caldrail

Yes, Egypt was a suprisingly long lived nation. I'm also becoming aware of how conservative they could be, ignoring some technological advances despite developing some of their own. They were in many ways the most glaring example of a long term human society gradually getting stuck in their ways and losing the dynamism of youth. Then again, Egypt is so full of abrupt change, not least the succession of foreign dynasties that ruled them. The bizarre and tragic reign of Akhenaton. The complete move of the city of Tanis from one dried up river to a another watercourse, literally, dismantling the old city and hauling the stones to build a new one somewhere else. I remain a romanophile, but a part of me thinks that even Roman achievements are sometimes a little paltry compared to Egypt. Perhaps what is more important is that I'm beginning to see how Egypt was a transitional society between prehistory and the classical world.

Sounds like someone important got buried there.

Really? Haven't you noticed how popular it's become to blame societal collapse on volcanic eruptions? Bear in mind that eruptions are not uncommon events, so in a large empire like ancient China, the odds of there being an eruption close to dynastic change may be no more than random chance. Now I say this because where we have documented eruptions in historical record, they generally do not cause any political change and still don't to this day. Take Vesuvius for example. We all know something about the dramatic events that buried towns in the area in ad79. True, the event was a bad omen in many peoples minds during Titus' reign, but there were others, including plague, and he did not fall. But did you know there were other eruptions of that volcano in 472, 787, 1139, 1500, 1631, 1660, 1698, 1707, 1760, 1767, 1779, 1794, 1822, 1834, 1850, 1861, 1872, 1906, 1929, and 1944? And I'm only listing those described as explosive. granted, many of these were not on the same magnitude as the infamous 79 eruption, but you do understand that evidence of volcanic activity is common enough to coincide with dynastic change at some point?

I disagree. The West was heading for the end and had been for some time. Please note that Majorian is the only leader who showed any capability to change that, and he couldn't, because he had not inspired enough loyalty (which in Roman times was a feat in itself). Look at the situation. Rome was no longer capital of the west, it was a disease ridden rump of its former glory. Ravenna was capital, chosen because it was inside swamplands and difficult to attack. All the money had long gone eastward to Constantinople and that in Roman society meant everything. Let's not forget that the eastern empire would survive, for the most part, for another thousand years.

A four year reign of dramatic change and an early death by betrayal. Guaranteed to be sen as a hero by some just for the story. Does he really justify the praise heaped on him? I ask that because he he settled nothing, he was a blip on the history radar that shone bright and winked out. Did he leave any lasting impression on the world? No, unless you include Gibbon's opinions and this video. Worth remembering I suppose but ultimately not hugely significant.

A woman desiring to be 'emancipated' would be unusual. Does that sound odd? The Roman world was different to ours and she would have been born into a strong social order with consequent expectations. Usually, a woman saw her freedom in terms of who she married rather than actually controlling her own fate, though most avenues for feminine self determination were considered infama (infamous or bad), such as acting or the sex industry. Also, betrothals would have happened at quite a young age normally because the woman might expect to be married by the age of fifteen, and younger girls are recorded. She could of course bear three children and apply for legal seperation, a divorce might be possible but Romans were very keen on preserving a public image, and her father would have to allow it. I think it was Juvenal who wrote a satire about a rich daughter who forsook her life of unbridled luxury to run away with the Gladiator of her dreams. Daddy wasn't going to like that. You ask whether a woman could inherit her mother's property. Actually that was not a foregone conclusion, the ability of women to inherit was legally restricted. If she was married, her mother's property as an inheritance would be under the nominal control of her husband and since it was not part of a recorded dowry, I doubt she would be able to reclaim it after divorce. You also ask about setting up homes for the younger generation. I have no doubt that parents usually wished to assist, this is common behaviour for human beings, but bear in mind that the young man is expected to be adult and in charge of his own affairs (actually he wasn't. As long as his father remained alive, he would always be subject to his rulings, and this is why parricide was considered such a crime in Roman society. By and large the Romans remain very quiet about this quirk in society).

Okay, the video was well intentioned and informative. However, the link with pre-caesarian Rome might be overstated, because whilst Roman good were clearly being traded into Britain, it probably wasn't the Romans doing the trade. Remember they knew very little about Britain and even after Caesar had been there twice, troops embarking for an invasion ordered by Caligula mutinied because of superstition, not just about crossing a stretch of fearsome English Channel, but because of rumours about the strange peoples and monsters that were said to live in Britain. The same troops would try to mutiny again, under Claudius, whose freedman on the spot had to calm them down and remind them of their duty (and possibly, though it isn't recorded, the humiliation that Caligula had heaped upon them). Gauls would have been the major trading parties, passing on Roman goods obtained along the frontier/provincial areas, and other Mediterranean sailors had long been reaching British shored before the Romans.

My latest faves are "Master of Illusion" by Finland's own metal band Battle Beast.

I'm a little amused by this because it appears to me the reassessment is from a later generation. I've known for a long time of the early Saxon settlement in Britannia thanks to antiquarians of the late 19th century (who, it must be said, range from the perceptive to the almost fantasist), but articles written in archeological magazines of the period list various finds and sites which are sometimes hard to ignore. On the plus side, the research we're getting now is likely to be more reliable.

Interesting that you ask that. Intervention in the Russian Civil War wasn't especially extensive as far as I know, very few British people even know it happened. We were involved in Estonian Independence, Latvian Independence, Turkish War of Independence, Third Anglo Afghan War, Kuwait-Najd War, Irish War of Independence, Somaliland Campaign, Great Iraqi Revolution, Burao Tax Revolt, and the Adwan Rebellion. We were also involved in occupation duties in Adriatic. Wow. Some of those I haven't heard of either. Add to that the usual woes after a major conflict, the knackered and under maintained railway system that was subject to a major rationalisation program called the "The Grouping" in 1923. I guess we had a lot to pay for back then. - oh, and before I forget, Gandhi was pursuing Indian Independence and British troops got a little heavy handed. out there.

Sort of. But there is an example of mass crucifixion mentioned by the sources, the 6000 captured rebels after the defeat of Spartacus along the Via Appia.

Crucifixion wasn't that common, it was reserved for slaves, pirates, and criminals that needed the worst capital punishment such as enemies of the state. Under normal circumstances citizens were exempt but one source says that humiliores were later included as potential victims.. There were plenty of ways of getting rid of somebody not least being condemned ad gladius or ad bestias.

Slaves made gladiators by purchase or court ruling (Ad ludum was condemned to the training school. Ad Gladium was to be put to the sword. It didn't matter how, and such men often fought in pairs until they died. Ad bestias means thrown to the beasts, or just as liikely, tied to a pole so the the crowd can see the ferocious beast in action) were essentially prisoners. Gladiators sold to private individuals might form personal troupes with their own premises or work as bodyguards within the house. Volunteer gladiators usually had the option to come and go. However, it isn't always so cut and dried. Star gladiators of whatever origin might be allowed to attend functions held by important people who want them on the guest list. Sometimes a lanista might be paid for some reason to let the gladiator out of barracks (it is often suggested that lanistas prostituted their gladiators because it was known that wealthy ladies in particular sometimes indulged themselves with private liaisons. Gladiators were symbolic of virility. Scarred, ugly, it didn't matter. However, too much sex would sap the gladiators performance, which is one reason why legionaries weren't supposed to marry, so a lanista might not be too keen to do this). Sometimes a volunteer who isn't being reliable might find out what being a slave is.

As a qualified pilot of light aircraft in two countries I feel obliged to point out that emergency action is part of the initial training syllabus because the instructor will want you to go solo at the first opportunity (usually around 10 hours flying time) to build confidence. Periodic checks and familiarisation flights for aircraft types new to you also involve the same procedures. Although I never suffered 'The Big One', I have encountered equipment or system failures in flight and had to make decisions on what to do. But inexperience is something to be wary of. I once went down to the airfield one friday afternoon because the weather looked brilliant. Always check the expected weather. It showed heavy rain coming in from the Atlantic but I had time to enjoy a flight so I got ready, preflighted the Cessna, and duly took off. Had a nice time in the local area, not wishing to go too far from my home field. I saw the clouds coming in, a great bank of cloud along the horizon. So I thought it was prudent to head home and land. What I underestimated due to inexperience was how slow that headwind was going to make me. So I arrived at the airfield as the weather did. On finals, I could see the runway slowly vanishing from the other end. Cause for concern but I still misjudged how much time I had. So as I came over the runway threshold at about ten or fifteen feet AGL, the rain arrived. My vision disappeared. Everything went light grey. For a moment, I experienced suprise. Was this it? Is this where it all goes wrong? Then I realised that an ever so slightly darker trapezoid was in front of me, the asphalt runway surface, barely visible, but it was enough to make a controlled landing. I taxied out into sunshine. The rain was a curtain in front of the main event, and I parked up, went to the office to sign off, and found out that the ATC people were furious at my lack of judgement. I had entirely forgotten the idea of finding somewhere else to land in good vis. Luckily however the Chief Instructor spoke up for me. As far as he was concerned, I hadn't panicked, I'd made a decision and followed it through. But it could have ended so much worse, and strictly speaking, the situation was entirely my own fault. Lesson learned. Some people unfortunately learn harder lessons, but flying is inherently risky. I know they say ity's the safest form of transport, but realistically, flying light aeroplanes has the same risk level as riding a motorbike.

Note that Palumbus was married. That suggests he was a volunteer gladiator. As such he might only have had one of two possible motives, firstly that he wanted fame and fortune as a fighter, but more likely, he was volunteering to pay off debt with his prize money. Someone in that position could be a member of a burial club, thus costs for his wife upon death would be reduced or waived. I am given to understand that among the familia of a gladiatorial troupe such burial clubs existed as well.

Samnite was an earlier form of gladiator class that went out of fashion by the Principate, whilst the Retiarius was was imperial in origin. I'm not sure the two classes ever coincided. However, there are other possibilites. One is secutor, except the helmet is wrong. Another is hoplomachus but the shield is wrong. A Thraex? That possible, since we don't see weapon.

Christianity still talks about the 'Resurrection' even though the significance is almost ignored today. It was originally a promise that worshippers would be brought back to life in a world free of pain, death, and torment. That was why early Christians were so keen to inter the dead complete, so the revived would not be short of a limb or two.

Chariots. It just occurred to me. Nothing more grand than two horses and a servant/slave to do the driving. The wife of Tarquin Superbus was supposed to have driven over her father after her husband threw the old king off his throne.

As long as she didn't move around unescorted, it was a matter of choice. One thing to bear in mind was that Rome was a somewhat constricted city with no real division between classes, so large urban villas might be found among the Roman equivalent of slums and tenements. Carriages were possible in some of the wider width streets, but there might also be legal restrictions on when she could use them (Caesar had banned deliveries in daytime to reduce congestion). Hazards from crowded streets, irate or clumsy citizens and workmen, or perhaps worse, muck thrown casually from upper stories of buildings would be something to consider. In Pompeii, they've actually found small niches in the back wall of expensive properties presumably rented out to prostitutes operating in the back alleys. Her motive for travelling about might have an influence. For an important social occaision, then make the biggest impression, so yes, she would likely choose to arrive in style. If she's creeping out of the house for a secret liaison, either within her social circle or even with her favourite gladiator, discretion is called for. Funnily enough, I haven't seen any contextual evidence of horse or donkey riding about town.

On the same lines, armies had two commanders, who swapped daily, the theory being that it made rebellion against Rome that much harder. They were supposed to be Consuls but as Rome expanded and the need to field armies in more places simultaneously then other offices were allocated.

It was based on a republican principle of temporary or limited assignment of military command. The right to command an army was called imperium and handed out to select individuals either as an honour or because it was necessary to find someone else to lead. The autocratic power of 'emperors' was based largely on having the highest level command privilege, imperium maius, which was one reason, aside from military kudos which the Romans had a deep attraction to, for the title 'Imperator' to be the most popular among those who were saluted as Rome's leader (even if they didn't actually get to take power). It is from 'Imperator' that we get the word 'Emperor'. Note that a commander was supposed to surrender his imperium if he entered the Pomerium, the ritual heart of the city of Rome. Sometimes this was blatantly ignored - Sulla, Caesar, Severus, et al - or an inconvenience - Octavian/Augustus - but note also that the Senate awarded the right to command even though some emperors assumed it.

I have to take issue with your answer. Whilst Lenin did not overtly suppress democracy in 1917, he increasingly acted to install communist rule during Civil War, inluding sidelining the pro-democratic Sovnarkom and using the Pro-communist Politburo as effective government, not only because it was politically sympathetic to his ideals, but because it was smaller and more manageable. Indeed, before 1925 Lenin had shifted the focus from workers representation to a bureaucratic system, introduced the Cheka who persecuted political opposition, and by suppressing factions was able to centralise government. After all, the Kronstadt rebellion was about dissatisfaction with the Communist regime, and inside the Party itself, Lenin acted against democratic and workers factions to reinforce single party rule. Stalin was of course a compatriot of Lenin and aside from his personal desire to dominate, was also staunchly communist and quite obviously had already benefitted from the one party state. Why would he weaken his own power base to allow democratic influence?

Just now I was leafing through an internet article describing the greatest empires ever. I've heard of most of them, although a fair few I have no knowledge of at all. Naturally I felt a little bit of patriotic pride when the British Empire emerges up at the top of the list, but what struck me more about the article was the dubious content here and there. Did the Mongol Empire ever actually control South Africa like the map showed? Or did Stalin actually allow multi-party elections in Russia in 1991, when most sources will tell you it was Gorbachev long after Stalin was dead? A reminder therefore that the internet is not a reliable source of information.

By tradition the Romans had a specific campaigning season linked to religious observances. Obviously if conflict is forced upon them out of season for any reason then so be it. Note that as Rome extended its reach the campaigns tended to last for years rather than months in the days when they raided Italian neighbours. By tradition the season began in March - the name is derived from Mars, the Roman God of War - lasting until the Festival of Armilustrium in mid-October, considered the point where the weather would get too cold and wet for practical warfare. There are mentions of legions camping for the winter, most notably after the punitive expedition against the German tribes that had attacked the 5th Legion in Gaul and soundly defeated them. The legionaries spent the winter in Germania beyond the empire for that winter here and there, and the locals appeared to tolerate that given the strength of the Roman response. So encouraged were the Romans by this that Augustus sent Quintilius Publius Varus, a man known to be greedy after his governorship of Syria, to tax the Germanians in the occupied areas 'as if it was already a province'. It led to the Varian Disaster of ad9.

The Romana Humanitas forum would have been a better place but no worries. So, female emancipation? It depends on what form the marriage took There were three. Confarreatio was a formal style of marriage symbolised by breaking bread (a forerunner of cutting the cake). As you might expect, this was usually an upper class ceremony. Coemptio was marriage by purchase. This was not about slavery, but a financial deal between families (you could not marry a slave - that would be the same as marrying an animal, though there were plenty of male owners who gave their beloved female slaves freedom so they could marry). This form did not have the same religious aspect and was usually a lower class affair. Usus, which was basically cohabitation, without formality or religious significance, and again usually limited to the lower classes. The place of Women with regard to Roman law is an odd one. By tradition, a woman passed from father to husband or guardian as required by circumstance, but this might only be true if the man was head of his family. This constrained kind of relationship was out of fashion by the late republic in favour of a more open style, where the father retained legal control but did not interfere without due cause - the basis of female independence in society. Now, in the Principate, things change. A woman who was absent from her husband/home for three nights in succession (only allowed once in a year) had legal independence. Not divorced, just seperated. A woman who had three children (or four for plebian ladies) could appeal for legal independence, but these laws were set aside in the late empire having proven unpopular with men from the beginning. Also, a woman kept her property in marriage. This was a change from archaic tradition which meant that a woman would have her dowry returned after divorce and thus able to remarry properly. But if her husband died and left his property to her in her will, she might find herself in charge of more than just a house and a cashbox. She might be the owner of a business by default, a farm, an estate. The pressure on her to remarry would mount, especially under Augustan law which made marriage a social responsibility, and of course once the marriage was made the husband would be expected to take charge.