Posts tagged ‘Roman Army’

Trajanic Frieze at the Lunt Fort Scene 8

THE  EMPEROR  SPEAKS  WITH  DACIAN  LEADERS.

 

HE  IS  SURROUNDED  BY  HIS  PERSONAL  GUARD  (PRAETORIANS), WHO  ALSO  WEAR  PURPLE.  THEY  CARRY  SPECIAL  STANDARDS  AND THE  BEARERS  WEAR  ANIMAL  SKINS.

 

THE  STANDARD-BEARER  IN  RED  (CENTRE)  CARRIES  THE  FAMOUS  EAGLE  STANDARD  (AQUILA)  MADE  OF  GOLD  OR  SILVER.  REPRESENTING  AN  ENTIRE  LEGION  WAS  A  VERY  IMPORTANT  JOB!

 

BEHIND  THEM  WE  SEE  A  ROMAN  FORT  WITH  TOWERS,  USED  AS  MODELS  FOR  THE  LUNT  FORT  GATEWAY.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

The reconstructions at the Lunt  are, of course, notional. The reconstructions rise from their original post holes, but their precise appearance above ground level is unknown. The images of gateway structures on Trajan’s Column were the primary sources used to inform the reconstructed Eastern gateway of the Fort.

The gateway, seen in the background of the photo of Drusus in the gyrus, has two levels. The first is a fighting platform, which would probably have mounted one or two ballistae to command the direct approaches. These machines would possibly have been supplemented by archers (sagittarii). Using a bow on the ramparts to fire down into the killing zone between the double ditches (as I have done) gives a real sense of command. The upper level provides  excellent  views of the surrounding area – a great panorama of the centre of the modern city of Coventry. Many a freezing watch duty must have been undertaken on it!

The Lunt would have been a tough nut for any attacking force to crack. When  fully garrisoned by a cohort of auxilia (500 men) I estimate that a war-band of at least 3000 Celts  would have been needed to stand any chance of breaching the ramparts. There is, however, no archaeological evidence that the fort was ever attacked. This is not surprising. Like most Roman forts, the Lunt was offensive, rather than defensive in its intent. It was not a place for the Romans to hide and await attack. The Romans used their forts to dominate surrounding areas, and they were normally  part of extended and sophisticated offensive or counter-offensive  systems.

Dominating forests and surveying swamps speculations on why the Romans chose Bagington

My two previous posts have been about the ancient landscape of Britain.  I have discussed the preeminence of water and all the pervasiveness of the forests which were the dominant features of ancient Britain.  Modern Britain is very different.  Our country is criss-crossed with good roads, we need not fear ambush from lawless bandits, we do not have to stick to the high ground to avoid swamps and the unhealthy atmosphere.

This often makes it hard to really understand why our ancestors built where they did.  Baginton in Warwickshire is a strange, lovely little place out of the way and overshadowed by Coventry.  Not the kind of place where you would normally expect to find a Roman fort.  The Romans were pro-active with their defensive strategies so building the fort in such a nice place means that at sometime in the past Bagington must have been a more, robust, place to live.

But there is much more to Baginton that first meets the eye.  Just down the road and across the river from the fort are the remains of two prehistoric barrows – somebody having approved planning permission to drive a bypass through them kind of ruined the archaeology – on the other side of the river is the remains of a small fortified manor house, then a quarry made into a lovely garden, then the remains of Baginton Hall which was burned down in the late 19th century, a series of medieval fish pools around which the fields bear the imprint of the medieval serfs who toiled on the land.   So clearly there is something about Baginton, some unseen factor that makes it important in so many different ages.

I think that the position of the fort can be best explained by the Coventry road which runs through Baginton, it seems to be an very ancient road elevated over the landscape following the contours until it dips down to a bridge over the Sow and then onto Coventry.

This makes the fort extremely important strategically.  It was constructed in the  years following Boudican revolt when Agricola was engaged in measures to  reduce the forces of the Britons.  Lunt fits into this strategy of reduction as it controls the Coventry road, the crossing of the Sow and a major route in and out of the Forest of Arden.  From this position the Romans were able to bring up resources and supplies, prevent resupplies to the celts holding out in the forest whilst at the same time providing a safe retreat for soldiers policing the forest seeking the fugitives.  At the fort we have a fantastic model of the site in the sixty first decade which features a group of Roman soldiers bringing prisoners into the fort… to assist the Romans with their enquires which I speculate was a regular occurance during the sites twenty year life span.

This is of course speculation.  It might be based on observation, the use of my powerful intellect (ha) and reflective conversations with my colleagues but the thought processes, the strategic considerations and the planing that led to the fort being built at Baginton has been lost in the mist of time.  By the time of the Dacian war all of the soldiers who had been based at the Lunt, who had survived his service, would have retired and soon be coming to the end of their lives and as they passed certain knowledge of the Lunt passed away with them.

Drusus goes to war…Cut out and keep Roman soldier

We are nice people so we have decided to give you a cut out, colour in and keep Roman soldier.  With a responsible adult get some sisors, glue and felt tips and spend an hour making your own Roman soldier.   Why not make two?  Why not make five thousand and your own legion!!!  If you do a good job (and you better had) why not take a photograph and send it to the blog so we can show the whole wide world.  Email it to luntblog@gmail.com

Drusus takes an Oath… Sacramentum

The Oath of Allegiance I solemnly swear, to obey my officers at all times. To loyally serve the senate and people of Rome and to defend, to the last drop of my blood, the sacred person of the Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. All this I swear by JUPITER! Optimus Maximus!

Drussus gets Armed…Pilum

A Pilum was a kind of spear or javelin.

Take that Toggi!!!

A Pilum was about two metres long.
It had a point at one end so it could be stuck in the ground.
It had a long, thin, sharp point which was designed to bend when it hit it’s target.
-Skilled soldiers could throw it more than 20 metres.

Spot the Barbarian…A fundamental law “B” is for Barbarian

After doing a series of complex and quite, in Robs words “ethereal”, posts about the nature of history, Constantine and philosophy I thought I would do a light hearted look at Barbarians and Romans.

We have been looking at pictures of Trajans Column for a few weeks now and I feel the need to share with you a simple rule that might help you distinguish civilized Romans from everyone else.

So the first rule is that the Barbarians have not bothered to shave before the big battle whilst the Romans have got up nice and early, had a shower, shave and breakfast before making a decent effort on the battlefield.

Gallic cavalry take trophies from the battlefield

Compare and contrast their faces

So the important thing to note is that “B” is for Beards and “B” is for Barbarian.  So this is a general rule that should help you if you need to work out if the person in front of you is a barbarian or a proper person.

Next have a look at this battle field.

Got your hands full? Don't want to lose your trophy? Use your mouth...

In this picture are Barbarians fighting auxiliary   Auxiliary are barbarians who are recruited into the army and will gained citizenship on successful completion of service.  One of them has a Dacian head in his mouth.  So here we can see that all the barbarians are wearing trousers so that gives us a hint of another rule to help us.  Quickly compare this with the image below and you note that the Emperor is wearing a tunica.  In the picture below you can see a group of Roman legionaries, bona fide Roman Citizens and they too are wearing tunicas.  Now the latin word for trousers is braccae and here we see it again.  “B” is for barbarian “B” is for braccae.  Its a fundamental law.

Soldiers building a road

TRAJAN’S FRIEZE (Scene 6)

THESE  ROMAN  LEGIONARIES  ARE  MAKING  A  ROAD.

ONE  SOLDIER  SWINGS  A  PICK-AXE (A  DOLABRA),  ANOTHER  MOVES  EARTH  IN  A  WICKER  BASKET.  THE  ROMANS  DID  NOT  USE  WHEELBARROWS!

THEY  WORK  IN  THEIR  ARMOUR,  WITH  HELMETS  AND  SHIELDS  NEARBY  IN  CASE OF  SURPRISE  ATTACK.

TWO  CHOPPED  OFF  HEADS  HAVE  BEEN  SET  UP  AS  A  WARNING!

Soldiers building a road

Surely a mistake in the colour coding here. The severed heads, by their context, have to be  Dacian – and should have RED hair.  Should we associate these images with a head-hunting cult as suggested in previous posts?  I doubt it in this case. The troops here are legionaries,  which means they are all bona fide Roman citizens – and there is a purpose to this grisly display. It says “Men at Work.. Do Not Disturb”.  But if they are disturbed they are ready for you. Note the close proximity of helmets and shields.

Here we see construction work in an active warzone being undertaken while wearing body armour. I have done jobs in the construction industry involving hard manual labour. I also wear Roman body armour on a regular basis as part of my job at the Lunt. I would hate to have to combine the two!

Simply moving about and projecting the voice for two  hours , while wearing this stuff, is an exhausting  experience.  Of course, I am a modern softie – not of the hardy peasant stock these men were.  Yet even for them, this work, especially in high temperatures, must have been punishing. As we  learned  recently at the Fort, their stamina and endurance are held in awe by the toughest soldiers in the British Army of today….

Reflecting on Robs comments and Roman Citizenship: Warning Might not make much sense

Manumission from barbarian into citizen was the social innovation of Rome. The Greeks moved the other way from being tolerant of barbarians to mistrust of the otherness. Carthage similarly produced a two tier society of elite and plebs with no possible movement between the two. During Hannibal’s rampage around Italy states allied to Rome remained largely loyal because they were bound to Rome by the privilage of citizenship, in contrast the Carthaginian states were vulnerable to defection and treason because they did not share in the good fortunes of their imperial masters. I agree with Rob that it was probably out of reach for anyone outside of Italy but in Italy it was of incredible value to the Roman state. The Romans were quite right to be wary of extending citizenship, particularly to the Gauls and their kindred, citizenship was a line demarcation in the sand , which in the eyes of the ancients, divided the animal from the human. In law you could do awful things to barbarians and nobody would bat an eyelid, they could be taxed, their legal position was uncertain and the punishments were abominable. In contrast the citizen could join the army, was exempt from certain taxes and enjoyed a privileged position in law. St Paul is the prime example of citizen enforcing his rights. We often wonder how the Romans could put people to death in the arena in hideous ways, we forget that these people were not citizens and so we not, in Roman eyes, people. It is in our Human Rights era an absolute paradigm shift, now a foreign terrorist has the same rights as a British citizen an impossible situation in ancient Rome where a barbarian might be seen as on the same legal level as a pedestrian in Grand Theft Auto.
I suspect that Caesars actions in Gaul were criticized because he citizenised unreconstructed Gauls as a political move rather than a true manumission. By doing so he might have been perceived to devalue the system and devalue the status of the citizen. Something that he certainly did as Dictator when he ushered in the age of Empire.

With regards to the sausage clearly it is a ubiquitous foodstuff but the point is that it was associated with the Germans and in an unstable age the Emperor wanted the reset the empire to a Roman pattern and expel non-classical influences. Which begs the question why did he allow Christianity?

Imperialism, soft power and the sausage…

I love Horrible Histories.  I have read the books and seen the series.  I can not get enough and when I saw this clip I nearly wet myself.

But it is not as silly as it looks.  Ever since the Robinson and Gallagher wrote about the Imperialism of Free Trade  imperial historians have looked to the myriad alternative explanations of the spread of empire to that of brute force.  Informal empire spread beyond the boarders of the official empire meaning that countries dependent on Britain for banking and industry, such as Chili and Argentina were more under the control of Westminster than formal colonies like Canada.

Culture, art, civilisation and food are all essential tools of the imperialist and their use can be demonstrated as effectively in the British Empire as in the Roman Empire.  The British encouraged their subjects formal and informal to drink tea at four in the afternoon, to wear dinner suits and listen to Elgar.  The same was true of ancient Rome.  In the prelude to invasion Roman goods, lifestyle and culture was being exported to Britain to bring that nation under the empire without the legions having to leave their forts.

But Rome did not have it all their own way and the sausage was a very dangerous manifestation of germanic soft power.  Just like the curry, roast beef or the beef burger the german sausage was an in road into the roman world centuries before the German armies even considered leaving their forests.

The Romans were confident enough to extend citizenship to conquered people, giving them a significant strategic advantage over the Carthaginians in the Punic wars.  But manumission only worked one way, barbarians were transformed into citizens by service in the army or as a reward for loyalty.  The patricians never imagined their citizens abandoning civilization to become sausage scoffers.

The Emperors reaction to the sausage says it all.  It was banned because they recognised its danger and it shows that the empire, after the civil wars, was culturally weak, looking for something new.  But the problem is that if you allow people to eat like barbarians, dress like barbarians and think like barbarians you end up with the kinds of people who watch and enjoy X Factor.

I need a farrier… is there a farrier in the house?

I have been thinking about the hippo sandal for months now and we have come up with a number of interesting theories.  What we need to explain is what it was used for… We know that it was a piece of horse tack worn on the hoofs the key problem is that we also know that modern horses can not get on with them.  A reconstruction for time team shows a very unhappy horse wobbling about on a set of hippo sandals looking uncomfortable.

This blog has seen a number theories about the hippo sandal, was it a training shoe? was it a hobbling device? was it protection against caltrops? or was it merely an emergency horseshoe?

So I did some reading, and read something interesting on Wikopedia…

“When a horse has certain types of lameness, the farrier may use the frog for support, using specialized shoes that help keep correct pressure on the frog so that less force is transmitted to the wall and sole of the foot or to the navicular bone, coffin bone, and deep digital flexor tendon.”

Now one of the interesting things about the Hippo sandal is how rare it is given that the centrality of the horse in the ancient world, especially in war.  It has always haunted me that an item that should be so ubiquitous should be such a rare find.  We should see a lot more of them even if horse shoes are so hard to find after they have been thrown.

So any explanation should account for this.  Now my new idea is that the hippo sandal was not a horse shoe, not a tactical tool but rather an ancient example of one of the above mentioned “specialist shoes” designed to correct the pressure on the frog.

So if any of you lovely readers is a farrier then please get in touch.

%d bloggers like this: