Jimbow

Cheers Anna. Five years!!?? You could rob a bank and get less with good behaviour Stumbled across this: www.journalofromanarch.com - 34. THE ROMAN ARMY AS A COMMUNITY There's an article: "[34] 139.. Animals and the Roman army: the evidence of animal bones" by Anthony King I've not read it so I've no idea if it's about chickens, goats, horses and/or bullfinches. Anyone out there seen it? There's also more on it as a PDF from the publishers: haynes1.pdf Cheers, Jim.

Proportionally, in terms of population count, I would endeavour to say the 20thC has seen far more brutality than Rome in any 100 year period. I'll refer to this thread from last January: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1120&hl=hitler I personally think it's quite likely that the phrase 'Pax Romana' is quite a valid one. Cheers, Jim.

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.

Because they could have been hunting dogs or pets Interesting and thanks for the link. I don't deny dogs could have been present amongst troops in the army, but as for why they were there I am yet to be convinced they were trained for and used as active participants in actual battle. Cheers, Jim.

There is no evidence so far for "Roman War Dogs", that is "Roman Combat Dogs Deployed In Battle". Nowhere. None at all. Not in literary sources, nor sculptural, nor anywhere else whatsoever. However, Anna may come up with something that changes this. Caesar doesn't even mention them, which differs with many webpages. If you know a source from Roman times please name it, I would sincerely love to see it. The whole thing about the dog on top of the skeleton (don't forget there was another human nearby) is pure conjecture, and wishful thinking imho. Cheers, Jim.

Look forward to seeing how you get on, and nowt would please me more than to be proven a cynic and ignoramus Cheers, Jim.

There were immunes whose role was hunting, so the likelihood is that is where they would be. I agree absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I don't see how I can come up with a source to refute war dogs in the Roman Army when I can't (nor yourself by the sounds of it) even find a source to support their use in actual combat? Why not get in touch with the author of the link I posted earlier, seeing as how he seems qualified to comment? I know he says there were none, but he may have a lot of valuable information you can use anyway. Cheers, Jim.

Is there any evidence that the 'assailant' wasn't just the 'defender' with the dog clamped to his throat? I'm very sceptical about the whole Roman 'war dog' thing. There are no literary sources to support it, and let's face it, it would have been very noteworthy. Other cultures yes, I have no problem with it, but people saying "there were" have so far come up with no actual contemporary sources.

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but I think you should all read this by a bulldog-loving ancient history professor: The Mollosus Myth Instead of re-quoting non-sourced generalities, he kind of clears up the whole thing for me, but then lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Be very clear on one thing, though - Julius Caesar never ever mentions British 'pugnaces' in the 2 books on De Bello Gallico.

The only thing I can think of is the Sacramentum, the annual military oath. Originally to the Senate and People, later to the Emperor and the general. He effectively gave up his right of appeal against the death sentence and swore to follow orders to the death. However, I believe he bore no personal responsibility for anything he did if ordered to do so. As for being chivalrous I don't think even fellow citizens felt they were that by any means. Muzzaguchi on Roman Army Talk gave this translation of a sacramentum in Aulus Gellius 16.4: There was also an oath taken before a battle (I think it was Cannae but am probably wrong) where the soldiers swore to stay in formation unless it was to help a comrade or retrieve a missile for use. Something like that. Cheers, Jim.

Here's a link to a vendor who I coincidentally found last night, who makes repro tags: Roman Officer - canis pugnax tags He also has a private collection of genuine artefacts which are well worth checking out: Cheers, Jim.

Not only at logistics, but it looks like they were better than the Greeks at medical science as well: Greek Medicine v Assyrian Cheers, Jim.

Is it amongst this list?: RMA IN HISTORY: ANCIENT TO ATOMIC ERAS IN TWO PARTS: This one perhaps stands out: Holmes, Richard, ed. The World Atlas of Warfare: Military Innovations that Changed the Course of History. London: Mitchell Beazley, 1988. Cheers, Jim.

Don't forget the Batavian Cohorts who were excellent swimmers, and were crucial to the initial stages of the British Invasion when crossing the Tamesis. Thoroughly ruthless too. Almost like Navy SEALs Cheers, Jim.

The X Gemina yes, but not with the VII Gemina, XIII Gemina, or the XIV Gemina so far as I can tell. Cheers, Jim.

Here are some helpful resources: http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/legions.htm http://www.davros.org/romans/legions.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/legion.htm http://www.roman-empire.net/army/leg-names.html I would also recommend the Osprey book "Roman Legionary: 58 BC - AD 69" by Ross Cowan and Angus McBride. It has a list with origins and meaning of names, though within that time period. Gemina refers to a legion created from two legions being combined (twins). Rapax is 'rapacious'; Fulminata is 'armed with lightning'; Ferrata is 'ironclad', etc. The numbers started at one, and then the next legion formed called two, and so on. However, various emperors or wannabee emperors would go back to number one (or another number) at some point just to confuse things. The numbers for the legions lost in AD 9 in Germany were never used afterwards I seem to remember. Cheers, Jim.

Now that's a really interesting comparison, and one I would tend to agree with by and large. Thanks. Cheers, Jim.

Probably more an 'homage' 'Zulu' starring Michael Caine and Stanley Baxter. Great film. (off-topic) It seems in reality that it was the Colour Sergeant who kept the whole thing together at Rourke's Drift, but it was the officers who got the credit. Most of the men who survived ended up with severe post traumatic stress disorder, some comitting suicide. Cheers, Jim.

Ungoliant, sorry I heven't got back to you sooner - had computer problems Anyway, I got my copy on Ebay. While the particular issue wasn't listed amongst a huge number of issues I contacted the seller directly with the details and he had it. He even very kindly threw in a free issue with an article on Celtic swords! Try Ebay on a regular basis. I'd offer to scan it but I really don't want to fall foul of Mr Cowan and MI, if you see what I mean. Feel free to disagree, but there is definite evidence of your average legionary, and centurion, becoming a tad "unhinged" when psyched up. However, I know the references to them also being very self-disciplined, so it may have something to do with how experienced the unit was? But, I think it may be dangerous to equate kendo to group tactics using gladii and pila. I personally feel this is one of the overriding factors that determined a legionary's loyalty, and stripping the dead of their valuables was the norm it seems. Julius Mansuetus (?) seems to have been so determined to chase an opposing Roman at the 2nd Battle of Cremona he did not even recognise his own father and cut him down, only realising his mistake when the dying man recognised him while being stripped of booty by his own son! Remember that the fighting was still going on at the time, and only stopped when the men nearby realised what had happened. And then it quickly started again. As for the fate of the city of Cremona itself, that beggars belief as to the sheer brutality the winning Flavian forces issued on a Roman city. Cheers, Jim.

According to Tacitus, all it took for two legionaries to infiltrate enemy lines and disable their artillery at Cremona in 69 was the swapping of scuta from dead opponents. They just walked straight up to it and did the deed. We don't know their names as they were killed very quickly, but it does illustrate the lack of difference between legions, or perhaps the big differences between individual soldiers in a strange roundabout way, except for scutum emblems. Cheers, Jim.

If you can get your hands on a copy of Ross Cowan's article in the April 2005 issue of Military Illustrated entitled "Roman Headhunters and Drinkers of Blood", it's well worth a read. It illustrates well, using legitimate source material, how the Roman soldier probably didn't need to psyche up - he was pretty much a psycho anyway Instead of the usual well defined and ordered ranks we have in our mind's eye, imagine a rabble of bloodthirsty (sometimes quite literally) opportunistic thugs who often couldn't wait to get into the fight: Tribunes threatened with murder for holding back, if not actually gutted and the offender praised for it (by Caesar); Cornicens threatened for not giving the order to advance; two rival centurions jumping into the enemy to see who could kill the most. It's an eyebrow-raising read and a nice take on the mindset of the men who made up one of the toughest forces the world has ever seen. Cheers, Jim.

I recently read an interview with Peter Connolly where he discusses this. His theory (and there are few as qualified to do so) is that the neckguard was not intended to protect from the rear, but from the front! If you picture the fighting stance of a legionary, which is in a crouching stance leaving the Roman quite low down, the scutum protecting most of the body with the top of the head peeking above the scutum, this leaves the top of the back and neck open to a high blow or thrust. He reckons the large neckguard added yet more protection from a high swing of an enemy sword, axe, falcata, etc, over the Roman, which otherwise could easily reach an exposed neck, or penetrate the defense and strike the Roman's back. Cheers, Jim.

There is apparently some evidence that stirrups were used in Assyria c.850 B.C. and in China as early as the Han dynasty, 202 B.C.

No, that would be the other fiend of the British Isles - the 20th Century British school dentist! Often referred to, by my South African dentist, as "the Butchers of Modern Dentistry".

Ah well, forget the Caledonii and the Picts, and the Celts and the Rangers. Although we may eat it today (the domesticated version), there was a strange, vicious beasty that struck fear into the hearts of the Romans - the Haggis! Three-legged, fiercely territorial, and undetectable beyond twenty paces, it would strike, launching from the heather and attach itself to the unwitting legionary's face. It would then implant a wee baby haggis into the poor victim, sending him into a coma while the horrid thingy gestated. Of course, his comrades would try to cut it off, but the acid for blood soon put a stop to this practice. Hence, walls were built, spanning the entire country - not to keep the wild men of the North at bay, but to protect the rest of Brittania from this evil creature and its symbiotic parasite, the Neap. Two legions fought terrible battles against the Haggis before abandoning the fort at Inchtuthil forever. The first, XX Valeria Victrix, was to retreat south to Chester. The second, IX Hispana, was never to be seen again......