09-14-2012, 01:19 AM
OK, as we seen to be off topic anyway, please consider the following:
The Batavians were reputed to cross river in full armour. There is no mention of any other flotation devises, be it goatskins or otherwise. The crossing of a river was usually done at a ford, a place where the river could be waded. In a battle situation, the enemy would have guarded that ford well to deny passage and retain the upper hand, as the battle would be very constricted to that crossingpoint. The role of the Batavians cavalry was to upset their defence, tear into their bagagetrain, wreck general havoc in the rear lines, but not get stuck in a pitching battle against the whole enemy force. So if and when a Batavian unit crossed, they came on the opposite bank driping wet, but totaly geared for action and fully armoured. The crossing would have been made out of sight of the ford and the essembled enemy troops, who, having a full cavalry unit unleashed on them as the felt safe on their side of the river, could not maintain their full attention of defending the ford. This would allow the Roman infantary troops to advance on the ford under covering fire from their artillary and archers and remove the obstacles placed in their way, thus clearing the path for the army's advance across the ford to do battle.
So it is not about how the Romans went about crossing a river, they were excellent engineers and given some time, could well devise ways of crossing dry, like using a bridge or some boats. In the time of Ceasar, it was a different kind of war to when the Batavians were around, and regular units may well have been sent across using floats to secure a bridgehead (to build a bridge :-) ), but this would almost certainly not have been done in the face of the enemy. They would have been hacked to pieces on the opposite shore.
The Batavians were reputed to cross river in full armour. There is no mention of any other flotation devises, be it goatskins or otherwise. The crossing of a river was usually done at a ford, a place where the river could be waded. In a battle situation, the enemy would have guarded that ford well to deny passage and retain the upper hand, as the battle would be very constricted to that crossingpoint. The role of the Batavians cavalry was to upset their defence, tear into their bagagetrain, wreck general havoc in the rear lines, but not get stuck in a pitching battle against the whole enemy force. So if and when a Batavian unit crossed, they came on the opposite bank driping wet, but totaly geared for action and fully armoured. The crossing would have been made out of sight of the ford and the essembled enemy troops, who, having a full cavalry unit unleashed on them as the felt safe on their side of the river, could not maintain their full attention of defending the ford. This would allow the Roman infantary troops to advance on the ford under covering fire from their artillary and archers and remove the obstacles placed in their way, thus clearing the path for the army's advance across the ford to do battle.
So it is not about how the Romans went about crossing a river, they were excellent engineers and given some time, could well devise ways of crossing dry, like using a bridge or some boats. In the time of Ceasar, it was a different kind of war to when the Batavians were around, and regular units may well have been sent across using floats to secure a bridgehead (to build a bridge :-) ), but this would almost certainly not have been done in the face of the enemy. They would have been hacked to pieces on the opposite shore.
