Roman Metal Armour-Polished or Dull?

[john m roberts]

The art of polishing iron mirror-bright seems to go back to the earliest iron objects. A few years ago in the Cairo museum I had the extraordinary experience of seeing my face clearly reflected in the blade of King Tutankhamon's iron dagger. I am informed that it is still as found, nor repolished. Of course, it was a gift from the king of Hatti, who could afford to have slaves spend days working it over with fine abrasives, but mirror-polishing of iron was known from earliest times.

[M. Demetrius]

Because I'm already considered a dunderhead in many circles, I'll just come right out with it and say that the verb (transitive) polio, polire means "to polish, or shine up", but (looking sheepishly around), I thought "burnish" was basically an older word for "polish". A burnished piece of brass is as shiny as it can be got, regardless of the polishing medium, as is a polished one. It's more a matter of which linguistic turn you take to get to the shine than a difference of appearance, unless I miss the whole point.

[richsc]

to purposely march through a bog

Grant, in marching around Vicksburg, had the US Army proceed through swamps that the rebels thought inpenetrable.

[M. Demetrius]

Hmm. Was Grant on the Caesarean side or the Pompeian? I forget.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hmm. Was Grant on the Caesarean side or the Pompeian? I forget.

Cary Grant or Grant from Eastenders....? :wink:

[Urselius]

At the Battle of Abrittus, in A.D. 251, the Romans were drawn into the marshes and surrounded. The emperor Decius and his son were killed.

The Annals of Imperial Rome By Cornelius Tacitus, AD 16 (trans. Michael Grant - p.81):

"The cavalry and regular infantry made a well-disciplined crossing of the first tidal marshes, before the tide rose. But then the auxiliaries in the rear, including Batavians, jumped into the water – to show off their swimming – and there was confusion and loss of life."

Any army not able to cross minor physical barriers was not going to be successful. If a Roman army had time they would construct causeways to cross marshy ground, if the enemy did not afford them the luxury of time they would force their way through with wet feet. An army did not necessarily need wagons to accompany it at all times, soldiers could carry provisions and pack mules could also be used. Caligae were even better footwear than Irish brogues for dealing with wet terrain.

General Craufurd in the Peninsula War would not allow the troops of his Light Division to break ranks or skirt around minor bodies of water. After his funeral, his troops were marching back to their encampment when the head of the column came to a large pond, they marched straight through it as did all the men following.

[M. Demetrius]

Cary Grant or Grant from Eastenders

Well, probably (gasp!) FEDERAL Grant.
(don't kill me)
:lol:

[Matthew Amt]

Grant, in marching around Vicksburg, had the US Army proceed through swamps that the rebels thought inpenetrable.

Yes, TROOPS of some sorts can move through things like bogs, ravines, thick woods, cliffs, etc. But you cannot move the whole ARMY past such barriers without special provision. Wagons and often horses simply will not be able to get past. You can easily get your whole force hung up for days just trying.

At the Battle of Abrittus, in A.D. 251, the Romans were drawn into the marshes and surrounded.

Sure, but this is during a battle, not on the march with all the baggage.

If a Roman army had time they would construct causeways to cross marshy ground, if the enemy did not afford them the luxury of time they would force their way through with wet feet.

Exactly my point. Where no roads existed, they took the time to build them. There was no other choice. When in battle, it's easy enough to move infantry through terrain that is impassable by cavalry and baggage.

Valete,

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The accounts of Germanicus campaign after Varus' defeat mentions traversing boggy land on causeways, some of which they took time to either construct or repair....

[Urselius]

The concept of "Caesar speed" was proverbial. Where speed of strategic manoeuvre was needed the Roman army traversed whatever type of ground was necessary. Any army which needed to construct roads before it could move would be laughable.

[Matthew Amt]

The concept of "Caesar speed" was proverbial.

Sure, on established roads. Most of the areas that he campaigned in already had roads, even if they weren't as high-tech as a top-of-the-line paved Roman road. Even barbarians had carts, wagons, and herds of animals to be moved around.

Where speed of strategic manoeuvre was needed the Roman army traversed whatever type of ground was necessary. Any army which needed to construct roads before it could move would be laughable.

Well, if you can get even one wagon pulled by oxen and loaded with a ton of supplies through any patch of forest or swamp, or even over a steepish hill, at any speed over 1 mile an hour, I will be the first to applaud.

As a comparison, in the Zulu War of 1879, the British army was using ox-drawn wagons functionally identical to what the Romans had. They were marching across open veldt, but were still restricted to the tracks and rudimentary roads that existed. It often took an entire day just to cross a small streambed, simply because every wagon had to be completely unloaded and sometimes even disassembled, hauled across by hand, and then put back together and reloaded. This was an army smaller than a legion, by the way.

Keep in mind that even the crawling pace necessitated by building a road as you go was something that non-Roman armies generally couldn't achieve at all. They'd roll up to a forest or river and say, "Oh, well, can't get past that!" The Romans had regular procedures for clearing roads and building bridges and such, and practiced such things regularly. Heck, even with paved roads, barbarian forces almost never matched the daily distances marched by Romans regularly--they just didn't have the organization to do it. So even with the delays of clearing and bridging, the Romans could achieve unprecedented strategic speeds of advance.

If you want to laugh at such realities, go ahead, but I doubt Rome's enemies did.

Vale,

Matthew

[Tarbicus]

You could just not use wagons, and load literally everything onto mules. No need for roads then.

[Sean Manning]

You could just not use wagons, and load literally everything onto mules. No need for roads then.

In that case you either need to leave things behind, or need a few thousand exta mules ... and pack saddles, and skilled packers. And in the ancient world horses and mules weren't normally used for power on the farm, so rounding up many on short notice was rarely easy. Not to mention that mules may take up more space in your line of march than the carts did, and further slow you down. Bearers or pack animals have advantages over wagons for army transport, but both have their own problems.

[john m roberts]

So, to get this thread back on track, so to speak, we should ask the question: Did the Romans have shiny, highly-polished mules?

[Urselius]

So, to get this thread back on track, so to speak, we should ask the question: Did the Romans have shiny, highly-polished mules?

I think it was Ovid or possibly Virgil who complained that at every crossroads someone would rush out with a curry comb and shammy-leather declaiming "Shine yer mule mate!" :wink: