Furius Venator

Obviously men in melee combat could last only a short time if going all out to kill their opponents. Of course many did not seek to kill but fought defensively instead. Nonetheless the probability is that units were only relieved when not in physical contact (as opposed to proximity). ' The men are shoulder to shoulder, three feet per man. How does a heavily armoured Roman (with a large shield) get through a space 1.5 feet wide? He's simply too wide for the gap (I'm 18 incher across the shoulders clad in a shirt and I am not exactly broad. It's simply not physically possible unless you assume they fight in open order at 6 feet per man in which case a Roman might be facing 3 opponents and will not have the moral reassurance of his mates shoulder to shoulder.

Caesar does say that tired troops were relieved. At no time does he suggest that this was a replacement of front rankers by rear rankers. What is more probable is that centuries were relieved by other centuries when there was a lull in the fighting. I'm not saying that it is impossible that troops actually engaged in hand-to-hand combat (rather than in close proximity to the enemy) were relieved, merely that the evidence does not state that they were and no clear mechanism for the exchange has ever been suggested by a historian.

This will nhave been dreamt up by some academic type with considerable brains and imagination but little common sense or understanding of ancient warfare. Centurion in front rank, so far, so good. We know that they fought in the front ranks from the literary evidence. Blows a whistle. Well maybe he did. Of course one might wonder why the century was provided with a horn-blower if the centurion signalled by whistling like a football referee. The truth is we don't know how orders were signalled. The evidence suggests a mixture of voice commands, music and visual signals (retreat or advance of the standards). As far as I am aware, the introduction of the centurion playing the penny whistle is utterly unsupported by the evidence. And quite unlikely given the presence of a musician in the ranks. Holding each other by a strap in the armour to help staying in formation. This one made me laugh at first. But now I'm grinding my teeth. Professional soldiers don't need to hang onto each other to keep formation, that's what drill is for. Whoever the historical consultant for that series was wants naming so that he can be publicly ridiculed. We don't know how units relieved the front ranks in battle when units were actually fighting. It was most likely done when lulls occurred as the opposing forces withdrew for breath.

Were the Gallic Wars justified? Well it all depends who you are... For Caesar, an unqualified yes. He gained a phenomonal amount of prestige and an army of seasoned veterans. Had he not prolongued the wars in Gaul, Cato was waiting 'patient in rancour' to prosecute him for various illegalities but that threat was posponed also. For Caesar's officers, an unqualified yes. They added to their own prestige and fortunes. For Caesar's legions, a qualified yes (for the survivors, the dead probably didn't think it so justified). They were enriched but as veterans were subject to service in the civil wars that followed. For the Gallic allies of Rome, a qualified yes. They might have become subject to Rome rather than simple 'allies' but they undoubtedly benefited at the expense of their brethern who were anti-Roman. For the Roman people, also a qualified yes. Huge numbers of slaves became available and trade with the Gallic tribes made more secure. The down side of course being the civil war caused by Caesar's ambition, Pompey's stupidity and Cato's intransigence. Had Caesar not launched his technically illegal attacks then the civil war would not have happened (of course there almost certainly would have been a civil war eventually but not between Pompey and the laughably named 'boni' and Caesar). In the eyes of Caesar's political opponents, the war was not justified. Not of course for any special love of the Gauls or scrupulous regard for the law. But because they saw there chance to pursue their political vendetta by portraying the war as unjustified and illegal. Hypocrisy, though hardly unique to Roman politicians, was nonethless endemic in the senatorial class. No exceptions. For the Gallic and Germanic tribesmen (and a few Britons), in the short term, a disaster of monumental proportions. In the long run though, especially for Gaul, the Roman conquest benefited future generations. That would scarcely justify it in the eyes of Vercingetorix or his men. In our eyes? Notjustified. Whatever the of 'protecting allies', the fact is that Caesar prolongued the war for his own political ends. It was not a 'just' war in the modern sense. Much like the third war against Carthage, it was waged for the benefit of certain factions within certain social classes of the Roman people.

Cato's rigid pursuit of his feud with Caesar precipitated the crossing of the Rubicon. His unbending hatred caused all overtures of peace to be rejected (though the overwhelming mass of senators were for accommodation with Caesar). The Republic had (just) withstood the dominations of Marius, Sulla and Pompey amongst others. Caesar wanted to be primus inter pares, not to destroy his opponents but to win political supremacy over them. The stubborness of Cato and his faction meant bloody civil war and their ultimate destruction... Now obviously Cato is not wholly responsible, yet his attitude makes him at least as culpable as Caesar.

I should like to emphasise that there is a difference between a single horseman charging (likely at the full gallop) and a formed body of horse for whom cohesion is essential (charge most likely at a fast canter or slower). Even trained warhorses will not charge home against steady foot, especially spearmen. Their charge might well cause formed foot to break before contact though. They will slow before coming into contact with formed infantry who do not give way. As regards horses, campaigning destroys horses even faster than it does men. Just campaigning, no battles, will quickly reduce the effective strength of cavalry to well below their theoretical maximum. Some armies, especially horse nomads, had spare mounts (up to sixteen in a Hun warrior's string!).

The Roman revolution by Syme. Easily the most insightful and eye-opening account of the fall of the Republic and rise of Octavian. Few 'big names' escape with their reputations untarnished. Cato is revealed at the stubborn architect of Caesar's fateful crossing of the Rubicon through his refusal (against the desire of almost the whole senate) to allow a comprimise. Cicero is revealed as spineless and politically niaf, to the point if stupidity, picking feuds with ancient houses and with a ridiculous belief in the integrity of the 'boni'. Marcus Brutus' reputation as a man of principle is dismissed in one crushing sentence (I paraphrase) '...he followed the path of duty, his uncle Cato and his father's murderer'. Caesar is the man with no plan, capable of rising to supremacy but only at the cost of eliminating his rivals. Pompey, nearly as niaf as Cicero, trapped by his own bloated sense of self importance into a war that would have resulted in his destruction whether he won or lost. All in all, fantastic, if a little dated.

A cavalryman can hold his spear in one of two ways. The couched position, used by knights would often result in the breaking of the spear on impact. Contrary to popular belief neither stirrups nor a high backed saddle is required for this technique to work there are plenty of examples in the literature from Xenephon onwards to suggest that this technique was used by horsemen before the adoption of the stirrup. This charge might well be at the canter on impact. The overhand position, most common in ancient times, would tend to preserve the spear longer. The power behind the blow is much less that that of a couched spear on initial impact but it allows for multiple stabs at the enemy. The charge as delivered by a formed body of horse would be initially at the trot, increasing to a canter, maybe even a gallop on occasion, close to the moment of impact. Some very heavily armoured horse (cataphracts) might not get above a fastish trot. Generally, cavalry on cavalry, units would open ranks to allow passage of their opponents without damaging collisions. Cavalry on infantry, either the infantry run before impact or cavalry do not charge home. On command, the Romans used both music, visual (movement of standards) and voice commands though the deatail is slightly lacking. Commanders could influence units held in reserve or those actually in combat. Dispatch riders could be used to give commands to subordinates. I'd recommend a thorough reading of Caesar and also Goldsworthy's work, The Roman Army in Battle 100BC- AD200. The army employed slaves as mule-handlers etc. Numbers are difficult to ascertain.

Essentially then the Romans were more insular than the Athenians and hence less creative? Seems plausible. The inscription need not be an attempt to 'trick' the population into slavery, merely an attempt to inform. Today local authorities post notices in obscure and unvisited locations (like town halls and public libraries), not so that the populace won't read them but rather because they are genuinely making a (poor) effort to inform. Perhaps it's the same here, except rather than obscuure location being the problem it may have been a semi-literate population.

The Romans use dtroops to garrison their empire to just as great an extent as the British and they were consideranly harsher at dealing with revolts. The British Empire collapsed because we were unable to persuade the educated Indian class that they were better under the empire than independent. Africa was simply abandoned. The Romans had different internal problems and could not cope with the external pressures created by the 'barbarian' states. As regards fanaticism, the Gallic, German, whatever tribes weren't fanatical at all. Their 'heroic' style of warfare might have fanatical elements but to describe these societies (or Rome) as fanatical is silly. Cato has it right I think, Rome was simply better organised (a secondary factor is her refusal to admit defeat, even when crushed in battle, probably unique in western history)

A good question. To which I don't know the answer! Perhaps the inscription is not an indication that the majority of Romans were literate, it might be that most couldn't read it (and perhaps suffered the penalty). But the lawmakers could say fair warning had been posted. It not being their fault that the general populace couldn't read it... Perhaps the Romans were simply a more 'practical' people. Those with leisure time being more inclined to pursue politics and the law than the arts (that is the 'traditional' explanation I believe. Or maybe the older literature simply did not come down to us, in the same way that we know some of their histories existed but have been lost.

I know. They settled in the empire in large numbers as a cohesive social unit. I didn't mention land, why bring it up? The Varus defeat was under Augustus. But under Tiberius, the Germans were harried and beaten numerous times, partly to avenge for Varus' defeat. It does not seem to me that Varus' disaster weighed too heavily on Tiberius, except in his desire to avenge it. The curtailment of Germanicus' campaigns might well be, as Tacitus suggests, to prevent him from gaining excessive prestige at Tiberius' expense. It certainly was not because he felt the Germans should be left alone. In fact the Romans fomented unrest between the Germanic tribes, ultimately leading to Arminius' deposition. The Romans suffered a greater defeat against the Parthians (seven eagles lost as opposed to three). Yet that did not prevent them from campaigning against Parthia. The Romans were a deeply stubborn people (any 'sensible' nation would have sued for peace after Cannae). The Romans always bounced back and, as far as I am aware, never left a disaster unavenged until Adrianople.

I suspect the bendable/breakable pilum might have been so that the very large number that did not hit an enemy's shield could not be thrown back. To be fair to Connolly, very few people have actually considered the mechanics of ancient warfare, especially how individuals used their equipment. He does seem however to have fallen into the trap of becoming too focussed on his own line of research and not stood back enough to consider simpler solutions. eg Three different styles of Gladius are discovered, all dating from different periods and found in different locations. Rather than consider them simply differences in production (ie cosmetic variations, which is really all they seem to be, Connolly considers that they reveal a change in the way the gladius was wielded. That said, I'd reiterate that he knows considerably more about the design and construction of ancient weapons and armour than most, it's just their application he sometimes (emphasise 'sometimes') seems to get wrong.

It was trifling compared to the magnitude of the other defeats, which all (except Carrhae) happened on Roman territory, hence also more immediately threatening to Roman interests. After Varus' defeat were Roman towns under threat as after Cannae? Did large numbers of barbarians settle under their own government within Imperial territory as after Adrianople? 'It was a great victory and it cost us little.' II 19 on Germanicus' first victory (I'd recommend reading the whole section for an overview). The second victory was followed by the loss of many ships in a storm and the army suffered privation. Nonetheless both the Chatti and the Marsi were brought to submission shortly afterwards and one of Varus' eagles recovered. It was really the decision of Claudius to invade Britain that led to Germany becoming a secondary theatre for the Romans.

The loss of three legions is trifling compared to the other battles on the list. Just look at the casualty figures. The reason it sticks in the mind is because there were next to no survovors, unlike in the greater disasters where substantial numbers of Romans escaped. In AD 16 Germanicus brought Arminius to battle deep in Germany. Twice. And won convincingly both times (Tacitus Annals II)

I'll grant you that Adrianople didn't lead to the immediate collapse of the west. Yet it did sow the seeds. Which is simply not true of the other battles. After each of the others Rome came back stronger and inflicted crushing reverses on their foes. That was not the case post Adrianople.

Adrianople had the greatest consequences. But if you mean casualties then the question's already been answered above. Teutonberg Forest was nowhere near on the same scale as the other defeats. And whatever effects it may have had on Augustus' mind, it did not stop later Imperial expansion neither did it prevent them regularly invading and fighting in Germany. It has always baffled me why people have made such an issue out of it...

Just in case anyone was thinking that the assault on Cicero's camp could be put down to the expertise of Roman prisoners and that the Gauls of the Alesian campaign had learnt from them: '[The Gauls] offered stout resistance...then tunneled in the direction of the siege terrace...the Aquitanai excel at this work as there are copper mines and quarries in many parts of the country.' Gallic War III 21. Mining siege towers is hardly a rudimentary technique. Neither incidentally is the use of ladders which must be made long enough to top the wall but not so long that enemy poles can easily dislodge them. Try calculating the height of a wall 400 yards distant to within a couple of feet without the aid of multiplication... Equally, grapples were not for swarming up walls hand over hand but rather for pulling down wooden towers or pallisades. Clearly it is no easy matter to get them fixed in the first place (in fact I'm slightly puzzled as to haw it was managed. Regardless, the gauls lacked only engines such as onagars or ballistae as far as I can tell. As you can gather from reading the bits of Caesar that I've quoted. And Cato, Sure the Romans won. But the Gauls were using seige weapons and techniques that the Romans used also (the Roman did not despise the ladder and grapple as you do- look at Trajan's column). That is my point, the Gauls had the ability to use siege equipment where necessary and did so several times against Caesar. They never beat Caesar in open battle either- does that mean they had no effective weapons? Of course not.

Perhaps I was unclear. They didn't forget them at Alesia, Caesar regarded the town as impregnable and Vercingetoric waited for him to be caught 'between hammer and anvil'. So there was no assaulty on the town. When the relieving force arrived Caesar says, 'they prepared a great quantity of fascines, ladders and grappling hooks...and drove the Romans from the rampart [with missiles and] employed every other method of assault' VII 80. Also the beseiged 'lost much time in bringing out the implements that [they] had prepared...and in filling up the first section of trench.' VII 82 When the relief force assault the weakest section of the defences, 'Vercingetorix sallied out with the fascinmes, poles, sapper's huts, grappling hooks and other implements...' VII 84 The Gauls even use testudo at one point 'advancing with shields locked above their heads' whilst constructing a ramp to overcome the fortificationsVII 85 Later they 'filled trenches with earth and fascines, and tore down tyhe pallisade and breastwork with their hooks'. VII 86 I only really mentioned the Dacians because they had been cited above. Personally I'm not that keen on the broad grouping of 'Celts' to describe a huge number of different tribes who had some cultural features in common but also large differences. Even within Gaul, many tribes were quite Germanic in culture. I do however think that the expertise of these peoples is often underestimated by Romanophiles. I'll see if I can dig out some references for the Trajan's column thing. It might take me a wee while though. Lastly, the Gauls were very likely expert miners, after all they'd been mining metals for many many years.

They maintained silence in the advance (a technique common to many armies eg the Spartans and the C19th British) but would break the silence with a devastating (to enemy morale) shout upon engaging (just like the Spartans and British coincidentally)

Caldrail, I completely agree with you. Further to my previous post, I'd like top point out that Trajan's column depicts Dacians using rams etc against Roman forts.

Oh good grief! They used siege equipment in all the sieges of Vercingetorix's campaign as well as in the preceding rebellion. At Cicero's camp they construct field works, build towers, sappers huts and grappling hooks. You'll find this in the Gallic Wars V 42 and 52. They also use incendiaries against the camp. Now I grant you, this was done with the assistance of prisoners but also through observation of Roman methods. At Avaricum 'the Gauls resorted to all sorts of devices; for they are a mosyt ingeneous people and very clever at borrowing and applying ideas...they pulled aside our wall hooks with lassoes...and hauled them inside with windlasses. They made our terraces fall in by undermining, at which they are expert, they had also equipped the whole circuit of the wall withtowers, furnished with platforms and covered with hides...they made frequent sorties...As our towers were raised...they increased the height of theirs...They countermined the subterreanean galleries that we were digging toward the walls and prevented their continuation by throwing into them stakes..boiling pitch and very heavy stones.' Gallic Wars VII 22. Now all the above are techniques of siegecraft being expertly applied against experts. You think they just picked that up overnight from some prisoners that were taken by another tribe a considerable distance away? And then promtly forgot it? (Except of course at Alesia).

I think there are two separate questions: Did the Celts have siege technology? The answer is patently yes. The evidence is in Caesar and on Trajan's column. Did the use this technology effectively? No. Largely because of cultural factors that limited their ability to conduct offensive war.

The implication I got from most of his posts was that he felt they were incapable of conducting siege operations at all. Which is clearly untrue. They could and did use siege equipment. When Cicero was saved by a relieving force 90% of his command were wounded. Had Caesar not received Cicero's message his camp would undoubtedly have fallen. Cato: if that wasn't what you meant, sorry.

It still holds good. Celts tended to bring their weapons downward in great sweeping slashes. These would naturally impact on either the head or shoulders. The neck guard is just as easily explained as protection from missiles in normal combat. I'm sure Virgil will attest to the well known tendency for men to advance into missile fire with head bowed (large numbers of men killed by crossbowbolts in medieval times were shot through the top of their heads, bizarre until you realise they were instinctively guarding their faces by advancing head down). of course, that would mean they were protected from missiles launched from above too Connolly has donesuperb work with his study of weapons and armour but is beginning to suffer from a tendency to draw too many conclusions from his evidence.