caldrail

Things like that did happen. There's a picture of Marlene Dietrich arriving at a railway station in France before WW2 and she's in a trouser suit, looking very fashionable and daring with a crowd of hangers on (all male), but moments later she got arrested. I have seen photos of a female climbing club in La Belle Epoque, ascending a tough rock face in long dresses (I am told they sometimes climbed in knickers when blokes weren't around because the dress was heavy and cumbersome. So whether you got away with pushing the frontiers of public sensibility was always the same as now. Fame, wealth, confidence, support, opportunity. Same with ancient Rome. Women were expected to be demure and dutiful, but as Rome got wealthy on the back of conquest, so women started taking risks and pushing at social boundaries. One lady called Sempronia absolutely shocked polite society but a generation later in the Principate, her antics would only have raised an eyebrow. We have women like Julia, Augustus' daughter, who was so annoyed and frustrated at her father's moral crusade and stifling family atmosphere that she rebelled and became very wayward. Eventually her father found out about her hedonistic lifestyle and was so angry he had her exiled to a small island. The public heckled him in the street to bring her home. Or Agrippina the Younger? Never overt, but a woman who had gossip and controversy follow her like attendants. Did she sleep with her brother Caligula? Was she trying to get off with her son Nero at a social dinner? We don't know. Or on a different theme, Julia Ferox in Pompeii, who after the death of her husband hired out her home as a social club and apparently did roaring business. But - and I say this advisedly - it is interesting that clothes were labels as much as accoutrements to the Romans, and taking a privilege you weren't entitled to, or trying something new was worse than actual bad behaviour.

Firstly one might try remonstrating with the individual. Possibly you might be in a position to use coercion to get that person to comply or else. Or you could complain to a magistrate and have him picked up by urban guards or other soldiers for a stiff telling off, physical punishment, or if considered a severe case, used in some humorous but ultimately fatal way in the next games as a lesson for others not to try this sort of thing.

Well, the document appears to be underpinned by the usual 'conspiracy' theory of Augustus pulling the wool over the Roman's eyes. That is something I've come to argue against. I have several reasons. Augustus, as able a politician as he was, is not described as machiavellian. Indeed, his behaviour suggests he wanted everything up front and if he got suspicious of someone else, suspecting them of mischief, he would very likely stamp on him hard. Notice particularly he he got caught out by Julia, his wayward daughter, and only discovered her numerous indiscretions because someone told him about her. Nor did he manipulate the situation. Exile. No, he won't forgive her, the public can plead all they want, she can stay on that island (yes, I know, he relented eventually and brought her back quietly). If he was no intent on running the empire as a closet monarch, why did he reform the Senate? Why did he persuade senators to get involved in decision making? Why was he mentioned as considering giving up after the death of Antony? Why did he only maintain Egypt as a personal preserve? Remember that whilst Augustus had at times gotten quite ruthless and heavy with the Senate, he had received his first imperium propraetoris by promising to protect the Republic. Ultimately he did. He handed back the supreme power he used to contest the Romano-Egyptian faction to the Senate and People of Rome. He refused to become Dictator. He did not sweep away the mechanisms of republican politics and restored the Senate to working order - well, okay, mostly, though he was forced to veto their decision making for seven years because they could not compete for elections without resorting to violence. Afterward, when the Senate was calmer, he returned power to them again. Augustus established a relationship with the empire. He didn't rule it, he managed it. As Augustus said himself, he had no more power than anyone else, just more authority (presumably because of the victory over Antony and Cleopatra and for surrendering power as tradition demanded). He was acting as patron to his Roman client. Socially superior, authorative, providing leadership that the Senate had sorely lacked since they let Princeps Senatus fall into disuse. It is true he maintained control of the legions. Of course he did. It helped prevent another civil war. You could argue it also made it less likely a coup would oust him as Roman patron, and I might well agree. He wasn't stupid, but at that stage, the legions had yet to discover their political clout. It is true he instituted the Imperial Cult. Well, if you intend to enforce discipline with harsh punishments and expect men to honour your leadership, something has to be put in place to improve morale. No, Augustus was not trying to be a god (although the Senate had in fact debated on what name he could use that was worthy of divinity) but it was playing on superstition. The spirit of Augustus would be with the soldiers. Urging them to victory. A deterrent to lax and improper behaviour. He was using his status to help control Rome's huge military, twenty eight legions around the empire after he had disbanded more than half the existing number following his victory over Antony. And although he created the Praetorian Guard from the bodyguard cohorts left over from the civil war, he was wise enough to disperse them. He did not use them to enforce power. I know some Romans, Cassius Dio especially, sneer and rant about Augustus as a king by any other name, but I don't think he was guilty. The problem is that without a clear succession, how does he keep Rome stable after his death? Tiberius inherited his status and power in very Roman terms and note that Tiberius too maintained a semblance of Republican government. He needed the Senate probably more than Augustus, given he quickly grew tired of the squabbling and semi-retired to Capri. He even gave the Senate more powers than they normally enjoyed at the expense of the voting assemblies. It was Aelius Sejanus who began the cycle of Praetorian influence, not the Princeps. it was the successors, the later Julio-Claudian dynasty, that began to build on the precedent that Augustus had set. Rome remained officially a Republic to the end, although I do agree that the Dominate had marked the end of the period of change toward autocracy that we call the Principate. But what was the Republic? A different, old regime? No, it wasn't, the imperial period is merely a convenience for historians, not an abrupt change, although Rome had clearly made many reforms to their government as and when they felt the need. The Roman Empire was merely the Republic with leadership, until that leadership had managed to erode the Senate into ritual status in the Dominate. So you see, I think that article was based on a misinterpretation as indeed the popular conception maintains today.

Average height for a male Roman was 5' 4". They were a little intimidated by Germans who generally had better diets and were physically bigger. Stirrups - Not the game changer they usually get described as, but I can accept they assisted horse archers beneficially.

An old favourite of mine. Cracking album, this song is just brilliant.

I think what makes this news suprising for some is the fantasy of heavily armoured knights charging brazenly into the mass of enemy soldiers. History relates a few examples of cavalry trying this and it did not go well. When the Romans talk about cavalry in battle, they emphasise speed and manoever. It was fairly normal for opposing cavalry to face off and also for a cavalry unit to actually open up to allow the enemy though rather than force a collision. Remember jousting, a sport derived from practice. The whole point was to unhorse your opponent without colliding. It often came down to whose horses tired first. Mind you, even with smaller horses, weight makes a difference. If cavalry find you exposed or manage to get into a gap in force, you are going to have a hard time fending them off (though to be fair, many horsemen who got into the thick of a melee found themselves pulled off the saddle by weight of numbers and their life expectancy on the ground was pretty short. One thing that does make me stop to think - no wonder cataphracts and clibanarii did not like galloping. All that weight on a smaller horse put them at risk of losing out in tactics.

Good call Elisa. Bonamassa is my favourite blues player. I just love Blue and Evil.

Stumbled across this. Champ Jaxon, an eleven year old blues prodigy. Enjoy....

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.