldiers went on raids and reconnaisance missions into germanian areas. But it wasn't exactly the SAS!
-
The final touches was Christianity, which really caused the tumultuous overthrow of the Roman idealogy.
I disagree. I think Christianity turned out to be valuable in the end.
Some people say that. Constantine blatantly used christianity as glue to prop up the empire after his civil war had wrecked it. Its also said that christianity 'softened' Rome because of its beliefs. I actually doubt that believing in Jesus changed the roman character alone. Rome was changing for a number of reasons, most of which are in the poll. Remember that our view of christianity is a little limp-wristed compared to earlier forms - it would have been even more true back then, particularly since the earliest bishops of Rome were clearly out to extract cash from their flocks.
-
Part of the problem in this matter is that gladiators were different in status and purpose from each other. There's a whole world of difference from a doomed prisoner-of-war pushed into the arena with soiled underpants as opposed to an experienced professional contract fighter. Yes, blood was involved. We all know that and that was part of the religious side of things. Romans wanted a good fight. They wanted to see skill & courage. But they usually dictated whether these men could live or die if defeated. It was a catharsis for the common people who were otherwise powerless; now they could condemn a man to death for cowardice, clumsiness, or simply because he had cost them too many denarii in bets. However, as someone said earlier, perhaps as little as 10% of one-on-one contestants died. Therefore blood was less important than enjoying a good fight (not to mention the cost of replacing a dead gladiator)
I think blood became more frequent as time wore on. As fights became mundane, something had to raise the excitement level. I seem to remember that Augustus banned fights without mercy, but didn't these come back later on?
-
One thing that strikes me constantly; wherever Caesar is now, if he could see the huge amount of controversy he's left behind that still exists over 2000 years after his death, i'm sure he'd be having a good laugh to himself
I think Juilus would be chuffed to bits to find himself remembered 2000 years on. Nero would shrug. Of course he's remembered. Caligula would sneer - He already knew he was better than anyone else!
-
However, Mackay claims populus doesn't really mean "people." In the oldest definitions, it meant "army." Or more specifically, the people assembled as the army, under the division of the various socio-economic classes that constituted the army in its political role - i.e., the Centuriate Assembly. The latin verb populari means "to plunder," and the noun derives from the verb.
Thus SPQR wouldn't mean "The Senate and the People of Rome" - it would really mean "The Senate and the Army of Rome" or perhaps more accurately "The Senate and the Centuriate Assembly of Rome."
Rome never had an organised army in its earliest days, and the landowners assembled for campaigning when required because they needed to protect their homes. Military experience was a defining qualification for Romans (possibly less in later years as most seemed to try and avoid by then) so you couldn't really hold your head up until you too had fought for Rome. I don't its necessary to define exactly what was meant by this phrase, the Romans wouldn't and never needed to.
-
For me the question goes right back to my childhood. Watching Kirk Douglas gnashing his teeth under the whip, or Peter Ustinov prancing around the palace, or Derek Jacobi taking several minutes to complete a single sentence. Deep down I was fascinated by these people - its that sense of purpose, of glory, of overwhelming power that no other culture ever really pulled off. Its that sheer optimism and confidence of a bunch of hill farmers taking on the world.
I think it also latches on to something deep within our human psyche. So many societies have tried to emulate the Romans ever since. We still do.
Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
Well, I freely admit the final days aren't my strong point, but I have seen records of some very undesirable behaviour of germans. They weren't 'roman'. Some clearly couldn't care less, although I would expect many did want to be. Standards of behaviour simply weren't up to roman standards. But I accept your correction about the numbers of italics with good grace sir.