Black_Francis

I don't think that is is impossible to use them in a forest at all. My point is that I don't think Ammianus was referring to cheiroballistra/manuballista or any other form of "crossbow" which is how the passage in question is often interpreted. The point he is making is that Julian is being accompanied by a wholly inappropriate escort of heavy cavalry and artillery. I believe he further emphasises this point by the use of the words "dangerous" and "dark woods" implying danger/menace and being difficult to traverse. This helps to further convey how inappropriate/insufficient/unable to repel an attack the escort was. He uses the words: dangerous+dark woods+inadequate escort for a commander. Combine this with heavy cavalry and artillery and I think the picture is clear enough. I don't think he is simply describing the escort Julian had as it would be of no real consequence. What he is trying to convey is Julians somewhat daredevil and rash urge to follow Silvanus. Indeed Ammianus even describes Julian as being "on fire to imitate the example of this bold general (Silvanus)." in the same passage. Penguin:

Hello there, I just thought I would bring up something that bothers me greatly. In a whole bunch of places on the internet (scroll down to the bottom of = http://www.comitatus.net/cavalry.htm ) and in casual discussion the use of crossbows by Roman infantry escorting Julian is often brought up. It is this instance of "crossbow armed Romans escorting a Roman Emperor" that is constantly regurgitated. However, I find myself increasingly having to point out the correct context: I mean heavy cavalry and artillery in a forest! I think the point Ammianus is trying to make is clear enough. I just have to say: Caption: O'RLY? I am not trying to debate the use of the crossbow in the late Roman army, my point is to simply dissassociate the idea of crossbow armed infantry escorting Julian in this particular passage. On an additional note, does anybody know where the idea of crossbow armed Bucellarii comes from?

Ok, Myself and some other members of the Rome Total Realism Community are planning a mod for the Barbarian Invasion expansion pack. The name we have come up with is "Imperia Romanus" Does this mean Empires/Imperiums of Rome??? Should it be Imperia Romana or Romanum???

ahhh, Very interesting, thank you for that Onasander! I had not thaught of that.

Yes, I second Ursus, show us some holiday pictures!

That was superb! Thank you!

Hurrah! Good old Gaius!

Thanks Ursus... however Im British and have to make do with the BBC (great though they are!) so I have no chance of catching anything on PBS! Thanks for the author reference though!

"Groovy"-Evil Dead 2. "Hail to the King baby"-Evil Dead 3 (use it all the time on my Girlfriend! ) The whole "First rank FIRE!, Second rank FIRE!" scene from Zulu. Along with when the men sing "men of Harlech!"... more a scene than a quote though and a damn shame they didnt sing it in Welsh!

Thank you Ursus! Would you be able to name some good books on the Eastern Roman Empire or is that simply going to far?

Constantiople or Byzantium, which is the correct term for this city pre 1453? I understand that Byzantium was the ancient pre-Roman Greek name for the settlement but how long was the city called Constantinople after Constantine? What were the men on the walls in 1453 calling their city? What were they calling themselves? Were they still calling themselves "Roman" as in the time of Justinian? Where does the Eastern Roman Empire end and the Byzantine begin?

Longbow, Sorry to hear about your troubles, Go scroll down to the TFT sub-forum here (you will need to lojgin/create an account first: http://www.rometotalrealism.com/phpbb2/index.php If you cannot find a topic discussing installation problems in the TFT sub-forum feel free to create one.

Just so you all know, TFT 1.5 has been released.

Why dont you try out Foundry miniatures http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/asp/nocookie.asp They are well priced and excellent quality (its the Perry twins of Games Workshop fame).

Thanks for your reply. On your point about whether or not Constantine converted to Christianity... Ive done a lot of reading on the subject recently and Ive come to the conclusion that he most certainly did... You only have to read the "Oration of Constantine" to understand that he was simply too deeply involved to be using Christianity for his own ends.... especially when one considers what a mess he made of other things (wife...kids). http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf...m#P8120_3328019 I believe that the problem with Constantine is his perception of what Christianity was and how we perceive Christianity today. Constantine claimed to simply be an instrament of divine will.. Just as Judas had to betray Jesus to bring about His triumph over death, so Constantine was condemned to have blood on his hands to further the spread and growth of Christianity. I find it contradictory that the Roman Catholic Church claims much of its Primacy from Constantine himself and yet fails to even beatify him! I understand that Constantine was a sinner and had blood on his hands but he repented and was converted... indeed, I see him as a model Catholic..he may well be the most important convert Christianity has ever had and his possible salvation and forgiveness to be a superb example of Gods infinite mercy!

LOL, According to the Catholics... this would be perfectly acceptable. I don't think it matters though, if it turns out in the end that Christianity was the right way to go, I think everyone will end up in 'hell' anyway. I mean does anyone truly follow the teachings of Jesus? Good point though Catholics also realise that it is almost impossible to be a truly "good person" and follow the teachings of Jesus to the letter (unlike many Protestants). We understand that we are all naturally sinners and there is no escaping this (we are all selfish buggers, admit it!) but that it is our struggle against sin that God takes note of. After all, it is the mercy of God that we rely on for enterance into Heaven, to assume you are going to go to Heaven because you consider yourself to be a "good person" is presumptuousness and probably linked with the sin of pride. Jesus is the ideal that we should measure ourselves against but we should also realise that this ideal is almost impossible to reach as a human being. Basically, we will always fall short of really deserving the love of God and salvation but this does not mean that we will go to Hell as it is through His mercy and forgiveness alone that we can obtain salvation and not really through any deed of our own. I do apologise and I feel I have wandered way off topic... I felt I had to reply to Primus Pilus though. Anyhow, The form of Roman Paganism presented seems to make a lot of sense and certainly holds more merit than the beliefs that many new age "crystal gazers" hold to be true. I have a great deal of respect for Pagans that worship the old gods in a proper and traditional manner. It saddens me to see modern Pagans devaluing the ancient Pagan tradition through association. Needless to say and as you may have guessed, I am proud to be a ROMAN Catholic and through my faith feel a tenuous and valuable link with the Roman Empire.... After 312AD at least...

So you are saying Germanicus was actually better than Caesar, or you just wanted to be different? Im saying that I used my vote to encourage people to consider other possibilities and though I know I have not voted within the guidelines of the original question (I should have voted for GJC) I believe I have voted in a way that I feel is justified. Im sure we have all seen plenty of polls where Caesar comes top of the generals list. Maybe a poll should be opened that excludes Caesar.... but then Scipio Africanus would probably win! Maybe a poll on who had the greater gall.... I think Sulla would give Caesar a run for his money.... marching on Rome with a Roman army for the very first time, after this all other generals that marched on Rome were simply following down a path that Sulla had explored (Ive been reading "Sulla the Last Republican"). Sorry, this is off topic.

Thank you both for your comments and thank you Jimbow for the superb links. Just what I was after! I cant believe I hadnt seen that article at romanarmy.net earlier!

I read recently (and I cant remember where) that legionary cohorts within the same legion had different coloured shields. Is this true? I thought all the units in a legion had the same shield design and colour shield.

I think that if it got to a point where the Standard Bearer was actually being attacked then all was lost anyway. The idea was that the cohort would group around the standard and defend it to the death as it was a symbol of their very identity and a sacred object to them. I read somewhere that the standard bearer was actually deployed in the center of the cohort a couple of men behind the front line. My theory is that the legionaries would attempt to place themselves between the enemy and the standard which would create pressure on the enemy line directly in front of the standard bearer. This would focus the power of the cohort into a point and create a wedge formation in a melee rather than dissipating the strength of the cohort along the length of the facing enemy formation and would also encourage forward motion as the legionaries pushed towards the point directly ahead of the standard.

He does if you use the "Rome Total Realism" (RTR) mod and then download the sub-mod called "The First Triumvirate" (TFT) on top of it. TFT is basically a mod for a mod. It is great. You can play as Caesar, Crassus or Pompey. TFT v1.5 is out in the next couple of days and TFT 2.0 should be out a week or so after RTR 6.0. Go to http://www.rometotalrealism.com/phpbb2/index.php (The RTR forum), scroll to the bottom of the page and check out the TFT sub-forum. There are previews of 1.5, discussions and a 2.0 preview. You will see lots of posts by me there.... because Im a TFT team-member!

I spend a lot of time at the Rome Total Realism mod Forum and also at the Total War Center. These are both sites that discuss the pc game Rome Total War. Im so ashamed! :bag:

If you play Rome Total War be sure to download Rome Total Realism. RTR version 6.0 is out soon and looks great and there have been a number of previews released recently. Here is a link to the official website which has previews etc: http://www.rometotalrealism.com/ And here is a link to the official forums where the discussions take place: http://www.rometotalrealism.com/phpbb2/ Enjoy! Maybe Ill see you there.... Im a site Praetorian (moderator)!

What about Julian and Trajan? Voted for Germanicus because I knew everyone had most likely voted for Caesar.

Not strictly true. The armour was paid for initially by the state but the legionaries had the price of their armour deducted from their pay... a loan of sorts. The same was true of food. Also, too many "reforms" of the Roman army are ascribed to Marius for the sake of convenience by lazy historians. They did not all neccessarily happen at once and under his instigation. It is far more likely that Marius was responsible for consolidating a number of already existing innovations and practices along with a few new ones of his own (such as reducing the baggage and number of legionary slaves). For example; armour began to be provided by the state in 123BC. This law was passed by C Gracchus and it seems logical to assume that from this point onwards the majority of legionaries received Lorica Hamata (mail). This may also indicate that the legionaries, even at this time, were no longer fighting in the "Polybian" manner and that the differences between Hastati/Principes/Triarii been eroded even before Marius.