Jimbow

The Germans made great use of the spear in close quarters combat, which maybe influenced late Roman use of it as far more of the army was made up of non-Italians by then.

His theory on the large neckguard and reinforced shoulders has more to do with protection of the shoulders and upper back, the neckguard growing ever larger to do so. That is where his theory of the crouching stance came from, in that it gave a good practical reason for the enlargement of the neckguard over time. At least, that's what he said in his interview that I read. Another idea comes from Lendon in Soldiers and Ghosts. He uses sources to suggest that the legionary's role evolved into that more of a combat engineer, leaving the actual fighting to the auxilia, who were recruited more and more for their aggression in battle, while the citizen soldiers, the legionaries, were used more for siegework and engineering. He suggests that is why the downward profile of the helmet grew larger, to protect against missiles being thrown down. Trajan's Column does support the theory, as an example, as well as written accounts of battle towards the end of the 1st C AD. The Batavian auxilia are a good example of this, who held the legionaries in low regard, seeing them as whimps.

I see your point, but he does back up his statements with examples from the sources. Combine that with the type of education the aristocracy went through (alluding to the Republican tribune), and the martial nature of Roman society, I feel his arguments stand up. Ross Cowan also uses similar sources to support his similar view, and C. Gilliver pointed out the value of virtus in the Roman soldier's psyche elsewhere. What I really like, and agree with, is the emphasis on how a Roman soldier behaved in battle, which goes against the "quiet disciplined ranks" traditionally thought of. His pointing out of how the more reckless elements in battle changed from tribunes to centurions and auxilia is also of great interest. Also, how competitive spirit was a great motivator, more akin to athletes than "close friends". His point about how grave stele are usually erected by actual family members, or similar ranks or specialists who knew the soldier, is a good one and quite surprising. Interestingly, usually not his contuburnia mates. Anyways, even if you don't agree with his views, as you say, it is a thoroughly well written book, and I feel a 'must read'.

There are two important choices missing: 1 - Virtus and Disciplina 2 - Competition amongst the ranks I could suggest they were in fact the real reasons for the Roman Army's success, now I'm almost finished reading Soldiers and Ghosts, by J. E. Lendon.

So what? That doesn't mean education and training isn't necessary. I'd rather have a well-educated and well-trained aristocrat of moderate experience than an illiterate legionary with tons of battle experience leading my army. Again, there's more to winning a war than just sword-play. If you can't feed your army, you're done for. Centurions came from the ranks (as a general rule), but in order to reach that status they had had to be organisers and have a grasp of logistics; be leaders. There are examples of tribunes dithering or holding back when action was necessary, only to be superceded by the centurion who makes the decision for them (the most notable being the centurion guts the tribune and leads the men to victory, for which he is praised). More to the point, the Praefectus Castrorum had also come from the centurion ranks and was third in command of a legion, outranking the tribunes except the Tribunus Laticlavius. However, many Tribuni Angusticlavii could be career soldiers and command very effectively, and did engage in tactical command. They could also be quite fierce and were not shy of showing virtus and taking on the enemy in single combat, or committing acts of great bravery and daring. However, the second in command, the Tribunus Laticlavius was someone I would prefer not to be led by, due to his inexperience and the nature of his appointment. I dare say the Legate would prefer to take the advice of the other officers, and I also dare say the fathers of many newly appointed Tribuni Laticlavii, themselves probably having had such an experience, quietly told their sons to take great heed of the words of the other ranks mentioned before embarking on taking up his post

Josephus, The Jewish War. Another: "Each soldier daily throws all his energy into his drill, as though he were in action. ..."

One of the more cited reasons for doubting Vegetius is his account of the distance a Roman legion could march in a day, which many have deemed highly unlikely. However, a bunch of re-enactors had a lively discussion on that very subject and one had a "Eureka!" moment when he realised the Roman day was split between sunrise and sundown, unlike in modern times. Assuming Vegetius was thinking of campaign season (summer having the longest days) he was bang on with his estimate, after a whole bunch, including me, had been pacing up and down measuring how far we had marched in a given time and had done a lot of maths. Vegetius may not be as unreliable as many think, imho. Cheers, Jim.

Actually, I thought the evidence was more rare in Britain than the rest of the Empire. Doubtful that the family would travel with the soldier in Republican times, as the soldier was often sent home after the campaign season to tend to his domestic affairs. Centurions were always allowed to marry and take their wives and children with them to their postings, and were even expected to take them it seems. Letters from Roman Egypt suggest when a centurion was assigned to a new posting his wife was responsible for the packing and following with the goods and chattels. Also, not just wives but family members. If a soldier's father died leaving him responsible for his mother, unmarried sisters, and even other relatives, it seems (according to the paper below) he would send for them and they would live in the vicus, should he have decided that just sending money was not enough. Even though the state at various times tried to dissuade this the evidence from tombstones shows the soldier often did it anyway as he was not willing to give up his duty. One tombstone at Ribchester suggests a soldier even felt responsible for his mother-in-law (Julius Maximus to Campania Dubitata). Women and the Roman Army in Britain, by L. Allason-Jones, which has an interesting re-examination of the evidence, questioning many previous interpretations of the evidence. Jim.

It looks ever more likely that not only did a centurion's wife and children live in his barrack room (more a house really), but that in some cases the men were allowed to live with their unofficial spouses within the fort. A centurion's quarters have always been cited as being too small for a family, but they were in fact often larger than a middle class family home in the south of England at the time. Curiously, one of the reasons for a marriage being unable to be "official" could well have been a way for the state to not have to pay out a pension to the bereaved wife should the husband be killed in action. They were literally evicted should he die. Officers, as was mentioned, were the exception. "The Roman army as a community", ed. Goldsworthy and Haynes. Also, there were great benefits to the state from longterm service of the soldier, as he was a very handy source of labour for roadbuilding, construction, etc, which would enable growth and maintenance of the Roman infrastructure. They probably spent more time building than destroying. Jim.

Petronius tells a story of a soldier and a friend (not a soldier) travelling to a distant village. The soldier turns into a werewolf, but that is not the point. Although he was travelling with someone else, he was the only soldier and was not with another group of soldiers. I don't think, as a rule, soldiers had to move in groups when going on leave or transferring. The exception was when in territory deemed hostile, as told by Seneca (e.g. Syria), and even then it was only in pairs. If two was the exception, then one must have been the norm. Note that after enrollment into the army the troops were sent home to see their families and take care of family business before regrouping to join their legions, which must have meant they travelled alone in at least some cases if not most. They had to take an oath to return, which I think was a much more serious matter then than now, and even then they could be late provided the reasons were serious enough. Cheers, Jim.

Pretty much, I believe?

The helmets in the Dacian Wars were the usual Gallic and Italic types of the late 1st C. The crossbracing were simple iron rods riveted across the top, usually in the field I believe, and probably the crests discarded. They were not the later "cavalry types" (although just as feasibly they were legionary types). It seems the manica was felt unnecessary until they went to war with Dacia, and the Romans had done pretty well up until then. Greaves had fallen out of use for the common trooper as well a long time before, so their re-introduction is a definite indication leg injuries were a factor. I think the main problem was the reach around of the falx due to its shape, which enabled the Dacians to get one in around the scutum and over the back (with the top of the helmet in the way), combined with the height of the Dacians themselves. Just as well they were fighting the Dacians then, and not each other.

The almost overnight adoption (in historical terms) of greaves, a manica, and cross-bracing to the top of the helmet are the likeliest clues. Cheers, Jim.

At one point legionary applicants had to pass (generally) a medical examination by (usually) 3 physicians. After a tough and rigorous basic training the training continued every day for the rest of their careers (give or take). On top of this, they were made to march emulating a campaign march every few weeks. The combat and physical training never let up, and I doubt general regional physiques had too much to do with it even if applicable. The men themselves gathered courage from their training and experience when faced with a new and frightening enemy (guess who usually won). The Dacians were generally taller and fierce inflicting dreadful wounds with the falx, but they adapted their armour and carried on (we know who won there). Read Josephus for his comments on their stamina and relentless training, which he believed guaranteed them victory almost every time, rightly or wrongly. Pertinax's comment on stabbing versus slashing is bolstered by the volley of pila which would incapacitate much of the enemy's shield defence, bearing in mind it is estimated by some that there were only four seconds between the pila volley and the Romans crashing into the stalled enemy. I doubt it matters how big they are, so long as you've softened them up first and given them no time to recover. New tactics and methods were also adopted on the go, as seen with the formation of the cohortes equitates, thought up by a centurion who saw a need for foot troops to go in with the cavalry and soften up enemy cavalry that the Roman cavalry were having problems with up until then. Young and flighty troops were chosen and trained in dismounting from the back of a horse in no time at all (I think it was a siege scenario under Arrian). It worked and the centurion was commended. So even when they were bested they had the flexibility to come up with, and act on, a solution whilst in the thick of it. Sorry, I don't have the actual source references to hand. Cheers, Jim.

Very highly I see your point on this, and I much agree. Connolly actually reconstructs a lot of the kit himself I believe, and puts it through trials to try to see how it could have been used. He is also fairly outspoken and independent imho, which I think gives him more credence. I have to say I'm not really in a position to fault him, but I can give you a nice example of one of his theories which makes absolute sense once heard: The large helmet neckguard. When seen initially I thought "Aha, to protect from the rear!" Wrong, if you accept Connolly's theory, and here's why I like him so much (as well as being an illustrator); The neckguard is to protect from frontal attack. In a nutshell, your average Roman soldier is in a formation based on frontal assault, and by far the best fighting stance for him to take is to cover behind the large scutum, crouch low and stab with the gladius. However, this leaves a vulnerability from often taller adversaries with longer swords that are usually used to slash and cut (the extreme examples are the Dacians). This means the upper back is vulnerable, and that's why Connolly believes the neckguard was adapted and enlarged from the shorter Gallic type, which is where their helmets were plageurised from, It's essentially an extra layer of armour for there. Once the segmentata was introduced in Augustus' reign (9 BC so far) I think the weakspot was identified and the adaptation was made to the Gallics (and Coolus'), bearing in mind the hamata had a double layer over the shoulders and, importantly, across the whole upper back. In a nutshell the guy's inspiring Thanks very much, no problem. I can talk about Peter Connolly 'til the cows come home I have most of his books, and I love the straightforward approach, and the superb illustrations which, don't forget, he also painstakingly researches, sometimes building models to get it right, over a long period of time.

Just depends if it's a sword or missile I suppose. Arguing against myself in a way too But I suppose that if it were javelins they picked up they can't have been bent. Cheers, Jim.

I think that's gonna be a tough one, as the size of the army fluctuated with circumstances. There is a UNRV page ( Roman Empire Population ) that puts the census figure for Roman citizens in 70 BC at 910,000. This pdf may be of interest as well: Rome at War. Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic. Bear in mind that between 17% and 40% of the army may have died on campaign (Roman camps had excellent hygiene hence the disparity), which is based on American Civil War estimates through combat, disease, etc, so you would need to factor that in through the century. This page from the same book ( Chapter , Introduction: Agriculture in Italy from Hannibal to Tiberius Gracchus puts the army and navy figure at anywhere below 11% of the freed population in 212 BC. If you can figure out the percentage of actual eligible men (male property owners of some worth) I guess you can get somewhere close to a figure. In fact, it looks like that book may be what you need to read. Cheers, Jim.

No point. The wooden peg is mentioned as a battlefield innovation used only once by Marius. He based all of his pila on found archaeological examples. There were 20 throws that hit the target by him, and he fails to give a number for his brother-in-law (I suspect 20 also), against 11mm thick rough ply (not scuta, sorry, got a bit mixed up). Still not satisfied they added a further 7mm of ply on top, totalling 18mm, and dropped extra-weighted pila (weighted until they penetrated) onto it. No bending. There are no ancient references to bendy pila by design, only one bendy hasta. All interpretations by scholars so far have been apparently mistaken, attributing spears to javelins: Polybius says hasta velitaris not pilum; Plutarch described the wooden pin (which is a very different way of bending it through a shield);Caesar says a pilum did bend but only after penetrating up to 3 shields, which makes the bending incidental and a one-off, not by design. It would be like saying machine-gun barrels are designed to melt when they're fired continually and not cooled.

To be quite honest it's highly unlikely as it is Peter Connolly, one of the leading and most published ancient history illustrators and researchers, literally placed by many at the same level as Robinson for his contribution to our understanding of the Roman army over the past 30 years. When he says "I think it was like this" people take a lot of notice. He tends to be quite "exact" about what he publishes and did take advice I believe on the metal used for the pila. Don't forget that he also took a look at the written sources, and found the interpretations that we have come to accept and found major flaws in them, and can prove it as well. In a nutshell, none of the written sources say that pila bent, only a type of hasta, and that's were the first notions of the bendy pilum came from. Cheers, Jim.

Wow! Many thanks indeed and most unexpected! I'm very grateful and look forward to a good read. Many thanks again, Jim.

I hate to ruin the party on the pilum and its ability to bend, but tests just published by Peter Connolly using very accurate reconstructions of many types found have pretty much proven that they didn't bend. It also looks like the literary sources have been misinterpreted all along. His paper can be read in "Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 12/13". Not only did he test them, but he got his brother-in-law who is a heavy farm labourer to repeat the test with the same result. However, most of the tests did see the pila penetrate the scuta, which backs up source descriptions of that aspect, and the only way to get them out was to cut them. Cheers, Jim.

I once read that Vespasian was lucky when, before becoming Emperor, he fell asleep at one of Nero's concerts but was thankfully only ordered to leave in shame. When at the doorway, unsure of what to do he asked a court official (or slave?) where he should go? The man, causing Vespasian huge embarassment, rudely replied "Go to Hell!" Years later, after Vespasian had beaten Vitellius and became Emperor, the same court official (or slave?) nervously came to him asking what he should do? Vespasian replied, "Go to Hell!"

That's obviously the case in terms of its primary use. However, if the Roman soldiers were trained in the use of the scutum as an offensive weapon, and not just to block with, then I would argue that it could be loosely classed as a weapon. A biro is something they wouldn't have been trained to kill with Another weapon that I don't think has been mentioned is the pick-axe/dolabra. There are written sources saying it was used in battle, and one source cites it as the best way to crush your enemy in certain circumstances. Jim.

Have to disagree with you there I'm afraid In the hands of a Roman soldier it most definitely was used as a weapon to hit the enemy, using the boss to punch with, and the edges to smack on an enemy's foot or up into his chin to make him falter or lose balance. Search around for reenactor accounts of its use in this way. Jim.

Also bear in mind that the Carthaginians are the likeliest culprits to have introduced the Romans to the lovely method of execution known as crucifixion. Jim