Scotland Unconquered

[Arvioustus]

All soldiers have fear, but the difference is the dicipline and training as you describe, but to inspire your men to fight. I'm not sure that he would tell them they were outnumbered or that they aren't supposed to be afraid, we have little to tell us of his speech's, (his own commentaries should be taken with analysis since he would most certainly make himself look better). Again, this is Roman training in general, not Caesar's personal training.

I do not think any other Roman general was undefeated as Caesar was and faced the numeric odds he did. Late Rome not withstanding because that army was just a shell of itself and might have been mostly Germanic as some experts believe. Caesar had an abilty to train his men better than any other not just make them fearless. Fearless men die just as easy when outnumbered by the extreme but Caesar did not. This cannot be just great oratory but great training, surpacing any other Roman general.

[Neos Dionysos]

All soldiers have fear, but the difference is the dicipline and training as you describe, but to inspire your men to fight. I'm not sure that he would tell them they were outnumbered or that they aren't supposed to be afraid, we have little to tell us of his speech's, (his own commentaries should be taken with analysis since he would most certainly make himself look better). Again, this is Roman training in general, not Caesar's personal training.

I do not think any other Roman general was undefeated as Caesar was and faced the numeric odds he did. Late Rome not withstanding because that army was just a shell of itself and might have been mostly Germanic as some experts believe. Caesar had an abilty to train his men better than any other not just make them fearless. Fearless men die just as easy when outnumbered by the extreme but Caesar did not. This cannot be just great oratory but great training, surpacing any other Roman general.

 

So because he is older he can train them better? Tactics and strategy then are meaningless by your analysis. Just because he's older than some other great generals in history, who accomplished more mind you, he is still superior because he could train them better to overcome the odds. The best training in the world does not assure you victory. It is leadership that does it.

 

Also, the late army was just as effective as the early empire army. The beleif that it was inferior is one of those old falacies that finally is slowly being shown to be false. I highly suggest you read, "The Late Roman Army" (which is reviewed on this site), and also "From Severus to Constantine" by Pat Southern and also "Barbarians and Bishops" by J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz. There you will see that the army was not so ineffective, and that barbarization, while carrying with it negative aspects, had more positive aspects.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Arvioustus]

You are relentless I must say:) I still have my beliefs however.

[Zurawski]

Caesar made sure that his men knew if he died they all died. It was part of their training. They either Stood and fought Germans, Gauls, Scots anything or turned and faced their general. There was a famous battle, of which forget the name, where Caesars army was under arrow fire and being pushed back by some heavy warriors. They began to rout and run for there lives. Caesar then got off his horse, held up his shield and ran to the front of the Roman line. he walked up and down the line shouting 'If i die, you all die.' The roman Soldiers quickly ran around him and got back into position.

 

 

Anyone know what battle that was. I have heard of it a few times but as i say i forget the name.

[caldrail]

There is another reason why Rome did not complete the conquest of Caledonia - and that's Domitian. I don't think he was happy that Agricola was covering himself with glory, soon to return in triumph, possibly with legions at his back. Agricola was recalled to Rome by Caesar and that put an end to the campaign. The forts were abandoned incomplete, and the troops retreated behind the wall.

 

Domitian would have justified his envious paranoia by stating that a conquest was unnecessary - Caledonia had been pacified.

[Primus Pilus]

Caesar made sure that his men knew if he died they all died. It was part of their training. They either Stood and fought Germans, Gauls, Scots anything or turned and faced their general. There was a famous battle, of which forget the name, where Caesars army was under arrow fire and being pushed back by some heavy warriors. They began to rout and run for there lives. Caesar then got off his horse, held up his shield and ran to the front of the Roman line. he walked up and down the line shouting 'If i die, you all die.' The roman Soldiers quickly ran around him and got back into position.

 

 

Anyone know what battle that was. I have heard of it a few times but as i say i forget the name.

 

Sounds like you are describing Alesia... but Caesar did not write those words... 'If I die, you all die'.

[Furius Venator]

It could be the battle against the Nervii BG II 25

 

It doesn't seem to be Alesia

 

A quick scan of the Civil War doen't seem to have Caesar plunging into the fray.

 

But you're correct, PP at no point did Caesar utter anything as crass as that.

 

There is of course the incident at Dyrrachium where he is nearly killed by one of his routing troops but that isn't it either I suspect.

[Primus Pilus]

A quick scan of the Civil War doen't seem to have Caesar plunging into the fray.

 

I suppose it could be Munda... Plutarch says of Caesar...

As he was going away after the battle he said to his friends that he had often striven for victory, but now first for his life

[Rameses the Great]

Does Hadrian's wall have anything to do with it, or am I just jumping the gun?

 

I do remember though Caeser had a lot more trouble putting the British to rest than the Gauls.

[Primus Pilus]

Does Hadrian's wall have anything to do with it, or am I just jumping the gun?

 

I do remember though Caeser had a lot more trouble putting the British to rest than the Gauls.

 

Considering that Caesar crossed to Britain about 175 years before the wall was built, its unlikely that Hadrian had anything to do with it. But yes, Caesar did have a difficult time in Britain... especially the first crossing in which he was undermanned and seemingly underprepared.

[Pertinax]

Rameses , this might give you a little background on the Wall in relation to the Flavian conquest

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...t=0entry31368

[Hitoriki Batosai]

Whats with this?

 

 

Scotland wasn't paticularly attractive to the Romans anyway - too cold and hilly

 

 

 

The romans conquerd many places just like modern day scotland .But I do agree about rome losing interest.

[phil25]

In Britannia, the Romans always relied on "frontier systems" usually with forts and a linking road - the Fosse Way running diagonally roughly from the Trent to the Severn (I speak loosely) was one of the first. Hadrian's Wall was a similar construct - initially with forts and no linking wall. For a time the Antonine wall extended the military frontier system northwards. But I do not think that either "wall" was perceived by the Romans as a limit to their control, influence, power or dominion.

 

One of the best explanations I have ever heard of the origins of Hadrian's wall is to divide the territory of the large, belligerent and troublesome tribe of the brigantes, into two parts, and to control movement between them. It may also have served as a customs barrier. It is unlikely ever to have been used as a fighting platform.

 

However, the tactics used in conjunction with the Wall evolved/changed over time.

 

But I don't think it had anything to do with the Picts, Scots or anyone else in its first conception.

 

Turning to another point in recent posts, Caesar clearly underestimated the dangers of invading the island. he almost cam a cropper, and has to be very ingenious to cover up his near failure in De Bello Gallico.

 

However, I think that it may be wrong to assume no continuity between his visits and the later invasion and more permenent occupation by Claudius. I think the political context of both Gaius' (proposed) and Claudius' (actual) invasions suggests that treaties and some sort of tributary relationship existed between at least some of the southern British tribes and Rome. Expectations and obligations existed. So did trade and other cultural contacts. I wonder whether young British aristocrats may not have lived in Rome as hostages, in sequence, over many generations - thus preparing the way and explaining the evidently highly Romanised Cogidubnus. Thus Caesar's success may have been greater and more long-lasting than sometimes stated.

 

Just speculation, and my opinion, of course.

 

Phil

[Romulus Sicanus]

Scotland was conquered as even the Antoine Wall bares testament . But not all the people were never really fully subdued for numerous reasons. But theirs evidence that trade and goods where passing through the walls and contact between the civilized south and Barbarous north occurred..so it may not have been a big deal to conquer them fully.

 

Also theirs some evidence that the Romans had a military and/or trade post in Ireland(Hibernia). Supposedly Agricola had some Hibernian mercenaries serving in one of his outfits during his campaigns.

 

My favorite Roman Commanders are:

 

Marius

Caesar

Germanicus

Agricola

Artorius Castus

Belisarius

Edited May 21, 2006 by Romulus Sicanus

[Primus Pilus]

Also theirs some evidence that the Romans had a military and/or trade post in Ireland(Hibernia). Supposedly Agricola had some Hibernian mercenaries serving in one of his outfits during his campaigns.

 

Are you speaking of the potential Roman fort at Drumanagh near Dublin? I haven't seen an update on that site in a very long time. Do you have any information to share... or does anyone?