Mons Graupius Legions

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

We really need to change that picture.... :| roll:

BTW, Duncan, I have it on backorder too. Looking forward to it!

Which picture is that? the one on the site? :twisted:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

We really need to change that picture.... :| roll:

BTW, Duncan, I have it on backorder too. Looking forward to it!

Which picture is that? the one on the site? :twisted:

Got it in one matey!

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

We really need to change that picture.... :| roll:

BTW, Duncan, I have it on backorder too. Looking forward to it!

Which picture is that? the one on the site? :twisted:

Got it in one matey!

haha, i'll change it at some point once you've done your homework!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

haha, i'll change it at some point once you've done your homework!

Harrrumph....have you guys done the bank forms yet? :twisted:

[D B Campbell]

We really need to change that picture.... :| roll:

Which picture is that? the one on the site? :twisted:

The Three Caballeros!
[attachment=0:3ibpn7vm]<!-- ia0 NinthLegionaries.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:3ibpn7vm]

[Crispvs]

Just to revisit comments made earlier in the thread about the specific mention of Batavians and Tungrians, I have often felt that Tacitus' implication that Auxiliaries were used to spare Legionaries lives is little more than rhetoric. Batavians were surely recruited in part for their abilities in what today might be termed 'Amphibious warfare' and their ability to operate well in boggy/marshy conditions similar to their native environment. Tungrians were surely recruited for their native ability to operate well in hilly territory. Obviously Mons Graupius would count as 'hilly' and as we are also led to believe that there was an area of marshy ground at its base, surely using troops with ability to operate smoothly in boggy and hilly territory would be a wise tactical choice for a commander on the ground, considering that heavy close order infantry might not operate so well in the circumstances. Far from Agricola wanting to achieve a victory without the shedding of Roman blood, I think it would be a fairer assessment to suggest that Agricola knew what he was doing and selected the troops with the most appropriate abilities for the job at hand to spearhead his attack.

Moving on, I too will be ordering the book. I don't think I will 'pre-order' it as it is hardly likely that I would order it after I had already got it in any case. Therefore simply ordering it in the old fashioned way will probably do the trick.:wink:

Crispvs

[D B Campbell]

I don't think I will 'pre-order' it as it is hardly likely that I would order it after I had already got it in any case. Therefore simply ordering it in the old fashioned way will probably do the trick.:wink:

Yet another example of the insidious creeping influence of Americanisms in British English.

This week, in the UK, we finally succumbed to the ridiculous concept of a Roast (although, to be fair, I think that one's supposed to be ironic).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Moving on, I too will be ordering the book. I don't think I will 'pre-order' it as it is hardly likely that I would order it after I had already got it in any case. Therefore simply ordering it in the old fashioned way will probably do the trick.:wink:

Crispvs

That would be Post order it Crispus..... :roll:

Actually, there may well be a more subtle reason for the use of the Auxiliaries, to show the barbarians that the are more than capable of being defeated by any Roman army put their way, weather it is made up of Roman citizens, or native peoples who have made the decision to fight for Rome....

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

I've always been quite curious about this... (taken from wikipedia)

"It is said that the Roman Legions took no part in the battle, being held in reserve throughout. According to Tacitus, 10,000 Caledonian lives were lost at a cost of only 360 auxiliary troops."

Is there any other sources that we know of that could DISPROVE this? like the actual legions casualty reports or strength reports?

Althought very very small... could it well be the case ? as the Caledonian's were mostly farmers and not warriors? as we know in most battles the majority of casualties happen when an army routes? could it be that the warriors of the caledonian's realised very early in the fight that they were screwed??

[Caballo]

as the auxillaries were mostly farmers and not warriors?

I think the Batavians and Tungrians would disagree with you there! :roll:

The Batavians had a long tradition of military service, with particular specialist skills in amphibious warfare. Manningly in "Imperial Possession: 54 BC - AD 409: Britain in the Roman Empire" described the Batavians as being like the Gurkhas in the British Army.

Cheers

Caballo

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

oooh bugger... sorry thats me typing half asleep.. i ment the CALEDONIAN's were farmers and not warriros not the auxillaries.. edited now!!

[D B Campbell]

could it be that the warriors of the caledonian's realised very early in the fight that they were screwed??

Unfortunately, not early enough. :wink:

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

could it be that the warriors of the caledonian's realised very early in the fight that they were screwed??

Unfortunately, not early enough. :wink:

Quite yes!, but i was just thinking time scales to account for such low roman casualties!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, even Roman auxilliaries were better equiped than most tribesmen.

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

Well, even Roman auxilliaries were better equiped than most tribesmen.

very true but i'm also thinking this is where the strenghts of the Tungrian auxillaries would have came into play, fighting uphill and then chasing down a retreating army retreating uphill.