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
-
-
I think its wrong to eliminate Julius Caesar from this poll. Ok, he wasn't an emperor. He was Dictator. For Life. Now that might not have lasted too long after he received this prestigous post but to all intents and purposes he had the same power. In any case, emperors got all sorts of titles from the senate or their own egos.
I would say.... Nero. His albums may have been crap but what a show he put on!
But I suppose Trajan has to smirk and walk away with the prize. Well done Sir. They may have laughed at you at first but who laughed last?
-
what kind of money did the romans use and what were the amounts per each set(i fyou get what i am thinking) and did the romans(all of the working class any way)get wages or any thing like that. I know the soldiers did and the higher ups also but what about the rest??
It wasn't quite like today. Romans only issued coins to facilitate tax and make political statements. Barter was as common as coinage. Soldiers would only be paid three times a year. Some employees would have received a sort of wage even if a slave, but cash was gained from providing a service or craft more often not. Scrounging too, lining up with the rest at your patrons house every morning to say hello. Perhaps you did well gambling last night? Did that stranger really believe the price you charged him? Or did that fool not check his purse until you'd gone?
-
Life got softer for them didn't it? You are correct about moral. The Foreign Legion is no easy option but its modern recruits are for the most part proud to be legionaires. So it was with the romans. When the regime was hard and glory to be won, romans would proud to call themselves legionaries. As life got easier, it got to be a chore and a bit of a drag.
By later times your thoughts might be for your family under threat from barbarians so far away from where you were stationed. The legion wasn't quite the psuedo-family it had been.
-
Impractical? No I don't think so, it was more likely that the gradual erosion of standards was beginning to show. If you're not trained to use pilum correctly, then its an odd spear with a bendy tip. Wouldn't it be easier to make and use a simple spear? It seems they thought so.
-
As far as I'm aware later western generals didn't refer to roman manuals when decided strategy. Most certainly had been educated with the classics - I don't think roman warfare was well understood until more sophisticated archaeology and historical interpretation in recent times.
-
Well well well what do I find?
Apparently in Hadrians time a legion train on the march included no less than 55 ballistae (spear throwers) pulled by mule teams, and 10 onagers pulled by oxen.
I must admit I'm suprised the romans marched with this outlay in animals and equipment, it must have slowed them down. ...
An indication of just how important the Romans thought of the effectiveness of ballistae to devote those resources to them. From JC's description of the reaction of the tribes to them in Britain to their depiction on Trajan's column they were as important on the battlefield as they were in sieges.
Quite posibly, but seeing as legions were expected to march 20-25 miles a day, build a fort at the destination, then stay up all night guarding it before doing it all again tomorrow, it seems remarkable that they'd slow themselves down with tons of siege weapons. I can well imagine how effective the ballistae must have been - I wouldn't care to have one pointed at me - but firing spears has limitations. For battlefield use, I would have thought a stone thrower was more effective against large bodies of men. Perhaps I'm wrong there, but I vaguely remember a quote from a roman officer complaining about the high wastage of ammunition for these things. Not only that, repositioning these weapons on the field of battle must have been impracticle in most cases, so good a site was absolutely vital. As far as impact/impale damage is concerned then I agree they might have been very effective. From a usage point of view these things must have been difficult to operate effectively unless the romans had a defensive or siege style battle.
-
Roman battle tactics were deceptively simple, but pretty effective on the field. It was Marius, I think, who noticed that the enemy were using their own pila against them by removing them from their shields and throwing them back.
An improved design helped in this regard by making a weak point where the shaft met the metal, thereby making it impossible for the enemy to remove the spears from their shields. In fact, the tactic proved so effective that, frustrated at not being able to remove the spear, many of the enemy would throw away their shields and the soldiers would then move in and make short work with their gladii
The purpose of the pila was to basically disrupt the enemy and allow the soldiers to move in under their cover.
Yet the pilum was gradually abandoned from the 3rd century. Outlived its usefulness?
-
Possibly, but the average games player wants action right there and then (they have short attention spans you see) rather than slog away for most of the day like the real thing. Computer games generally don't work too well when they get realistic - they need a 'game' factor thrown in and lets face it - most game developers really don't want to spend years researching their subject either.
-
He accelerated a process of decline rather than caused it in my view.
-
You need to assemble the evidence like a sort of text jigsaw, with the caveat that things change over the centuries. A phrase from one source might not mean very much until you compare it to a similar phrase elsewhere that fills in the blanks.
-
On the contrary. Swords and shields are not lightweight items, and I would estimate you'd be completely knackered after twenty minutes of combat. Yet we know battles slogged on for hours, so the men must have rotated amongst themselves. Caesar wouldn't have bothered himself with that - he was more concerned with inserting a fresh unit as you say.
-
Well well well what do I find?
Apparently in Hadrians time a legion train on the march included no less than 55 ballistae (spear throwers) pulled by mule teams, and 10 onagers pulled by oxen.
I must admit I'm suprised the romans marched with this outlay in animals and equipment, it must have slowed them down. All I think of is that they did this with specific targets in mind - a legion wouldn't normally drag this stuff around with them surely?
Also available on site were 'Tollenons', big levers that hauled basket loads of roman soldiers onto the ramparts.
-
Didn't the americans fight each other in their civil war?
Actually, organisation during the ACW was horrendous. They almost started from scratch and it drove at least one general absolutely stark raving nuts.
British organisation has never been wonderful until recent decades (some argue it still isn't but thats sour grapes) and you only need to read about the American War of Independence to see that.
Napoleon didn't do badly for his time but not perfect.
It just seems to me that the romans simply did what they did best - organise. Their military organisation did not survive. Did the Byzantines continue with or did they adopt different formations and tactics?
-
We use numbers to identify years. This year is 2006. We can do this because we know exactly which datum we need, in our case the birth of Jesus. Romans didn't. Not all romans were christian even in later times, not all had decent education, and it was easier to recall the year in which so-and so were consuls.
I remember the year when Maggie Thatcher was prime minister - get the idea?
-
A tired or injured man would naturally want to fall back, and given the 'block' formations of ancient troops the guys next to him or behind him would quickly plug the gap - remember that to pursue the injured man the enemy would have to enter the roman formation. Not healthy. Although the actual line of fight is going to wander most combatants would prefer to stay somewhere near their mates.
There are exceptions of course. Spartacus in his final battle bravely attempts to fight his way toward Crassus according to source. Brave attempt, but doomed because he was overwhelmed by roman troops.
-
Or Adrian Goldsworthy
-
Strictly speaking it doesn't because armies no longer fight in anything like the same manner. Some might say that roman organisation and training has descended to modern armies. It hasn't, because the roman model vanished with the romans. Organisation of armed forces has generally been abysmal ever since with some possible short-lived exceptions. Modern armies rediscovered organisation themselves during two world wars which forced a lot of nations to become far more professional about warfare. Warfare continues to evolve with increasing use of technology to protect and communicate, never mind blow your enemy to smithereens before you've even got to the battlefield. Roman influence on warfare is very limited, although it has to be said the Battle of Cannae in 216bc remains the most studied set-piece confrontation in military classrooms around the world. Erm... Thought the romans lost that one?
-
The Tetrarchy stood not a cats chance in hell of surviving. It only worked because Diocletian made it work, which says a great deal about his personality and ability. As soon as he retired, it all fell apart in the usual undignified roman power struggle.
-
I've come across things like this. Germanians bred their own horses which Caesar reports were smaller than most, ugly, but utterly unstoppable and very obedient. It appears some tribes used them to good effect by carrying an infantryman to battle with the rider. Two units travelling together for the price of one horse. Gauls on the other hand were apparently horse fanciers who bought the best mounts money could buy, and it might be said they were unwilling to risk them. The poorer tribes, with less to lose, would have ridden in a more aggressive fashion.
-
Rome was not... well lets just say I know alot about rome but I still don't know how the heck did rome become the greatest empire (opinion) known to man. and also where did the soldiers come from anyway please answer these questionsPlease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How did Rome do it? Well you have to realise they very nearly didn't, more than once. What they did was respond to every threat with everything they could manage, learning from their mistakes, learning from their competitors, organising their efforts, exporting their culture as a package - take it or leave it - your choice. Romans responded aggressively by manipulating other states politically for their own ends and absorbing them for personal gain as well as imperialism.
-
The so-called 'european state' is an artificial construction that has nothing in common with ancient Rome. Its merely an excuse for modern politicans to go empire building. They can't get away with it up front so they're building it behind the scenes. Unlike SPQR however, 'Europe' has nothing new or special to offer its inhabitants except rules, red tape, fraud, and an easy life for anyone able to get on the gravy train.
Its got all the worse elements of ancient rome without any saving grace.
Rome evaporated by 476AD but because it was such a strong idea it lived on in peoples culture and psyche. The Byzantines carried the flag but they were less roman than greek. As for the Holy Roman Empire I don't think it had any credibility as a successor other than name only. Even the United States has a stronger claim since it was based on roman ideals.
-
After Augustus they became actually loyal to themselves.
I don't think it's as cut and dried as that or we would have seen a Praetorian become Emperor. Why seek out Claudius after Caligulas death and proclaim him Emperor ?
In the case of the year of four Emperors the Praetorians fought, and died for Otho despite not receiving a donative.
I think their loyalty to the Caesars, at least the Julio Claudians was down to more than money, I think the early Praetorians get a bad wrap sometimes.
No I doubt it. An officer perhaps - Didn't Sejanus try something like that? Macro was gotten rid of because had he too much power. An ordinary praetorian wouldn't. They knew how risky it was and I doubt they trusted their mates to stay the sword if they did the wrong thing! In any case, it wasn't a matter of simply announcing you're in charge. Didius Julianus paid for that mistake twice. A great many later emperors too were keen to assume power but didn't last. As for seeking out Claudius, they needed a puppet. Not someone to pull the strings of, but someone to ensure they weren't sent off back the german front or worse. Otho obviously had something going for him then if he got the loyalty of the praetorians.
A bad wrap? Yes I agree, but they sullied their own name with greed.
-
Political instability was inevitable after Augustus. Had his descendants survived and a 'royal' dynasty achieved acceptability with the senate and plebs, then Rome would have likely have avoided the mess that came later. Given the roman character and the competitive side of roman culture, it still might have collapsed in anarchy had that dynasty become weak at any stage.
-
Did Caesar Ultimately
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
Generals of the late republic were powerful individuals. They were wealthy, they had legions, and supporters in the senate. Rome was a furiously competitive society so inevitably there could be only one. Funny thing is I don't think Caesar actually wanted to eliminate his rivals as such - remember how upset he was when the egyptians handed him pompey's head. Once the generals felt they were powerful enough to ignore or contravene Rome's laws and customs it was clear that a single ruler was going to emerge, because none of them could bear to let anyone else rule them.
No, I don't think Caesar signed that warrant. Augustus stabilised the empire for many years until the rest of his family decided to continue the roman tradition of political superiority at all costs. It was this murderous and bitter infighting that brought Rome to brink of disaster many times.
As a republic Rome would have failed against the barbarians even faster than it actually did. Why? Because the senate had always chosen political appointees to military command and chosen badly time after time. With the invading hordes, Rome had run into a force that had exactly the same advantage they had - a huge reserve of recruits. Rome could no longer play a waiting game as they had with say, Hannibal, or perhaps Spartacus. I know that bad choices were still made during the empire - Quintilius Varus for instance - but the central command of the empire had something going for it when a strong leader was at the helm.