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
-
-
Yet the praetorian guard were more of a hazard than a help to the empire
Not initially. The Guard was fully loyal to their creator, Augustus, after all. And they did help getting rid of some bad emperors. Still, they obviously ended up being something quite different from what Augustus intended them to be.
The problem is that with the donatives and other perks on offer, the praetorians became loyal to the emperor in name only. After Augustus they became actually loyal to themselves. Severus had the right idea after he deposed Didius Julianus. He had them exiled and replaced the guard with his own men. I don't approve of dictatorships, but this was Rome after all!
-
I'm definitely of the opinion that the Teutoberg Forest is the worst. Adrianople was indeed disastrous, but then Rome was in decline and this battle merely accelerated that process. The Teutoburg Disaster however came at the point at which the empire was expanding. It was colonising germania beyond the rhine, with new settlements being created to 'provincialise' the germans. Archaeological remains of these brief roman towns are being found further into germany than previously expected.
The failure of Rome to colonise Germania has had an enormous effect on history since. Not only because it slowed the expansion of Rome considerably, almost to a stop, but because it changed Romes policy on defense and relations with barbarian tribes. In effect, it more or less dictated that the barbarian north would at some point become a significant enemy - and it did. The disaster has also laid deep divisions in cultural leaning which we still see emerging today.
-
It is true that at least one emperor had a personal guard of german troops - are you confusing the praetorians with them?
-
While I enjoy Caesars writing immensly, I have just completed these three books from the Civil Wars and found them pretty darn entertaining. Not as cleverly put, but more down and dirty.
While the Author is unknown, I suspect The Alexandrian War and at least the Spanish War to have been written by two different authors. I get the feeling (something thats been proposed before) that the Spanish War may have been written by a Centurion, or one of the rank and file. It's obvious that the person writing knew little of what was actually said in the command tent, but he appears to have first hand knowledge of what went on in the front lines, of punishments carried out, and small setbacks etc. His partisanship is obvious, as is his pride in the Caesarean Legions soldiering.
Anyone got any theories as to who the author may have been for any of these three books ? He almost certainly would have mentioned himself in them.
I doubt a centurion would write books. They were career officers, and just like modern soldiers of that type, would likely have a no-nonsense approach to life. I also doubt they would have found the time to write even when retired from legion service. More likely the tale was written by a senior officer, identity unknown, who would have led a life more given to literary pursuits afterwards.
-
Do you think it was a desirable one?
While some would say a roman solider had high moral for defending his empire, others may disagree. I have read about men who could cut their thumbs off so they couldn't hold a sword - not the actions of a man who aspired to be part of the roman army surely?
Do you think Roman soliders had a good life, or do you think the 25 years they spent in service were miserable and bleak?
Roman soldiers came from all over the place. Their motivations were various. Some needed a job, others wanted citizenship for them and their descendants, some wanted to escape dodgy situations, others wanted battle, some just liked the idea of being a soldier - much the same motivations we see today. Life could be dull, dangerous, and very hard work. This sort of life isn't for everyone as the cutting of thumbs suggests. However, the more devious of them could always wangle light duties. There was always the usual diversions for off duty troops (largely revolving around alcohol and women) and extracting cash from newbies could always pay for another night. It isn't a very good analogy, but think in terms of an ancient version of the French Foreign Legion.
-
Most of siegework is actually very basic stuff. Forget all that nonsense about towers and catapults - they were very rarely used anyway and only if an assault on a large scale was taking place. Getting the doors open was the easiest way of getting in. If you can't bribe a disgruntled enemy, then slip a few men over at night. It happened a lot more than people realise. Other than that, sit tight and wait for the food to run out like Caesar did in Gaul. The big impressive stuff requires a lot of manpower and engineering which wasn't always within the romans capabilities, never mind their enemies. But they might get over the wall.....
This simply doesn't jibe with my recollection of the campaign. Caesar took city after city by smashing down fortifications with massive siege engines--more massive than usually required because the Gallic fortifications were less susceptible to catapault attack than to the stone walls used by other neighbors of Rome.
I've seen a model reproduction of one of Caesar's circumvallations based on archaeological evidence and it's an extremely heavy duty set up...
The gallic 'Oppidum' forts evolved to fend off roman siege techniques, yet Caesar had little problem disposing of hundreds. We know the gallic defenses were fairly good. Therefore Caesar either used a great many siege engines, not to mention rope, nails, and several forests worth of timber, or he cheated and used other methods as well. I've always said that subterfuge and negotiation are perfectly usuable methods for completing a siege, and I don't believe every oppidum fought to the last man. A roman herald arrives at the gates, tells them their neighbours are conquered, and that they'd do themselves a favour by surrendering before it all got a little bit nasty. Caesar for his part would have exaggerated and claimed he brought the whole lot down in rubble. Clearly he didn't, although I do accept he made some astonishing progress if he really did defeat that many gallic forts. Also, remember that you only need to get in to bring the assault to a head. Did Caesar demolish every oppidum? Thats an extraordinary amount of work even for the romans. More likely a great many were left in a state of ruin, others burned and abandoned.
-
The germans were big lads generally. The average height for a roman was around 5'4" to 5'6", whereas the better diet of barbarian celts gave them heights more akin to what we see today. It stands to reason that germans were recruited into the praetorians, especially later as the supply of germanic soldiers increased. Given the way they recruited them though there would always have been non-germans involved, particularly the officers.
-
When I compared Rome and more recent european nations I wasn't suggesting that circumstances were identical. I merely meant that conquest states expand like a balloon that doesn't necessarily burst, but definitely gets harder to inflate.
-
Brill. As an addendum to that, I would like to stress that racing chariots were nothing like those we see in Ben Hur. The film chariots are ceremonial ones and way too heavy for horses to pull on a real race. During filming, the poor horses struggled to keep the pace. Lightweight construction, like modern racing cars, was essential.
And I doubt 'greek chariots' with scythes on the axles would have passed scrutineering! Or were chariots like that ever user used on special occaisions? Anyone know?
-
Don't forget morale. An essential ingredient to success. An army unwilling to fight will probably turn and run even with the best equipment.
-
Siegecraft is a matter of resources and patience. Modern films and computer games have distorted our vision about sieges by confusing them with assaults. These happen rarely in siegecraft as a rule, although Julius Caesar proudly tells us he got rid of eight hundred gaulish forts.
Massada was a different matter. The Jews were thumbing their nose at Rome whilst holed -up in an impregnable castle. It was a matter of national pride and prestige that Massada should fall. The romans built a huge earth ramp under fire to enable siege engines to break through the walls. They had the manpower, engineering ability, and the need to complete this large scale assault on a difficult target.
Although Rome built stone walls & castles, a large percentage of their fortifications were wooden, or even earth & turf in some cases. It was a matter of local materials. If there weren't any quarries nearby, it was cheaper, easier, and quicker to build from wood. It would have been the same for Romes enemies. Roman castles are almost medieval in sophistication - crenallated walls, gatehouses, tower positions - Its even possible that castle towers were at least another storey higher than modern reconstructions in Britain and Germany.
Siege mining was an area that Rome didn't seem to bother with. Their siegecraft was above ground level.
Quite clearly Rome was able to build quickly. Crassus built a wall across the toe of Italy to keep Spartacus hemmed in. Caesar not only built an extensive stockade to keep Vercingetorix trapped in, he then had to build another around it to keep gaulish allies out. A siege within a siege.
There were aspects too. Using an 'abatis' of cut-down trees as a barrier or hidden pits with wooden stakes as a primitive minefield were methods used by the legions occaisionally. Fire is an important siege weapon, but difficult to employ successfully I think. All ancient armies could have managed this yet getting a wooden stockade to burn isn't as easy as you might think.
Regarding roman war engines, its possible that smaller ballistae were broken down into transportable parts, but more likely they were built on-site. The larger rams, onagers, and towers would have been constructed at the scene without a doubt. They were simply too large to cart around. In any case, you'd need a large force to make good use of these machines.
The ability of the Romans to conduct siege assaults results from their organised approach and the policy of having artisans amongst their ranks. Barbarians were much less organised and often wouldn't have anyone who knew what a siege engine was. Also, the more spectacular engines come into play when the target justifies the effort of using them, and having enough men to employ them effectively.
-
So, a spear/javelin is like any other whether it had a bendy point or not. The real advantage is the ability of a pilum to de-shield the enemy, and to prevent him throwing a volley back. A tactical advantage rather than weapon superiority.
-
Nero quite clearly began to resent Agrippina's manipulation. He was a young man who wanted to run his own life without interference. This frustration expressed itself in the normal roman macho behaviour - he went whoring and mugging with the lads. The turning point comes at a banquet when Agrippina openly attempts to 'seduce' Nero whilst scantily clad. Was she trying to embarras him? Or was this the last desperate manipulation? His resentment became so great that it broke the bond between them, and Nero tried to poison her. Agrippina had seen this coming. According to sources she had made herself resistant to poison by regularly imbibing small amounts. Nero responded to his failure with a grand scheme to sink a boat with her on board. In typical neronian fashion it was a farce, and the only answer was to send troops to bump her off.
For Nero, things were up close and unusually personal. Familarity bred contempt.
For Gaius? Are you sure you have the correct Agrippina? Agrippina the Elder was a different case. She was also a strong-willed woman, but I would say far more moral and upstanding. Despite this she seems to have failed totally in bringing up Gaius in the same mould. The young lad was used as a mascot for the legions, dressed in mini-armour, and this is where the nickname Caligula, or 'Little Boots' comes from. Gaius witnessed a mutiny amongst the troops that his mother did her bit to quell. He was used to attention. He was used to getting what he wanted at that early age. He was spoilt rotten by his mother, possibly ignored by his father Germanicus who had too many other things to deal with on the frontier. I've no doubt that Gaius loved his mother, so her death at the hands of Tiberius must have left a deep impression on his character.
-
Seeing as barbarians were running Rome after 476AD I'd say the consequences were very important. A lot of them had overrun the west not to destroy it, but to capture it, to rule it, to become like romans. Of course they couldn't because they weren't sophisticated enough (and running Rome wasn't as easy as the romans made it look) but I do find it amusing to think of hairy germans wearing togas and strutting around like tin gods. I'm sure there were a few.
It isn't really my period, but I'd hazard a guess that the barbarians basically snatched an expensive toy and wrecked it because they couldn't read the instructions.
While I am sure this happened on some occasions, some barbarians were far more capable and more Roman than some Romans... an excellent example being Theodoric the Great and his daughter Amansulatha. Barbarians by pure blood but more Roman than anything else and who knew how to run adminstrations and institutions the 'correct' Roman way.
Actually you've backed up my point but I agree from time to time there would be barbarians able enough to do the job - they were human beings after all and sometimes you find a good leader amongst even the most ignorant. However, the knowledge of doing things the roman way must have come from education and experience in roman culture, otherwise they'd do a godd job of running things the 'sort-of-roman-but-actually-barbarian' way. If you see what I mean.
-
Be careful. The wealthy landowners adopted roman culture because it made life even more comfortable for them than before. The majority of ancient brits probably weren't that romanised to begin with - they merely lived alongside roman culture. Therefore when things fell apart they simply got on with their lives except that they couldn't support themselves from roman legions anymore. It was a case of going back to the farm to make ends meet, and that meant moving out into the countryside to find a good plot of land.
After the legions left, the situation remained similar. Local VIPs tried to maintain romanic culture whilst the plebs carried on bartering, farming, and generally arguing amongst themselves as well as the saxons making inroads. It seems that the industrial side of britain vanished without roman support but the rural side carried on unabated. The exception of course is that without roman wealth the large country villa's fell into disuse quite quickly.
-
Its difficult to answer that one without employing someone to build up a face from a skull, but its likely they had a similar appearance to modern Italians.
-
A tribe is a group of extended families who live together in a single community (not necessarily a single area) rather like a family of families.
-
From a practical point of view, it's actually irrelevant whether the pilum bent or not. Connolly says it couldn't be extracted from the shield so it doesn't need to bend to render the shield useless.
Connolly's idea of the Roman soldier fighting in a very low crouch is rather unlikely and challenged by Goldsworthy in 'The Roman Army at War 100 BC- AD 200'.
Connolly is an excellent author and an authority on ancient weapons. He does however tend to go a bit over the top with his weapon based analysis, even going so far as to claim that different shapes of gladius were used in different ways!
The reinforced helmets were to protect against downward cuts. It is not necessary to be in a low crouch to be struck on the head!
Interesting because if the pilum could not be extracted from a shield, then why would the romans waste effort on designing and making them? Also, not all enemies have shields and spears that fall into the ground (or someone else dare I say it) would otherwise still be usable. Soldiers are practical people, if it worked then they'd use it - they did. I get the impression Mr Connolly is making a meal out of his weapon research, expert or not.
-
Roman soldiers were expected to remain quiet during battle and were trained for that. To be honest though, I think having a barbarian spear pushed into me is likely to make me scream in pain. And if I were standing next to the guy so pierced, then I would be tempted to shout for assistance. I'm sure they were too.
-
Did the Celts have siege technology?
The answer is patently yes. The evidence is in Caesar and on Trajan's column.
The evidence from Caesar is not yes--the evidence is that a small group of Celts had some siege tech for a single engagement, but never before or after. Classifying ladders and grappling hooks as siege tech is also a long, long stretch.
No it isn't. Ladders and hooks are basic stuff but it definitely is siege technique. Most of siegework is actually very basic stuff. Forget all that nonsense about towers and catapults - they were very rarely used anyway and only if an assault on a large scale was taking place. Getting the doors open was the easiest way of getting in. If you can't bribe a disgruntled enemy, then slip a few men over at night. It happened a lot more than people realise. Other than that, sit tight and wait for the food to run out like Caesar did in Gaul. The big impressive stuff requires a lot of manpower and engineering which wasn't always within the romans capabilities, never mind their enemies. But they might get over the wall.....
-
Agrippina maintained a very close relationship with Nero - she wanted him under her guidance if not her thumb. Nero essentially was a mummies boy, something of a downer in the macho roman world. So it isn't suprising that Nero played at being being a tough lad mugging innocent passers by when he got older. Personally I think she kept on trying to manipulate him past the point of no return, but read the references above and see what you think.
-
None can argue over the pilum; it's the perfect infantry throwing spear
I totally agree. I personally think the pilum is underappreciated in context of romes great victories. It played a huge factor in winning battles. I also think it was the most cleverly created weapon of ancient times because of the many tasks it performed in one throw as you have explained above. The use of it was a devasting introduction to romes enemies of whats to come. Picture and an army of maybe 5000 romans, each throwing two waves of pila. Thats 10000 spears hurtling towards you which must of being devasting not just to the enemies physically but also mentally, destroying morale even before the battle began. It gave the romans a huge advantage to take into the battle and this is why i regard the pila as one of the most clever weapons made.
As spears go, it wasn't any better than ayone elses. The only advantage it gave was that you couldn't throw it back. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be the target of a volley
-
In small numbers and on rare occaisions, troops of gladiators were used as special forces. There wasn't much call for that sort of thing back then. A suprise attack by regular soldiers was just as damaging as a visit by a few hand-picked specialists. Without modern communications to warn your opponent, you simply had to keep quiet and arrive.
-
Neos Dionysos, yes, I agree. The phalanx really works best as a stationary force, for example as a defensive unit (that one is true even in the game Rome: Total War - the Phalanx units kick ass when defending, but I find them hard to attack with - they're so damn slow in Phalanx mode, which would be quite true in reality too, you simply can't maneuver such a tight formation with long spears quickly), especially in a restricted area where it cannot be flanked. There the extra reach and mutual coverage of the frontal area with the long spears really is a huge advantage. When attacking, the use of the long spear would often, of course depending on the situation and type of opposition, pretty much be better as a first-charge weapon, after which it is dropped and then a sword or such is used instead - kinda like with the pila of the Romans.
Pardon? The whole raison d'etre of a phalanx was to drive the enemy back. It was an offensive formation. You're quite correct though, the phalanx couldn't manoever easily, which is why it fell from favour.
As for defense, just wait for the enemy cavalry to get at you from the flanks or the rear. Ouch.
Some Questions About Ancient (and Medieval) Warfare
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted
Wooah now this is a meaty question.
Cavalry doesn't usually have any reserve horses. Once unhorsed - tough. You're walking home unless another mount becomes available. Horses are too valuable and slow to obtain in sufficient numbers for a large reserve of animals.
Holding a spear/lance is part of cavalry training. It does indeed hit with some force, and its easy to lose the weapon. It should be pointed out though that in most cases in the ancient world the spear was employed at peoples backs as they scattered - so the horse was less likely to be moving at speed and the rider can stab with relative ease.
Charging the enemy? Full pace. You get hit by a horse and rider and top speed it goes straight past you without effort. I once stood at the fence during a horse race and was much impressed by the sensation of weight and momentum as they rode by. Mind you, the instinct of a horse would be to try and jump the front rank, so a frontal collision is less likely than being knocked over by hooves hitting the torso/head. Horses do get injured. They land badly or impale themselves on enemy weapons. Forceful charges in ancient times are rare because horses are smaller than more recent wars and carry less arms/armour. They would more likely be used in a harrassing role or chasing soldiers fleeing the field.
Communication is vital. Always was, always will be. A good ancient genral must have trusted cool-headed men in command of sections of his army who know and understand the battle plan. Loud horns, riders, or agreed signals are part of this. As the battle progresses things become gradually more chaotic, and minor commanders begin using initiative based on what they can see.
Camp followers and other civilian trades followed the romans as much as any other. Its true the legionaries did a lot of their own work, but why labour for hours when a tradesmen outside can do it for a few coins and probably better than you in shorter time. During the Varian Disaster of AD9 we know a huge number of civilians were massacred along with the troops. Armies were a good source of income - the romans were just another paymaster.
As for getting into a city whilst armed, it depended on your demeanour. Are there several hundred of you or are you alone? Are you dressed in military armour or civilian tunic? Are you patient and good mannered, or impatient and rude? Is your weapon lashed to a mule, or is it ready at your side?