caldrail

The Limes are little known today, mostly because they were not as powerful or striking as the remains of Hadrian's Wall. Nonetheless they were not fortifications as such, just obstacles to passage, besides marking for outsiders exactly where Rome considered its empire's borders were. We see this in remains in North Africa, where mudbrick walls still exist but only close off certain valleys that would have been travel routes back in the day. Military failure? I would have said military decline - there were dramatic defeats but none of them decisive.

Kilns? There have been hundreds of the things reported in my area and to the south. The area around Cunetio (near modern day Marlborough) was a known pottery centre, and more were found during the westward development at Swindon many years ago. Apparently Swindon (or Durocornovium as it was back then) had its own pottery style. Not successful in the pottery market however.

Quite a find but these things turn up every so often. The Romans used statues as propaganda - Cicero mentions how the elite of Rome loved to see statues of themselves in military guise - and it was just as likely that a statue would have a head replaced to mark the accession of a new ruler. Makes you wonder if this head was discarded after his death?

What you have to appreciate is the scale of eruption necessary to cause significant effects. Remember all those recent eruptions (they're quite common when you think about it)? I've even seen articles linking one eruption (I think it was alaskan) to 'the fall of the republic'. Never mind the Roman Republic never fell - it simply changed format and carried on with nominated leaders we call 'emperors' - but the eruption, however powerful, doesn't seem to have affected the Roman world to any great degree. The Romans of that time don't mention the sort of effects we see from 536. But volcanoes are dramatic and people love to pin the blame on them. That said, the 536 event does look likely. What a blast that must have been. PS - that 'Dark Age' thing? That's because of the lack of recorded history from that era, nothing external. It really only applies to Britain anyway and isn't entirely true, just that we don't have much surviving from that era.

Modern techniques have come a long way. People used to stumble across remains or search blindly based on local folklore and rumour. I suppose that still happens, such as building sites, including one in my home area where a new town expansion has uncovered Romano-British archaeology no-one knew about. But these days aerial or even orbital mapping has pin-pointed sites from the ancient world and not just Roman. I also note a fundamental parallel with today. My home town grew from a small hilltop village into the sprawling town it is today due to the influence of infrastructure; the arrival of canals and not long after, railways, eventually followed by road and motorway traffic. Similarly Roman settlements grew from opportunities in trade with the Roman garrisons, resources such as farmland or minerals, or even simply placing new importance on existing native settlements. Someone on television once stated that we're living in a golden age of archaeology. Perhaps, but it is hard to disagree, despite the intrusion of greed.and self interest you point at elsewhere.

Not as such. He fell foul of Caligula which nearly resulted in his mandatory suicide, but accusations of an affair caused Claudius to exile him. He returned to become tutor to Nero and together with Burrus, ensured the young Nero was, in the opinion of Trajan, responsible for the best five years government Rome ever had. After Burrus died Seneca lost support and tried to distance himself from Nero who wouldn't let him go, but after being implicated in the Piso Conspiracy, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

Not that suprising when you realise that the Roman Empire exported its culture via two methods - trade and sports. The latter was fundamental as the single most unifying aspect of Roman life everywhere. If you read internet posts and especially history written for younger people, there is an unfortunate tendency to illustrate the Roman world in terms of stereotypes - villas, togas, soldiers, statues, etc. This obscures the cosmopolitan feature of Rome. Despite their often gratuitous culturalism the Romans did not assimilate populations in the provinces. It was always the choice of subject peoples about how they lived, thus provinces were hybrid societies, not identikit Roman, with local rule overseen by Roman presence. Nonetheless the Romans are guilty of presenting their way of life as superior and rewardable. Thus the manifestation of the arena, the export of Roman martial values in entertainment.

People either don't know or find it hard to believe that North Africa was the most urbanised part of the Roman Empire. The climate wasn't quite as dry as today and it was well cultivated. The area was well developed before the Romans took over.

Okay, I'm single, yes? So what? A great many older men are for one reason or another. I can already hear the population of Swindon England saying "Yes but....". Yes but nothing. It's circumstance, not a statement of sexuality, fashion, manhood, or any other concept these overgrown children struggle with. In particular the youngsters of my home town have been testing my patience with the most ignorant questions and attitudes imaginable. That's the reality of modern sub-culture, kids growing up divorced from adult perspective and trying to impose their petty little world upon the rest of us. Or me, which is worse. I recall a song by Charles Aznavour. Not my kind of music you understand, but with my parents, certain radio stations were inescapable. The song was 'She'. I still suffer the trauma of repeated exposure to it in my younger days. So can I relate my younger experiences with the cultural mores I have to contend with? Am I really better than them? She may be the face I can't forgetA trace of pleasure or regretMay be my treasure or the priceI have to pay One night not that long ago I had some guy outside my home trying to give me a lecture about life and love. Unbelievable. These people never talk to my face, just stand outside and entertain me with their peculiar visions of the world when really they ought to mind their own business. I wonder if the problem is that these people don't have a life to get on with so insist on trying to influence mine. Anyway, the winner of this verse was when that guy told me I should forget her and move on. Did he really think he was going to make things better for me? Turn me around? Oh good god. Actually I know exactly which lady he was referring to but the laughable thing is neither that lady or myself have any intention of resuming communication after we stopped talking to each other decades ago. I did bump into her recently, the first time in fifteen years, and we didn't even say hello. I am sorry things worked out the way they did - life is like that. She may be the song that summer singsMay be the chill that autumn bringsMay be a hundred different thingsWithin the measure of a day Ahh yes. Fear of the unknown. Am I man enough to approach, flirt, ask, or complete those adult motives? The absurd thing is how many people seem to think I suffer this problem, or that I'm a virgin because they haven't seen me dating. Of course being young I was more opportunistic and experimental. I'm not going to make assertions or admissions about this part of my private life (although for the sake of saying it, no you're wrong, I'm not gay nor have I ever indulged in any such behaviour). Perhaps my perspective was different from the beginning. My upbringing wasn't entirely conventional, my mother being a pious and misguided Christian, my father unable to be the role model; he demanded to be. Let's just say I have had my fair share of liaisons with ladies that I ought to have considered more carefully. Wisdom comes with age, more or less as vigour weakens. She may be the beauty or the beastMay be the famine or the feastMay turn each day into a heavenOr a hell There's a lady of my acquaintance. Never good friends you understand, nor did I really pay her much attention. I'm not blind to her charms, nor am I blind to the fact she knows she can charm the blokes. It's just that I always thought a relationship with her would be a problem, out of past experience if nothing else, plus I didn't feel the need to explore such possibilities. Then for some reason, just before the lockdown, her behaviour changed. She started making loud comments or suggestions to her friends, and it wasn't long before I realised she was referencing me. For some inexplicable reason she got it into her head that I fancied her. No, I didn't. She's too full of herself, too fixated on lifestyle, and smokes too much. Since the lockdown, she's actually gotten a tad abusive on the quiet. Uh huh... Didn't get the reaction you wanted? There's the truth of it. She's used to getting attention from blokes. A bit too used to it. I don't think she she has any idea how to cope with rejection at any mature level, and still insists on her concept of romance which to me appears to have been taught by the pages of teen magazines. So, if by some bizarre circumstance she's actually reading a blog on a history website, my message is this. I'm not interested. Get over it. She may be the mirror of my dreamsThe smile reflected in a streamShe may not be what she may seemInside her shell The lady of this verse to this day doesn't know I saw through her to a part of her inner self she wanted hidden. We take so much for granted when we involve ourselves with another person, and where the relationship is based on romance, the risks are so much worse. I have seen written works that say one should not be inhibited by speculations and instead enjoy the moment. In a perfect world perhaps. However the human psyche hides a potent dark side. We all have it, to a greater or lesser degree, just that most of us have psychological brakes that prevent the excesses that cause those tragedies of life and death. But that one night, alone with her, I knew what was on her mind, betrayed by expression and body language. That relationship was never the same. We parted as friends - not as lovers.She who always seems so happy in a crowdWhose eyes can be so private and so proudNo one's allowed to see them when they cryShe may be the love that cannot hope to lastMay come to me from shadows of the pastThat I'll remember 'til the day I die I smile as I remember that special relationship in my past. There's no doubt a good many of my critics will name some woman or other, but no, you're wrong. It was someone else. I know who she was, and she will know it's her I'm referring to. She wasn't the problem. My life was in a difficult place and at the time, I did not want to be an albatross around her neck. Do I regret the decision to let her go? Of course. I'm just as human as anyone else. But as much as I might think of what could have been, I also know it could have been so much worse. I hope she has a happy life. There you have it. A somewhat whimsical dip into my private life - the real one, not the fantasies bandied around by inhabitants of Swindon. You want proof? I don't answer to you. You want facts? You can't handle them. If you don't get what's written here, or feel a need to shout me down, don't waste your time. You can't change the past. Or me.

Ghost - how you view culture & politics is one thing, that's something you're entitled to. But give up UNRV? Why? But this Brexit thing? Truth is the company I work for had already decided to close the UK operation. I know this because they shut down an assembly line early on and transferred production to foreign shores. Again, behind this decision was a strange decision that they wanted everyone in Europe (as well as the UK) to be paid in Euros besides the usual ups and downs of the global economy and all the other stuff the evening news bores us with. What rankles is that the company told us they were committed to maintaining the operation and valued the expertise our operation had to offer. Really? Personally I don't think they understand Europe the way the British do. To them, it's vast tracts of land with dotted lines all over it and lots of mentions in history books. But we live in the shadow of our past, with an identity forged by events. I don't understand why you want to be in Europe but hey, if you feel better about it, that's your choice. But recently I've brushed the cobwebs away from all those photographs I took on hikes. Most aren't that good or even interesting. But you know, some of them encapsulate that special something my homeland has to offer, something to teach us. Leaving Britain would be like turning my back on my ancestors even if my genetic origins are Viking, Norman, or whatever else. I hope you made the right choice.

Dressed as a slave? That's not entirely consistent with Roman culture. After all, at one point the Senate debated an idea to identify slaves by some means, clothing or symbol, I don't recall what the idea was. The move was vetoed on the grounds that if slaves were identifiable, they would realise how many of them there were.

Loud. Romans complain in their writings about it.

Arguably. However, Romulus Augustulus was not the power in Ravenna despite his position - that was why Odoacer ousted him and asked the Pope to become King. Roman power did not suddenly end in the west, it declined and was taken over and revived (to a degree) by the Gothic Kingdom. However, that did not make it an entirely new state. The inhabitants still considered themselves Romans, and true Romans at that, not like those Greek people in Constantinople. The Senate continued to meet for at least a century after Odoacer took charge. It was, if you like, only the replacement of Dominus by King, and that point tends to get forgotten. After all, calling it the 'Fall of Rome' is far more dramatic and interesting. As for Constantinople in 1453, it represents the end of contiguous Roman rule however Greek it may have been, with the Ottoman Turks installing a new regime. But even then, there were parts of the former empire that did not die off. I understand there's a small corner of modern Greece that is still legally answerable to the Roman Empire. And as for the Catholic Church, that has always represented Roman power right up to today.

The use of dolls seems quite natural to human beings. I'm not so sure that society teaches its youngsters via such media, at least not conciously, but children naturally learn by acting out adult roles to a degree. Watch any gregarious mammal species - the male young always play fight. I remember many years ago walking along an old railway embankment and spotting movement on the south side slope. It was a bunch of fox cubs, playing in the sun outside the set, probably their first adventures outside. They saw me and stopped, curious, not sure of what to do. Eventually instinct got the better of them and they went underground. The second time I saw them they scarpered immediately. The third time, and the last, was following mother on a hunting trip to the nearby farm.

China made a few instances of contact, but only on the eastern fringes. Rome is supposed to have made one diplomatic visit to China and a Roman ship is known to have reached their shores. One chinese gentleman was ordered to contact Rome and ask for military assistance against barbarian raiders. He reached the Persian Gulf and asked if he could reach Rome by sea. Yes, he was told, but you have to sail around Africa. The sailors gave him detailed advice on how to prepare for such a voyage. Makes you wonder how they knew.

You seem to think that racial diversity is a modern phenomenon? Britain has a very long history of immigration and inclusion that isn't well covered in histories. The Roman occupation was a period when such things were even more prevalent. Slavery no doubt had a large part to play in that, but so did opportunity or military service.

It depends where on the river they were found. It was normal practice in ancient & medieval times to shore up an eroding river bank by scuttling boats in place.

Sometimes that's true, but ancient to Iron Age civilisations had a habit of making offerings. In Britain, it was common to submerge weapons in water, a deeply symbolic act (and possibly the origin of the Arthurian 'Lady of the Lake' myth. Mind you, the Iron Age in western Europe was notable for human sacrifice. Although the Druids are popularly blamed (and the Romans didn't much care for their participation), the practice was from common agreement with oversight and interpretation by the Druids who no doubt twisted things to suit their needs in controlling tribal politics. The number three is a common psychological symptom, in this case the the three sacrificial actions - first to stun the victim with a heavy blow to the head, second to strangle the victim, and third to cut the throat. The unpopular or unlucky members of society might well have been chosen for this treatment to appease the Gods when things go badly or malicious accusations are made. On a more mundane note, the Romans commonly made offerings (and indeed, a temple of any size might have market stalls next door to sell the sacrificial items). Possibly some of the deposited coin hoards, the smaller ones, might actually be such offerings as opposed to simple buried treasure. I also note the astonishing variety of goods found discarded, sometimes in good condition.

it's also the law. If a building site uncover anything archeological it has to be reported and assessed. Suprisingly most building contractors are willing to cooperate on situations like this. They like the positive interest and feedback.

It's known there was a number of pyroclastic flows which were halted by the town's walls. Eventually a flow overcame the obstacle. Asphyxiated? Archeological forensics demonstrates that the sudden heat of the flow was enough to boil a brain and cause it to erupt (evidence from the cellars at Baiae). In one town (Herculaneum?), a woman was caught by the flow in the middle of the street and torn limb from limb by the turbulence.

There's been a lot of 'Climate change caused the fall of..." proclamations recently, some a little outlandish, such as one claiming that the 'Fall of the Republic' was due to volcanic eruptions (The republic did not 'fall', it merely changed form - that's why we discuss the Roman Imperial era). There was a geologist on television some years back who claimed that silted up harbours caused these 'falls'. Never mind that the industrious Romans were capable of finding anchorages for themselves, or as in the case of Ostia, building entire ports to order. The thing is, people are attracted to the idea of dramatic collapses even if they didn't actually happen, and seek their favourite single cause. It's the sort of myth making that has people searching for a genuine 'Holy Grail' when the original was a fictional prop in a medieval romance that wasn't even holy to begin with. I don't doubt climate change has had far reaching effects in Roman history but let's keep it in perspective. The eruption of Vesuvius in 79ad did not cause anything except the loss of the local area and those near to the site.

It's only the bluestones that originate from Wales. The larger trilithions were dragged from up the road.

Gaius Trebonius - Wikipedia Trial of Trebonius - Wikipedia As you can see, different people.

Roman attitudes to sex were different than today. It wasn't that Caesar had an affair - it was the accusation that he was the passive partner (suspicion of which revolves around the expectation that the King, being senior, was the active partner). Passive sex between men was acting out the role of a woman, something the Roman saw as effeminate and unmanly. The active partner, even with another man, was simply doing what nature designed him to do, thus it wasn't thought of as wrong in any way. There was an interesting case regarding a legionary called Trebonius, who was subject to attempted seduction by an officer related to Gaius Marius. The officer tried all sorts of inducements for the soldier to become his passive partner but Trebonius always refused. Then, finally, Trebonius was summoned to the officers quarters and an attempted rape took place resulting in the officers death. Trebonius was already isolated because other legionaries thought he was the officer's pet, but now he was under threat of punishment for murder. Marius returned to camp to find his relative dead. Trebonius was arrested and put on military trial. He answered the charges as best he could, but in the end, Marius decided to let him off because he had acted honourably.

I can well understand why you think so. But that view isn't entirely true. Caesar was deliberately contentious from the start with every intention of rising to the fore. Indeed, Suetonius underlines that by alluding to omens of his later greatness. His rise to prominence was fuelled by some very heavy financial loans as much as political or military action, and the major motive for his conquest of Gaul was to exploit the tribal conflicts and gain enough booty to pay off his debts. He visits to Britain were done for three reasons - to gain kudos for being the first there, to quell any support for rebellious Gallic tribes, and most importantly, to find the silver he'd heard about. Cicero tells us in his letters that Caesar didn't find any.