[removed]

Began during the mid-republic.

>After the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), the Romans acquired an overseas empire, which necessitated standing forces to fight lengthy wars of conquest and to garrison the newly gained provinces.

Prior to that

>The army consisted of 3,000 infantrymen and 300 cavalrymen, all of which were Equites. The Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans under the Roman state would each provide an extra 1,000 soldiers and 100 cavalrymen.

King Servius of Rome would institute the Servian reforms. These would divide the population into five classes. Each of which would have different roles in the military. The first class could afford to have a cuirass, greaves, a shield, a sword, and a spear. The second class had greaves, a shield, a sword, and a spear. The third class could only afford to have the shield, a sword, and a spear. The fourth class had a shield and a spear. The fifth class would only be a screening force. Any poorer citizen, called capite censi would have no weapons. They would not serve in the army unless it was an emergency

I interpret that as meaning that during the first few centuries the troops were required to provide their own equipment - that it was not supplied by the Roman state.

The Romans were a special breed. Almost like a modern society in ancient times. It’s interesting how similar we are to them and also interesting to imagine what they could have done if they had discovered gun powder, or germ theory, or electricity.

for that spade and dolabra were used

and they had sophisticated entrenching tools

you do not cast swords, less iron or steal swords they will shatter to easily then.

only after the republic endet

2 that happened at the end of the republic , the marian reforms before the legionaries had been recruited from the farmers and craftsmenthe plebeians not the proletariat - the poor

>There were plenty of cheap long blades like German (not that it was Germany at the time...) messers and such that were often used.

messers were made by knifesmiths not swordsmiths

​

>In a fight whether, is one-on-one, or 100 on 100, pole arms are generally better... to say nothing of you know, being able to shoot people if they're unarmoured. Which makes sense and the Roman's knew that, thus their love of the javelin and darts.

the romans won at pydna and other battles against polearm wielders

one pilum

Javelins were used by the velites the skirnishers

show me please the roman unit which used pikes

this was the migration period - early middle ages

[removed]

Yeah… they actually caused smog. Wouldn’t see that again until industrial revolution

The Romans made use of advanced manufacturing techniques to produce swords, including forging, casting, and grinding. They also had a well-organized supply chain in place for distributing weapons to their soldiers. Production of weapons, including swords, was typically centralized in specialized workshops that were located in urban centers throughout the Roman Empire. These weapons were then stored in warehouses or armories until they were needed by the military. They also had a well-developed transportation network that allowed them to transport weapons to their soldiers wherever they were stationed.

Overall, the combination of advanced manufacturing techniques, a well-organized supply chain, and a well-developed transportation network allowed the Romans to efficiently arm their soldiers with swords and other weapons.

That's very likely, but we also don't know exactly what extent it went to in past years.

I have a feeling today's pollution is far, far worse.

Two feet is approximately 61 centimeters.

You picked the title of the thread.

Also the article uses the words 'lost' and 'discovered.' Hansen's been working that region for 20 years. He already knew they were there.

I first heard about them in a Great Courses lecture series from 2014 which has an entire chapter dedicated to El Mirador and the region around it (edit: plugging because it's really great, Barnhart honestly makes learning fun). This technology has even been used the exact same way in the exact same region before. In 2020. In 2019. In 2018. Barnhart's lecture on El Mirado talks about it (again, 2014). The book 1491 (published 2005) talks about these discoveries.

It's not an accusation. It's common for articles, and the academics who want them published, to engage in some bluster about what they've 'found.' People get more excited about 'new discoveries' than they do about 'we knew this was here 100 years ago but we never shot radar at it!'

Now I don't feel so bad that pollution seems especially severe nowadays. It appears there's always been at least one society throughout history that contributed significantly to pollution.

It's arguable that Germany was always going to lose the war the moment the UK held it's nerve and didn't surrender in May 1940. They couldn't win at that point.

[removed]

The DD tanks at Omaha were deployed too far out from coast which, coupled with the rough seas, saw them sink. At Sword beach they were much more effective as deployed closer to shore. The loss of their support definitely made things tougher.

>Lord0fHats

>This article is wrong in acting like this is new. Lidar has been getting used in this region for a decade.

The article is describing the discovery of settlements and the scope of its LiDAR survey. Where does it state that LiDAR is new?

What is stated, in the article:

>Scientists led by Richard Hansen, an archaeologist at Idaho State University and the director of the Mirador Basin Project, offer “an introduction to one of the largest, contiguous, regional LiDAR studies published to date in the Maya Lowlands,” a region that covers parts of Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize, according to the study.

ETA:

>Lord0fHats

>You picked the title of the thread.

>Also the article uses the words 'lost' and 'discovered.'

Are your comments intended to create off-topic discussion based on select words, instead of discussing the linked article itself?

Yeah I read an article that the Amazon could have had a huge civilization but their buildings were mostly wood. Huge platforms and walkways through the jungle.

Not a professional, so correct me if I'm wrong, anyone out there, but...

1. Swords were not particularly expensive nor difficult to create. High end swords could be extremely expensive and difficult to create, but if you wanted every foot soldier to have a sword, that was pretty easy. But actually, asking how every Roman Legionnaire had a sword belies the more important and interesting question, which was how every Roman Legionnaire had a suit of armor. Compared to swords, armor, like the mail armor that legionnaires commonly wore, were extremely expensive and labor intensive to make.
2. The Roman Legionnaires were well equipped because of the unique way the Legions were raised. In ancient and medieval warfare, in almost all armies, the soldier brought his own gear. The quality of this gear depended on the soldier's personal wealth and the poorest of the poor usually had no stakes in the wars and so did not show up at the muster at all. Obviously, a slave (or slave-like poor rural farmer or poor urban worker) is still a slave whether he's slaving under one government or another. If your army gets wiped out, you generally have to surrender because your society no longer has enough men of wealth who can and will fight. On the other hand, the Roman Legionnaires were recruited from the poor and then armed at the expense of the wealthy patron who raised the legion. These patrons were massively wealthy and could buy a lot of excellent gear for their men and, further, had a great motivation to, because success in war could determine their advancement or even survival. If a Roman army got wiped out, another army could simply be raised from the wealth of another patron.
3. The Roman Empire was also extremely wealthy from its conquests and expansion, which made goods like swords and armor easier to obtain and in greater number.