Quintus Artemis Sertorius

I believe alot of the travel to Syria was from Brundisium in Italy across the Adriatic to Greece, and then by land to the Hellespont, across the strait, and then down across Asia Minor. I'm not quite sure, but i think the Cilician Gates and the syrian gates will eventually lead out to the Parthian kingdoms. Of course, when Sulla invaded the East, he went by ship to Tarsus and then through the cilician gates and north into central Asia Minor and then east across the Euphrates to the Tigris. The only thing stopping you from going by boat other than the availability of a fleet is the season. Not sure when they blow, but at one time of year the winds are predominately east-west, and at another they are West-east. The Romans had names for those winds, but again, not sure what they are.

Just remember that the "the Great" at the end of most of those Eastern potentates was self proclaimed. How many of those Eastern kings called themselves the "king of kings"? Too many! Even Pompeius calling himself Magnus was presumptuous and much too early in his career. I can't bring myself to give credit to many of the Eastern kings. Too many of them ruled through nothing more than abject fear. As long as they could keep from getting killed by a member fo the family, there really wasn't much to stop them. Even though Ceasar ruled as a dictator for life towards the end, at least he had to get there through hard work and true skill.

I think you would have to call this one a toss up. Like someone already said, Sulla learned the art of war from Marius. Sulla did alot of the planning and logistics work for Marius, and also did alot to improve Marius' intelligence network. I think Marius had a better mind when it came to the actual tactics and movement during a battle along with the strategic planning, but Sulla had a better mind for long-term logistical planning. Sulla was definitely more of a skeemer, but would that give him the edge he needed? Another question to consider is who are the legates and tribunes in this hypothetical war? Even Marius would fall dead if he was saddled with the likes of a Servilius Caepio, Metellus Nepos "Numidicus", or worse. And what of the general lucky enough to have Quintus Sertorius, or Gaius Trebonius, or Marcus Herrenius as legates? Gotta say this one is a 50/50.

I agree that rank and file isn't a natural way to fight. It definitely does require lots of practice and drilling in order to get it right. What is natural is the human fight or flight response, and in most cases that primal need to get away from trouble wins out. Most human evolution has been geared towards the "get out of Dodge" response. But when that response is put against the social unacceptance of running away it kind of cancels out, hence most people stick to the middle. Rank and file was one of the ways to try and use a body of men who are running the spectrum from running away to blindly charge. I didn't mean to imply that was the only reason, because all the other stated reasons are just as important and valid. Very rarely is anything done for a single reason. I don't neccesarily think it took generations to implement those changes because once something works it usually catches on pretty quick. The one thing it will take is discipline during training. Under the right circumstances humans can be taught to do just about anything whether it is natural or not. All you would really need is the initial idea and the right people to carry it through. Take thos crazy airborne soldiers. Jumping out a plane is definitly NOT natural. However once the mecahnics of it was understood and the right skills were identified, all that remains is for some very loud aggresive instructor to pound it into your brain. Suddenly you are jumping out of an airplane. As far as Viking Berserkers go, that is a learned attitude. If you grow up in a society that teaches and rewards Berserker charges then eventually you will over ride those natural actions. Berserkers probably weren't the norm like most of the farmers of Europe, instead they were raised as warriors.

It seems pretty logical that the Romans would have some sort of unarmed fighting style. If you look at it from a historical perspective it is almost assured. During the Middle Ages, there were many manuals of unarmed fighting skills floating around Europe. Most knights and foot-soldiers were trained in how to fend off an attacker if caught without the usual arming sword. Kampfringen is a good example of a medieval German martial art. One could assume that the apparent neccesity of medieval germans learning a form of unarmed combat didn't spring up in this time period alone. Even today in Army basic training you are taught the rudiments of hand to hand combat and pugilism. Granted that what you learn is enough to get yourself in a world of hurt, and that the chances of having to use it in modern warfare is remote at best, it is still considered important enough to spend time teaching. Naturally, if you are a Roman legionary fighting at close range all the time the value of unarmed fighting skills is much greater. Maybe somewhere out there there is a manual for a Roman version of Kung Fu.

Are you asking how the rank and file system of warfare evolved, or how the initial battle began? The system evolved from the need to find a way to effectively pit large numbers of foot soldiers against another large body of foot sloggers, cavalry, or chariots. Some smart old warriors started to realize that with large numbers comes trouble controlling them. If you take a big milling group and begin to subdivide them into workable units, and then arrange them into some kind of order, then you are able to do more than if you just jumped in front of a mass and yelled "CHARGE!". As the use of cavalry became more widespread during the Indo-European invasion, then need to stops cavalry charges became neccesary. Cavalry charging a milling mass will easily penetrate it and be able to disengage, and regroup almost at will. Conversly charging a well drilled, organized unit armed with pikes and shields is alot harder. It wasn't untill the development of the stirrup that armored cavalry was truly able to charge an infantry line effectively. The rank and file system also appealed more to human nature. Usually human nature isn't to go screaming and charging while waving swords around regardless for your own well-being. However, to form an artificial wall of shields and then to fight from behind that wall is easier for the common soldier. The rank and file system was more suited for common soldiers from a psychological perspective. If you ever get a chance, watch a pickup game of soccer or football played on a school playground where both teams are larger than normal. Usually you have a few kids who are always pushing ahead out into "enemy territory" chasing the ball and being aggresive. Then you have a few who hang back and are less motivated. The buld though are in the middle, jumping on the ball when it is near by, but not chasing it if it is out of their area. The same applies to battles between unorganized groups. There are the ones up front charging into the depths of it trying to gain victory, honor or whatever else. then you have the ones that are slowly edging their way off the battle field, trying to get out of the way. Most, however are in the middle trying to stay alive, but aren't ready to run yet. The system just works well, as evidenced by many many years of being around.

Nice explanation, but from what time period are you basing this off of? Are the prior and posterior troops armed and armored the same, or are they different as in early Republican times?

I think one of the most beautiful cities in the world at the time would be Edo in Japan. For one, it was one of the most populous cities in the world, if i remember correctly larger than any city in Europe at the time. The Imperial Enclosure, and the many shrines, while small (by some European standards), were expertly designed. Cleanliness was always very important to the Japanese, so Edo was probably much more pleasing to look at on a more common level. While some European cities such as Constantinople, Rome, and Paris may have more large scale buildings like cathedrals and basilicas, they definitely weren't the cleanest. Edo must have been something to look at in the "good old days".

After reading these posts, I think i may end in being burned a little. To me the definition of being Roman is to be better than everyone else. For most of the history of Rome that is one of the true constants. Whether you were an Egyptian pharoah, a Greek philosopher, or a Celtic iron worker, the lowest Roman head Count was considered better. Simply because they were Roman. At that time, and today to a certain degree, the people were very ethnocentric. Survival was a very "them" and "us" kind of thing. "Us" is always strong, valiant, honorable, civilized, compassionate, and always with the best for humanity in mind. "Them" are always the disgusting, the devious, the sacriligious, the ones that have sex with their children, and kill their parents for money. It has been bred into humanity to divide between "us" and "them" from the begining of homo sapiens as a species. The Romans weren't out to improve the lot of the common man. The Romans were out to improve the lot of fellow Romans. And even then most of the times the only lot that is imporved is the highest Romans', the very highest permutation of "us". I think the definition of the Roman is the same as that of the Egyptian, or the Seracen, or the Japanese: one more group of people out to survive in the world, regardless of how many other "them" must perish along the way. Is that wrong? Depends on who you ask. I don't think so. The game has, is, and always will be survival, and for a long time the Romans won. Along the way of course you have to put a nice marble facing on that rough wall of bricks and then paint it up nice so it looks good to everyone. After all, it is just another tool in the Great Game, but scratch a man from Picentium and you see a Gaul. Scratch away the flowery speeches and words of a Roman and you see another survivor. Of course I could be wrong.

I think Ceasar played a wonderful joke on the so-called "Good Men". He knew the kind of person Octavius would grow up to be. He knew that of all the things he told Octavius the one that was always rejected was sparing the enemy and giving them another chance to stab you in the back. Ceasar gave everyone a chance to come to his side and help to build a new Rome, to the point of forgiving the ones like Cassius who latedr helped killed him, and Cicero who did no good at all for either side. Ceasar must have known how Octavius looked up to him and i think he knew that if anything happened to him (Ceasar) then the senate would have a whole new Nemesis to deal with. Sure enough, once the dust settled, most of the reforms of Ceasar were carried out while the bones of those who argued against him rotted.

Probably one of the most important reasons for the fall of the Empire was the constant infighting between the Emperors of the East and West and their various Ceasar underlings. Alot of time, money, resources, and troops were thrown against each other in order to secure various positions of power within the Empire. All that time and energy could have been put to better use. How many big name guys at the time were trying to build a new Rome of some sort somewhere in the Empire? The fall of Rome followed the classic pattern of demise for many nations around the world throughout history. Internal strife and civil wars and then invasion from outside. The question that is still being debated by the scholars is did the barbarians that had been attacking Rome in one way or another for the past thousand years suddenly get better organized and armed, or did Rome which fended the barbarians off for a thousand years finally crumble from within?

I don't know about that. In total truthfulness, most of the Roman elite were more interested in personal gain than in the preservation of the Republic. Most of the howling done about "saving the Republic" was really in order to protect the ability to massively bribe sanators for certain concessions. Many rich members of the equestrian order had a good many debt-ridden senators in their pockets. The advent of a dictator means that certain types of buisness deals have to stop, or else go way way under the table, which means loss of money. Not to mention that when the treasury of Rome gets empty, eventually the equestrian class has to give up some money in one way or the other. Besides, is destroying the Republic really such a bad thing? At the end, the Republic was corrupt and bloated with those scions of old family power dedicated to keeping the status quo. The conservative elements of late Republican Rome were almost always willing to sacrifice everything to keep Rome from changing. Even if that change was something that was good for the Republic (i.e. giving the Italian Allies the citizenship, stoping the publicanni from totally raping Asia Province, making it harer for sheer bribery to influence the courts, etc, etc,) the conservatives would scream like Vestal Virgins in a men's bath house. I think the Republic needed a dictator and Sulla was just in time.

When it comes to obstacles, i think there was some fluidity in the movements. One of the reasons that the actual units of manuever got smaller was so that they could move easier in broken terrains. Look at battles between early legions and phalanx like formations. The romans defeated the phalanxes mainly because the Romans were able to exploit the phalanx's trouble negotiating broken ground. As a phalanx advances, irregularities in the rank and file start to happen as it moves over natural obstructions. The legionaries where then able to get inside the range of the 16 foot pikes, and then it was really all over for the phalanx. I would think that Roman troops knew that the formation was something that had to be flexible in order to work. I don't really think the enemy would swarm into small gaps in the line, because to do so would put yourself in a a tight position with enemy on both sides, especially your un-shielded right side. Looking at it from a subjective point of view, say you have been in the front line stabbing and pushing constantly for say 30 minutes. There was a massive amount of adrenaline surging through your body which eventually comes crashing to a stop. You are tired, probably wounded in some way, covered in blood, and likely extremely thirsty. More importantly, the enemy probably is too. Looking at it that way, I think it is plausible that both sides could come to a momentary spontaneous halt due to sheer exhaustion in the front ranks. Psychologically you would want to get back at least out of immediate sword and pilum range. I could imagine units easing back off each other, and then a quick rotation and redressing of the lines in order to get fresh troops to the front, all the while trying to keep the other guys head down with archers and peltasts. This would eventually turn into a race between opposing units to get rotated, redressed, and ready to once again advance after throwing pilum again hopefully before the enemy is ready yet. Another possibility could be to have troops, say those not in the first 2 or 3 ranks in a kind of open formation with a few feet between them. that way, as the front line troops become exhausted or wounded, they can fall back through the spaces, and the legionaries in the 4th or 5th ranks can step to the right and forward, so they are leading with the scutum into the hole made by the retreating soldier. Either way, I always thought there had to be a way to rotate soldiers off the immediate front without simply turning a whole unit around and marching them off. To simply let a unit sit on the front and get so tired they collapse seems foolish. At least that is my humble opinion.

I'm not sure about the worst Roman of all time, but i would think that if you asked a Roman from the late Republic it might be Quintus Servilius Caepio of Tolosa gold fame (that is if the story is actually true). We have to admit that for the most part Rome was corrupt, and that the people from highest to lowest knew it. Everyone expected the rich and powerful to take a share of any loot or tribute that was found or obtained from a province, which was the right of any provincial governor. However, to not give the treasury its fair share was something that angered all Romans, again from highest to lowest. And if the Gold of Tolosa was indeed 15,000 talents (the weight one man can carry), then Caepio truly robbed the Senate and People of Rome of a huge asset which may have eased the strain of future wars. If Rome had that much gold on hand during the Social Wars, then maybe Sulla wouldn't have later seen in neccesary to proscribe so many of the equestrian order.

I remember doing some reading online about the post pilum-throwing charge and what happens afterwards. personally i like the theory of one or many pauses in the battle in which the opposing lines stop fighting in a mutual state of exhaustion. you figure, after the initial charge, it comes down to hand to hand with gladius and scutum, repeated thrusts along with having to push off enemy shields and attacks would wear you down quick. as the theory goes, both sides reach a point of exhaustion in the front ranks at which time a kind of rotation within the ranks happens. this rotation could happen on the level of a single century rotating the troops from the rear rank to the front rank, as far as whole cohorts or legions doing so. during these lulls, there is still spradic hand to hand in different areas of the line, as well as shooting matches between opposing archers and slingers. it seems very very unlikely that most battles deteriorated into mindless slug fests after an opening charge. one of the main reasons for the reorganization of the legions between marius and ceasar was in order to make them more manueverable. of course you never see this in any of the movies. i think hollywood just loves to see masses of uncontrolled non-tactical troops running around in an orgy of wild slashing. anyway, thats just my idea about it.

I have been doing alot of reading about Rome for a couple of years now. The one thing that i haven't seen a whole lot of is mention of any kind of Roman special forces like units. I know about the Praetorian Guard, but they strike me more of political thugs than true legionaries. I was wondering if anyone knew anything about this.

I have done a little shopping around trying to get a gladius as close to "authentic" as possible. In almost all the historical reproductions and actual swords dug up that i have seen, i haven't seen any with fullers (the grooves you see running down the blade) and mostswords didn't have metal pommels and guards on them. if you are looking for something close to real check out museum replicas and the other sites that are listed in this thread. the best stuff is usually the stuff that is hand forged. most of that mass production stuff is either cast or mass removed (sheet of metal cut and ground down). there is a metal forge in newfoundland that will custome make a gladius for you, and it is a decent reproduction, and is battle-ready. good luck finding one though!