A question for Roman history buffs

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I don't think she's your kind of Libertarian, Drake.

I'm not a big "L" libertarian, if that's what you mean. A little too crazy for me...

[Mr. Harley]

Another advantage of the Pilum - the throwing spear Oerdin mentions with the bending neck (softer metal) -was that not only was it impossible to throw back, they tended to get stuck in the enemies shields, eventually making them impracticle to hold. That was a revolutionary, rather nasty (and clever) idea.

Another problem with the aqueduct is that the Romans build decent sized portions of them into tunnels. I suspect that air might end up being a problem in sections of the tunnels, but that is just a guess. She should email some of the Italian museums, I bet they would not mind helping.

[child of Thor]

I think when your reading works by people like Tacitus, and other historical sources from the past; you have to be careful how you interpret the author.
Livy's descriptions of the wounds were probably meant to be a form of propaganda.

The generaly accepted rule of romans using close formations and stabing/thrusting attacks(often they would attack the person to the side of them, not the one directly infront, helping avoid the shield) was probally the favoured tactic.
And it was particularly effect against the Celts of the british isles who tened to use leaf shaped top heavy slashing swords or axes, easy to deflect in a shield wall and find the exposed skin of the celt
Still in any broken combat i'm sure any soldier would use their weapon in whatever way served them best.

The Gladius as a fairly short bladed weapon with most of its weight in the hilt, wouldn't have been the best chopping weapon imho, but could have been used as one of course.

As for Aquaducts, i'm sure there wasn't always a concrete design plan for them, so some seemed to have security measures, like grills etc. Others probably didnt, maybe the local magistrate syphoning of funds for his personal fancies?

[Az]

easy to deflect in a shield wall and find the exposed skin of the celt

I am sorry, but wtf is up with the sad face?

[Bereta_Eder]

he's a celt

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
he's a celt

indeed, and i'll never forgive the romans for what they did to my people ("Bl**dy Romans,what did they ever do for us hey?")

[Bereta_Eder]

i thought you'd be more inclined to be pissed off against the anglosaxons, but hey you know better

[child of Thor]

The rot set in with the Romans(and the church ), the Angles/Jutes/Saxons/Normans/Danes just finished the job off

[BlackCat]

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.

This site says that there probably was different classifications, and that a quinquereme meant that there were five men at each oar - that make a lot more sense than five stories.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/q/qu/quinquereme.htm

[Az]

Originally posted by child of Thor


indeed, and i'll never forgive the romans for what they did to my people ("Bl**dy Romans,what did they ever do for us hey?")

puhlease. Romans introduced civilization into your Island. They've completely destroyed my ancestors, but holding a grudge like that is silly.

[Seeker]

Awesome site on the ships!!

1. boats
I never knew there was such an ancient arms race!

The Roman propagandists would go on and on about how they "weren't a naval race" and would win by "creating the conditions of a land battle"but that's because they considered it cowardly.

In reality, a roman quinquereme carried many more marines than a carthaginian ship and was also much larger and able to absorb damage from catapults and rower casualties than the smaller opponents. It changes my perception of some of the naval battles when you realize that the 'outnumbered' romans were in the equivalent of the 'Bismarck' vs their enemies in the equivalent of 'PT-109'.
The site describes simply gigantic ships, like the hexireme.

2. swords
the falcata is medieval/dark ages isn't it? Maybe the romans opponents, the lusitanians used it to consistently defeat the romans...

Chopping vs Stabbing: ...survey says...stabbing!

It's also possible that Livy could be referring to a cavalry sword carried by Equites, which was longer than the gladius and used only from horseback.

[BeBMan]

Re Roman warships, those giant ships were probably not "in action" for Rome during the wars against Carthage, but later. Although there are, AFAIK, reports of such heavier Carthaginian and Hellenistic ships in regular use. Those heavier ships were also not always the right answer, for exampe the battle of Actium 31 BC comes to my mind, where Agrippa won the battle for Octavian by using smaller, more agile ships against the much heavier ships of M. Antonius.

Later Roman heavy warships could go up to eight or even ten rows of oarsmen, although as said we don't know exactly what this meant for the arrangement of those oars.

[Zkribbler]

Re: A question for Roman history buffs

Originally posted by Guynemer
Would it have been feasible for someone to sneak into a city via one?

Ooooh, a scene for Scorpion King 2 if there ever was one.

[Az]

Yep, BeBro is right - heavier wasn't always the answer. The fact that lighter ships quite often conquered in battle, esp. when having experienced crews. That's why the Roman picture was rather fair - they conquered on the sea against many previous preconceptions and odds.

[Dr Strangelove]

I remember reading a National Geographic article in which some scholars built full scale models of multi-decked oar driven ships. They found that it was simply not possible to adequately co-ordinate the oars of a multidecked ship - they repeatedly experienced oars from different levels interfering with each other.

The Romans perferred to deploy their legions in closely packed formations. The soldiers stood literally shoulder to shoulder. Against foes like the Celts who preferred to fight man to man this meant that each Celtic warrior would be fighting 2 men. The Greeks also fought in tightly packed formations, but they preferred long spears. The tall shields used by the Romans generally deflected long spears, pushing them down or up. The Romans then could force their way into close contact and decide the issue with their short swords. Roman spears were generally used as throwing weapons. Lightly equipped troops could be deployed in loose formation in front of a legion and use their spears in a skirmishing fashion to soften up a foe. Alternatively sometimes when a legion closed against an enemy the back rows threw their spears over the heads of the front rows, hoping to catch the enemy rear ranks vulnerable.