caldrail

They wore bear or big cat skins, but there are no examples of wolf being worn except by velites but not signifers, and certainly no sculptural or literary evidence (I know there are reenactment groups doing so but... ) Not necessarily all of the armour, but the helmet was most likely part silvered at least. His armour could have been brass if he wished. The crest could have been any colour and combination of, and made of horsehair or feathers. We have no solid evidence left of colours in the Roman army, hence the dreaded tunic debates (although red does seem to come out tops until the Late Empire) I don't think there's any evidence for that, and the legion could have come from anywhere. Any depiction of a big cat skin being worn could have been a tiger, lion or leopard, as the paint on any sculptural evidence has worn off now. Another sign of optio rank was a tall straight staff with an orb on top, and a beneficarius a lance, but bear in mind that ancient concepts of "uniform" would have been very different to ours. Regular standardised uniforms don't seem to have occurred until the 16th Century or so, except perhaps for individual units when kitted out by a rich benefactor or high ranking officer. As for Romans who knows? Cheers, Jim. Heraldry is more important that uniform in ancient & medieval armies. Because individuals were so often required to provide their own arms and equipment (even the romans did that early on) it varied in appearance. Therefore the only way to be sure who someone was fighting for was a flag or symbol. Legions adopted a 'uniform' appearance but this could vary between units. As for cat skins, it would have been a matter on where the legion was stationed. If an officer killed a beast and thought it would look cool, he may well order the skin prepared for use by his standard-bearers. It was also a superstitious thing too - the big cat (or any dangerous animal) would somehow pass on its courage and ferocity to the men.

1 - Clear the site. 2 - Mark out the boundaries 3 - Dig the ditch 4 - Put up the stockade 5 - Put up the tents To some extent some of this would have happened at the same time to make the process more efficient - most soldiers laboured at the wall while others put up the commanders tent etc...

They were used in the attack on Maiden Castle in Dorset, England.

You betcha. Garrison life is a routine enlivened by menial duties and fatigues, much the same as modern armies. This was why roman commanders were so keen to have their men build bridges, aqueducts, forts, and roads. The men of course, were keen to do nothing of the sort. They would have prefered to get the light duties, particularly the ones that netted in some cash. For instance, new recruits were given a modest amount of coins to pay their way as they travelled to their training fort. The recruits were escorted by serving soldiers who conned them out of those coins as quickly as possible. All sorts of duties took place in garrison life. Cooking, cleaning, washing, mending, marching, practice, latrines, ditches, plastering, painting, woodcutting, cobbling, admin, guarding - the list is endless.

I don't think you're wrong as such, but there's a deeper side to this question. Imagine Varus hauling these things through the german forest. Hopeless. Never mind the difficulty of travelling, even when the fighting started you'd have almost nothing to shot at, because your field of vision is so limited. Morale is difficult to quantify because some cultures favoured individual courage that made them sometimes oblivious to losses. Mind you, I wouldn't care to stand in front of a roman army either and the romans made sure their enemies felt that way if they could. So perhaps yes, there was a morale advantage even if most of your shots went straight past everyone. Phew, that was close! The auto-ballistae were criticised because the following shots hit the same target as the one already killed.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.