Comments: 8
caesar120 [2012-02-15 23:09:27 +0000 UTC]
I have a partiality towards all things ancient-Roman. I also enjoy the energy of the sketch-form. Therefore this piece has alot going for it, in my estimation!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Satapatis [2010-10-11 18:48:48 +0000 UTC]
Well... Probably these temporary camps were protected only with trenches, earthwork, otherwise they contained only tents. Only basic layout and positioning was really important, and it`s not very difficult to dig some trenches when you have whole legion.
Towers, pallisades - probably they were build only for really long rests.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Myrth1 [2009-02-01 01:36:00 +0000 UTC]
As a child I was calculating how heavy could be Roman equipment for every single legionair. And even now, when I grow up, it's way to heavy for long lifting... How could they win, if soldiers were obviously tired from whole days of march and carring all their stuff? Wagons obviously couldn't take all
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pachycrocuta In reply to Myrth1 [2009-02-01 02:38:26 +0000 UTC]
I'd never put that much thought into it. I wonder if they tended to go for shorter distances daily than the 20 miles per day I associate with Napoleonic/Victorian armies? And then if they took several days in one place, because I can't imagine even those temporary camps being something you'd want to take down and then put up in a day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Myrth1 In reply to Pachycrocuta [2009-02-01 11:29:33 +0000 UTC]
Till end of XIX century daily distances for infantry were no more than 10 miles (e.g. at 2nd Afganistan War gen. Roberts' forces were marching 15-17 miles per day, which was back then "dead march"). But I really don't get it. To build fortified camp and after day or two of rest leave it behind. But even if somehow they conquered almost whole known world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ArchiCrash [2008-09-18 03:07:35 +0000 UTC]
Gotta love the legionaires....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0