caldrail

The average roman was 5'4", and legionaries were expected to be taller. Nero put a unit together from men 6' or taller, which means most of those were probably of celtic origin such as gauls or germans who'd had a better diet in childhood.

Having dusted off the soot from the explosion, I'd like to say that there isn't any puzzle whatsoever. Metal can be manufactured into armour within a very short space of time, leather much less so. I really don't believe leather is more efficient and that's not what I pick up from reading on the subject. Chain has disadvantages though in that a direct thrust will penetrate quite easily - thats because its made of thin rings. Also - is leather more resiliant in the field? I doubt it. And if it degrades its not as easy to replace or repair is it? If it was, the legions would have used it. They didn't.

Gladiators must have been fit men. Going toe to toe is strenuous activity and certainly not good unless you've had the correct brand of breakfast cereal And it is true that long one-on-one fights were interspersed with brief rest periods, so even as fit as they were it was sometimes a long slog. The 'blink-and-its-over' style of Russel Crowe heroism isn't anywhere close to reality. The roman crowd would have booed, not cheered. We came for a fight, not a five second massacre! About digestion though - joking aside - I've never seen recorded anywhere exactly when the gladiators were fed on the day. Ok, they had a slap-up meal the night before (although I suspect this was only the paid contract fighters, not the poor POW's about to be dispensed with). Did they have a snack before their fight? Would they have wanted one? Men about to fight for their lives tend to get very focused.

A legionary probably carried two pilum. So each had two volleys. I doubt anyone other than the front rank or two would have thrown until their turn, so to speak. This means that the volume of spears thrown is less but there are several volleys to go before the legionaries resort to their trusty gladius.

Time to explode a myth. Leather is hopeless as armour. Such items were decorative or to show status. If you wanted real protection, then you'd adopt metal like everyone else. Unfortunately, leather has very little resistance to sharp implements and won't do much against the blunt ones.

I would want to have my cavalry attack the rear or flanks at least, with the intention of breaking up their advance rather than a head-on melee. After that, go get 'em boys. Nice and simple.

Its also true that roman patricians viewed science with some distaste. Without their support, ideas fell by the wayside. If it made them money.... well... perhaps we'll try it and see if the gods don't get upset... Technology tended to be localised - there wasn't the great spread of ideas unless military engineers could use it. For instance, in one quarry there was a water driven stone cutter. Great. Fantastic. But as far as I'm aware, it was only used there.

yes I said that. There are such circumstances, mostly when the soldiers involved have no other choice. As I mentioned before, human beings are social animals and warfare is an aspect of that. When you're in the line and men are falling about you stone dead or screaming in agony, you instinct is to move away from danger, to return to the safety of the herd. With humans this occurs quite soon. Most military units are finished before 30% casualties are reached (some run away as soon as the fighting starts). Now it has to be said that the roman legions were well trained and aggressive. But they weren't arnold schwarzeneggers either. I do not believe that a roman unit would ordinarily fight until 70% causalties. By that stage, the unit is more than two thirds empty and being cut to pieces because they cannot support each other. After 30% losses in close combat the casualty rate increases dramatically. In cases where romans did fight until 70%, then they had some reason for it. Were they pressed against a wall? Were they closely supported? Were they attacking, not defending?

Gladiators as a whole tended to be large men. Obviously a big bloke is going to find it easier to carry armour and shield rather than a seven stone weakling, never mind wield a weapon with some force. Lanistas used to feed them a diet of barley, which will fatten up a man noticeably. A layer of fat was considered a good defence against minor sword cuts. The retiarius on the other hand, was different. He needed to be agile and quick, so a layer of fat wasn't desired in his case. Lanistas also liked to put pretty boys into retiarii training because their face was visible. Although despised by the blokes as a cowardly way of fighting, the ladies would swoon as he strut his stuff in the arena. Pretty boys need to be slim - as today, fat men have more of a problem attracting womens attention. Bestiarii and Venators? Apparently agility wasn't always required according to mosaics, which strikes me as odd because I would expect agility to be vital when facing off against a carnivore twice your weight.

With regard to number 3, almost every book I read that has pictures of Roman architecture and engineering that stresses that "this bridge" or "that aqueduct" are still serving some kind of practical purpose today, so it's not a long stretch to assume that some of the infrastructure continued to be used for some time after the end of antiquity, is it? With regard to number 2, many aspects of the Roman civilian and military bureaucracy remained after the fall of the empire (admittedly, many of these were late Roman inventions, not from the High Empire). The Roman command system of the duces and comites became the "dukes" and "counts" of medieval times. There are examples of the Franks and Arabs continuing to use the tax collectors, record keepers and other bureaucrats left over from the late Roman/Byzantine administration. I don't think it's fair to say that all these things simply vanished. Well it wasn't a clean break I agree, but continuance? Thats more difficult to swallow. Roads for instance almost fell out of use despite being major through routes. Some were maintained if the locals thought it useful, but it required labour and techniques that were being forgotten. To some extent thats also true of bridges and aqueducts. They weren't maintained like they would once have been, instead they were used until they... erm... stopped being usable. Also I don't think the medieval system of dukes and counts was anything close to romanesque despite the use of latin-derived names. They were hereditary titles, not offices. The fall of the west is sometimes seen as a discreet event in its own right - it wasn't. It was like a rickety old building collapsing in stages. Bits fell here, then there. I'm very interested that the Franks/Arabs used existing administration, but as mentioned in other threads, isn't that just ordinary people trying to keep their part of Rome alive? Sooner or later it fell into disuse leaving the medieval people to begin a slow recovery.

Are you kidding? Portray Augustus an old man? No - that wasn't done. Emperors had a say in how statues of them appeared. Caracalla for instance liked to be seen as Mr Nasty. Augustus wouldn't have appreciated anything other than the dignified young hero. I've also just realised that he needed to be recognised. A statue was like a logo - if it differed too much no-one would know who it was.

It wasn't a revolution- that implies a sudden change. The dominance of cavalry developed from roman times through the dark ages and reaches its height in the later medieval period. Gunpowder of course pulls it down to earth. Cavalry in ancient times was evolving. It was a learning process. At just to emphasis the point, it was the barbarians who became europes knights in shining armour, not the romans.

(groan) Now I doubt Ovid was being entirely honest. Romans were very macho so a little manly boasting wasn't amiss. Actually I'm jealous. But then modern clothes and manners don't really allow for this do they? Or am I attending the wrong parties?

Why conquer? Start convincing amenable tribes/nations to come over to your side beforehand with rewards for loyalty. That way, when someone complains about your troops marching up and down their lands, you've got allies at hand. The romans did this in britain. Its now believed that the king of the Atrabates, Cogidumnus, was rewarded for his assistance by Vespasian with a large villa at Fishbourne and status in the administration, besides other things we're not aware of. That was a large slice of southern england the romans never had to fight for.

Roman soldiers able to withstand 70% casualties? I don't think so. All armies fall apart after 30%. However - there are certain circumstances when higher casualties are taken Unable to retreat, self-sacrifice, and very strong leadership are the only three that come to mind immediately. All are unusual, even for the romans.

I'm referring to both cultures

If you can make enough hasta for the legions then there's no real reason why you couldn't make pila, although I concede that the pilum might be more expensive and more labour intensive. Possibly 2 spears for 1 pilum? Thats a guess based on what I've seen of them. I would prefer to think that the training of legions had devolved to the point where pila were not being used to good effect - "We don't need these things, Sir, too fussy. Lets use a spear, much easier".

And why was this true of the late republic but not early or middle republic? The reason is that (1) Marius opened up the legions to people with nothing to lose and everything to gain by blindly following their general, and (2) the general could support his legions out of his own purse. If the senate had kept their power of the purse (e.g., by retaining the sole authority to mint coins that were legal tender), they would have gone a long way to prevent Marians and Sullans from acquiring personal armies. I agree that Caesar didn't create this system, however. The Julio-Claudians weren't the only ones jockeying for power through court politics. Every imperial household did the same. The reason is that the Octavian regime provided no mechanism for accession and destroyed the distinction between the public treasury and privy purse. Consequently, the stability of the government was isolated to sporadic lulls between constant civil wars. During the Principate, around 50% of all emperors were violently deposed or died of unnatural causes. In contrast, only about 5% of consuls attained power through extraconstitutional means. This is simply not true. Rome expanded far more during the republic than during the principate, and against far more advanced enemies. As a republic, Rome defeated not only Carthage, but also attained the advanced civilizations in the east. During the principate, it failed to conquer any enemies as sophisticated. Moreover, during the principate, the military commanders were also "political appointees"--if an emperor thought a general was too great, he'd have him axed. I think even Augustus did this when he announced that a certain general was simply no longer his friend, leading the whole (servile) senate to turn against the general and leading shortly thereafter to the guy's suicide. Same basic pattern in the life of Agricola, wasn't it? As for the the late republic, I agree with what you say, however that situation hadn't evolved overnight. The decline of the senate allowed powerful men to basically cock a snook at them. Inevitably someone was going to march on Rome and Sulla did that. Caesar also did so because he felt he had no other option - to back down at that stage was to invite disaster for him. I merely used the julio-claudians as an example. Under Augustus things went pretty much ok, although I dare say a lot of scheming went on behind the scenes. Augustus used to wear a breastplate under his toga didn't he? The lessons of Caesars fate had not been lost on him, and even though he was in a powerful position its obvious he never felt completely safe. Rule by the consuls worked better because you only got the job be being voted in. Now the mechanism may have been biased and corrupt, but you had to show you were worthy in some way before the senate gave it to you. To me its clear that Rome would never have had a stable government because too many people wanted to run it. The ruler had power. Real power. They could dictate someones destiny and cash in, but there were always those who wanted that power for themselves. This was the drawback to an immensly competetive society - Nobody wanted to be a loser. With strong or popular leaders this anarchy was pushed to one side yet throughout the empire it seems there was always disaffected individuals plotting to bring that leader down. I actually think the real success of Rome was to survive in spite of itself. The principate would have ground to a halt anyway. Like an expanding balloon it required too much puff to blow the empire any bigger. The sheer size of the empire meant that rulership was only possible by the initiative and competence of local government. As Diocletian admitted, the empire was too big for one man. The legions as always were laws unto themselves. Time and again they decided their general was to be emperor. So, in the late empire, we still see generals as power brokers in their own right. Also, don't forget that the Varian Disaster cut deeply into roman confidence - it changed their foreign policy. Rome was learning to colonise the wilderness rather than annexe other cultures, but after that crisis they would never do so again. I absolutely agree wholeheartedly about the envy causing a generals downfall. Not just Agricola - Stilicho too, and I'm sure you can think of others. But isn't that the curse of the powerful general? If Domitian had allowed Agricola to complete the conquest of scotland and return in triumph, was there anything to stop him arriving with a few legions at his back? In the principate we see a balance between ruler and general. Augustus, as I've mentioned, was more paranoid than most people realised, and very careful not to let another generation of Pompey's and Crassus's ruin him. So - if this the case - then surely my point was valid in the first place? That generals were appointed on a political basis rather than military capability?

Making life easy for your troops has some important disadvantages. Firstly, they get lazy. Secondly, they get bored. Thirdly, they begin to defend their materialistic pleasures rather than their nation. Troops with time on their hands soon get drunk, rowdy, and violent to everyone around them. This is why the romans went to so much trouble arranging fatigues, duties, practises, and engineering projects. There is some evidence that portions of Hadrians Wall were plastered and painted. Now thats the military. Get them out in the freezing cold of northern england, I want that wall smooth as a babies bottom and so white the picts get blinded. No excuses legionary!

Careful.... I don't think Rome did it perfectly. They did very well indeed - can't argue there. They were perhaps more systematic than most cultures and in terms of military technique ahead of their time. In the field they were good, but they did lose a lot of battles, often through poor leadership. Roman invincibility appears to be a myth that has endured two thousand years. Caesar would be amused!

Funny thing is, I doubt promotion prospects were very high period. You would have to go some to prove your worthiness unless you got lucky or very wealthy.

Source? A poor one - a talking head on a tv documentary. I can't remember who the learned gentleman was. I'm not kidding, he did actually say that. Wonder if he's still in gainful employment?

The European Union is an attempt by politicians to make their names in the history books. Just by existing it will become a rival to the US. Truth is, it has nothing more to offer its citizens than they already have. The romans on the other hand had an entire culture packaged and waiting to export. Why did germanic tribes overrun it in the 5th century? Because they wanted the good stuff for themselves, although I agree they were persuaded by pressure from the east.

It does for some people. The same was true then.

Human beings are social animals. We prefer to be in groups when things get heated. If your group is turning and going away, usually so do you regardless of courage. There have always been exceptions of couse. Morale in battle depends on many things. Your state of mind, how aggressive you are, who the enemy is, your physical health, the state of your equipment, the weather, your position, your numbers, support in flanks and rear, our current fitness, your understanding of the whole picture.