|
Chamuska posted:I've read several sources from the past that, The Roman Kingdom and Early Roman Republic utilized Phalanxes and Greek style combat. Yeah, the roman army was originally hoplite-based. I don't think we know exactly when and how the transition happened but at some point after getting owned by gauls and samnites the military was reorganised as maniples rather than huge hoplite blocks and primarily armed with swords (save the oldest, most experienced and most stubborn soldiers who still used hoplite-style spears) edit: beaten, with more detail
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
peer posted:Yeah, the roman army was originally hoplite-based. I don't think we know exactly when and how the transition happened but at some point after getting owned by gauls and samnites the military was reorganised as maniples rather than huge hoplite blocks and primarily armed with swords (save the oldest, most experienced and most stubborn soldiers who still used hoplite-style spears) since you mentioned swords, it's worth noting that the transition to swords was later than the transition to maniples. that comes around a hundred years later when rome starts going on military adventures in hispania, where the native celts were all armed with swords
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
Did the development of the manipular system also represent a further development of Roman administrative/training ability? It seems like something that an earlier Rome or a lesser state might not've been able to pull off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:since you mentioned swords, it's worth noting that the transition to swords was later than the transition to maniples. that comes around a hundred years later when rome starts going on military adventures in hispania, where the native celts were all armed with swords The Romans had adopted the Gladius well prior to the 2nd Punic War when they first went to Hispania. I think it’s believed they copied it in the early 200s after yet another Celtic incursion into Italy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
I was under the impression the Maniple system also saw the transition away from hoplite equipment as well as tactics. I'm having a devil of a time trying to find info on this on the net at the moment, but I thought the Romans simply used a local short sword up until they took the design of the gladius hispaniensis from the spanish tribes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I was under the impression the Maniple system also saw the transition away from hoplite equipment as well as tactics. I'm having a devil of a time trying to find info on this on the net at the moment, but I thought the Romans simply used a local short sword up until they took the design of the gladius hispaniensis from the spanish tribes. i think this is correct, yeah, though spears remained in a lesser capacity until the marian reforms phased them out of the core legions. they used an etruscan design until the punic war period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
When do they adopt javelins as well as/instead of heavier fighting spears?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:When do they adopt javelins as well as/instead of heavier fighting spears? AFAIK its when manipular switch happens, since they based it on the fighting style of the Samnites, who were kicking their rear end. Of course it may have been a gradual thing, the big part was the abandonment of the hoplite phalanx.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
The thing is there wasn't a standardized Roman military until... hell, Caesar's time or maybe even Augustus. The manipular change appears to have happened widely all at once because of the Samnite wars, but as far as equipment that took a long time. Even the common belief in Marius' reforms isn't quite true, he did a lot to reform the army but he didn't create the standardized legion single handedly by any means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
Armies take a long time to phase out old equipment. I did my conscript service in a mix of Korea and Vietnam war style gear, and that was in 2001. What might have taken decades or even longer to change looks sudden viewed from 2000 years away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Decius posted:Armies take a long time to phase out old equipment. I did my conscript service in a mix of Korea and Vietnam war style gear, and that was in 2001. What might have taken decades or even longer to change looks sudden viewed from 2000 years away. Well, back then it was not state supplied. However, just like in a hoplite phalanx, if you show up with the wrong type of stuff you are not going to war with the group. They would have still had inspections and stuff for that very reason, since you can't have some yahoo showing up with dad's ancient spear that has a crack in the shaft cause he is going to get someone killed by being bad at fighting. The issue we are discussing is when the legions actually made the switch from spear armed infantry to sword armed infantry, which is a real big deal as its a giant tactical change. I think the generally accepted explanation is when they abandoned the hoplite phalanx during the Samnite wars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
We know they had to provide their own gear (which would make any switch to a completely different system and equipment even slower), but as far as i know we can't say for sure how exactly this worked - could the soldiers borrow something if they lacked a piece of equipment, or if it broke on campaign? Were there certain approved manufacturers that made sure the right stuff was brought by the soldiers? Did the state give out equipment the citizens bought for a fee? Did they show up with any old stuff they could find? Did Rome provide loans to soldiers short on some equipment? Or did they rely on their patron to get equipped? Even "during the Samnite wars" is nearly a 50 year period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
That reminds me of a question I've always had about the three infantry classes: on the one hand, it's supposed to be an experience thing, with the front line being the young men and the rear line being the oldest veterans. But they're also described as differently equipped, (beyond triarii keeping their spears) and I've heard quotes about how the front line is required to own less armour than the second and third, for example. But this poo poo is often passed down, right? And it's determined by veterancy, not wealth. Why would a first-line hastati not take his veteran dad's full kit?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Seems like he got a pretty good education.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Ironically, the actual Goths would be more jock than goth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Ironically, the actual Goths would be more jock than goth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
I dunno, the Romans got pretty goth towards the end there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Decius posted:We know they had to provide their own gear (which would make any switch to a completely different system and equipment even slower), but as far as i know we can't say for sure how exactly this worked - could the soldiers borrow something if they lacked a piece of equipment, or if it broke on campaign? Were there certain approved manufacturers that made sure the right stuff was brought by the soldiers? Did the state give out equipment the citizens bought for a fee? Did they show up with any old stuff they could find? Did Rome provide loans to soldiers short on some equipment? Or did they rely on their patron to get equipped? the changeover was specifically during the second samnite war. rome won the first one because the combat took place on the plains near capua so the phalanx worked out just fine. they got their poo poo stomped in when they tried to enter samnia itself during the second war, called a truce with the samnites and reformed the legions into maniples, and then rolled into samnia and fought them to a standstill. but i'd wager a lot of money that the first maniples still used spears for the most part, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
lol I thought one axis was "nero" but it still made sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:lol I thought one axis was "nero" but it still made sense. \ 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:since you mentioned swords, it's worth noting that the transition to swords was later than the transition to maniples. that comes around a hundred years later when rome starts going on military adventures in hispania, where the native celts were all armed with swords Do we know why this caused them to switch? I didn't think there'd be a disadvantage if you had primarily spear armed infantry fighting sword armed infantry, but the Romans must have experienced something if this caused them to adopt swords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
I feel like Macedonia should be more prep and less goth
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
cxp posted:Do we know why this caused them to switch? I didn't think there'd be a disadvantage if you had primarily spear armed infantry fighting sword armed infantry, but the Romans must have experienced something if this caused them to adopt swords. spears are better en masse and maniples are all about less mass and more mobility (relatively, they're still blocks of dudes) but as i've been corrected on already, swords were already a primary roman weapon by then and the only thing really adopted from the celtiberians was their superior sword design. the carthaginians beating them to pieces with celtiberian swordsmen probably made an impression, but that's just speculation
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I dunno, the Romans got pretty goth towards the end there. You misspelled"Turk". 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:You misspelled"Turk". "roman" is an archaic spelling of "turk"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Where do the Gauls fall under this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 10:29
|
|
|
Chamuska posted:Where do the Gauls fall under this? They were just recently immigrated (emigrated?) Romans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 11:42
|
|
|
(1,3)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
Athenians were still super-crazy into fitness, they would be the Nerd who takes up weightlifting and makes it a scientific endeavour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Chamuska posted:Where do the Gauls fall under this? Before Caesar? Probably more jock than Kush but slightly less than Macedonia, and closer to the center of the prep/goth axis. After? Lol idk just call them romans at that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Did Pompey have any children with Julia? I assume not because they would have been very dynastically important and I haven't heard of any
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Did Pompey have any children with Julia? I assume not because they would have been very dynastically important and I haven't heard of any They tried. She miscarried, got pregnant again the same year and then died bearing that kid, which also died. It would indeed have been politically important which is probably why Pompey was willing to push her health for it, or at least oblivious to the risk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
skasion posted:They tried. She miscarried, got pregnant again the same year and then died bearing that kid, which also died. It would indeed have been politically important which is probably why Pompey was willing to push her health for it, or at least oblivious to the risk. That's the first scene from the HBO Rome, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
The conventional narrative is that Julia's death is what finally made political realities exceed personal friendship for Caesar and Pompey, so I wonder if their friendship would have continued if Pompey was raising Caesar's grandchild
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
sullat posted:That's the first scene from the HBO Rome, IIRC. First scene is Pullo breaking rank to go bash in some Gauls, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The conventional narrative is that Julia's death is what finally made political realities exceed personal friendship for Caesar and Pompey, so I wonder if their friendship would have continued if Pompey was raising Caesar's grandchild As long as there was a familial link between Pompey and Caesar they were personal and political allies who at the very least would have a much lower chance of seriously antagonizing each other. Caesar knew that the loss of such a familial link was serious business, because he attempted to push Octavia to divorce her husband (Marcellus, not Antony yet) in order to marry Pompey to re-seal the alliance. A grandchild of Caesar’s would have been good if there had been one, but any child of Pompey would be a Pompey (or a Pompeia), so not as good as a living member of Caesar’s family in Pompey’s house. In the event Octavia and Marcellus didn’t feel like divorcing, Caesar was in Britain and couldn’t really force the issue, Pompey turned the offer down (he may have been unimpressed by Caesar’s not-especially-well-born great-niece as a replacement for his daughter), and Pompey wound up marrying Metellus Scipio’s daughter, which was definitely an unsettling move to Caesar, if not hostile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
skasion posted:They tried. She miscarried, got pregnant again the same year and then died bearing that kid, which also died. It would indeed have been politically important which is probably why Pompey was willing to push her health for it, or at least oblivious to the risk. Well, try, push her health, risk etc. is a whole different issue when there is no contraception and a 30 % chance of a woman to die at birth and 50 % chance of a kid not surviving until adulthood. Unless you were abstaining there wasn't really much to control getting pregnant or not. Additionally Romans had the rather peculiar idea that a woman is most fertile right after menstruation and least fertile right before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Allegedly, Romans did have effective contraception. They ate the plant they used for it into extinction, but the seedpod's shape is still associated with love and lust to this day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Decius posted:Well, try, push her health, risk etc. is a whole different issue when there is no contraception and a 30 % chance of a woman to die at birth and 50 % chance of a kid not surviving until adulthood. Unless you were abstaining there wasn't really much to control getting pregnant or not. Those numbers can't possibly be right. I did some math and with those assumptions, the average woman has ~1.67 children that make it to adulthood over the course of her entire life. We know from the relatively static population of the ancient world that the true number of adult children per woman is ~2. (I ignored twins/triplets but also made the untrue assumption that every woman would continue getting pregnant until she died from a pregnancy so it probably balances out give or take)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 06:02
|
|