To the Pagans, it was the end of the world.
To the Christians, it was God's vengeance.
What a time it must have been. I'll find the sources tomorrow. Regarding literacy, that was a statistic that caught my eye when reading something... I really need to find it. They seem convinced that literacy was around 30% (which is extremely high for pre-modern society, though I'd have guessed it higher) and fell to 1-3% as Roman society fell apart. I think it's based on extant texts, the amount written, the number copied, and the intended audience.
The question I pose to you though, before I go dig up a bunch of material, is that if these plagues hit the Roman Empire at a time when there seemed to be a lot of change in both the military, social, and political realms... is it possible that any of that change was for the worse (due to economic reasons, instead of practical)? They increasingly relied on mercenaries, that's a terrible long-term change, but made sense in light of the current situation, lest those mercenaries turn on a weakened Rome.
If so, why is there so much hate for the equipment and typical heavy infantry legionnaire on these forums? Sure, pop culture loves them and they're what we identify as Roman. To me, I'd have loved to see them face off against Frederick Barbossa or Richard's armies. I think they'd have crushed them, because we really never see the rise of super heavy infantry until the rise of unmounted knights (which comprised less than 10% of total manpower).
These were men who were building roads, aqueducts, constantly constructing, training, and were perhaps so physically strong that we'd have difficulty imaging it. Knights on the other hand were aristocrats, born into the station, who practiced at leisure.
I'd love to see a legion face off against an Feudal army of unmounted knights and their conscripts. Dan Carlin votes for the Legions, and I'd have to agree. Knights played at war. The legions did not. Heavy cavalry & the mythical Longbow, none of them would give the decisive advantage as the Romans were familiar with both crossbows and Cataphracts (and elephants).
Keep in mind that I am aware there hastily conscripted legions such as Crassus basically hiring every man willing to wield a sword. But the legions that earned their reputation, the legions made of men conscripted for 20+ years, legions with a tremendous advantage in NCO's and experienced veterans, all of which Medieval armies sorely lacked. Hell, at Hattin the War Council was comprised of a bunch of imbecils that sent 30,000 men off to their death via fatigue and thirst.
The Great 3 English victories are not so much a display of English prowess and superiority at war, but instead a display of just how terrible the Europeans had become at warfare. Your opinion?
I'm sure even the worst Consuls knew not to funnel extremely heavily armored men over wet, plowed mud. Medieval battles are rife with stupidity because there was confusion as to who even was in charge half the time, and the nobles wanting to lead the Vanguard and get themselves killed/captured certainly didn't help the situation. Varus, for all the blame he takes actually led a tactically sound campaign at Teutoberg, it was the strategic blunder of being SO trusting to throw caution to the wind, that he was put into a hopelessly lost situation.
So I say Rome has the technology. Rome has the logistics. Rome has the commanders. And Rome has the more hardened men.
On a side note, they should reopen the Coliseum or an equivalent.. We pretend we're above bloodsport, but UFC has eclipsed boxing all too completely.
There would be tons of willing participants, from fame, cash prizes, and so on. Very few fights ended in death, and while I'm not interested in that aspect, I'd really love to see some medieval combat. I know we have the renewed martial weapon arts, but it's still fake fighting in the respect that Kung Fu is just fancy dancing.
I'd love to see what two men without restraint fighting with armor on looks like (if they were trained). Yeah people would die. People die all the time performing their hobbies from mountain climbing to tightroping. I think it's silly for us to pretend we're above it all. Not a crusade of mine or anything, just think it'd be cool idea to reconsider the legality for volunteers.
I don't want to see someone die, but I do want to see realistic swordsmanship.
To the Christians, it was God's vengeance.
What a time it must have been. I'll find the sources tomorrow. Regarding literacy, that was a statistic that caught my eye when reading something... I really need to find it. They seem convinced that literacy was around 30% (which is extremely high for pre-modern society, though I'd have guessed it higher) and fell to 1-3% as Roman society fell apart. I think it's based on extant texts, the amount written, the number copied, and the intended audience.
The question I pose to you though, before I go dig up a bunch of material, is that if these plagues hit the Roman Empire at a time when there seemed to be a lot of change in both the military, social, and political realms... is it possible that any of that change was for the worse (due to economic reasons, instead of practical)? They increasingly relied on mercenaries, that's a terrible long-term change, but made sense in light of the current situation, lest those mercenaries turn on a weakened Rome.
If so, why is there so much hate for the equipment and typical heavy infantry legionnaire on these forums? Sure, pop culture loves them and they're what we identify as Roman. To me, I'd have loved to see them face off against Frederick Barbossa or Richard's armies. I think they'd have crushed them, because we really never see the rise of super heavy infantry until the rise of unmounted knights (which comprised less than 10% of total manpower).
These were men who were building roads, aqueducts, constantly constructing, training, and were perhaps so physically strong that we'd have difficulty imaging it. Knights on the other hand were aristocrats, born into the station, who practiced at leisure.
I'd love to see a legion face off against an Feudal army of unmounted knights and their conscripts. Dan Carlin votes for the Legions, and I'd have to agree. Knights played at war. The legions did not. Heavy cavalry & the mythical Longbow, none of them would give the decisive advantage as the Romans were familiar with both crossbows and Cataphracts (and elephants).
Keep in mind that I am aware there hastily conscripted legions such as Crassus basically hiring every man willing to wield a sword. But the legions that earned their reputation, the legions made of men conscripted for 20+ years, legions with a tremendous advantage in NCO's and experienced veterans, all of which Medieval armies sorely lacked. Hell, at Hattin the War Council was comprised of a bunch of imbecils that sent 30,000 men off to their death via fatigue and thirst.
The Great 3 English victories are not so much a display of English prowess and superiority at war, but instead a display of just how terrible the Europeans had become at warfare. Your opinion?
I'm sure even the worst Consuls knew not to funnel extremely heavily armored men over wet, plowed mud. Medieval battles are rife with stupidity because there was confusion as to who even was in charge half the time, and the nobles wanting to lead the Vanguard and get themselves killed/captured certainly didn't help the situation. Varus, for all the blame he takes actually led a tactically sound campaign at Teutoberg, it was the strategic blunder of being SO trusting to throw caution to the wind, that he was put into a hopelessly lost situation.
So I say Rome has the technology. Rome has the logistics. Rome has the commanders. And Rome has the more hardened men.
On a side note, they should reopen the Coliseum or an equivalent.. We pretend we're above bloodsport, but UFC has eclipsed boxing all too completely.
There would be tons of willing participants, from fame, cash prizes, and so on. Very few fights ended in death, and while I'm not interested in that aspect, I'd really love to see some medieval combat. I know we have the renewed martial weapon arts, but it's still fake fighting in the respect that Kung Fu is just fancy dancing.
I'd love to see what two men without restraint fighting with armor on looks like (if they were trained). Yeah people would die. People die all the time performing their hobbies from mountain climbing to tightroping. I think it's silly for us to pretend we're above it all. Not a crusade of mine or anything, just think it'd be cool idea to reconsider the legality for volunteers.
I don't want to see someone die, but I do want to see realistic swordsmanship.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
