caldrail

Hardly a suprise there Guy

Yes, Britons were either natives or gallic immigrants. The Germanic people started to settle during the late Roman empire and migrated in strength once the Romans had gone. Wrong on both Kent and Essex - neither of these kingdoms will have Arthur listed. He never existed as king or a single individual. Arthur is an amalgam of iron age legends, Roman conquerors, dark age heroes, and medieval romances.

It's wiser to look up the information about that site. It wasn't built in 8000BC, that was earliest sign of human activity in that place. The first phase of Stonehenge was approximately 3100BC. It went out of use sometime around 1600-1900BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

You just can't keep down a living god and son of a war hero. Only reigned for four years and we still talk about him. Large Roman fort built by Caligula discovered near Amsterdam (msn.com)

There's been a strong drive to have Cleopatra VII recognised for her positive aspects, her knowledge of language, and encouragement of learning, and get away from the temptress we normally see her as. What you can't get away from is the full on family battle for winner takes all she was born into and indeed her own survival game which ultimately provoked the Principate in Rome.

The Romans decreed that this was the season of goodwill long before credit was given to some Judaean kid. Right and proper we should celebrate. Eat, drink, and be marry, for tomorrow we study!

The role of Dictator was specific. The Senate knew there were times when a large committee weren't going to be decisive and given how internally factious the Senate was, emergency decisions needed a channel to overcome this particular Roman problem. So you put a man in charge, full emergency power, for six months or until the emergency was over. So why was it not used more often? One could speculate that the Romans could not always agree that a Dictator was necessary at any given time However, the Romans were conspicuously conscious of the risks of giving power to individuals. Their republican system never gave anyone the right to become a tyrant. Power was shared, power was temporary, power was by consent. How many men could be given full emergency power and go back to ordinary life afterward like Cincinnatus did? With increasing wealth and power as Rome prospered on back of successful campaigning, the temptations only got worse. Gaius Marius using warfare to persuade the Senate to give him yet one more Consulship. Or the various characters who started to see one man rule as a distinct and possible ambition, the sources mention more than the obvious famous ones. At that stage, the acquisition of dictatorial power was a means to an end. But bear in mind that Rome had moved from since the days when the two Consuls led a legion each to defend Rome's interests. War had increased in scale dramatically requiring much larger forces, and the old method of countered one man with another simply could not work any more. Not for nothing did Caesar take extended dictatorial power when he seized Rome. Not for nothing did Marc Antony have the office abolished entirely after Caesar's death. Not for nothing did the public clamour to have Octavian made Dictator to replace Caesar. Not for nothing did Octavian, as Augustus, refuse completely.

That was rather better than your average video. Fairly conformal to my own views on centurions as well. Nice one Guy, that was worth posting.

Yep, my home town had mammoths. You can still see the ice age landscape if you look around, such as hillsides on the Marlborough Downs eroded by melting ice cap. What a sight that must have been. To the north, ice up to a mile high, on the border (more or less where Swindon is today), ice mountains and torrents of muddy meltwater, plus inland lakes formed by the run off, the flat plains to the northeast particularly feeding the RIver Thames. No trees, just grasses, bushes, muddy gravel and boulders.

The relief of the unnamed god was interesting. At first glance, I thought that was an eques gladiator. The only reason I'm not maintaining that view is the context of the find.

That's the second such find. Another was in Israel, which had a bent tip so it could not be removed after death.

The only fundamental difference is the physical harm. In todays health, safety, moral, insurance, and sporting climate, it would not be allowed. Period. 'Soft' gladiatura is another matter. On that I could easily agree.

You seem to regard this as a black or white issue regarding mindset and behaviour. Just because there is a stereotypical behaviour of a modern christian to observe does not mean that Constantine complied with that 1700 years ago. He was a life long pagan by default, no matter what Eusebius claimed, a military conqueror who won a civil war, a determined character who was ruthless enough to take power in the empire, and defend that power against those who acted against his interests. That alone places him apart from most common worshippers. Could you take on the established order and grab power in your own country? No, of course not, or you already would be appearing in the news in that context. But what comes across in the sources is an expedience. People turn on those they suspect for survival. It's necessary in that sort of dangerous political climate where winner takes all. Although Constantine felt the need to be ruthless, it does not necessarily follow that he was a complete and terrible psychopath. His record has a limited amount of bloodletting, something then he may have felt he had to do rather than why not? So a part of him would have regretted the necessity to bump off his wife and son (who may actually have been having an affair, they weren't directly related). As such, and as he approaches his final moment, it is perfectly reasonable that he might have wondered if these preachers were right and he was destined for Hell because of his actions. So a last minute conversion is an insurance policy, another expedience, just in case.

This came up on the web today and might interest some of you, as it refers to a persistent mystery in British history.... Richard III ‘murdered' princes in Tower after new evidence solves ‘greatest mystery' (msn.com)

That Nero was loved by the public (at least until he had his mother killed) is well known, it's implied by the sources, not least because his first five years in power were said to be the best run government the Romans ever had (up to and including Trajan that is). His appearances in chariot races thrilled the crowds however much the elite ground their teeth.. Most telling was the legend that he would return to rule Rome again, and the short lived rebellion of a slave who happened to look like him. But Nero had the Domus Aurea built to replace the Domus Transitoria, his former home, and announced once he moved in that "At last I can live like a Human". I don't seriously believe it had a public function given Nero's elitist opinion of himself. Caligula had considerable privacy and so did Tiberius, given he had retired to Capri to get away from the noise and squabbles of Rome. That said, the 'in crowd' would have been invited to the Golden House as required, and senior Romans would likely have called upon Nero for one reason or another. I know privacy is a modern theme but celebrities, Roman or otherwise, sometimes like to control what is said about them and Nero couldn't have done that by living openly.

Doesn't this assume that the Romans enjoyed hot beverages at all? Warm, yes, we know they did. But I don't see any references to brewing hot drinks. I might be wrong on that, just that such things haven't come to my notice.

Don't forget, N, Romans were a deeply superstitious people. Constantine was a military man and used to hard choices, obedience, and good order, but in dealing with the afterlife who was to say the Christians were wrong? And for that matter, whilst he felt it necessary, as rulers sometimes do, to execute members of his own family, that doesn't mean he felt void of regret or fear his actions would rebound on him.

I don't think Constantine would have cared less about usury, he was only interested in creating a stable controlled society, and Christianity was a means to an end. But of course, they might have been right, hence he got baptised at the end of life - just in case.

Fascinating. Never occurred to me that plants might be extinct since then.

103 5,987 posts Gender:Male Location:Darkest Wiltshire, England Interests:Find out more on my blog here at UNRV. Go on, treat yourself... Posted 1 minute ago Constantine never had any issues with any such authority. Why would he encourage the amalgamation of existing Christian sects and offer them patronage if they were competing for power? Sorry, that doesn't add up. He wanted their communal influence to help weld his factional empire together, and as a military man, identified readily with the priest and congregation style of worship. The Bishops were only too keen to comply, given they were benefitting with wealth and land ("The roads were filled with galloping Bishops..." Ammianus Marcellinus). Certainly that influence was something Roman that survived the end of the Western Empire, and indeed, the Catholic Church would have extreme control over hearts and minds by the eleventh century, but that influence had grown to that point, not existent before the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Constantine never had any issues with any such authority. Why would he encourage to amalgamation of existing Christian sects and offer them patronage if they were competing for power? Sorry, that doesn't add up. He wanted their communal influence to help weld his factional empire together, and as a military man, identified readily with the priest and congregation style of worship. The Bishops were only too keen to comply, given they were benefitting with wealth and land ("The roads were filled with galloping Bishops..." Ammianus Marcellinus). Certainly that influence was something Roman that survived the end of the Western Empire, and indeed, the Catholic Church would have extreme control over hearts and minds by the eleventh century, but that influence had grown to that point, not existent before the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity. Does that sound odd? The jury is still out on whether he actually existed. The beliefs that Jesus (presumed real name Yeshua) followed were derived from those already in existence. Sure, he had his own take on it, but he operated as a charismatic preacher rather than a cult leader, and inevitably that meant his popularity as a speaker doomed him regardless of what he was talking about. Jesus wasn't the first or the only such preacher to be removed by the authorities in Judaea, never mind the ancient world. Then we have the period when Proto-Christian cults are being founded here and there, most famously by Paul. Christianity emerges as the Roman church from the attempted unification of various sects within the empire during the 4th century. It is interesting that the Graeco-Roman split of the later empire is reflected by a later split between Catholic and Orthodox churches (mostly because the Pope tried to boss around the Patriarch in Byzantium). The heresies as defined by the Nicene Creed were not entirely crushed, and later Churches, some of them significant, emerge every so often in the historical record. But note that early Christianity were borrowing ideas from the rival Mithraic religion (and complaining that Mithraism was copying them), and that certain aspects of mythology, namely the 'Miracles', were borrowed from India. It was just too much of a coincidence to think of them all independently.

Another one? For a far flung part of the empire Britain certainly has some mosaics to offer. The mentions of Britain as a bountiful source of grain ring true as the evidence of wealthy landowners in the late empire come to light. And yet, when it came down to it, they abandoned Britain to its fate at the end of the period. Perhaps another reason for the collapse of the Western Empire?

Interesting. I agreed with a lot of the commentary but I should add some observations. The meal described shows some culinary flair despite the basic nature of it. I can imagine a star/veteran gladiator being fed that way, but I wonder if gladiators of the more common status were likewise supplied. Gladiators were slaves after all, and as such, legally the same status as animals. Barley as a more basic meal (without the fava beans) would have predated the first recorded gladiatorial contest in 264BC. Gladiators were not common as soldiers. Slaves were not eligible as soldiers and ordinary legionaries would not fight alongside them. It was a tactic of desperation.