Org Mobile Site
Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?
[QUOTE=Gertrude]So what about the mines in the steppe ? QUOTE]
Not being an expert at all but I just assume they bought it from more civilised places... And then got along with what they COULD assemble - clubs and stones CAN get you SOME of the way,... i think
;)
Those who had villages prolly found iron in the marshes (Danes did so), but out on the steppes I have difficulty imagining someone being safe enough to do so for long enough to actually make a substantial amount of weapons...
Not being an expert at all but I just assume they bought it from more civilised places... And then got along with what they COULD assemble - clubs and stones CAN get you SOME of the way,... i think
;)Those who had villages prolly found iron in the marshes (Danes did so), but out on the steppes I have difficulty imagining someone being safe enough to do so for long enough to actually make a substantial amount of weapons...
What would the composition of a successor army (Maks, Ptolemies, AS) be composed of and how could you in turn make this into a functional EB army?
Originally Posted by Spotted Pig:
Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?
No - the latter are Turkic speakers who moved North from present day Mongolia. EB's Saka are Indo-European speaking Scythians.Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?
Originally Posted by Spotted Pig:
Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?
No, the Sakha of Siberia are basically traced to the Altaic group of the Yakuts (Which otherwise is the name of this federal republic: Yakutia). They are in other words a Turkic-speaking lot. The Saka-Rauka, as a term, is a construct propagated by Janos Harmatta, who derived it from the Graecian-Latin "Sacaeraucae" or "Sacarauli", whom the Chinese otherwise called "Sai", or in the Han Shu as "Sai-wang"/"Sai-Giwang". In its constructed Khotanese Saka form (Saka-Rauka), their tribal designation amounts to "Commander Scythians" or "Lordly Scythians" or any other designation that conforms to the ideal of supremacy or prominence.Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?
As such their tribe is somewhat different than that of the "Ephedra-drinking Scythians" (Haomavarga), "Scythians-with-pointed-caps" (Tigrakhauda), "Moon-Scythians" (Ma-Saka), "Water-Scythians" (Apasiaka) and finally the "Scythians-beyond-the-Sea" (Paradraya). These designations are passed on to us from the Achaemenids, where the Bâgâstânâ (Bisîtûn/Behistun) inscriptions of Darius I The Great established the main reference of ancient Iranian nomenclature for a wide variety of peoples subject to Darius' re-unification of the Achaemenid worldly hegemony.
The Turks arrive to the political scene in Central Asia in a greater significance (Excepting the Xiongnu and the possibly subsequent Black Huns of Attila), in any certainty, after the fall of the Hephtalite realm during the accession of Chosroës I "The Just", in the later half of the Sassanian era; This is where we see the Gök-Turkic realm materializing. This marked the phasing of Iranian nomadic and pastoralist culture to Turkic and Altaic tribes. The term "Sakha" has been heavily debated, but my personal point of view would dismiss it as a random anomaly of minimal relevance to the historical Scythians.
Originally Posted by Fish-got-a-Sniper:
What would the composition of a successor army (Maks, Ptolemies, AS) be composed of and how could you in turn make this into a functional EB army?
Give thanks to Eduorius for his excellent guide. Using his research...What would the composition of a successor army (Maks, Ptolemies, AS) be composed of and how could you in turn make this into a functional EB army?
Makedonia,
Ptolemaioi
Arche Seleukeia,
Thank Eduorius, abou, and tk-421 and of course Paullus (much obliged Tellos) for a job well done!
Don't forget paullus!
On where the nomads got the metal for their weapons and tools, people often forget that north of the steppes were forests where there lived the predeccessors to the turks and finns. These people lived much simpler lives but they did have access to metal ore which could not be found on the steppes to the south. So the nomads traded animal products and things that they had traded from settled nations in return for pelts and metal, among other things. So the frozen wastlelands of Siberia were not so wasted anyway.
Chairman
Chairman
About when did the Parthians pop up in Roman foreign policy? Obviously it was way before Carrhae.
Originally Posted by russia almighty:
About when did the Parthians pop up in Roman foreign policy? Obviously it was way before Carrhae.
After Lucullus' campaigns, Rome and Parthia agreed to the Euphrates as the border between their dominions. Then the Senate disregarded his settlement and sent Pompey out to mop up and take all the credit.About when did the Parthians pop up in Roman foreign policy? Obviously it was way before Carrhae.
Wasnt it Sulla that made contact with the Parthians and did that east of and west of Euphrates treaty?
Originally Posted by Gaivs:
Wasnt it Sulla that made contact with the Parthians and did that east of and west of Euphrates treaty?
Good point, I think it was. He sent Lucullus out afterwards.Wasnt it Sulla that made contact with the Parthians and did that east of and west of Euphrates treaty?
Originally Posted by Atilius:
Aspiring to the Senate was not simply an individual choice, but a family project. Continuing failure to secure a seat would be deadly to the entire family's prestige. And if money was the motive, there was no more profitable position than the senatorial office of provincial governor. In principle, the resources of the entire province were under his control. Any publicani or merchants there would be beholden to him.
Even so, given how intermarried the various powerful families were, and that they were growing, there would almost always be someone from your close family in politics to keep your gens flag flying. Given how often people seemed to be expelled by the censors later on for being "in trade" I'm not convinced a single year as a provincial governor really was more profitable than a lifetime (or at least several decades) spent as a merchant or tax farmer.Aspiring to the Senate was not simply an individual choice, but a family project. Continuing failure to secure a seat would be deadly to the entire family's prestige. And if money was the motive, there was no more profitable position than the senatorial office of provincial governor. In principle, the resources of the entire province were under his control. Any publicani or merchants there would be beholden to him.
Originally Posted by Atilius:
I said that that Caesar's military was brief, not that he spent it serving tea. (Though he was later rumored to be providing something warm to Nicomedes.) He served with distinction from 80 to 78, but returned to Rome immediately upon learning of Sulla's death. His remarkable actions against his pirate kidnappers, and during Mithridates' invasion of 74 were performed without any military or magisterial authority. In 73 or 72 he was elected military tribune, for a total of 3 years of military service. Eighty years earlier, a Roman aristocrat had to serve in the army for 10 years before he could stand for a quaestorship. Yet Caesar was elected quaestor in 69.
Clearly a significant change had taken place.
It was more the contrast of Cicero and Caesar that I took issue with. Cicero was no military man at all, and didn't exactly do a lot even in the time he served in the Social Wars. He certainly didn't serve with any kind of distinction.I said that that Caesar's military was brief, not that he spent it serving tea. (Though he was later rumored to be providing something warm to Nicomedes.) He served with distinction from 80 to 78, but returned to Rome immediately upon learning of Sulla's death. His remarkable actions against his pirate kidnappers, and during Mithridates' invasion of 74 were performed without any military or magisterial authority. In 73 or 72 he was elected military tribune, for a total of 3 years of military service. Eighty years earlier, a Roman aristocrat had to serve in the army for 10 years before he could stand for a quaestorship. Yet Caesar was elected quaestor in 69.
Clearly a significant change had taken place.
Caesar earned a place in the Senate early by dint of his corona civica, under Sulla's constitution. That might have played in his favour in ignoring the customary 10 campaigns. There are at least five "campaigns" that we do know of; The siege of Mytilene, gathering ships for the governor, against the pirates, raising troops to fight one of Mithridates commanders in Asia province and possibly against Spartacus.
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius:
It was more the contrast of Cicero and Caesar that I took issue with. Cicero was no military man at all, and didn't exactly do a lot even in the time he served in the Social Wars. He certainly didn't serve with any kind of distinction.
Caesar earned a place in the Senate early by dint of his corona civica, under Sulla's constitution. That might have played in his favour in ignoring the customary 10 campaigns. There are at least five "campaigns" that we do know of; The siege of Mytilene, gathering ships for the governor, against the pirates, raising troops to fight one of Mithridates commanders in Asia province and possibly against Spartacus.
Yet Cicero was elected to the quaestorship in 75 and at the same age (31) as Caesar when he was elected. This in spite of Cicero's far less accomplished and even briefer military career, and the fact that none of Cicero's forebearers had reached the consulship.It was more the contrast of Cicero and Caesar that I took issue with. Cicero was no military man at all, and didn't exactly do a lot even in the time he served in the Social Wars. He certainly didn't serve with any kind of distinction.
Caesar earned a place in the Senate early by dint of his corona civica, under Sulla's constitution. That might have played in his favour in ignoring the customary 10 campaigns. There are at least five "campaigns" that we do know of; The siege of Mytilene, gathering ships for the governor, against the pirates, raising troops to fight one of Mithridates commanders in Asia province and possibly against Spartacus.
My whole point was that in the late Republic military service was no longer considered very important for admission to the Senate.
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius:
After Lucullus' campaigns, Rome and Parthia agreed to the Euphrates as the border between their dominions. Then the Senate disregarded his settlement and sent Pompey out to mop up and take all the credit.
Actually, I think this is what you are referring to; By 92 BCE, Mithradates II The Great had sent out an envoy (Orobazus) to engage in diplomatic discussions with Sulla of Rome; Needless to say, the end of the negotiated terms, establishing the Euphrates as the boundary between the two powers, angered Mithradates II The Great, and adding insult to injury, Sulla had snatched the seat in the middle, bringing much detriment to Parthian prestige in Mithradates' sensibilities; Orobazus was killed as a result of Sulla's rude behaviour. Nevertheless, a covenant was made, ironically broken by the Romans twice. First by Pompey who expelled Parthian governors of the western client states (Which only met passive reaction by the Parthians). Second, by Marcus Licinius Crassus with his privately funded expedition (Though supported by his two other Triumvirate colleagues), which gave the Parthians a pretext for a counter-invasion of Syria, spear-headed by Orodes' son, Pacorus (And his retainer, Osaces).After Lucullus' campaigns, Rome and Parthia agreed to the Euphrates as the border between their dominions. Then the Senate disregarded his settlement and sent Pompey out to mop up and take all the credit.
The battle of Carrhaë was the result of decades of Roman inconsistencies and lack of respect for treaties. The opportunity came around when the Parthian empire suffered from its first civil war, which had by effect begun after the death of Mithradates II The Great. The battle of Carrhaë ensured the longevity of the Arsacid hegemony in the Greater Iran. It was the conflict Orodes II needed in order to re-unite a fragmented feudal confederacy from a devastating civil war, but the conspiracy against his father along with his former associate, his brother Mithradates III (Who ruled briefly during the civil war), set an ugly tradition of patricide and fratricide, which would reach a macabre high-point during the rule of Phraates IV (Who for the record not only smote his own father, but had thirty of his brothers killed in order to hog authority), once the news of enigmatic crown-prince and co-ruler Pacorus I reached the court at Seleucia; He was killed at Cyrrhestica 38 BCE, in an ambush staged by Publius Ventidius Bassus, the general's third successive and decisive battle in countering the Parthian invasions of the Levant and Asia Minor.
Given that I'm considering seeing things from the other end of the spectrum and playing as one of the Gaulish factions, I'd just like to ask what a historically accurate Celtic army would look like? I've found good info on Romans and before me there's info on the Hellenics. What about the Celts (i.e Aedui, Arverni, Casse, + Sweboz) ?
A good start:
A large body of spearmen, like gaeroas, along with a few swordsmen units, a couple of light horse, a couple of elites, and the general.
A large body of spearmen, like gaeroas, along with a few swordsmen units, a couple of light horse, a couple of elites, and the general.
Now this is me entering at random here; but I would add a couple of Iosatae?
Originally Posted by Atilius:
Yet Cicero was elected to the quaestorship in 75 and at the same age (31) as Caesar when he was elected. This in spite of Cicero's far less accomplished and even briefer military career, and the fact that none of Cicero's forebearers had reached the consulship.
My whole point was that in the late Republic military service was no longer considered very important for admission to the Senate.
Fair enough, I can't argue with that. Furthermore, I'd agree with your last statement. All the various forms seem to have become less and less important towards the end of the Republic. But then I guess after Sulla's actions all bets were off.Yet Cicero was elected to the quaestorship in 75 and at the same age (31) as Caesar when he was elected. This in spite of Cicero's far less accomplished and even briefer military career, and the fact that none of Cicero's forebearers had reached the consulship.
My whole point was that in the late Republic military service was no longer considered very important for admission to the Senate.
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract:
Actually, I think this is what you are referring to; By 92 BCE, Mithradates II The Great had sent out an envoy (Orobazus) to engage in diplomatic discussions with Sulla of Rome; Needless to say, the end of the negotiated terms, establishing the Euphrates as the boundary between the two powers, angered Mithradates II The Great, and adding insult to injury, Sulla had snatched the seat in the middle, bringing much detriment to Parthian prestige in Mithradates' sensibilities; Orobazus was killed as a result of Sulla's rude behaviour. Nevertheless, a covenant was made, ironically broken by the Romans twice. First by Pompey who expelled Parthian governors of the western client states (Which only met passive reaction by the Parthians). Second, by Marcus Licinius Crassus with his privately funded expedition (Though supported by his two other Triumvirate colleagues), which gave the Parthians a pretext for a counter-invasion of Syria, spear-headed by Orodes' son, Pacorus (And his retainer, Osaces).
The battle of Carrhaë was the result of decades of Roman inconsistencies and lack of respect for treaties. The opportunity came around when the Parthian empire suffered from its first civil war, which had by effect begun after the death of Mithradates II The Great. The battle of Carrhaë ensured the longevity of the Arsacid hegemony in the Greater Iran. It was the conflict Orodes II needed in order to re-unite a fragmented feudal confederacy from a devastating civil war, but the conspiracy against his father along with his former associate, his brother Mithradates III (Who ruled briefly during the civil war), set an ugly tradition of patricide and fratricide, which would reach a macabre high-point during the rule of Phraates IV (Who for the record not only smote his own father, but had thirty of his brothers killed in order to hog authority), once the news of enigmatic crown-prince and co-ruler Pacorus I reached the court at Seleucia; He was killed at Cyrrhestica 38 BCE, in an ambush staged by Publius Ventidius Bassus, the general's third successive and decisive battle in countering the Parthian invasions of the Levant and Asia Minor.
Consider me enlightened, thank you. It's been a while since I looked at that period and it all went a bit hazy in my memory.Actually, I think this is what you are referring to; By 92 BCE, Mithradates II The Great had sent out an envoy (Orobazus) to engage in diplomatic discussions with Sulla of Rome; Needless to say, the end of the negotiated terms, establishing the Euphrates as the boundary between the two powers, angered Mithradates II The Great, and adding insult to injury, Sulla had snatched the seat in the middle, bringing much detriment to Parthian prestige in Mithradates' sensibilities; Orobazus was killed as a result of Sulla's rude behaviour. Nevertheless, a covenant was made, ironically broken by the Romans twice. First by Pompey who expelled Parthian governors of the western client states (Which only met passive reaction by the Parthians). Second, by Marcus Licinius Crassus with his privately funded expedition (Though supported by his two other Triumvirate colleagues), which gave the Parthians a pretext for a counter-invasion of Syria, spear-headed by Orodes' son, Pacorus (And his retainer, Osaces).
The battle of Carrhaë was the result of decades of Roman inconsistencies and lack of respect for treaties. The opportunity came around when the Parthian empire suffered from its first civil war, which had by effect begun after the death of Mithradates II The Great. The battle of Carrhaë ensured the longevity of the Arsacid hegemony in the Greater Iran. It was the conflict Orodes II needed in order to re-unite a fragmented feudal confederacy from a devastating civil war, but the conspiracy against his father along with his former associate, his brother Mithradates III (Who ruled briefly during the civil war), set an ugly tradition of patricide and fratricide, which would reach a macabre high-point during the rule of Phraates IV (Who for the record not only smote his own father, but had thirty of his brothers killed in order to hog authority), once the news of enigmatic crown-prince and co-ruler Pacorus I reached the court at Seleucia; He was killed at Cyrrhestica 38 BCE, in an ambush staged by Publius Ventidius Bassus, the general's third successive and decisive battle in countering the Parthian invasions of the Levant and Asia Minor.
Originally Posted by J.Alco:
Given that I'm considering seeing things from the other end of the spectrum and playing as one of the Gaulish factions, I'd just like to ask what a historically accurate Celtic army would look like? I've found good info on Romans and before me there's info on the Hellenics. What about the Celts (i.e Aedui, Arverni, Casse, + Sweboz) ?
I'd say something like this:Given that I'm considering seeing things from the other end of the spectrum and playing as one of the Gaulish factions, I'd just like to ask what a historically accurate Celtic army would look like? I've found good info on Romans and before me there's info on the Hellenics. What about the Celts (i.e Aedui, Arverni, Casse, + Sweboz) ?
Elites
1 Brihentin (ie the chieftain or magistrate or king)
0-1 Heavy cavalry
0-2 "Prestige" heavy infantry (Solduros etc)
Warriors
2-3 Professional soldiers (Gaesatae, Neitos, etc)
2-3 other infantry (Celto-Hellenic, Botroas, etc)
1-3 Light cavalry (Leuce Epos, Curepos, etc)
Levies
1-4 Skirmishers (Iaosatae, Sotaroas, etc)
Rest fill up on Gaeroas/Gelaiche and Lugoae
Something like a 3-7-10 split on Elites-Warriors-Levies in a full stack. Deploy in one line, Elites in the middle, Warriors flanking them, Levy infantry covering the wings, levy skirmishers deployed out front.
Originally Posted by bovi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa
It is absolutely amazing what a new technology can do to the battlefield. This leads me to wonder, how successful would Alexander have been if Phillip II hadn't introduced the phalanx? Would he have even defeated the Persians with regular hoplites? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa
Clearly after awhile tactics were developed that made the phalanx obsolete and those that used it were conquered by another new technology or blending of technologies, the cohort. I think if Alexander had met Marian Cohorts he would have had to change tactics completely or lose.
I don't think that Philippos would have even defeated the Greeks at Chaeronea without his sarissa-bearers. He would have needed a large enough number of hoplitai or other heavy infantry of a sufficient quality to at least hold their own in prolonged melee. I don't see that coming out of Makedonia without a system like the sarissa-phalanx.
did malta had some kind of special people deserving their own unit ?
how come the steppe people developped cataphracts when they had no access to big mines of metals ???
how come the steppe people developped cataphracts when they had no access to big mines of metals ???
Other than capturing equipment from enemies or indulging in trade (Which nomads generally excelled at), they were skilled in smith-crafting, and we find many modular works of helmets in depictions and findings in the "Greater Scythia". Because their culture revolved around the horse as the staple commodity, naturally in a military habitat revolving around mounted archery, mainly between lightly clad combattants, casualty rates were found to be quite high, both amongst men and horses; The cataphract, if we could call it that by such early stage, was conceived as a counter against horse-archery. More resilient against missiles and probably more able when it came to close quarter combat. Because these cultures were nomadic or pastoralist, they did not need to embellish their dwellings or establish a currency when traditional bartering sufficed. This is merely an abstraction, and does not apply to Scythians who in fact did lead a more sedentary life-style (Haoma-drinking Scythians for instance).
The horse was vital for survival in the steppes, and the horse as well as the amount of horses in ownership was also a sign of social standing; Embellishing the features of horses, such as bridles, bits, plumes, mane-cutting, tamga-brandings, saddle-cloths as far as giving the horse a breast-plate and/or a chamfrôn were signs of wealth, "chivalric"-caste (I only use the word "chivalry" very loosely here), and of generally powerful standing; We see some sort of a proto-feudal social structure which revolves around horses, horsemanship and equestrian warfare. The acquiring of metal was not the problem; It could be acquired through raiding or by trade. Scythians, in the abstract sense of the designation, had an abundant possession of horses, all from rugged steppen ponies to slender and magnificent beasts, and settled nations paid a lot of money to acquire these horses, and the "money" in question could take the form of anything of value. So they sat with an ace: They wanted precious things, others wanted horses.
Further, I'd actually say that the access of wood was more problematic for the nomadic peoples, in a greater sense; Armour was more of a commodity for the rich who could acquire it without any greater problems, but because archery was such a prominent element in steppen warfare, in an arid habitat the lack of arrows or wood for making bows could prove very dangerous. This would have been an issue of supplies, and generally we see that once nomadic cultures who settles somewhat in more vegetated lands adapts to a more sedentary life-style. The Chorasmians for instance are an excellent example of a culture harnessing the wealth of the Aral-Oxus oasis (The so-called "Khiva-oasis"); They came to later field a dreaded force of heavy horse, and their role in history for sure must have affected that of the pastoralist Âpârnîg tribe, who later would come to establish the Arsacid Persianate confederacy (Parthian empire).
The horse was vital for survival in the steppes, and the horse as well as the amount of horses in ownership was also a sign of social standing; Embellishing the features of horses, such as bridles, bits, plumes, mane-cutting, tamga-brandings, saddle-cloths as far as giving the horse a breast-plate and/or a chamfrôn were signs of wealth, "chivalric"-caste (I only use the word "chivalry" very loosely here), and of generally powerful standing; We see some sort of a proto-feudal social structure which revolves around horses, horsemanship and equestrian warfare. The acquiring of metal was not the problem; It could be acquired through raiding or by trade. Scythians, in the abstract sense of the designation, had an abundant possession of horses, all from rugged steppen ponies to slender and magnificent beasts, and settled nations paid a lot of money to acquire these horses, and the "money" in question could take the form of anything of value. So they sat with an ace: They wanted precious things, others wanted horses.
Further, I'd actually say that the access of wood was more problematic for the nomadic peoples, in a greater sense; Armour was more of a commodity for the rich who could acquire it without any greater problems, but because archery was such a prominent element in steppen warfare, in an arid habitat the lack of arrows or wood for making bows could prove very dangerous. This would have been an issue of supplies, and generally we see that once nomadic cultures who settles somewhat in more vegetated lands adapts to a more sedentary life-style. The Chorasmians for instance are an excellent example of a culture harnessing the wealth of the Aral-Oxus oasis (The so-called "Khiva-oasis"); They came to later field a dreaded force of heavy horse, and their role in history for sure must have affected that of the pastoralist Âpârnîg tribe, who later would come to establish the Arsacid Persianate confederacy (Parthian empire).
Bump
Here's a question I always wondered. The modern human is probably (on average) taller than the average human of ancient times. Celts were always described as being tall with rippling muscles and of fair hair. How tall do you think they actually were? To be considered "tall" by today's standards usually means over 6 ft. Were the ancient celts this tall or really 5'8 and considered tall at the time?
Actually, from all account I have heard, it's a good chance our Celtic friends could have been close or average modern height and above. The average free Celt probably got more kilo calories then the average Roman; especially, a lot more meat, which contains all sorts of necessary amino acids that can't be gotten from plants.
Originally Posted by defiant3279:
Here's a question I always wondered. The modern human is probably (on average) taller than the average human of ancient times. Celts were always described as being tall with rippling muscles and of fair hair. How tall do you think they actually were? To be considered "tall" by today's standards usually means over 6 ft. Were the ancient celts this tall or really 5'8 and considered tall at the time?
Here's a question I always wondered. The modern human is probably (on average) taller than the average human of ancient times. Celts were always described as being tall with rippling muscles and of fair hair. How tall do you think they actually were? To be considered "tall" by today's standards usually means over 6 ft. Were the ancient celts this tall or really 5'8 and considered tall at the time?
In a nutshell, height differentiation usually had to do with nutritional and health standards. Celts an Germans being seen as taller than there Italian and Greek adversaries had some truth to it, and a few books I have read on Celts/Germans/'barbarians' place the skeletons found in those graves as taller than ones in Roman grave, but only but about 2 inches or so. Even today, it seems the more north you go in Europe, the taller the average population.
Keep in mind that tallness, by itself, is not a full proof sign of well being or a healthy living style. Japanese on Okinawa are among the longest lived people on the planet, but we know that Japanese/Asians in general are short compared to Europeans and Africans.
I recall reading somewhere that the average height for a medieval knight was 5'2-3", and this was due mainly to the poorer nutritional standards back then, while now, if we still had knights, they be much taller. Factor in heredity, genes, how much HGR (Human Growth Hormone) you have as you grow, what your mom ate while you were developing, etc...and it gets somewhat more complicated individually.
I have one myself.
Does Diophantine algebra have connections to modern algebra; or is DA it's own f'd up maths?
Does Diophantine algebra have connections to modern algebra; or is DA it's own f'd up maths?
Originally Posted by Power2the1:
In a nutshell, height differentiation usually had to do with nutritional and health standards....
Yeah but. My Italian mates are all short and they were well fed as kids. I come from a family of tall irish and my scot-descended mate's family are all over 6' including his mum. I suspect there are genetic as well as nutritional/health influences in this equation.In a nutshell, height differentiation usually had to do with nutritional and health standards....
Also bear in mind who was on the battlefield. In a feudal society where military service is an important status marker the best fed men are in the front line. Likewise I think in the increasing militarised Celtic societies the Romans fought the elites were often up the front in battles.
However the front line of the Legion were often drawn from the middling landholders or (after Marius) the urban poor. The officers on their pretty horses were of the upper crust of course.
I think the height difference between the average legionary and his opponent in the Teutoburger Wald or even at Telamon might have been substantial, but its just a guess.
I like the image of the gauls and romans squaring off like Rocky vs Apollo Creed, the little Italian staring into his opponent's chest.
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius:
Fair enough, I can't argue with that. Furthermore, I'd agree with your last statement. All the various forms seem to have become less and less important towards the end of the Republic. But then I guess after Sulla's actions all bets were off.
Sulla opened the Senate to decorated soldiers. Nevertheless, there was a growing tendency towards professionalization within the Roman military. The new army of volunteers, that did more "belong" to their commanders than to the state, made the idea of long lasting military service for comming magistrates somewhat outdated. The original idea to provide the army with an elite cavalry composed of young patricians was of course completly obsolete in the last century BC.Fair enough, I can't argue with that. Furthermore, I'd agree with your last statement. All the various forms seem to have become less and less important towards the end of the Republic. But then I guess after Sulla's actions all bets were off.
And there was also the other way around: Pompeius' early carreer had shown that it became possible to become military commander under the new system without meeting any requirements that would have qualified for an office like this. He was more a Condottieri than a proper Roman magistrate.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO