caldrail
-
Posts
6,248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
146
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by caldrail
-
-
Reading up on this I find that the Durotriges, the british tribe in the west of england, were trading throughthe port of Hengistbury Head with Gaul, and doing well out of it until the middle of the first century BC. They were also rabidly anti-roman.
After this period roman traders had basically taken the rug from under them and the Durotriges's prosperity failed.
-
The north african climate was definitely wetter than today, and considering that the area was the most urbanised part of the empire it must have had a viable agriculture to support the population. Over-grazing since then hasn't helped, and the point raised about deforesation may be relevant.
-
The point that I was trying to get at, is that the Romans trained with heavier equipment so that when it came to actual use, it would be easier for them to use the equipment.
This was pretty much a standard training method of roman combat, both military and gladiatorial. The purpose of course is to build strength, a useful commodity in violence. I remember one time I was on the shooting range, firing .303 enfields. The recoil was evident and although I was hitting the target, I was not getting a close group (and therefore, not a markman award). For the last time I decided to fire a .22 rifle. Now that was pretty puny compared to the military calibre I'd been using, but it felt like I could literally reach out and place bullets on the bull-eye. Sadly I still didn't get a markmanship award because one bullet went straight through the hole made by a previous shot! The point of course is underline the use of heavier weapons for practice. It does work.
-
Modern re-enactment is a useful resource but the technique of throwing a pilum a la legion isn't known - its being simulated as best as they can. The romans of course trained their men with experienced soldiers, many of whom may have seen combat for real. The important point to remember is that the pilum isn't being thrown for distance like a javelin. The impression I get is that a 'flat' throw intended for accuracy doesn't achieve the desired result. There must have been an element of arc in the trajectory, which I doubt was of a steep angle like modern athletics.
The short range ascribed by re-enactors is based on their experience and I accept their findings.
-
First impressions count don't they? In any case, roman opinions are notoriously biased. To be regarded as an accurate description it would need to put in context.
-
Also many people involved in such deals already knew the result beforehand, they'd done this calculation previously. It wouldn't suprise me if some hadn't learned whole series of figures much like we used to with the 'times table'.
-
Nonetheless those legions were posted to britain. Therefore the romans considered it worthwhile. Britain was part of the empire but it was potentially troublesome, plus the picts and possibly the irish were sources of conflict that needed warding off.
But the issue is whether the Picts, Scottis, et alia, would have been so troublesome had the Romans not invaded in the first place.
The picts and irish weren't any reason to invade at all, and I doubt the romans were aware of their presence until they started moving northwards. Caesar after all was only concerned with cementing relations inside britain, the southern half particularly, besides the glory of being there first. A total conquest as such wasn't the point. How long was he there? Two weeks? Caesar had invaded gaul and it was known the inhabitants had strong links across the channel - he mentions this if I remember right. By dividing the britons Caesar made it easier to hold gaul, who had taken quite a pasting from him.
Claudius invaded because it was seen by him as an easy victory to be had for military credibility. Caesar had already softened the place up as well as the various traders and agents at work there, so a disunited population wasn't going to present too difficult a challenge. Claudius after all could not risk a failure in foreign ventures without a possible death sentence at the hand of his detractors. Lets not forget the resources available in britain such as tin, lead, iron etc.
-
Actually I don't see this as entirely propaganda. Some of it would have been naturally given roman ambition, but the poor? No, they weren't thinking in terms of thousands of years but the next generation or two. They wanted to remember their loved ones.
As for the politically motivated roman, its a different matter. They had a vested interest in marketing themselves.
-
It does seem a bit odd. I know he marched against parthia (never got there though - pays to be careful when you stop by the roadside to relieve yourself) but despite his sympathy for military life I haven't read of any campaigning in judaea at all. Is it possible that this is a distorted record of another episode like the one in alexandria?
-
I accept your point with good grace
-
Nonetheless those legions were posted to britain. Therefore the romans considered it worthwhile. Britain was part of the empire but it was potentially troublesome, plus the picts and possibly the irish were sources of conflict that needed warding off.
-
Well the texts speaking of shields and spears exploding might be literary exaggeration but it's mentioned by the texts so we can't discount it. Also we must remember that hoplite battle was really a large rugby charge where two lines of men in armor with a large round and bombed shield ran into each other, weapons and shields hitting weapons and shields. I would not be that surprised to discover that many shields and spears did indeed shatter.
Shields and spears do break - as I've already mentioned. But they don't explode. Hoplite combat isn't a rugby charge. You try running with those long pikes! It was a steady advance at walking pace, relying on the mass of men to push the enemy back (or harm him if he didn't). Lets be honest, if a forest of sharp objects advances on you its difficult to stop it.
About a rout indeed an army commander may choose not to pursue it's enemy, and this would lower the casualties but even so the moment when the enemy decides to flee is a time when he shall suffer the most losses by presenting his back to the swords and spears.The reasons a commander may not wish his unit to pursue is that he no longer remains in control of his men and it renders them vulnerable to cavalry action. Roman legions were primarily heavy infantry, not skirmishers. They were best employed in ordered ranks maintaining supportive close order.
-
Caught a History Channel documentary about Carthage last night. It claimed that a Carthaginian ship was found a while back with a great amount of cannabis in it. This was alleged to have been used to calm the rowers. Same for the Roman Navy and other ancient navies?
It doesn't mean they smoked it. A cargo destined for medecinal use? How do they know it was used to calm the sailors? Seems a bit strange, because rowers and lookouts aren't going to give their best if they're feeling overly relaxed! There's no supportive evidence as far as I'm aware for drug use aboard roman vessels.
-
Science itself comes from the OT, with the first recording of evolution in Genesis 1/1. The first scientific equation is:
'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'.
Modern history and thought began that way, with Europe being the world's great educaters and spreaders of knowledge.
You are seriously losing credibility
-
Shields and spears exploding? Not from an infantry engagement - there isn't enough energy and momentum involved. I wonder if thats more to do with sub-standard equipment. After all, not all wooden shafts are perfect.
A rout does not necessarily involve heavy casualties, although I admit the possibility is strong. A tired unit of roman soldiers might not be willing to chase, its commander might not be willing to allow it, and the enemy might simply run faster. Thats why cavalry are employed in this role.
-
As I said before, the pilum is a disarming weapon. It removes shields and men from an enemy formation. It doesn't need to kill them. After all, you're not going to charge a cohort of roman soldiers with a darn great stick hanging out of your leg. As for the morale, its as well to bear in mind that barbarian cultures often revolve around fighting and personal honour as a way of life. For that reason, they aren't easily routed, at least to start with. Fighting was very much in your face back then and this was accepted by both sides. Actually I do agree that casualties from pila are likely to be low, but 3% seems a bit too low to me. I wonder how the learned gentleman arrived at those figures.
Look at it this way. Imagine you're about to charge to romans. You're ready, keyed up, and spoiling to shed some of their blood. Despite your taunts and yelling they remain steadfastly quiet. Their front ranks step forward and throw a forest of spears at you. You might avoid one or two, but these fast moving objects are coming in at a volley. There are warriors either side of you trying to avoid them also. You probably can't step back either. Leg and foot injuries are possibly frequent. One chap beside you has his forearm pinned to the shield, another falls stunned because the shield knocked back against his head.
I think that barbarian warriors are likely to have a looser formation than the roman heavy infantry but that depends on whether they have shields. One benefit of shield carrying isn't just personal defence, it allows you to front a shield wall. Its an important advantage, because as modern research shows a shield wall is a suprisingly formidable barrier. That after all is another reason for that large curved roman shield.
Many barbarian cultures, gaulish and germanic, did not usually carry shields. They might throw stones at the romans before an attack. Don't laugh, stones hurt. Soldiers were killed in the trenches in Crimea from people lobbing stones into the opposing trench. Caesar records that his aedui allies were sent into quick retreat by stone-throwing german horsemen. In fact, the romans were well defended against stones. The same cannot be said about most barbarian warriors facing pila volleys.
I think 3% is too low. Anything up to 10% on the first volley depending on how many pila get thrown in the first place. That said, if the number of pila are restricted then obviously we see less casualties.
I would like to add the case of Caesar vs Pompeys men. I forget the battle, but from what I read there was one case where his unit refused to advance. He exorted and cajoled them, calling his men cowards and poofs, but they remained in place. He then dismounted, grabbed a shield from one legionary, and marched on his tod toward the enemy. They of course could not believe their luck. The call to ready their pila came and they threw the volley. Caesar took some on his shield, which he must have dropped there and then because of the weight of roman pila stuck in it. He managed to step over the rest that came close, and then caesar beckoned on his men. Having witnessed their commanders survival, they were once more invigorated to fight.
A charming tale (I don't know how true that was) but it strikes me that the pila volley was inaccurate. Despite all the training it was at the end of the day a mass effect weapon much like muskets of later era's. Of the hundred or whatever pila thrown at caesar, not one injures him. Of course, he was alone, he had freedom of movement, he was armoured and had a large roman shield. Barbarian warriors en masse did not.
PS - Hamstringing an enemy in rout is all but impossible. Injuries to the head, shoulders, and back are more likely. Please inform your dungeonmaster
-
Regarding the kushan coinage, would it be more likely to assume that because greek ships were regularly trading in the area from the 2nd century ad onward that bilingual coinage had practicakl value rather than any indication of greek-speaking people in a part of the world only reached previously by alexanders army, most of whom were homesick and wanted an end to the great mans campaigning?
-
I'm sure that they believed in the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". One example of this would be Roman warships. They were not changed significantly throughout the entire period, seeing as they worked pretty well to begin with.
Yet the old triremes and quadremes ete etc of the punic wars had largely vanished in later roman times. There wasn't any need for such dreadnoughts in the roman 'lake', nor were any enemies found beyond the pillars of hercules that required the use of such vessels, if indeed they were seaworthy out on the temptestuous atlantic! Roman warships of the mid to late imperial period are very modest ships much closer in concept to viking longships, since they needed ships more amenable to sailing up rivers along the coast. Remains of them have been found in various places.
Roman arms and armour on the other hand did change frequently, considering that the Romans came across numerous enemies with different weaponry and fighting styles. Many of the old style arms and armour were made obsolete against these new opponents, thus military hardware need to be updated.The changes in roman armour are usually of style rather than function. Helmets in particular went from a basic pot helm to the familiar legionary type, but even that had a great deal of variety. Later of course a more barbarian style helmet, a 'dark age' style (gothic? sarmatian? Persian?) was becoming prevalent.
This field is probably best reserved for cognitive archaeologists. I'm sure they would come to the conclusion that Hero's steam machines would have been seen in a different light by the ancients. While modern man would try to fit wheels on to his machinery and call it a 'steam engine', I'm sure the Romans and Greeks would have thought of it as nothing more than a amusement. Afterall, many of Hero's other inventions served no practical purpose, such as his 'singing bronze birds' and his 'mechanical amusement show'.I agree, the amusement value was why hero made a living. He wasn't daft! I wonder if he himself saw any practical value to these contrivances or did he make them purely to entertain the wealthy clients? Since the use of 'talking tools' was so endemic to the graeco-roman world did people at that time really consider that machines could perform useful work? usually not apparently, although I do note the existence of a water driven stone cutter found at one quarry site. A few individuals were a little more enlightened obviously, especially if it was profitable.
-
The romans at Cannae weren't routed, they were surrounded and hopelessly disorganised. Not that it mattered. They were completely surrounded and couldn't run anywhere.
Remember that for roman soldiers to chase in a rout situation they must leave their shields behind - they have to run faster than the retreating enemy or they get away. In fact, I doubt roman infantry did much pursuing. It effectively meant relinquishing control of that unit as they rush forwards. This was why in sieges the romans were so murderous. Once sent into the breach there was no way to restrain their activities. The commander could only wait for the men to wander back to camp laden with booty and bloodstains. In a battle, this behaviour is not desirable at all, certainly not to the highly organised roman mindset. One of the primary uses of cavalry in this period, as in many others, was pursuing the enemy. It wasn't just about causing casualties, it was about persuading them not to rally anf come back!
Pliny informs us the republican gladii were strictly used in a stabbing fashion. Livy says that imperial sword play involved as much swinging as anything else. I find that interesting because it means the style of swordfighting was evolving, the men less conformal to the old manner of sturdy shield protected ranks stabbing their enemy down. Now it was a matter of hacking away in a more florid style. The sword shape confirms this, as the wicked long point of older designs was being replaced by shorter straight sided blades.
-
These inventions, assuming they're not exaggeratted, are amazing but the average greek never saw any practical use for them.
But the average person isn't an engineer, and even brilliant engineers often fail to foresee the potential of their products. For example, when Wosniak released the Apple I, his mother asked him how an ordinary person could possibly use this "personal computer". What was the killer app he foresaw? "Organizing recipes"!
It strikes me that fundamental advances in science and engineering are best disseminated, applied, and sustained by well-financed, visionary entrepreneurs, ones who dedicate themselves full-time to finding a way to profit from these arcane advances. Obviously, this isn't the only route--the military serves a similar function--and one can look to Archimedes as the supreme example of this in the ancient world.
Vision is important but so are other things too. Have you ever heard of Henson and Stringfellow? Back in 1850 Henson wanted to build a steam powered airliner. He was a visionary, full of grand schemes and keen as mustard. He roped in Stringfellow, a sensible fellow engineer who was actually very gifted and improved Hensons designs. The pair even formed the 'Aerial Steam Transit Co' that got a bill passed in Parliament. They proceeded with scale models which failed to impress the audience, and Henson became dispirited, emigrating to america in ruins. Stringfellow carried on working quietly on aeroplanes to the end of his days, achieving nothing more. Together these two men had something going for themselves. Individually they couldn't make the project work.
The mindset of the ancient world was far less keen on technology and science than the victorians. There were concerns that such infernal machinery might upset the gods. Wealthy men usually refused to invest in such things because they had slaves. In roman eyes, having a number of slaves was a real demonstration of your wealth. A machine wasn't - far from it - it was a way of seriously damaging your credibility, especially if the darn thing broke or didn't work as expected. Wealthy men invested in human beings at that time, not machinery.
-
Again i totally agree with what you are saying, but the question still remains 'which do you think would have been responsible for the most casualties, The pilum or the gladius?'
You've given an excellent argument for the effectiveness of the pilum and i totally agree with you but you haven't actually committed yourself to an answer.
I have committed myself. What I said was that the pilum causes a large blip of casualties once during the set-too, possibbly once or twice more with lesser effect. The gladius causes a slower number of casualties after the two sides meet with an initial hump in the graph, and continuing at a slightly diminishing rate thereafter until one side or the other breaks. So, the gladius wins handsomely provided the fight goes on for a while. If the fight is a short one, then the pilum has done the bloodiest work.
-
I do have a fondness for those larger-than-life early emperors! Does that make the empire better? No, it doesn't. The republic should have been better. had it not failed to contain the worst excesses of roman ambition and greed.
-
As I've mentioned before, the US constitution was put together by men trained in classical studies, and they took what they considered the best features of the graeco-roman world and built their society on its foundation. The actual day to day influence of rome is marginal, but people being people, we tend to think along similar lines and there are many aspects of our culture that is fundamentally similar to theirs anyway. Architecture? Well we use different materials and styles now but then psychology dictates that certain shapes and styles of buildings still evoke the same responses in us. Law? Again, the US has its system based on roman principles. Its interesting that the romans were equally ligitinous if not more. Army? No. Thats a modern development. Although the organisation and methodology seems similar the old roman ways died out, replaced by more recent experience. Art? Culture? Yes of course there are similarities. People enjoy the same things they always have.
I really don't think the influence of rome is as strong as many believe, but it has inspired us from time to time, and certainly some cultures have tried to emulate their success at the behest of the odd dictator or two. The foundation is there. We sometimes emulate their past. Usually we go our own sweet way and ignore the lessons they left us. Which is why it all seems so familiar - we're making all the same mistakes again!
-
It depends on the situation. Imagine you're viewing the battle. The barabarians approach and ready themselves to charge. You can see the extroverts already hurling insults. They begin to run forward, not as a disciplined single rush, but with a few wilder individuals taking the lead and the less brave following behind. The romans call for pila salvo's. The spears arc gently and fall onto the enemy. Those that have shields raise them. The charge almost peters out because they're concerned about pila dropping on them. Many take the pila on their shields. Some are still injured nonetheless. The weight of a descending pilum knocks the shield back. Some shields are penetrated and still manage to injure the holder. Those shields are now useless, encumbered by a roman spear they can't easily remove and which is already useless for combat now the shank has bent under gravity. At any rate, not all had shields and many of those went down with spears in them. The barbarian yell loudly having survived and resume the charge. The romans ready themselves with swords. Barbarians pile in hard swinging their longer swords hoping for shock value - the roman legion fends them off with shields, stabbing into their faces, legs, and stomach as trained. At first, men go down quickly. Both sides fight energetically. Now that the charge is over and melee is under way, the barbarians tend to fall back to allow their swords free reign, sometimes withdrawing and rushing back in when they see a gap. The romans instead try to remain formed, supporting each other with a wall of shields. Those barbarians are tiring first because they're working harder and some have already withdrawn to the back. The romans cannot easily rotate and must continue to face their enemy. They too are tiring although they swing swords a lot less. The more aggressive are pushing and striking with their shields leaving a stunned barbarian open to stabbing.
So - and assuming I'm actually correct about this - there's an initial number of casualties due to the pilum which depends on the enemies protection, distance, and movement. After that, the gladius takes over and the bodies pile up at a slower rate, getting slower still after the initial energy and adrenalin of combat. Should the enemy break and turn to run, there while be a few moments were barbarians are struggling to get away through the throng of confused men and slipping on bodies lying beneath them - a moment where roman troops might cut a few down from behind in the panic, and there's a sudden blip in the casualty rate before the barbarians withdraw completely. If the rear ranks still have pila to hand now is the time, because the barbarians have almost no defence. The roman soldiers do not pursue - they're weighed down with shields and armour, and besides, there are auxillary cavalrymen lurking in the area for that task!
Elephants
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted
Its very much a case of swings and roundabouts concerning elephants. They're easily panicked, eat humungous amounts of forage, and aren't really suited to warfare. However, they happen to be large obedient animals that make short work of any human being who gets nasty with it. In a sense, the elephant serves the same role as a tank.
For all their faults, elephants were repeatedly used by ancient armies and therefore were considered to have military value. If they were useless, no-one would have bothered. Besides, they make labouring at the camp something of a breeze.