caldrail

This is another, if older, example of neo-pagnism. I really do doubt it has any connection with pre-christian beliefs as such. Far from it, its more likely a cult put together by those who want an alternative to christianity - something we see today. They needed to keep their rites under wraps because back then it was more risky. These days you just get flamed or moaned at on the internet, pamphlets through your door, visits from smiling caring salespeople - the usual treatment. I had one guy performing exrcisms at the back of my flat on sunday mornings a few years back. Didn't he know its Ozzy Osbourne who's the Prince of Evil?

YES!!!! At last, a truly civilised person who understands the higher points of 1970's comedy!

I see most people focus on slavery, but surely that was a side-issue back then? The americans of the day regarded afro-carribeans as second-class, even in the north they were segregated and continued to be until after WWII. The south was diverging from the union on economy and to some degree political self determination. Sure, there were people who thought slavery was terrible, but there were still plenty who wanted blacks slaving away for a pittance in order to make profit.

Oh no, not my home towns own newspaper... How could you do this to me?.... Seriously though, Stonehenge is now generally regarded as a religious site connected with rites concerning death (as opposed to nearby Woodhenge, now believed to be associated with 'life'). The fact that skeletons have been found is nether here nor there without the correct context, and a burial site isn't necessarily where the person fell in combat. I remember a recent thread where someone was putting forward the theory that the place was a miltary defensible construction (erm... no), and any battle ought at the site back then would have been a very small scale affair. I'm not discounting the possibility of violence there, but at the same time you cannot discount the possibility of sacrifiial burial. Further study needed I think.

Traditionally the german allies had been prizd for their physique and loyalty. They were definitely bigger than the average roman, and an elite bodyguard was used during the early empire to offset any risk posed by the praetorians. As a culture the germans would be considered inferior. The romans were entirely convinced theirs was best, the most civilised way to be and to be honest, it certainly attracted german people into their service. Disregarding Arminius and so forth, by the later empire I understand there was a lot of conflict on the german border. I remember seeing a depiction of a roman raid on a german settlement for nstance. It might also be true that the later romans were wary of their german neighbours. A large number had been allowed to settle further south. An important point about the late empire is that armies were no longer purely roman. Foreigners, whole tribes of them them, were employed wholesale as army units and no longer expected to fall under the command of roman officers. There arealso indiations that such allies billetted in private homes weren't entirely well behaved, so you migt well imagie the friction that could result locally. I know there's some source on this - I will delve further.

A man on the same social level as a pimp once described himself as a Negotiator Familiae Gladiatoriae - the Business Manager of a Gladiatorial Troupe - an attempt to give himself some respectability. He was a Lanista, an owner/trainer of gladiators, a man who profited from death without risk to himself. The truth is that the gladiators were stock in trade for a lanista. If possible, he would prefer to avoid any of his possessions dying. His investment in time and effort with his slaves was considerable. Men who had volunteered, been bought, or been condemned to the arena needed to be housed, fed, equipped, trained. The cost of this was often too much. There are references to 'hack troupes' of gladiators wandering from town to town performing much the same way as the circus of recent times. The lanista of a hack troupe had no permanent premises. However, the more affluent lanista did. Yet it wasn't until the time of Caesar that the schools were becoming purpose built with professional facilities for its inmates, although the region of Campania may well have had such facilities earlier, especially since we know that in 73BC Spartacus and his band escaped from the school of Lentulus Batiatus in Capua, a noted center of such activity. Its also worth mentioning that despite the desperate origin of many of the trainees, perhaps as many as a hundred, the security of his school is dubious. One escape attempt had already occurred and yet another was succesful - leaving one wondering about the possible carelessness demonstrated. Following the two year campaign of Spartacus, things were to change in the gladiatorial world. Lanistas stepped up security and discipline by several notches. Men speaking similar languages were seperated for instance, and facilities included prisons for the recalcitrant few (as if the dark and damp quarters weren't prison enough). These security arrangements were to remain in place until the decline of arena combat. The success of this system is also illustrated by the fact that gladiators wanted to please their owners. An esprit-de-corps all of its own, and there are indications that the familiae were indeed close knit groups of men, despite the fact that they usually fought between themselves and at times would have to execute a friend. There was a difference in treatment between enforced and volunteer gladiators. Volunteers under contract, although technically enslaved too, were often allowed to leave the ludum (Gladiator School) for rest and relaxation - something denied to those bought or condemned. There was also the relative status of gladiators to consider. A lanista would allow succesful fighters better quarters as a reward for his service, besides the profit he brought in, and during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD may well also need to provide quarters for female fighters. Recent evidence shows that Hadrian found it necessary to restrict the bad behaviour of socialising gladiators. Its worth reminding ourselves that although a popular fighter had celebrity status, he belonged to a class of men officially regarded as scum. Despite this, there were roman women hoplessly attracted to these men as examples of fearless masculinity, so perhaps the lanista also profitted from regulating visits from the public. There is also references to some women who practised as gladiators without signing on as fighters. Is this evidence that lanistae offered training at a price to the public? If the women were so entranced by gladiatorial combat, its a fair bet that there were men who did so too. Its believed the number of volunteers for the arena reached as many as 50% of gladiators present by the 2nd century AD. It isn't clear when the lanista first emerges. The first known gladiatorial bout took place in a cattle market in 264BC to mark the funeral of Brutus Pera. Three pairs fought simultaneously. It is fairly obvious that such bloodletting had been going on discreetly already - the tradition of honouring the dead with blood sacrifices had been a feature of the greek/etruscan world. Nonetheless, at this time the lanista wasn't the independent entrepeneur he was to become. He would have been an expert hired or bought by a wealthy man for the purpose of ensuring his slaves put up an exciting fight for the well-wishers at a funeral, if indeed the wealthy man hadn't trained his slaves himself. Things were to change. There was a change of emphasis over the late republic from a funeral combat sacrifice to strictly controlled contests of skill and corage for public entertainment. By 174BC a funeral munus displayed seventy-four pairs on a three day event. As the desire to impress began to inflate the gladiatorial world it naturally spawned men who wanted to profit from it. Thus the lanista makes himself known, a man who has bought and trained men purely for hire to those requiring fighters. Not necessarily for munera, but also as bodyguards or even as army units on rare occaisions. He is also a man who deals with a dangerous trade without personal risk, a source of contempt in the mindset of romans who valued personal courage. The excitement of these fights was such that in 165BC the playwright Terence was dismayed to see the audience of his popular play disappear when news of a gladiator fight spread. This is precisely the enviroment in which entrepeneurs can flourish. During Caesars earlier political career, he was able to summon as many as five thousand gladiators for a performance that was hastily restricted by a worried senate. In the reign of Tiberius a dead centurion was held 'hostage' by townsfolk of Pollentia until the family of the deceased had paid for funeral games - the army was called in to settle the dispute. Apart from the occaisional funeral, gladiators were displayed during the Saturnalia festivities in late December. As the popularity of arena combat escalates even further more festivals attracted games, and emperors were later to stage events to please the crowd. Caligula for instance was in a procession through Rome and heard an onlooker cry out for a day of games. He got his wish. Compare that with the celebrations staged by Trajan lasting four months, in which its believed ten thousand men fought, many of them prisoners of war. Inevitably, lanistas must have been called upon to supply men for such events. In fact, these itinerant trainers were the last remnant of the gladiatorial world as it became offically banned and in decline early in the fifth century AD. However, during the reign of Augustus, changes taken place. Government officials (Procuratores) took over the duties of the lanista in the imperial sponsored ludii in Rome, and under the franchise system of Augustus, no doubt towns operated similarly on a smaller scale. There must have been independent troupe leaders still around picking up smaller contracts, perhaps for wealthy men seeking social diversions or protection, whilst the provinces saw same itinerant troupes earning a speculative living. As an independent entrepeneur, the lanista was able to hire experts to train on his behalf. Indeed, given the increase in trade and the sizeable school populations it was necessary to do so. The lanista himself was often an ex-gladiator, a successful fighter who already knew his business. He might promote experienced men as doctores, expert fighter/trainers. With the rapid increase in volunteer gladiators by the reign of Augustus, the doctorii were often chosen from men within a year or two of completing their contract. After all, they were successful fighters and their experience was a valuable asset to a lanista - totally lost if the gladiator should receive a bad review from the crowd. It probably should suprise you to learn that a death in the arena brought healthy compensation for his owner. Not so for gladiators set free by the games editor. Since many gladiators returned to the ludii after freedom because they either failed to make their way in the world or they simply preferred the life they knew, a lanista would accept his former charges back within his fold. The list of staff he employed goes further. He may have personal slaves, masseurs for the fighters, cooks, medics, even craftsmen. Those lanistae training arena huntsmen and women may well have needed provision for animal handlers too. Some of these people might even have been gladiators permanently injured in training and unable to compete, if they had not been sold off. Its worth noting thats there's apparently no record of gladiators deliberately causing themselves permanent injury to escape fighting for real - and we do know that novice gladiators were sometimes so desperate as to commit suicide. Was this a success of security? The average lanista must have created a very harsh regime to enforce behaviour and prevent undesirable activity. The regime is best illustrated by the traditional gladiator oath to his owner, sworn by all men entering the ludum as fighters regardless of origin. Uri, vinciri, uerbarari, feroqque necari - To endure burning with fire, shackling with chains, to be whipped with rods and killed with steel - This was the world run by the Lanista.

Here in Britain we realise that taste buds are an impediment to enjoying a good curry. As for rat meat, I can't say, although about seven years ago there was a takeaway down the road busted for cooking cats.

Last night I popped across the road to the kebab shop for a burger. I don't do this frequently, though I have to say I'm not particularly worried about horror stories of whats in it. Now I doubt their burgers are actually wholesome. My mother once gave me some she'd ordered along with other produce from Scotland and I have to say those were in a different league altogether. But I fancied some minced moggie, ash, and other undesirable stuff and they say a little of what you fancy does you good. "Hi Boss" said the old guy behind the counter. These turks call everyone Boss. "Yes?" I'll have... a cheesburger and chips please. "Ok Boss. You wanna sauce with that?" Chilli please. "You wanna salad?" Oh just onions. "You wanna cheese with your burger?" Don't your cheeseburgers normally come with cheese? "Yes. But do you wanna cheese?" Yes. Yes I do . Please put cheese on my cheeseburger. I would like mature cheddar freshly sliced straight from a refrigator. "Yes Boss. This cheese ok?". Is that mature cheddar frreshly sliced from a refrigerator? The young man with cross-eyes yells something turkish to the old man. "Yes Boss. Sliced cheese. Cheese ok?.. Huh?" Oh go on then. 'Bill Oddie' Moment of the Week Those who don't know who Bill Oddie is, he's a tv presenter (once a comedian) who does a lot of nature programs, enthusing about small furry mammals and casting scorn on Swindon. Well, Mr Oddie, here's something you might appreciate. My parents maintain resteraunt and hotel facilities for local wildlife, and to be fair, they do get a wide variety of birds dropping in (and sometimes dropping on us). A sparrowhawk was there, patiently waiting on the fence for the blue tits in the nesting box to come out to play. The blue tits of course were more sensible. There was that blackbird that likes to wet its feathers in the faux watercourse feature on the back wall. Then, with spectacular powers of intellect, a big fat pidgeon decided that was a cool idea and copied the blackbird, choosing instead a plastic seedbox full of rainwater. He dipped head, shook his wings. You could see him thinking 'Hey, this isn't bad', and he got more enthusiastic. Then he slipped and fell in. The soggy pidgeon flapped and fumbled its way out of the water, flopping onto the paving stones whilst family and I burst into hysterics. It sat there looking thoroughly embarrased. I guess you had to be there.

Certainly would have cured any constipation

Because our ancestors the cro-magnons ate them probably

Marc Antony had thirty legions plus allies camped in turkey during the civil wars, plus a fleet of ships too. It may not have been the best roman army ever - it was the certainly the largest ever on campaign together.

The film Gladiator has that great opener for sure. If you ignore the obvious inaccuracies of the equipment involved, there are two other sequences that really do capture the flavour, if not the look, of the spectacle of staged combat. The first is the 'Re-Enacment of the Battle of Zama'. Its way cool. Chariots, female sagittarii, and some real fast paced (and gory) action. The second is the 'Return of the Champion Titus of Gaul', for the involvement of animals, the distribution of gifts to the audience, the deals done behind the scenes. Just fast forward when Maximus brings his opponent down.

Poor old Nero... The preoccupation with the penis is something buried deep in thehuman psyche. It may well be our modern expression of it is more pronounced, but then, perhaps not. There's a country in the middle east/asia minor (for the life of me I cannot remember which) whose rural population paint massive phaluses (strangely reminiscent of those in workplace latrines funny enough) on the walls of their houses. Apparently its a good luck charm. Now you may decide that thats different from our western preoccupation with strength/masculinity, but its not so alien if you think about it. I think we need to draw a distinction between art for decoration and art for pornography. As for the ladies, I suspect they did what women usually do today and burst into fits of giggles between each other. Given Juvenals scathing description of the airheaded mindset of roman women, how could it be anything else? Livia, I suspect, was less impressed with mens dangly bits and more with their presence, confidence, and political clout. But then she was an exceptional woman, much closer to the roman ideal of sturdy resilience and family matronhood.

Its also a lot of people trying to be clever. The neanderthals died out because they were a species in decline, losing out in competition with cro-magnons and changing climates. Now its entirely possible they were cannibals - there are possibly still some of modern humans that do that today in remote pockets (lets ignore the wierdo's out there) but did that cause the extinction? The rabbit/fox grpah comes into play here and I suspect it didn't, but you might have concede it did the neanderthals no favours if true. But then, if the neanderthals were as settled as I've been educated to believe, then surely cannabalism was infrequent, since otherwise they were eating famiily members and thats a sure sign of human desperation in the face of starvation.

No distractions? Good grief, not on a friday or saturday night. The local tribes emerge from their caves for competitions of singing very loudly and the usual hormone driven rutting. Well, time for me to retreat to my lonely mountain top above the rainforests of darkest wiltshire, where I shall sit cross legged and contemplate my navel, marvelling at the inner intricacy of the universe and becoming one with nature... Oh stuff it, thats boring, I'm off down the pub...

I would be, but the stupid earthquake woke me up when I was trying to sleep

In that case your original question is a reflection of your own modern mindset. Now thats not so is it? MPC - wake up. If a man wants to have a joke or wants to insult someone, he draws an image. Thats human psychology and the romans were no different in that respect. Hercules was supposed to be a demigod. A divine being. Given the roman distaste for greek nudity perhaps the small willy is simply public decency. Or is it a statement that Hercules is physically powerful and thus his presence overwhelms the physical nature of his genitalia, and I have to say I don't recollect any mention of Hercules being a womaniser. With statues, perhaps a careless sculptor turns his head at his fellow workmates conversation and accidentially lops the member off. His mates role about laughing, he goes white, and very very carefully reconstructs a smaller version from the stump. As for mosaics or their marble counterpart, there's no guarantee the artist got it right. After all, these were artists impressions and very rarely are such depictions visually correct to the last detail. The association you draw with large willies and strength/masculinity is your idea - I never said that, but lets be honest, even without that connection there are plenty of modern day people who are fascinated with large genitalia. I'll send you some of the unsolicited emails I get perhaps, that might educate you to how peoples minds work. Or if thats too risque for you, could I suggest a visit to a workplace latrine, where you will no doubt encounter expressions of this nature scratched on the wall. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some existing roman grafitti of this nature? Its how people are. The problem with your approach to this is that you're extrapolating from a small sample (no pun intended) without any regard to human psychology. We're not fundamentally different to the romans. Ok, they had a few customs that no longer exist, they had a tolerance of violence that we don't. They also varied in nature as we do. Some people are prudes, others completely fecund. And I'm quite sure there were romans who linked the penis with such ideas as you dismiss. After all, why else would people like Tiberius and Caligula have men with large willies rounded up and displayed before them? There is no difference. Even today people see genitalia in the light of their own personality and expectation.

Okeedokee - whilst I'm certainly no expert on roman funerals, as I understand it something like this happens. The parent (male?) is the household master and therefore makes the arrangements for the funeral. He ensures the will is read (it may have been read already as a courtesy to his friends and relatives whilst the guy was still alive). Inevitably some of the mans slaves are given manumission and there's going to be some deals done with these new freedmen to keep them within the family so to speak. The freedmen may well be given duties to perform regarding the funeral. The body is left in state for a few days for those wishing to pay respects (yes, the modern day funeral is a hangover from our pagan past) and the father will be offered commiserations and compliments on his sons achievements, and therefore may well be present for some time. Finally, there is a procession in which the dead man is given a reclining pose, to show him at peace, and he is laid to rest in the grave - again much like today. If anyone else knows better please feel free.

Well... I got... 1 - Marcus Aurelius 2 - Paulus 3 - Scipio Africanus 4 - Seneca 5 - Nero Rock on babe. I'm an intellectual party animal. Trajan was lower in the list so definitely I like conquering Dacia, not to mention staging entertainment for four months (yep, thats me...). On the other hand, so is General Varus... Ouch, thats worrying....

Don't tell anyone, but there's several forklifters in the warehouse who don't have licenses. Most companies wouldn't dream of employing forklifters without them for health & safety, or even insurance. The irony is that the guy suspended has only just had his license renewed! Some of these guys are shooting around a little bit quick. It gets a tad scary sometimes.

I see on the newspaper stands that some some Motown singer is considering moving to Swindon. I fall over laughing, and suggest this person gives up drugs.

Pfah! The UN know we brits are made of stern stuff. Whats an earthquake measuring 5.1 on the richter scale to us? The only casualty was a bloke in Bolton whose chimney fell on him - he's recovering in hospital. If the house I live in can survive an earthquake, then its typical of sturdy british architecture. (Caldrail notices a large crack in the plaster... hmmmm....)

Yes I know what you mean. Cleopatra in real life was a woman who knew what she wanted and how to manipulate men to get it. I don't mean sex, for her that was a means to an end. Nor was she entirely the beauty of legend, although it must be said she had an attractive personality that hooked both Julius Caesar and Marc Antony (and would have snared Octavian too if he hadn't been so wiley). With many of these romanesque epics the accent is moralistic storytelling, usually depicting Rome as a sinkhole of deptavity and madness. Thats a popular image and fundamentally wrong. My mother for instance cannot get into her head that the romans weren't all lewd lunatics - she'd been taught that in her younger days and won't let go of that familiar image. She's also a committed christian and I suspect that also colours her opinions - it certainly has coloured hollywood depictions in the past, and I think thats part of the reason these old roman epics are so hard to swallow. That said, its astonishing how far removed from reality these films can be, something you notice when you know a little about Roman history. Years ago, when I was working professionally in rock bands, our sound engineer (the band managers wife) asked me if I'd enjoyed watching the support band. I laughed, pointing out all the hapless errors they'd made. She then speculated that for me, knowing what I did about musical performance, that it must spoil things because I noticed all the mistakes. I told that it didn't, because I also noticed when they got it just right. A few months later she brought up the subject again and told me thats she was beginning to see what I meant. Now I've had a dig at a BBC2 program about Spartacus elsewhere on the forums - I think deservedly - but I also recognise the difficulty of entertaining people for whom roman history is something akin to snail racing. When you watch a program, just as Nephele pointed out to me, you have to accept the program as is. If a documentary makes these mistakes you have every reason to rubbish it. A program for entertainment is something different, however much it jars your sensibilities. The BBC2 prog made the mistake of trying to sell itself as historically accurate and for me, that ruined its credibility. It should have have been truer to itself. This is why the film Gladiator is so much more watchable, modern production values aside. Its true to itself, it doesn't make statements about religion or modern politics, it simply tells a tale of a disposessed man seeking revenge. But then, times move on and our expectations of entertainment change. Its funny how some films age terribly and others seem somehow as fresh as the day they were filmed. The quality of acting, script, and score is all a part of it, but there's an underlying need for a story that is communicated clearly and without unnecessary emotional baggage. Some directors get it right, others don't.

Found this on yahoo.com. As usual there's a lot of hype along with this find, but its an interesting one nonetheless. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_re_eu/greece_tomb

Its highly likely they were forced to by prevailing weather conditions. This would have impacted on their usual herding and raiding activities, and quite possibly the availability of food and water was becoming scarce. Also, the huns were beginning to group in larger social units and this does usually inspire conquest.