longshotgene

Now, you'll all have to forgive my womanly ignorance here, guys - but wouldn't a Roman general be on horseback? And wouldn't his counterpart - no matter how barbaric, also be on horseback? This being the case, would that not alter the techniques of the fight? You can ridicule me if you wish - and please explain to me in idiot's language, as the legions are not my strongpoint, and I will not be offended by simplistic explanations suitable for a child of six. (I am NOT joking here - I am serious). Of course, even my scant knowledge tells me that the legionary himself was a foot soldier - but did the generals actually march into battle or were they sat in the saddle? Help - please explain. ETA: Also - was it not possible for the gladius to be used to smite off heads? The general would have almost always been on horseback. If the battle goes south, he needs to make a run for it. Plus, the cavalry has a calvary type of gladius. It gave the rider the distinct advantage of not having to lean over so far, which would allow them to become unhorsed. But to answer your question, yes the Roman general was almost always on a horse, as was his Lts. Only in South America during the time of the Inca do you really see a general not on a horse. This is due to a lack of the horse. Instead, the general was carried around on a litter by four servants. The General has to be visible to his troops. Hope this helps.

Most of the Hannibal victories were exceptional. I am doing my doctoral thesis on the repition of history. I am comparing the lives of Hannibal, Robert E. Lee, and Erwin Rommel. All three came from pretty humble backgrounds. All three rose to prominence. And all three were brilliant generals. Unfortunately, all three fought a war that could easily have been won, had they reinforcements and supplies. Unfortunately, their countries thought it a lost cause or the supplies were attacked, thus starving the generals. Hannibals greatest victories were on Lake Trasimene, and Cannae. Whenever you have a battle, and a new term is added to the language of the people, such as "Ham Stringing", you know it was an awesome battle. Something like 90,000 Romans versus 35,000 Carthaginians. Hannibal had the advantage of the field, dust, and wind. The Romans had the strength of their hastati, and other 2 levels of troops. Still the Carthaginians won obviously.

I would assume that the legions did not wear their cloaks on the ground. If it came down to individual combat, the cloak could be used against you. A man could easily be pulled down from behind by his cloak. The cloaks I believe would have been more a thing to wear on the march and around camp, and to double as a blanket. Only in the severe cold would you wear your cloak, possibly.

If you guys ever go to Basel, Switzerland, check out the Muenster Cathedral. It is one of those places mentioned that was actually a Celtic worshipping center, turned into a Catholic Church. It is located at the strongest current point of the Rhine in Europe. I was always under the understanding that the early missionaries had to pacify the pagans by allowing them to keep their holidays, but with Christian overtones. For instance, All Saints Day in South America was actually Honor the dead Incan Emperors day. When the Christians came to South America to convert, they saw the pagans eating with their dead on a specific day. The Christians convinced them to move the day to this All Saints Day, but they could still contiue the custom. The same thing happened in Europe. Only, slowly the Pagan and Christian converged and became one. Easter Bunny. Rabbits are the symbol of fertility in ancient Europe. Hence the term, "breed like rabbits". It happens to take place in spring, much like the time of passover, and the crucifixion. What better way to convert!

Dude, you cannot be serious! Look at Trajan's Column. The leather lappings that cover the thighs are connected to the Muscled Cuirass. There are no weldings or joints there to hold that on. It is all one piece of sewn on. Roman officers would have worn decorated metal armour in ceremonies. There is an old story about a Centurion who proved his loyalty over and over again. As a gift he was given a suit of the finest metal armour, which was to be worn only on parades and triumphs. This story is straight from Gibbon. Leather armour would have been worn. It might not have always been muscled, but it would have been worn. Alexander the Great wore armour that was composed of metal and leather. Metal is not all that flexible. The Segmentata Lorica is some metal attached to what? Leather. The leather gives flex.

O.K. I was just curious. The mounds are smaller than Stonehenge. I can't tell how high or low they are, but they are circular. Some are in wooded areas. Some are out in the open.

Does anyone know what the little rings are by and near Stonehenge? I was looking at Google Earth today and noticed all of these little rings all around Stonehenge. They almost appear to be little hills.

Yes, but think in today's terms. If a general wears bright flashy armour, it is like a gigantic ancient neon sign above his head saying, 1.) I am an officer, kill me! 2.) I bought this nice pretty armour, kill me and sell it for some wine money and prostitutes. I would have to say the Romans learned this lesson long ago. There is a book written about the General Hannibal. It tells how the Romans wanted to have a meeting with Hannibal, so the two leaders planned to meet on a hill top. Hannibal wanted to take them prisoner and ransom them to pay for the campaign in Italy, since Carthaginian supply routes had been cut off by Carthage itself. The Consul and his aide both attired in beautiful METAL armour approached the hill. A few jumpy Carthaginians jumped out and killed the Romans hoping to sell their armour. Now the moral of the story is, don't wear flashy armour! I think the Romans were practical people. Now coming from a British mindset I could see someone thinking the Romans walked, bathed, and drank in flashy armour. When did the British finally give up the red coats? Any way, I would have to say most Romans learned from this lesson. They were a practical people, and had no use for some extremes, unless they were rookies or extremely pompous.

I am not saying metal wasn't used. It was. We have specimens from Mainz. But I am saying that leather was used as well. It only makes sense. If a soldier was out on campaign, you probably didn't have a ton of blacksmiths around. On top of this, you would have had to have carried your iron with you to make armour and repairs. We are both right. Just to varying degrees. Leather would have been widely used. Metal would have been too.

I still disagree. Tanning is not as hard as you think. The animal contains everything you need to tan. Brain tanning is one of the most common forms of tanning on earth. Granted, it stinks, but it works. I don't know about any role-playing games, but leather armour would have been used. Second of all, if you stretch the hide and turn it to raw hide, you have a very hard piece of leather. Then you re-wet it and shape it how you want it. Cow leather is very, very thick. Have you ever tried to skin a cow? The skin around the head is seriously thick. Plus, you guys keep looking at it from a modern viewpoint. They did not have the grades of steel we have today. Their stuff was not that great. It would have been more iron than anything, which means it would have been extremely heavy. I don't believe through research and common sense that metal armour would have been used as much as you guys think. I know the image of thousands of soldiers in shiny metal marching through green meadows sound lovely, but think about it.

Exactly. The Romans always carried their supply with them. They had cattle which were herded by Rottweilers in most cases. Hence the thick skulls on the dogs. Leather armour doesn't rust, and all you need to do is grease it every once in a while. Cows solve all of these problems. Pigs do to! The cow gets slaughtered, you now have fitting for the inside of helmets, coverings for shields, and new armour. Not to mention makeshift bags from cow stomachs to make water bags. Plus intestines can be used to make all manner of string for bows, ballistas, etc. The list goes on and on for the uses of a cow. I may be wrong, but I do believe the cows have it. Oh and did I mention cows could help dig ditches?

First off let me say that the Romans did use leather for armour. Legionaires needed to buy their own gear. Metal armour was normally used as parade armour. First of all, steel was crap back then. They didn't have the nice stainless steel we have today. Second of all, swords were not that sharp. The metal was soft which meant it didn't hold an edge for long. If you read the Annals of Roman History Livy talks about the use of boiled leather armour. First of all, it is easier to use than metal. Second of all, you don't need to carry a blacksmith around with you to make it. Third of all, the legions wanted to travel light. That isn't to say metal armour wasn't in use, it was. It just cost the average soldier a lot more. And it wasn't always used for war. Julius Caesar normally wore leather armour when in camp. It was lighter, and still offered protection.

Good question. The Deepeka helmets and such are made in India. Colleagues of mine have told me to steer clear of these products. They are usually cheap imitations. I just want something I can wear when I teach Julius Caesar to my students. I really like the two movie helmets, but cannot find them anywhere.

O.K. now I know there is the helmet on the internet Maximus (From Gladiator) wore when he was in the arena. But where can I buy a helmet that looks like the one he wore in the opening battle scene? In the movie Arthur the main character Arthur wears a similar helmet. According to many of the books I have studied, the helmets are not far from the truth. Does anyone know where I can buy one?

Historically though, what gave the Romans power over the Greeks and Macedonians was the ingenius ability to out-flank the phalanxs and drive up their rear. At the same time the Romans would make a strong front by either bringing up a tortoise formation with the infantry, or force the the other army to charge them. That was another famous tactics of the Romans. Inflict losses by screening with arrows, which forces the enemy to either charge or break. If they break, they run away right into the awaiting cavalry. Cavalry packed tight together is very devastating. The Romans learned a lot of these tactics from Hannibal. His flanking manuveurs at Cannae were awesome. Think about. Because he flanked so well, and forced the Romans to come to him, he with a force of less than 37,000 wiped out an army of over 90,000. This is also the battle where he invented the modern-day term "Hamstringing". Some many Romans=Not enough time to spend fight hand to hand. The cavalry rode up behind and hamstrung everyone. Only around 1000 survivors were sent back to Rome in the ultimate shame.

What of Hadrian's Wall have you heard? I am thinking that when I get to the National Forest I may spend the night in the woods. Are there bear or anything in northern England? I won't start a fire or anything. I would just want to see the sun rise from the wall without being in a building with a whole bunch of other people.

Cool. Thank you for the information. I know what you mean about Italian traffic. It can be crazy, and they don't care. What do you know about being robbed on the Appian? I have heard horror stories about people being robbed while walking down the way.

I doubt it. I was raised in the hills of Germany. The last time I took my wife their who was my fiance we walked straight from 9 in the morning until 10. Stopping only once for a meal. I eat while I walk. I was born to walk. I climbed a mountain three times once just to get a stocknagel (hiking stick shield). Call me crazy, but it must be the Barbarian in me!

Excellent! Do you guys know where to go to see some reenactments in the U.K.? I will be there from June 8-June 30. I cannot leave earlier because I teach. I would however like to see a large scale reenactment if possible. Thank you guys for the tips. Another question. Is it possible if I bring my sleeping bag to camp beside the wall? I won't disturb anything, but I would like to camp away from the rest of civilization for one night. Just the wall and myself. I have been waiting my whole life to take this journey. My next project is to walk the entirety of the Appian Highway.

Where do I buy this book? I must have it. I know Caligula's sister was known to do such things. Caligula bought her seven hand picked studs so she could be sexed to death. It didn't work. She wanted more.

I would say the Romans had no problem fighting each other or others. If one examines all of the usurpations throughout the history of Rome, this is evident. You have to remember also that as the empire expanded and waned, less and less 'Romans' were actually in the army. The army was generally made up of people who were conquered and earned citizenship through the army. In Britain very few Britains served in those legions. They were made up of Romans from modern day Belgium, Holland and Germany. The Romans were genius in this perspective. You could be stationed thousands of miles from home, with nothing but barbarians between you and the next Roman settlement. It had a way of creating extreme loyalty to your commander. If your commander was being selected as the future emperor, chances were you would kill anyone who stood in the way to make sure your commander was selected. By the way, there is no 'honorable death' at the hand of another. You died with honor when you died on your own sword. Remember Cassius and Brutus! For Brutus was the noblest Roman of them all. . .

This evidence shouldn't come as a shock. Hispania and Britannia had very close times which go very far back. It is very well possible and probable that the Britons were trading directly with the Romans. Spain (Hispania) pretty much became a province after the fall of Carthage. Where Carthage lost her presence, Rome made hers.

Hello everyone. This is my first post. I am preparing to travel to the U.K. to possibly do some archaeological research at Vindolanda. I was originally born in Germany only kilometers away from the Limes, so I have a pretty good idea of what to expect. I wanted to know if you all think it is worth it to pay to dig at this site? Also, can anyone think of the best place to stay while here? I am walking the entirety of Hadrian's Wall and would like to find good, comfortable accomodations.