The book, Warriors of Rome, an illustrated military history of the Roman Legions, by Micahel Simkins, has the following tidbits:
page 98: A drawing made from a reconstruction of the remains of a rectangular and possibly curved legionary type shield used by auxillia, found at Doncaster, Yorkshire, England.
page 44: Plate 3 caption; states possibilty of auxillia using loricae segmentatae, and the illustration on facing page 45 shows an alae auxilla wearing l.s. shoulder guards over chainmaile, a common practice for at least a good portion of the cavalry alae. Also, reference to the very good possibility that auxillia infantry used legionary l.s. armor.
page 69: Reference to the initial Claudine Roman invasion force (army) being commanded by Aulus Plautius Silvanus, who also became Govenor of Britain I do believe.
Pages 107 - 120: Roman - Judean War, Masada, Cornelius Flavius Silva in charge of Judea and the siege operations at Masada. A good display in about 1963 at the Detroit Institute of Arts explained this time period very well, including a diorama of Masada using the smaller Elastolon (sp?) figures.
Time for some pizza and spaghetti or sphagetti for breakfast, no New World tomato sauce though, Magobarca
Weapons thread (so Ian doesn't get annoyed)
Moderator: Slitherine Core
-
kyle
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:37 pm
- Location: USA, IA
- Contact:
Bad Timing
You guys know that the Romans were shamed at the battle of Masada right?
They conducted the long siege. During the night before the Romans climbed the siege ramp they built the people inside committed suicide.
They conducted the long siege. During the night before the Romans climbed the siege ramp they built the people inside committed suicide.
-
Redpossum
- Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
- Posts: 1814
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:09 am
- Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Contact:
Yeah, touchy subject, in some ways.
Masada was the last gasp of the Maccabees, the lions of Judah. This was the time of the second destruction of the temple, (it was destroyed the first time by the babylonians), and the beginning of the diaspora.
You must admit those people were hardcore. Men, women, children, all of them, dead as a doornail when the Romans got inside.
As military strategies go, relying on divine intervention has historically not been a good one.
Masada was the last gasp of the Maccabees, the lions of Judah. This was the time of the second destruction of the temple, (it was destroyed the first time by the babylonians), and the beginning of the diaspora.
You must admit those people were hardcore. Men, women, children, all of them, dead as a doornail when the Romans got inside.
As military strategies go, relying on divine intervention has historically not been a good one.
However, they did tie up many times their number in troops... so while they wouldnt have gained their freedom in that way, they certainly managed to piss off the romans, and be a nuisance for quite some time.
Speaking of which, does anybody happen to know the usual armaments and tactics of the maccabees/judaens?
Speaking of which, does anybody happen to know the usual armaments and tactics of the maccabees/judaens?
Usual gaming hours: 11PM-4AM GMT
Bad Timing
So what is 'Bad Timing' or what does that mean or imply?? It is a historical fact, the Siege of Masada. Look what happened at the Alamo and Thermopylae etc. etc. etc. I don't know what you mean or imply at all.
The Romans also renamed Judea as Palestine, which latter word is derived from the name Philistine, in order to humiliate the Judeans. Romans and many other people in history have done things like that. The Romans themselves were humiliated by the samnites after the Battle og the Caudine Forks, when the Samnites stripped the Romans of their weapons and armor and most other clothing, forced the Romans to walk under a yoke made of the Romans own spears, and then sent the Romans home wearing little but their skivvies, underwear.
Magobarca Silva
The Romans also renamed Judea as Palestine, which latter word is derived from the name Philistine, in order to humiliate the Judeans. Romans and many other people in history have done things like that. The Romans themselves were humiliated by the samnites after the Battle og the Caudine Forks, when the Samnites stripped the Romans of their weapons and armor and most other clothing, forced the Romans to walk under a yoke made of the Romans own spears, and then sent the Romans home wearing little but their skivvies, underwear.
Magobarca Silva
-
kyle
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:37 pm
- Location: USA, IA
- Contact:
Bad Timing
I replied to the topic of Masada a couple days past its post, when there was another post-line going.
-
Redpossum
- Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
- Posts: 1814
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:09 am
- Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Contact:
Philistine was a categorical term used by the early hebrews to include many/most of their enemies.
It's actually little more specific than "heathen" or "unbeliever" or "infidel".
At various times the "philistines" included phoenicians, the so-called "sea people" whose identity we're still not sure of, and almost all the neighboring tribes of the middle east.
Mago, I don't follow your question about "bad timing". Did I use that phrase?
It's actually little more specific than "heathen" or "unbeliever" or "infidel".
At various times the "philistines" included phoenicians, the so-called "sea people" whose identity we're still not sure of, and almost all the neighboring tribes of the middle east.
Mago, I don't follow your question about "bad timing". Did I use that phrase?
-
Redpossum
- Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
- Posts: 1814
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:09 am
- Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Contact:
No denying that, Sum1. But the revolt was a total failure, and led to centuries of hardship for the hebrew people.sum1won wrote:However, they did tie up many times their number in troops... so while they wouldnt have gained their freedom in that way, they certainly managed to piss off the romans, and be a nuisance for quite some time.
Speaking of which, does anybody happen to know the usual armaments and tactics of the maccabees/judaens?
I don't think we as gentiles can truly comprehend just what the destruction of the temple meant to the hebrews of the day, but it is clear that it was a devastating stroke to morale.
Likewise, I'm not sure we as modern men truly comprehend the awful price exacted by the ancients for rebellion.
All the active rebels were killed. All their families were killed. The hebrew people were either enslaved or scattered to the four winds. Their nation, subject state though it had been, ceased to exist.
It seems to me that was a heavy price to pay for pissing off the romans and tying up what were admittedly some of their best troops for a half-dozen years.
Usually, many times, ALL rebels were killed, but sometimes the Romans had a great deal of respect for their fighting capabilities and even their religous belifs and spared some of the rebels.
In Judea, there were pro-Roman Hebrews, and the rebel general and historian Josephus switched to the Roman side after his town was besieged and captured by the Romans. A british ing and his family were spared after rebelling, but they were allowed to live in Rome only and not go back to Britain. These are not all that uncommon events, however, as you say, the majority of the time ALL rebels were either enslaved or killed. Twas the way it was in the ancient world, and there are many similar examples from more modern times all the way through until the present day. Nothing new, but rather ancient.
sum1won, yes, the Philistines seem to have been a tribe of the Sea Peoples that invaded and settled in the coastal areas of the region. There were many tribes of the Sea Peoples. Hebrews did not refer to anyone that was an enemy of their's as a 'Philistine', and use of the word 'Philistine' in such an analogy is more of a modern and Christian invention.
Possum, please read the thread; Kyle used the phrase 'Bad Timing', and for what reason or reasons I have not any idea.
The Maccabes were mainly light and medium infantry. Jewish armies of previous times had many veterans that served in the Ptolemaic armies, and they adapted heavy cavalry and a phalanx of sorts to their tactics. A fellow by the name of nick Sekunda did his doctorate dissertation on the Ptolemaic army, and he does mention the Judeans if I am not mistaken. Montvert, a publisher like Osprey but much more detailed, has published the Ptolemaic Army by Sekunda. Also, there are the GREAT books published by the Wargames Research Group (WRG): Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, 359BC to 146BC, by Duncan Head, and The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, 150BC to 600AD, by Phil Barker. These are excellent and very detailed and well researched books.
From The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, page 34, concerning the Jewish revolt of 66AD and Josephus' forces: '...250 cavalry, a picked bodyguard of 600 infantry, 4,500 full time fighting men with a modicum of drill and training, and 60,000 other infantry of whom only half served at a time. ... The client King, Herod Agrippa, had had a small army of which one unit, the so called 'Royal Speaermen', may have been Jewish. His other three units were Thracians, Germans and Gauls respectively. The Temple Guard must have provided at least a few instructors though. ... The jewish defenders of the cities fought extremely hard. On at two occasions, fanatical garrisons chose suicide rather than surrender. The majority of the rebel warriors fought as loose formation infantry with javelins, side arms such as a sword or long curved knife, and a long shield. A large minority substituted a bow for javelins and shield, and there were probably also some javelin skirmishers who may have had smaller shields of any variety of types. A sprinkling of captured auxiliary equipment was available, but nothing like enough to go around. Probably only officers wore armour. Quantities of captured artillery were put into use. The Jewish gunners were initially very inefficient but improved with practice. ...'
If you can afford some of these books, they will last you a lifetiem and provide much informative and pleasurable reading.
Magobarca
In Judea, there were pro-Roman Hebrews, and the rebel general and historian Josephus switched to the Roman side after his town was besieged and captured by the Romans. A british ing and his family were spared after rebelling, but they were allowed to live in Rome only and not go back to Britain. These are not all that uncommon events, however, as you say, the majority of the time ALL rebels were either enslaved or killed. Twas the way it was in the ancient world, and there are many similar examples from more modern times all the way through until the present day. Nothing new, but rather ancient.
sum1won, yes, the Philistines seem to have been a tribe of the Sea Peoples that invaded and settled in the coastal areas of the region. There were many tribes of the Sea Peoples. Hebrews did not refer to anyone that was an enemy of their's as a 'Philistine', and use of the word 'Philistine' in such an analogy is more of a modern and Christian invention.
Possum, please read the thread; Kyle used the phrase 'Bad Timing', and for what reason or reasons I have not any idea.
The Maccabes were mainly light and medium infantry. Jewish armies of previous times had many veterans that served in the Ptolemaic armies, and they adapted heavy cavalry and a phalanx of sorts to their tactics. A fellow by the name of nick Sekunda did his doctorate dissertation on the Ptolemaic army, and he does mention the Judeans if I am not mistaken. Montvert, a publisher like Osprey but much more detailed, has published the Ptolemaic Army by Sekunda. Also, there are the GREAT books published by the Wargames Research Group (WRG): Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, 359BC to 146BC, by Duncan Head, and The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, 150BC to 600AD, by Phil Barker. These are excellent and very detailed and well researched books.
From The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, page 34, concerning the Jewish revolt of 66AD and Josephus' forces: '...250 cavalry, a picked bodyguard of 600 infantry, 4,500 full time fighting men with a modicum of drill and training, and 60,000 other infantry of whom only half served at a time. ... The client King, Herod Agrippa, had had a small army of which one unit, the so called 'Royal Speaermen', may have been Jewish. His other three units were Thracians, Germans and Gauls respectively. The Temple Guard must have provided at least a few instructors though. ... The jewish defenders of the cities fought extremely hard. On at two occasions, fanatical garrisons chose suicide rather than surrender. The majority of the rebel warriors fought as loose formation infantry with javelins, side arms such as a sword or long curved knife, and a long shield. A large minority substituted a bow for javelins and shield, and there were probably also some javelin skirmishers who may have had smaller shields of any variety of types. A sprinkling of captured auxiliary equipment was available, but nothing like enough to go around. Probably only officers wore armour. Quantities of captured artillery were put into use. The Jewish gunners were initially very inefficient but improved with practice. ...'
If you can afford some of these books, they will last you a lifetiem and provide much informative and pleasurable reading.
Magobarca
-
honvedseg
- Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:12 pm
- Location: Reading, PA, USA
Destruction of the Temple
Supposedly, the proceeds from the looting and destruction of the second Temple at Jerusalem were used to build the Collisseum in Rome.
Masada was important from the standpoint of its location overlooking a major trade route, which was why it had been developed and fortified long before the Romans took an interest in the area. The Romans couldn't leave it in the hands of the rebels without jeopardizing their supply lines beyond that point. It encompassed enough land and available water to grow most of the food its garrison required, making it all but impossible to starve into submission, which left the Romans with the only viable but costly alternative of taking it by assault. The suicide of the defenders denied the Romans the triumph of parading the captive rebles through the streets before having them publicly executed, making the victory nearly useless as a propaganda tool.
As for the religious differences, the Romans had no objection to honoring a foreign deity, and occasionally didn't even get too upset if some groups refused to worship the traditional Roman gods. What DID anger the Romans was when a group tried to prevent others from worshipping their gods. The strict monotheistic view of the Judeans, and the same attitiude of the later Christians, was guaranteed to provoke hostility.
Masada was important from the standpoint of its location overlooking a major trade route, which was why it had been developed and fortified long before the Romans took an interest in the area. The Romans couldn't leave it in the hands of the rebels without jeopardizing their supply lines beyond that point. It encompassed enough land and available water to grow most of the food its garrison required, making it all but impossible to starve into submission, which left the Romans with the only viable but costly alternative of taking it by assault. The suicide of the defenders denied the Romans the triumph of parading the captive rebles through the streets before having them publicly executed, making the victory nearly useless as a propaganda tool.
As for the religious differences, the Romans had no objection to honoring a foreign deity, and occasionally didn't even get too upset if some groups refused to worship the traditional Roman gods. What DID anger the Romans was when a group tried to prevent others from worshipping their gods. The strict monotheistic view of the Judeans, and the same attitiude of the later Christians, was guaranteed to provoke hostility.
Hi Honvedseg,
Yeah, you are right, and that is interesting about the Romans not usually persecuting another religon and they usually respected local religons and customs, and many Roman troops, politicians and civilians adapted local dieties to worship. It seems the Romans had great respect for 'the gods' of all peoples, and the only time they acted against a religon is if they percieved that religon as a threat against the state or if the religon was actually engaged in hostilities toward Rome or its Allies and Subjects. The obliteration of the Druids in Graet Britain is another example of Rome acting against a religon that was engaged in hostilities toward Rome, as is recreated in LA.
The Romans could be and were quite open-minded and lenient and that is one reason their empire lasted as long as it did.
Magobarca
Yeah, you are right, and that is interesting about the Romans not usually persecuting another religon and they usually respected local religons and customs, and many Roman troops, politicians and civilians adapted local dieties to worship. It seems the Romans had great respect for 'the gods' of all peoples, and the only time they acted against a religon is if they percieved that religon as a threat against the state or if the religon was actually engaged in hostilities toward Rome or its Allies and Subjects. The obliteration of the Druids in Graet Britain is another example of Rome acting against a religon that was engaged in hostilities toward Rome, as is recreated in LA.
The Romans could be and were quite open-minded and lenient and that is one reason their empire lasted as long as it did.
Magobarca
-
quintusvarus
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:47 pm
Re: Philistines
Sorry Possum, but it wasn't a general term. If you read the Old Testament the term covered (as you rightly said) the Sea People cities, ie Phonicians in Gaza, Gath, Ekron and a couple of others. Other enemies were identified by their nation or ancestry, as Midianites, Edomites (also refered to as Esau from Isaacs 1st son), Amalekites,, and so on. Egypt and Syria were principal enemies untill the rise of Assyria, Babylon and then the Persian and Mede empires which basically forced these nations to forget their petty wars in an effort to resist these far greater powers. The only period of political and military independence after the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was the brief Maccabean period prior to Roman domination.
One piece wooden Celtic shields, an archaeological find and 'gold mine':
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/hjortspr/shields.htm
Chris
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/hjortspr/shields.htm
Chris
-
quintusvarus
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:47 pm
Christians and Jews
Honvedsg wrote,
"As for the religious differences, the Romans had no objection to honoring a foreign deity, and occasionally didn't even get too upset if some groups refused to worship the traditional Roman gods. What DID anger the Romans was when a group tried to prevent others from worshipping their gods. The strict monotheistic view of the Judeans, and the same attitiude of the later Christians, was guaranteed to provoke hostility"
Infact it wasn't the Jews monotheism that was the primary problem, it was their sheer determination to be independent. The Romans had allowed an exemption for Jews to Emperor worship, recognising the problems it would create (religion plus politics). Emperor worship was seen as the religous/political glue to bond disparate peoples acroos the empire. However, the Christians became recognised as a separate group from Jews, despite the Jewish roots of Christianity, and were therefore not covered by the exemption. Thus when they refused to worship Ceasar, as all non-Jewish citizens were expected to do, they were seen as inciting civil disorder and rebellion, and therefore, persecuted. Misunderstandings of the eucharist celebrations also led to rumours of cannabalism, which didn't help matters, and they were also largely drawn from the lower social groupings in the empire, making them easy targets and ideal scapegoats (witness Nero's persecution after the fires in Rome during his reign). Yet when Roman officials looked into what the Christians actually did they couldn't always understand why they were to suppress them; I believe there is a letter from Pliny in the Younger on this point. If you look in the accounts given in the book of Acts there are several mentions of synagogues being split by the Christian preaching, with those who refused to accept the message then going to the local authorities or inciting mob violence against the Christians, and in other instances such violence was incited for economic/ pagan reasons, e.g. at Ephesus.
"As for the religious differences, the Romans had no objection to honoring a foreign deity, and occasionally didn't even get too upset if some groups refused to worship the traditional Roman gods. What DID anger the Romans was when a group tried to prevent others from worshipping their gods. The strict monotheistic view of the Judeans, and the same attitiude of the later Christians, was guaranteed to provoke hostility"
Infact it wasn't the Jews monotheism that was the primary problem, it was their sheer determination to be independent. The Romans had allowed an exemption for Jews to Emperor worship, recognising the problems it would create (religion plus politics). Emperor worship was seen as the religous/political glue to bond disparate peoples acroos the empire. However, the Christians became recognised as a separate group from Jews, despite the Jewish roots of Christianity, and were therefore not covered by the exemption. Thus when they refused to worship Ceasar, as all non-Jewish citizens were expected to do, they were seen as inciting civil disorder and rebellion, and therefore, persecuted. Misunderstandings of the eucharist celebrations also led to rumours of cannabalism, which didn't help matters, and they were also largely drawn from the lower social groupings in the empire, making them easy targets and ideal scapegoats (witness Nero's persecution after the fires in Rome during his reign). Yet when Roman officials looked into what the Christians actually did they couldn't always understand why they were to suppress them; I believe there is a letter from Pliny in the Younger on this point. If you look in the accounts given in the book of Acts there are several mentions of synagogues being split by the Christian preaching, with those who refused to accept the message then going to the local authorities or inciting mob violence against the Christians, and in other instances such violence was incited for economic/ pagan reasons, e.g. at Ephesus.
That is most interesting and informative. Thank you.Infact it wasn't the Jews monotheism that was the primary problem, it was their sheer determination to be independent. The Romans had allowed an exemption for Jews to Emperor worship, recognising the problems it would create (religion plus politics). Emperor worship was seen as the religous/political glue to bond disparate peoples acroos the empire. However, the Christians became recognised as a separate group from Jews, despite the Jewish roots of Christianity, and were therefore not covered by the exemption. Thus when they refused to worship Ceasar, as all non-Jewish citizens were expected to do, they were seen as inciting civil disorder and rebellion, and therefore, persecuted. Misunderstandings of the eucharist celebrations also led to rumours of cannabalism, which didn't help matters, and they were also largely drawn from the lower social groupings in the empire, making them easy targets and ideal scapegoats (witness Nero's persecution after the fires in Rome during his reign). Yet when Roman officials looked into what the Christians actually did they couldn't always understand why they were to suppress them; I believe there is a letter from Pliny in the Younger on this point. If you look in the accounts given in the book of Acts there are several mentions of synagogues being split by the Christian preaching, with those who refused to accept the message then going to the local authorities or inciting mob violence against the Christians, and in other instances such violence was incited for economic/ pagan reasons, e.g. at Ephesus.
Magobarca
-
kyle
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:37 pm
- Location: USA, IA
- Contact:
That's cool
quintusvarus, nice work in diggin up neat items
http://home.tiscali.nl/meester7/engheavier.html
The biggest galley ever built
In the Hellenistic era (from 300 BC) some really gigantic warships were built. A normal Roman 'five' had 300 rowers and 120 soldiers on board, but the biggest ship of all, the 'forty' built by king Ptolemy IV (221-204 BC), had no less than 4000 rowers and room for 2850 soldiers and 400 sailors! The length was 130 m, the width 18 m. Perhaps it was inspired by Noah's Ark (and the lighthouse of Pharos on the Tower of Babel?); about this time a Greek translation of the Bible was made in Alexandria. It was probably a kind of catamaran with two hulls, like many modern ferries.
Prof. Morrison thinks that half of the rowers pulled the oars and the other half pushed against the oars. If the rowers sat (or stood) in three stories, with 6 or 7 men pulling and 6 or 7 men pushing each oar, it is just possible. In this way there would be 100 rows fore and aft and in total 12 or 14 rows across; that would fit within the dimensions. This is less unlikely than the reconstruction by L. Casson, who assumes that the rowers sat in two separate hulls with one enormous deck in between.
http://navis.terraromana.org/Forum.php5
Click on the pics at the bottom, and there are some other links down there.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/temetfutue/g ... ssaryR.htm
Artillery and missile ranges.
http://www.livius.org/home.html
More info. and links here.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/trireme/
The Olympias Trireme, a life-size reconstruction.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/trireme.htm
http://www.thalassa.gr/2002/to/en/i06.asp
http://www.thalassa.gr/2002/to/en/index.html
http://groups.msn.com/GreekSeamensClub/ ... llery.msnw
http://www.rodlangton.com/ancient/300scale.htm
http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=8835
http://tinyurl.com/ejl68
Google search page for Hellenistic Warships.
Magobarca
The biggest galley ever built
In the Hellenistic era (from 300 BC) some really gigantic warships were built. A normal Roman 'five' had 300 rowers and 120 soldiers on board, but the biggest ship of all, the 'forty' built by king Ptolemy IV (221-204 BC), had no less than 4000 rowers and room for 2850 soldiers and 400 sailors! The length was 130 m, the width 18 m. Perhaps it was inspired by Noah's Ark (and the lighthouse of Pharos on the Tower of Babel?); about this time a Greek translation of the Bible was made in Alexandria. It was probably a kind of catamaran with two hulls, like many modern ferries.
Prof. Morrison thinks that half of the rowers pulled the oars and the other half pushed against the oars. If the rowers sat (or stood) in three stories, with 6 or 7 men pulling and 6 or 7 men pushing each oar, it is just possible. In this way there would be 100 rows fore and aft and in total 12 or 14 rows across; that would fit within the dimensions. This is less unlikely than the reconstruction by L. Casson, who assumes that the rowers sat in two separate hulls with one enormous deck in between.
http://navis.terraromana.org/Forum.php5
Click on the pics at the bottom, and there are some other links down there.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/temetfutue/g ... ssaryR.htm
Artillery and missile ranges.
http://www.livius.org/home.html
More info. and links here.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/trireme/
The Olympias Trireme, a life-size reconstruction.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/trireme.htm
http://www.thalassa.gr/2002/to/en/i06.asp
http://www.thalassa.gr/2002/to/en/index.html
http://groups.msn.com/GreekSeamensClub/ ... llery.msnw
http://www.rodlangton.com/ancient/300scale.htm
http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=8835
http://tinyurl.com/ejl68
Google search page for Hellenistic Warships.
Magobarca