caldrail

Modern literature tends to stress a difference between Republic and Empire, but really that's merely a rationale to justify the use of the word 'emperor'. When you read the sources, certain things become obvious - there was no new state. The 'Roman Empire' was nothing more than a continuation of the Roman Republic with evolving leadership. The 'Fall of the Republic' never happened - there's no such event described in the sources. There's no word in Latin for 'emperor' anyway. How could Roman leaders be something for hundreds of years with no word to describe it? It's ridiculous. The words we use in translation now meant something different back in the day, and worst of all, so many people, even academics, insist on trying to define the Roman Empire in modern terms and themes. Rome was a city state that dominated their empire, a patchwork of regions and territories with varying levels of status and relationship to the parent state, from occupied regions administered by the legions to provinces with full citizenship rights. The Italian tribal states, although brought into a formal relationship by Augustus, were never legally provinces at all. When people in the empire said they were Roman, it was their relationship to the eternal city they referred to. That was what Rome wanted. Loyalty and taxes. Although the empire became a full autocracy when Diocletian declared his word was law and ushered in the Dominate, none of his successors ever relinquished republican credibility completely in the West. The East went further though. They started crowning monarchs with Leo I in 457, and within a couple of hundred years later had introduced imperial titles that did mean 'emperor'. But what change did Augustus bring? The Roman Empire? It's nonsense. Rome began its empire two hundred years before Augustus with territory in Western Sicily. Augustus did not sweep the Republic away, he reformed it, and became its leading statesman. Medieval fallacies say something different and are responsible for our romantic ideas about the imperial Romans, but the truth is that SPQR remained the official name of the state until 476. We're talking about a couple of thousand years of history, so yes, there were political changes along the way, and as both Virgil and Polybius predicted, the Roman state went the way of all empires and declined.

There's been a lot of investigation and debate regarding the legacy of the Alexandrine Empire. Apparently there was a major river system extending back from the Black Sea toward the Himalayas, only remnants of it still exist, once a major trade route and ruined settlements follow the ancient course. I don't know too much about this, I've only seen television documentaries

I'm not aware of any specific instance of rhinos being used but Rome loved novelty. Augustus had crocodiles brought into the arena but they were something of a disappointment. Ostriches were popular, the crowd found them hilarious. Elephants made an impression. In one event a number were being hunted - if that's the correct term - and bellowed to the crowd for help, or so it seemed to the audience who felt sorry for the beasts. Yet there's also an account of elephants flinging horses and riders around like rag dolls. One idea was to see if elephants could walk a tightrope. But it didn't always go as planned, one raging bull managed to get into the crowd at one event and you can imagine the panic ensuing.

As much as the RAF defence was determined, well flown, and kept Britain in the war, I have to point out that wasn't the worst bugbear facing a German invasion - the English Channel with its notoriously fickle waters and the Royal Navy Home Fleet waiting at Scapa Flow to intervene were both well known to Germany and why Hitler stressed secure ownership of the Channel as the basis of three of his requirements before he would authorise the operation. Everyone seems to suggest the Luftwaffe gave up - they didn't - time was against them. Because the RAF fended them off long enough the window of opportunity was closing, one reason why Germany turned to strategic bombing rather than focused attacks on the RAF, and another reason why the offensive was put on low priority. However, the Blitz continued - there was no cessation of bombing although they turned to night operations, and fighter strength was already being conserved for Hitler's desire to expand eastward having realised the Soviet Union was a 'Rotten Edifice'.

Rome couldn't defeat Scotland because it wouldn't exist until nine hundred years later. They had however defeated the assembled army of Picts at Mons Graupius, but annexation didn't happen - Agricola was recalled before any political settlement and tested for loyalty.

Guy, it was British airspace. Of course we had air superiority over it in 1939, what the heck do you imagine the RAF was for? The whole point of the Luftwaffe campaign was to challenge that air superiority and suppress the RAF over SE England. This is kindergarten stuff.

But we didn't 'win' air superiority - we already had it and retained it. Had we lost that as the German initially wanted, then the threat of invasion escalated. That did not guarantee it would happen because there were three other clauses relating to the security of the English Channel before Hitler would authorise the operation. Germany knew full well the Royal Navy was waiting in the wings. However - the defence by the RAF delayed the situation long enough for the window of opportunity to close - the English Channel is a wayward bit of sea often enough and weather in the winter would have effectively made supplying an invasion force impractical. So unlike the many who thing the Luftwaffe 'gave up', I'm pointing out that Germany made a conscious decision to change strategy, besides being angry that the RAF had bombed Berlin in response to a ad hoc attack on London. The objective of air superiority had lost impetus both because of the timing. Besides, with Hitler thinking of eastward ambitions, the Luftwaffe needed to conserve their forces for the coming attack on the Soviet Union. After all, surely Britain would finally accepot defeat if the U-Boat blockade forced them to? But to clarify a point, the British in the Channel Islands were not required to speak German or eat sausages - not that they had many of those available anyway.

I've had a somewhat emotive and quite bitter debate on another site concerning the Battle of Britain. There's a lesson to learn about being objective and analytical in the face of legend and popular preconception, so I'm going to take a little time out here to discuss the subject and why my standpoint was not conventional. Let's establish something before we get into details. The RAF fought a three month air campaign against the Luftwaffe. The commitment and skills of the RAF pilots, whether British, Empire, Commonwealth, or foreign volunteer, is not contested. It is of course politically incorrect to mention the Luftwaffe's efforts, but I can't ignore that they were fighting the campaign too. I could delve into the mass of statistics to make some halfway objective point but that's not my purpose here. Instead, I ask the question - was the Battle of Britain actually a victory or not? Heresy, how could I doubt it? But you can from a wider perspective. The Battle of Britain was fought by the RAF to defend against the Luftwaffe attacks. Initially these attacks were made to suppress or destroy RAF air superiority over SE England as Goering's contribution to complying with the four clauses made by Hitler before he would authorise an invasion of Britain. Of course Goering was not just trying to do his part, he also had political reasons to please his boss - that's why he volunteered to undertake the mission to break RAF Fighter Command. German intelligence was woeful and inconsistent. Despite being told the RAF was almost destroyed, it wasn't lost on Luftwaffe personnel that British fighters kept coming at them. Quite an achievement because in order to maintain this resistance, the RAF were forced to put young men into combat with a bare minimum of training, and the gradually increasing RAF losses resulted. The first contentious point is what the RAF had achieved by this. The British were well aware of the threat waiting in French Channel ports, even conducting some little known bombing raids in return, but the Germans were also well aware the Royal Navy was waiting. Three of Hitler's clauses concern themselves with securing the Channel crossing. Fighting to defend Britain? The RAF pilots certainly thought so with good reason, but to begin with, they were actually defending themselves. Luftwaffe attacks were made against them directly. The second contentious point is to ask if the Luftwaffe gave up. Conventional thinking is that they did. But the reality is that the German command foisted a new strategic mission on the Luftwaffe. Attacks against the RAF were shelved in favour of bombing London and other targets to reduce British morale and bring them to the negotiating table faster. This is a fundamental change in strategy. The Luftwaffe had not given up attacking the RAF, they were given a new task to perform halfway through the battle. Even after the battle was said to have concluded, the bombing raids continued at night under the a campaign we call the Blitz. A victory for the RAF? British propaganda was quick to declare it as such, and we British love the legend of the Battle of Britain. Eighty years on, with almost no veterans left, the sight and sound of a Spitfire in British skies is still emotive. But there are other aspects. Hitler had lost interest in the Battle of Britain. He was never keen on an invasion anyway, the idea was caused by pressure from public expectation and the hopes of lower ranking servicemen. In fact, late in 1940 Hitler realised he had been wrong about the Red Army, and that the Soviet Union was the 'rotten edifice' that would collapse. He had written about Germany's destiny in the East, lebensraum (living space) and so forth. Whilst the original plan was to attack the Soviet Union in 1944, the year after German re-armament was scheduled to be complete, Hitler wanted to invade in Winter 1940. His generals persuaded him it was not a good idea, but Hitler insisted an invasion would go ahead in the Spring. A third contentious point is that Operation Sealion was cancelled. But it wasn't. On September 17th Hitler postponed the operation indefinitely. There was no actual cancellation and troops allocated for the invasion were still in place until 1942, when they were redeployed to the Eastern Front. To Hitler, the war in the west was already won, it was merely a matter of time before Britain gave up and asked to negotiate. He had good reasons to believe that - Britain had a great many people in high places that didn't want a war with Germany and Lord Halifax had stormed out of the War Council in May 1940 because Winston Churchill refused to ask Mussolini to intercede on their behalf. A fourth contention is the idea the Battle of Britain was a German stunt to persuade the UK to give up, and that the invasion threat was a bluff. Really? The Germans had lost a great many aeroplanes and experienced personnel and with troops and equipment waiting to go in Channel ports, one has to question the idea they were bluffing. They couldn't put themselves in a position to actually begin, due credit to the RAF's efforts, but the potential invasion had been reduced in priority when the Luftwaffe turned on London. A tacit admission of defeat? The Germans would not have said so, they had merely adopted a different strategy with the weather window in the English Channel coming perilously to a close. So was the Battle of Britain a victory for the RAF? Objectively, no, but it was a success. No air superiority was lost by either side, no territory was exchanged, nobody had withdrawn their forces. However, the RAF had defended themselves and prevented any risk of the invasion threat escalating. A close run thing in some ways. The Luftwaffe had not succeeded in their initial aim to suppress the RAF but they were not allowed to complete the task, because German strategy was changed due to political pressure.

It's known that Egyptians used drugs for relaxation, based on a particular flower, and modern experiments have shown it was possible but not perhaps as bad as the effects of modern drugs. I don't really know much about the Roman use of such things, but I was once informed that Roman legionaries had witnessed the Celtic substances used to induce battle fury and adopted the same substances. How true that is I have no idea, the Romans don't talk about getting high on anything other than raw sex.

This popped up in my news feed. It seems we have yet another Roman fort in Britain.. Interesting how much of this stuff lies buried and forgotten because on Facebook just today somebody was going misty eyed about the enormous legacy the Romans left in Britannia. Seems we haven't found all of it yet. Possible 'mega' fort found in Wales hints at tension between Romans and Celtics (msn.com)

Crikey, that's one exposed site. I can just imagine a centurion gritting his teeth as soldiers moaned about the cold wind.

Most of the crush injuries were due to the weight of pumice on the roofs of buildings where people sheltered. I would also add that Pompeii had been severely hit by earthquakes ten years before the eruption, they were still rebuilding during the event.

I see history was put back on the shelf.

I stumbled across this video that takes a look at an oddity in Britain, the Fosse Way. For those who don't know of it, it's a Roman era route from SW to NE England - but incredibly straight. Yes, I know, Roman roads are supposed to be straight aren't they? Yes, but only between settlements. The Fosse Way is simply a line on the map, and perhaps it's a sign of something we've forgotten?

This came up in my news feed... The last home of Caesar Augustus. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/archaeologists-discover-lost-home-of-rome-s-first-emperor/ar-AA1nRBQ8?ocid=socialshare

I live not too far from Avebury, the largest Neolithic stone circle in the world though precious little of it is left. I've walked down there once or twice, a hike across the Marlborough Downs of a respectable but practical length, so I'm not unfamiliar with it. Like most people, I simply see the ring and surviving stones as is, pondering their mysteries but I guess not looking too deeply at them. Here's a thought provoking video from a guy who does a bit of alternate thinking. I have no idea if he's right, but it shows Avebury and some surrounding areas in a very different light than I expected. Decide for yourself....

A bit of light relief - I came across this cartoon on the SPQR Facebook page. So true!

???? !!!!!!!!!!!

I would add that the Roman Empire was decentralised until the Dominate. Provinces were governed locally, by their own people though usually in emulation of Roman practice because that pleased the Senate and potentially earned them status, tax breaks, or commercial advantages. Roman governors were not rulers, they were there to represent Rome and be the last word in Roman and native law. Having said that, most of them were there to get rich quick, though it did involve military responsibility too.

Roman paganism was not an organised religion, it was the same social function as the client/patron relationship only this time using temples and shrines instead of atriums, and unlike the wealthy patricians, the deity was invariably absent and to the supplicant, might not have even bothered to listen, which was why a small sacrifice was such a good idea - you could even buy ready made sacrifice packages from your local priest. There were festivals of course (and from what Varro tells us, a great many of them) which were a communal function, but there was no religious group beyond influential collegia such as the Vestal Virgins.

Roman paganism didn't have the good/evil duality that Persian faiths introduced and Christianity adopted. That said, accusations of malign magic and the evil eye were fairly common since the Romans were superstitious (and accusational), but that was human malignancy - not divine. There wasn't a persecution of 'dark faith believers' until people started disliking Christians. Early Christianity was not a unified movement at all and there were very diverse sects among them, and these got a bad name via rumour and misunderstandings. Accusations of drowning babies, drinking blood, cannibalism, and so forth, though the treatment meted out by Nero seeking scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 won them some sympathy. What you have to realise is that Roman paganism didn't work like Christianity. Pagan worship was conducted in the same manner as the client/patron system that infused their society, people went to temples to ask for favours or honour their chosen god in the same way as visiting the atrium of a patrician's home every morning. There were public festivals too, of course, but paganism didn't have the communal worship of later religions, and pagan priests were available to interpret omens or administer prayers, not to lead congregations as they did later. So the persecution of evil is something from the later christianised era, not pagan Rome.

I can't really see the British Empire as a descendant of the Roman one. English is not a Romance language, a clear indication of how significant the Anglo-Saxon migrations were, and the medieval French of the Normans has almost vanished. The subsequent Angevin Empire was lost too, the territories in France gradually conquered. The British Empire was a new construction starting from the 16th century with victories against a few European powers and the beginning of the colonial era.

The style of hilt is not unusual for ancient times and bear in mind the gladius was inspired by Spanish swords. Also bear in mind that the Romans practised thrusts against the palus, a vertical wooden pole, which was a rather solid target to practice thrusts against, so if the grip hurts your hand/wrist your technique is at fault, not the sword design.

The trick is to see it from the perspective of the Romans. The Republic was founded to preserve certain fundamental human conditions, one of which was freedom from tyranny. Although the general public rather liked the advent of popular leadership, the Senate saw it as a breach of their republican traditions. Caesar wanted to be in charge. He was a glaring megalomaniac and the Senate saw that clearly. Worse, his earlier political career was as a radical and contentious politician, and Caesar was not a man they particularly trusted. However, rules were rules, and when Caesar earned a new privilege, he was allowed to proceed. But become King? Romans saw monarchy as inherently tyrannical, because to rule meant to tell people what to do and expect them to obey, the same as slavery. Rome was governed by law, something the Romans were very proud of. After all, the Republic was founded when the Roman monarchy was ousted. However, the Romans, ever a practical people, knew full well that a huge committee to handle a crisis was not a good idea, and thus they had an office called dictator - an emergency tyrant, empowered for six months or until the crisis was over, whichever came first. Not often used but it was becoming the means to gain power, and Caesar eventually had himself made dictator perpetuo, a permanent emergency tyrant and therefore the same as a king whatever Caesar claimed. I would also point out that Caesar had installed a throne in the curia, where the Senate met. As a military general, Caesar was not a man easily trusted. The Senate typically preferred steady cautious types, Caesar was anything but. They had tried to limit his military command once by putting him in charge of defending forests and meadows. His long campaign in Gaul won Rome a huge expansion of territory but his reasons for fighting it had nothing to do with Rome - it was all about exploiting a situation to reap booty and pay off the considerable debts he had incurred running for public office. Potential threat to the Roman Republic? Caesar doesn't seem to have wanted to make any changes to the state other than rule over it. But that was a blatant breach of the Republic traditions and for some senators, Caesar must go. Around sixty or seventy senators agreed, forty were involved in the actual assassination, though a handful carried out the stabbings (and in the frenzy of the moment, some of them stabbed each other). The interesting thing is that the conspirators assumed business would go on as normal when Caesar was dead, they had not set any plans in motion for what would happen next. They quickly found themselves unable to convince anyone that they were right to have done the deed and went on the run.

Was Caesar a military general who had no equal other than Alexander? He was a capable popular leader yet it has been noticed that for all his success on the battlefield, his strategies were often clumsy and ill-considered. It's true that Caesar added a considerable expanse of territory to Roman control, but he did so for booty and politics, not the benefit of the empire. Was the collapse of the Republic solely Caesar's fault or did he have help in that? What collapse are you talking about? There's no such event in the Roman sources. The 'Roman Empire' remained SPQR, Senate and People of Rome, to the end in the West. Neither Caesar nor Augustus created a new regime. Caesar merely placed himself in charge of Roman government and Augustus reformed the Republic. This is why I say the word 'emperor' is so damaging to the study of Roman history. It creates a false impression of Roman politics and the word we derive 'emperor' from is imperator, which according to Dio and Varro, meant 'Victorious General', nothing more. From ad69 the words begins to become exclusive but always remained an honour, a marker of status, yet never referred to a civil or military office. After all, Nero had been running the state for eleven years before he received the honour of 'victorious general'.