caldrail

Traditional roman tactics were based on the deployment of heavy infantry, of a more flexible format than the older phalanx. The huns preferred a mobile strategy using horsemen to good advantage. Of course the later roman armies were using much more cavalry than before, but the huns were using horses that could be astonishingly hardy and quick. Bad leadership had something to do with it, but it was also the reluctant nature of the late roman soldiery that didn't help. Becoming a soldier of Rome was no longer seen as a desired career. Also remember that although discipline was fierce in the legions - it had to be. Roman soldiers didn't obey without question. Mutinies were frequent and even Julius Caesar nearly lost control of his men once. A roman leader didn't just order his men to battle - he had to inspire and cajole them too. This pprobably got worse in the later roman armies although the question of cash wasn't so important (I think). The increasing use of barbarian units may not have helped either. I wonder if this made the command structure worse too? The Huns had already got the measure of them in any case. The Huns were aggressive, tough, and simply not afraid of Romes reputation.

No. But then we never asked him to write those screenplays. Nor did anyone ask Suetonius to write his biographies. He simply wanted to record their lives and entertain his readers. Thats quite an industry today isn't it? However, its also true that Suetonius wasn't punished for writing them. That either means he got it right or that it was politically correct. Difficult to tell which.

The need for death in the arena is based on the funeral rites of the Etruscans, the origin of gladitorial combat, in which blood is shed to honour the dead. At some point in the games, someone has to cop it. Eventually it was expanded from the original one-on-one (or hooded man vs angry dog) to make the funeral more impressive. It became entertaining. Eventually it included mock battles fought to the death between hundreds of combatants at any one time. Although many fights were bloodless (or the competitors acquitted themselves honourably to the crowd), the audience would demand the death of a gladiator who failed to impress. As time wore on this sense of power over a mans fate meant that the crowd would demand more deaths - it became more and more bloody. Christianity did take some of this bloodlust away, but only to a point. In 392ad a monk rushed into the arena demanding the fight be stopped. An impatient gladiator ran him through with a sword there and then, the last recorded death of a christian in the arena. The bloodletting had peaked and now faded, persisting in the provinces for some time. Animals were becoming rare and expensive to obtain, people less thrilled by men hacking each other to death. The roman character was changing and the games faded with it.

Suprisingly many people do regard the roman legions as invincible waves of sword wielding robots. That was what the Rome wanted - a reputation that would make them hesitant about armed defiance. It amazes me that this reputation survives even today. Their main weaknesses were corruption, political control, and bad leadership. Other than that, the legions were an extraordinary army in their heyday.

A lot of us get into roman history by reading Suetonius. Its usually the first stop after watching Hollywoods version of history. Suetonius gives us a warts and all tale of the first twelve caesars, and he deliberately includes Julius Caesar for reasons I agree with, because the man became a permanent dictator therefore no different from an emperor. He describes their faults, their virtues, their lives, and anything else that illustrates the kind of person he wants to describe. Lets be clear about this. Suetonius was a roman. He lived in Rome, amongst romans, going about his business as a roman would. When we read his accounts, we see events second-hand through the eyes of someone who lived in that era. He cannot be discounted. Now Suetonius got his information from eye witnesses. Some of these people may not have clearly understood what was happening, or twisted the event to suit their purpose, or simply lied that they were ever there to see it. So although Suetonius may not be 100% accurate, his work has a basis in truth. It is true you need to be wary about his conclusions. That can be said for any journalist, and there are plenty of wierd and wonderful tales, theories, and speculations today that defy belief. But we do believe them don't we? For instance Von Daniken writes a book about a half-baked theory of alien visitation and spawns a whole new literary genre. Are we any different from the romans? Not really. We come from the same bloodlines, we have the same reactions, thoughts, desires, sins, and virtues. Their culture was different of course. They were much crueller than us for one thing, but then so were so many cultures of that time. It wasn't unusual. Yet in Suetonius we see a common thread - he compares the behaviour of these men with the everyday expectations of Rome. If you read more closely, there is a fantastic parallel with our modern age. I for one will continue to read him with fascination. I don't believe everything happened quite the way he depicts it, yet there's a compelling truth hidden away within his writings.

Stonehenge is just one of a huge network of sites sacred to the neolithic europeans. I doubt myceneans had anything to do with it, nor does egypt deserve any credit. I live not far from Avebury. I can assure you there's no heiroglyphics there whatsoever

Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did. I think you misunderstood me. The word emperor denotes a dynastic ruler in the oriental fashion. It isn't the same as the the word 'imperator' which you mention above. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that we need to understand that the word 'emperor' meant something a little different than it does today. Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure. As for the wardrobe, it goes without saying that he wore toga's on offical business. Wasn't he keen on getting senators to do the same? Off duty, he kept things down to earth. And that included his diet too. I understand he wasn't eating 'rich imperial titbits'

yes I agree people wrote to one another, but I'm actually thinking specifically about officers writing to a dead soldiers family after the battle. Did they do this, or was it left to the dead man's mates to let his family know?

i'm writing a paper comparing rome in it's final years to our (U.S.) current place. you know, "are we on the same road?" kind of thing. anyways, i've been able to make some good points, the need to gain territory, forming a republic, idolizing athletes, terrorism, lack of interest in politics... but i was hoping for a little more. any ideas? There are some suprising parallels between the modern US and Rome. This is basically for two reasons. The first is that america based its constitution on a roman-style model. That was a deliberate move by the men who won the War of Independence - They would have read the classics and regarded Rome (despite a few soiled edges) as a perfect example of an organised state, something to which they aspired. The second is human nature. The romans and the americans are both cultures from the same species. Sure it isn't quite the same, but human behaviour is relatively similar and we see this in the terms you mentioned in your original question. Its no coincidence.

Of course there were promiscuous women (of all ages) in Rome - there always is in any culture. Thats human nature. The extent of it varies depending on how much tolerance there is. In roman times, it was frowned upon for a woman to behave this way. But that probably made it all the more fun. For instance, wealthy ladies would sometimes arrange affairs with famous gladiators and charioteers despite their slave status. One woman was thrown out of an upstairs window by a angry husband - he managed to lie his way to freedom. As today, politics and business have a seamy underside and sex plays a large part in that. It certainly did then. It was not for nothing that Sertorius Macro allowed Caligula to bed his wife. Julia was a naughty girl, I have absolutely no doubt. Did she sleep with 80,000 men? Pardon? Thats enough partners once a night for 219 years. Wow. I'm impressed. No of course thats an exaggeration, though she clearly put herself about something terrible and deeply shamed her father. Having exiled her, he refused to bring her back even when crowds heckled him over it. Somewhat later he did just that on the quiet, making sure the 'repentant' Julia lived in seclusion.

Roman rabbits were sensitive little creatures and something of an expensive delicacy. They certainly wouldn't have coped with the british climate in the wild. The norman version (re-introduced?) was a tougher beastie, and quite liked it here, breeding like.. rabbits... once they escaped captivity.

There's something that I'm curious about. So many times I see tombstones erected by friends and family to commemorate a fallen soldier. I notice that the individual named isn't always buried there. So... Did roman commanders write 'letters' to the mans family praising his virtues and offering condolences for their loss? Or was it that a young man said goodbye to his weeping mother one day and never returned? Does anyone know about this?

Augustus would have been keen to avoid any accusation of becoming a king - After all, that was one of the reasons for Caesars demise. I notice that he kept a less fancy wardrobe than later emperors too. He was saying "I'm an everyday kinda guy, just like you... except that I'm in charge." Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did. He saw himself as ruler of the roman world, as a dictator by any other name, continuing in the footsteps of Caesar without the accusations of royal airs and graces.

I think the romans were very curious about the outside world, but travel in those days was probably more risky than today (though you have wonder sometimes). Travel to foreign places is easy today, andI think we forget that. To go a hundred miles outside of the roman road system was a real expedition. It took time and effort, and some survival technique in many cases. The roman world was secure by comparison and in any case romans tended to look inwardly despite the conquests of the late republic. After all, Rome was the center of civilisation in their minds, so why would one want put themselves to so much trouble? Merchants of course did so because it might be profitable, and much exploration was done by them for commercial reasons. They needed new sources, markets, and commodities. These merchants were a useful source of information too. In terms of military conquest, Rome began by annexing or conquering regions with an established infrastructure. As they reached the wild frontier however, it was no longer a case of exporting roman culture by trade or sword, it was now a case of colonisation. Romans never really got to grips with that, although prior to the Varian Disaster they were beginningto make inroads into the german forests - recent finds have uncovered abandoned roman towns much further into Germany than once thought. Therefore military exploration was restricted by policy and geography. Their lack of seamanship meant they would never expand naval power much beyond the mediterranean. Romans were well aware of cultures in India and China just to mention two. Quite possibly they knew of others deepr in the african continent. Trade was active in all sorts of things, up to and including wild animals. That I think, was the focus of roman exploration.

The western armies would have lost some technique towrds the end, but it is true that barbarians were crafty beggars in sieges and tricks were common in ancient sieges. Sieges were possibly less important in later times anyway because resistance was less frequent. Remember that the west changed the capital to Ravenna, surrounded by marshes with a convenient water exit for an emperor under siege. Walls are not enough to keep attackers out. You need stout resistance and some hope of relief. Regarding the onager - I honestly don't know how to help you any further. Actuallly I'm curious myself. Ive seen tv footage of such machines in action so I'll have to dig and figure out how they did it myself.

Remember that Nero had only to click his fingers and get hordes of workmen to build his palace. That would have left fewer to work on new tenements, and since many people were now financially ruined, there weren't as many who could afford massed ranks of dwellings. It is true that landlords would have claimed insurance payouts - was there enough money in the pot to pay for it all? No, of course not. Quite a few scurillous landlords deliberately burned their tenements for an insurance scam and... erm... got their fingers burned! I think it would have taken some time to get life back to normal in the burnt out parts of Rome. Rents on unharmed buildings must have soared! If you look at natural disasters today, it takes quite a while for life to return to normal. People do manage somehow, but the ruin is there for some time and things are rougher until its finally cleared away.

Regarding the queen, it was you who mentioned her But I stand by my comments about her. The tabloid style of history from Suetonius and Tacitus is a point well made (I've said the same thing), yet I cannot ignore what was written. Some events were probably misunderstood by witnesses or the witnesses simply lied - I've no way of checking other than politely asking the BBC if I can borrow the Tardis. However those are the sources. Whilst I don't take them at face value, I am aware that something like that happened. Would I base my opinions on celebrities from the media? Well of course I do. So does everyone else. Its only when you get to know these people in their day to day lives that you really discover what they're actually like. I've never met Beckham or Pitt. Am I missing out? The tabloids say yes, I say perhaps. But because the tabloids say these individuals turned up to an event in certain attire I can draw a safe conclusion that they were doing their duty, that corporate advisors may have been present, and that a few people went away happy as larry that they'd met a star. See what I mean? The event occurred. The report may have been distorted but it happened. You say that rulers don't last long if they don't fit in with policy. Well Caligula didn't. He arrived in tide of popularity in 37AD and was cut down by Chaerea and his mates four years later. Thanks for confirming my point Nero ruled well? Up to a point, although I agree with you he wasn't too concerned with duty. Its rather like the US president deciding to tour with rock bands and drive formula one cars this season. Its certainly newsworthy! I actually think Nero had less of an ego problem than Caligula. There's a common thread through reports of that time that suggest Nero wasn't as self-confident as he might have been. In fact, one of the reasons for his outlandish behaviour is to shore up his own confidence by doing these things. Remember when he was a lad, roaming around the city at night with his gang beating up anyone they came across? That sort of violence was a common occurence amongst young males. Once discovered, Nero was a lot less confident about this activity and I suspect he began to shy away from it. Sorry, but Nero himself said about the Domus Aurea - "Now I can live like a human being". This at a time when refugees from the fire of Rome were struggling to put their lives back together. Whoops. That was a bit careless Nero.

Whole units were brought into the late roman army not as auxillaries, but front line units. They weren't organised in the roman fashion, merely a tribe that volunteered for service. As the west drew to a close, it was getting harder to find recruits. Military service was no longer seen as glorious, and it would cause problems for the local economies more than it had in previous times. Hence the increase in thumbless civilians. Hence also the decree that such individuals were liable forservice after all, although I doubt the recruiters bothered with them much except as labourers. The old roman organisation was decaying and a more 'barbaric' style of army was becoming prevalent. That doesn't necessarily mean the late roman army was ineffective, it meant that the army was even more dependent on the skill and leadership of its general and less so on rank-and-file commanders.

The bit about rust is fascinating but does that actually work chemically? Does it result in 'stronger' metal? I doubt that, though I have to accept the Iberians knew a few things about making swords. More than I do anyway!

Hmmm.... not convinced that personality plays no part. I accept your point about politics, although I would remind you that the queen of england is a 'rubber stamper' these days. She works as an ambassador, nor really as the head of state. How can you possibly not see Nero as having an enormous ego? He was full of himself. His Domus Aurea was an expression of wealth, power, and ego. I agree sources are biased. They always are in roman history. But you have to compare their regins with others of different periods, and the Julio-Claudians come across very differently from later emperors. Many later emperors are exactly what you describe - simple politicians and nothing else. However, there are always some whose character is far beyond that. What drives a politician? What makes him ambitious? What makes him plot the deaths of his rivals and the persecution of his enemies? That is very much personality driven and politicians are very rarely simple straightforward administrators. People like that don't usually rise to the top. In the viciously competitive roman world, that was even more true!

I'm not a persian expert, but.... The clibanarii did not have the same 'knightly' worldview as the noble cavalry of medieval times. They were only common soldiery, although a certain amount of status and prestige always follows men who go to battle protected better than their comrades. Martial excellence was important to persians, but on an individual level as opposed to the romanic organised approach. Archery was a vital component of the persian arsenal and generally speaking they were very very good at it. I think the persians get ignored sometimes - they deserve better. After all, they kept the romans busy for centuries. --------------------------------------------- After a little reading on these people, I am struck by the resemblance of their society to the western medieval, albeit with an oriental flavour. They were every bit as cruel as the romans, possibly more so in their dealings with peasants. Apparently they were quite good at siegecraft too.

True but I don't see any sources describing this in roman times. Thats my only objection.

Thatch was generally unacceptable as roofing due to material supply and fire risk, although it may have happened occaisionally. Wooden shingles (preferably oak) were a common alternative. As indicated, slate was a later development and only used if present in the area of construction.

That's an interesting question that begs another, just how were they accepted by other soldiers? I can't imagine much confidence by peers or leadership in someone who's actions show them out to be a coward to such an extent they'd chop an appendage off. It points to things being so bad just a warm body would suffice. I'd train them up--assuming a work around on the no-thumb thingy--and put the schmucks right up on the front line the first encounter we had with some sturdy troops right behind them. Since thumbless individuals were not accepted for military service, soldiers would treat them with contempt. The whole point of cutting off thumbs is to avoid military service. Remember what happened with draft-dodgers during the vietnam war? It would have been no different then.

This would only apply to a post-marius army anyway. Before that armies were levied year on year when the situation demanded it. In times of peace there was no standing army in the early roman period. I agree with Mr Goldsworthy for the sake of saying it, but it soon got lengthened to 25 years. Length of service was one reason for the mutinies during Augustus's reign.