caldrail

Given the multiple military disaster that ensued after the defeat of Decius in 251, we may presume that by then the legions had lost their legendary efficiency. This must remain no more than a presumption, however, since we have no evidence of the magnitude of the threat, which may well have been far greater than that to which second-century legions and their predecessors had been exposed. As we have seen, the qualitative change in the threat had certainly been most adverse... ...More than a century after Diocletian, 188 "legions" of all types are listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, but this bureaucratic survival is deceptive. The large combat units of the Principate had ceased to exist. The "legions" of the late empire consisted of perhaps 1000 men in the mobile field armies, and 3000 or so in the territorial legions, perhaps fewer. Moreover, their men were not the select and highly trained heavy infantry that the original legionnaires had been, and they did not have the equipment, training, or discipline to function as combat engineers - by far the most succesful role of the legions of the Principate. Nor was artillery any longer organic. In other words, these were not legions. Instead, the units were essentially light infantry formations, equipped as the auxillia had been, with spears, bows, slings, darts, and above all, the spatha, the barbarian longsword suited for undisciplined open-order fighting. Clearly, such forces were not the superior troops that the legionary forces of the Principate had been. This decline did not occur suddenly during the fourth century, though most of our evidence dates from that time. The legions that survived the deluge of the third century must have done so in form rather than content. Depleted through the succesive withdrawal of vexillationes that never returned to their parent units, weakened by breakdowns in supply and command, repeatedly over-run along with adjacent tracts of the limes (and sometimes destroyed in the process), the legions must have been drastically diminished and greatly weakened by the time of Diocletian. Aditionally, many of the auxillary units, both alae and cohortes, either disappeared or survived only as limitani, that is, purely territorial forces incapable of mobile field operations The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire - Edward Luttwak The Roman legions are often thought of as a relentless military machine, composed of ruthlessly disciplined and organised troops. In their day, it certainly would have seemed that way to their enemies, and I've no doubt the Romans were happy to let their soldiers be thought of in that way. Also, its partly a modern perspective, looking back at past glories with admiration for their achievements. The truth is that the enemies of Rome kept on coming. The legions, for all their effectiveness in their heyday, remained dependent on their infrastructure to retain their efficient occupation. It was precisely for that reason, aside from keeping idle soldiers busy, that the Roman legions were tasked with civil engineering. They were literally creating a suitable enviroment to wage war where-ever they went, from formal marching camps built at the end of a days march to the roads and facilities that were part of Roman military organisation. During the late empire the evaporation of this ability coincided with the general decline. The oriental influence in cavalry tactics was also making itself felt with the arrival of cataphracts and clibanarii, although the roman horses were not well suited to their extra load and their heavy cavalry were not well-disposed to charging for fear of wearing out their mounts. What must be stressed is that these heavy cavalry formations were never as numerous as the standard light horsemen the Romans had always employed. Nonetheless, cavalry was playing an ever more important role in warfare. A medieval source credits the military reforms of Gallienus (253-268) for the creation of cavalry units - clearly not the case - yet these reforms, which remain somewhat obscure, do indicate a formal recognition of the importance of cavalry. Up until the these changes horsemen had been used primarily to support the infantry in battle, by scouting, harassing, and pursuing. From Gallienus onward a new emphasis on cavalry tactics was taking place. In short, the infantry were beginning to be seen as 'lower status' troops as opposed to the all-important heavy infantry of former times. The adoption of the spatha, the roman cavalry sword, underlines this change in emphasis. Sword lengths had shortened during the Principate, and along with a shorter point, indicated that the regimented stabbing swordplay of the republican armies had been replaced by a closer, demanding, more flexible style that ultimately had led to the common adoption of open-order fighting. Livy records that swords were swung about as much as thrusted, so by his time, these changes were already happening. The weakening of training, caused by centurional casualties as much as style, not to mention the influence of gladiatorial contests (which mirrored the shortening of sword lengths during the Principate), resulted in a situation where it became desirable to keep an enemy at a longer reach. Armour too had begun to change. Vegetius complains of the risks unprotected men had to take in battle. He overstates this, and archaeological evidence clearly shows the common use of chainmail. The famous banded cuirass, the lorica segmentatae, was falling into disuse. There is here a possible indicator of the state of teamwork within the legions. In their heyday, as these banded cuirasses were difficult, if not impossible, to don without the assistance of another soldier, the conterburnii system ensured such help was readily available. The foreign influence of barbarian recruitment in the late empire has often been quoted as another factor in legionary decline. In The Complete Roman Army Adrian Goldsworthy has pointed that foreign recruits were absorbed into roman military units much as they always had, so they hadn't influended the decline as much as is popularly stated. The existence of the Federatii, the allied formations which operated without roman conversion, are another matter. These men were not neccesarily loyal to Rome, but rather to its pay, and they had earned themselves a poor reputation having been billeted amongst the civilian population. What matter more is the decline in roman government. Increasingly unable to control provincial regions, increasingly unable to pay for defence, whole communities began opting out and organising their own defence which inevitably involved the use of foreign mercenaries. The successes of former times were largely due to the roman ability to organise, and as that withered, so did their military capability.

Those greeks are so clever. Why do they keep on inventing things?....

Greek and Armenian monks in Jerusalem have always argued over petty issues. Such is the religious significance of the site. A monk need only stand in the wrong place to incite a confrontation. the only difference this time is that it came to blows. The sight of monks and priests lashing out at one another in a holy riot isn't something we've seen since the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expected that. Christianity, in all its forms, likes the moral high ground. It presents a set of absolute rules and values to live by. The problem there of course is that human values are relative. Yesterday, human values got relatively violent. They forgot the Eleventh Commandment - "Thou Shalt Not Make Media Gaffs". Roll on the Male Voice Hail Mary Choir. Getting serious about cars For anyone who believes my taste in cars infers I've been spoon fed Top Gear for too long, I can assure you Jeremy Clarkson failed utterly to impress me last night with the latest Fiat 500 Abarth SS. I don't care if its got a 160 BHP turbo engine in a car the size of a shoe. I don't care if he reckons "Its a pretty serious racer". Shame it looks like a Fiat 500 then.

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but what is the evidence for a decline in quality? The older style legions were strained to breaking point by the civil wars that saw Constantine placed in power, and the military reforms of that time reduced the size of legions to around 1,000 men, one sixth of it former capacity. From this point forward (roughly speaking) armour was less standardised, the banded cuirass becoming rarer, longer swords were adopted as standard (indicating less inclination and skill in swordfighting), less emphasis on offensive or siege warfare, increased incidents of ill-disciplined attacks (raids on german villages for personal gain), and the ever increasing use of foreign tribal units used without conversion to the roman system, indicating recruitment issues and a failure to maintain organisation and standards, and lastly, the increasing (and probably necessary) defensive policy of communities looking to their own protection rather than relying on the state.

No, you can sleep safe at night, AW was british. Fairly typical of a working class moron I'm afraid. Incidentially, have you not heard of the british 'Baby Elephant' impression? Its a real wow at parties

This is a common factor in ancient warfare. Much is said about the ability of roman legions (mostly its a little exaggerated) but the same reliance on commanders is apparent even from the earliest days of the roman republic. This isn't anything peculiar to the romans, its just a facet of human social behaviour. Organising groups of men, inspiring them to fight, keeping hold of the reins, coping with enemy initiative and the chaos of war - all this requires some ability and individuals vary in capability. No army can be effective without able leadership no matter what training or discipline they suffer. One thing that comes across from studies of ancient warfare (and I'm thinking of Greek & Roman Warfare: Battles, Tactics, and Trickery by John Drogo Montagu - recommended) is just how vital original thinking, clear organisation, and clever subterfuge can be to secure victory. It might be worth mentioning the smaller size of late empire legions and that their quality had declined measurably by that period.

I remember seeing a mention of crossbow-armed troops in roman times, either the late empire or byzantine era's. Not a common weapon. Although its true the crossbow is a slow loading weapon, and therefore suffers in utility against the ordinary bow, the potential power of a bolt impact is not to be underestimated. That is after all why crossbows were adopted in preference to the bow anyway, except perhaps for a more natural aiming method.

Something unusual made the headlines in the local paper recently. It seems our new library has given state-of-the-art facilities. 'Green' toilets - as if that means anything to me. Now I don't usually spend much time in public toilets (although I understand that is one way to get your name in the news - thanks for the tip George) and I haven't seen these new facilities. However, just like the previous locations, the locals have been creative in using them and so the after a few weeks the toilets have been closed 'Due to misuse'. Given what I used to see in warehouses, I can just imagine. I am so tempted to recall the tale of AW and his 'flappy paddle appendage', but I suspect I've said enough. Let your imagination run riot. You're not wrong. Driver of the Week Goes to the gentleman who quietly and gently turned the wrong way down a one way high street in Swindon and seemed completely unpeturbed, albeit somewhat mystified, by the rows of traffic coming straight at him gesticulating angrily. I have a suspicion he's not from around here...

He makes a fundamental mistake in assuming the territory south of the wall was secure territory. It wasn't. Northern england was never fully romanised and remained turbulent politically. In effect, the Wall was a thin line of roman-controlled border operated in a very modern style. The forts to the south (and north of the wall for that matter) were frontier security posts with operational links to the border, not simply barracks. I should also add that the britons and scots had links across the border, and since the romans had decided that was where their empire would have a defined edge, it was necessary to hamper any possible uprisings by controlling the passage of goods and people across it. Further, the extent of fortifications was over the top - the original wall was scaled down during construction both for cost and practical reasons. The southern moat does not actually protect the wall itself. Its there to protect the road running alongside it, the idea being to give shelter and tactical advantage to troops attacked when they were marching along it. Were milecastles any use? Its a mistake to see them as siegeworks or defensive constructions primarily. They were fortified crossing points. Hadrian had insisted that one was built every mile, even they open onto a precipice as at least one does. Its usefulness depended on where it was. A busy crossing made it worthwhile. Unused out in the sticks? You decide. AC is our resident expert on the wall. He might be able to provide a more sophisticated answer.

Sometimes I watch tv. No really. I don't often indulge (other than Top Gear, BBC News, and the odd Star Trek episode - Boy do I live fast and dangerous) but last night, no-one could stop me. Anyhow, it was quite late when I pointed the remote at a black box and to my suprise, the normally innocuous channel was showing a sex program. Sex? On british tv? Thats a suprise.... The american program revolved around a holiday resort for sado-masochistic women. It was styled after a british stately home (Oh now come on...) and the holidaymakers must become servants for the duration of their visit, in which they perform domestic duties, step and fetch, get generally demeaned and gently whipped in a dungeon for failing to be sufficiently servile. Now let me get this straight. Women are paying tons of money to be treated worse for doing doing the same drudgery they moan about at home? Why? Does this mean they secretly enjoy this treatment? Is the reason for increasing divorce rates simply that british men are failing to take the hint? Is this where I've gone wrong over the years? Perhaps then a great new chat-up line to woo the ladies would be "Hi Babe. I got a whole load of broken crockery. You're very naughty and must be punished".... How could it possibly fail? The Mouse That Wrote A Cheque The title of this section refers to a british B&W film of the early 60's - The Mouse That Roared - about a quixotic little nation. It seems the Isle of Man - a small independent island with its own government off the coast of Britain now used as a tax haven for wealthy individuals - has hired NASA to build a space buggy to land on the moon and claim a

A life might be a better idea. Then they'd have something to do other than invent reasons to upset other people. problem is, the sewer rats in my area are too full of themselves to notice how lifeless they are. They give themselves value by sneering at other people. They think thats cool - I think they're sad, which they just cannot comprehend at all. A boot to their head might be more satisfying in the short term. Thanks for the suggestion - I'll certainly consider it

There's a degree of difference in what these establishments offer. Like any business premises, its going to vary in size and facility according to scale of operation. Campagnia as a whole was the region that italian gladiatorial combat comes from (Capua in particular as mentioned above). Realistically you'll get a few large schools whose owners have pretty much cornered the larger contracts and a number of peripheral, smaller ones. For instance... Caesars Ludus was a mini-arena, with a sunken oval area for the practice fighting and training. The barracks at Pompeii (I've not been there, so please correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be a quadrangle surrounded by cells and storerooms. I don't know if gladiators trained in the arenas themselves (much like modern sportsmen do) but I've seen no evidence of that.

So it was you then?

It makes no difference in reality. The car was well and truly killed off last year mechanically two months after I bought it. I've had long arguments with the police over it. Fact is - somebody wants me to get rid of it and wanted me to do so right from the start. Not until they own up to what they did.

This morning I was walking up a street around the corner from where I live. Strewn with yellow and brown leaves, damp after last nights rainfall. It was also covered with broken glass in one place beside a car. Yes, the mystery car thief has struck again. Its hard to understand what he gains from this. Its entirely opportunistic, his targets are at random, and judging by the stuff left lying around the car I passed today, he simply isn't interested in what he finds. So is after anything specific? Apparently not. I actually start to wonder if he's doing it just to be anti-social, though it has to be said he did search my car fairly thoroughly. After all the vandalism thats been going on, the garage across the yard have left their external lights on all weekend, leaving me to sleep through a dull orange glow from my bedroom window. It must be said, the volume of people hurling taunts and insults in the small hours has decrased noticeably - along with an increased police presence I'd suspect. If only that were all. The alleyway beside the block of houses where I live has become a favourite dumping ground for someone. Mattresses and binbags regularly appear, and of course, so do broken bottles. To quote Blondie, they 'like the sound of breaking glass'. Breakage of the Week We all do it. In a moment of detached clumsiness we all drop things. Only this time, I didn't just drop it. The plate slid out of my hands like it was propelled by strange forces, scattering piled crockery and utensils waiting to be dried on my kitchen top before sliding to the floor and disassembling itself into random molecules. Then the dislodged stuff followed, and despite my heroic efforts to catch things, most ended up following the plate like inanimate lemmings. I definitely heard the sound of breaking glass. Don't like it.

Ultimately, I would have to say Rome's success was built on their passion for organisation. They were so much more business-like about warfare than others it was a real advantage, whatever the quality of leaders and men.

Prisoners of war weren't usually trained as gladiators. Lets make a distinction here. A gladiator is a trained professional fighter (by AD60 anyway). After a conflict there would be a glut on the market of such men, so the markets weren't really all that interested in selling them. Therefore they were likely to be disposed of. Although some may have attracted the interest of a lanista, the sad truth is most POW's headed for the arena were cannon fodder in the spectaculars or beast hunts. Now to answer your question, in AD60 you might expect the majority to be britons, jews, mauretanians, ex-pirates (cilicians, africans etc) - all possible prisoners, not necessarily of war, but of any anti-social behaviour from roman perspective. Occaisionally roman citizens were so treated. There was an example during Tiberius's reign of a town refusing to allow a centurions burial until a gladiatorial fight had taken place, and the towns people were taken away by legionaries (fate not described). Since trained gladiators were from a relatively small number of slaves considered worthy, from people available on the market, from law-breakers consigned to the training schools, or volunteers, (although suetonius does mention twenty thousand men in the training schools in Caligula's time) there really isn't any need to worry unduly about percentages, and you might just as well assign a broad range of the origins listed above.

Rome did not always win. I recall a bunch of hairy gauls striding into the senate house in the 390's BC for example? Or Crassus discovering the hard way that the persians were not impressed with his wealth? Or Varus simply falling for a clever ruse? What we can say is Rome always survived. In part that was down to roman character as a society. Warlike certainly, but also stubborn and clearly a society that believed in itself and its aims. Also, the available recruitment pool was larger than many enemies (as Hannibal discovered) so the romans were able to absorb defeats more readily. Which brings up the point about leadership. Its true the romans had some good generals over the years. Young nobles were brought up with military experience as a priority, with a sense of professionalism we don't usually see in the ancient world, but the truth is that history focuses on the achievers, the more talented commanders, and the men who were lacklustre (and didn't cause a disaster) are very rarely mentioned at all since roman commentators were only interested in hero's and villains. Typical storytelling. Part of the problem is Rome's reputation as a military power. Its not that its totally exaggerated as such, but it has been turned into legend (and I suspect the romans were happy to let it be so, never mind modern perspective). Every so often on these forums I see people eulogising the legions as 'the best'. Well... at times they were, but the legions were not totally reliable nor unbeatable. I ran into the same problem at Hadrians Wall, were I heard someone commenting on the standard of roman soldiers (having watched a demo by re-enactors). I conversationally put him straight and got a slap in the face from a young man, clearly an off-duty member of HM armed forces, who saw the roman legions as a sort of parallel to his own service and thus transferred his pride readily. At their best, the romans were good. There's no getting away from it. They were well equipped, relentless, and disciplined in battle. At their worst, the romans were unreliable, undisciplined, totally unable to show initiative. So much depended on the quality of leadership.

Kubrick merely directed the film. The project belonged to Kirk Douglas and he based it on Howard Fast's novel, which presented Spartacus as the freedom fighter struggling to change the world for a better place. This was a modern perspective of course. The real Spartacus had much less generous aims than that. This new project? I can see it now. American style quips and gags, lots of fast paced fencing, a sassy love interest who turns out to be as good a fighter as Spartacus (quite by chance of course, but she's a film heroine) and plenty of happy-go-lucky male bonding. Ugh. Too indigestible. And I haven't even seen the trailer yet.

According to a recent survey by an employment website, only 14% of people ever end up in their dream job. What they haven't asked is how many of those 14% succeed at it. As a confirmed member of the politically stronger Failure Party (86% of the vote at the last count) I would like to point out getting your dream job is only half the battle, and that keeping it is sometimes a little tougher. There is of course the old wisdom that you should beware of what you wish for, and that the grass is always greener on the other side of the hill. Since I'm considered 'over the hill' by most employers, I have to say the grass isn't green at all. Do I sound aggrieved? Well, actually, I can't complain too much. I've done things many people dream about. All Change In The Tardis Yep, its that 'New Dr Who' moment. David Tennant has decided to move on to a higher plane of existence and so the media circus surrounding who plays Who is going to start again. Personally, I think I'm perfect for the job. After all, it beggars belief that Cardiff is the site of a strange rift in time and space when everyone knows the rift is located at Swindon. We get all sorts of aliens here.... Promise of the Week Our chancellor, less capable but less deceitful than his predecessor, has vowed to rebuild public finances. A labour politician who wants to reduce spending? Or is this another veiled warning of increased taxation? As if we don't more than ever before already, but then again, this is the party that told the public there's lots of ways of taxing people they haven't tried yet.

Galen was a capable physician, well pracvtised by virtue of dealing with gladiatorial injury. If he turned out to be an equivalent of a Harley St physician, it doesn't suprise me. Also, its a mistake to believe the common man had easy access to medical care - he didn't, it was (as often happened in the past) a matter of cash. The legions were different in that they had physicians amongst them for practical reasons, thus giving them access to 'free' health care. But then... they had to serve twenty odd years for it.

Yep, its AM. He's sat two cubicles away from me in the library as I write this and whinging away like nothing else. Mutter mutter.. groan... can't send my emails... stupid computer.... why won't this work.... oh no.... not again.... mutter mutter.... Funny thing is, some unemployed guy, older than me and obviously unacquainted with personal computing, was getting help making a job application via the internet. AM looked over his shoulder irritably A - because they were disturbing his whinging time and B - because the other guy was getting attention. Eventually the unemployed guy and the patuiently helpful library assistant went away. "Making noise like that, disturbing us when we're trying to do our emails", He hissed angrily, "No ettiquete at all". You have to laugh. Laugh of the Week Goes to Syria's response to american forces mounting a raid on their territory. "Terrorist agression" they denounce it as. Well, it seems to me that the american raid was targeted precisely to achieve a single objective, which they seem to have succeeded at. Terrorism is more indiscriminate and lets be honest, Syria has never shown any qualms about harbouring such people. I know some people are going to point at this action and denounce the US as throwing its weight around (like the critics always do), but since the US has suffered thousands of casualties trying to restore peace in Iraq (whatever the political motives) you can hardly blame them for attempting to cut off the enemies recruitment office. I think Syria needs to realise America was serious when it declared 'War On Terror'

Superb. I'm cancelling my subscription to Lego with immediate effect.

The four famous ones were the largest institutions, and Capua was known for them, though I suspect again there were only a few major ones there. Other people owned troupes of gladiators and had them housed/trained on their villa grounds rather than a dedicated ludum. There were of course plenty of itinerant troupes, usually of low quality and reputation, who had no premises at all.

Cheers peeps. Useful info.