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
-
-
Plenty? Now thats interesting and not what I expected. I shall definitely dig into this subject further.
-
A neat way combining the momentum of a phalanx with the versatility of manipular swordsmen. Both self supporting in offense but much less flexible when defending I would think. Thats a formation for a very agressive stance on flat terrain. I've not read about that - did it work?
-
Citizenship never went away, it just became less important because later periods gave it to everyone. Foreigners therefore had an added incentive to cross the Danube even if the romans didn't bother themselves much.
-
Agree again. However, the stability of egypt and its produce was of enormous benefit to Romes burgeoning population. It should be remembered the climate was wetter 2000 years ago and crops were easier to grow than now. If I remember right, Sardinia had a very nasty culture (even for roman tastes) and output wasn't guaranteed. Wasn't there a pirate problem in Sardinia?
-
Sulla really did believe he had saved Rome, hence his retirement to ordinary life. Of course, he had his own interest in mind. Very few people take enormous risks politically without a good reason, without something to gain. As with any culture, including ours, laws apply to those who get caught bending them. Traditions are often cast aside when expedient - the romans were past masters at that!
-
I think trying to understand something by intense analysis of the finer points of latin isn't going to solve it. Understanding what it really meant to romans means understanding roman minds and circumstances, which is what I tried to do in my previous answer. Latin is a language with complex grammar, and unless you're born to it the nuances tend to be lost. I doubt ordinary romans ever spoke or wrote correct grammar 100% of the time, which is one reason why so many roman kids got whacked by their teachers.
-
I agree. Egypt was a vital breadbasket for Rome.
-
Rome had a policy of preparing the way. Before this territory was invaded, deals were done and one tribe set against another. A case of divide and conquer. Also, barbarians aren't usually united. It takes a leader like Arminius to present a unified obstacle.
Sorry, I missed the point. I agree with most of what you said, particularly since Rome as an empire didn't have the same appeal with romans that it once did. But it did for the barbarians. They were keen to be in on the deal to improve their living standards etc. Its just when they finally got there they didn't really like running it, and weren't to good at it
-
LOL!
This is a forum, not a english exam. Besides, I prefer to treat peoples opinions with respect whether I agree or not. I'm entitled to an opinion too.
In a sense I agree provided the tribune to be promoted has actually commanded in battle. Commanding say, a cohort or an army is different, largely due to less coherence with increasing size.
Hey... I used a clever word!
-
I thought I was
-
I'd also point out that the power of the aristocrats to reign in a monarch has almost always been accompanied by subsequent limits on the power of the state to infringe on individual rights. The Magna Carta is a nice illustration--it wasn't the Rights of Man or the Bill of Rights, but it was an important precursor (much like the Twelve Tables).
Quite so, but remember the Magna Carta was won by gathering a bunch of nobles and threatening the king with rebellion.
-
He was a lawyer. Admin was something he gave his officers.
-
By 715 BC, according to Livy (1.17), the Senate existed already existed during the time of the Kings; and, in fact, they gained the authority to ratify choice of King.
How did the Senate actually come into being? It seems a rather odd departure from other ancient political entities (other than maybe Greece), and yet the first time we hear of it, it is already full-formed.
[\quote]
Something similar happened in dark age britain, where the earliest kings were chosen by the Moot, a council of powerful men. Faced with autocratic rule, powerbrokers often do form cartels to reign in their power either overtly or covertly. Its a sign of personal strength that a autocrat can ignore or remove such obstacles. In the case of Rome, they couldn't, and remember that the kings were eventually thrown out.
The Plebeian Assembly gained ground, perhaps not steadily, but in a general trend, during the early and middle Republican days. It is not clear to me, really, how they accomplished this. There were two recorded secessions, but I have not read so far why these were effective at bending the patricians to their will. In various places I have read things implying that the plebeians "forced" the patricians to concede rights to them, or they waited out the patricians, but I have not read the actual mechanisms by which the plebeians were able to win these contests. I just don't get it - seems like the patricians could have put down the plebeians forcefully whenever they seemed to be getting too big for their britches.
[\quote]
Its just class politics like 18th century France or 20th century Russia. The upper class (patricians) like their power and want exclusive rights to it. The lower class (plebeians) don't like being powerless and gradually make it more difficult for the upper class to throw their weight around, often by threatening low key resistance if not outright rebellion. Ruining your opponents reputation, bribery & corruption.... Politics is possibly more sophisticated now but we still do the same things.
-
I think there's more evidence to refute his opinions then there is to support it. The chief archaeologist stated that she thought only around 10,000 men could have occupied the immediate ambush area. So if the army was around 20,000 that would leave a large number surviving the initial onslaught. It's not impossible to speculate on, as far as ancient battlefields go Teutoburg Forest is unique in being the most well-preserved--in fact I don't think any other ancient battlefield comes close. I'm glad you see the same holes in his theory, he seems to have gotten it very wrong.
Like you mentioned, they'd need a few machine guns to slaughter 20,000 men in a couple of hours! It's a shame that he chose to speculate so much, there are some very worthwhile chapters in the book.
As far as I'm aware, the original battle site, which extended a considerable distance, was deforested centuries ago. A small area has been restored to natural condition in recent years but I'm not sure if thats at the location where the battle took place.
-
Its interesting that Hannibal copies roman arms and armour, but were they really up to legionary standards? I doubt it. Its more likely they came close but no cigar.
-
Not quite. Gladiators were of varying standard. A criminal sent out was going to die, and I suspect the crowd wanted to see how much he suffered. In that respect, the arena could be '8 out of 8'. Prisoners of war were often used for fake battles since they had plenty to get rid of, but I can't really see how umpires controlled the fight, so that too was bloody by neccessity. Professional gladiators on the other hand were highly trained from the start. The real obstacle for them was surviving their first fight, giving them useful experience and improving their survival chances a lot. These fights were rigidly controlled. Romans wanted a fair fight, an interesting fight, an exciting fight. It should be noted that most gladiators armour was arranged so that a fatal wound would cause the most spectacular blood loss. This was for entertainment. No 'scratches above the eyebrows' to stop the fight. For their own part, gladiators were very proud of the entertainment they provided - it brought them fame, fortune, and in some cases some very desirable perks for a slave. So although the audience might have persuaded the games editor (or emperor) to spare 90% of losers they did so because the man involved had literally fought for his life. Had he been a wuss, then a kill was demanded. He was not worthy to be spared. Blood was less important than the excitment of two men going toe-to-toe, but it served to dramatise the defeat of the loser. There were even fights without mercy, where a losing gladiator was automatically executed. Imagine the curiosity of watching two women fight as gladiators. They may have been the fairer sex in a mans world, but they were called upon to fight to the death too for the crowd.
With animals, the audience wanted to see nature from a safe distance. They wanted big cats leaping at their victims, bears tearing their victims apart, elephants throwing victims like rag dolls, or rhino's and bulls smashing victims aside. They wanted speed, agility, ferocity, sheer danger. With bestiarii (animal fighters) in the ring, then we return somewhat to the gladiator, since now the audience has someone to cheer, and see how bravely he faces a creature that can kill him instantly. So many of these animals were slain to demonstrate the power of Rome over nature that blood was indeed very visible, but again, it wasn't an end in itself, rather a advertisment that this creature had died.
Having said that, entertainment was paramount. Not all the acts were fatal. We see one-on-one fights to the first blood, or practice bouts with wooden swords. We see clowns pretending to fight badly, or displays of animals doing things rather like the circus of recent times.
The arena was indeed sometimes a bloody place, but only when blood was called for.
-
I'd go with the infanticide. Seeing a baby left on a waste heap would be tough (call me a softy).
I think this practice had died out during the periods of my interests, 220's BC to 80'sAD
No it hadn't. We know from remains found at Ephesus that women left their children in the sewers to die. Also, when Nero had Agrippina killed, protestors left babies outside the palace as a gesture of disgust. If a roman child was disabled, it was unlikely to survive anyway so the average father would probably not waste time rearing it to adulthood. Since these unwanted children were a ready source of slaves, the actual percentage of infanticides isn't as high as it seems.
-
Its easy to see the celts/germans as Hells Angels with swords and furry swimming trunks. But despite that, lets remember that they also raised families and provided for them even if they were somewhat brutish.
-
I'd be more interested in the guy who knows how to win a battle and inspire men to do just that. Your viewpoint is probably similar to the romans, but then some roman commanders had indeed risen from the ranks. An emperor or two as well.
-
Its animal behaviour. By putting on a display (in this case fastidious grooming) you advertise to your rivals that you are.. well... better somehow. Until they beat you in confrontations that is.
-
The word means 'malingerer', or someone who decides not to turn up when required.
-
Plunder was something the romans took for granted, but then it was pretty well accepted by any army that your soldiers took what they wanted after your enemies defeat. I'm not sure if celtic/german cavalry would halt and throw coins in the air rather than pursue their target to his grave. Tacitus certainly wouldn't have thought that - his perception of germanians was that they preferred to fight and get drunk above all else. Perhaps his educated upper class roman viewpoint is biased, but he had a point.
-
Are there any other examples?
-
Can you imagine? There you are, commanding your first battle. You've handed out orders, the troops are in position, and the enemy begins to manoever. At this point you feel excited. You're probably confident of victory. Then it all starts getting out of hand. A unit breaks, others chase the enemy, some are clearly in the wrong place sitting on the hill chewing grass stems. Officers are shouting at you for orders and you discover the enemy prepared a suprise attack. Its at that point that your suitability for battlefield command really does get tested - or are you up to it? Is there a senior officer taking initiative from you to save the day? Or is this a disaster for Rome?
Armchair debates about battles are great because no-one gets hurt!
If Celts Or Germanic Tribes Use Of Cavalry
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted
Well I've skimmed through Caesars campaign against Gaul, and it does turn up some interesting points.
The gauls, by and large, were very fond of horses and paid large sums to obtain them. Their cavalry was variable in quality. Taking Caesars allies, the Aeduii, as the reference point we see them set to flight by a formation of gaul horsemen an eighth of their number, and these men used stones as well as javelins. They were bold certainly, but I wonder how things would have turned out if the Aeduii had bothered to put a better fight. I think Caesars allies weren't too keen to leave an easy life extracting tolls from travellers.
The germans also had cavalry. They bred their own horses, smaller, uglier, but hardy and obedient. They also developed a curious tactical trick by having a cavalryman/infantryman team work together, sometimes leaving the horses to fight, sometimes allowing the infantry to hitch a ride. This cavalry could operate in conditions the gauls wouldn't, and I wonder how effective this was against Rome.