h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Romans in Britain: The Army - A3012481
Author: Elentari - U202814

This is one of a series of entries I'm doing on Roman Britain, which in the long run, I hope to have edited as a series like Atlantic Cable's Sci fi entries (A1132057).

The complete list of my series is:
A Brief history: A2137565
Minerals: A3008666
Pottery: A3012283
Trade and Travel: A3012337
Agriculture: A3012355
Art: A3012364
Towns and Villas: A3012409
Army: A3012481
Forts and Fortresses: A3012517

in case you facy looking at the rest!

I know they may be a bit dry in parts, though I've tried to get rid of the bits that are only of interest to scholars, to make them more readable.

Let me know what you think!

This is an excellent read, from what I've gathered on the Romans through History Channel presentations and occasional guide entries. However, it should be said that this didn't seem very Britain-specific to me. Perhaps you should add some information on how the behavior of armies in Britain was different from armies in the other areas of the empire, or else it seems very much like a guide to Roman armies in general.

Help. Its a Roman Invasion 1

I agree with Jodan that this is not Britain specific, but its a great entry about the Legion.

Unless you want to add details on the specific legions in Britain, I think the 'in Britain' part of the label could be dropped.

Hi again Elentari,

Regret I've only skimmed this Entry at this stage - interesting and well written.

A couple of points I noticed in passing: (i) shouldn't 'romanising' start with a capital letter? (ii) Under 'Equipment' then 'Legionaries', "Connolly thinks that Roman shield...." > shields.

As an aside, regarding Auxiliaries. I've always been intrigued by one of the famous ghost stories from York. This was that archaeologists/historians and certainly the general public were largely unaware that the Roman Army made use of conscripts/auxiliaries, until this woman reported that she had seen the 'ghosts' of a mounted unit going through a pub (I think). Because the ground level had risen in the intervening centuries, the lower limbs etc were not visible. Anyway, the lady reported that the ranks contained coloured people ansd they were nowhere near as smartly dressed and well-equipped as the popular preception of the Roman soldier was at the time. I understand that it was several years after this 'sighting' that archaeoligal evidence was obtained which showed the presence of soldiers of this type.



P.S. Regret this got posted twice, once to a different thread. I've no idea how that happened!

Hello again!
This is very well done, I kept seeing scenes from Lord of the Rings as I was reading . But, of course, as is pointed out, it doesn't deal directly with Britain. That doesn't make it any less fantastic, just not necessarily in with the rest of your project. Doesn't mean you can't link them together though, if you remove 'in Britain' from the title .

Various other points of pedantry...

--Don't need introduction header.
--more better trained >> 'more' may be unnecessary here
--pre- Julius Caesar and pre - Emperors >> pre-Julius Caesar and pre-Emperors, or you could just say 'before Julius Caesar or the emperors'
--the cavalry would charge after them and either killed them or took them prisoner. >> Two ways to do this: 'the cavalry would charge after them and either kill them or take them as prisoners' -or- 'the cavalry charged after them and either killed them or took them prisoner.'
--damage of break down >> damage or break down
--These were lighter and so easier to transport, but still had a range of 400 yards – twice the distance of onagers and trebuchets. >> this makes the ballistas sound like better weapons than onagers and trebuchets, why were they not the primary choice?
--They built Hadrian’s >> Hadrian's what?
--“wives” >> 'wives'
--set up home >> set up homes
--some soldier’s families >> some soldiers' families

I know I only have one bit left to read (Forts and Fortresses) but work is interrupting; hopefully I'll get back to it later today

Thank you everyone - especially Miloso, you imply you've read the other entries (this is the first convo I've looked at, so I ddn't know that, but thanks very much)

All those typos and grammatical mistakes are terrible, I apologise.

I know it's not very focused on Britain, I'll see if I can improve that, but I don't really want to call it just the Romans due to it being part of a series. To be honest, most of the information in most of the entries could also apply to other countries in the Empire but because I don't want to imply that it is becasue it may be different elsewhere.

As far as "pre-Julius Caesar and pre-Emperors" goes I was trying to make it clear that Julius Caesar was not actually an Emperor.

I'll see what I can do.

*Everyone* makes typos and grammatical mistakes, usually because we can't type as fast as we think .

On the Julius Caesar/Emperors thing, I was just pointing out the spacing around the hyphens, and suggesting a way to do it without the hyphens which would eliminate the problem. Either way is fine, I'm sure .

It's an excellent series, and as you get through all the feedback I'm sure you'll get lots of ideas.

Phrasing:
each of cohorts two to ten had six normal strength centuries each
-->
cohorts two to ten had six normal strength centuries each

more better trained --> better trained

would charge after them and either killed them or took them prisoner
-->
would charge after them and either kill them or take them prisoner

Typos:
Legionnaries --> Legionaries
scutumand --> scutum and
segmented plate amour --> segmented plate armour
Roman shield, due to their size --> Roman shields, due to their size
"apron" --> 'apron'
They built Hadrian’s --> They built Hadrian’s Wall
"wives" --> 'wives'
some soldier's families --> some soldiers' families
sports -hunting --> sports - hunting

Elentari, Ref my post 4, you still haven't made this correction:

Under 'Legionnaries'.... the 2nd para


"Historian Peter Connolly thinks that Roman shield, due to their size..." > shields.

Oh yes, sorry, must have missed that. Changes being made now everyone, thanks.

Another one missed:

--the cavalry would charge after them and either kill them or took them prisoner. >> the cavalry charged after them and either killed them or took them prisoner.

Done.

I think that there is no EG Entry on 'The Roman Legion'. A re-titling of this Entry, and removing it from this system of Entries - as this is not specifically British - would solve most problems. I also think that this issue should be cleared before we point out all punctuation nits.

HELL

I don't know - they were intended to all go together. Let me have think.

I've made it much more Britain - centric - let me know what you think. I don't think it needs to be changed especially, as it does focus on Britain, but the general information would apply to everywhere.

Dunno... It still didn't convince me...

If you remove the bits about what a legion is, what the auxiliary groups are and what kind of equipment the army used, you'd end up with a pretty small Entry.

Then again, maybe it is just me

HELL

I'd rather leave it with the others, but if anyone can think of any more info to make it more Britain-focused, I wouldn't say no. I'm not sure what though.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

!