A question for Roman history buffs

[Guynemer]

The LL is writing a book, and just needs some info about Roman aqueducts. For instance, how closely were they guarded? Would it have been feasible for someone to sneak into a city via one? Things like that.

[Felch]

Just a guess, but seeing as how they were usually many miles long, and in places, subterranean, then the lengths of them weren't very well guarded.

I doubt you'd be able to sneak into a city via one, since the Romans weren't complete morons. They'd probably have iron bars blocking off people but not the water.

And poisoning them would have involved a huge effort since they moved huge quantities of water continuously.

Of course, this is just me guessing, if a book is being written, real sources are needed. I'll see if I can dig some up.

[Ted Striker]

Who's the LL?

[Drake Tungsten]

The Libertarian Librarian, the key player in "project Guynemer".

[Geronimo]

In 536 AD Flavius Belisarius took Naples by sneaking past the walls through an aquaduct early in his campaign to reclaim Rome and the Italian penisula for the (eastern) Romans from the barbarian ostrogoths.

[chequita guevara]

Taking the city via the aquaducts was a common enough tactict, though generally what an opposing army would do is simply cut the aquaduct and let the city die of thirst.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The Libertarian Librarian, the key player in "project Guynemer".

I don't think she's your kind of Libertarian, Drake.

And thanks everyone. You've been a big help.

[Ted Striker]

Don't mention it.

[Seeker]

I have some Roman military questions.

1.What did the Romans consider to be a 'bank' of oars?

Livy mentions navies with open-decked ships, biremes, triremes, quadriremes, and the Roman quinquereme.

I used to believe it refered to the rows of oars arranged in tiers, but the idea of the quinquereme with 5 stories of oars seems a little ungainly. There is a part where it is implied that quadriremes are exceptionally large.

2. The legionaries' swords and sword tactics: I have heard the gladius described as a 'short, stabbing sword', heard scholars say the legions would raise shields and stab underneath them at close quarters, and in...err..'Gladiator' the gladius is used as a stabbing weapon.

However, Livy, in 'Ab Urbe Condita', recounts the aftermath of the battle of cynoscephalae, describes the horror of the Macedonians at seeing the "new kinds of wounds which they had never seen before, the wounds inflicted by the Spanish sword. Arms, heads, even legs were lopped off and laying strewn about..." Elsewhere, he keeps referring to this 'Spanish sword' as a slashing weapon.

Also, I have read other scholars who claim that the gladius was used primarily as a chopping, machete-like weapon, which was why it was short and broad.

IMO, the Roman legionary may have carried two weapons, a chopping longsword and a stabbing 'longknife'. Or that different units carried different swords.

[Dinner]

The gladius could slash or hack while many legionaires also had a spear with a long narrow tip. The narrow tip helped to pierce armor but also would bend when used. The result is the enemy couldn't pick the spears back up and throw them back at the Romans.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Seeker
I have some Roman military questions.

1.What did the Romans consider to be a 'bank' of oars?

Livy mentions navies with open-decked ships, biremes, triremes, quadriremes, and the Roman quinquereme.

I used to believe it refered to the rows of oars arranged in tiers, but the idea of the quinquereme with 5 stories of oars seems a little ungainly. There is a part where it is implied that quadriremes are exceptionally large.

I'm of the same opinion as you regarding the arrangement of oars (namely that they are arranged above each other in horizontal rows)

2. The legionaries' swords and sword tactics: I have heard the gladius described as a 'short, stabbing sword', heard scholars say the legions would raise shields and stab underneath them at close quarters, and in...err..'Gladiator' the gladius is used as a stabbing weapon.

However, Livy, in 'Ab Urbe Condita', recounts the aftermath of the battle of cynoscephalae, describes the horror of the Macedonians at seeing the "new kinds of wounds which they had never seen before, the wounds inflicted by the Spanish sword. Arms, heads, even legs were lopped off and laying strewn about..." Elsewhere, he keeps referring to this 'Spanish sword' as a slashing weapon.

Also, I have read other scholars who claim that the gladius was used primarily as a chopping, machete-like weapon, which was why it was short and broad.

That's bull****. For a slashing sword you want a long, curved blade which is heavily weighted. There is no way that a gladius (aka Spanish sword) could inflict the sort of injury that Livy describes on a large scale. Decapitation and dismemberment are fairly impressive demonstrations of a sword's value, and there's no way that the gladius of the time would have been effective in accomplishing that. Also, the slashing motion is much less effective when it must be accomplished in close formation (which the Romans loved fighting in). Slashing is built for melee fighting where the lines become rapidly confused.

IMO, the Roman legionary may have carried two weapons, a chopping longsword and a stabbing 'longknife'. Or that different units carried different swords.

The latter is more likely. Livy might have been confused and ascribed the work of another weapon to the gladius.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The gladius could slash or hack

It could, but was far less effective with the edge than with the point.

An effective slashing sword required much more heft, a better quality material and a curved blade.

[Dinner]

The gladius was designed to be short so that it could still be used in the dense masses and tight lines which typified ancient warfare. The blade was wide and tick so that the wounds would be hard to bind and instead would continue to bleed while the tip came to a narrow point to aid in piercing armor. It's amazing the amount of thought they put into designing the perfect sword for their densly packed lines of shields.

The gladius was primarily a thrusting sword ideal for quick trusts into your enemy from behind the shield wall without getting tangled up in other people, however, if you wanted to hack off an arm it would do a great job of it.

[Cyclotron]

"Spanish sword" makes me think more of a falcata, which (I think?) was a predecessor of the gladius. Maybe the gladius retained some of the falcata's chopping ability?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Seeker
I have some Roman military questions.

1.What did the Romans consider to be a 'bank' of oars?

Livy mentions navies with open-decked ships, biremes, triremes, quadriremes, and the Roman quinquereme.

I used to believe it refered to the rows of oars arranged in tiers, but the idea of the quinquereme with 5 stories of oars seems a little ungainly. There is a part where it is implied that quadriremes are exceptionally large.

I may be wrong, but I think the problem how the oars were exactly arranged is still not fully resolved in history or acheology, not even for the classic triremes, and therefore also not for higher ranking warships. There were some reconstructions made of ancient Greek triremes (ha, who said historical science cannot have experiments?), but I don't know if they finally answered the question.